TWO THOUGHTS ON POLITICAL AND DENOMINATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

William Raspberry is a newspaper columnist. One of our members faxed our office a copy of his column, titled "Two Faces of Religious Political Power." It was excellent. The column dealt with his fear that the Christian Right was “toying with a dangerous mix of religion and politics.”

He writes of the two groups as “tribes” and “citizens.” In reading him we saw a comparison of “fundamentalists” (as tribes) and “traditional Baptists” (as citizens). Our goals at TBC seem to us to be those which he describes as “citizens.” Our goal is that we act in a “citizen” manner as he describes it. We quote from Raspberry’s column:

“Is there a principled difference between the two uses of religion-based power? I believe so, but I was at a loss to articulate it until I read Don E. Eberty’s booklet, Restoring the good society. He explains it as the difference between tribesmen and citizens:

Tribal politics… reinforces the sense of fear and anger that many feel over having their dominant space in society invaded by other influences. Tribal politics encourages methods of action that are designed to produce tribal solidarity so as to counter the assault coming from outside…

The more compelling model for public participation is the citizen model. Here the church is simply called to serve society, not as conditions require but because of God’s demands. Politics is thus but one facet of this calling. The citizen translates faith into a public philosophy, seeks to build inclusive coalitions around a broad agenda, and prefers persuasion to polarization.

(continued)

Tribal politics huddles and confronts the hostile world with a hostility that only mirrors its antagonists and resists evaluating its own conduct and methods. Citizen participation, in contrast, assimilates and strives to advance a common vision for the common good.

This is a short passage in a single subchapter — not even the most important subchapter — of Eberly’s thin book. But it illuminates (for me) not just the difference between the Christian right and the religious mainstream but also the difference — across religious and political lines — between polarizers and healers.

The tribe glimpses an enemy and circles the camp. Citizens see problems and work for mutually agreeable solutions. The tribe’s first impulse is to repel, the citizen’s to include…

The ‘citizen’ approach has a good deal to recommend it. Because it acknowledges our pluralism, it is prepared to accept disagreement without denying the humanity and moral worth of those who disagree. Because it eschews the us-against-them mentality in favor of cooperation and community, its victories tend to be longlasting. Because it respects and hears opposing views, it increases the chances that its own views will be respected and heard.

The tribal approach, because it needs enemies to sustain it, would rather split hairs than split the difference. The result, says Eberly, is to raise disputes to the level of insurmountable disagreement. It is an attitude that, while useful in political or religious warfare, tends to make peace impossible.”

Back to December 1994 Contents