Christians actually do have the duty to call out hypocrisy in their church
Christianity is what Christians allow it to be defined as
In Quentin Tarantino’s classic film Pulp Fiction, Samuel L Jackson comes under fire, only to have the bullet fly past his head. The near death experience is a Road to Damascus moment, and the onetime hitman decides he is chosen by God to live a different life. After a similar experience, some are expecting (in vain) for Trump to soften his tone and become a ‘uniter, not a divider’, while others are wondering if the former president is truly protected by divine providence - or at least, if voters will see it that way. Hopefully people in that camp are relatively few, but even a ‘normal’ Trump speech is full of its share of heresy. And yes, I do think we should call it that when Christians
Not everyone agrees. Journalist Chrissy Stroop, who does excellent reporting on the various machinations of the Christian Right in the United States, asserts that
“Blasphemy” and “idolatry” are not objective terms. They only make sense from within a particular religious framework, and when journalists, experts, and pundits employ these terms as if they reflect some objective, stable reality, they only legitimate a framing that should be meaningless for the purposes of public debate in a secular, democratic society.
This would be fantastic advice if we in fact lived in, or even were approaching, a secular society. But while we surely hope to build a secular politics, the reality of our society is that within a pluralistic framework, there are going to be various religious communities whose beliefs shape the voting and other behavior of their members. Christianity is not enshrined in the constitution, and should not be - but then, neither is liberalism, egalitarianism, leftism, or any other of a myriad intellectual authorities to which we often appeal when making an argument. It is after all the majority of what this newsletter seeks to do - take Liberalism as an ethos to which many subscribe, and attempt to define what policies, beliefs, or even films fit best into that category. Naturally, this is only persuasive to those who have already embraced the idea of liberalism as a reasonable frame for viewing the world. I do not indeed believe that my quoting of John Stuart Mill will be convincing to a fascist, or indeed to a Communist.
The same applies, fundamentally, to religious groups, though Christianity, for better or worse, is a source of moral authority for far more people than philosophical liberalism. Much more than secular philosophy even today, religious groups help define public morality. Frederick Douglass, in response to the Dred Scott decision, noted that “The church of a country is often a better index of the state of opinion and feeling than is even the government itself”. Understanding this, Douglass spent much of his rhetorical power on forcefully denouncing the activities of the church. In What to the Slave is the Fourth of July, Douglass condemns churches and clergy who, “in utter denial of the authority of Him, by whom they professed to be called to the ministry, deliberately taught us, against the example of the Hebrews, and against the remonstrance of the Apostles, they teach that we ought to obey man's law before the law of God. My spirit wearies of such blasphemy” (emphasis mine). He compares the American churches at large unfavorably to those in England (where slavery had been abolished) - arguing that in England “the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty”; he also praises individual American preachers who live up to his idea of biblical ideals.
This rhetorical strategy rests on their indeed being some reality to blasphemy and some true mission of the church, at least within a Christian framework. This framework certainly doesn’t include all Americans today (nor did it, in fact, in Douglass’s time). But it is a predictable frame from which a majority of voters still draw some portion of their sense of ethics and morality. It is one Douglass drew on because it was more broadly embraced by the population than any other ideological justification for egalitarianism. To simply cede that realm of debate, hoping that society will secularize fast enough that it won’t matter, is to quit a very winnable field.
Stroop is correct in pointing out that this isn’t the task of pundits or experts, necessarily - though it’s appropriate that they represent to their viewers and readers the internal debates within Christianity to the extent that they are socially relevant. Douglass is able to effectively argue on these grounds because he was knowledgeable about Christian scriptures and at least publicly identified as a Christian. It would be rather unconvincing for an atheist or a Muslim to launch into an argument with Christians about what their religion is, much as it is unconvincing in the other direction. However, so long as conservative Christians try to, for example, define Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi out of their vision of Christianity, progressive Christians ought not unilaterally disarm. It is of course important to say “We, as Christians, accept LGBTQ+ people into our community”. I would argue it is equally important to define what is not Christian behavior. Idolatry and blasphemy are social constructs, sure. But that’s no reason to let only one side construct them. Merely defending Biden’s position on Roe as compatible with his Catholicism without also pointing out the incompatibility of Trump’s immigration plan with any part of scripture leaves liberal Christians =doomed to perpetually play defense in the eyes of tens of millions of Christian American voters. Strict defense is rarely a winning strategy.
Some fear that even using terms like heresy or blasphemy endorses the use of judicial power to stamp them out. But just as the definitions of these terms are constructed within churches themselves, so is their appropriate treatment. So long as they alone get to define what is blasphemous, what is idolatrous, Conservative dedication to pluralistically leaving these concepts out our legal code will be shaky at best. Even if they rarely openly propose that blasphemy be punishable by law, one needn’t dig too deep to see that they do want schools, jails, and other institutions to put their finger on the scale of encouraging ‘orthodox’ Christian belief. Liberal Christians have a place here - by challenging the definitions or idolatry of blasphemy which are preferred by conservatives, they can weaken the justifications for legally or socially sanctioning those perceived infractions.
The battle over these definitions is of course never ending until society is so secularized that they fail to have any rhetorical power. Until that point, however, simply accepting the whatever charges conservatives throw at them and refusing to respond in kind will be a losing strategy for Liberal Christians. A firm defense not only of their understanding of tolerance and forgiveness, but also of sin and hypocrisy, is necessary in order to challenge the conservative construction of these concepts.