 |
| William F. Buckley (Firing Line) interviews prominent atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, 1971. Screenshot from source. Also see "Firing Line Debate: Resolved: That We Need Not Fear the Religious Right," 1993. |
The U.S. president, on February 6 of this year, ordered the creation of a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias. The first two paragraphs of Section 1 of his order gave the legal underpinnings for this task force's mission, then went on to say, "Yet the previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses." The first impression left on me by this order is not the voice or reflection of Jesus; it is venom toward the previous administration, laced with false witness.
Aside from the merits, or lack of merits, of these cases of "targeting peaceful Christians," the most glaring problem with the president's decree is that anti-Christian bias is the only sort of bias to be "eradicated." There are no mentions of other faiths (except possibly in Section 3iii and 3iv, but even there, nothing explicit).
A first report from the Task Force was due no later than 120 days after the order, but I've seen nothing that purports to be this initial report on its work. Instead, the Justice Department organized a Task Force hearing on April 22, with three witnesses complaining about their treatment during the Biden administration. The Baptist News Web site summed it up: "‘Anti-Christian bias’ task force focuses solely on grievances of evangelicals." (More commentary on The Convocation Unscripted.)
With this background, you might forgive me for some initial skepticism about the more recent "Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace" memorandum issued by Scott Kupor, director of the U.S. federal government's Office of Personnel Management. Indeed, the first paragraph includes what seems nowadays to be an obligatory tribute to the president's leadership on the issue.
News coverage of the memorandum reflected this crediting of Donald Trump as the inspiration for the policy. (CNN headline: "Trump administration allows federal workers to promote religious beliefs.") However, beyond that nod, the memorandum seems moderate and defensible, and the examples of items that federal workers are allowed to wear or display go beyond specifically Christian symbolism. The guidance seems to protect faith expressions in general. It also places limits on those expressions: reserve work hours for actual work, and don't try to persuade anyone of your beliefs when they've asked you to stop. Also, "Title VII does not cover all beliefs. For example, social, political, or economic philosophies, and mere personal preferences, are not 'religious' beliefs within the meaning of the statute."
Wearing religious jewelry, having a Bible or rosary on your desk, or a religious poster on your wall, may seem a bit aggressive in a U.S. culture that privatizes religion and frequently treats it as some kind of inadequacy. However, whenever two human beings have business with each other and no prior ties, there are always risks involved, as well as (we hope) mutually beneficial rewards. It would seem like a sad—and impractical—accommodation to those risks if we end up expecting all public servants to adopt a bland exterior that reveals nothing of their individuality, personality, and values. What we can expect is that they treat us with the same fairness as the director of the Office of Personnel Management expects their co-workers and us to treat them.
Other familiar conflicts can arise when someone decides to take offense at a religious expression. I remember a U.S. Supreme Court case I wrote about here, Town of Greece v Galloway, where I agreed with the majority that the town was within its rights to allow religion-specific prayers at its legislative functions. But I had another priority as well. (Quoting myself!)...
But in any case, I think it is time to challenge the idea that being offended is, without evidence of actual coercion, a trump card in political discourse. If you are offended by someone else's religious speech, maybe managing your feelings rather than suing for relief is part of the price you pay for being in a country where there is religious freedom for the local majority as well as the local minority.
Maybe you're thinking, "OK, Johan, that's easy for you to say; you're too often in the majority; you don't know what it's like to be in the minority." And you're probably right. But you might be surprised by how easy it is to offend me. Just say "Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists." Call me an anti-Semite for criticizing Israeli apartheid. Put a Hitler moustache on a picture of Obama. Tell me I shouldn't say "Merry Christmas." Label Quakers as "heretics" or evangelical Christians as "theologically bankrupt" as people have done to my face. I keep having to remind myself what a therapist once told me: "People have a right to be wrong."
Back to the case at hand, Scott Kupor's memorandum. It has two major gaps, to my mind.
First: what about people who don't identify with any religious faith? Could atheist federal workers have on their desk, for example, a clearly visible copy of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian?
Are atheists and agnostics covered by this policy in the memorandum's second section? ...
Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.
Consistency would require attempts to persuade others of, say, Bertrand Russell's viewpoint as equally protected, but I'm not sure that was contemplated in preparing this policy.
The second gap: the policy is naive regarding the power differentials involved, both between supervisor and employee, and between the employee and citizens requiring a service. It is not hard to come up with a hypothetical.... In a federal employee's office, would a picture of Trump at his desk with Jesus standing behind him, hand on Trump's shoulder, be just this side of coercive? Would a plaque quoting "Those who curse their mother or their father shall be put to death, Exodus 21:17" in majestic calligraphy be a bit over the line? Would that one be okay in the Department of Transportation but not in the Department of Justice? The subordinate or client who would be tempted to argue in more equitable circumstances could well decide, "I'll stuff my feelings rather than argue and lose my access to the services I need." Is that acceptable? But on the other hand, would the cost of preventing outliers smother the more general freedom Kupor's policy is designed to protect?
I'm always puzzled by some Christians insisting on what can come across as in-your-face religiosity, which seems far more likely to repel than attract. Just because your favorite Christian celebrity, or Scott Kupor, or Pam Bondi says you can make your affiliation obvious in your workplace doesn't mean that it actually serves the cause of evangelism. Here's a passage from a former atheist who became an advocate for "permission evangelism." ...
Many times in my life, actually most of my life, when people tried to evangelize me, it caused more harm than good. Many of the scars I carried through my life that kept me away from seeking truth in God were delivered at the hands of well-meaning Christians. They had no idea who I was or what I was seeking, but they interrupted me and tried to force their beliefs down my throat. I've never bought a product that way, and sure wasn't apt to buy God that way. If going to church subjected me to hundreds of those kind of people, I definitely wasn't headed there. Like much of today's society, I chose not to be come assumptive and insensitive, so I incorrectly chose not to be a Christian.
The very next day after I accepted Christ, I prayed that God would never allow me to forget what it was like to live a life without knowing Him. I asked for the emotions and experiences to remain present with me so that I could always relate to non-Christians, forever remaining empathetic. I have prayed that prayer numerous times in my life, and God has always honored that request. Now I was given the insight to use the heart God had provided to be as effective as possible. It is exciting to use the methods of the world to reach the world, yet see eternal results.
The purpose of permission in evangelism is to create trust, get around the legal and social barriers to discussing your faith, and most importantly, to discern the leading of the Holy Spirit in someone's life. ... Evangelism, when asked to tell someone about Jesus, is easy and resembles giving an answer for the hope that you have, rather than forcing an answer on a person yet to ask a question.
— Michael L. Simpson, Permission Evangelism: When to Talk, When to Walk.
Note to Quakers: If your reading tastes were formed by the likes of Thomas Kelly and Caroline Stephen, Michael Simpson's book might come across as cliche-ridden and glib. (Who wouldn't?!) Give him a chance! I believe his insights, suggestions, and his reframing of marketing in the service of ethical evangelism, are valid, or at least worth putting into the mix. If we actually care to help our communities be more accessible, and spread the message of grace to heal the wounds left by white Christian nationalism, and the resulting cynicism we have to contend with, his book might be very helpful.
Elizabeth Bruenig in The Atlantic: Who counts as Christian?
Adria Gulizia: Spirit-led evangelism.
Jade Rockwell in Friends Journal: Risking Faithfulness: Quietism and experimentation in unquiet times.
Early Friends were led to start our movement as a way to recover a wayward Christianity that they felt had taken too many wrong turns for it to be reformed from within the existing churches. But despite the inspiration of early Friends, it is the Quietist period that I think in many ways has most shaped the beliefs and practices that we cling to in our meetings and churches.
Windy Cooler: Angela Hopkins tells the truth about the hidden costs of ministry.
Israeli author David Grossman now "can't help" using the term genocide.
Racism: an informal five-question survey.
McKinley James with his own song, "This Is the Last Time."
No comments:
Post a Comment