“Post Oak Baptist Church (Atonement)”
the Rev. Bruce Russell-Jayne
Sunday April 15, 2007
Post Oak Baptist Church moved into the city limits of Russellville, Kentucky, population 5800, from the “country” not long before my family started attending there in 1961. It would be several years before the last of the “country” members quit punctuating sermons with “Amen” and “So Lord.” I was embarrassed by them back then; I wouldn’t mind a few Amens from the congregation today. 46 years later my mother and one of my sisters and her family are still stalwart members at Post Oak. The little Southern Baptist church grew because the pastor, Brother Joe Carrico, ministered to the poor. His selfless example of helping the downtrodden is one of the reasons I am in the ministry today. However, as a teenager, I chafed under the strict Baptist doctrines – no smoking, drinking, dancing, sex, drugs or Rock’n Roll. When I left home at 18, I left Post Oak behind – and proceeded to ignore all those Baptist prohibitions. At that time my differences with the Baptist Church were more cultural than theological, but the lifestyle I adopted as a young adult made me feel I could never go back. My long road toward Unitarian Universalism had begun.

I attended Post Oak last summer while visiting my family in Russellville. My mother surely was proud to introduce me to her friends as her son, the minister. My heart was warmed when I was able to greet several of the people who had taught me in Sunday School. It was quite a nice homecoming. The last time I visited there several years ago, people dressed for church, so I wore a suit - got to keep up my ministerial image, but most of the people there that Sunday were more casually dressed. It seems even in the South Evangelicals have relaxed the dress code. The large youth group sat together for worship. Many had just returned from a week of repairing homes of the elderly in a rural Appalachian town, and some were leaving that afternoon for another week of service work to Katrina victims in New Orleans. The sanctuary was filled with warm light from the pink and yellow stained glass windows, the people were friendly, and the energy was high.

The service started with several announcements, and then came the opening hymn, Uh, The Star Spangled Banner. Don’t look for that one in Singing the Living Tradition. My First Amendment sensibilities got a second shock when ushers processed down the aisle carrying the US and the Christian flags, and the congregation said pledges to each of them. Did I mention the date was July 2nd? Then came a medley with America the Beautiful connected with two Christian tunes. Well OK, I thought, I remember Post Oak always had a US flag in the sanctuary, but now this patriotic display seems intense – insisting that church and state be united.

The sermon began with a declaration that our country was founded on biblical principles, that America equals Christianity. To support this assertion the preacher presented a long list of statements by US Presidents about their beliefs in God and the bible. Of recent Presidents, he mentioned Jimmy Carter’s “Born Again Christian” status, praised Ronald Reagan but skipped over Bill Clinton and finally gushed about George Bush. By this point, I was forming a counter argument in my head. I was recalling statements by the founding fathers that would contradict the preacher’s arguments. I could point out the quote he chose from Lincoln made him seem much more religious than he was. But I tried to remained calm – I was there that day to show support for my family not to take on their minister. I determined I would just observe and learn a little more about the Christian Right.

After invoking the Presidents, the preacher lamented the decision last June of Las Vegas school officials to cut off the microphone at the high school graduation ceremony during Valedictorian Brittany McComb’s speech after she mentioned God and Jesus as the sources of her success. He cited this event as an example of how God is excluded from the schools and how Christians are ill-treated. He did not mention that McComb had met with school administrators before the ceremony, who asked her to edit her speech because her religious references crossed over into proselytizing.
From there he listed several more issues which he said were major problems for the country. You can probably name them – the bugaboos of the Christian Right – Prayer in School, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Evolution, Illegal Immigration. By now I was having a hard time keeping a straight face. I chafed at having to sit quietly listening to this long scolding sermon while members of the congregation punctuated each point with loud “Amens.” Yes, it seems it’s no longer rude to show enthusiasm during the service. But, each time one of them loudly agreed with the preacher, I had a difficult time keeping myself from thinking, “These people must be authoritarian, racist, sexist, homophobic or all of the above.” Afterwards, I tried to remember back when I was a teenager if Brother Joe’s preaching had been so strident. It seems to me the Southern Baptists have moved even further to the Right since the 60s when I was a member. Later, after we left the church, I told my mother I had to disagree with almost everything the preacher had said that morning. Fortunately, she’s pretty tolerant of me, and loves me in spite of my beliefs.

:::
The preacher used an old sermon style meant to drill home his point - tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em, tell ‘em, then tell ‘em what you told ‘em. Make your point, give arguments in support of it, then give examples of how to apply it in your life. It didn’t have what you’d expect in a UU sermon - room for individuals to interpret, to make their own meaning – really there was no need. I had the impression everyone there (except me and maybe a few others who also kept quiet) agreed with every position the preacher took. These are big emotional, and defining issues for Post Oak and other conservative churches. Their positions all fit neatly together in what liberals derogatorily call the Christian Right “Ideology.”
When we are frustrated with someone who stubbornly holds to positions different from our own, it is tempting to call them an ideologue and conclude they are bigoted or just plain stupid. I have certainly been guilty of doing that. Senator Obama was taken to task and apologized for demeaning “right-wing ideologues.” But should he have apologized? Is he just pandering for the religious vote, or is there really a “fair-minded” way to bridge the gap between liberal and conservative points of view?

Sociologist Mike Hawkins says ideologies tell people how they should interact. Ideologies prescribe how society ought to be organized and contain a set of values through which people can order their lives. And, ideologies often level a critique of certain aspects of society. The Christian Right’s ideology is a well organized system of social principles, and most of those who follow it are intelligent, moral, even sweet people. Senator Obama’s story tells us not to attack people for their ideologies. The main reason not to attack an ideology is that it insults people who hold to it, but also, doing so simply doesn’t work. We can’t just blame ideologies because they are not the cause of our conflicts. The root of our differences lies deeper - at the level of our basic view of the world.

The ideology you live by starts with your World View and is an extension of it. A World View “consists of a set of assumptions about the order of nature and of the place of humanity in it. It contains a view of social reality. For example, the Christian Right sees the world as created by God and stewardship of it given to Man. In this world view, relationships are given rather than chosen, and they should conform to a linear patriarchal structure with God at the top followed in order by a strict father, then mother, and child. Nature is at the bottom, and because it is basically hostile, must be controlled. This includes human nature. A liberal World view assumes the world is basically good, and that humans have an innate potential for empathy. Rather than a patriarchal model for relationships the ideal liberal structure is a web with interactions between all members.
:::
A holder of a conservative world view which is centered on its concept of family life, sees mutual obligation within a family circle as the basis for relationships. Children are supposed to honor their father and mother and to adopt their values. When grown, they are to strengthen the multigenerational family network by marrying, having children and staying close to home. There is no prescribed way to deviate from this system, to stand outside the network and choose whether to participate. Unwed pregnancy and homosexuality are deviances which just don’t fit the model. The Christian Right’s ideological positions on same-sex marriage and abortion are built on and consistent with their particular World View. It behooves us to understand that world view if we are ever to make progress on social issues.
If our world views are so different, do you think we will ever see eye to eye? Well, that remains to be seen, but right now the question is, can we even talk together? Remember the old adage? “In polite society, don’t talk about sex, religion or politics.” In the last several years we threw that one out the window, and we have seen a lack of civility in public discourse ever since. I, for one, am ready to start turning this state of affairs around. It’s time to grow up and learn how to have reasonable conversations about sex, religion and politics. It is time for both conservatives and liberal religionists to stop the mudslinging. We liberals need to stop – calling conservatives either stupid or evil - accusing them of wishing to impose their religion on everyone, wishing to dominate the world, etc. In order to make headway on social policies, we have to talk with each other.

When I talk with my family or conservative Christian friends, I don't start with abortion or homosexuality, because if I start there they don't hear anything else after that. When we do talk about social issues, I recognize when I am hearing an ideological position statement, and I try to avoid arguments that take us down the same paths we have been before. There are those for whom it is not possible to get beyond ideology, and I try not to be one of them. We should not assume everyone is ideologically bound, or that the world view under the ideology is mean-spirited or stupid. Recall the medical doctor’s statement to Senator Obama, “If you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded.” To assume your ideological opponents are stupid or perverse is to dehumanize them – never a good way to find common ground. It is better to leave ideology out of it and connect at the real world, gut level before trying to discuss controversial issues.
If liberals and conservatives really want to make progress, we have to hold conversations guided by the thought that at least for this moment, “I don’t know the answer.” When we start out believing we already have the answer, discussion easily turns into argument, which can escalate to warfare. With conversations guided by "I don't know" you're kind of disarmed, and you're more motivated to learn from each other. Exclusivism can be overcome by heartfelt dialog. Generally, the deeper you go into your genuine world view, telling others what you really believe, and being open to learning about others’ deep beliefs, the safer you are talking to others about sex, religion and politics.
:::
Here is a story of culture and spirituality from the tales of the Hasidim: An old rabbi of great wisdom one day suddenly died. The young rabbis asked, “Without the old master, where shall we get the answers to the great questions of life?” So they decided to pray and fast until the old man’s holiness and wisdom would be infused into one of them.
And sure enough, one night in a dream, the old man appeared to one of the younger rabbis.
“Master,” the young teacher said, “With you gone, the people look to us for answers to the great questions of life, and we are still unsure. For instance, master, they demand to know: On the other side, of what account are the sins of youth?”
“The sins of youth?” the old man asked. “Why, on the other side the sins of youth are of no account whatsoever.”
The young rabbi said: “The sins of youth are of no account ?! Then, what has it all been about? On the other side, what sin is punished?” The old man answered, “On the other side, that sin which is punished with constant and unending severity is the sin of false piety.”
The old master knew that piety is cultural. We must choose the devotions and practices proper to our times. Culture and spirituality, in other words, are of a piece.
The function of spirituality is not to protect us from our times; but to enable us to be at one with our culture, and to stretch it, and break it open to create social progress. The question for us today must be: how can progressive people, spiritual people best engage with our culture? How can we use our world view to help us choose civilizing behaviours for our times?

We live in a time of plurality, when politicians and news media emphasize our differences. It is difficult to see how people in different strata of our society would understand us. Are we afraid if we were to ever present our own highest vision of a just society and a peaceful world that America would reject us? Do we believe the American public is too stupid or too sexist, homophobic, or authoritarian to respond to a really visionary progressive perspective? This attitude is more like contempt for the American people rather then what is needed - which is for all of us to have a more compassionate attitude toward others.

A better way to think about our conservative friends and neighbors is this: If people are saying things with which we disagree, instead of assuming that they are mean spirited or stupid, try to find the rational kernel within the shell of their position. That is, find what decent and good things people are trying to achieve, even if they are using an ideological framework that you believe is hurtful. Separate people's good intent from the hurtful or destructive politics. See the decent yearnings for spiritual meaning, and talk to people on that level.

When you dialogue with your friends in the religious center and the religious right, stand up for the liberal worldview, not on some vague notion of tolerance. Have a real conversation which brings your values and theirs into the open and mixes it up. Talk about something with specific meaning in today’s world. Ask them, “What would Jesus Drive?” Try to come to agreement – don’t just agree to disagree. The world needs spiritual progressives who will build on the values of individual autonomy, freedom of thought and human responsibility to co-create a world community that recognizes interdependence requires mutual cooperation.

Hawkins, Mike. Social Darwinism in European & American Thought, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge: 1997) 21-24.
Muder, Doug. “Who’s Afraid of Freedom and Tolerance? UU World, UUA (Boston: Fall 2005) 24-26.
Lerner, Michael. “Overcoming Liberal Arrogance and Contempt for Americans Who Voted for Bush,” Tikkun, (Berkeley: November 8, 2004).
Marty, Martin. “Q&A with Martin E. Marty: A different model of interfaith work,” by Robin Galliano Russell, The Dallas Morning News (November 5, 2004).
Chittister, Joan. “Spirituality and Culture,” Tikkun (Berkeley: Sept/Oct 2006) 30.
Lerner.