The debate about Newsweek’s cover story of a few weeks ago by editor Jon Meacham, “The End of Christian America,” continues to intrigue journalists both across the pond (as noted earlier this week) and over here. When an opinion column addresses a topic we’ve covered (numerous times) then we consider it worth a mention.
In a column Washington Post writer Michael Gerson (a personal fave for his ability to be astute and unpredictable) does a fine job of looking at the strengths and weaknesses of Meacham’s essay. He made the wise choice of consulting with John Green, dean of polling at the Pew Forum and Public Life — interpreting Green’s analysis or letting it speak for itself.
Terming Meacham’s analysis “accurate, even wise” but also “incomplete” Gerson (riffing on Green) brings some balance to the picture that seems so appealing to some (but not all) in the media: of a battleground in which the secular hordes are overtaking the fainting faithful.
I’m a sucker for anything that challenges conventional wisdom, particularly when it’s voiced by pros like Gerson and Green. All of the points they make shake up the truisms that have been flying about recently. Their last point, that conservative Christianity still remains a potent, growing force in United States religious life, has implications for the “culture wars” that roil this American life — and probably aren’t going away anytime in the predictable future.
Green concludes that Newsweek has “told half of the story.” “There are certain people moving to the left on cultural grounds… . But we can’t ignore the other side, the growth of more conservative believers — evangelicals and conservative Catholics… . We may not be seeing the decline of Christian America, but polarization on religious grounds.”
This polarization is reason to mourn. But Green warns that we should be careful in allocating blame. “One reason could be the growth of a secular reaction against the Christian right. But it could be the other way around — the reaction of the Christian right against the growth of secularism. Or they could feed off each other.”
How many media narratives examine the possibility that our discourse on social and religious issues may become increasingly polarized? Hopefully journalists will consider this when writing stories about faith, and bore, like persistent moles, below the surface. Much to think about here — a useful contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the state of play in American religious and civil life.
Picture of a ruined church is from Wikimedia Commons
 | Posted at 7:06 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (7) |
April 17, 2009, at 8:14 pm
That’s an important point.
There is so much going on that it can make one’s head spin.
There’s the polarization you wrote about.
Next we have some in the GOP coming out in favor of gay marriage. This may be a reassertion of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.
And Catholics tend to be socially conservative but economic liberals. Which dominates in any situation is another interesting question.
How religion is playing out in the Obama White House could be almost a full time job for a reporter given various developments including today’s proposal for regulations governing stem-cell research, comments flying around about who Obama will nominate as the ambassador to the Vatican, etc.
April 17, 2009, at 10:37 pm
You gotta love Green’s candor.
The czar of nonNewsweek has come to pronounce the death of the evangelical-Pentecostal Christian slice of American life, while it is actually growing in proportion to others.
Then Green, a mainline Protestant himself, levels with Gerson.
April 18, 2009, at 12:58 am
This is a little off topic, but what’s so bad about polarization? I mean essentially. Sometimes it sure beats smug, complacent consensus. I guess it’s a sort of default political rhetoric that “polarized” is a pejorative adjective, but I think this assumption needs to be unpacked. Sure, consensus can be good, but so can vigorous disagreement.
April 18, 2009, at 8:20 am
Hoosier,
Inherent in the etymology of polarization is the action of breaking (as in the breaking, shifting ice masses in the Arctic and Antarctic) and while we can argue whether it is mostly natural and cyclic or exacerbated by human actions and trends, we can’t argue that it is disruptive (at best) or destructive (at worst). I agree with you that vigorous disagreement is healthy and, in fact, necessary for a healthy ecosystem (to continue with my obnoxious metaphor). I remember reading about some conifers that don’t set fruit until fires destroy enough of their surroundings to enable new life to take hold on the suddenly clear ground.
I am someone who, mostly, enjoys the challenges presented by vigorous disagreement. But I am also, in the immortal words of SpongeBob Square Pants, a weenie-hut. I wish polarized factions (in any discussion, but particularly in the discussion of religious belief) expressed their views more civilly, less clearly bent on the total destruction (extinction) of the other. Which is why I appreciate Gerson’s piece — it doesn’t cast Meacham as the enemy but does call into question his interpretation of the data released by Pew.
In terms of Meacham’s headline — I have to admit that I often think of the most provocative headline possible in order to ensure that readers of the paper will actually take a look at the piece. There is a fine line (extremely fine, sometimes) between provocative and stupid. I suppose that is why even editors benefit from editing.
April 18, 2009, at 9:27 am
The conventional wisdom on polarization is that it is then all about “winning” or “losing” — which media outlets love to cover. If it bleeds it leads. The deeper questions don’t always get examined. I’d like to hear more about how decisions about activism in the public arena are made in large religious organizations — what’s the philosophy driving such activism?
Sabrina, it’s good to have an editor’s perspective. All you editors out there, you need to speak up for yourselves occasionally!
April 19, 2009, at 6:51 pm
The term ‘polarization’ comes from optics, not from ice packs. The pole in question is the end of an axis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization
April 21, 2009, at 2:23 pm
Picture credit says, “picture of a ruined church.” Is it a ruined church or church (building) ruins?