Conservative Christianity

보수개신교는 차별금지법을 반대하는가? 이는 너무나 명확해 보이는 사실인데다가 그간의 입법과정에서 이들의 힘은 증명된 것으로 보인다. 보수개신교가 차별금지법을 왜 반대하는지에 대해서도 많은 연구자 들이 이미 다양한 설명들을 제시한 바 있다. 그렇다면 지금 우리에게 더 나은 설명(틀)이 왜 필요한가? 나는 이 글에서 이른바 “혐오선동세력”으로 통칭되는 보수개신교에 대한 보다 분석적이고 내재적인 이해를 통해 어떻게 차별금지법 제정과 평등의 연대를 보다 잘 구축할 수 있을지를 함께 고민해 보고 싶다. 이른바 ‘혐오선동세력’은 보수개신교 일반과 구분될 수 있을까? 종교 또는 개신교 고유의 선함을 믿고 그 진정성과 행위를 선의로 해석하는 많은 사람들은 혐오선동세력이 진정한 기독교, 참된 신앙인이 아니며 개신교 일반신자 대중을 ‘선동’하고 ‘이용’한다고 생각한다. 이러한 생각은 시민사회나 공적 정치의 영역에서 무고한 사람들을 정 죄하지 않음으로써 ‘더하기의 정치’에 괜찮은 전략이다. 실제로 어느 사회집단에나 권력자나 선동가는 존재하기 마련이고 ‘순수하고 순진한’ 보통사람도 많이 있는 것이 사실이다. 반면에 어떤 사람들은 모든 보수개신교인들이 혐오의 적극적 가담자라고 상상하는 듯하다. 그도 그럴 것이, 보통의 평범해 보이는 신자들이 우익 집회에 나오고 차별금지법이나 인권조례에 반대민원을 넣는 바로 그 사람들이기 때문이다. 각각의 정반대 사례들은 우리 주변에서 무수히 찾을 수 있고, 이 극단적으로 대립되는 경험을 현재로선 통계적으로 또는 빅데이터 기법으로 알아내어 우위와 경향성을 양적으로 확증할 수 있을 것 같지는 않다. 따라서 나는 여기에서 공공영역에서 영향력을 가진 것으로 표상되는 집단들과 상대적으로 안정적인 보수개신교의 담론(종교문화와 지식체계)의 관련성을 찾아냄으로써 차별금지법 반대운동과 혐 오구조의 문화정치학을 구성하고자 한다. 보다 구체적으로 나는 혐오선동세력과 개신교 신자대중 등을 분석적으로 구분하면서도 (차별금지법 제정에 걸림돌이 되는/차별금지법 반대의 토대 정동이 되는) 혐오 문화의 강화가 양자 간의 문화적/담론적 기제에 의한 것임을 보여주고자 한다. 이것은 기존의 선동-동원 체제 모델뿐만 아니라, 이하에서 언급하겠지만 선동세력(종교와 정치)의 이해관계 모델의 한계를 극복하려는 것이기도 하다.

An upsurge in Orthodox anti-ecumenical criticism in 2016 has raised the question of the current state of ecumenism. Examining this topic , the author describes a new form of ecumenical activity associated with the emergence of conservative Christian alliances in defense of traditional values. This " conservative ecumenism, " or " Ecumen-ism 2.0, " differs from the " classical ecumenism " that arose in the early twentieth century and that continues to be represented today by the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical institutions. The author considers the phenomenon of " ecumenical consciousness " and demonstrates that it can be found in both types of ecumenism. Some of the Orthodox anti-ecumenists who attack classical ecumen-ism, however, may eagerly opt for this new, conservative " Ecumen-ism 2.0. " This article discusses the possible competition between the two types of ecumenisms.

Since the 1990s, sexual rights, including marriage equality and LGBT education, have become the subject of global cultural conflicts. My research tracks the birth and growth of Christian conservative activism against the sexual citizenship of “tongzhi” (LGBT+) people in Taiwan. A young democracy, Taiwan is often viewed as “the beacon for Asian gays” because it is friendly to sexual minorities, recently becoming the first Asian society to legislate same-sex marriage. However, such images understate Western Christian conservatives’ global expansion into East Asia, and their influence upon the anti-gay agenda of Taiwanese pro-family activists.

In this dissertation, I analyze Taiwanese pro-family Christian activists’ mobilization, focusing upon their relationship with Euro-American conservative organizations, and examining the transnational networks they have developed. My research bridges sociological research on religion, sexualities, and transnationalism. It analyzes sexualities in relation to the growth of global Christianity, revealing transnational networks of moral conservatism, and critically examining the growth of global social inequalities.

Ce texte se propose d’analyser les différents discours que tiennent les acteurs d’un réseau informel d’écologistes autour de l’idée de « démesure » ; dans un premier temps quand ils utilisent directement le mot « démesure » ou « hubris », qui a un sens très proche, mais aussi quand leurs propos se rapportent à ce que l’on entend par démesure.

Après une brève présentation de ce réseau écologiste, l’on verra qu’il mobilise peu ce concept de démesure. Deux autres perspectives seront donc présentées, lesquels sont peu évoquées au cœur de ce réseau, mais que reprennent certaines personnes se situant en périphérie de celui-ci : le « courant de l’écologie humaine » et l’approche « technocritique ». Ce détour permettra de mieux comprendre pourquoi les écologistes de notre terrain de recherche  s’intéressent peu à la démesure, et de voir comment, dans certains cas, ils peuvent même défendre certaines formes d’«illimitation ».

An outburst of Orthodox anti-ecumenical criticism in 2016 raised the question of the current state of ecumenism. Examining this topic, the author describes a new form of ecumenical activity associated with the emergence of conservative Christian alliances in defense of traditional values. This “conservative ecumenism,” or “Ecumenism 2.0,” differs from the “classical ecumenism” that arose in the early 20th century and is presented today by the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical structures. The author considers the phenomenon of “ecumenical consciousness” and shows that it can be found in both types of ecumenism; however, some of the Orthodox anti-ecumenists who attack classical ecumenism may eagerly opt for this new, conservative “Ecumenism 2.0“. The article discusses the possible competition between the two types of ecumenism.

Initially presented at the "Mennonites and Friends" forum held at the Society of Biblical Literature meetings in November, 2010,this appreciative response questions Seibert's central thesis re: the need to distinguish between the "textual God" and the "actual God," and then to prioritize the latter. Through a brief case study of Jonah in the book of the twelve/Minor Prophets I argue that such an approach does not adequately recognize the significance and function of the diversity of perspectives on God within Scripture. I suggest that Seibert also gives too much weight to historical reference and point to the nature of Scripture as a theological witness as an improved alternative. In doing so I also provide a more pragmatic, contextual and pedagogical critique of the implications of his approach for studying the Bible with lay people and briefly point to an alternative approach.

PREVIEW ONLY:
According to the most recent demographic datasets, the number of new Christian congregations throughout the world is outpacing the total number of new Christians, suggesting that institutional Christianity has become more proficient at internal division than it has at outward multiplication. Using the psychological phenomenon known as “homophily,” the purpose of this article is to provide a brief elaboration on the sociopsychological reasoning for why conflicts over biblical interpretation may be one of the dominant causes, among other factors, for conservative church splits and for why “biblicism” may cause fragmentation among evangelicals more than their liberal Protestant counterparts. The article will first define and characterize theological conservatism, homophily, and biblicism before discussing the possible correlation between conflicts over biblical interpretation and church fragmentation. The article proposes that theological disagreements over exclusivist scriptural interpretations is a viable explanation for the destabilization of conservative congregations. Church splits among evangelicals are explainable partly because of the conservative tendency toward religious homophily and the need to establish rival congregations built around competing biblical interpretations.

The article highlights the discussion on the concept of “conservative ecumenism”, proposed by the author in 2017 to describe conservative Christian alliances in defense of traditional values. Main debates have revolved on the usage of the term “ecumenism” to conservative Christian alliances. The article proposes minimal criteria for belonging to ecumenism, which the author calls “ecumenical consciousness”. The question of whether striving for Christian unity is a necessary criterion of ecumenism is considered. Based on the work of George Lindbeck, the author shows that the normative image of ecumenism as a movement to achieve Christian unity appears in classical ecumenism not immediately and is not the only form of ecumenical interaction. The article also discusses the relationship between theology and ideology in connection with ecumenism.

When one cultural group becomes dominated by another, resulting rapid change and loss of authority may make its original meaning system seem thin, ineffective, and contradictory. The resulting state of deprivation often
causes members to rebuild their culture along what they consider to be more satisfying lines. The process, which is called revitalization by anthropologists, has occurred over and over again among peoples throughout the world. Often couched in religious terms movements prescribe rituals and
beliefs designed to restore order to their existence. In this selection, William O. Beeman describes the process of revitalization and shows how it shapes the beliefs and actions of such groups as the militias that have sprung up
across America and the Islamic fundamentalists of the Middle East.

Carnegie Mellon University

God & Apple Pie:
Religious Myths and Visions of America
Christopher Buck, PhD

November 17, 2017, 7:00 PM
Scaife Hall, Room 208

A Spirituality Development Month event

Sponsored by:
•  CMU Spirituality & Interfaith Initiatives
    (Division of Student Affairs)
•  CMU Council of Religious Advisors
•  Baha’i Community of Pittsburgh

The congregants thanked God that they weren’t like all those hopeless people outside the church, bound for hell. So the Westboro Baptist Church’s Sunday service began, and Rebecca Barrett-Fox, a curious observer, wondered why anyone would seek spiritual sustenance through other people’s damnation. It is a question that piques many a witness to Westboro’s more visible activity—the “GOD HATES FAGS” picketing of funerals. In God Hates, sociologist Barrett-Fox takes us behind the scenes of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church. The first full ethnography of this infamous presence on America’s Religious Right, her book situates the church’s story in the context of American religious history—and reveals as much about the uneasy state of Christian practice in our day as it does about the workings of the Westboro Church and Fred Phelps, its founder.

God Hates traces WBC’s theological beliefs to a brand of hyper-Calvinist thought reaching back to the Puritans—an extreme Calvinism, emphasizing predestination, that has proven as off-putting as Westboro’s actions, even for other Baptists. And yet, in examining Westboro’s role in conservative politics and its contentious relationship with other fundamentalist activist groups, Barrett-Fox reveals how the church’s message of national doom in fact reflects beliefs at the core of much of the Religious Right’s rhetoric. Westboro’s aggressively offensive public activities actually serve to soften the anti-gay theology of more mainstream conservative religious activism. With an eye to the church’s protest at military funerals, she also considers why the public has responded so differently to these than to Westboro's anti-LGBT picketing.

With its history of Westboro Baptist Church and its founder, and its profiles of defectors, this book offers a complex, close-up view of a phenomenon on the fringes of American Christianity—and a broader, disturbing view of the mainstream theology it at once masks and reflects.

University Press of Kansas, 2016.