Sue Lani Madsen: Labeling is lazy excuse to not think

Mudslinging is as old as the republic in which we stand. Even George Washington came under fire from the anti-Federalists, calling him a “horse-beater.”

Today’s political mud isn’t as clear. A phrase like “Christian nationalist” is often used as a lazy synonym for conservative Christian, or for any Christian who doesn’t champion a progressive political agenda.

The sanctimonious mudslinging toward Mayor Nadine Woodward and others for attending a concert and prayer service during a horrible weekend of fire in Spokane County is getting ridiculous. The gathering has repeatedly been labeled “Christian nationalist” without bothering to explain what the writer means.

It’s a phrase often used as a lazy pejorative from the left aimed at religious conservatives in the same way “woke” is used by the right to invoke a whole host of progressive negatives.

Labels interfere with asking questions of curiosity, starting with basic definitions. There is an organized movement using the name “Christian nationalism” which advocates for dominion of Christianity over civic life, a fusion of church and state. It may be understood in contrast to “radical secularism,” which seeks to eliminate all faith expression from the public square. Both movements have extreme fringes seeking to accomplish their vision by any means possible, including potentially physical violence in addition to legal wrangling.

But most Americans reject these polar opposites. We have a long history of debating how and when religion and religious belief positively reinforce civic life. Sociologists Jesse Smith and Gary J. Adler Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania describe this majority of Americans as “civic republicans,” understanding it is neither possible nor desirable to totally separate religion from politics.

According to Smith and Adler’s extensive review of current studies on Christian nationalism as a movement, published in the journal of the American Sociological Association, “the question is not whether religious influences will be present in public life, but rather where, how, and within what boundaries.

Religious and secular Americans may dispute the precise placement of those boundaries while potentially still falling within the broad tradition of civic republicanism.”

The First Amendment sets one of those boundaries. But as John Adams noted after the signing of the Constitution, a “moral and religious people” is necessary for the system to work.

Christian nationalism fits well within the civic republicanism tradition, recognizing Christians’ responsibilities to the government and to God, uniting all those who believe in a resurrected Christ across all social and ethnic boundaries. In addition to spreading the faith, Christians are charged to reach out to the abandoned, care for the poor, be good stewards of resources, pay their taxes and participate in civic life.

The authors and signers of the U.S. Constitution were steeped in the moral demands of the Bible. Christians are painfully aware that all have sinned and fall short of meeting this assignment.

Not even a radical secularist should take exception to that definition.

Then there is “Christian nationalism” as used to inflame emotions. As a political label, it becomes a catchall for negativity. As a specific political ideology, it puts America on a pedestal and non-Biblically conflates God and country.

It rightly belongs in the “scare quotes” often used to separate “woke” as defined by conservatives from woke as defined by progressives.

A USA Today-Ipsos poll in March found 56% agreed with a more progressive definition of woke, 39% had a negative reaction and took it to mean “to be overly politically correct and police others’ words.” In other words, intolerant.

Conservatives would agree with the need “to be informed, educated on and aware of” injustice, but calling it “social injustice” tilts the poll results. Just like there is such a thing as “Christian nationalism” at a scholarly level that feeds the right fringe, there is such a thing as “critical social theory” feeding the left.

We need more accurate disagreement, more curious questions and fewer lazy labels.

Voters have a choice. You can let labels lead you. You can be swayed based on candidate Lisa Brown’s past association with the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua or Mayor Woodward’s attendance at a Christian conservative prayer and praise gathering with a politically toxic Matt Shea.

Labeling simplifies decision-making. The phrase, “I’d vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket,” came out of the 1928 presidential election, when pundits worried about Al Smith being rejected by anti-Catholic Democrats in the old anti-Republican confederacy. You can still vote a straight ticket without thinking.

Or you can ask questions and compare candidate’s own statements of political philosophy. You can check performance metrics and the results of state audits of organizations under their leadership.

Playing in mud puddles is for children.

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.