(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
Thursday morning at General Assembly, various elected positions were filled for entities such as the Permanent Judicial Commission and the board of the Presbyterian Foundation. Each position had a nominee proposed by the General Assembly Nominating Committee (GANC).
For some positions, there was also a nominee made from the floor, and for those positions, each nominee (both the floor nominee and the GANC nominee) was presented in a three-minute speech by a person familiar with the candidate.
One person describing a nominee chosen by the GANC said that the nominee liked to describe himself as "an evangelical with a conscience." Undoubtedly this was meant to be seen by the voting audience as a positive quality, but it is in fact a slur, though veiled, against evangelicals.
I am a linguist. Linguists know that some terms in language are "unmarked,” and others are "marked." The unmarked terms, the ones without anything overt added to them, are considered basic and normal and definitional. The marked terms are considered unusual and remarkable.
For example, "president" is an unmarked term, and "lady president" is marked, because the word "lady" has been added to it. Therefore, due to the linguistic structure in "lady president,” it is implied that the normal, basic president is a man, but it is unusual to find a president that is a woman. This is why the women's movement has worked so hard to remove from our language the type of distinction such as "president" versus "lady president.”
Similarly, the term "evangelical" alone is unmarked. Therefore a phrase such as "evangelical with a conscience" is marked, because the phrase "with a conscience" has been added to it. By finding the marked term "evangelical with a conscience" a significant way to describe the candidate, the speaker was implying that the normal, basic, definitional evangelical is one without a conscience, because the unusual type of evangelical is an evangelical with a conscience.
I don't know if many people picked this up or not. Probably the speaker didn't even realize that evangelicals had just been insulted. If so, this may be because the speaker's prejudice against evangelicals is so ingrained that the speaker unconsciously assumed that everyone agrees that there is a lack of conscience in evangelicals.
The conscience that the speaker implied that evangelicals lack is most likely a social-witness conscience. In fact, however, a recent study has shown that evangelical churches give more money and participate in more actual social-witness programs (as opposed to doing social-witness political lobbying) than progressive churches do. The idea of a lack of conscience for evangelicals is not only insulting and prejudiced, it is based on incorrect information. Sadly, this shows up in everyday conversations and news stories all too often, and, as I saw Thursday morning, even in our church assemblies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The comment is really regrettable. Its like identifying myself as "a progressive who actually reads the Bible". Anyway. The unmarked/marked comment is well-taken. I've never heard the linguist's version of that distinction, so that was interesting to learn.
Re: Who Really Cares
As I've read it in reviews, I think this is actually a little bit of a misrepresentation of the book's findings. Religious conservatives give much more of time and money to charity than secular liberals do, but the amount by which they surpass religious liberals falls within the single digits, which is often the margin of error in social science. I'm not anything strong can be said based on this book's findings about the comparison between evangelical *churches* and progressive *churches*.
I'm also not willing to say that the best way to show concern for the poor is to give charitably but not work to change the systems which produce poverty - but there's no famous book on that subject yet (there are probably some obscure ones) and that's definitely a discussion for another time (and probably venue).
I am glad the book is out there. (Though admitted I'm sick of Chris Larimer referencing it constantly) I don't like propagating the idea that conservatives are Scrooges, and there is definitely a strong strain of Liberal entitlement in our society. My frustrations there are more political than personal in most cases. And frankly, from my point of view at least, most of the supposed 'progressives' are just warmed-over supporters of (what I consider to be) a corrupt and destructive status-quo - because they stand to benefit from it personally.
So, as I understand it, the data supports a very strong religious/secular divide in giving, given that the majority of religious-identifying people also identity as conservative, and the majority of secular-identifying people are also liberal. The liberal/conservative divide is less extreme but still significant, and the conservative-religious/liberal-religious divide is the smallest of them.
If I ever find the time, I should read the book myself if I'm going to talk about it more - and it does keep coming up.
See? I refrained from talking about Gagnon entirely :)
Doug, great restraint on Gagnon, who I know is a lightning rod for progressives! :-) Thanks for understanding what I was saying.
Debbie
Evangelicals with a conscience, progressives who read the bible, what is the world coming to?
As an evangelical with a consience, I'm offended. ;)
Post a Comment