Contents Page,
Vol. 1, No. 1
Quick Links
to other articles
in this issue:
Religion and the Post-Welfare State
Charitable Choice
McCaughey Babies
Islam in Virginia
The Pope in Cuba
Patriarch's Visit
Religion in a Cold Climate
Clinton Scandal |
Promise
Keepers and the Culture Wars
by David G. HackettThe first stories about Promise Keepers were enthusiastic. Newspapers
in the West pointed excitedly to what the Dallas Morning News called the
"spirited success" of this new "Christian mens movement,"
focusing on the novelty and strangeness of 50,000 white, middle-aged men gathering in a
Colorado football stadium to find their way back to God and their responsibilities as
husbands and fathers.
The earliest commentators discussed the significance of the organizers choice of
a football environment as the best vehicle for engaging and raising mens
consciousness. Surrounded by thousands of like-minded souls in the comfort of a familiar
sports arena, men could open up emotionally to their failings and promise to atone. They
noted how the movement tapped the athletic and military metaphors of Christian
spirituality. Saint Paul in his letters talks about running the race, fighting the good
fight, and putting on the armor of God.
As the Promise Keepers membership swelled (from 4,200 in 1991 to 230,000 in
1994), journalists waxed optimistic. "Mens religious organization has a
promising future" ran the headline on a column by Houston Chronicle religion
writer Richard Vara. "Men across the nation flock to McCartneys evangelical
banner" declared Rocky Mountain News staff writer Michael Romano. An editorial in the
Dallas Morning News described a Dallas rally as "an impressive commitment to
rebuilding American families in these socially complex times."
But by 1996 (an election year) commentators began to worry that Promise Keepers was a
Trojan horse for the religious right. Steve Rabey in The Christian Century
reported that Protestant denominations were concerned over competition from what appeared
to be a new "para-church" organization. Some Lutherans, Presbyterians, and
Catholics, Rabey found, criticized the movement for failing to come to grips with hard
theological differences.
Time reported that 59 religious liberals, including the dean of the Vanderbilt
University Divinity School and the president of New York Theological Seminary, had issued
a warning about the potential dangers of Promise Keepers to the nations churches.
For their part, members of Promise Keepers stated repeatedly that their primary concern
was returning men to their own-mostly Baptist-churches to take up their family
responsibilities.
When East Coast publications and national broadcasts took up the story, a chorus of
criticism centering on right-wing domination of the movement all but drowned out the
positive note struck by the Western media. Thomas B. Edsall in the Washington Post
described the Promise Keepers as opposed to all the "major aspects of liberal
society." In an October, 1996 Nation cover story, Joe Conason, Alfred Ross,
and Lee Cokorinos pronounced the movement "one of the most sophisticated creations of
the religious right" and asserted that it represented a "third wave" of
politically active religious conservatism "following the demise of the Rev. Jerry
Falwells Moral Majority and the compromises of Pat Robertsons Christian
Coalition with secular Republicanism."
Full-fledged culture war had been declared by the time National Organization of Women
(NOW) president Patricia Ireland, joined by other less ubiquitous feminist critics, spent
one television news show after another linking the movements founder, Bill
McCartney, with the "same old pantheon of political extremists." Evidence
offered was the early support of James Dobsons "Focus on the Family" and
Bill Brights "Campus Crusade for Christ," as well as McCartneys
known opposition to abortion and gay-rights legislation in Colorado. Also cited were
McCartneys talk of returning the country to Christ and rally speaker Tony
Evanss demand that men "take back" their leadership role in the family.
Writing in The Progressive, Suzanne Pharr claimed that it "does not matter
that a right wing agenda is not overt in the formative stages of this movement; when the
leaders are ready to move their men in response to their agenda, they will have thousands
disciplined to obey and command."
Significantly, this "here come the lunatics" coverage moderated and became
increasingly sympathetic as time progressed and reporters met Promise Keepers and observed
the movements rallies. Donna Minkowitz, a Jewish lesbian who infiltrated a rally
dressed as a man to write an article for Ms. magazine, found herself being
genuinely moved by the sincerity of the men she encountered. As the men poured into
Washington for the October 4-5, 1997 rally, they conducted themselves so well, said one
CNN correspondent, "You cant help but be moved." Interviews of
career-oriented and supportive Promise Keepers wives suggested that their
relationships were far more egalitarian in practice than the rhetoric of men "taking
charge" implied.
The absence of politics in the Washington rally speeches reinforced the shift in
attitude, as did the rallys emphasis on racial reconciliation-palpably present in
scenes of black and white men hugging each other. Had any of the speakers ridiculed
liberals or presented fundamentalists nonnegotiable principles of faith, this
positive perspective would likely not have lasted long. But by the end of the Washington
weekend both national and regional coverage had begun to defuse the "Unwarranted
Anxiety Over Promise Keepers Moral Reawakening," as the Chicago Tribune
headlined a column by former Reagan administration official Linda Chavez.
Such positive appraisals were followed by a backlash against the earlier liberal
perspective, but this only reinforced the media-generated theme of culture war. Liberals
were now accused of a double standard that kept them from recognizing the positive aspects
of the movement. "By any normal expectation," wrote John Leo in U.S. News
and World Report, "NOW would express at least some guarded praise" for
programs that urged men to be emotionally vulnerable, honest, and respectful of their
wives and families. (NOW didnt budge.) Similarly, Jim Sleeper on All Things
Considered argued that white liberals were unwilling to face the possibility that
"the civil rights movements beloved community of black and white together has
found a new, more conservative home." What Sleeper called the "biggest
demonstration of racial reconciliation" since the sixties was not applauded but
dismissed by liberals because, as Jesse Jackson said on CNN, these actions were "not
really affecting public policy."
Not all the media attention to the Washington rally was so overly politicized. The
Washington Post performed a signal service by surveying 882 randomly selected
participants. Most turned out to be white middle-class Baptists who didnt like Bill
Clinton or feminism, but were neither politically active nor interested in having Promise
Keepers form a political action committee and contribute money to candidates who support
Christian values. In a New York Times op-ed piece, University of Chicago
professor Martin Marty pleaded for readers to pay attention to the movements
religious motivations. A Chicago Tribune reporter, citing a hot-off-the-press
study by Marie Griffith of Northwestern University, suggested that secular feminists
habitually misrepresent conservative women as fearful dupes of male oppressors by
neglecting the real world of evangelical women and children.
But by and large, a failure to understand Promise Keepers in its evangelical Protestant
context led the news media to miss the movements real significance and prospects. In
the evangelical Protestant world, Promise Keepers stands apart in its commitment to racial
reconciliation-something reporters barely noticed. Though the membership is 80 percent
white, the leadership is 35 percent African, Hispanic, and Asian American. The Promise
Keepers "Sixth Promise" is to reach "beyond any racial and
denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity." This is closer
to the spirit of true ecumenism than many evangelicals have been prepared to come.
Promise Keepers is best understood within the long tradition of American revivalism.
Appearing on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, movement leader Paul Edwards asserted that
theirs was a "revival movement," part of "the history of a tradition of
going after the heart...rather than a reform movement." This statement squares with
historians judgments that Americas great revival leaders, from George
Whitefield in the 1740s First Great Awakening to Charles Finney in the early 1800s Second
Great Awakening to Billy Graham today, have all been devoted to personal, spiritual
transformation rather than political change.
Not that revivals have lacked for unintended political consequences. To evangelicals,
nineteenth-century abolitionism and womens rights as well as the more recent efforts
of the "born again" to address concerns regarding family, gender, and sexuality
are finally not political but religious crusades to save souls. The overt movement of
religion into politics has always been controversial, and evangelical leaders have, like
Billy Graham, for the most part steered clear of organized politics. Certainly, Promise
Keepers has political implications. But that is not the same as saying that its efforts
are generated by a political agenda.
An awareness of the history of revivalism would likewise have allowed journalists to
anticipate the possibility that Promise Keepers will be short lived-with the result that
the organizations recent funding crisis would have come as less of a surprise.
Efforts to lure men back into churches by emphasizing the masculinity of Christianity have
been going on with indifferent success ever since the early nineteenth-century Industrial
Revolution. Like the "Muscular Christian" movements of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, Promise Keepers relies on Saint Pauls masculine rhetoric,
but softens it with a dose of latter-day emotional sensitivity. The movements
literature emphasizes relationships between team members rather than winning; partners
rather than dominant "heads" in marriage; the principled and concerned board
member vs. the hard-driving executive. All of this suggests a conscious seeking for images
and relationships that portray strength as a nonviolent, noncompetitive value. Possible
long-term consequences of the movement could be dissemination of these messages through
small groups and church curriculums.
Analyzing Promise Keepers primarily through a politicized culture-wars lens has, in
short, given the news media a constricted and inaccurate view of the mens movement
in todays evangelical churches. Within the Pauline tradition of male leadership,
which is embedded in the basic vocabulary and mental framework of the evangelical
churches, conservative Protestant women are not mens obedient servants. They are
complementary partners with men in a common effort to follow Christ. As for the Promise
Keepers commitment to racial reconciliation, it has not been shown to be a political
ploy. On the contrary, all indications are that it is a sincere effort to create a world
where there is neither black nor white in Christ Jesus. To date, Promise Keepers remains a
largely non-political effort of evangelical churchmen to change their ways and keep their
promises to their wives and family. It may become a political organization, but anyone who
seeks to make it such-and there are those who would love to do so-stands to undermine the
deepest commitments that bring these men together. |