Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe explores the role of the church in today’s political landscape.
Transcript
MET: Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe. My producer. Carl and I would like to welcome you to a discussion about what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century. This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’ve been a rhetoric professor since 2010 and Carl has been working in church communications since 2022. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.
MET: Hello, friends. It’s just me today, and I’m going to talk to you about some things that are some of my favorite things: education, politics, and the church.
MET: You hear a lot in public about “indoctrination” right now.
MET: It’s a topic in politics, church, and especially where I live – education.
MET: There’s a whole faction of people out there who will tell you without any hesitation that school, at both the k-12 and especially higher ed has little to do with learning and everything to do with propaganda.
MET: So, a few thoughts on that:
MET: I actually agree that k-12 is pretty propagandistic. But absolutely not in the way that we are being told it is.
MET: For example – most people grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day. And the vast majority of us don’t think about it. We just say the words and that’s it. But this means we started every school day literally pledging allegiance. And to what? To a flag. Consider that – we spent our formative years announcing that we were not just fond of, but allegiant to a piece of cloth. And for most people it stops there. They leave out the “and to the Republic, for which it stands.” This has a profound effect on the way you see the world. For example – in 1989 there was a case that went in front of the Supreme Court that people still debate today. It was Texas v. Johnson and it was about flag burning. The Court decided that burning the flag is protected speech. You have the first amendment right to protest that way – because what the flag represents, the rights of Americans, is more important than the cloth. But a lot of Americans don’t see it that way. They would put the symbol, the flag itself, over the thing it symbolizes, our rights. Consider that for a moment – the object is so revered that it matters more than what it represents. If you don’t see the connection between that attitude and the fact that we expect school kids to literally pledge themselves to the object daily, then I guess you missed the cause/effect lessons in fourth grade or something.
MET: Secondly, consider the classes you took in school. If you went to a good high school, you may have taken economics. If you went to a REALLY good high school, you may have even had more than one semester of it! But how many of you left being able to explain the difference between micro and macro economics? And here’s the real clincher – what KIND of economics did you learn? My guess is you learned classical. But you might have learned something from the Chicago school. I would doubt very much you learned Keynesian economics. In fact, the VAST majority of people who take economics in high school don’t even know what those words mean. But just consider this – classical economics is what we most rely on. Chicago school is favored by libertarians and conservatives – and what got us where we are right now. Keynesian economics is what has been used to get us out of every major economic struggle since the great depression – but, it is generally shut down quickly, because institutional powers don’t like it, and there is a fear that the focus on short term solutions will cause trouble down the road. This ALL affects your pocket book in VERY direct ways. And you don’t know it. But here’s the real clincher – it’s all capitalist. I am 99% certain that if you took economics in high school you only learned capitalist economic systems. There was no mention of theories outside of anything like what we have in America. So…tell me, who is indoctrinating who? If you were ONLY taught one system of economics, and only ONE theory of economics within that system in ONE semester of high school – who is making sure that you stay within a particular set of ideals? Hint: it’s not a cabal of liberal educators.
MET: And as a final example, I’ll use the state of New York. Did you know patriotism is a required part of the curriculum? It’s SO important, that if you decide to homeschool a kid, you have to show in your homeschool curriculum how your are including units on patriotism in your program. You are EXPECTED in education, here in liberal New York, to make your kids believe in and love America.
MET: So on the one hand, the idea that education is trying to indoctrinate your kids into some liberal agenda is hilarious, but also dangerously wrong. Education is an inherently conservative project. It teaches the standards of a culture and institutional rules, constraints, and knowledge. In fact, the early years of education are SPECIFICALLY about teaching norms more than they are about teaching content. For the first 3-5 years of education you might learn a bit of content, but you’re basically learning to stand in line, wait your turn, and not to kick and bite to solve your problems. These are a matter of instilling social norms.
MET: So does education indoctrinate? Absolutely. Are your kids going to turn into communists because of it? No, probably the opposite.
MET: Where the indoctrination fear comes from is something much scarier and much more nuanced.
MET: We’ve all heard of critical thinking. And we all know it’s important. The thing is, most people don’t really know what it is, and we don’t do it very often.
MET: There is a difference between “thinking” and “critical thinking.”
MET: Thinking is puzzling through something. Figuring it out, or at least coming up with a question. Basic problem solving.
MET: Critical thinking is different. Critical thinking demands that you ask not just, “what is the problem?” but “How did it get this way? Why is the world like this? What are the systems that set this problem in motion? And who benefits from this problem or its proposed solutions?” Critical thinking is not just offering a solution, but doing a deep synthesis of the data that provides a cost-benefit analysis which details the impact of possible outcomes.
MET: Thinking is answering, “What?” Critical thinking is answering, “How, Why, and Who benefits?”
MET: This is what most people mean when they say indoctrination.
MET: Because for a lot of people analysis looks like indoctrination.
MET: Look, I teach political classes. ALL of my classes are in some way political. And most people assume that means I am up there telling my students what to think about politics. But that’s not it at all. I don’t shy away from telling my students what I think about a lot of political things, but I don’t preach my politics. What I DO preach is that the world is complex and nuanced, but that my students have the capacity to address its problems.
MET: Do you have any idea how terrifying that is for some people? To teach that the world cannot be divided into black and white categories, but that people have the capability to engage with it?
MET: For far too many people this comes across as politics. That I am shoving politics down people’s throats because I believe my students have agency.
MET: If that is the case, then I am absolutely a political professor. I preach politics all day long. Not because I preach my opinions, but because I tell my students they matter, they have agency, and that there are big questions out there and it is up to them to ask them.
MET: So color me political.
MET: Which brings me to the question of politics in other arenas. Specifically, the question of politics and the church.
MET: The Episcopa bishop, Sean Rowe, recently put out a video encouraging Episcopalians to vote. He said it was a Christian duty not just to vote, but to engage in the political process, and to do so with as much information as possible that you have used your thinking mind to discern and analyze. Often, calls like this rub mainline Christians the wrong way. There has long been a tradition in mainline churches to stay out of politics and be as neutral as possible. I’m going to tell you why that is not possible and there is no such thing as an apolitical church.
MET: In 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president. That year, my pedagogy changed. I had always been very careful to not let my students know what I thought about current politics, but I knew I could no longer do that. Because in 2015 it became clear that fascism was at America’s door. A racist strain of rhetoric that mirrored what had driving 1930s German politics was showing up in our politics, and the kind of nationalism and authoritarianism that got Mussolini to power was thriving. And I knew someday my daughter was going to look back on this time in American history and say, “Mom – what on earth happened? What was going on?” I didn’t know if I’d be able to explain everything. But when she asked me, “What did you do? Did you say anything? Where were you in all of this?” I knew I wanted to be able to tell her, “ I wasn’t silent. I said something. I did something.”
MET: So I gave up on a pedagogy and classroom politics of neutrality. Because I have read the works of the luminaries who changed the world in the past – and they all say the same thing: Being neutral is taking the side of the oppressor.
MET: When you choose to say nothing, you are tacitly endorsing the status quo. But not questioning the world in which you live, you are allowing it go go unquestioned! If I say nothing about my surroundings, if I ignore them so as not to rock the boat, then the journey goes along exactly as it has been. Nothing changes. And that means I have aligned myself with the way things are.
MET: And to claim that the church should be apolitical to begin with is 100% a 20th century idea.
MET: If you listened to our Christmas series, you heard us talk about how the Christmas narrative is absolutely a political story. And we know the crucifixion was a political death. Or, you should know anyway – it was Rome that killed Christ. And the history of the church is absolutely enmeshed with politics. The church didn’t really gain legitimacy until it was pretty much sanctioned by the state with Emperor Constantine, and really all the way through the Middle Ages the church and the state were the same thing. Then throughout the Reformation the WHOLE deal was a bunch of monarchs switching places and executing and burning whoever didn’t agree with their version of Christianity. If you heard Pastor Dan Brockway recently you know that the church has always been a political mainstay. And American churches pretty much only exist for political reasons, as the first Christians here were fleeing persecution, as people like to remind us so much. Religious freedom is very much a political issue.
MET: There has NEVER been a time when churches weren’t political. The question was never whether churches were political – Christianity is by its very nature political, The question has been how much should the church involve itself with the state. These are two very different questions.
MET: And I think too many mainline Protestants have confused them. One thing evangelicals have done well is understand that their faith impacts their politics. And as such, the church has something to say.
MET: Here’s the thing – the church absolutely SHOULD have something to say. But not because it seeks to amass power or wealth. That is the wrong kind of politics. The church should have something to say because Jesus had something to say.
MET: The think about Jesus’s politics is that they are radical. Jesus’s politics are subversive, confrontational, and they challenge the status quo. If the church does not embrace a similar politics then the church is, quite simply, not Christ-like.
MET: Jesus gave us a template – challenge the powerful; make sure the poor, the sick, the lonely, and the imprisoned are cared for; adopt a paradigm of mercy and forgiveness; accept all of those who have been marginalized; bless women, children, those who are outside of social (including gender) norms, and servants; and don’t let the rich and powerful get comfortable.
MET: If the church is not following that pretty clear set of operating procedures and openly advocating for a public that does as well, then the church is not doing its job.
MET: And I know a lot of people like to say, oh, we’re a big tent, we have people who believe all kinds of things.
MET: Ok, cool. But honestly, these aren’t negotiable. These are Jesus’s marching orders. If you don’t like them, well, then you just don’t like Jesus.
MET: So, yeah – the church has always been, and should be a political entity. Because like me, the church should be publicly telling people, yes, there are big problems, but there are ways to address them. Yes, there is poverty, but we as a society have the capacity to do something about that. Yes, there is a problem with the school-to-prison pipeline, but there are choices we can make to make that better.
MET: The church cannot be apolitical because Jesus was not apolitical. But Jesus rejected being part of the state. Jesus turned down the crown. Here again, the church should take note. It is not our job to be the state. It is our job to advocate for what is good. We do not rule. We help to make things better.
MET: I think that is the most important thing to understand about a political church. A church that follows Jesus’s example will absolutely be political – but it will not seek power; it will challenge power. A church that follows Christ’s example will not mandate rules, it will ask what rules are oppressive and what rules are liberational? A church that follows Jesus will live out a politics of freedom, love, mercy, and disruption to the state.
MET: A church that is in it for the politics of human greed will live out a politics of restriction and state power.
MET: A church that is afraid and is more interested in maintaining the status quo than the words of Jesus will do neither.
MET: If you have the luxury of remaining apolitical, then that tells me you are the beneficiary of oppression and are simply trying to keep things the way they are.
MET: We must ask ourselves if the same is true of our churches.
MET: Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, https://priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at https://priestandprof.org/donate/. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.
DDM: Music by audionautix.com
Leave a Reply