|
Here are some further comments on the "New Rhetorical Strategy" forum in the current Touchstone. If you've read the other essays, the following will make more sense.
I think the disagreement is to some extent a misunderstanding. I don't think Beckwith is saying that we should *only* speak of the central moral issue; I think he allows the other approaches as well. And on my side we are not saying everyone must *only* use NRS, just that its a good time to diversify and try multiple approaches. So in the end we may agree as far as that goes.
The deeper disagreement seems to be that both Beckwith and Mills feel that it is irresponsible to leave unchallenged the underlying situation, that the common public has lost its moral compass. They don't want a turn against abortion that is based merely on pragmatics, because that grants a dangerous premise. They believe that instead of emphasizing practical arguments, the prolife movement should be developing a comprehensive program to restore moral reasoning across the entire culture.
Which, well, I don't know what to say. The term "armchair general" comes to mind. Why didn't we think of that! Sure, and we'll cure cancer while we're at it.
Of course, we did think of that. I have been in conversations with and had friendships with leaders of prolife organizations for the last fifteen years. I know how hard they think about these things. They are fully aware that we face an underlying worldview problem, and that the real need is for spiritual revival in a profound and pervasive sense. We recognize that anything short of that is a bandaid solution. Believe me, we know this.
But what's not so obvious is what to do about it. Take a moment and really think this through. Where are you going to meet "everybody" and how will you persuade them to fundamentally reorder their worldview? It seems the only way is through mass media. So, what--talk radio? CNN? How are you going to overcome their fundamental commitment to their own existing worldview, or even their desire not to think about hard things?
The most persuasive form of communication these days seems to be entertainment. Are you going to make a movie? How? wherever will you get the money? What is the universally persuasive story you'll present? Can you think of any Christian movies that were flops? Even if it succeeds, will it just stand beside a hundred other entertainments as one more option? How will you compel people to believe it is a superior option?
OK, say you reduce your goal; now you'll just try to reach people who are already open to considering new ideas, say those who read the op-ed page of a daily newspaper. Already you've made a significant concession and are approaching only a sliver of the population. For your op-ed you have 700 words--which will you choose? Will they be about the prolife issue, or about faith, or about moral logic? An NPR commentary is about 400 words. A billboard ideally no more than 7. You can get down to three, and nail wooden boards on trees throughout the South: "Repent and believe". Did it work yet?
In fact, I tried to do this a few months ago. NPR "Morning Edition" asked me to do a commentary on the discomfort conservatives feel at the increasing presence of gay themes in the culture. I thought about what I really wanted to say, and it was not testy or antagonistic, it was an outreach from faith. I said that in my church people struggle with all kinds of sins, sexual and otherwise, but that we come here because it is possible to find love, support, and healing. I said that I wanted to apologize to gays for the ways we have failed to communicate this and for the ways we have hurt them. And my editor said "this is not what we're looking for."
So you can't even say what you really want to say, sometimes; you have to say what the style, tone, taste of the particular media outlet will allow (this is called the "gatekeeper problem.")
There is no way to compel revival. Each of us has to just do what we can, faithful in our little tasks as God calls us, digging a tunnel with spoons, accepting "faithfulness" rather than "success" as a valid goal. In fact I expect that the consistent humbling of the pro-life movement is going to turn out to be an intentional part of God's plan for our own spiritual growth, when all the pages of the story have been turned.
I suspect that even though Mills and Beckwith have an opinion on what prolifers' goal should be, they don't have a plan for how we should do it. If they did, they would be doing it themselves. Of course, I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, and I'll keep watching. ********
Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com |
_______________________________________________ Frederica-l mailing list *** Please address all replies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** You can check your subscription information here: http://lists.ctcnet.net/mailman/listinfo/frederica-l
