When did “Moderate” Become a Dirty Word?
I have a friend who is fond of declaring “moderation in all things—including moderation.” Perhaps there is something to be said for breaking out of our ruts once in a while and kicking up our heels a bit. Maybe it’s even healthy for us to push the envelope every now and then. The trouble is, rejecting moderation is not a sustainable lifestyle over the long haul—not for individuals and certainly not for nations.
This is a lesson ignored by many of the current candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, and nowhere is this oversight more apparent than in the constant attacks directed towards Mitt Romney for being too moderate. Newt Gingrich has taken to calling him “The Massachusetts Moderate,” assuming, evidently, that this is a derogatory term on two counts. One doesn’t have to be a Romney supporter to understand that a larger agenda is at play here. Moderation itself is under attack.
Before the emergence of the Tea Party and the explosion of right wing talk radio, moderation was a value embraced by both parties in America. Barry Goldwater learned the hard way in 1964 that extremism (even in the defense of liberty) was a vice. It was not a concept the electorate was ready to embrace. Now, candidates seem to be clamoring past one another in a headlong race to see who can offer the most extreme views. Ron Paul wants to eliminate foreign aid and roll back the Civil Rights Act of the sixties. Rick Perry will begin the eradication of two government agencies on the first day he takes office (and possibly a third if he can remember which one.) Rick Santorum insists on the right of government to regulate private sexual acts between adults in their own homes. Newt Gingrich wants Congress to take control of the judiciary.
Conservatives and liberals have always disagreed over solutions to the problems before the country, but the American experiment has worked largely because each side has been willing to moderate strongly held positions in order to meet practical needs. Sometimes decisions have tilted towards one side or the other, but, for the most part there has been a large center extending well into each party where leaders could invite, persuade, cajole and perhaps even coerce colleagues to stand. This is no longer the case. The ideological commitment to extreme positions is so strong that even the Speaker of the House, in a Republican controlled Congress, is no longer able to drag the rank and file into the moderate zone. Gridlock happens because concepts like moderation and compromise have become anathema to a significant portion of the Congress. It is a condition that may play to the egos of the extremists themselves, but it also puts the governance of the country at risk.
Extremists co-opted and compromised the word “liberal” decades ago. The term has never recovered. Now they would do the same to the idea of moderation. When we eliminate both the left and the middle from legitimacy in the political arena we do so at our extreme peril.
Churches, no less than political parties, face the challenges of extremism. One of the great strengths of United Methodism over the generations is that our tent has been broad enough to include many theological perspectives, many worship styles and many social positions. Although we have not always agreed with each other, we have, by and large, maintained a large center. The greatest threats to the church have always come from those who for ideological or theological reasons have sought to exclude others from that center. The first split in Methodist ranks came in the 1790’s when black believers were relegated to the balcony. The 1820’s brought the next fracture when lay people sought to be included in governing the church and were barred by clergy. The 1840’s brought the greatest divide of all over the issue of slavery, where the basic human dignity of God’s beloved children was denied by large numbers of believers. The ensuing hundred years saw battles around whether women belonged in the pulpit, a debate that was not settled until 1956. And now, since 1972 the church has been harming itself by its attempts to exclude gay and lesbian people from full inclusion in the church.
A moderate position is not to adopt a little inclusion and a little exclusion. The moderate position is to create a large center in which all are welcome. History is bringing us there, slowly but surely. Perhaps some of us will live to see the day when the center of the church will be as wide and embracing as the center of God’s kin-dom. We can only pray that it will be so.
The priest offered her his arm and together they walked out into the cold clear night
Reception following the Carol Sing
And this has all begun with Amy, the person whom the church is saying is a threat to God’s reign. Throughout the whole process she has continually built up the body of Christ around her by establishing a tone of compassion and integrity in all she does. She has refused to allow the trial team to advance arguments based on technicalities and minor legal maneuverings. She has told us that she would far rather lose her case and speak the truth, than win the case and remain silent about what is most important to her. I don’t know whether our arguments at trial will prevail, although I am hopeful for a good outcome, but I love what Amy said to someone recently who asked her what she thought were her chances of winning: “Our chances of winning are 100% because our goal is to tell the truth and that is exactly what we will do.”
