"Promises or Threats?"
The Unitarian Universalist Church
Rockford, IL
David R. Weissbard
December 14, 1997
I know of no sentient being who would not acknowledge that we have undergone significant social change in the last generation. Whenever there is social change, there are winners and there are losers. The wins and losses are not always easy to define - the superficial outcomes can mislead.
It is clear that the manifest role of women in our society has changed. I say manifest because there is significant evidence that women have always had power, but that it was often underground rather than open. We have laughed uneasily at the Ralph Kramdens and the Archie Bunkers of the world who have struggled to maintain the fantasy that although they received little respect from the world outside, they were at least better than their wives - while we knew they were not.
During my thirty-two years of ministry I have counseled with many women who were wrestling with the gap between the role they originally bought into and a life which they could now accept - and with husbands who found themselves having to deal with a very changed relationship. They had kept their part of the bargain, but their wives were demanding renegotiation.
Wise leaders of the women's movement have repeatedly urged men to get their movement together in the realization that men needed support in their changed situations just as women have needed support in theirs. Men have been reticent to get with it, and women could not drive it for us.
Men have experienced real and dramatic change in their life situations, which has been perceived as loss - the gains which are also real are sometimes obscured by the pain. There is a monumental gap between the perceived role of men a generation or two ago, and the perceived role today. Just as the domain of the British monarchy has shrunk, so has the role of the male. There is a pervasive sense of impotence - of powerlessness.
And the change is not only in the family. Accompanying it are changes in sexual morality, in the economy, in the power of our nation, in race relations, in religion, in technology - what area of life has remained untouched? Is there any?
There is a compelling sense of chaos, of confusion, of panic. If only we could go back to a more stable environment.
It is not hard to understand the appeal of the Promise Keepers. Someone had to come up with the idea - it was waiting to blossom.
Enter Bill McCartney, head coach of the football team at the University of Colorado. Coach Mac, as he is called, had found fundamentalism as a member of the right-wing Catholic "Word of God" movement when he was coaching in Michigan, and was referred to a related group when he moved to Colorado. He got in trouble for the religious indoctrination he imposed on his teams, and for the involvement of the University by implication in his very active anti-gay and anti-abortion activities. Representative Pat Schroeder referred to him as a "self-appointed Ayatollah." Coach Mac, of course, would say that he is not self appointed but called by God to his holy mission.
He dates the inspiration for the Promise Keepers back to a three hour car ride with a friend on March 20, 1990 to a meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He had the vision of an athletic stadium full of devoted Christian men, and started working toward that goal.
72 men gathered in 1990 in Boulder Colorado for the first Promise Keepers event, a year later 4,200 men participated in an event at the University of Colorado basketball arena, the next year it was 22,000, then 50,000 the next; this year at least a half a million gathered in Washington. Coach Mac quit his day job in January of 1995 to devote himself to his evangelism and his family. (His recent autobiography includes his confession that he was so immersed in the Promise Keepers that he was not keeping his promise to his family.) The budget for the Promise Keepers is estimated at $115 million, and they have a full time staff of 400, plus thousands of volunteers.
The Promise Keepers is not just Coach Mac and his friends. It works because it responds to a perceived need on the part of millions of men. Liberals and those to whom the PK's refer as secularists are very uncomfortable with the PK's for a variety of reasons. For one thing, raw religious passion makes us nervous, and they've sure got a lot of that. When you hear what PK's say, or read what they write about their experience, it is hard not to be moved. Listen to this account of the Washington event:
The positive attitude of the crowd would bewilder any onlooker. With each directive to stand, kneel, confess, raise Bibles or extend hands in worship, the expanse responded with enthusiasm, despite the physical inconveniences.This was a time of reconciliation. When the multitude was directed to break into small prayer groups, the ground was instantly a buzz of multicolored groups, arms enmeshed, murmuring prayers of repentance and intercession. Here every skintone, nationality, sect and tongue knew no barrier. Here the ground was level.
It was out of the ordinary. It was even an enigma. The diverse mass had journeyed for six grueling hours to repent, confess, worship and pray. But not because of any demonstration of power. Rather, the desperate cry of godly sorrow for sin marked a turn for the church. Hopefully the conviction that drew them would also drive each with purpose to ignite spiritual revival and awakening in their homes and churches. For they really came for one purpose. They came to pray.
Friends, at that event they united at one time in one place something like 4 times as many men as there are adult Unitarian Universalists of both genders. We are not in a position to offer what the Promise Keepers offer, and the truth is that we are jealous - and frightened.
The men who gathered on the Mall in Washington are not all fools or fanatics. Surveys of the crowd reveal, not surprisingly, that they were significantly conservative in their values - Newt Gingrich was held in much higher esteem by the participants than by Americans in general - feminist causes, of course, in much lower regard than by Americans in general. But it is important to understand that not one politician spoke - the Promise Keepers bill themselves as largely apolitical - they are focused particularly, at the moment, on the man in the family, and on his religious faith, and on his self esteem. Some men are attracted to the movement because of their guilt over not giving enough to their families and the sterility of their emotional lives. But the way these are addressed is a problem.
There is not a lot of ambiguity about the meaning of even the manifest portion of the message. Tony Evans, one of the Promise Keepers organizers, is the author of the most quoted statement I've encountered in the anti-Promise Keepers literature:
Sit down with your wife and say something like this: "Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role." I'm not suggesting you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back . . . There can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead. . . . Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!!
It is clear to the Promise Keeper leadership that God ordained a particular power structure which puts males at the top, in a role analogous to that of God, who is, of course, male. James Dobson, a major PK supporter, told one rally, that he acknowledged as "50,000 hairy-chested testosterone driven males" that "Nothing matters more to a godly woman than that a man accept spiritual leadership for her and her children." One of the books distributed at PK rallies for the men to take home to their wives, characterizes Eve and all women since as "gift[s]" from God "designed especially" for men. One writer suggests "By telling men to love their wives and asserting that men should be in control of the household, PK has introduced a softer form of male dominance, tinging it with paternalistic affection. PK may be creating kinder, gentler Neanderthals, but they are still Neanderthals." The reality is that there are some women who have been frightened by the confusion that role changes have brought and would prefer a neanderthal - note that I said "some."
The common metaphors used at the PK rallies are, not surprisingly, about sports and war. They are forming a Christian army to fight against God's enemies. Who are God's enemies? Well, lesbians, homosexuals and abortionists, for a start. By implication, also those who do not believe the same as the PK leadership believes, as articulated in their creed.
At least as troubling, if not more so - and I must confess I believe more so, is what many people are convinced is the hidden agenda of the Promise Keepers. One need only look at the list of people who have bankrolled the operation and have given their active support to it, to believe that the absence of a manifest political agenda at this time is only a strategy. One would easily project that once men are committed to the movement, and are participating at the intense level which the organizers anticipate, the political agenda will move into the light and it may be too late.
Remember, please, the small number of followers with which
Adolph Hitler began, and the relatively small number who were ever really
devoted to Nazi ideology. Eric Hoffer's True Believers seems
like a textbook for the PK movement. "Mass movements, said Hoffer, can rise
and spread without a belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.
Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness
and tangibility of its devil." Well, the PK's have a God, but they also have
devils, and we are them. In what sounds almost like words out of Coach Mac's
mouth, Hoffer said:
"The True believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too. Those who are not of his faith are evil; they who will not listen shall perish."
Compare the teachings of The Rev. James Ryle, Coach Mac's minister and a PK director since its founding who told one interviewer that he regards the Promise Keepers as the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of a great army that will destroy all the sinners and infidels in preparation for Armageddon, "Never have 300,000 men come together throughout human history except for the purposes of war." Coach Mac himself has said "We are calling you to war. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we capture every thought and make it obedient to Christ. . . . We have divine power . . . We have a holy cause." (You can see why Pat Schroeder used her Ayatollah analogy.) Speaking to a mass rally of 39,000 ministers, Coach Mac declared "whoever stands with the Messiah will rule with him." The parallels with Hoffer's True Believers are appalling.
I mentioned the supporters of the Promise Keepers -- who are they? Some of the prominent ones are:
All of these men are members of the right wing Council for National Policy which is dedicated to establishing the Unites States as a theocratic Christian nation. It has been suggested by advocates, not only opponents, that the PK Movement is the "third wave" of Evangelical political action - there was first the Moral Majority, which was replaced by the Christian Coalition - but neither of these ever really made it. The Promise Keepers has much broader appeal than either of the previous waves - it reaches a broader socio-economic spectrum, and its organizational structure makes the others look as politically sophisticated as Unitarian Universalists - which is to say, not very. The followup to PK rallies is for small groups of men to gather to "shepherd" each other along to living faithfully to the covenants to which they have agreed.
This "shepherd" term is one the PK's avoided for a while because it is related to some of the cult groups with which Coach Mac has been engaged. It entails surrendering one's own authority for decision making to the wisdom of the small group which makes sure you are following the right path. It is not unlike the cadres used so effectively for so long by the Chinese Communist Party. If they can be successful in keeping these small groups working effectively, the addition of the political agenda will be a small detail.
The next plan is for the Promise Keepers to have mass rallies on the front steps of every capitol in the 50 states on January 1, 2000. There is reason to believe and fear they can succeed.
So where is our hope? Are we, in fact, destined to see our nation to become like an Islamic fundamentalist state? If we write the Promise Keepers off either as a purely spiritual movement, or as a kooky fringe group, we increase the likelihood that they will succeed, as Hitler's followers succeeded in dominating what had been a liberal and sophisticated nation when his movement was not taken seriously. It can happen here.
So where is the hope? For one thing, the press has stopped dealing gently with them - although as the PK's power increases, it is possible that frank criticism will diminish. There are interfaith religious groups that are organizing to respond to them, including some Evangelical churches which see the PK's as a threat, even though sharing their theology. One group, called "Equal Partners in Faith" describes the theology of the Promise Keepers as:
To the extent that people can become informed about the real goals of the movement and the nature of its manipulative techniques, there is hope.
What got me started on this sermon was an article I read
in the Progressive Magazine (June,1996), written by Suzanne Pharr, a self
described "Lesbian leftie." Ms. Pharr found herself on a flight full of Promise
Keeper clergy following the big Atlanta rally. I will quote at length from
her account:
. . . The plane was full of men dressed in casual clothes, many sporting new Promise Keepers shirts. During the flight, they stood in the aisles, talking excitedly. The scene reminded me of the 1987 March on Washington, which I attended along with thousands of lesbians and gay men. For the first time in our lives, we were the majority in airplanes, subways, buses, restaurants, and the streets. The experience was exhilarating. The Promise Keepers on the plane seemed to be having a similar experience, as though they had found each other for the first time.After trying to escape through reading, I finally gave up and began chatting with the man next to me, dressed in a blue work shirt and jeans and reading a Tom Clancy novel. He reminded me very much of my brothers from rural Georgia. I asked if he was returning from Atlanta. "Yes," he replied. "I've just been to the Promise Keepers meeting, and I'm returning to my small town in Oregon."
I told him that I was a feminist, a civil-rights worker, and a lesbian, that I have very mixed feelings about the Promise Keepers, and that I wanted him to tell me about them. He told me that he was pastor at a Baptist church, married, father of a teenage son, and that he would enjoy talking about his experience with the Promise Keepers. "You are the second homosexual I've ever met," he said, adding with a grin, "I think." With that introduction, we launched into an hour-and-a-half-long conversation. The pastor told me that the first thing the Promise Keepers make clear is that men are responsible for all that's wrong with the family; they are not victims.
I told him that was going a little too far for this feminist--I think women might have some responsibility for the negative side of the ledger, too. He said the Promise Keepers were not to dominate their wives but to lead them. When I asked what this meant, he said, "Man's role is laid out in the Bible- 'As God is to man, man is to the family'-and it is to take charge of his family. This means listening to their needs and wishes, then deciding what is best for them."
I said, "As a feminist, I am deeply concerned about shared decision-making, about equality." "We share the conversations, but I make the decisions," he said. "My job is to lead."
This talk about leadership made me feel that I was in a time warp in which the women's movement had never occurred. I thought about the current status of women struggling with families, jobs, and intimate relationships. I thought about stories I have read that mention how pleased some Promise Keepers' wives are to have their husbands taking a dominant role in the family. With some sadness I considered how damning this is of many male-female relationships: that men are often so absent emotionally that women would be willing to give up autonomy in order to gain their husbands' presence. . . .
Of everything that happened to this pastor at the meeting, the most life-changing, he said, was racial reconciliation. [note: "Racial Reconciliation" is a big theme for the Pks - it does NOT mean racial justice or any kind of social change - it refers only to harmony, which some commentators point out could exist between slave and master. DRW] He said he had never thought about himself as someone prejudiced or discriminatory, and he came to recognize it in himself: "I'm not an emotional man, but I cried along with the audience when the men of color were called to the stage and they could not get there because they were intercepted by white pastors hugging them, shaking their hands, pounding them on the back." The pastors were sent home, he said, to work to bring about racial reconciliation in their churches. . . .
I asked the pastor about the Promise Keepers' attitudes toward lesbians and gays. The pastor said it was not for a Promise Keeper to judge homosexuals ("That is God's job") but that they believe homosexuality is immoral because the Bible says it is. "This is not judging?" I thought. He said that he was sure there were many of us who were fine people but that we suffered from being identified with our "fringe" people who marched in those San Francisco parades.
I asked him if Jesus today would not be thought of as gay--an unmarried thirty-three-year-old who spent almost all of his time with twelve close male friends, one of whom in particular was "beloved." He said, "No doubt if Jesus returned today, he might not be accepted in many churches." . . .
In the end, I thought we had communicated honestly with each other and that on some points, we had moved toward one another in understanding. It seemed to me that a great difference between us was his belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and my belief that it is a historical document with great spiritual content. I told him I thought that almost all of Christendom falls somewhere between those two positions. He agreed.
I wondered, can people who have very different beliefs and cultural practices live in peace with one another?
My final question to him was: Can you and I live in homes side by side, borrow sugar from one another, and encourage our children to play together? He said yes.
This conversation led me to think more deeply about the difference between the right's leaders (those engaged in an organizing strategy that threatens democracy) and its followers (those searching for solutions to social and economic instability, whose heartfelt beliefs make them easy targets for manipulation). Many progressives write off the latter, discarding them as ignorant or mean.
Our conversation stayed on my mind for weeks afterwards, and I thought of this one Promise Keeper with respect and continued interest. Then one day he phoned me long distance from his small town, saying he was just calling to keep in touch and to say what a profound effect our conversation had had on him.
"It eliminated whole areas of ignorance for me," he said. "Me too," I replied.
My conversations with this Promise Keeper made me understand that progressive people must rethink their relation to the American right. How do we point out the differences between the generals of this army and their recruits?
How do we talk to people who are different from ourselves? How do we hold different beliefs and still live in harmony? Is there any hope for preventing the merger of church and state if we do not hold authentic conversations with those who believe fervently in the inerrancy of the Bible? How do we get closer to people's real needs and their values in our organizing for change? Finally, how do we carry on this conversation and organize as progressives committed to equal rights for everyone--nothing more, nothing less?
It seems to me that Ms. Pharr points us in the direction of our own principles. The first Unitarian Universalist principle is "belief in the worth and dignity of every person," which includes Promise Keepers. And our fifth principle points us to "trust in the democratic process" - which means that we have some confidence that, given the participation of all who are concerned, the truth will, in the long run, win out. The burden that puts on us is to refuse to withdraw into the comfort of circles of people who agree with us, but to be willing to engage the Promise Keepers in the kind of open dialogue that Ms. Pharr had with her seat mate on the plane, and to make use of the media to address the underlying issues which are at stake.
If we are not able to win the contest between liberal and reactionary principles in this way, then it is probably true that our values have no right to survive. But to accept in advance that we cannot win is to surrender. And so we must hold our banner high in front us, trusting that by exercise of the democratic process the truth as we see it will triumph. It is our responsibility not to shirk from the task of holding our banner high.