"Values are insubstantial stuff, existing primarily in the imagination," Allan Bloom wrote in "The Closing of the American Mind" (1987). During the Cold War, the language of "values"--in which beliefs about good and evil are deemed purely subjective--worked well for relativists and, not least, peaceniks, as Mr. Bloom explained. If the U.S. and the Soviet Union merely had different "values," there was no real need for confrontation.

Such language now appears to be serving the same purpose in the culture war. After polling suggested that people who voted on the basis of "values" were key to President Bush's 2004 re-election, members of what used to be known unambiguously as the Religious Right took to calling themselves "values voters." The cultural left has understood this language shift as a sign that maybe we can all be friends.

Two weeks ago, Third Way, a self-described "strategy center for progressives," released a document called "Come Let Us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values Between Evangelicals and Progressives." It amounted to a broad statement of principle signed by folks like Joel Hunter, a Florida mega-church pastor, David Gushee, a Christianity Today contributor, and other less-than-prominent progressives and evangelicals. Jill Pike, Third Way's deputy director of public affairs, emailed me to say that, by trying to bridge the gap between the two groups, "we are not talking about compromising each other's values but instead creating an approach that will inevitably lend itself to progress and change." The statement itself asserts that the two groups want "the same protections, public benefits, and opportunities" for gays and lesbians. The signers also agree that, to reduce the incidence of abortion, young people need better access to contraception and more sex education. Well, at least evangelicals' values weren't compromised!

Filed under: * Religion News & Commentary • Other Churches • Evangelicals

1. John B. Chilton wrote: Read it all: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010786 October 26, 3:10 pm | [comment link]

2. dpeirce wrote: Same old same old. “We can differ in peace if you accept my values as at least being OK for me”. Once their “values” are acceptable for any reason, they are acceptable, period. Then, just like in money, the bad drives out the good and my values disappear when I die. Takes a little longer for the bad to win, is all. But it’s “peaceful” and “loving”. In faith, Dave Viva Texas October 26, 4:08 pm | [comment link]

3. Anglican Paplist wrote: No. We can’t all get along. Its all about that sword thing Jesus mentioned. AP+ October 26, 4:42 pm | [comment link]

4. Sarah1 wrote: RE: “The statement itself asserts that the two groups want “the same protections, public benefits, and opportunities” for gays and lesbians.” I am, as usual, appalled at the rank bigotry here expressed against unpopular sexual orientations that are given short shrift, with the more popular sexual orientations greedily scarfing up the redefinitions of marriage, while stingily withholding it from other sexual orientations that, though perhaps less common, and more looked down upon by society, still exist in loving, mutual, and consensual ways for certain minority segments of the population. October 26, 9:59 pm | [comment link]

5. dpeirce wrote: Sarah #4: That’s all well and good, except God specifies sex is to occur only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. But I get the feeling you won’t agree with that? In faith, Dave Viva Texas .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) October 26, 10:28 pm | [comment link]

6. Branford wrote: Dave - Sarah loves sarcasm. October 27, 1:52 am | [comment link]

7. libraryjim wrote: Yeah, we got it, because we know Sarah and the tone of her posts. October 27, 10:15 am | [comment link]

8. dpeirce wrote: Well, there are a couple of Sarahs ^_^. In faith, Dave Viva Texas October 27, 1:40 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.