Mark Chaves, professor of sociology at Duke University and director of the National Congregations Study, has this interesting chart detailing how broadly defined Christian groups engage politically. (Full disclosure: Mark and I went to high school together. In fact, I was briefly a really bad drummer in his really mediocre band.)
A close examination will show that the so-called Religious Right—which is what we associate with white evangelicals generally, no?—is not all that politically active, at least relative to the other groups studied. In fact, “Black Protestant” congregations appear to be the most consistently “political.” But as they would constitute the Religious Left, at least in the thinking of the mainstream media (to the extent that you could call “thinking” what such organs of disinformation usually do), any breaching of the wall of separation between church and state is ostensibly less worrying. (Let’s be frank: if you say you are against the death penalty because Jesus was a “victim” of the death penalty misapplied, how many on the secular left would care? But if you say you are against abortion because Jesus was once a fetus in the womb of an unmarried woman—duck.)
With that said, the real “marchers” in this study are Catholics. (And the issue most likely to get a group marching? You guessed it: abortion.) But will the scandals that have once again co-opted discussion about things Catholic make political engagement more difficult in the long run? Will every discussion of religion in the public square be diverted by angry denunciations, accusations of hypocrisy, and questioning of moral authority? Will Catholics be forced to retreat in the culture wars? And can evangelicals take their place?
Short answer: no.
Why? Catholicism has always provided an alternative culture for its adherents, complete with its own rich history and traditions. When you were on the march as a Catholic, you were confident that you were surrounded by a great cloud of persecution-tested witnesses. Evangelicalism, on the other hand, has fought the culture war by either retreating into an anti-culture consisting of a long string of No’s (no drinking, no dancing, no gambling, no smoking, no theater, no, no, no)—or by co-opting the prevailing culture. But instead of converting it, evangelicalism has too often become indistinguishable from that culture. So six of one, half a dozen of another.
(It should be noted that this was not the case for a long time among British evangelicals, who were often in the forefront of profound social movements: from the institution of child-labor laws and the Factory and Coal-Mines Acts to the end of the slave trade and the birth of the hospice movement.)
Where does that leave us? I can’t say, as this is a family website.
April 13th, 2010 | 9:26 am
[...] Previous |Home| The Herd of [...]
April 13th, 2010 | 9:36 am
The Chaves chart was interesting, primarily because it makes intuitive sense to anyone who knows anything about the differences between the four “faith groups.”
However, your own picture of the chief difference between Catholics and evangelicals — that Catholics are a genuine sub-culture, while evangelicals oscillate between being cultural conformists or isolated “againers,” is basically a cartoon — and not a particularly accurate cartoon.
Practically the only place in the modern world where Catholicism is a genuine sub-culture is the United States, fromed both as a reaction against America’s Protestant culture and as an imitation of it.
April 13th, 2010 | 10:08 am
An interesting survey and blog post, but I’m not sure that I buy it. I took a quick look at the code book for the survey data in the National Congregations Study and am a bit puzzled at how things are being divided up. For example, the Church of God in Christ, which is the largest Pentecostal body in the U.S. and also primarily African-American would primarily be counted as Black Protestant while white Pentecostal denominations like the Assemblies of God would be Evangelical. This seems quite strained to me given that both denominations are part of Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of America. So, how do you sort them? Both churches actually have pretty much the same theological perspectives and their historical origins are intertwined. Because such surveys MUST classify somehow, invariably these dynamics get flattened out.
The other issue, it seems to me, is that of the classic problem of defining Evangelicalism. For example, if you include the holiness movement of the 19th century in that grouping, then you have a lot of churches that, at least historically, have been quite socially active. I think of Asa Mahan one of the presidents of Oberlin College who was an abolitionist and consulted Lincoln on matters of national interest. Or, the way in which tent revivals and camp meetings functioned in the holiness movement of the 1880s and 1890s as a racial haven where Blacks and Whites could come together. Also, the holiness movement was part of the first wave of “feminism.” So, they were not simply part of the party of “no.”
Evangelicalism was co-opted in part by a more virulent strain of Reformed theology stemming from the Old Princeton-Westminster group that looked down pretty heavily on all holiness folks as witness Warfield’s two-volume diatribe on enthusiasm.
April 13th, 2010 | 12:03 pm
I agree with Santayana that Christianity does not penetrate very deeply into the particular culture or nation. The interests of the culture, tribe or family is always the most important thing. Perhaps it must be that way, since we have to live in THIS world, and any thoughts of the next world are purely speculative. I am very suspicious of people who claim to have lifted the curtain, peeked into heaven, and now can tell us what God wants us to do. Christianity can be perverted by anyone for any purpose. Sometimes the best we can do is go to Mass and listen to the teaching authority of the Church.
April 13th, 2010 | 12:05 pm
Anthony,
It remains to be seen whether we are now moving again into a period where scandal will “co-opt discussion of things Catholic”. Maybe, maybe not. I do not think that this is like 2002 and its aftermath, as far as the Catholic Church in the U.S. is concerned.
In 2002, Catholics in the U.S. were learning about misdeeds of their own bishops and of priests in their own dioceses, parishes, and schools. Most Catholics see that mess as having largely been cleaned up. The present situation involves two distinct phenomena: (1) Similar abuse cases surfacing in Europe (esp. Ireland and Germany, so far), and (2) attempts to discredit the pope by linking him to old cases in which he is supposed to have been negligent. The cases in Europe, because they are in Europe, and (as in the U.S.) largely involve cases from long ago, are not having, I think, anything like the massive shocking impact on Catholics here that the events of 2002 had. As far as the accusations against the pope are concerned, I think most Catholics are savvy enough to be skeptical of them, and many see them as deliberate smears.
In 2002, Catholics in the U.S. (across the theological spectrum) were utterly furious at their bishops and deeply ashamed. Today, there is great sadness at what is being revealed in Europe, to be sure. But there is also anger at the unjustness with which the Pope is being treated — a lot of anger. I suspect that that anger will, if anything, put a little more stiffness into the spine of Catholics. If these attacks on the pope were meant to demoralize and intimidate, I am pretty sure that they will fail, both as regards the pope himself, and as regards American Catholics as a whole.
Another thing that many people don’t realize is that the bishops we now have in the U.S. are not cut from the same cloth as the bishops thirty years ago. They are mostly in the mould of Benedict and are not going to run from a fight.
April 13th, 2010 | 4:20 pm
[...] comes via Anthony Sacramone on First Things’ blog, where Joe Carter also comments, comparing politically engaged [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact