March for Life: Catholics and Evangelicals

For years, Catholic University students have supported March for Life, the pro-life (or anti-abortion if you're on the other side of the debate) rally held annually in Washington DC. Several of my students informed me they would be participating on Fri. and thus absent from class. I decided to cancel class for Fri, although mother nature later took care of this.

One difference this year is the prominent participation of evangelical Christians in the March for Life. One would assume evangelicals would embrace the movement given their opposition to abortion, but Washington Post reporter Michelle Boorstein offers: "the reasons evangelicals haven’t been joining Catholics in public activism recently are theological, cultural and political." Pro-life advocate and Liberty University faculty Karen Swallow Prior probes deeper:

"Evangelical Protestants were deeply anti-Catholic . . .Some thought, whatever Roman Catholics were for, we should be . Evangelicals are more politically conservative and come at abortion opposition with a different language. Catholics have long spoken of abortion as a 'social justice' cause not unlike fighting poverty, while evangelicals saw the issue through an individual morality lens and were wary of Catholic language that to them sounded liberal."

The recent joining of Evangelicals and Catholics is a reminder that "religion" neither necessarily divides or unites potential activists. Mobilization strategy and political opportunity in this case outweigh religious identity/ideology.

Social Justice and the Common Good

Several months ago I posted a blog about the Justice Conference in light of a recent talk I had given on social justice. Social justice is an issue of personal faith for me rather than a topic for research, but I'm beginning to find ways to bring the two together.

 Although its less not at all obvious at my overtly Catholic institution, I do get the sense that academics have a harder time taking evangelical Christians as a group seriously. It doesn't help that the Evangelicals get a bad rap from secular liberals. 

What's sometimes lost or forgotten in the vitrol aimed at Evangelicals and Catholics is that many of these religious folks actually do care about others including the poor. I cut and taped this article by Donald Wuerl, currently the Archbishop of Washington DC, on my office door in January. His piece was in response to a petition identifying the Catholic Church as a hate group due to its position on homosexuality. In the article, he reminds us that the Archidiocese of Washington  functions as the largest non-governmental provider of social services in the DC area. I see several trucks giving out free meals to homeless outside the World Bank every evening - and I'm sure they are part of some faith-based ministry. Archbishop Wuerl writes: 

The church does not do these things for money or profit or because they’re nice to do. When the church treats the sick and injured, or feeds the hungry, or teaches, or provides assistance to those in need, it does so as an answer to the call made by Jesus Christ. We are obligated to do these and other works of mercy and to give voice to moral truth because He asks us to.

I remembered the piece by Fr. Wuerl after reading an op-ed from Michael Gerson who also linked Christian teaching with social justice. In searching for the common good, we pursue social justice (something I hear often at my Catholic-affiliated university, although clearly not practiced by all). The op-ed is premised with the idea/hope that American politics would look towards the common good.  Searching for the common good may be one way of bridging the divide and mitigating the dangers of extreme polarization in domestic politics and foreign policy.

So why am I writing about all this on my research blog?  A recurring theme in my research is how/why people come to draw different assumptions and conclusions about the world. In other words, how are beliefs, ideas, and worldviews shaped and how does politics and contention stem from these different beliefs and assumptions?  Take for instance these peace activist recently arrested for breaking into a nuclear facility. Why are they opposed to nukes? What motivated them to break the law? How does their understanding of security differ from that of the government's (and also the looney prosecutors who claim that these activists comprised American national security)?

One thing my social science training has taught me is that categories like activists or Evangelicals are rarely homogeneous, as much as we would like them to be. Christian tradition can produce contrasting conclusions as I found in my short research on North Korean human rights. Here's a comment from Gerson which particularly rang true in my findings on Evangelicals and human rights. Can you guess which group adhere to naming-and-shaming strategies and which ones focus on humanitarian assistance/engagement? 

"Nearly every Christian tradition of social ethics encompasses two sorts of justice. The first is procedural justice: giving people what they deserve under contracts and the law. The second is distributive justice: meeting some needs just because human beings are human beings. This is not the same thing as egalitarianism; confiscation is not compassion. But distributive justice requires a decent provision for the vulnerable and destitute. And this is not just a matter of personal charity. Social justice is more than crumbs from the table; it depends on the existence of social and economic conditions that allow people to live, work and thrive."

The Justice Conference

I gave a talk at my alma mater last fall titled, "Rights, Mercy, and Social Justice for the Oppressed: Reflections on Faith and Politics." I'm not particularly an expert on said topic and for full disclosure I relied quite a bit on Tim Keller's Generous Justice to help me organize my thoughts. The basis for the talk, however, was really just my reflections on justice through some of my research on North Korean human rights and humanitarian aid. I wasn't aware of this until just now, but there's actually a whole conference dedicated to faith and justice which will take place in a few days. The Justice Conference. Definitely a lot more material to rely on next time I give such a talk.

Evangelicals and Politics

Evangelicals get a bad rap for their intolerance and their association with right-wing conservatism. Some of this criticism is deserved. But I've also felt that the media and broader American public lump all "religious" Christians (those actively practicing their faith) into the category of "evangelical" and "conservative."

My own research (and advocacy) on North Korean human rights and humanitarian aid suggests this is wrong. I've encountered several evangelicals working with faith-based NGOs who think outside of the conservative box, supporting a more liberal political agenda. I've also read a couple of blogs by self-proclaimed liberal evangelicals. The death of evangelical theologian heavyweight John Stott last year also prompted Nicholas Kristof to write about compassionate evangelicals fighting for social justice.

Anyway, I just read Chris Seiple's critical response to Robert Putnam's Foreign Affairs piece "God and Caesar in America" which confirmed my observations. I think the problem in identifying "liberal" evangelicals has to do with the fact that they operate relatively silently and without recognizable leaders. Sieple offers a nice description:

They want to be defined by what they are for -- an orthodox reading of scripture, the interpretation and application of which they must faithfully grapple with -- instead of what they are against... They largely hold the same values as Evangelicals, they just aren't angry about it...

They might find aspects of the Democratic Party appealing, especially its heart for the disenfranchised, and be "turned off" by the Republican religious narrative Putnam and Campbell describe. At the same time, they do not feel comfortable with a party that seemingly resists any public discussion of what it means to be pro-life and to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Adding to Seiple's response, I'd add that whether this group votes Republican or Democrat will depend on how they balance their position on social issues (poverty, education, health) versus social values (gay marriage, abortion).

So what's this have to do with social movements? Well, my impression is that you're more likely to see right-wing evangelicals take it to the street (i.e. the Tea Party, North Korean human rights) than their more progressive brethren. Which is why the media and mainstream America will continue to lump all evangelicals into the conservative, right-wing camp.

The Spread of Ideas and the Protestant Reformation

I assigned Daniel Philpott's Revolutions in Sovereignty in my grad seminar. What struck me was the mechanisms leading to the transnational diffusion of ideas and the spread of a movement (in this case the Protestant Reformation). It's a classic example of social/transnational movement theory applied to history.

Philpott pinpoints the origins of the movement to Luther's theology. Luther didn't create ideas from thin air, but through a process of reflection, influenced by "late medieval theology, espeically nominalism, which emphasized God's inscrutability and fallen man's distance from Him" (p.123). Luther's own spiritual criss stemmed from "excessive monastic discipline," and his revulsion against corrupt practices of the Church.

Luther's ideas first spread within monasteries, then to the clergy, then to congregations. Missionaries and church pastors helped transmit ideas. Two novel means of disseminating information were the sermon (previously, the Word was not preached, but conducted through ritual and readings of Scripture) and the pamphlet (with the invention of the printing press).

Ideas here are powerful b/c they first shape identities. After potential converts encounter reformation theology, through a process of reflection and mental toil, they begin to identify themselves as Protestants.

Second, ideas are a form of social power. Converts begin to organize themselves and transalte their commitment to political orders (i.e. new converts might mobilize into political parties, congregations, etc...).

Its the poltiical theology of Reformation which becomes really interesting. The reformers were critical of the hierarchal authority of the Church (105-107). These new converts aligned (or were perhaps used) with secular authorities (i.e. Protestant German princes) who were also opposed to the Church, but more specifically, Charles V and the Holy Roman Emperor. These reformers demanded that the spiritual and secular realm be organized separately. Thus, Philpott finds a correlation between regions where the Reformation crisis was powerful, and strong political interests in establishing a Westphalian sovereign state system.