The Shape of Evangelical Political Action, Pawlenty Steps Out (Again), More Palin, More Anderson, just more
What About Evangelicals?
Last cycle we talked a lot here about how hard it is to put your finger on who are evangelicals and what is evangelicalism. It’s a theological viewpoint that has spread across multiple religious institutions. It’s a culture of sorts. It’s has been a bit of political movement. Sometimes it’s even an ersatz form of denomination. We looked last week at an article that wondered who spoke for Evangelicals. This week sees a post on the diversity of view amongst Evangelicals on something as rudimentary as creationism and evolution. Some see the Religious Right as strong as ever and some see Evangelicals growing elitist. And of course, there is a great deal of internal religious debate between the political left and right.
There is fascinating empirical evidence that freedom and religion go hand-in-hand: (HT: Instapundit)
Official Chinese surveys now show that nearly one in three Chinese describe themselves as religious, an astonishing figure for an officially atheist country, where religion was banned until three decades ago.
The last 30 years of economic reform have seen an explosion of religious belief. China’s government officially recognizes five religions: Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam and Daoism. The biggest boom of all has been in Christianity, which the government has struggled to control.
All of which brings me to an interesting, if very heady and academic, debate around Godblogging about how Christians should approach changing things:
As a result of this totalization of politics, the evangelical imagination about how to change the world has been sorely stunted. This was most evident in the recent health care debate, where the only question that was pursued by evangelicals of all ages was which statist solution we should implement to the problems that we face.
What’s more, rather than being motivated by a vision of the good and by care for the world, evangelical politics, left and right, has—according to Dr. Hunter—been fueled by ressentiment, or a strong sense of injury. So conservative evangelicals are held captive by stories of secular institutions who refuse to allow the Christian worldview into their discourse about the nature of the world, stories which are used well to raise funds, but which reinforce a culture of negation and hostility toward those with whom we differ.
As a descriptive account of evangelical political culture, this is hard to disagree with. Indeed, the purported leftward shift among my peers away from issues like gay marriage, abortion, and other traditional social conservative issues has been fueled in my estimation less by a serious and substantive disagreement over policy and philosophical issues, and more by the distaste we have at this sort of political world.
And yet.
There is a danger in describing the political culture of evangelicalism to relativize the political theories that motivate evangelical political action. In other words, because conservative and liberal evangelicals are both driven by anger and a sense of injury, which option we choose is irrelevant for solving the problem of a totalizing politics. Though I don’t think Dr. Hunter would agree with this, it’s not hard to interpret his book that way.
Very interesting points, but I want to put my two cents in on something that I see few addressing. Religious political action is not nearly as effective as most would like it to be. In presidential politics that we follow here, the best it seems to be able to do is spoil – it cannot act decisively. Like a petulant child, tantrums can be thrown, but nothing positive seems to be accomplished. Some of this is the result of acting out of a sense of injury and anger as described above, but much of it also stems from the relative lack of institutionalization that marks the current state of Evangelicalism.
The statistics on the mainline protestant denomination (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists…) are frightening – they are shrinking. Recently, even Baptists, who are very loosely affiliated, are showing a bit of a decline. What is growing are completely independent congregations – what I have come to call entrepreneurial churches – almost all of which are evangelical in outlook. This is a problem for political action. There is a debate about whether they are in competition with denominations. I am not sure they are on a religious level as most functional denominational congregations are turning very evangelical in style and outlook. As a resource, a new site – Patheos – is looking into the future of the denominations. (HT: Kruise Khronicle) Some find the lack on institutionalization in the entrepreneurial, evangelical church problematic.
Which brings me back to political action. These entrepreneurial, evangelical churches are often idiosyncratic and personality driven. The typically result becasue an individual is identified as “a leader” and he hangs up a church shingle, as it were, and builds a church. Often this leader identification happens in the context of another congregation, driven by another personality, and the new church forms out of a schism of some sort. In other words, these are people that are not good at large movements, they are good at carving out niches’. Put plainly, they make herding cats look easy.
Successful political action by Evangelicals, who are mostly entrepreneurial has occurred when they have joined an effort that is underway, like when they joined with Roman Catholics and Mormons in the Prop 8 fight. They just cannot organize themselves sufficiently to take a lead role. As a denominationalist myself, I hope this bodes well for the denominations. At the moment we seem to continue to tear ourselves apart, but the need for organizational capability does give me hope.
What this observation says is that the approach to Evangelicals that was whispered by the Romney camp a few weeks ago (not so much “punt” as the media would have it, but come join us, we are not going to court you) makes a lot of sense. A national candidate cannot court that many niches. But they can unite behind parade that is moving in the same direction they are. That is essentially what Reagan did in 1980.
There will be some petulance from those that expect to be courted and there will be some tantrums from the unenlightened Mormon-bashers, but all in all this cycle will look very different from the last if one gets past the vitriol and looks at the general trends. Be sure and read past teh deadlines. Which brings me to…
Pure Politics
Tim Pawlenty has been making a big splash in the last week or so. The Fix, Politics Daily, and Dan Balz all saw fit to discuss it. Pawlenty is very much where Romney was this time last cycle, minus the religious baggage. However I think Romney’s now large name recognition and the fact that the religious baggage is out of steam means that Pawlenty will never get enough traction to go very far. He’ll finish second unless Palin or Huckabee actually run, but I just don;t see him making an impact this cycle.
Sarah Palin is the top Republican Candidate is how Politico sees it. Some think she is the ultimate running mate for Romney. (Nice note on Huck’s role last cycle in that one too) Interesting idea, but I honestly think she has no desire for the second slot. Some think Republicans are bigger misogynists than they are Mormon haters. The later is an opinion that lends a great deal of credence to the survey CBS reports here:
If former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin decides to jump into the 2012 presidential race, liberals would be thrilled, an unofficial poll released today shows.
As we have said, the left-leaning media will do whatever they can to prevent a Romney candidacy. He is the most serious of the bunch and is the hardest “target.” (I’d love to know what JournoList has to say about Romney?)
Jeb Bush is not running. *Yawn* Only surprizing to silly people.
Romney looks like Ted Danson. *Double Yawn with a Smirk* In other Romney news, the Boston Phoenix, which typically misses no opportunity to make Romney look bad, analyzes proposes changes to the primaries, reasonably, if only in the concluding paragraph. (Ignore the headline.) Chris Cilizza names Romney’s “inner circle.“ There have been intimations that last week’s Palin crack emanated from this circle – NONSENSE!
Finally, a local Utah columnist looks at last week’s impenetrable Anderson/Volokh post and concludes that Romney will still have to deal with his faith this cycle. Yes he will, but it will play very differently than last time. The charges will come almost exclusively from the left and they may, if played properly serve to unite the right against a common foe.
And on a final note…
…and speaking of Mormon stuff, I found this interesting. Faith an immigration is going to get really interesting, and I think the current administration may try to use it to divide us like Huckabee used the Mormon question last cycle. Beware.
Posted in Reading List | 8 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention The Shape of Evangelical Political Action, Pawlenty Steps Out (Again), More Palin, More Anderson, just more | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 28 Jul 2010 at 8:14 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Patrick Robinson and Republican In Exile, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: The Shape of Evangelical Political Action, Pawlenty Steps Out (Again), More Palin, More Anderson, just more: What … http://bit.ly/bYYYLB [...]
kgbudge on 28 Jul 2010 at 8:45 am #
From the Standard-Examiner article:
I must have missed that one. I do remember taking a vow not to speak evil of them, but that’s a very different thing.
JLF9999 on 28 Jul 2010 at 11:24 am #
God may chose someone to be a prophet but that doesn’t mean everything that comes out that prophet’s mouth is prophecy. All we have to do to prove that point is look at Moses. The others had their human frailties as well. So is it any wonder that when God selects someone for a particular mission today, he has any better material to work with than he ever had? I don’t think so. So it seems to me to be with Evangelicals – God bless and keep them. Some are respectful, well spoken, thoughtful and intelligent. Others, like so many with a particular agenda to smite those they disagree with, resemble the Taliban and Islamic terrorists more than Christians.
It seems logical to me that when any religious groups seeks to exert political influence it takes on the trappings and manners of politicians. That means they speak half-truths, fail to follow basic manners and ignore context. Once they adopt those habits it becomes easy to make them part of their religious thinking and ecclesiastical behavior too. If God fearing people want to be involved in politics, they should insist that their leaders and institutions not be. They should stick with the moral and religious issues. Otherwise, they create more division than cohesion and that just doesn’t seem to be Christian. Or so it seems to me.
John Schroeder on 28 Jul 2010 at 11:57 am #
JLF9999:
Blanket statements about politicians are no better than blanket statements about persons affiliated with a specific religion. Yes, some politicians have been known to “speak half-truths, fail to follow basic manners and ignore context,” but many, even most, others are good people doing their very best to serve their constituencies and the nation.
Politics is not a game or a show – it is very real and very important. When we treat it like an ugly stepchild, that it what it will become and no one is well served by that.
JLF9999 on 29 Jul 2010 at 8:37 am #
John
I sent you an email suggesting my comment was not doable. I hold by that. How does one prove one way or another? It was a silly suggestion on my part.
Moving on. A problem has erupted in Temecula, CA regarding a proposed Mosque near two churches, in the area. The locals also objected to the construction of an LDS church near a traditional Christian school in that city some years back too. The objections were all based on zoning , traffic and the usual things neighbors object to in such matters. However, one element in the community decided to take it one step further. According to the newspaper, the Valley News, an e-mail was sent to them which announced that a one-hour “singing – praying – patriotic rally” will begin at 12:30 p.m. July 30 at the Islamic Center’s existing facility. The advisory – sent by a leader of a conservative coalition that has been active with Republican and Tea Party functions – recommended participants “bring your Bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voices.”
“We will not be submissive,” the notice proclaimed. “Our voices are going to be heard!” The alert went on to question what its authors described as Islamic beliefs. It suggested that participants sing during the rally because Muslim “women are forbidden to sing.” It suggested that rally participants bring dogs because Muslims “hate dogs.” The article is here.
JLF9999 on 29 Jul 2010 at 10:19 am #
If anything makes me want to re-examine my thinking and my status as a Christian man, it is behavior that we see in the Temecula piece. The absolute last thing I want to be associated with are people who wantonly abuse others. I have seen that and even taken a few steps down that road myself. It is unpleasant, destructive and can be difficult to backtrack from. So, when I see it, I recognize it and shun it. More than that, I fear it. Not for it what it does to me, although it is an awful thing, but because of what it does to others, especially those I love. It must be confronted. It must be because it is the representation of what my theology tells me is a struggle that has gone on since before the earth was made. In the very real sense it is darkness versus light. It is evil versus good, right versus wrong. It destroys and never builds.
It causes me to stop and reflect. Do I in any way think like the writers of the email? Would I be willing to participate in such an ugly protest against any group I disagree with? How far would I go to voice my opinion? Fortunately, my moral compass has been influenced by my church and has guided me, in as much as I have listened, to treat everyone with love unfeigned, understanding and kindness. It is always there, if I listen. It asks me the think about others. It asks me to consider what influenced the email writer’s moral compass. Where did they get their ideas? Who supplied the guidance on how to behave? Is their thinking just a holdover from a turbulent, violence filled youth where peers and mentors acted out, as I suspect, or is it something they came upon later in life? If they are active, church going people, what does their church teach them and are they listening?
My role as a change agent, through training and education, emphasized frequent re-examination of ourselves to correct behaviors that are self defeating. It is a difficult skill to master and requires the ability to see others and ourselves objectively. It takes practice and like every worthwhile skill, constant application. My personal and professional experience tells me it may be one of the most challenging things we will ever do. It is challenging because it requires us to drop our emotionalism and step out of who we think we are. That is no small thing. Doing it occasionally will seldom make permanent changes in us and may only teach us how to get out of a jamb without changing who were are fundamentally. We see that in people who are quick with a mea culpa to fit a public face and afterwards go back to old thinking habits. Successful people repent, make amends and then change the behavior. So it should be with our behavior towards those with whom we disagree. Ugly confrontation only makes enemies and enlists us an agent of darkness.
coltakashi on 30 Jul 2010 at 12:16 pm #
Does one’s religion determine where you stand on the Arizona statute? It is not clear to me that it should. There are all sorts of aspects of religious belief that are affected by this issue, including, on the one hand, the need to maintain an orderly and just society by sustaining and obeying the law, as long as it is the law, while also having compassion for the poor, even if they are different from you in appearance, speech or religious belief, or even nationality.
For that matter, it is not clear how a Republican should view the Arizona statute and the immigration issue. If Republicans are supposed to support freedom of contract and freedom to choose where you want to work (as an employee) and who you want to hire (as an employer), why shouldn’t you be able to hire people from another country to work in your US facility. Surely you are free to hire the same people to do the same work in a factory in their own country, so why shouldn’t you be able to pay them to do the work in the US, where at least some of the money they are paid will stay in the local economy?
On the other hand, Republicans identify themselves as being concerned with maintaining America’s national identity and protecting national security against unrestricted entry by people that might include the occasional career criminal or terrorist. They are also concerned about an undue burden of public welfare services being placed on taxpayers.
During the last spasm of attempted immigration law reform under Bush and McCain, I think those leaders assumed that the pro-immigration interests among Republicans were the predomonant constituency for immigration reform, disregarding the strong grassroots concern about the negative impact that uncontrolled immigration has on communities and states. It is mainly because Republicans have lost power with the Obama ascendancy that Republicans can afford to adopt the persona of speaking for the “more control” wing of Republicans, since the Democrats have adopted the role of the “uncontrolled immigration” advocates.
I think a rational policy on illegal immigration would, first of all, recognize that (a) if the US Government does not control the borders and who crosses them, then the control is being given to the ruthless criminals who smuggle people, drugs and guns, and (b) there is nothing sacred, smart, or rational in the arbitrary limits in current immigration law on the number of legal immigrants, and they are clearly way too low to comport with the economic reality of the demand for unskilled labor. A rational immigration policy would establish real border control, while at the same time putting flexibility into the immigration law to allow the number of people allowed to come to the US to work to increase with actual observed demand.
As we face the difficult issue of what to do with existing illegal immigrants, we should take advantage of the information we have about each person because of his or her record of behavior within the US. That is more important than whether they can pony up $1,000 to pay a fine to get on a waiting list for permanent resident status. In fact, it is more likely that criminal illegal immigrants would be able to get that kind of funds together on short notice and fill up the queue before law-abiding immigrants. Why not give a person points for years of law-abiding work in the US, for fulfilling the duty to support spouse and children? Then deduct points for convictions of crimes and arrest for other crimes.
Asking the LDS Church or any other Church to weigh in on immigration policy is akin to asking it to opine on the income tax versus the flat tax.
And for that matter, many of the other issues currently before Congress and the president are in the same zone where you religion should not determine your position. That is one of the reasons why religious identity politics is pernicious and stupid. It tends to force churches and their members into taking positions on issues, when it should have nothing to do with religious beliefs, when a given church should be able to accommodate diversity on all sports of public policy.
TVHall on 31 Jul 2010 at 10:04 pm #
After a week of vacation in the high country, it’s good to see there wasn’t too much to catch up on. The description of “entrepreneurial evangelical churches” as being “idiosyncratic and personality driven” makes them sound similar to the fragmented tea party movement. I suspect “herding cats” will be an apt analogy for how things progress on the “right side of the aisle” as we go forward.
This will likely be more of a help than a hindrance in the coming mid-term elections, with regionalized conflicts being held together a general dislike for the current regime. The real question for the next presidential election will be just how well all those “cats” can come together and pull in at least the same general direction.
Of course the other major factor will be the level of disgust with Obama and his apparatchiks. If the country can be turned in a more conservative direction, will it create a repeat of the Clinton re-election scenario, where he was able to capitalize on the turnaround brought about by conservative policies?
What ever the case, it is unlikely to be boring.