As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: “The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun.” We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.
In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and “moral values,” and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.
Wow, does Time Magazine’s Jim Wallis ever get it wrong.
Yes, the religious right is in disarray. It is discouraged by a presidency dismally mired in an unpopular war and over interested in the politics of big business. The religious right is dismayed over an array of candidates it finds difficult to support. All true. For now.
In order to substantiate the demise of the religious right, I would look for statistics showing a decline in the pro-life position among evangelicals or similar trends on human cloning, or euthanasia. Jim Wallis and Time Magazine will not find such evidence because this is not happening. If anything, the evangelical commitment to pro-life issues is growing. Yes, many evangelicals are overcoming some of their works-righteousness fears to perform the works of mercy. But, they show no more signs of taking up liberation theology or Marxism or democratic party politics than did Mother Theresa. Feeding the hungry does not make one a democrat, Mr. Wallis.
Political disarray and dismay do not equal demise. Given the opportunity to vote their conscience in a consistent fashion, the Old Religious Right will show itself to be the same religious right as before. The religious and political ideas of evangelicals are not changing as much as they are seeking a decent course for expression. Huckabee’s Iowa performance may be the first sign that the Evangelical vote has not lost its power.
I did notice that Jim lumps Catholics with Evangelicals in the religious right. This is a fundamental error. Yes, conservative Catholics tend to vote conservative. No news there. But, to understand American politics of the past 25 years, one must know that Catholics ARE the swing vote in America. States like Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan which are notorious swing states are heavily Catholic. Your heavily evangelical/Baptist states are all firmly Red. Since Reagan took the Republican party pro-life, the Catholic vote has been divided. Catholics often have to choose which issues are most important in a given cycle and vote on those issues. In ‘04, Catholics voted Republican largely to avoid gay marriage and get pro-life justices on the high court. Both were a success and neither will be governing issues this cycle as they were in ‘04. Many swing vote Catholics will likely vote on other issues this year. True. But swing vote Catholics were never part of the religious right. Catholics were never part of the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell or the Christian Coalition.
Traditional Catholics, who are on the ascendancy in the Church, will always vote conservative. Evangelicals will always vote conservative. Swing vote Catholics and other swing voters will always … well, swing. So, what’s the news here, Mr. Wallis?
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
January 4, 2008 at 3:09 pm
That article had all the writing quality of an eighth-grade yearbook essay.
Moving past that cheap shot, I want to add that we have definitely left something, some era, behind. I don’t know if Huckabee will take the pennant, but his victory shows that more and more Americans are voting for a man, not to ensure the passing of some set of laws or policies that the candidate stands for, but simply because the other candidates are so evil.
Let me explain. I don’t think many people were thrilled by Huckabee. I’m sure some were, but it seems like many Republicans willingly overlooked his economic policies (which are not republican. He’s virtually a commie in my book, but I’m nuts) because he is unabashedly Christian and pro-life. I know that, for one, can no longer vote for someone who isn’t pro-life, pure and simple. This doesn’t leave me with a lot of choices. I can’t even consider McCain, who has many good qualities, because he has, like so many, knuckled under to the culture of death.
So we have left behind an era where there were a number of good, experienced, wise people on both sides of the issue. On my side, the pro-life side, there aren’t a lot of choices left, because so many have gone over to the other side in, say, the last 30 years. I’m rooting for Ron Paul, though I don’t agree with some of his issues,. simply because he seems the only candidate who says, “abortion is wrong” and doesn’t quibble or vacillate on the issue.
I think Wallis is wrong. The “religious right” isn’t going away, but it will form a harder, smaller, uncompromising core of voters who, increasingly, will be in polar opposition to most candidates. I mean, we just don’t have anything to say to McCain or Giuliani anymore. They may possibly have great financial and political ideas, but as long as they believe in sticking knives in babies, we will be covering our ears with our hands.
January 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm
BTW, I meant that Wallis’ article was poorly written, not yours. :)
January 4, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Father, I think you get Rev. Wallis wrong. He said nothing about a “demise of the religious right.” He stated that the monologue has ended and a dialogue has begun. The religious right will continue to exist. It simply won’t have the only “faith-based microphone” as seemingly before.
You are correct that “the evangelical commitment to pro-life issues is growing.” The commitment is growing beyond limiting the pro-life movement to legal restrictions on abortion. A growing number of pro-life Evangelicals have come to the position that the Catholic bishops and many “swing” Catholic voters have historically held – social assistance to women in crisis pregnancies is an indispensible part of the pro-life public policy initiative. Among at least some Evangelicals there was discouragement when the Bush Administration admitted in congressional testimony that it was cutting the very programs they had determined were most effective at saving unborn lives. Rev. Wallis and others working with him have been in the lead (along with the Catholic bishops) of a “both/and” pro-life position, working with Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, Pro-Lifers for Peace and Justice and other such groups for legal protection for the unborn AND social assistance.
The immigration issue and the ‘war on terrorism’ have also changed the dynamics of white Protestant evangelical political behavior (there is also evangelical concern about the environment/creation, but I think that has been widely discussed). Here I believe there is an expanding cleavage between ‘Christian culture’ elements (I’m open to a better term for them) that believe we are a Christian civilization at war with the Muslim world and our national culture is being changed (for the worse) by immigration and a countervailing community of evangelicals (I call them the ‘Ned Flanders’ group but again am open to a better phrase) with more internationalist view, in large part influenced by overseas missionary work they or people they know have engaged in, as well as the congregational outreach to immigrants.
I think your analysis is on target as to the “religious right” being really a (white) Protestant movement. Efforts to include Catholics have always met with dismal failure. Catholic do remain the new “swing” vote – open to governmental action and sensitive to economic justice, concern about how the government protects human life at all stages and internationalist.
January 4, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Katherine, thanks for your comments. Your points are well taken. And yet, it remains to be seen whether Texas or the other deep southern states are going to budge from the Republican party. If any of them became swing states, then we would have something to talk about. I just don’t see that happening.
The pro-life movement has always had to scramble for support wherever it could find it, including pro-life democrats, atheists, feminists, whomever. Providing various care options for women with troubled pregnancies is a strategy that has been around for at least 20 years and not only among Catholics (NOEL, an Evangelical Episcopal pro-life organization is a good example as they have been in the women’s care business since the early 1980’s). That Bush has misunderstood this angle is not a reflection on the Religious Right as I see it. Again, I don’t see anything new here.
There may be some shift in the “America is a Christian nation” idea among some Evangelicals. I am personally a bit tone deaf to that message, I’ll admit.
Again, I could be wrong on this, but I don’t think the Emergent Church phenomenon is very large or consequential. Evangelicals in my neck of the woods continue to build massive prayer barns and take over former Target stores. They are packing the people in. I have never actually seen evidence of an emergent church community on the ground, though it sure is a favorite topic on the internet.
BTW, I very much would like the evangelical vote to be less knee-jerk on a variety of issues and to bring a more sophisticated voice to the political arena (Israel-Palestine, for example). It remains to be seen whether new developments will bring evangelicals into the Democratic party or significantly change the issues they care about as Republicans.