United We Stand?

Although the Democratic Party has recently been able to attract an unusually high percentage of Evangelical support for President Obama and his platform, this support may prove rather ephemeral with the passing of the new $787 billion economic stimulus package. According to Tom Strode of the Southern Baptist Convention, evangelicals oppose this act on many fronts – particularly in claims that it will promote rationed healthcare, discriminate against faith on school campuses, and spend too much in areas that will not immediately stimulate the economy. Granted, this last point is a view that certainly isn’t unique to Evangelicals – many people believe that the stimulus will not do what it’s intended – but it’s not a surprise that a plan that expands the reach of the federal government would be opposed by this group. The preoccupations about healthcare and schooling are voiced stronger in this article: ethics leader Richard Land contends that, “there are a lot of things that are disturbing in this bill… but if I were to single out one thing that is most disturbing it would be the $1.1 billion to create a superstructure of rationed health care to the sick and elderly.” His worries are lodged in the new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research that is to be organized, which, like the (socialized) British system, is designed to promote healthcare treatments that are cost-effective over those proven to be superior methods of medical treatment. Basically the new council will either “grant or deny healthcare based on whether it is cost effective” and, “kill health care… as far as quality.”

One encounters an uncanny feeling of déjà vu when reviewing the opposition to educational provisions: the stimulus allows funding to go to private colleges and universities, but prohibits funding for facilities used for sectarian instruction or religious worship. While this isn’t actually a change in policy since the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the sentiments being harvested in Evangelical groups now mirror those that brought about the rise of the Religious Right in the late 1960s. William Martin explains in his book, With God on Our Side, that the Religious Right originated as a response from conservative Christians to new government policies removing the tax-exempt status that many private Christian schools enjoyed. The threat of higher tuition and school closures with the new burden of taxation manifested itself to conservative Christians as a threat to their ability to practice their way of life, and so, desperate for a return to the old status quo, this group saw no other choice but to involve itself in politics by becoming what is known as the Religious Right. This translates to a modern-day concern that schools without financial aid from the government will prove unable to maintain themselves, and Christians will need to send their children to secular schools. History suggests here that the rallying points that Evangelicals have found within the economic stimulus may be enough for a strong revival of the Religious Right and a return of religious value-voters to the Republican Party.

Speaking of expanding government influence, I can foresee the $500,000 cap on executive salaries causing outrage among Evangelicals as well. While the number of impacted families is small, this provision puts America on track to becoming a more socialized nation, and could rekindle a certain paranoia that Jerry Falwell, cofounder of the Moral Majority, explained the Christian Right once maintained about Communism inflicting American families. With a cap on the amount some Americans will be able to spend and more controls over schooling and healthcare, some may begin to feel that they are rapidly losing control of the ability to make their own life choices or teach principles unlike those off of which our government acts to their children.

A dichotomy has already manifested itself in the distribution of votes on the stimulus. The House voted 246-183 in favor, but no Republicans approved. In the Senate, the stimulus passed 60-38; with 3 Republicans and 55 Democrats supporting it and no Democrats in opposition. As the stimulus is implemented, outcry will only become louder; surely change won’t be visible immediately, so widespread panic and desperation will lead to more extreme activism. James Morone, author of Hellfire Nation, outlines the pattern of widespread panic unifying the masses under morality to raise opposition to the status quo. It appears that this is already beginning to take place over faster forms of communication like the internet. Several sources have also indicated recently that Christian Churches have seen swelling attendance rates due to recent economic disparity. According to Life Christian Church in New Jersey, “prayer requests have doubled – almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs.” If people can be coerced into attending church in hopes of reviving their finances, it’s likely that they’ll listen to Evangelicals’ opinions about the economic stimulus and follow suit.

The pocketbook, as William Martin points out, is a fierce motivator in politics, as is the need for security. An economic crisis is one of the best things that could happen for the Religious Right seeking support for their political agenda. My prediction is that history will repeat itself; the Religious Right will not wane in the near future as some have predicted from the outcome of the election, it will utilize the economic stimulus as a rallying point for Evangelical involvement in politics. Can Obama's call for unity and cooperation prevail over the prevalent feelings of panic and desperation that our economic crisis invokes? I think it would take too much for one man – even the President – to get people to override their nature in favor of cooperation.

For evangelicals, bad times are good?

Some "folk wisdom" of evangelical protestantism has it that "bad times are good for evangelical churches,"according to the New York Times.

According to one study, evangelical churches in recession years have grown nearly 50% faster than during more stable economic times. Church attendance among unemployed evangelical congregation members is also higher than that of their employed neighbors by about 10%, according to the same survey. The same is not true of mainline Protestant churches, which have seen steady decline regardless of economic conditions, and have roughly 10% higher attendance among employed church members.

This is certainly an interesting finding, and the article offers a few possibilities for explanation of the phenomenon. One natural assumption is that people in tough times are seeking community and guidance, and this is certainly true: according to one pastor, prayers for job security are among the most common. Others mark it down to simple convenience, claiming that people who are not working have more time to spend doing church-based activities. Some also come to evangelical churches hoping for a more "personal" experience, saying that the traditional outlook of other mainline churches didn't address their growing economic concerns.

Some churches are hoping to capitalize on this by promoting a new "Great Awakening" among the growing evangelical numbers, but I wonder if something more productive can be done. The article says that a few churches are beginning to offer financial management classes, which is a step in the right direction, but surely some of these churches, even with their diminishing collections, are still sitting on pretty hefty budgets. Perhaps community outreach and aid programs could be launched to assist those recently laid-off, or perhaps budgets could be trimmed here and there of unnecessary expenses and rather spent on alms or assistance for the unemployed? Or, perhaps churches could attempt to run some public works projects of their own and directly create jobs (though perhaps this may be a bit far-fetched)?

In any case, churches should indeed capitalize on this trend -- to help their communities, not themselves.

Cultural Crusaders: A Vanishing Species?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110201718.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Cultural crusaders fervently denouncing America’s sins may soon be on the endangered species list. Writing for the Washington Post, Peter Beinart argues that a poor economy has weakened the ability of crusaders like Sarah Palin to sway voters by denouncing immorality. History supports the argument that concern about the moral state of the union is a luxury voters cannot afford at a time when they are worried about jobs, mortgages and healthcare.

The 1920s battles over immigration, prohibition and evolution indicate that cultural wars thrive during good times. In his book Hellfire Nation, James Morone explains that while the 1920’s economic boom seemed to indicate that the reformers had indeed improved society, the resulting stock market crash of the 1930s abruptly changed the nation’s focus. In place of the moral crusades, the poverty of the Depression gave rise to the Social Gospel where, according to Morone, “the community shares responsibility for vice and virtue, for wealth and poverty.” By the 1932 election, notes Beinart, a focus on “identity politics…was a luxury America’s leaders could no longer afford.”

The communal responsibility emphasized in the Social Gospel lasted as America fought through the Depression and World War II. In the post-war boom of the 1950s and 1960s, however, America’s economic prosperity allowed various groups to challenge what Beinart calls “the conformity of American life.” In response, the ideas of the Social Gospel were lost, as according to Morone, “a new generation of moralists blamed bad behavior for every manner of social problem.” The stability and strength of America allowed people the luxury of arguing about gay marriage, abortion and gun control laws for the next several decades.

Today as the economy again spirals out of control, Beinart argues that Americans cannot afford to choose a candidate based on their stance on abortion and other “value” issues. Obama’s economic policies, an updated version of the Depression-era Social Gospel, have much more resonance with Americans frightened by an unstable economy than do Sarah Palin’s denunciations of immorality.

Beinart titles his article “Last of the Cultural Warriors.” However, his analysis seems to indicate that the economic situation has merely rendered them dormant for a time. Is Beinart’s analysis of the situation correct? Are we witnessing the complete extinction of the cultural crusader, or not? What would Morone’s opinion be of Beinart’s argument? Can “values voting” be tied so closely to economic ups and downs? Do religious values really only matter when the economy is doing well? Beinart’s assertion that Palin is the “last” cultural crusader seems to be a stretch; however, his theory provides an interesting contribution to our understanding of the intersection between religion and politics.