Dan Gilgoff at “U.S. News & World Report” makes a provocative generalization about the Christian right while reflecting on the death of Father Neuhaus. From Richard Neuhaus’s Death and the Catholic–Evangelical Tension in Politics:
Neuhaus’s death also reminds us that Catholics remain the brains of a conservative movement built on evangelical brawn. This played out during the Bush years in Supreme Court nominations. John Roberts, Bush’s first Supreme Court appointment, was embraced by conservative evangelicals, largely because his Catholicism assured them that he was a pro-lifer at heart, despite his thin judicial record.
Bush’s second nomination, Harriet Miers, was initially backed by evangelicals because of her evangelical Christian faith, but nearly every other constituency on the right, including many conservative Catholics, rejected her as an intellectual lightweight. Many conservative Catholics were appalled at the way conservative evangelical leaders like Focus on the Family’s James Dobson appeared to rely on her faith background as the sole basis for their support. The moment threw a light on the split between the social conservative movement’s Catholic head and evangelical heart. . . .
Yes, the Catholic-evangelical alliance that Neuhaus helped broker has created a mighty political force. It has been one of the seminal political developments of the past 30 years. Let’s just not forget that that marriage has some tensions that are also worth watching. After all, the split between evangelicals, who voted for John McCain by 3 to 1, and Catholics, who broke for Barack Obama after supporting Bush in 2004, is one reason Obama is the president-elect.
Do you buy this analysis? Isn’t it odd that evangelical Protestants would let themselves be led by Roman Catholics? How do you account for it? Does the Christian right, as it has been, show evidence of some Roman Catholic tendencies that are in conflict with the Protestant political heritage? Or is this just a matter of Rome already having a tradition of Christian political thought grounded in the natural law that evangelicals–or anyone else–can learn from?
HT: Terry Mattingly at Get Religion . See also what he has to say about this.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I have never had a subscription to First Things, but I used to enjoy reading it at the library. It is a great Journal and I hope it continues to be. It did in a way show me though how much evangelicals and Catholics really do have in common. I even read an article in there by a Methodist campaigning for Purgatory! He had the conundrum to deal with, that as nice as his grandmother was she wasn’t a hundred percent sanctified. She obviously didn’t deserve hell, but he couldn’t put her in heaven just yet either.
Sure does make one appreciate justification by faith alone, that recognizes the fact that man’s grandmother did deserve hell, but Christ had earned heaven for her.
divide et impera
In the full article, the writer starts off with: “The foot soldiers in the American Christian right have always been evangelical, but the movement’s intellectual armature is undeniably Roman Catholic…” I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement, but I wonder how much of it is based on some sort of factual evidence and how much of it is the usual assumption made by the media that evangelicals are non- or anti-intellectual and Catholics aren’t. (Or at least, Catholics are less anti-intellectual than evangelicals.)
There is surely an anti-intellectual streak among evangelicalism that is as ugly as it it counterproductive, but there is also a strong resistance to this streak — perhaps best personified by Mark Noll in “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” — that would make any honest person stop and think before casting evangelicals as wholly non-intellectual.
So I don’t fully buy the analysis that USNWR is selling here.
I didn’t read the article, but am in agreement with the idea that there is an overall shallowness of thinking within Evangelicalism. Robert (comment #3) uses “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” as evidence that there is a thinking movement within Evangelicalism. Yes, it is there, somewhere, hidden in shadows and under rocks. But I would agree with Mark Noll in his first sentence: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Noll devotes an entire chapter in this book to evangelical thinking in politics, which is what is applicable in this post.
Divide et impera indeed. Mr. Gilgoff’s view of Catholic brain and evangelical brawn is simplistic. For an example of the truly joint thinking of Evangelicals and Catholics Together read one of its earliest statements, The gift of Salvation and take a look below at the list of evangelicals and Catholics who put together this statement:
EVANGELICALS
Dr. Gerald L. Bray (Beeson Divinity School)
Dr. Bill Bright (Campus Crusade for Christ)
Dr. Harold O. J. Brown (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
Mr. Charles Colson (Prison Fellowship)
Bishop William C. Frey (Episcopal Church)
Dr. Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School)
Dr. Os Guinness (The Trinity Forum)
Dr. Kent R. Hill (Eastern Nazarene College)
The Rev. Max Lucado (Oak Hills Church of Christ, San Antonio, Texas)
Dr. T. M. Moore (Chesapeake Theological Seminary)
Dr. Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary)
Dr. Mark A. Noll (Wheaton College)
Mr. Brian F. O’Connell (Interdev)
Dr. Thomas Oden (Drew University)
Dr. James I. Packer (Regent College, British Columbia)
Dr. Timothy R. Phillips (Wheaton College)
Dr. John Rodgers (Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry)
Dr. John Woodbridge (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
ROMAN CATHOLICS
Fr. James J. Buckley (Loyola College in Maryland)
Fr. J. A. Di Noia, O. P. (Dominican House of Studies)
Fr. Avery Dulles, S. J. (Fordham University)
Fr. Thomas Guarino (Seton Hall University)
Dr. Peter Kreeft (Boston College)
Fr. Matthew L. Lamb (Boston College)
Fr. Eugene LaVerdiere, S. S. S. (Emmanuel)
Fr. Francis Martin (John Paul 11 Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family)
Mr. Ralph Martin (Renewal Ministries)
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (Religion and Public Life)
Mr. Michael Novak (American Enterprise Institute)
Fr. Edward Oakes, S. J. (Regis University)
Fr. Thomas P. Rausch S. J. (Loyola Marymount University)
Mr. George Weigel (Ethics and Public Policy Center)
Dr. Robert Louis Wilken (University of Virginia
As to the number of shallow evangelicals compared to Catholics Gilgoff doesn’t really have a clue.
One ought not believe any distorted pontification on a religious subject by such a media outfit as U.S. News and Wold Report.
The liberal brain sees conspiracy and evil intentions in everything conservative. Remember Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” charge back in the 90’s. In the meantime, all we on the right are trying to do is defend traditional values which were fundamental to society just a few short years ago.
As these basic Biblical values are being denigrated and cast aside by an increasingly shrill and intolerant anti-God left, we on the right naturally find comity with others who share very fundamental and basic truths in common. In our post-Christian world, the Protestant and Catholic faiths no longer seem so different from one another. In particular, we have found common ground in our concern for human life, particularly the lives of the unborn. There is nothing sinister or shallow about this, nor does it mean that we do not also value our particular and distinct faith traditions. We are just recognizing that we are all part of the great and universal Body of Christ.
Excuse me, the link above is Here
Interesting point.
I’m not entirely sure it’s correct in general; a couple of illustrative examples does not suffice for a generalization.
That being said, here are some hypotheses about what could account for it, assuming it is true:
[1] Marriage: Smart evangelicals get talked into becoming pastors at higher rates than smart Catholics get talked into becoming priests. So there’s a higher ratio of religiously-oriented lay intellectuals among Catholics than among Protestants.
[2] Catholic colleges. They have graduate schools in things other than theology. Aside from Baylor, what evangelical university has a decently-sized graduate program (in things other than nursing or business)?
[3] “Natural law” allows Catholics to talk to secularists in ways that Bible-centered evangelical “cultural warriors” cannot, or do not want to.
[4] Evangelicals come from lower socio-economic classes than Catholics do today. That’s associated with a lower incidence of higher education, etc. These things trickle up into fewer evangelicals qualified to be “public intellectuals.”
Other hypotheses?
There are some brilliant evangelical thinkers in Peter Leavitt’s list (Brown, Noll, Guinness, Packer…). Unfortunately, they aren’t listened to all that much, and others who’s thinking isn’t quite so deep have a deeper impact, especially in the areas of science and politics.
Excuse me. I think that should have been “whose thinking.” I wasn’t thinking clearly.
Perhaps Evangelicals (and Lutherans) in the United States have taught themselves over time through Worship Styles and fad-driven theology to be led by the prettiest face rather than the voice of God?
Do we hide our theological hard hitters behind seminary towers because they’re not “elect-able” or “presentable” enough with all their talk of repentance and cross and blood atonement and things like that? I think it extremely sad how true and pervasive this appears to be throughout American Christianity.
When I read the article the first time, in haste, this morning I was led more to the issue of Catholic-Evangelical alignment than the issue of Catholic intellectuals leading evangelical “sheep”. This latter issue is preposterous, of course, as Peter’s list demonstrates. Kevin N.’s point is correct, but applies universally, not just to evangelicals. Evangelical intellectuals are not listened to by the general population as often as evangelists and preachers who can present an inspirational message in a charismatic way. So what else is new? Secular intellectuals are not the ones viewers tune into at 11:30 on a weeknight, and they sell books by requiring them in the courses they teach in the university. The Catholic laity, most of whom are nominal, pay very little attention to Fr. Neuhaus and others. So to ascribe some special significance to the fact that evangelical intellectuals are often ignored by the general populace of intellectuals, or to conclude that Catholics are brilliant and evangelicals are ignorant is just silly. It derives from the typical condescension and arrogance that liberals on the coast often display toward conservative and southern culture.
We need our intellectuals, but we also need our exhorters. The Christian life is a call to action — we are here with a specific mission to reach the lost. I am not an anti-intellectual, by any means, but intellectualism should never be an excuse for arrogance.
I’m not going to jump into the Catholics v. Evangelicals debate, but I’m going to make two points. First, Rome and the Orthodox were the only ecclesiastical bodies who have consistently and firmly opposed abortion politically since Roe v. Wade. Protestants at the time were, at best, squishy. Second, another report hit the blogosphere today stating that most Protestants are not particularly attached to their denomination. I suspect this is, in part, because over the years, Protestant theology has been weakened, and part of this is because theology itself is no longer a major concern of most Protestant churches. Theologians are the intellectual backbone of any Christian body. Without them, or with few of them, or with little mention of them on Sundays, intellectual weakness will inevitably follow.
The great success of Fr. Neuhaus and WF Buckley was in defining a breed of Catholic intellectual that the rest of the conservative movement understood and trusted. This was due in large part to their formidable skills as communicators and public intellectuals.
In the case of John Roberts, the comfort was not that he was Catholic; but that he was a certain kind of Conservative, faithful Catholic who is likely to frequently agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas. The mere fact that, say, John Kerry or Joe Biden is Catholic means nothing to conservatives.
The challenge for protestant intellectuals is to build this same kind of visibility in the public square. Dr. Veith is a great example of this kind of thinker who is not well known outside our own circles.
We need to support and encourage our own writers and thinkers like the Hemingways, Veith, Wilken, Horton, Rosenbladt, Rosebrough et al. and pray that some of them enjoy the public stature and that Neuhaus and Buckley did and their success in promoting Christian thought in the larger American community.