Ed Kilgore writes on The Widening Political Divide Between Catholicism and Mainline Protestantism in The New Republic. He notes that, paradoxically, while evangelicals and Roman Catholics have come together on moral and political issues, mainline protestants and Catholics have drawn more closely together liturgically:
The signs of this realignment are most visible in politics. A highly traditionalist Catholic, Rick Santorum, who belongs to a parish where the Latin Mass is still celebrated, became the preferred presidential candidate of conservative evangelicals. Over the course of the primary campaign, it became clear that he shares the common conservative evangelical view that mainline Protestants are largely apostates, barely deserving inclusion in Christianity.
Yet the single most notable trend in mainline American Protestantism in recent decades has been the adoption of liturgical practices associated with Catholicism, such as frequent communion and observance of liturgical seasons, particularly since Rome reformed its own liturgy during and after the Second Vatican Council Catholics and most mainline Protestants have long since adopted a common “lectionary” of scripture readings for use during worship services throughout the year. At the same time, the radical theological experiments that were once so fashionable in liberal Protestant circles have been subsiding; mainliners are far more likely to recite the historic Nicene or Apostle’s creeds during worship than are evangelicals. In other words, a growing number of mainline Protestants now worship much like Catholics. . . .
More often than not, the evangelicals who accuse denominational leaders of abandoning “orthodoxy” in moral teaching are most avid to promote innovation in styles of worship. As an Episcopal priest in Maryland ruefully told me of conservative dissidents in his parish during the 1990s: “These people come to church with a Christian Coalition tract in one hand and a ‘praise hymnal’ in the other.”
The tendency for North American evangelicals to defend the fundamentals of the faith while largely abandoning the older liturgical traditions is something that not enough observers have managed to find puzzling. On the other hand, it is also true that the major part of evangelicalism in this continent, though affirming a vague orthodoxy, lacks both a robust ecclesiology and a strong confessional identity, with only a very few exceptions. Perhaps then it is not surprising that distinctive traditions of worship should long ago have been set aside as well.
Indeed, rather than leading them towards Rome, along with their mainline brethren, or towards the Reformation traditions, as one might expect, many evangelicals have instead subordinated worship, in utilitarian fashion, to the felt imperatives of church growth and reaching the so-called nonreligious. The result is worship that is not only deracinated but amounts merely to “one damn thing after another,” as one of my favourite liturgical scholars once put it.
So why is it that mainline protestants, who are scarcely less deracinated than their evangelical brethren, are increasingly reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed during worship?
May 8th, 2012 | 8:20 am | #1
Perhaps evangelicals reject liturgical traditions not out of a “utilitarianism” but because such ritualism smacks of empty religious expression. When the church under the leadership of the apostles gathered, they didn’t sit in a pews and recite creeds, they shared meals together (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7) and all were actively expected and encouraged to be involved in the gathering in a meaningful sense (1 Cor 14:26). The church did not gather to go through the motions of a liturgy, they came to be encouraged and stirred up to take the Gospel to the world and engage in the work of ministry (Heb 10:24-25).
There is nothing especially “robust” in an ecclesiology centered on religious rituals.
May 8th, 2012 | 10:10 am | #2
Kilgore’s article seems to be a classic case of “comparing apples and oranges.” The single issue of agreement on which he focuses is abortion. But there is an historic Christian consensus against abortion that appears as early as the Didache, perhaps the earliest extra-canonical Christian document. So this is not a new alliance.
Second, Kilgore speaks of a single Catholic political position, which he identifies entirely with opposition to abortion, and identifies closely with Santorum. A better summary of a Catholic political position could be found in the papal social encyclicals and Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium. It would be an interesting project to compare Santorum’s positions on economic policies or the military with the Catholic social tradition on issues like “just wage,” unions, aid to impoverished countries, and traditional criteria of just war. Except for his opposition to abortion, Santorum has little in common with this tradition. On economics, Santorum lines up more closely with Ayn Rand than with John XIII, embracing an individualism that is entirely at odds with traditional Catholic affirmation of the priority of the “common good.” On war and peace, Santorum is a nationalist.
Third, the correlation between “mainline Protestant” liturgy and Catholicism will, again, not work. Santorum embraces the Latin Mass, and disapproves of the liturgical changes brought in by Vatican II. Those “mainline Protestants” who embrace the political left are also those most willing to embrace such liturgical innovations as communion without baptism, altering the text of the creed, or insisting that the content of the creeds is merely “symbolic.” Retired Episcopal bishop John Spong bragged in his books that he could recite every word of the creed.
I would suggest a different alignment. Those on the extreme theological left (whether Catholic modernists or liberal Protestants) tend to vote as what you call in your book “fifth stage liberals.” Those on the extreme theological right (whether Latin Mass Catholics or Protestant fundamentalists) tend to vote as “second stage” liberals. I would suggest that the real commonalities here are sociological rather than theological. Those who embrace “progressive” politics also embrace “progressive” theology, while those who embrace “reactionary” theology also embrace “reactionary” politics, and for similar reasons. In both cases, the primary motivation is the embrace of an ideology that trumps both theology and the messiness of genuine politics.
In contradistinction to those who embrace theological and political extremes are those Christians who take their historic catholic and evangelical theology seriously and often find themselves frustrated by the ideological demand that one embrace either “second stage” or “fifth stage” liberalism, recognizing liberalism for the heretical individualist ideology that it is.
I hope you don’t mind my bringing Koyzis into this discussion, but I think his book provides some real insights here that helps correct the kind of simplistic “liberal” vs. “conservative” “culture wars” thinking that Kilgore seems to fall into.
May 8th, 2012 | 12:37 pm | #3
“Over the course of the primary campaign, it became clear that he shares the common conservative evangelical view that mainline Protestants are largely apostates, barely deserving inclusion in Christianity.”
Santorum, among many others, are justifiably correct in this assessment of liberal Protestantism.
May 8th, 2012 | 5:45 pm | #4
Whether or not one agrees with Santorum’s assessment, it is not a proper observation for one seeking political office, because it goes well beyond the competence of that office.
May 8th, 2012 | 9:04 pm | #5
The political enterprise is best seen as necessitating the weighing of potentially conflicting interests in the balance with an eye towards doing public justice. This means that government officials must preside over different communities making different truth claims, including liberal protestants and many others. Given the nature of political rule, which the late Sir Bernard Crick defined as the peaceful conciliation of diversity within a particular unit of rule, it is not up to political leaders to pronounce anathemas on members of a particular religious community.
May 9th, 2012 | 6:36 am | #6
“So why is it that mainline protestants, who are scarcely less deracinated than their evangelical brethren, are increasingly reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed during worship?”
Probably because they always have? I grew up in the Congregational Church from before they merged with some other church and started calling themselves the United Church of Christ. You could hardly find a more mainline protestant church than the UCC.
Both creeds were recited in unison as far back as I can remember, which would be the very early fifties.
May 9th, 2012 | 1:22 pm | #7
#4 and #5. Baloney. Or bologna. Take your pick.
May 9th, 2012 | 8:00 pm | #8
Mr. Sido:
The shared meals of the disciples followed a particular liturgy, as testified in the earliest documents of the patristic era, e.g., the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. For example, Jesus and his disciples almost certainly sang the hallel Psalms (113-118) at the Last Supper. Worship that eschews forms can be just as empty as that which follows them.
Dr. Witt:
Thank you for your kind words. Of course, I agree with your expression of agreement with this Koyzis fellow. :-)
Mr. Divides:
I’m not certain whether you are disagreeing with my characterization of practical politics or with practical politics itself. Like it or not, we must accept as fellow citizens those with whom we disagree. On the other hand, if you propose to disenfranchise your liberal protestant compatriots, you should not be surprised if they decline to co-operate.
May 10th, 2012 | 1:17 am | #9
Koyzis: “I’m not certain whether you are disagreeing with my characterization of practical politics or with practical politics itself. Like it or not, we must accept as fellow citizens those with whom we disagree. On the other hand, if you propose to disenfranchise your liberal protestant compatriots, you should not be surprised if they decline to co-operate.”
Eyes rolling. Assuming that Santorum agrees with Kilgore’s observation of him that “he shares the common conservative evangelical view that mainline Protestants are largely apostates” doesn’t AT ALL mean that Santorum does not accept Liberal Protestants as fellow citizens with whom he disagrees with theologically. Of course, he does.
C’mon.
With regards to practical politics, how about this excerpt from a recent First Thoughts blog post by Matthew Schmitz:
“President Obama has come out in support of gay marriage today in an interview with ABC news. … President Obama, for all his accomplishments, is not a moral theologian, a religious leader, or even (whatever some have thought) a prophet. He is a politican responding, reasonably enough, to political pressures. The impatience of the well-connected and wealthy gay lobby in the Democratic party forced the president’s hand.”
Dr. Koyzis, did President Obama engage in “practical politics” with his support of gay marriage? With his support of gay marriage, did he disenfranchise voters who oppose the redefinition of marriage to include gay marriage? And even if Obama did disenfranchise voters who oppose gay marriage, does that mean that he doesn’t regard them as fellow citizens?
May 10th, 2012 | 12:36 pm | #10
Mr. Divides:
Assuming Santorum does indeed agree that liberal protestants are fellow citizens, his remarks about them were rather foolish politically. It is not surprising that he didn’t get the nod from the Republican Party. As a church member, he has every right to discern whether liberal protestants conform to the definition of a Christian. But not as a political leader.
As for Obama, I think he has made a costly political mistake that could see him defeated in November. However, the judgement as to whether a particular relationship is or is not a marriage is one a government is obligated to make as part of its task of doing public justice. Obama cannot afford to have no opinion on the matter given the office he holds. That said, I believe his expressed opinion is not only a political mistake, but a category mistake as well.
May 10th, 2012 | 12:43 pm | #11
“It is not surprising that he didn’t get the nod from the Republican Party.”
“Practical Politics” is lots of money. Santorum didn’t have the “practical politics” that you tout.
May 10th, 2012 | 12:51 pm | #12
“Assuming Santorum does indeed agree that liberal protestants are fellow citizens, his remarks about them were rather foolish politically.”
If you’d be so kind as to provide linked citations (with full context) to justify your judgment, that would be helpful.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact