The Bible & Politics
The 21st Century Republicanism Movement and the
Radical Christian Right:
The Prodigal Relationship between Monolithic Politics and Organized Religion
The Bible & Politics –
Conservative Republicanism and the Ascension of the Christian Right: The Evolution of Partisan Political Activism within American Christianity ©
Abstract
An in-depth exploration of the development of the modern relationship between the Republican Party – or more precisely far right conservative elements within the party – and significant segments of the equally conservative fundamentalist Christian movement within the United States. Primarily, during the last-quarter century, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan the birth of Moral Majority activism. The analysis consists primarily of a three-pronged approach:
- A historical and sociological dissection of the cultural and political forces that led to the rise of the Christian Right within the Republican Party; including where and how Christian fundamentalism has become inextricably intertwined with neo-conservative politics; including earlier historical perspective on the role of religion in early American politics;
- An objective analysis of the effects and consequences of this relationship – both good and bad – on both modern American society and on our national and regional political system , and
- An attempt to query the ways in which moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats can work to counter the more pernicious effects of this increasingly detrimental confluence of influence between Fundamentalist Christians and conservative Republicans.
Historical context is applied, to better understand the role of religion in American politics. As the research makes clear, religion has always – to varying degrees – had an impact on partisan politics in the United States, with the church being heavily involved with different issues during different periods. However, the current relationship between the Far Right and Christian Fundamentalism is a new – and frankly disturbing – phenomenon. Specifically, although religion and politics have always been interrelated in the United States, this is the first time that it has been so singularly contained within a single wing of one party; moreover, this is the first time that a religious movement has largely taken over a political party (or a significant part of that party) in a way that leads to real-world influence on critical domestic and international policies. In other words, while preachers and pastors have always voiced their political opinions – this is the first time that its been confined to one party, the first time its begun to largely control one party, and certainly the first time that a single religion has had so much direct control, within both that party and within the government as a whole.
The project is not intended as a partisan hit-piece on conservatism or Republicanism; instead, it is envisioned as an exploration of a troubling phenomenon within the Republican Party, which frankly runs counter to constitutional church/state separation, and which may have negative consequences for all Americans. The research concludes with pragmatic solutions for a response, both from moderate Republicans and from Democrats, that may serve to weaken the relationship between the Christian Right and Republicans – or at least push that relationship in a direction that is more governmentally and ideologically sound, for all Americans.
Introduction
To modern political observers, the inextricably intertwined relationship between politics and religion – at least in American politics – may seem inescapable and inevitable; the reality, however, is that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Perhaps not from a generalist perspective: from a broad-based viewpoint, religion has always been a cornerstone of political ideology. Religion has spurred change and shaped culture; in fact, there is a fundamentally sound argument that the most basic tenets of American political and constitutional governance are based in Judeo-Christian ethics (Lubet, 1998). But historically, this interplay between organized religion and politics has been constrained by constitutional interpretations of the First Amendment calling for a separation between church and state, and – more importantly – it has not been narrowly focused on a single political party and a narrow segment of the electorate. In other words, prior to the current era, where religion was a part of public life, it was equally significant in both all major political parties and with most candidates, regardless of ideology (Moen, 1992, p. 44). Thus, throughout most of American history and continuing as late as the 1960s, religion and the tenets of religion – specifically morality, ethics, “family values,” and traditional culture – were equally associated with both Democrats and Republicans (or with other major parties, in earlier historical periods). The modern paradigm, in which a single party – the Republican Party – is closely aligned with organized religion in general and fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity in particular – is actually a historically recent phenomenon, dating to no earlier than 1970, and perhaps most explicitly attributable to the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan (Wilcox, 1990).
This point is critical because it underline and emphasizes both were the key problem is found – and where it is not found. The focus of the discussion is not on whether organized religion of any sort or Evangelical Protestantism specifically are net negative or positive forces in culture and society; while such a debate may be valid, it misses the key context of the current political environment. Nor should the discussion focus on the role of religion in public life. Once again, there is a valid debate to be had on the subject of whether – and to what extent, if any – religion and faith should influence governmental action and public policy. However, the critical issue here is instead the impact of a single monolithic party – the modern conservative and neoconservative Republican Party – being almost singularly linked to religion, to a specific version of Christianity. In the 21st century, the Republican Party is so closely linked with Christian activist organizations that the two entities seem virtually inseparable – and it is here that the discussion must be focused, because this relationship must, by necessity, have significant impacts on public policy. Where previously, both parties could lay claim to religion, today to be Christian is largely to be Republican; non-Christians are viewed skeptically by many Republicans, and many organized churches reject liberal and Democratic members, either implicitly or overtly (Huang, 2003). Thus, the Republican Party can use the power of religion to recruit new voters – while at the same time, the Christian Right has gained enormous power to influence policy choices made by Republican legislators and executives. In short, by becoming almost solely the province of a single party, the American Christian Right has both become a key constituency of that party and gained enormous power to influence national and international policy (Penning & Smidt, 1997).
The important point here is simple: the relationship between Republicanism and Evangelical Christianity has created a political situation in which a relatively small minority wields disproportionate power to influence policy. The argument is not that religion of any type – specifically including Evangelical Protestantism – is necessarily undesirable, or that it should be entirely segregated from public life; nor is the argument that conservatism or Republicanism is necessarily ideologically lacking on specific issues. Instead, the question to be raised is whether this singularly powerful bond between religion and one major party represents a potential for abuses of power. At the end of the day, power is, in fact, the most basic issue: the current situation has created both a power vacuum and a power locus, giving undue influence to the Christian Right – in a way that affects all Americans. An examination of the history of the rise of the modern Christian Right and the current state of the relationship between Evangelical Christianity and the Republican Party lead to three main arguments: 1) that the Christian Right today has significant impact on both the ideological direction of the conservative movement with the Republican Party and the governmental actions of Republican officials, 2) that the Christian Right is now one of the most effective advocacy organizations in the history of American politics, having an enormous impact on electoral outcomes, primarily because they can motivate Christians (and in some cases non-Christians) to vote based on religious and moral authority rather than ideological or public policy concerns, and 3) that these factors have given the Christian Right significant power to influence policy for all Americans – and that so much power in the hands of so few is inherently dangerous.
The Rise of the Modern Christian Right in America
Like most fundamentalist movements, the modern Christian Right and its ties to the Republican Party began as a counter-movement to another political insurgence: the 1960s birth of secular liberalism. Thus, the Religious Right is – then and now- based on divisive politics, separating the proverbial “us” from “them.” It is precisely for this reason that modern Republicans so frequently focus on a black-and-white worldview of being “either with us or against us,” and why the vernacular of war and combat is so common among Christian politicians (Wilcox, 1996). Although the modern movement was born in the late 1960s, as late as the mid-1970s both parties could lay some claim to religion; many historians argue that Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 largely because of Evangelical Christians who supported his theological background (Regnerus, Sikkink, & Smith, 1999). This began to change shortly after the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan to the White House, and by the mid-1980’s the modern Christian Right had gained ascendancy, controlling conservative politics and dividing the country into religious and non-religious voting blocs. In 1992, the rhetoric had become public, as Patrick Buchanan made clear at the Republican National Convention that year, stating in a speech: “My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself “(Huang, 2003, p. 44) In case it hadn’t already been clear – language like this served to declare open war between the Religious Right and secularists, especially those within the Democratic Party. Just as in any war, the point of such statements was clear: if you are not on our side – you are the enemy.
This is not to claim that the Christian Right was as singular clearly defined organization; in fact, the opposite is true – both in 1980 and today, members of the Republican Religious Right are diverse and joined together only by a loose collection of shared ideologies. However, what makes this loose organization unique is an almost unprecedented degree of intra-party organization and a willingness to compromise internally in order to defeat the perceived enemy of liberalism, especially on key issues: “As a first approximation, the New Right consists of the network of activists, organizations, and constituencies that have been the most militant opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, the Panama Canal Treaty, SALT II, affirmative action, federal social programs, and government regulation of business; the most vocal critics of liberalism and “secular humanism”; and the most ardent proponents of the Human Life Amendment, the Family Protection Act, increased defense spending, prayer in public schools, and the teaching of “scientific creationism.” This network of right-wing activity can be divided into three levels: (1) the core activists and their coordinating organizations, who are responsible for welding the New Right into a coherent coalition; (2) the various single-issue and religious groups that constitute the various parts of that coalition; and (3) the constituency that the core activists of the New Right have sought to mobilize” (“The New Christian Right,” 1983, p. 13).
But what makes the Christian Right of today so historically unique – and so potentially dangerous – is its single-minded pursuit of political goals. Although it may seem surprising to many today, this political activity is a historically new phenomenon. “For those who have observed the movement, admirers and critics alike, it comes as something of a shock to learn that this political stance is relatively recent. Predisposed for religious reasons to pay little attention to public affairs, religious conservatives played a surprisingly small part in postwar American politics prior to the 1980s. During that decade, however, they entered the political realm with a will and sometimes with a vengeance, challenging conventional distinctions between religion and politics, as well as those between private and public concerns. Recalling America’s religious roots, reminding their fellow citizens of traditional moral standards, and calling for a revival of public virtue, they sought to reintroduce religious values into American political life. At the same time, in asserting moral and patriotic positions, they saw their faith become more political than ever before. The result was a highly charged hybrid – part religious politics, part political religion–that one writer has called the convergence of “piety, patriotism, and politics” (Lienesch, 1993, p. 139). It is here that the crux of the issue is found: the eager participation of the Christian Right in politics in general, and in Republican politics in particular. In prior eras, two realities served to lessen the potential danger of fundamentalist Christianity: first, members of the evangelical church tended to be found equally in both parties – thus weakening the church’s position of strength within political organizations; and second and more importantly, most religious organizations – prior to 1970 – actively avoided politics. Some pastors and priests argued that it was actually antithetical to Christian teaching; in other cases, it was simply deemed unseemly, or beneath the concerns of the faith. It was not until the late 1970s birth if the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell, and the Reagan revolution of 1980, that Christian organizations began actively utilizing political means of furthering religious goals (Haberman, 2005). The realization that churches could wield enormous political power led the Christian Right to begin openly advocating “’traditional values’ in public policy by means of mobilizing evangelical Protestants” (Rozell & Wilcox, 1995, p. 2). Unfortunately, few within the Christian Church questioned whether such power should be used – and the modern incestuous relationship between Republicans and the Christian Right is the result.
What is unmistakably clear is that the Christian Right has worked diligently and effectively to advocate their agenda. Beginning during the 1980s, Christian groups began specifically distributing information on political races and candidates. “The Christian Coalition is the largest and most politically savvy of such organizations, having distributed nearly 30 million voter guides or “legislative scorecards” for the 1994 congressional races and 45 million for the 1996 presidential race … Such guides or scorecards typically list candidates’ previous records or avowed positions on issues important to the distributing organization (e.g., school choice vouchers, abortion, welfare reform, term limits), or print candidate responses to the organization’s questionnaires. (Regnerus, Sikkink, D. & Smith, 1999, p. 1377-1378). Critics immediately raised concerns about the legality of this type of open advocacy; it arguably violates a number of church/state separation statutes and may threaten the tax-exempt status of a religious organization, but once the Christian Right discovered their unparalleled power to control the Republican infrastructure, they were reluctant to change course for a simple reason – religious advocacy is remarkably effective. As early as the late 1970s, as the Christian Right was beginning its climb to its current position of power in national Republican politics, a Gallup poll revealed that one out of every three adults questioned had experienced a religious conversion, that almost half believed that the Bible was infallible, and that more than 80 percent considered Jesus Christ to be divine. At the same time, it was revealed that television and radio preachers of that era had an audience of up to 130 million members listening on 130 radio and television stations, with profits approaching $1 billion annually – and this was 30 years ago, before the advent of many modern means of communications that have multiplied these statistics many times over (Lienesch, 1993, p. 1). The success of the Christian Right in monopolizing Republican politics stems largely from the fact that church leaders recognized these realities long before mainstream Republicans, the national media, or secular progressives; they realized the power they could wield long before their political opponents recognized the threat – and it is that realization that allowed them to quickly take control of large segments of the conservative Republican movement (Buss & Herman, 2003, p. 91). By 1995, the Christian Coalition could claim 1.5 million members in 48 states and 1400 local chapters; other conservative groups, like Concerned Women for America, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council – organizations led by leading conservatives like Dobson, Ralph Reed, Tim LaHaye, and Pat Robertson – boasted similar membership numbers, representing a significant religious influence over the voting habits of many tens of millions of Christian Americans (Rozell & Wilcox, 1995, p. 8). The key point here, however, is not that these groups rose to prominence through religious activities – but that they gained power through politics. Each of these groups, and the countless state and local groups with similar religious and political agendas, are linked directly to Republican Party politics. The members of these organizations were not just Evangelical Christians, they were also almost universally voting Republicans who leaned increasingly conservative; more to the point – these organizations had immense influence in guiding the voting patterns of their members, essentially ensuring large voting blocs for Republican candidates (Johnson, Tamney, & Burton, 1990, p. 295).
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the rise of the single-party Christian Right is the fact that organizational leaders are fully aware of their power – and expect explicit quid pro quo arrangements in exchange for the support of their membership. “After the 1994 Republican landslide, Reverend Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition advertised that it had helped to elect a large number of the GOP congressional candidates and therefore claimed the right to promote its version of policy change in the 104th Congress. Taking its cues from the Republican “Contract with America,” the Christian Coalition put forth its own ‘Contract with the American Family’—an agenda of social policies reflecting the goals of many Christian social conservatives. The Christian Coalition and other Christian Right groups have certainly succeeded in getting the rest of the country to listen to their call for social policy reform. News media accounts frequently describe the Christian Coalition’s young executive director Ralph Reed as one of the country’s most influential political operatives. A Time magazine cover story went so far as to tell readers that Reed’s plan of “taking over” the political process was ‘working’”(Rozell & Wilcox, 1995, p. vii). This type of statement clearly illustrates the crux of the issue: by essentially taking over the Republican Party, and by ensuring the votes of its members, Christian conservative organizations have come to expect – and demand – that Republican politicians will follow their agenda once in office. Therein lay the great danger of the current situation, with organized religion in bed with a single political party: religion is no longer simply a spiritual force in public life, but a competing governmental power seeking to advance its own causes through public action and governmental institution of policy. The situation becomes starkly frightening in light of what studies reveal about the psychological propensities of many fundamentalists: some observers note “religious fundamentalists’ orientation toward rightwing authoritarianism, which can lead to higher levels of child abuse; their need for dominance over women; and their motivation for blatantly misreading the First Amendment” (Huang, 2003, p. 45). Thus, while any close ties between religious and political organizations would be troubling, this incestuous bound between Republican conservatives and religious fundamentalism is particularly dangerous.
In short, the great danger of the modern Christian Right is that conservatism and fundamentalism have become largely synonymous – and as a result, religion often governs politics. This reality was not inevitable; conservatism – even social conservatism – does not necessitate a religious component, and certainly does not require a monolithic one-party relationship with evangelical Christianity. Yet this is precisely the modern reality – and a significant number of conservatives now base their politics and their voting patterns on the influence of Christian organizations. A 1999 study of organizational influences on voting habits revealed that 19.9% of Americans had based political votes on Christian Right organizational resources; 48% of evangelicals have used the Christian Right help to some degree. They are also 50% more likely than fundamentalist Protestants to use Christian Coalition-type voting assistance “often.” Some of the other findings were rather surprising: while it is unsurprising that residents in the South and Midwest tended to more heavily turn to the Christian Right for help in assessing candidates and issues, the study also revealed that college-educated people were slightly more likely to be influenced by the Religious Right than non-college s, that women were more heavily influenced than men – and that blacks were more heavily influenced than whites. The most critical finding, of course, was that the most heavily influenced voters were “predictably, Republican voters more than other party voters and nonvoters. (Regnerus, Sikkink & Smith, 1999, p. 1384).
It is not surprising that the Christian Right has gained influence; after all, national polls regularly reveal that 9 out of 10 Americans pray to God routinely; moreover, a full one-third of American are affiliated to some extent with an evangelical denomination (Kaplan, 1993, p. 3) While the active participation in politics is a new phenomenon, the Christian Right has now fully realized its potential impact within the Republican Party – and is taking full advantage of that influence to affect national policy. For example, during the Reagan presidency conservative Christians within the Republican Party began to realize they could use political power to create social change in line with social conservatism: “The Christian Right believed that Reagan’s ascent to the presidency in 1980 signaled the beginning of an age of social conservatism where abortion and pornography would be prohibited, organized prayer returned to the schools, and Christian schools could operate free of IRS harassment” (Haberman, 2005, p. 235). In the 1996 election cycle, although Republican candidate Bob Dole lost his bid for the White House, conservative Christians began to fully exploit their power, to an extent beyond even that which ushered in the Republican Congress in 1994. “29 percent of all voters in 1996 were born-again Christians who frequently attend church. The same poll indicated that 15 percent of all voters claimed to be either members or supporters of the Christian Coalition. Moreover, among those who described themselves this way, fully 67 percent voted for Dole while only 20 percent voted for Clinton. Exit polls revealed a similar story: whites who identified themselves as part of the Religious Right constituted 17 percent of all voters and cast their ballots overwhelmingly for Dole (65 percent to 26 percent for Clinton). Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed had some basis for saying that “conservative evangelicals were the firewall that prevented a Bob Dole defeat from mushrooming into a meltdown all the way down the ballot” (Penning & Smidt, 1997, p. 37). In short, since 1980 the Christian Right – and the loose coalition of activist organizations – has taken unprecedented steps to infuse its Christian religious agenda with the political goals of the Republican Party, and today is a key constituency of that party; no Republican can easily win national office without the consent of the Religious Right – and they fully expect repayment for their electoral blessings. This not only represents a potential abuse of power on an unimaginable scale – with the separation of church and state almost nullified by the relationship between the Christian Right and the Republican Party – but it has also already led to significant changes in political action and public policy. Specifically, in areas like education, free speech, legislated morality, abortion, taxation, national defense, and the debate over traditional “family values,” the power of the Christian Right within the Republican Party has already had significant, lasting, and damaging consequences for the way in which the nation is governed.
The Christian Right Influence on Education Policy and Child-Raising
There are certain key tenets to the Republican platform that are almost wholly attributable to the role of the Christian Right within the party, and no single area is more heavily impacted than public education. Whenever partisan governance is found, whether at local or national levels, the Christian Right dominates Republican policy in education and child-rearing. For example, “in October 2004, the school board in Dover, Pa., dominated by religious conservatives, made national headlines when it required high school biology teachers to read a statement about intelligent design to students before teaching about evolution … and Dover’s school board is not the first to enact education policy based on its members’ religious views (Deckman, 2006, p. 26). In short, even in local government, where Republicans control local city councils and school boards – it is actually the Christian Right often wielding power. Thus, for all intents and purposes, it is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity that is establishing educational policy for much of the nation’s public schools.
The impact of the Christian Right on child-raising extends even to basic issues of parental choice – like childhood vaccination. A major reason for parental refusal of childhood immunization is religion; some religions – and some individual interpretations of religion – lead many parents to believe immunization violates their faith. These parents believe that God’s will determines the health or sickness of a child, and that immunization violates their trust in God. While the wisdom of such beliefs is arguable, there is no question that the principal of religious opposition to vaccination is relatively significant; in fact, experts note that the two main exceptions to school-mandated immunization are medical or religious. (Mercola, 2003, para. 17). Governmental bodies, at local, state, and federal levels, have taken note of this religious opposition, and in many cases specific exceptions are being made for religious choice in child immunization. Action taken by the state legislature in Missouri provides a clear example of governmental recognition of the religious component of vaccination policy. In that state, House Bill 1538 states specifically that a “parent may exempt a child from immunizations required for school attendance on religious grounds or when immunizations are medically contraindicated.” (“HB-1538,” 2003, para. 1). The Missouri State Senate has followed the example of the lower house, and has passed Senate Bill 112, which specifically allows parents to refuse to vaccinate their children for religious, philosophical, or medical reasons. (“SB-112,” 2003, para. 1). Due primarily to the strength of First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion, the government has been forced to recognize religious exceptions to immunization mandates, and many parents of various faiths are taking advantage of these policies to exclude their children from vaccination. While the government may hide behind First Amendment policy, the reality is that in most of these cases – Republican dominate state and local government, and thus establish educational and vaccination policies, with the Christian Right once again controlling the party and pulling the strings. Similarly, the issue of school vouchers and home schooling has become, in some jurisdictions, the sole issue upon which votes are cast – with the Christian Right again dominating the debate (Bates, 1991, p. 3). In short, our public schools have become a battleground for the metaphorical soul of the nation – and the Republican Christian Right is using its power in government to focus it’s efforts there, and is succeeding to a large extent:
Where the schools are concerned, the Christian Right may be on a roll. The attitudes of the larger culture and its opinion shapers are showing signs of merging with some of the Christian Right’s longtime pre-occupations with clean living, solid academic grounding, and respect for the family. Nothing obsesses the Religious Right more than getting children off to a strong moral start — a troublesome task under normal conditions and even more so at a time of disintegrating values, order, and social institutions. If, as so many religious conservatives and extremists believe, children are the “inheritors of original sin” and are thus susceptible to indecent temptations, then exposing them to the evils of today’s morally declining schools is risky and possibly calamitous. Sara Diamond, a leading analyst of the Religious Right, puts it bluntly: “The right to determine how and by whom the minds of children are molded is the most valued prize in the tug of war between the Christian Right and secular society.” (Kaplan, 1993, p. 1).
Education is viewed as fundamental to the Christian Right because it represents an opportunity to shape society at its earliest stage, to indoctrinate new future members, and to influence policy; it is solely the role of the Religious Right within the Republican Party that permits it to have this undue influence on such a key part of society.
The Christian Right Influence on the Abortion Debate
The issue of abortion is arguably the most hotly contested debate in the history of American social politics, and despite established Supreme Court precedent declaring the constitutionality of the procedure, the legal and emotional battles are far from over. The politics of abortion is so markedly divisive and polarizing specifically because of the array of factors that are present in any discussion of the issue: biology and feminism, medicine and law, religion and morality. The debate is seldom carried out with any semblance of logic or rational discourse, because the vast majority of activists are motivated primarily by ideological agendas (Baird & Rosenbaum, 1993, p. 41). In her groundbreaking work on the politics of abortion, researcher Kristin Luker concludes that attitudes towards abortion are largely determined by pre-existing ideological attitudes towards sex, motherhood, family and religion; in short, she concludes that abortion viewpoints are formed by ideology rather than logical contemplation. (Luker, 1984). Is this accurate – and has this pre-existing ideology led to the current constitutionality of abortion? Certainly, there is some validity to this position, as evidenced by the undisputed influence of religious and political ideology on abortion beliefs. (Frohock, 1983, p. 29). Obviously, both sides of the abortion issue have their ideologues and dogmatic belief; however, only the Republican Party has a dominant religious constituency – the Christian Right – that pushes an agenda based solely on religious philosophy. As a result, almost all Republican participation in the abortion debate is heavily impacted by fundamentalist, evangelical Christian philosophies. In an issue so fundamental to concerns regarding freedoms and rights to privacy, this intrusion of religion into the public sphere – wholly a result of the intertwining of the Republican Party with the Christian Right – is particularly troublesome and potentially dangerous.
The Christian Right Influence on the Traditional Family Debate
Another critical impact of the Christian Right influence within the Republican Party is the discussion on “traditional family values” and the “natural family,” concepts that are key to Biblical understandings within the evangelical Christian church. For example, Christian conservatives have offered the following Biblical scriptures as proof of the primacy of the nuclear family:
The fact is, the family is the primary agent of stability in a society. It is the family that is charged with the responsibility of infusing children with the principles of God’s law (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). It is the family that is charged with the responsibility of upbraiding, restraining, and rebuking unrighteous behavior (Proverbs 23:13–14). It is the family that is charged with the responsibility of balancing liberty with justice, freedom with responsibility, and license with restriction (Deuteronomy 11: 18–21). It is the family that is charged with the responsibility of being culture’s basic building block (Genesis 9:1–7). The family is central to virtually every societal endeavor under God: from education (Proverbs 22:6) to charity (1 Timothy 5:8), from economics (Deuteronomy 21:17) to spirituality (Ephesians 6:1–4), from the care of the aged (1 Timothy 5:3–13) to the subduing of the earth (Genesis 1:26–28). (1993, 234) (Buss & Herman, 2003, p. 3)
Based on teachings like these, the Christian Right is highly motivated and fully mobilized to influence Republican policy on a wide range of issues, beginning with homosexual marriage but extending to education, abortion, and any and all matters related to the family. This arguably represents the most invasive aspect of the religious monopoly within the Republican Party.
The Source of Evangelical Christian Political Beliefs
To understand the course taken by conservative Republicanism over the last three decades, the unique tenets of fundamentalist Christianity must be understood; it is largely these evangelical beliefs which have led to a modern Republican Party typified by black-and-white us-versus-them thinking, lacking in nuance and depth. Part of this originates from the fact that Christianity is unique among major theological belief systems in that it specifically embraces the concept of oppression and martyrdom. Many Christians expect to deal with religious persecution; many consider it a badge of honor and a sign of faith. This is unsurprising considering the origin of the religion: Jesus Christ was himself persecuted and executed by crucifixion, a Divine submission to human persecution. Before his death, Jesus even specifically blessed those who faced persecution for believing in his Divinity:
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Matthew 5: 10-12).
Therefore, while the tendency to oppress and persecute different classifications of people is a facet of human nature, the historical persecution of Christians stems primarily from two sources: the unique way in which Christian doctrine tends to threaten the authorities in power, and the specific manner in which the Christian faith places value on martyrdom and submission to persecution.This is arguably the single most repeated and most fundamental message of Christianity: that just as Christ rose from death and ascended to Heaven, all Christians will be rewarded for their sufferings. The Bible specifies a number of responses to persecution, all of which revolve around this basic theme of forgiveness, renewal, faith, and ultimate reward for enduring suffering. In Romans, Christ actually asks his followers to bless their oppressors: “Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.” (Romans 12:14)[i] The New Testament even goes so far as to suggest the proper response to persecution is not lamentation but rejoicing, because it is a sign of righteousness and an ultimate reward in the afterlife:
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. (1 Peter 4:12-14)
Why are these beliefs important? The answer is that they serve to create a dichotomy in which political beliefs are based on religious principles of persecution; the Religious Right only advances its agenda by insisting that it is doing battle with the forces of secular oppressors. By creating an external enemy, the Christian Right gains power within the Republican Party – and the Republicans win more elections through this manipulation.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Christian Right control of the Republican Party – at least from a purely theological perspective – is the basic evangelical belief in a coming apocalypse. “The Christian Right as a whole is united in terms of its religious orthodoxy about an inevitable future for the earth. All sections of the movement are convinced that the Second Coming will occur, all non-Christians will disappear one way or another, and Christ will rule the earth. Indeed, this belief is one of the defining features of conservative Christianity and therefore the Christian Right … The earth will then enter the stages of Tribulation—plagued by terrible disasters, floods, fires, earthquakes, wars, and so on. Many millions of people will die horrible, excruciating deaths. At this point, thousands of Jews will see the light and convert (however this is far too late for Rapture and most of them will perish in the disasters and final battles). As regional power blocs engage in war, the Second Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem: this signals the return of Christ and the saints. (Buss & Herman, 2003, p. 10-11). The problem with such millennial beliefs in Armageddon are obvious: if a single party is dominated by those who believe in the inevitable end of the world and the return of Christ – and a battle with an anti-Christ figure – is that if the Republican Party is in power in national politics, American foreign policy will inevitably be impacted by such a belief. Many experts argue that our current adventures in the Middle East and our long-time policy towards the state of Israel are directly linked to the Republican relationship with the Christian Right.
Conclusions
The Christian Right of today is inextricably linked to the Republican Party, and to a large extent controls the policies established by Republican officials. Whereas the evangelical Christian community was once largely apolitical, it now controls the agenda of a single party, a process that took decades and still continues. “The political agenda of the Christian Right was a long time in coming. It began to take shape in the broadest of terms during the 1960s, in response to such trends as a more intrusive federal government and the rise of the counterculture. It was further molded in the 1970s at the hands of fundamentalist elites, who were able to place their concerns first on the systematic agenda and then on the institutional agenda of the Congress. By the 1980s, the painstaking process of specifying alternatives was underway. It was a slow process, but continuous. The amorphous discontent that existed within the fundamentalist community was given expression, focus, and serious consideration by the early 1980s (Moen, 1989, p. 83).
It is important to note that the critical social issue here is neither conservatism nor fundamentalist Christianity; the issue at stake is the conflation of the two distinct groups into a single parasitical political organism, with one feeding off the other. There is nothing essentially evil about the Christian Right: “With ample justification, the Christian Right’s adherents view themselves as hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding — if somewhat misunderstood — citizens distinguishable mainly by their unflinching devotion to basic Christian principles” (Kaplan, 1993, p. 2). Instead, the danger represented to society by the Christian Right comes from its dominance of the Republican Party and its infusion of fundamentalist beliefs into the political process:
Buttressed by its rigidly interpreted code of beliefs and disillusioned by what it considers to be the growing futility of public education, the new Christian Right is seeking to position itself as an arbiter or standard-setter of life in education’s household. In the never-ending national conversation about what and how our children are to learn, it has staked out a clear moral stance: its version of true, uncompromising Christian belief, which it defends with primitive ferocity. This “fixation of belief,” as the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce called it, goes to “the heart of what fundamentalism is all about. The fundamentalist temperament tends to search for certainty rather than for error. The fundamentalist’s tendency is to nail his beliefs in place. (Kaplan, 1993, p. 3).
When a single party is dominated by this type of thinking – thinking that is based on religious dogma and which leaves no room for compromise – we are all in danger.
References Cited
Alley, R. (1996). Religious Expression in Public Schools. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Baird, R. M., & Rosenbaum, S. E. (Eds.). (1993). The Ethics of Abortion: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice (Revised ed.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Bates, V. L. (1991). Lobbying for the Lord: the New Christian Right Home-Schooling Movement and Grassroots Lobbying. Review of Religious Research, 33(1), 3-17.
Buss, D., & Herman, D. (2003). Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deckman, M. M. (2006, October). Governing with the Christian Right: Episodes in Dover, Pa., and Other Districts Might Assuage Administrators’ Fears That a Religious Conservative Board Majority Brings Excessive Entanglement over Religion. School Administrator, 63, 26-29.
Frohock, F. M. (1983). Abortion, a Case Study in Law and Morals. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Gedicks, Frederick Mark, and Roger Hendrix. (1991). Choosing the Dream: The Future of Religion in American Public Life. Ed. Henry Warner Bowden. New York: Greenwood Press.
Haberman, A. (2005). Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right. The Historian, 67(2), 234-239.
Huang, J. (2003, September/October). The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America. The Humanist, 63, 44-45.
“`Intelligent Design’ and Public Schools: Covert Evangelism?” (May 2002). Church & State: 14.
Johnson, S. D., Tamney, J. B., & Burton, R. (1990). Factors Influencing Vote for a Christian Right Candidate. Review of Religious Research, 31(3), 291-304.
Kaplan, G. R. (1994). Shotgun Wedding: Notes on Public Education’s Encounter with the New Christian Right. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 1-14.
Lienesch, M. (1993). Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Luker, K. (1984). Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lubet, Steven. “The Ten Commandments in Alabama.” Constitutional
Commentary (1998): 471-481.
Moen, M. C. (1989). The Christian Right and Congress. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.
Moen, M. C. (1992). The Transformation of the Christian Right. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
(1983). The New Christian Right: Mobilization and Legitimation (R. C. Liebman & R. Wuthnow, Ed.). New York: Aldine Publishing.
Penning, J. M., & Smidt, C. (1997, January 15). What Coalition? Divisions in the Christian Right. The Christian Century, 114, 37-39.
Regnerus, M. D., Sikkink, D., & Smith, C. (1999). Voting with the Christian Right: Contextual and Individual Patterns of Electoral Influence. Social Forces, 77(4), 1375-1401.
Rozell, M. J. & Wilcox, C. (Eds.). (1995). God at the Grass Roots: The Christian Right in the 1994 Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Scully, Sean. “Ten Commandments Urged for Nationwide Public Display: 41 Hill
Lawmakers Back Family Research Council Effort.” The Washington Times 22 Oct. 1999: 11-12.
Wilcox, C. (1990). The Christian Right and the Pro-Life Movement: an Analysis of the Sources of Political Support. Review of Religious Research, 31(4), 380-389.
Wilcox, C. (1996). Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Nick Maceus's Weblog 