The French Revolution
As Evangelicals Falter, Catholics and Mormons Lead
Evangelical Protestants are failing the social conservative movement. Why?
By David French, February 04, 2011

On January 23, 2011, I stood, overwhelmed, in front of almost 2,000 pro-life students. I was overwhelmed by their energy, by their commitment to defending the defenseless, and by their gracious and Godly spirit. For years I've traveled the country, speaking to thousands of evangelical students, and find myself—even in front of "activist" organizations—virtually pleading for a sliver of courage or a trace of commitment in support of life or marriage. In response, I get encouragement, good words, and all too often nothing else.

But on January 23, it was different. Instead of inspiring, I was inspired. Rather than exhorting others to greater levels of engagement, I was admonished for my own compromises. The contrast between that day and most of my days—the difference between that audience and most of my audiences—could not have been more profound. And this audience was largely Catholic, and the Catholic Church for almost forty years has been the beating heart of the American pro-life movement.

On November 4, 2008, defenders of traditional marriage won perhaps their greatest—and to the secular liberal establishment, most shocking—victory in the almost decade-long struggle against the redefinition of marriage. Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman, won a clear majority in California. Although outspent and vilified by the mainstream media, religious Californians opened their checkbooks, donated their time, and endured the scorn of the secular elite to overturn California's judicially-imposed same-sex marriage regime. And where did a wildly disproportionate number of dollars and volunteers come from? The LDS church.

As devout Catholics and faithful Mormons step forward boldly, evangelical Protestants appear in cultural disarray. The most popular of the new generation of evangelical pastors—Rick Warren and Joel Osteen—stay out of the cultural fray. Evangelical youth may have orthodox opinions on marriage or life, but they're increasingly reluctant to voice those opinions, lest they appear "divisive" or "intolerant." In fact, at times it appears as if much of the evangelical world has retreated into a defensive crouch, eager to promote its universally-loved work for the poor while abjectly apologizing for the cultural battles of years past.

Why are Catholics and Mormons increasingly bold when so many evangelicals are increasingly timid? Why are Catholics so often leading on life and Mormons so often leading on marriage? The answer, I think, is theological and cultural, two words that expose profound weaknesses in American evangelicalism.

First, theology. One cannot spend five minutes with thoughtful Catholics without understanding how the defense of life is a fundamental and integral part of the DNA of the church. Since the defense of life is theologically-grounded, it is functionally and practically independent of any secular ideology. Nuns who one day attend a sit-in for immigrant rights may the next day do sidewalk counseling outside of Planned Parenthood. Bishops, "progressive" or conservative, defend life in Catholic hospitals. Catholics who study church doctrine, who immerse themselves in the teachings of the church, understand that to defend life is to imitate Christ. Life is not just an "issue," for a Catholic; it is at the core of the Gospel.

Next, culture. The Mormon church knows what it is like to live outside the mainstream. Born in an atmosphere of violent persecution, with a cultural heritage buttressed by their own perilous trek across the wilderness to the haven of Utah, and with strong emphases on family and church bonds, the Mormon culture is inherently resilient in the face of cultural headwinds. Two-year missions teach Mormon children about selfless service but also how to face rejection and even scorn. Evangelicals, by contrast, are often shocked when co-workers turn on them, or when the country drifts from its heritage. Mormons aren't so easily shaken. After all, the country wasn't theirs to begin with.

For all our many virtues (and there are many: American evangelicals are among the most generous and loving people in the world), we generally have no conception of—or particular loyalty to—"church teaching" and tend to see marriage and life as "issues" rather than integral parts of our core theology. Since we're busy being spiritual entrepreneurs, revolutionizing the whole concept of church every 90 seconds, we don't have the kind of (relative) theological stability that has marked almost 2,000 years of Catholic history, and we can't come close to matching the (again, relative) uniformity of teaching that marks the Mormon experience.

We also lack the shared Catholic and Mormon culture and the solidarity that comes with it. We're more unified than we've been in the past, but we're a collection of subcultures that comprise a shaky, larger whole. And we are often desperate for acceptance. We view the transient scorn of popular culture as a virtual cataclysm, and our distressingly common health and wealth gospels wrongly teach us that Christian faith carries with it measurable earthly pleasures. We lack a theology of suffering. We lack a unity of purpose. And our convictions all too often collapse in the face of strong cultural opposition.

Simply put, we evangelicals are blown and tossed by the cultural winds. Right now, the winds are blowing against us, and our young people are reluctant to engage. But God is sovereign, and the fate of the nation is in His hands, not ours. And if we fail, there are others—some from an ancient tradition, some from a new one—who may very well carry out His work with more faith and courage than we ever could.

"Since the defense of life is theologically-grounded, it is functionally and practically independent of any secular ideology."

I disagree with this part. I heard Archbishop Dolan on the radio recently and he said we don't oppose abortion because scripture tells us to, or because tradition tells us to; we oppose abortion because reason tells us to.

It is precisely because this is not a theological issue that we can come into the public square so forcefully. I've talked to some evangelical friends my age who seem to come at everything from a biblical perspective and see abortion/marriage as theological issues and therefore are less willing to bring their view into politics.

All issues are theological. All valid value judgments are based on Gods perspective. A strictly secular value judgment has no foundation and is therefore worthless.

Oops, meant to hit the quote box on your post but hit the like thingy instead (not that I don't like you!). But how do explain how an atheist like Nate Hentoff is staunchly pro-life if one can only reach a pro-life position by their theological perspective?

All issues are theological. All valid value judgments are based on Gods perspective. A strictly secular value judgment has no foundation and is therefore worthless.

A person can come to the correct conclusion about an issue but for the wrong reasons. The problem with abortion is not so much that a human being is killed, but that God forbids that we do it.

But those two conclusions, I would argue, are in harmony with each other. What would be a "wrong" reason for wanting to stop abortion? God's moral law is written on every persons conscience, some advocate for that law while rejecting He who put it on their conscience in the first place, while many others reject both the law and law giver.

But those two conclusions, I would argue, are in harmony with each other. What would be a "wrong" reason for wanting to stop abortion? God's moral law is written on every persons conscience, some advocate for that law while rejecting He who put it on their conscience in the first place, while many others reject both the law and law giver.

Jdbrown, I think we're talking about different things.

You're saying that in an ultimate sense abortion is worse for the abortionist and mother because they're committing really serious sin, whereas the baby is going to the after life with no actual sin and therefore blamelessly. Therefore, we ought to be more concerned about the ones who are sinning (leaving aside the question of the moral culpability of the parties involved which I'm sure in many cases is diminished due to ignorance).

That's good and fine. We're simply saying that anyone should be able to see that one shouldn't abort a baby by reason.

The civil law is concerned not with keeping people from sin but with protecting the innocent, protecting rights, maintaining justice, keeping order, etc. There is a right to life that's violated in abortion. That's what we're talking about.

I heard Archbishop Dolan on the radio recently and he said we don't oppose abortion because scripture tells us to, or because tradition tells us to; we oppose abortion because reason tells us to.

It is precisely because this is not a theological issue that we can come into the public square so forcefully.

'Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73' -- Evangelium vitae, § 62.3, Pope John Paul II, March 25, 1995

I know there has been some elaboration of this downthread, but I was little startled when I read this. I thought surely the Archbishop miss-spoke. Or, surely this quote is lacking something without its context.

I ask myself, is the following based purely [sans scripture, tradition, theology] on "reason"?:

The problem with abortion is not so much that a human being is killed, but that God forbids that we do it.