Why Sarah Palin's Speech Will Not Win Over All Evangelicals
I doubt they will drop their snakes long engough to vote regardless.
Posted on 09/04/2008 7:58:19 AM PDT by mathprof
I teach at a Catholic university. I study and write about evangelical Protestants. I have no religious convictions of my own. This bothers people who insist that if you are not yourself religious you cannot possibly "get" religion. I leave it to others to decide whether my lack of faith helps or hinders my capacity to understand the subject. But I do know one thing. Because of where I teach and who I study, I have come across some remarkable people I otherwise would never have met.
Familiar with the Catholic tradition, I cannot say I am surprised to meet learned Catholics with a deeply honed sense of social justice. But I have been taken aback by how many evangelicals to whom I have spoken who think deeply about the obligations we human beings have toward each other, take seriously a command to lead lives of good purpose, and resist having their faith corrupted by the temptations of money and power. Megachurches and Christian colleges and seminaries have more than their share of people who love God and want to make the world a better place.
Sarah Palin's speech last night was rapturously received by the delegates to the Republican convention, most of whom are conservative Christians. But just because most Republicans are conservative Christians does not mean that all conservative Christians are Republican. I have the feeling that Palin's speech will not wear well among many of the primarily younger evangelicals I have come to know.
To be sure, Palin's personal story will resonate with them, especially the story of Trig. (At one evangelical event in Atlanta I attended, I was bowled over by the parents of a quadriplegic child to whom they had clearly devoted their lives; I do not think I have the same level of devotion within me). But three aspects of Palin's speech are likely to bother them.
Evangelicals are becoming increasingly persuaded that Christians are under an injunction to preserve and protect the natural environment bequeathed to us by God. They will not be attracted to destroying the beauty of Alaska to fill our all-too- human urge to drive cars. Christians are from time to time called on to sacrifice for their beliefs, and if we have to cut back our energy consumption to protect God's gift, that is as worthy a sacrifice as there is. Palin rhetorically called for clean energy but her words lacked conviction, especially when compared to her calls to drill and drill some more. This will be noticed.
Palin's speech, secondly, was too partisan to be easily swallowed by younger, post-partisan, evangelicals. These are people who disagree with Barack Obama's position on abortion but respect him as a Christian. Palin's over-the-top sarcasm toward Obama will not play well with them, especially her implicit questioning of his patriotism. To the extent that these younger evangelicals are political, they look for a politics of elevation. The whole tone of last night's convention will prove to be a bit too sour. You do not call for change and adhere to the Rove-Schmitt style of attack.
Finally, and most importantly, Palin did not speak to the powerful sense emerging among evangelicals that all Christians, and not just Catholics, should do their best to insure social justice in this world. On the contrary, Palin mocked Obama's service as a community organizer, an odd thing to do given that so many community organizers are inspired by their religious convictions. Promising to cut taxes appeals to country-club Republicans. It is not nearly as resonant a theme to those who understand that the programs financed by taxes help the neediest and most dependent. If Palin said one word about how to make this world a fairer place or indicated at any point how to realize the common good, I did not hear it.
This is the moment for Sarah Palin to have her day. But great speeches are meant to be digested over long periods. This is not one that future generations of evangelicals will turn to for inspiration.
Alan Wolfe is a TNR contributing editor and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.
Who is Alan Wolfe?
From Wikipedia:
Earlier in his career, Wolfe was a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop. By the early 1980s, Wolfe’s politics had become more centrist.
Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Wolfe
“I teach at a Catholic university.”
Boston College is not Catholic—it is Jesuit...Has their theology dept signed JPII’s mandatum???
What they really are is a pack of lesbians that want to be nuns and leftist that want to use “social justice” as a mechanism to promote left wing causes.
I'm a Roman Catholic and I'll throw my lot in with the Baptist and the Assemblies of God and the REAL evangelical faiths any day.
This twit comes across as a self-styled Margaret Mead studying traditional Christians as if they are exotic primitive tribal people. The Catholic University system has been infected with the black mold of secular humanism. How tragic.
He is surprised to find out evangelicals and other Christians are concerned for the environment and their fellowmen and women? He clearly doesn’t understand the Christian faith. The difference between liberals and Christians is that liberals work toward their ideals by imposing their ideas of paradise on the people through taxation, restrictive laws, intimidation and other equally repugnant means—all in the pursuit of their “worthy goals” of course. Christians follow the dictates of their Founder by working to change the hearts of their brothers and sisters and thereby indirectly contributing to a more just, kind and sensible citizenry. As one Christian leader stated, “we take the slum out of the person and he takes himself out of the slum” and this is accomplished by example, love, respect and patience rather than force.
“These are people who disagree with Barack Obama’s position on abortion but respect him as a Christian.”
All three of them have doubts about Sarah, but they should come around.
“But I have been taken aback by how many evangelicals to whom I have spoken who think deeply about the obligations we human beings have toward each other, take seriously a command to lead lives of good purpose, and resist having their faith corrupted by the temptations of money and power.”
This “teacher” is a dufus!
The dopes are coming out of the woodwork.
Someone with Obama's position on abortion is NOT a Christian. Period. It doesn't matter what he considers himself. It's what God thinks of him.
Alan Wolfe is a fool and a liar as well, but that's obvious.
He claims also, and perhaps not surprisingly, that he didn't expect evangelicals to be supporting charity. ????
His immediate hatred of conservatives (see it in his language and terms such as “country-club”) show that he has NO understanding of what he (claims to) be teaching. I cannot imagine any more of a waste of time, money, and ink than to take a course in religion under a “man” who claims to have no religion.
But one who worships the god earth anyway. Who cannot see Obama’s lies for they are.
What a goof.
I suppose he will next tell us that that other stalwart Jesuit institution, Georgetown, is also a Catholic university. They sure don’t act like it.
Alan Wolfe is a blowhard, did anyone see the hit job he did on Russell Kirk? I take what he has to say with a grain of salt - he belongs to the demographic of graying liberal “Christians” who are seeing their dreams of a liberal Church go up in smoke.
No offense to my Catholic FRiends here but don't yall think this guy needs to be fired?
I stopped after the first 3 sentences
This was posted on a website supporting Obama/Biden...so what do you expect? I can’t believe Catholics would agree with a baby killer, but from reading some of the blogs on that site, they do.
Wolfe is right...those who are dedicated leftists and still fooling themselves into thinking the party of Harry Truman still exists might vote for Obama.
Those are very, very, very few.
Basically, the small cadre of self-identified liberal evangelicals will not like Palin, not that I ever expected them to.
Or even all blacks.
The New Republic people are fools, clueless, or being crassly manipulative. I'll go with door #3.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.