Faith and Works

Barack Obama makes a play for a Christian Democratic synthesis, appearing at a United Church of Christ event, telling "the crowd it was a UCC member who had inspired the Boston Tea Party which helped bring about the country's independence, and Obama said through the succeeding decades people of faith have helped make America more decent and more just." He elaborated that "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the lord’s work."

Obama identified the war in Iraq, poverty and the plight of uninsured Americans as the primary "moral" issues facing the U.S.

Obama attacked leaders of the "Christian Right" who he accused of exploiting issues like abortion and gay marriage to divide Evangelical Christians from those who attend so-called "mainline" churches. "Of course, it goes a little further than that. There was a period of time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich...I don't know what Bible they are reading," Obama said, as the crowd applauded. "Didn't jive with my version."

This comes via Andrew Sullivan who sees Obama as deploying the "Christianist" approach he's come to deplore in the GOP to big government ends. That's probably not false. One big question is whether it will play with a nationwide electorate. Judis & Teixeira write that "Obama, a black man from Chicago, will also likely be seen as a cultural liberal; in addition, he could be at a disadvantage among many white voters in the South, lower Midwest, and interior West because of his race."

This strikes me as a question worthy of further research. African-Americans tend to be much more adept than white liberals at the brand of heavily religioned-up politics (or politicsed-up religion) that a certain segment of the electorate seems to enjoy and are also better at getting a pass from white seculars about doing it than are devout white people. It also seems to me that one shouldn't underestimate the extent to which Americans appear to me to be perfectly willing to embrace black men who fit a certain "non-threatening black man" mode. Certainly while early general election polling has very limited probative value, if there's anything at all that people know about Obama it's that he's black, and he still polls well. And, yes, the "Wilder effect" doesn't seem to exist any more if it ever did.

Comments

"the crowd it was a UCC member who had inspired the Boston Tea Party which helped bring about the country's independence, and Obama said through the succeeding decades people of faith have helped make America more decent and more just."

Well indeed, but at the time of the Boston Tea party no "UCC" existed and the various member Churches had no umbrella organization.

"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the lord’s work."

To my knowledge all protestant denomination says that salvation comes through faith alone. Only the Catholic Church subscribes to Faith & Good Works as necessary.

Now obviously he just said "fulfilling God’s will" ...but if my theological antenna went up, then certainly others did.

Posted by Fitz | June 19, 2007 9:42 AM

. "Didn't jive with my version."

"Jibe," no? Or is this a black thing?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 19, 2007 9:46 AM

Andrew labelling Obama as "Christianist" veers dangerously close to self-parody.

Posted by right | June 19, 2007 9:53 AM

Are we even sure Barack Obama is Christian? I'm not saying he's Muslim -- though his middle name, "Hussein" would give that impression and he did attend a Muslim school as a kid. More probably, Obama's religion is political ambition, and he joined a black racialist church not because he was moved by faith but because it padded his political resume.

Posted by Harry | June 19, 2007 10:01 AM

Fitz is right protestants are committed to 'salvation comes through faith alone'. Liberal Christians have been bitching about 'works' and getting ignored as long as I can remember and I suspect the practice dates to back hours after the sermon on the mount. You can see the divide in the old testament as well.

Most of the analysis of this is done by pollsters that seem to unaware how profoundly old this type of issue is. If right wing christans were just a few bible references away from devoting themselves to changing the world then UCC and other liberal dominations would have taken Christianity year ago.

Posted by ChrisB | June 19, 2007 10:06 AM

A christian democratic approach is notable for combining the social conservatism of the churches with the big government programs of the liberals into an uber-populism. Liberals already support the "go out and do God's work!" and have used it in many many elections, or tried to. Whether the media bothers to cover it or not isn't really the candidate's fault.

If Obama started lecturing against abortion and the evils of modern secular culture, THEN he would be embracing christian democratic politics.

Posted by Tony V | June 19, 2007 10:14 AM

"Obama, a black man from Chicago, will also likely be seen as a cultural liberal; in addition, he could be at a disadvantage among many white voters in the South, lower Midwest, and interior West because of his race."

It seems a little naive have any discussion of Obama's "electability" without mentioning that the leading Democratic candidate - Hillary Clinton - is not only a woman, but one of the most hated political figures in this country. And I say that as someone who is working hard to reserve judgment on Hillary.

Racism matters, of course. Some people will certainly refuse to vote for Obama based on his race. But tens of millions of people will refuse to vote for Hillary just because she's Hillary.

Posted by owenz | June 19, 2007 10:22 AM

I thought Andrew's definition of "Christianist" referred to a group or individual who believed that the tenets of Christianity should represent the foundation for our systems of government, (and that this was also the intent of our Founding Fathers).

I also thought that Andrew came up with the term "Christianist" as a play on the word "Islamist" which (sometimes) refers to those who believe in or advocate for a government based on Islamic law.

Therefore, I think that Andrew is beginning to move away from his original definition, and is now using the term to label those who simply speak openly about their religion and discuss how it informs their values and their understanding of the role of government.

One may not agree or feel comfortable with the manner in which Obama speaks openly about how his faith informs his values and outlook on life; however to say that by doing so he is deploying a "Christianist" approach is, if my understanding of the word is correct, highly inaccurate.

Posted by Emes | June 19, 2007 10:32 AM

It's odd that after all the Rawls talk going on here Obama gets labeled as a Xtianist. The later Rawls would certainly not have thought it illiberal to have one's religion inform one's politics - provided that one could communicate and justify their position via public reason (artilce: "Obama said "in the public square" politicians must speak of their faith in "universal terms, so that everybody can understand." ...").
Also, Obama is not talk about justification as much as sanctification - the (very Calvinist/Wesleyan) idea that sin can be undone in this world via God's grace and human work and discipline...think of "The Protestant Work Ethic.

Posted by berger | June 19, 2007 10:49 AM

To my knowledge all protestant denomination says that salvation comes through faith alone. Only the Catholic Church subscribes to Faith & Good Works as necessary.

Now obviously he just said "fulfilling God’s will" ...but if my theological antenna went up, then certainly others did.

Why did your antenna go up, when you've just admitted that Obama didn't say anything contrary to Protestant teaching? Is there anything in that statement that you can't find in the book of James?

Posted by S. Tarzan | June 19, 2007 10:50 AM

You doubt the existence of the "Wilder effect?" Wow! You really do? Then you know nothing about it.

Posted by Armando | June 19, 2007 10:54 AM

if there's anything at all that people know about Obama it's that he's black

It looks like his mother's ancestry (also the ancestry of his maternal grandparents, who for the most part raised him) has been proverbially flushed down the proverbial toilet. Even as the ancestry of his father, who played little role beyond that of semen depositor, reigns triumphant. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Posted by Peter | June 19, 2007 11:13 AM

"It looks like his mother's ancestry (also the ancestry of his maternal grandparents, who for the most part raised him) has been proverbially flushed down the proverbial toilet. Even as the ancestry of his father, who played little role beyond that of semen depositor, reigns triumphant. Doesn't seem fair to me."

If Obama looked white nobody would care about his black father. So it works both ways.

Posted by Korha | June 19, 2007 11:28 AM

"It looks like his mother's ancestry (also the ancestry of his maternal grandparents, who for the most part raised him) has been proverbially flushed down the proverbial toilet."

Petey sounds like he's been reading Steve Sailer -- or maybe, like Sailer, Petey read Obama's autobiography.

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 11:28 AM

You doubt the existence of the "Wilder effect?" Wow! You really do? Then you know nothing about it.

Well, I agreed with Matt before, but honestly, how can I rebut that kind of reasoning? I'm sold!

Posted by S. Tarzan | June 19, 2007 11:33 AM

Fred: I assume "Peter" is a different (and presumably more conservative) person than "Petey."
Fitz: You are technically correct, but the UCC's main (not all, hence the term "United") institutional roots do go back to the Puritan Congregationalist churches of New England, of which Samuel Adams was undoubtedly a member. I think we can give Obama a pass on this one.

Posted by James Kabala | June 19, 2007 11:48 AM

James Kabala: I sit corrected.

Off to buy a donut from a local bakery... talk amongst yourselves in the meantime.

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 11:54 AM

I read the linked Dave Weigel article and I find it an exercise in illogic.

First, the straw man is there is not 15 percent effect therefore there is no Wilder effect. Umm, it is about 5-7%. And what it is, is people lying to pollsters about black candidates.

Buty it is more invidious than that. It is people who change their votes because there is a black candidate. If polls are wrong should we care? Of course not.

Second, for Weigel to ignore David Dinkins in this is a joke. 1989 is the BEST example of both effects I am discussing. See also Street in Philadelphia.

Third, Weigel rules out the Wilder effect based on the classic fallacy of assuming that the ONLY variable in poll errors is the Wilder effect.

Thus he talks about MOE as if nothing else could have had an effect. For example, all polls have turnout models. How did those models perform? He also makes the mistake of concentrating on spreads instead of percentages.

For example, a polls that predicts 50% for one candidate andf 44% for another is not predicting a 6% spread. this, in the Tenn Senate race, the 50-44 final`poll that ends up into a 51-48 final result is not off by 3. It is off by 1 for one candidate and 4 for the other.

Now of course no race ever ends 50-44. so this is a silly argument.

In essence, people have no idea how polling works.

Posted by Armando | June 19, 2007 12:05 PM

"That's probably not false."

Oy.

How about "That's probably true."

Posted by Andrew | June 19, 2007 12:12 PM

When plaintiffs bring claims of violations of the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, they often have to prove racial bloc voting. In the process, numerous plaintiffs throughout the country have provided extensive statistical evidence that racial bloc voting persists, at the very least in the primary (and often in the general). Now, I don't know all the details. I also don't know how it would break down electorally - i.e., it may be most pernicious and consistent in those states where Democrats cannot compete. But I'm skeptical of assertions like: "shouldn't underestimate the extent to which Americans appear to me to be perfectly willing to embrace black men who fit a certain 'non-threatening black man' mode." In fact, many white Americans do appear to be unwilling to vote for a black American over a white alternative.

I'd also point out - how many black senators have we had since Reconstruction? How many of them were from States other than Illinois? Doesn't that suggest that Americans are less ready to vote for a black president than the polls suggest?

I'm not sure this analysis should inform our decision about whether or not to vote for Obama - making decisions based on race because other people might be racist is highly problematic since it's practically indistinguishable from racism. But, if we're going to do the analysis, we should try to get it right.

Posted by MDtoMN | June 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Reformed Protestants believe (in Martin Luther's words) that "Man is saved by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone." Good works cannot earn salvation, but a sincere faith will produce good works as a byproduct.

Catholics do not disagree with these principles. The differences between Catholics and Protestants in this particular area are ones of practice and emphasis more than theory.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 12:24 PM

Re "institutional roots do go back to the Puritan Congregationalist churches of New England, of which Samuel Adams was undoubtedly a member."
---------
Ah Yes-- Samuel.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices?

Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.

May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! "

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 12:28 PM

"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the lord’s work."

To my knowledge all protestant denomination says that salvation comes through faith alone. Only the Catholic Church subscribes to Faith & Good Works as necessary.

Now obviously he just said "fulfilling God’s will" ...but if my theological antenna went up, then certainly others did.

Well, the Lord's work normally referred to witnessing to others...seems that if you can lead enough lemmmings over the cliff, you get an eternally rent-controlled, penthouse cloud upon which to while away the eons. Obama wouldn't wanna get stuck on Martin Luther King Blvd in Paradise, y'know?

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 19, 2007 12:40 PM

While I am not particularly religious myself,
I think sometimes that urban intellectuals --especially the aggressive atheists who have been cropping up -- underestimate the survival value and political power of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Sincere religious belief gives great comfort to those who have suffered great misfortune -- grinding poverty, deaths of loved ones,etc. Not everyone can afford expensive prescriptions of drugs to stave off crippling depression.

It can argued that only religious belief instills the virtues of honesty, charity, mercy to the unfortunate, and love for one's fellow humans. A belief that ALL people deserve to be treated justly because all are children of God.

The cross, after all, reminds us that secular societies too often merely give lip service to those values. That Pilate was willing to crucify an innocent man -- a horrendous torture -- merely to avoid disrupting tax collections and annoying a distant,cruel Tiberius.

Even today, our Democratic leaders stay silent as Bush, CHeney, and Gonzales scrap the Bill of Rights and violate every value of American justice. The Founding Fathers, who argued that ALL people are endowed by GOD with INALIENABLE rights, would have spat upon such cowards.

Religion steels people to accept not only loss of worldly position and wealth but loss of one's life. There are no atheists in foxholes.

I could easily see a religious war against the smug corruption, greed and deceit which rules Washington and which daily brings injustice, poverty and deep misery upon millions of our less fortunate citizens. It was Jesus , after all, who beat the corrupt with a whip and drove them out of the temple. I would dearly like to see Jesus in the chamber of the Senate.

The professional liars at Fox News, the Weekly Standard, the National Review and in the Southern mega-churchs also deserve the scourge.

Deeply held values --values that drive us to rage when we look at our country today -- are installed in us by our faith.

Compared to that, the feeble sophistries of philosophers, academicians, and political operators are nothing.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 12:51 PM

For those who are interested, the UCC's statement of faith explicitly commits its members to serving God by serving others and working for justice in this world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_of_Faith_of_the_United_Church_of_Christ

Also, the issues of justification/atonement (whether by faith alone or by faith and works) and sanctification are entirely separate from what the Bible commands believers to do --- i.e., Christians should love their neighbor as themselves and serve the poor regardless of whether such acts trigger their salvation or signal that they are already saved. Thus someone who believes in salvation by faith alone must still act in accordance with Christ's teaching.

Posted by Finn | June 19, 2007 1:07 PM

Serving others and working for justice in the world is not just a statement by the UCC -- it is a command issued by Christ himself. Something that George Bush and the religious right seem to ignore.

The words of Jesus From Matthew 25:31-33,41-46:

"
31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
...

41: Then shall he [the Son of God] say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44: Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45: Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 1:48 PM

berger,

It's odd that after all the Rawls talk going on here Obama gets labeled as a Xtianist. The later Rawls would certainly not have thought it illiberal to have one's religion inform one's politics - provided that one could communicate and justify their position via public reason (artilce: "Obama said "in the public square" politicians must speak of their faith in "universal terms, so that everybody can understand." ...").

See, this just doesn't make sense. If it is Obama's secular purposes that justify his positions ("justify their position via public reason"), then what does it mean to say that his religion "informs" his politics? Either the positions are justified by secular ("public reason") purposes or they are not. They may also happen to serve his religious purposes, but that is irrelevant to the political justification.

Posted by Seamus | June 19, 2007 2:27 PM

From AS's post: "What Obama might represent is a twist on Bush's "compassionate conservatism." That label was always a way to disguise well-meaning big government liberalism."

This a bit of a threadjack, but am I the only one annoyed at how Sullivan claims Bush is a liberal? Spending money doesn't make one liberal, nor does poking your head into people's bedrooms. His prescription drug policy is more of a giveaway to pharm companies than welfare for old people.

Posted by Reality Man | June 19, 2007 3:25 PM

Isn't the United Church of Christ what's left over of the 17th Century Puritans, at least those who haven't moved all the way to agnosticism or Unitarianism? It's not exactly the Southern Baptists, politically or religiously. Indeed, it seems mostly to be a vaguely spiritual arm of the left wing of the Democratic party. The one UCC meeting I attended was devoted to helping illegal immigrants cross the border safely.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 19, 2007 3:27 PM

Buty it is more invidious than that. It is people who change their votes because there is a black candidate. If polls are wrong should we care? Of course not.

Of course none of us disputes that there are people who refuse to vote for a black candidate. But the Wilder effect is about polling, so you're making a completely separate point. Of course there's racism; what we're trying to determine is whether the effects of racism are already built into the polls.

Second, for Weigel to ignore David Dinkins in this is a joke. 1989 is the BEST example of both effects I am discussing. See also Street in Philadelphia.

But since Weigel was not trying to dispute whether there ever was such a thing as the "Wilder effect" - but rather to find out if it still exists TODAY - whether it existed in the 80s is irrelevant to his point. You seem to be simply arguing by assertion; because there once was a Wilder effect, it necessarily must still exist, empirical evidence be damned.

One thing we can theorize about from the Maryland election, and perhaps from the Detroit mayoral election and others, is that the polls still have a problem in determining who black people will vote for. In terms of assessing the white vote, though, maybe Weigel is right and the Wilder effect is a thing of the past.

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 4:02 PM

"One thing we can theorize about from the Maryland election, and perhaps from the Detroit mayoral election and others, is that the polls still have a problem in determining who black people will vote for."

Is this so complicated? Black people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. When Republicans run black candidates (e.g., in OH, MD), the Dem still wins. The GOP fantasy of getting low-income blacks who are dependent on government largess to vote for the party is as delusional as the fantasy of having hordes of newly legalized Mexican American busboys vote GOP.

Also, appointing more black faces to GOP administrations (e.g., Powell, Rice, the first Bush education secretary, the HUD secretary, etc.) gains the GOP no advantage with status-seeking liberal whites.

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 5:15 PM

Steve:

So if he waqs not disputing its existence why the discussion of Bradley 82? Why not move it forward in time? Indeed, study its effects over time?

But let's fast forward, black Republicans as a test of this? That misunderstands the Wilder effect.

It is white Dems and Independents who suffer from the Wilder effect.

That gives us one close race in essence - Harold Ford. The turnout models used in Tenn., if you are Weigel care to look it up, were wrong. Dem turnout was higher than projected. More black voters.

And btw, were there any races in the country that Weigel might want to look at before making such a blanket statement?

Honestly, this was shabby work by Weigel and ewrong of Yglesias and now you to act as if Weigel proved anything.

This is a serious issue that deserves more than what either offered or you offered for that matter.

Posted by Armando | June 19, 2007 7:52 PM

See, this just doesn't make sense. If it is Obama's secular purposes that justify his positions ("justify their position via public reason"), then what does it mean to say that his religion "informs" his politics? Either the positions are justified by secular ("public reason") purposes or they are not. They may also happen to serve his religious purposes, but that is irrelevant to the political justification.

Look up John Rawls on "Public Reason". It's basically a concession to pluralist democracy that even though your beliefs may be guided by your religion, when arguing policy in a political context you should speak in universal terms rather than religion-specific terms. And yes, Obama is very much of the Rawlsian school on this. Check out this excerpt from Obama's major politics and religion speech:

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

"Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

To call Obama a Christianist is a sad joke. He's a Rawlsian political liberal to a T.

Posted by Joe | June 19, 2007 7:53 PM

So if he waqs not disputing its existence why the discussion of Bradley 82?

Because one of his points was that the historical meme of "black Democrats underperforming the opinion polls due to racism" has been somewhat overblown, and he sought to set the record straight with respect to what actually happened with Wilder and Tom Bradley.

But let's fast forward, black Republicans as a test of this? That misunderstands the Wilder effect. It is white Dems and Independents who suffer from the Wilder effect.

Well, if you say so, but I never knew the Wilder effect presumes that people tell the truth to pollsters about black Republicans, yet lie about
black Democrats. I would have assumed that whatever this tells us about racism, it would apply regardless of party affiliation. I don't know if there's any kind of dictionary definition of the Wilder effect, but you seem to be attaching conditions that I haven't seen cited elsewhere.

That gives us one close race in essence - Harold Ford.

Again, the requirement of a "close race" seems to be something you're grafting onto the definition. If anything, the fact that Deval Patrick was favored by a wide margin should make it more likely that white voters would lie about supporting him (who wants to admit that you're the only guy on the block that doesn't like Patrick?). But the results ended up pretty much matching the polls.

The turnout models used in Tenn., if you are Weigel care to look it up, were wrong. Dem turnout was higher than projected. More black voters.

This suggests that you're citing to an analysis that might compete with Weigel's, that might show white voters in Tennessee did in fact lie about their preferences (but in numbers that were roughly cancelled out by increased black turnout). But you haven't linked to this presumed analysis, which is unfortunate because it might indeed tell us something about the size of the Wilder effect if it still exists today.

Keep in mind, Weigel was trying to debunk Jake Tapper's citation of an alleged 15-point gap between what people tell the pollsters regarding a black candidate and what they didn't actually believe. As long as we can agree that the empirical evidence contradicts that extreme claim, Weigel has added something valuable to the debate.

Armando, you're more than capable of backing up your claims with evidence, as opposed to dropping by and throwing a few rhetorical bombs. This is not the conservative blogosphere, where it's received wisdom that racism is dead except for anti-white racism and people should stop talking about it already. I'm pretty sure we're open to any and all evidence concerning this issue, but please, don't be shy about sharing it.

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 8:32 PM

Nicely put Don.

Posted by Finn | June 19, 2007 10:01 PM