Palin the Post-Denominationalist?

From John Allen, Jr., of National Catholic Reporter, some info about Gov. Sarah Palin's exact "denominational identity":

The initial confusion surrounding Palin’s denominational identity, therefore, has a simple explanation: She doesn’t have one.

Instead, Palin appears to be part of that rapidly expanding galaxy of “post-denominational” Christianity, where elements of Evangelical and Pentecostal styles of faith and worship fuse into a myriad of unique local combinations, and where old denominational loyalties are essentially dead.

Though post-denominationalists are, by definition, difficult to catalog and index, they’re unquestionably numerous. A 2007 survey conducted by LifeWay found that fully one-third of American Protestants were contemplating attending a different church in the future, and of that group, only one in four said it would be important that their future church belong to the same denomination as the one they currently attend.

Globally, the World Christian Encyclopedia estimates that roughly 20 percent of the world’s 2.2 billion Christians today are part of what it calls “independent Christianity,” defined as forms of faith and worship “separated from, uninterested in, and independent of historic, denominationalist Christianity.” Typically, these folks eschew any label other than “Christian” for their religious identity.

Religious sociologists and theologians point to any number of explanations for the rise of post-denominationalism: the spread of a consumerist ethos and “comparison shopping” within Christianity; disillusionment with what are seen as petty denominational differences; the increasing liberalism of some mainline Protestant denominations, leading more conservative church-goers to seek alternatives; even the category-blurring character of post-modernity itself.

To be sure, not all post-denominationalists are conservative Evangelicals. The “emergent church” movement, for example, is often considered an expression of independent Christianity, and the relatively loose and flexible approach to creedal matters of some emerging churches – sometimes called “generous orthodoxy” – is regarded as unacceptably fuzzy by many Evangelicals. Globally, however, the largest share of the post-denominational universe is occupied by various forms of Evangelical and Pentecostal spirituality, with a strong emphasis on Biblical literalism and a lively sense of the supernatural.

Some of these independent Christians are even hesitant to adopt descriptive labels such as “Evangelical” or “Pentecostal,” for fear that such terminology could breed a new form of denominationalism. This is part of what makes estimating the total Evangelical or Pentecostal population in America, or the world, such a maddening exercise, because depending upon the day of the week and what mood they’re in, many believers these days (including, perhaps, Palin) might consider themselves both, or neither.

And, in conclusion:

Finally, there’s a bit of political irony for Catholics. Given Palin’s strong pro-life credentials, it’s likely she will appeal to the most strongly “denominational” Catholics, those most devoted to traditional Catholic identity and teaching. Meanwhile, what one might call “post-denominational Catholics,” meaning those for whom religious branding carries less theological significance, may embrace Palin’s Democratic rival, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, the lone Roman Catholic on either ticket, because of his progressive stands on social and political matters.

In other words, the denominationalists on the Catholic side will back the post-denominationalist, while the Catholic post-denominationalists will probably pick the candidate who bears the Catholic denominational label.

Read the entire piece.

Allen's conclusion is interesting and clever, but the contrarian in me thinks it obscures the real nature of the situation. The fault for this doesn't lie so much with Allen as it does with Biden, whose credentials as an authentic defender and proponent of Catholic social teaching are, as I've discussed on this blog, seriously lacking. Yes, Biden "bears the Catholic denominational label," but he doesn't uphold Catholic teaching on a core moral issue: abortion. Quite the contrary.

So, when it comes to the life issues, Gov. Palin, from what little I know, is in accord with Catholic doctrine, while Sen. Biden is not. The fact that she, as a "post-denominationalist" Christian, is in agreement with Catholic teaching on life issues shouldn't be too surprising. After all, you can find non-denominational denominationalists who believe in just about anything. Which is not to make light of what she believes. Not at all. But it has been the case for a while now—a few decades?—that many Christians who come from Protestant lineage but who are not "mainline Protestants"—whether "Fundamentalist" or "Evangelical" or "Pentecostal" or "emergent"—are more Catholic in their moral beliefs than are many people who receive Communion in a Catholic parish on any given Sunday.

As I heard a Catholic priest once remark, quite dryly, "There are many Catholics who are Protestant, and many Protestants who are Catholic." He was not in any way downplaying the important of visible communion with the Catholic Church, but highlighting what seems the case here: there are, sadly, many Catholics who reject teachings that are essential to be in right relationship with the Catholic Church (most of them, of course, involving moral teachings about sexuality and reproduction), while there are many Protestants who uphold beliefs that are either distinctively Catholic or in keeping with Catholic doctrine.

Allen is correct, to some degree, to refer to this as "political irony." On the flip side, it might be called the "ecumenical reality." The stark fact is that while "ecumenism" is often thought of by Catholics as taking place mostly between Catholics and Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline denominations, the grassroots reality is usually quite different. Who does the serious, orthodox Catholic have more in common with when it comes to living in the real world: the Anglican who is for "gay marriage" and women's ordination, or the Evangelical who upholds traditional sexual morality, opposes abortion, and might even (gasp!) denounce contraceptives? The Methodist who denies the inspiration of Scripture and adheres to radical feminist interpretations of the Bible, or the Fundamentalist who believes the Bible is the Word of God and that objective truth does indeed exist?

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links/Articles:    

• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley
• Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll
• Evangelicals and Catholics in Conversation | An Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
• Answering The Call To Full Communion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith
• From Protestantism to Catholicism | Six Journeys to Rome
• Thomas Howard and the Kindly Light | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Objections, Obstacles, Acceptance: An Interview with J. Budziszewski | IgnatiusInsight.com

Comments

[Mark Brumley]

Biden "bears the Catholic denominational label," but he doesn't uphold Catholic teaching on a core moral issue: abortion. Quite the contrary.

For the record, he also does not uphold Catholic teaching on experimentation of embryonic human beings and on same-sex unions.

[Kevin]

Just an FYI: Palin was raised Assemblies of God (largest Pentecostal denomination in America) and still attends an AoG church when she is in Juneau, but her home church, Church on the Rock, in Wasilla is evangelical nondenominational:

http://churchontherockak.org/index.html

The vast majority of nondenom churches are Baptist in practice and theology with a mild dose of charismaticism (e.g., modern praise & worship but no speaking in tongues or very rarely).

[Trubador]

Via West Coast Catholic, who found a transcript of a Time's interview with Sarah Palin:

Q:"What's your religion?"
A:"Christian."
Q:"Any particular...?"
A:"No. Bible-believing Christian."
Q:"What church do you attend?"
A:"A non-denominational Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life."

http://westcoastcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-interview-i-was-baptized.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536,00.html

[JEFFREY]

Pro-life Catholics are much more concerned that someone is really pro-life and not the denomination they are from. Sure we want everybody to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, but are joyous whenever the truth is told and lived.

The fact that she was baptized as a Catholic and her parents later changed to an Assemblies of God church is of little issue and that the fact that she is fully pro-life and not just one to give it lip service is what is awesome.

John Kerry as a Catholic lost the Catholic vote, and Joe Biden certainly doesn't help Obama to get it back. The fact is that a ticket with a pro-abortion Catholic has never succeeded. Ferraro-Mondale, Kerry-Edwards, and hopefully the hat trick of Obama-Biden will continue the trend.

[Ed Peters]

Yup. A Catholic raised outside the Church is a vastly better pro-lifer (and several other things) than is a Catholic raised in the Church. Symptomatic? Maybe, maybe not. But emabarassing, for sure.

[Robert Miller]

Thanks Trubador. Guessing from her mother's maiden name, I suspected she was originally Catholic. Which raises an interesting (to me, at least) question...

How many other born-in-1964 (or thereafter) non-denoms are there out there who, victims of a botched Catholic education or upbringing, nevertheless have found their vocation in a powerful moral adherence to Christ? Anyone who was a young Catholic in the 1960s and 1970s in the US will remember how poisonous the atmosphere was -- worse than it is today. If one's parents were moved by the spirit of the times, it wouldn't have been all that hard to end up being a non-denom.

I suspect that there are about twice as many Catholics in the US as PJ Kenedy counts -- and I'm not counting illegals (may their tribe increase).

Godspeed Governor Palin's candidacy and God bless Senator McCain for finding the political wisdom to nominate her.

[Nick]

Definitely a sad case of postmodernism.

Any good qualities about Palin are quickly fading in my book. Yes, we cannot underestimate the value of pro-life, but really are they going to make a difference? I don't believe McCain is really going to put in effort to stop abortion, he is playing lip-service to conservatives. The VP spot has no real power, and I believe this is used to sway conservatives without actually having any solid promises behind it.

The idea that you can be a conservative and postmodern just goes to show what fits for "conservative" now days, it is a 'neoconservative' mentality which I characterize as a Republican base that is just as guilty (and indifferent) of divorce as the Democrat, along with contraception (all the while considering themself "conservative"). Having no denomination is absurd and dangerous, it is just the thing Paul warned about with getting blown around with every new wind of doctrine. Give me a Lutheran, give me a Presbyterian, but don't give me a "non-denominational," which translates into virtual doctrinal relativism, including attending Sunday services only if YOU feel like it that day.

Note the latest news to hit the front page: Palin's teen daughter is pregnant (and unwed).

[Carl E. Olson]

Note the latest news to hit the front page: Palin's teen daughter is pregnant (and unwed).

Which means...what? That Palin approves of pre-marital sex? That she doesn't believe in God? And what if a good Catholic family has a 17-year-old unwed daughter who becomes pregnant? Does that mean that her parents aren't good Catholics? Are "neo-conservatives"?

While what I call "non-denominational denominationalism" is certainly influenced by elements of that vague demon called post-modernism, I'm not sure why you write, "Give me a Lutheran, give me a Presbyterian, but don't give me a "non-denominational," which translates into virtual doctrinal relativism, including attending Sunday services only if YOU feel like it that day." Is it the case that all Lutherans, for example, hold the same beliefs and adhere to the same moral standards? One positive of many small "post-denominational" groups is that they do take seriously the directives of Scripture; of course, they don't have a final authority to guide them in understanding what Scripture states. But, ultimately, neither do Lutherans or Presbyterians, otherwise I doubt there would be so many competing and disagreeing factions within those denominations. Put another way, "post-denominationalism" is simply a logical product of classical Protestant principles, however well-intentioned those faulty principles might be.

[Nick]

Carl,

I agree it doesn't definitively say whether Palin is conservative, but I do believe situations like these often do arise from poor parenting. Poor parenting is not proven here, but future details could point this direction. For example, if the parenting was of the typical mainstream type that says what the daughter does is none of the parents' business then that definitely is a strike against the parents' conservative values.

As for Lutherans and Presbyterians, I meant of the Confessional sort, ones with at least an admission of church structure and at least the claim to the historical creeds. You can better bank on their conservative values more than almost any other denomination. That's all I was getting at. It is similar to the "traditionalist Catholic" crowd, while conservative is not guaranteed it is more likely than not they are conservative.

The non-denominational system is, at its very core, a rejection of all historical Protestant denominations, including their creeds and confessions. That doesn't make them instantly non-conservative, but the foundation itself is certainly paved for non-conservative, non-traditional teachings to take hold more easily than in Confessional crowds.

And I do agree that the non-denominational crowd is really the most logical and consistent use of classical Protestant principles, though it is also true that much of what is acceptable today would be unthinkable to the Protestants of the past.

[Ben]

For the record, Palin believes in abortion in cases where the mother's health is as risk. For the record, that's not Catholic teaching.

[Dan]

I don't know what any of this proves, beyond nondenominational protestantism being "right" on some things by accident and that proves what? Anyone can be right, by default, 20% of the time.

[Stohn]

What, as Vice President, can Palin do about abortion? Just about nothing. On the off chance that abortion legislation is tied with a 50-50 vote, she can break that tie. But, then again the chances of that situation are slim. Abortion will be legal as long as Roe v. Wade is intact, and there's nothing she can do about that, she won't be a judge, and she won't be able to vote on a constitutional amendment.

I still don't see how this makes her a "protestant Catholic", just because she agrees with some Catholic teachings, and doesn't believe in denominations (probably because 'non-denoms' can individualise their beliefs even more than 'denoms').

[Robert Miller]

I think a bunch of folks on this thread are missing the message of the Palin nomination.

No, she's not Catholic. Maybe she isn't the the most perfect mom in the world (I don't know). Maybe she's not "conservative" (whatever that means). And she most likely can't do anything as VP single-handedly to end "legal" abortion. All stipulated.

But she is a "sign of contradiction" to the very American "values" most Catholics ought to despise most. She is an electrifying pro-life image; she is the anti-Hillary, but much more. And she can put the Baby Boomer feminists where they belong -- with the other old ladies.

My friends, McCain and the GOP are doing us, the US and the future a huge service (as the GOP already has done by giving us W) in nominating Palin. Remember: We're talking about US politics. The unfolding Palin story is the right kind of (positive) "teachable" moment for Catholics in the US.

(And, no, I'm not a GOP activist, and this message was not approved by John McCain and Sarah Palin).

[Stohn]

I worked for the Republican party (at the state and county level) from 2005-2007. I've seen this tactic before, they are nominating Palin for purely political reasons. They are scared that the social conservative base won't turn out and vote for McCain (they wouldn't vote for Obama either, they just wouldn't vote). And, they cannot win without the social conservatives voting for McCain. They don't give a *choose an expletive of your choice* about a counter-revolutionary message, they just want to win. What have Republicans done about abortion? They banned extreme late-term abortions...ok, so abortions that counted for 1.4% of abortions. And while abortion were on the decline from '95-2005, they are now on the rise. Each year, about two out of every 100 women aged 15–44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.

And, remember Governess Palin is not the presidential candidate, John McCain is. And, leaving aside his very very dangerous foreign policy, let's look at John McCain:

August 1999: Publicly says he wants Roe vs. Wade made irrelevant, but would not repeal it. "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.""

2007: Voted to expand embryonic stem cell research and federal funding of it.

And, numerous times he has stated his support for abortion in the circumstances of rape and incest.

2005 & 2006: voted no on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex 'marriage'

So basically McCain is for traditional values and life.... except if a child's father was a rapist...except if the child's parents were related...except if the child can be used for research...except for banning a re-definition of marriage

Also, "[T]he important thing about Palin's abortion views is that she wouldn't be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she's not running for office to advocate for them."
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml

[Stohn]

Additionally, I don't see how Palin going to work as a government executive 3 days after giving birth is counter-feminist.

[bfcqe teulg]

asrfhwe dbfctzga locji fqny tqvnzbuma rtgbhmf dacmvxy