The Social Gospel and Political Attitudes
A Proposal for the 2010-2012 Evaluations of Government and Society Study
Eric L. McDaniel
Department of Government
University of Texas at Austin
[email protected]
Keywords: religion, social welfare, values
Introduction
The following proposal seeks the addition of a social gospel measure to the 2010-2012
Evaluations of Government and Society Study. The social gospel is a religious interpretation that
invokes religious people to care for the less fortunate. The addition of this measure will
enhance our understanding of how religion influences policy preferences, political attitudes,
ideological attachments, vote choice and participation.
Significance and Theoretical Contribution
The 2008 election presented an interesting phenomenon within the American political
discourse: religious beliefs were pitted against each other. In recent history, the Republican
Party has been able to monopolize the use religious cues to garner support for conservative
candidates and policy agendas. In 2008, the Democratic Party’s candidate, Barack Obama, was
on par with John McCain’s use of religious rhetoric. Further, his use of religious rhetoric was in
direct opposition to that of President Bush and John McCain. Obama’s campaign harnessed the
power of religion to generate support for a liberal policy agenda that contradicted much of the
Bush administration’s policies and John McCain’s platform. The religious rhetoric of President
Bush pitted good versus evil, while Obama’s religious message evokes a need to care for each
other (Sheeran 2009). This recasting of religion also presents a shift in the ideological battle. No
1
longer are the culture wars framed as the secular versus the religious (Green et al. 1996; Hunter
1991), there is now an internal battle amongst the religious about what their true calling is. The
traditional religious ideologues focus on the sinfulness of man and the need to achieve
salvation; the progressives focus their attention on the sin of inequality. The progressives’
framing of issues is most obvious in the health care reform debate.
President Obama has framed his discussion of health care reform as a moral obligation
(Hefland 2009). He has used phrases such as “give justice to the poor,” taken from Proverbs, to
justify his quest for a more equitable health care system. In defending his reforms from critics
he has stated that they are “bearing false witness,” taken from the Ten Commandments. Seeing
an ally in Obama and the ability to fulfill their religious duty, several faith groups have taken up
the cause of health reform arguing that it is not a question about liberty or finances, but one of
morality (Gilgoff 2009; Rosen and Clement 2009; Salmon 2009; Thomas 2009; Walling 2010).
These groups are appealing to religious Americans who believe they are morally obligated to
help the less fortunate. President Obama has repeatedly leaned on these groups to mobilize
support and combat opponents (Hefland 2009; Rosen and Clement 2009). Many have argued
that the election of Obama and the health care debate have renewed people’s attention to the
social gospel (Sheeran 2009), a Christian religious interpretation that calls on people to
eradicate social and economic disparities.
Social scientists, historians, and theologians have long noted the importance of the social
gospel in American politics (Morone 2003). However, most of this work has focused on elites
and mass movements; it is not clear how this religious ideology influences the behavior of
ordinary citizens. By accounting for adherence to the social gospel in the EGSS we can better
2
articulate how religion influences attitudes and participation. Scholars of religion and politics
have been calling for greater attentiveness to how religious people come to understand the
requirements of their religion (for examples see: Benson and Williams 1982; Glock and Stark
1965; Mockabee, Wald, and Leege 2007). Recent research has demonstrated that the
established measures of religion provide a great deal of leverage in explaining behavior, but
there are still large inconsistencies. For example, researchers have long noted the difference
between Black and White Evangelicals (Calhoun-Brown 1998; McDaniel and Ellison 2008). The
former is the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, while the latter is the cornerstone of the
Republican Party. The explanation given for this stark contrast is that they possess differing
understandings of what their religion requires of them. Scholars have noted the social gospel as
the primary reason for this gap (Morone 2003). By accounting for religious interpretations, such
as the social gospel, we fill some of the gaps in regards to how religion influences political
behavior.
Social Gospel
The social gospel maintains that every Christian has an obligation to both herself and to
society as a whole (Curtis 1991). As a result, individual salvation is either difficult or impossible
to achieve without attempting to create a moral and equal society. Walter Rauschenbusch
(1918), one of the early proponents of the social gospel, defines sin as selfishness and the sinful
mind as “the unsocial and anti-social mind” (50). Thus, a concern for the well-being of others is
the heart of the social gospel. This is stressed by another early proponent, Richard Ely, whose
discussion of the concept “social solidarity” emphasizes that human beings are not isolated
individuals, but instead are participants in a vast, interconnected network of interests,
3
possibilities and responsibilities (Musser and Price 1992, 448). Further, Rauschenbusch’s
theology also conceives of a “Kingdom of Evil” that occurs whenever any in the society undergo
pain and suffering (81). The end goal of the theology is a “Kingdom of God,” which means a
world lacking political and economic inequality (142-3). While the formal movement would fade
out in the 1930’s, its elements continue to exist and evolve in the religious discourse (Morone
2003). An example of this is the current Progressive Christian movement. As the social gospel
further developed, adherents have argued that God is on the side of the oppressed and have
argued that it is the place of Christians to defend the rights of the poor and disadvantaged
(Hendricks 2006; Wallis 2005). This religious belief system requires ardent involvement in
guarding the disadvantaged and challenging systems that create inequalities.
The Black church has been noted as one of the primary places in which the social gospel
thrives. During the civil rights movement, leaders, such as Martin Luther King, argued that it
was a religious duty to fight discrimination and inequality (Morone 2003; Morris 1984). While
the interpretation is primarily seen as a Protestant belief system, the Catholic Church’s
emphasis on social justice, such as its opposition to the death penalty and support for social
welfare, serves as an example of it in action. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent comments on creating
a fair global economy that would reduce inequality and protect human and worker’s rights
(Duin 2009), expresses core teachings of the social gospel. This social justice message is not just
the rhetoric Catholic elites, Gorney (1998) noted that Catholic anti-abortion activists also place
a strong emphasis on the need to provide adequate social welfare for the care of children once
they were born. The Evangelist Jim Wallis, through his magazine, Sojourners, stresses the need
for Christians to expand their focus beyond issues of abortion and sexuality to address poverty
4
and social inequalities (Wallis 2005). Further, recent reports of young White Evangelicals shows
a growing concern for addressing poverty and racial reconciliation (Banerjee 2008; Edwards
2008; Rosin 2007).
Proposed Questions
To accomplish the feat of measuring a religious interpretation, a survey was conducted in
the spring of 2009 using a convenience sample of 452 undergraduates from the University of
Texas (85.3%) and the University of California (14.7%). The majority of the respondents (56.7%)
identified as Christians. The respondents were recruited from classes where they were given
credit for participating. To assess their adherence to the social gospel, respondents were asked
to state their level of agreement, on a five-point likert scale, to a battery of 32 statements that
represent adherence and opposition to the social gospel. The statements were developed from
an examination of the literatures reflecting the core tenets and criticisms of this religious
interpretation. Given that the social gospel is mainly a Christian religious interpretation, the
analysis is limited to those who identify as Christians. The responses were then analyzed using
principal components factor analysis. From the analysis six statements, three positively worded
and three negatively worded, were selected to represent adherence to the social gospel. The
statements were selected on the basis of how well they reflected the core tenets of the social
gospel, limited redundancy, and had high levels of clarity. The positive statements reflect the
interconnectedness of humanity as well as the religious duty to protect the less fortunate. The
negative statements reflect the criticisms of the social gospel, specifically the true nature of
salvation. To further test the validity of the measure, I performed a confirmatory factor
analysis. The results from this analysis confirm the findings from the principal components
5
analysis. A more detailed examination of these statements and the measure can be found in
Table One.
[Insert Table One Here]
The statements were placed into an additive index, scaled to range from zero to one, were
one represents maximal adherence to the social gospel. An examination of the measure
demonstrates that is has a high level of reliability (alpha =.72). To test validity, I correlated the
measure with established measures of predispositions, policy attitudes, feeling thermometers,
ideology and partisanship. As expected, the measure has a positive and significant correlation
with egalitarianism (.22), universal health care (.31), welfare (.31), redistribution of wealth (.28)
and the Obama feeling thermometer (.30). The measure has a negative and significant
relationship with economic individualism (-.13), the death penalty (-.28), the McCain feeling
thermometer (-.16), identifying as a conservative (-.36) and identifying as a republican (-.31).
After establishing the measure with the student sample, I administered the measure to two
adult samples, a national sample in 2009 and a Texas State sample in 2010. The measure
upholds in both of the adult samples. The national sample has an alpha score of .60, while the
Texas State survey has an alpha score of .69. Given these findings, I feel assured that this is a
reliable measure. These measures were then applied to regression models attempting to
explain a variety of political attitudes. Along with the social gospel, the models controlled for
religiosity, denominational affiliation, biblical literacy, demographics and ideology. In these
models the social gospel maintained a significant correlation with a variety of attitudes, such as
support for health care reform and approval of President Obama. The measure was also the
most consistent and strongest of the religion measures in these models.
6
To further examine the validity of the measure, I examined how it related to value priorities.
The 2010 Texas State Survey allowed me to examine how adherence to the social gospel
influenced value priorities. The respondents were asked to rank eight goals (eradication of
poverty, gender equality, racial equality, instilling a strong work ethic, protecting traditional
values, environmental protection, completely free market, and limited government) in order of
importance. The results from this analysis found that those with the lowest level of adherence
indicated that the eradication of poverty was least important, traditional values was the most
important. Those at the highest end of the measure indicated that eradicating poverty was
most important, while traditional values was second most important.
Conclusion
Given the growing use of religious language by political elites on both sides of the aisle,
it has become increasingly important for scholars of religion and politics to create more
nuanced measures of religious belief in order to better understand how religion influences
political behavior. By providing researchers with an additional dimension of religion, the
incorporation of the social gospel measure can accomplish this.
7
Table One: Support for Social Gospel
% Agreement
Social Gospel
2009 Student
Survey
God instructs us to protect the poor
70.7
Failure to confront social unfairness is a 24.9
sin
Social justice is at the heart of the 36.8
Gospel
God is more concerned about individual 32.9
morality, than social inequalities*
Addressing social issues distracts people 19.8
from achieving salvation*
Building the kingdom of God on earth is 17.6
only about bringing people to Christ, not
changing social structures*
2009 National
Sample†
64.2
33.2
2010
Texas
State Survey‡
81.4
49.7
32.4
48.7
45.9
69.5
17.3
31.7
39.8
65.7
Mean
.57
.54
.51
Alpha
.72
.60
.69
Analysis limited to those who identify as Christian
†The 2009 National Sample is from the University of Texas Money and Politics Survey
‡The 2010 Texas State Sample is from the University of Texas Texas Poll Survey
8
References
Banerjee, Neela. 2008. "Taking Their Faith, but Not Their Politics, to the People." The New York
Times, June 1, 20.
Benson, Peter, and Dorothy Williams. 1982. Religion on Capitol Hill. New York: Harper & Row.
Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 1998. "The Politics of Black Evangelicals: What Hinders Diversity in the
Christian Right?" American Politics Quarterly 26 (1):81-109.
Duin, Julia. 2009. "Pope Urges Global Action on Economy." The Wastington Times, July 8, A05.
Edwards, Haley. 2008. "Young, Evangelical ... for Obama?" The Seattle Times, B1.
Gilgoff, Dan. 2009. "Christian Radio Ad Pushing Universal Healthcare Harnesses Local FaithBased Influence." U.S. News and World Report, May 21.
Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Gorney, Cynthia. 1998. Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars. New York:
Touchstone.
Green, John C., James Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt. 1996. Religion and the
Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Hefland, Duke. 2009. "Obama to Preach his Healthcare Message to Religious Leaders." Los
Angeles Times, August 19, 11.
Hendricks, Obrey M., Jr. 2006. The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature
of the Teachings of Jesus and How They Have Been Corrupted. New York: Doubleday.
Hunter, James Davidson. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic
Books.
McDaniel, Eric L., and Christopher G. Ellison. 2008. "God's Party?: Race, Religion, and
Partisanship Over Time." Political Research Quarterly 61 (2):180-91.
Mockabee, Stephen T., Kenneth D. Wald, and David C. Leege. 2007. Reexamining Religiosity: A
Report on the New Religion Items in the 2006 ANES Pilot Study. ANES Pilot Study Report,
No. nes011907.
Morone, James A. 2003. Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
9
Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing
for Change. New York: Free Press.
Musser, Donald W., and Joseph L. Price. 1992. A New Handbook of Christian Theology.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Rauschenbusch, Walter. 1918. A Theology for the Social Gospel. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Rosen, Anne Farris, and Scott Clement. 2009. Religious Groups Weigh In on Health Care Reform.
Rosin, Hanna. 2007. "For New Generation of Evangelicals, Falwell Was Old News." The
Washington Post, May 16, A06.
Salmon, Jacqueline L. 2009. "Pulling Together on Health Care." The Washington Post, July 25,
B02.
Sheeran, Thomas J. 2009. "'Woe is me' to those who miss biblical rhetoric - Scholars say cultural
literacy includes Bible knowledge, but fewer and fewer have it." Grand Rapids Press, The
(MI), C3.
Thomas, Oliver. 2009. "Would God Back Universal Health Care?" USA Today, July 27, 10A.
Walling, Linda Hanna. 2010. Moral Vision in the Health Care Reform Bills.
Wallis, Jim. 2005. God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get it. San
Francisco: Harper.
10