I was having a discussion with a friend about the religious denominations of various political figures, and it dawned on us that the vast majority of conservative political leaders are not mainline Protestants. Consider--

Among the remaining Presidential candidates, there's 1 Mormon, 2 Catholics, and 1 Baptist (Ron Paul).

On the Supreme Court, there's 6 Catholics (5 being labeled as conservative) and 3 Jews.

In Congress, Boehner is Catholic, Cantor is Jewish. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy (House GOP Whip) are Baptist.

Among the governors, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, and Chris Christie, the three folks people really wanted to enter the president's race, are Catholic. Pawlenty is Baptist. Mitch Daniels is Presbyterian. Rick Perry is evangelical.

So, while plenty of the rank and file are Protestant, among the high-profile folks, there's 11 Catholics, 1 Jew, 1 Mormon, 3 Baptists, 1 Presbyterian, and 1 Methodist. Baptists in in the South are generally considered evangelical rather than mainline these days, so absent evidence to the contrary, that knocks McConnell out as representing mainline. That leaves Kevin McCarthy, Tim Pawlenty, and Ron Paul as representing the mainline Protestant churches.

Setting aside any questions of policy, or whether one agrees with all these folks on various issues, or their methods of doing politics (I certainly do not), the question is: what happened to mainline Protestant representation in conservatism? Have they grown increasingly liberal (some have)? Were they always liberal (many were...particularly UCC)? What does the complete lack of mainline Protestant conservatives mean for policy? Why is it that aside from Ron Paul, the major proponents of some kind of coherent conservative theory are Catholic (Scalia, Christie, Jindal, Santorum)? What does that mean for American politics in general? Does it even matter?

ETA: I originally posted Ron Paul was Methodist, but he's actually Baptist. I think there's plenty evidence his own personal brand of being Baptist is more mainline than evagelical.

Interesting post. I have noticed this as well. Perhaps it has to do somewhat with the realignment of the parties. Each party used to have liberals and conservatives within the party. Now each party seems to be more and more polarized as some seek to push out the RINOs from the GOP and what used to be blue dog Dems get defeated or change parties.

Quite a change from when JFK had to give a speech saying in effect he would not be taking orders from the Pope. I can't see Sen. Santorum giving that speech, as he seems eager to do the churches work in the political arena.

How many conservative leaders (pundits, columnists, preachers), etc. outside of elected office are "mainline" Protestants?

(02-13-2012 12:27 AM)jwn Wrote:  So, while plenty of the rank and file are Protestant, among the high-profile folks, there's 11 Catholics, 1 Jew, 1 Mormon, 3 Baptists, 1 Presbyterian, and 1 Methodist.

To me, these are all mainline.

(02-13-2012 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:27 AM)jwn Wrote:  So, while plenty of the rank and file are Protestant, among the high-profile folks, there's 11 Catholics, 1 Jew, 1 Mormon, 3 Baptists, 1 Presbyterian, and 1 Methodist.

To me, these are all mainline.

Well, historically, "mainline Protestantism" referred to Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC (or Congregationalists), and (northern) Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention is decidedly not mainline. This was in opposition to the more evangelical or, nowadays, fundamentalist sects, as well as more recent denominations such as Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Catholics were decidedly not "Protestant", and Mormons were decidedly not "mainline."

In essence, think of "mainline Protestantism" as most non-Catholic Americans in political life up through the 1970s. If there were ever an "American state church", this grouping of denominations was it.

(02-13-2012 09:45 PM)jwn Wrote:  Well, historically, "mainline Protestantism" referred to Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC (or Congregationalists), and (northern) Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention is decidedly not mainline. This was in opposition to the more evangelical or, nowadays, fundamentalist sects, as well as more recent denominations such as Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Catholics were decidedly not "Protestant", and Mormons were decidedly not "mainline."
In essence, think of "mainline Protestantism" as most non-Catholic Americans in political life up through the 1970s. If there were ever an "American state church", this grouping of denominations was it.

I think the decline of "mainline Protestantism" among leaders of the conservative movement is simply a reflection of the decline of "mainline Protestantism" in our society as a whole. I would tend to agree with your classification, and almost every denomination in that class is shrinking mightily today. What I would say is happening is that they are striving ever to become more "modern" and "relevant" and "inclusive" and "progressive," and in so doing are losing a lot of what had been their intellectual rigor. They're standing for nothing and falling for anything. The more "inclusive" they become, the fewer people they "include."

Consider my own experience. I was a cradle Episcopalian, and have remained so up until now. I am generally supportive of opening of the priesthood to women (if women aren't supposed to proclaim the Gospel, why were the first three people in history to do so named Mary, Mary, and Salome?), and of the inclusion of gays (love the sinner, forgive the sin, is what Jesus says to me), but what I have become extremely uncomfortable with is the theological hoops that the people who support such things jump through in order to justify even further departures from what has been the historic norm. I am not nearly as troubled by Gene Robinson's sexuality as I am by his theology. I have always found the traditional Anglican reliance on scripture, tradition, and reason to be appropriate guidance for me in matters spiritual. What I see happening in the Episcopal church today is a battle between one side arguing their own (and largely unshared) version of reason over tradition and scripture, and the other arguing tradition over reason and scripture, and neither side paying much attention to scripture except to proof-text verses out of context to support their various positions.

That being the case, I am starting to lean toward the Anglican movement, which is largely Episcopalians feeling that they don't want to leave their church but that their church is leaving them. Anglican churches intend to remain part of the worldwide Anglican communion, but to be connected with Canterbury not through the US Episcopal church hierarchy but rather through leadership in other parts of the world--Australia, Africa, South America--that are more in line with scriptural teachings of the church. Not so much traditional--some aspects are decidedly nontraditional--but probably scripture first, tradition second, and reason guided by scripture and tradition--pretty much the historic Anglican formulation I learned as a child in Sunday School. Anglicans have female clergy and gay members (but probably not gay bishops any time soon).

I am discussing my experience because I think it may be germane to the point. I am no social conservative, but I am certainly a fiscal conservative. I am uncomfortable with the direction I see most, if not all, "mainline" denominations heading. I am looking seriously at what I would think most would consider a minor change, to a denomination that would probably still fit conceptually in the "mainline" category, although perhaps not large enough at this point to be considered truly "mainline." If I were more socially conservative, I would probably have already made a bigger move. My first inclination in that case would probably be toward Rome. I read of a recent ecumenical gathering where one of the Roman Catholic participants noted that he was probably closer to the Evangelicals in belief than to any other group present besides his own. I can see that.

So what I see in what you describe is pretty much a lot of the same things I'm feeling played out on a larger scale.

(02-14-2012 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 09:45 PM)jwn Wrote:  Well, historically, "mainline Protestantism" referred to Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC (or Congregationalists), and (northern) Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention is decidedly not mainline. This was in opposition to the more evangelical or, nowadays, fundamentalist sects, as well as more recent denominations such as Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Catholics were decidedly not "Protestant", and Mormons were decidedly not "mainline."
In essence, think of "mainline Protestantism" as most non-Catholic Americans in political life up through the 1970s. If there were ever an "American state church", this grouping of denominations was it.

I think the decline of "mainline Protestantism" among leaders of the conservative movement is simply a reflection of the decline of "mainline Protestantism" in our society as a whole. I would tend to agree with your classification, and almost every denomination in that class is shrinking mightily today. What I would say is happening is that they are striving ever to become more "modern" and "relevant" and "inclusive" and "progressive," and in so doing are losing a lot of what had been their intellectual rigor. They're standing for nothing and falling for anything. The more "inclusive" they become, the fewer people they "include."

What's been happening is that these denominations have become attuned less to the eternal and more to the Zeitgeist. A member of one of them from, say, 80 years ago would find their modern incarnations almost unrecognizable.

Quote:Consider my own experience. I was a cradle Episcopalian, and have remained so up until now. I am generally supportive of opening of the priesthood to women (if women aren't supposed to proclaim the Gospel, why were the first three people in history to do so named Mary, Mary, and Salome?), and of the inclusion of gays (love the sinner, forgive the sin, is what Jesus says to me), but what I have become extremely uncomfortable with is the theological hoops that the people who support such things jump through in order to justify even further departures from what has been the historic norm. I am not nearly as troubled by Gene Robinson's sexuality as I am by his theology....

When you have come to the realization that Robinson's sexuality is his theology, you'll begin to understand the problem that mainline Protestantism is facing. Its theological development in the 20th Century has been a massive exercise in putting the cart before the horse, of putting the Zeitgeist before the eternal. It's not necessarily sexuality - it could be feminism, or environmentalism, or socialism, or any number of ideologies - but it's in essence deriving one's theology from one's ideology, the reversal of what's been traditionally done.

Quote:... I am discussing my experience because I think it may be germane to the point. I am no social conservative, but I am certainly a fiscal conservative. I am uncomfortable with the direction I see most, if not all, "mainline" denominations heading. I am looking seriously at what I would think most would consider a minor change, to a denomination that would probably still fit conceptually in the "mainline" category, although perhaps not large enough at this point to be considered truly "mainline." If I were more socially conservative, I would probably have already made a bigger move. My first inclination in that case would probably be toward Rome. I read of a recent ecumenical gathering where one of the Roman Catholic participants noted that he was probably closer to the Evangelicals in belief than to any other group present besides his own. I can see that....

It should be noted that recently the Catholic Church has established a personal ordinariate for Anglicans, meaning that entire Anglican communities can enter the Church while being permitted to maintain distinctive aspects of their worship. Such groups are not part of the regular hierarchical structure of the Church but rather headed by a (former) Anglican ordinary who is responsible directly to the Vatican rather than to a local diocesan bishop. In the United States, the corresponding organization is the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, and its ordinary, Fr. Jeffrey Steenson, was just installed in that position. He'll be based at Our Lady of Walsingham parish in Houston, an Anglican-use parish, which is one that is part of the Roman Catholic Church but is permitted to use the Anglican liturgy for worship; these have been permitted in the United States since 1980.

We may be seeing more of these types of arrangements in the future due to the very nature of Protestantism itself. The Catholic lay apologist Mark Shea has made what for me is a fairly compelling argument that, by the end of this century, Protestant denominations as we know them will have ceased to exist. Those who desire theological certainty defined by a magisterium will join the Catholic Church, as have the Anglicans just mentioned, or perhaps will join one of the Orthodox churches. The remainder will split into two groups. Some will join large non-denominational megachurches, while the rest will join small, home-based non-denominational churches, the individual choices resting mainly with the cult of personality exhibited by the pastor of an individual church. In any event, the influence of national-level, mainline Protestant denominations will be finished (although I could see the Southern Baptist Convention hanging on due to its rather loose structure).

Jonathan,

I am very familiar with the Anglican-use churches, know several priests who have gone that route, and have worshiped at Our Lady of Walsingham on occasion when I lived in that part of town. For now, the Anglican option is a better fit for me personally. I actually think I might tend more toward Orthodoxy if I ever left Anglicanism. There is a small Orthodox congregation that leases space from the Anglican church that I attend in the Woodlands, and the historic links between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are quite strong. Some of that is being recaptured a bit, I think, in the Anglican movement.

At this point the future of the Anglican church is somewhat unclear. There are two significant hurdles to overcome. First, there are at least three competing groups--Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Mission in the Americas, and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans--although negotiations are ongoing to resolve that. Second, the relationship with Canterbury is somewhat awkward, as the North American Anglican churches are currently technically missionary outposts of southern hemisphere members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church would like to exclude the North American Anglicans by asserting exclusive franchise rights, but would very likely lose and lose badly if it were put to a vote of the Communion because of the political strength of the African bishops. Several prominent Episcopal bishops, including Duncan of Pittsburgh and Ikard of Ft. Worth, have essentially led the bulk of their dioceses out of the Episcopal church and into one of the Anglican movements. There is pending litigation in several states, including Texas, over who owns the church properties, and all sorts of other political maneuvering going on. It will be interesting.

(02-15-2012 08:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At this point the future of the Anglican church is somewhat unclear. There are two significant hurdles to overcome. First, there are at least three competing groups--Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Mission in the Americas, and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans--although negotiations are ongoing to resolve that. Second, the relationship with Canterbury is somewhat awkward, as the North American Anglican churches are currently technically missionary outposts of southern hemisphere members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church would like to exclude the North American Anglicans by asserting exclusive franchise rights, but would very likely lose and lose badly if it were put to a vote of the Communion because of the political strength of the African bishops. Several prominent Episcopal bishops, including Duncan of Pittsburgh and Ikard of Ft. Worth, have essentially led the bulk of their dioceses out of the Episcopal church and into one of the Anglican movements. There is pending litigation in several states, including Texas, over who owns the church properties, and all sorts of other political maneuvering going on. It will be interesting.

The case about the properties in Virginia has essentially been settled - in favor of the Episcopal church. The breakaway groups do not get anything (including money) that existed before the breakup. See this Washington Post story from earlier this week.

(02-15-2012 08:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jonathan,

I am very familiar with the Anglican-use churches, know several priests who have gone that route, and have worshiped at Our Lady of Walsingham on occasion when I lived in that part of town. For now, the Anglican option is a better fit for me personally. I actually think I might tend more toward Orthodoxy if I ever left Anglicanism. There is a small Orthodox congregation that leases space from the Anglican church that I attend in the Woodlands, and the historic links between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are quite strong. Some of that is being recaptured a bit, I think, in the Anglican movement.

At this point the future of the Anglican church is somewhat unclear. There are two significant hurdles to overcome. First, there are at least three competing groups--Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Mission in the Americas, and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans--although negotiations are ongoing to resolve that. Second, the relationship with Canterbury is somewhat awkward, as the North American Anglican churches are currently technically missionary outposts of southern hemisphere members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church would like to exclude the North American Anglicans by asserting exclusive franchise rights, but would very likely lose and lose badly if it were put to a vote of the Communion because of the political strength of the African bishops. Several prominent Episcopal bishops, including Duncan of Pittsburgh and Ikard of Ft. Worth, have essentially led the bulk of their dioceses out of the Episcopal church and into one of the Anglican movements. There is pending litigation in several states, including Texas, over who owns the church properties, and all sorts of other political maneuvering going on. It will be interesting.

Huh, reminiscent of the arcane political maneuvering at the historical root of "Protetstantism".

(02-15-2012 09:14 AM)gsloth Wrote:  The case about the properties in Virginia has essentially been settled - in favor of the Episcopal church. The breakaway groups do not get anything (including money) that existed before the breakup. See this Washington Post story from earlier this week.

The case in Texas should be heard by the Supreme Court this spring, and may yield a different result because Texas law is somewhat different in several key areas. There was an effort at diocesan council to grant liens to both the diocese and the national church to prevent any departing churches from succeeding, but last I heard that had failed. It is my understanding that a Louisiana case has recently been decided in favor of a breakaway congregation, and there have been various results both ways.

This is not my fight, and I stay as far away as possible. I have my own views, but no real interest in sharing.

(02-13-2012 09:45 PM)jwn Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:27 AM)jwn Wrote:  So, while plenty of the rank and file are Protestant, among the high-profile folks, there's 11 Catholics, 1 Jew, 1 Mormon, 3 Baptists, 1 Presbyterian, and 1 Methodist.

To me, these are all mainline.

Well, historically, "mainline Protestantism" referred to Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC (or Congregationalists), and (northern) Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention is decidedly not mainline. This was in opposition to the more evangelical or, nowadays, fundamentalist sects, as well as more recent denominations such as Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Catholics were decidedly not "Protestant", and Mormons were decidedly not "mainline."

In essence, think of "mainline Protestantism" as most non-Catholic Americans in political life up through the 1970s. If there were ever an "American state church", this grouping of denominations was it.

to drive home a point, evangelical does NOT equate to fundamentalist. It drives me nuts to see that.

And as far as mainstream, (bearing in mind I grew up Lutheran), the Baptist churches, in total, have a much larger percentage of the population than any other group in this country (I believe even larger than Roman Catholics).

Because they traditionally reached out to a broader spectrum of people (i.e., including the poor and less educated), they are easily stereotyped (Catholics are also, but in different areas), but the fact is, their theology, which if studied, puts the onus on individual believer's for their relationship with God and their ability to interpret scripture as much more liberal in theory than most of what you call mainstream.

The Baptist teaching on baptism and the Lord's Supper is much more symbolic (and therefore less 'fundamental') than the 'mainstream' churches.

The SBC suffers from the stigma of their members location and the general division in the Baptist church that came about over the Civil War and slavery (which was obviously driven by regional politics and not theology, although bad theology was used to justify the regional stance). However, the fact is that there were plenty of SBC members back then and throughout the segrationist era that don't fit the stereotypes (the Baylor educated sheriff who worked to drive the KKK out of Fort Worth, as an example), just as there were plenty of bigoted 'mainstream' churchgoers throughout the south. In any event, those stereotypes should've ended decades ago.

(02-13-2012 09:45 PM)jwn Wrote:  The Southern Baptist Convention is decidedly not mainline.

Theologically explain this statement.

(02-15-2012 11:14 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 08:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Jonathan,

I am very familiar with the Anglican-use churches, know several priests who have gone that route, and have worshiped at Our Lady of Walsingham on occasion when I lived in that part of town. For now, the Anglican option is a better fit for me personally. I actually think I might tend more toward Orthodoxy if I ever left Anglicanism. There is a small Orthodox congregation that leases space from the Anglican church that I attend in the Woodlands, and the historic links between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are quite strong. Some of that is being recaptured a bit, I think, in the Anglican movement.

At this point the future of the Anglican church is somewhat unclear. There are two significant hurdles to overcome. First, there are at least three competing groups--Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Mission in the Americas, and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans--although negotiations are ongoing to resolve that. Second, the relationship with Canterbury is somewhat awkward, as the North American Anglican churches are currently technically missionary outposts of southern hemisphere members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church would like to exclude the North American Anglicans by asserting exclusive franchise rights, but would very likely lose and lose badly if it were put to a vote of the Communion because of the political strength of the African bishops. Several prominent Episcopal bishops, including Duncan of Pittsburgh and Ikard of Ft. Worth, have essentially led the bulk of their dioceses out of the Episcopal church and into one of the Anglican movements. There is pending litigation in several states, including Texas, over who owns the church properties, and all sorts of other political maneuvering going on. It will be interesting.

Huh, reminiscent of the arcane political maneuvering at the historical root of "Protetstantism".

The historical root of Protestantism was corruption in the leadership of the church (and the response of the church leaders to internal protests), some of it theological, some of it having been dealt with as a result of the Protestant movement.

(02-14-2012 02:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 09:45 PM)jwn Wrote:  Well, historically, "mainline Protestantism" referred to Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC (or Congregationalists), and (northern) Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention is decidedly not mainline. This was in opposition to the more evangelical or, nowadays, fundamentalist sects, as well as more recent denominations such as Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Catholics were decidedly not "Protestant", and Mormons were decidedly not "mainline."
In essence, think of "mainline Protestantism" as most non-Catholic Americans in political life up through the 1970s. If there were ever an "American state church", this grouping of denominations was it.

I think the decline of "mainline Protestantism" among leaders of the conservative movement is simply a reflection of the decline of "mainline Protestantism" in our society as a whole. I would tend to agree with your classification, and almost every denomination in that class is shrinking mightily today. What I would say is happening is that they are striving ever to become more "modern" and "relevant" and "inclusive" and "progressive," and in so doing are losing a lot of what had been their intellectual rigor. They're standing for nothing and falling for anything. The more "inclusive" they become, the fewer people they "include."

This echoes one of the most memorable criticisms in modern political history:
"So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent."
-- Winston Churchill, House of Commons, Nov. 12, 1936

Churchill was commenting on the Baldwin government's defense policy (or lack thereof), but the sentiment seems applicable here.
As an aside: as with many things in Churchill's life, his own religious views were best summed by himself: He considered himself not a pillar of the Church, but a buttress, in that he supported it from the outside.

I wonder if this drift from oldline/mainline churches has more to do with the "Bowling Alone" aspect of modern life and less to do with theology?