Portable politics and durable religion: the moral worldviews of American evangelical missionaries

Sociology of Religion, Winter, 2007 by James K. Wellman, Jr., Matthew Keyes

The evangelical claim to "absolute" truth and "certainty" about these moral claims shields evangelicals against external criticisms and the values of cultural and religious others. This makes sense within our moral worldview theory. A worldview is a morally, psychologically, and intellectually ordering structure; voices from outside the moral worldview are unpersuasive because within the bounds of that moral worldview they are illegitimate and incoherent. Thus, liberal moral worldviews and critiques that stem from them make no more sense to evangelicals than evangelical critiques do to liberals (Wellman 1999, 2002, 2007). We do not assert that evangelical moral positions are immune to change; only that if change is to occur, change must be instigated in an idiom that makes sense to evangelicals. During our interviews, the evangelical sub-culture of our respondents seemed particularly aggressive in fending off challenges to their moral positions. But again, liberals were equally demonstrative in attacking evangelical truth claims. Thus, not one of our evangelical respondents expressed an alternative perspective on either abortion or gay marriage. The values within this evangelical moral worldview were secured by the assurance that these perspectives were eternal and sacrosanct, above culture and given by God through the Bible.

Economic and political positions (that stem from, but do not completely coincide with moral positions) are the third layer of the evangelical moral world-view. Predictably, according to Proposition 2, there is some diversity at this layer in PNW evangelicalism. Respondents supported both liberal and conservative views on political issues like welfare, taxation, and environmental conservation. While the moral positions mentioned in the previous paragraph were sacrosanct among our respondents, the American political conservative agenda is held less absolutely. Respondents proved able to criticize the conservative political world-view on issues including welfare, environmental policies, and even, though only rarely, the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, most self-identified as conservative and Republican, and argued for the civic gospel mentioned earlier: less government, stronger military, expanding economic markets, and advocacy for democracy. Socialism was rejected across the board. Support for forms of democracy and liberty were perennial and strongly stated. When it came to issues of war, they argued for the deterrence of evil, but even more often voiced the belief that the war was bringing "liberty" to Iraqis. Americans were "liberators" of an oppressed people, overcoming the "evil" of an authoritarian dictatorship, but just as importantly opening up missions to the Muslim peoples of Iraq. Overall, the political rhetoric mirrored the Republican rationale for the military conflict in Iraq (Domke 2004). Nevertheless, the stated evangelical rationale for either support or dissent relative to the Iraq War was formulated directly from their morally-orienting worldviews.