It’s difficult when thinking of ‘interest groups’ to think of denominations inside the Christian Church. According to Olson’s definition, though, groups are formed when common interest is found within individuals and when these individuals seek to ‘further’ this interest. Regardless, you can agree that different denominations within Christianity are formed because of a unity in a difference in religious convictions and practices. We have seen throughout Christian Church history many major denominations formed and within some of those groups, smaller denominations. For example, within the Presbyterian denomination, two major specific denominations were formed, both the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) and PC(USA) (Presbyterian Church (USA)). These are not exclusive within the Presbyterian church however. This article is explaining how some churches and individuals within the PC(USA) denomination have recently decided to try and leave the denomination because of conflicting personal interests. What I find most interesting in this article is that religious and political beliefs are called to be directly related. As we see much polarization and difference in conservative and liberal views within religious organizations, we see the same within the political sphere. This separation could hurt the Presbyterian denomination as a whole. To Olson, large interest groups are successful when political activity is a byproduct of the group’s interests. Within the Christian community, although the political and religious sphere seem to be growing closer related, each Christian denomination’s main purpose is for the interest of religious and spiritual growth. But, this article seems to imply that there is some political activity deriving from religious organizations. So, as these denominations lose ‘power’ and support from within, as a religious group, they will directly lose political influence as well. The inherently conservative or liberal beliefs of these groups will bring less into the political field.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Presbyterian Church Split(?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I do agree that it seems like religious beliefs work their way into politics, however I'm not sure that the possible political ramifications of PC(USA) breaking up is the most interesting point in this article.
You can make the argument that a church is a club in the sense that Buchanan puts forward on his theory of clubs. If this is the case, then a church is entrusted with supplying public goods. In the case of a church these are both spiritual and temporal. Intuition would tell a person that the main reason for joining a church-club would be to, cost effectively, consume spiritual goods with others. In the case with PC(USA) a combination of Buchanan's logic and our lectures on Representative behavior seem to explain the formation of a (possible) new denomination.
According to Buchanan, people will join a club (or retain membership) so long as the marginal benefits are equal to the marginal costs of membership. In this case spiritual benefits have been reduced. PC(USA), by allowing homosexuals to be ordained, have reduced the marginal benefits of conservative members (who value spiritual goods) below the marginal costs of membership.
The amount of Spiritual and temporal goods PC(USA) officers is determined by a board of elders, who are only indirectly accountable to the laity. This would give elders the ability to shirk if in fact their actions are contrary to the laity. However, the liberals within the church are also those who focus on the temporal provision of goods (homosexual ordination benefits the gay minister in this life etc), whenever a church begins to increase its level of temporal goods to the detriment of spiritual goods, members who originally joined their church-club to receive the spiritual benefits will simply exit or attempt to appeal to the government. This fellowship seems to be the result. The article cites how it wants to remain in the PC(USA) community, but that their grievances need to be met. They are in a sense creating an “interest group.”
Post a Comment