Click here for previous installments in this series.  Click here to read Gerson’s article in The Atlantic.

In this piece, I reflect on Gerson’s love of Catholic Social Teaching.

Gerson writes:

For a start, modern evangelicalism has an important intellectual piece missing. It lacks a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action. Over the same century from Blanchard to Falwell, Catholics developed a coherent, comprehensive tradition of social and political reflection. Catholic social thought includes a commitment to solidarity, whereby justice in a society is measured by the treatment of its weakest and most vulnerable members. And it incorporates the principle of subsidiarity—the idea that human needs are best met by small and local institutions (though higher-order institutions have a moral responsibility to intervene when local ones fail).

In practice, this acts as an “if, then” requirement for Catholics, splendidly complicating their politics: If you want to call yourself pro-life on abortion, then you have to oppose the dehumanization of migrants. If you criticize the devaluation of life by euthanasia, then you must criticize the devaluation of life by racism. If you want to be regarded as pro-family, then you have to support access to health care. And vice versa. The doctrinal whole requires a broad, consistent view of justice, which—when it is faithfully applied—cuts across the categories and clichés of American politics. Of course, American Catholics routinely ignore Catholic social thought. But at least they have it. Evangelicals lack a similar tradition of their own to disregard.

For a start, modern evangelicalism has an important intellectual piece missing. It lacks a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action. Over the same century from Blanchard to Falwell, Catholics developed a coherent, comprehensive tradition of social and political reflection. Catholic social thought includes a commitment to solidarity, whereby justice in a society is measured by the treatment of its weakest and most vulnerable members. And it incorporates the principle of subsidiarity—the idea that human needs are best met by small and local institutions (though higher-order institutions have a moral responsibility to intervene when local ones fail).

In practice, this acts as an “if, then” requirement for Catholics, splendidly complicating their politics: If you want to call yourself pro-life on abortion, then you have to oppose the dehumanization of migrants. If you criticize the devaluation of life by euthanasia, then you must criticize the devaluation of life by racism. If you want to be regarded as pro-family, then you have to support access to health care. And vice versa. The doctrinal whole requires a broad, consistent view of justice, which—when it is faithfully applied—cuts across the categories and clichés of American politics. Of course, American Catholics routinely ignore Catholic social thought. But at least they have it. Evangelicals lack a similar tradition of their own to disregard.

A few quick thoughts:

Contra Scot McKnight, I think Gerson is correct in his assumption that ordinary evangelicals have not thought deeply about political engagement.  Yes, there have been evangelical intellectuals who have articulated various approaches to the subject, but their ideas have not permeated the views of those in the pews. This is illustrated by Trump’s overwhelming support among evangelicals in 2016.

As someone who is sympathetic to Catholic social teaching, Gerson believes that government has a role to play (when local efforts fail–subsidiarity) in promoting justice and defending the weak.  He is no libertarian or “2 Kingdom” theologian. He departs from James Davison Hunter’s “faithful presence” approach to engagement in To Change the World or Rod Dreher’s “Benedict Option.”  In this sense, he represents the view of political engagement espoused by the National Association of Evangelicals in its statement: “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.”  I have some first-hand experience here.  Gerson was part of an ongoing Catholic-Evangelical dialogue that met regularly at Georgetown University to discuss common ground between evangelical political engagement and Catholic social teaching.  These gatherings were spearheaded by evangelical activist Ronald Sider and Catholic theologian John Borelli.  I also participated in these conversations as they began to wind down.

Of all the Christian approaches to politics, the Catholic view allows for the most active role of government in promoting the common good.  This is the view of government that Gerson sought to bring to the White House as a speechwriter for George W. Bush.  It is also the position that the late David Kuo championed during his work with the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. According to Kuo’s book Tempting Faith: An Insider Story of Political Seduction, this approach to governing was ultimately railroaded by Bush political adviser Karl Rove.