Abstract
In 2005, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s (ELCA) Churchwide Assembly authorized the formation of a task force to prepare a social statement on genetics and faith. Although the Churchwide Assembly voted to adopt the social statement in August of 2011 by a wide margin, there had been an earlier controversy. In June 2010, an article in the Dakota Farmer questioned whether the ELCA was accusing farmers of “sin” for planting genetically engineered crop seeds. At least two churches in rural North Dakota cited this factor as a reason for leaving the ELCA. Seven synods with strong farmer constituencies proposed resolutions challenging the social statement. This paper explores how the opposition used agrarianism and libertarianism to attack the ELCA’s use of the Christian concept of the common good in the social statement. This case reveals the challenges that the Church faces when contributing to ethical deliberations on controversial issues.
1 Introduction1
In 2005, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s (ELCA) Churchwide Assembly authorized the formation of a task force to prepare a social statement on genetics. The team of clergy, theologians, geneticists, agricultural scientists, social scientists, and laypeople gathered in 2008 to begin its work to guide the Church’s deliberation on the use of genomics research and genetics technologies in various areas, including molecular medicine, agriculture, militaristic uses, and human reproduction. In August 2011, the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly voted 942–934 to adopt the social statement “Genetics, Faith, and Responsibility” (Anonymous 2011). In 2009, by comparison, the Churchwide Assembly had passed the human sexuality statement with a more contentious vote of 676–338, narrowly meeting the two-thirds requirement for passage (Goldberg 2009).
Despite the overwhelming vote of support for the genetics statement, there had been a substantial controversy during the fifteen months leading up to its adoption. The controversy emerged in June 2010, when an article in the Dakota Farmer questioned whether the ELCA was accusing farmers of “sin” for planting genetically engineered crop seeds, and it spread through various farm media. Several rural congregations subsequently submitted resolutions to encourage their synods and the Churchwide Assembly to reject the social statement. At least two churches in rural North Dakota cited this factor as a reason for leaving the ELCA. Therefore, although the genetics statement covered many aspects of genomic research and genetic technologies, we focus on the agricultural dimensions.
This controversy over the agricultural implications of the ELCA’s genetics statement presents an opportunity to explore the clash of moral, ethical, and political-economic dimensions of what are ostensibly religious deliberations. Specifically, we will explore how libertarianism and agrarianism in the United States have mingled with Christian beliefs, making it difficult for the Church to advocate for the Christian concept of the common good.
To accomplish this, we first describe the process by which the ELCA generates social statements and summarize key elements of the ELCA’s statement on genetics and faith. We then use some prominent sociological studies to develop a social framework to explain how political-economic and religious beliefs and values come to be mingled, even when those beliefs might be antithetical. We focus on three such perspectives: libertarianism, agrarianism, and a Christian perspective on the common good. To evaluate the utility of our social framework, we present survey evidence that compares predominantly rural farmer perspectives on a range of political, religious, and ethical issues to people living in other geographical locations. We then use qualitative evidence from newspaper articles, farm magazines, and internet blog commentaries to analyze the main arguments at the heart of the controversy over the genetics and faith social statement. We conclude with reflections on the challenges the Church faces when making social statements in a libertarian age.
2 ELCA Social Statements
As part of its expressed mission, the ELCA generates what it calls “social statements” and “social messages” that are intended to educate and promote moral deliberation on social concerns that it deems worthy of study.2 The ELCA also uses these social statements and messages to guide the lobbying of state and federal governments, managing investments of ELCA pension funds, and guiding spiritual counseling in congregations. The ELCA currently has 13 social statements on topics including abortion, environmental stewardship, sexism, education, human sexuality, and economic justice.
Social statements are generated during a three-year process that often brings together laypeople, biophysical scientists, humanities scholars, and social scientists, in addition to theologians, biblical scholars, bishops, pastors, and ethicists, to generate a draft statement. After soliciting feedback from members of the ELCA, the draft statement is then revised, and the revised statement is presented to the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly for approval.
The ELCA’s genetics and faith statement raised questions about the moral implications of the growing capacity of human beings to understand and alter the genomic information of human beings and other living beings. Written by a task force of eighteen people from a range of backgrounds, the document covers a range of applications of genomic science and technology, including in molecular medicine, procreation, agriculture and food, military weaponry, and various commercial and legal situations, such as criminal investigations, health insurance, and employment. Although the document recognizes that many institutions, whether secular or religious, have been established to protect individual rights and to enhance the common good, it also explains that private interests can distract from the focus on the common good. The social statement repeatedly reminds its readers that Lutherans and other Christians have a responsibility to advocate for and to intervene on behalf of the common good.3
Since the controversy arose over the accusation that the social statement was making recommendations on how to farm and accusing farmers of sinning, it is important to note that the controversy did not rest on substance. As ELCA staff person serving on the task force asserted, “If anyone reads the statement for themselves, they’ll see that it does not condemn genetically engineered seeds and it doesn’t make any recommendation on farm management practices” (Banks 2010). Despite this fact, the reality is that a substantial number of people asserted that the social statement did do these things.
3 The Blending of Political-Economic and Cultural Beliefs
At least since Karl Marx and Max Weber offered their theories of social change, social theorists have debated whether political-economic conditions influence cultural elements, such as religious beliefs and values, or whether those cultural elements influence the political-economic conditions (Inglehart and Baker 2000). Although there was no consensus among the early theorists over which factor had the greatest influence over the other, the political-economic conditions or the cultural elements, there was agreement that religion and political-economic conditions interact and affect each other. For example, in The Peasant Wars in Germany, Marx’s long-time collaborator Engels (1926: 4) argues that the religious arguments that emerged during the Reformation were not the cause of the peasant rebellion. Rather, they were “the result of that stage in the development of agriculture, industry, land and waterways, commerce and finance, which then existed in Germany.” In other words, religious controversies often reflect deeper political-economic struggles. Furthermore, religious beliefs may be used to describe and rebel against political-economic circumstances.
In a more recent study that involves an international comparison, Inglehart and Baker (2000) find support for the proposition that economic and political developments tend to correspond with a rise in rational-secular beliefs and values. However, although their evidence suggests that the economic and political conditions cause cultural change, they are quick to point out that their analysis shows more complexity than might be evident at first. For example, they assert that the kinds of rational-secular beliefs that emerge are often shaped by the religious beliefs that are supplanted; the rational-secular beliefs that emerge in a predominantly Muslim country are different from those that emerge in a predominantly Confucian or Christian country. Furthermore, even in nations with high economic growth, which also typically experience rural-to-urban migration, religious beliefs often persist in revised forms as people raise “concerns for the meaning and purpose of life” (Inglehart and Baker 2000: 49).
Riesebrodt (1998) found similar complexities when comparing the 1970s fundamentalist movement in Iran to the 1920s fundamentalist movement in the United States. He describes how both movements involved the mobilization of marginalized groups to re-establish God’s authority after major political-economic changes, including substantial rural-to-urban migrations. Despite both movements’ appeals to religious language, he emphasizes, both movements were also not strict adherents to their respective sacred texts. Instead, they tended to reinforce conservative cultural models, such as patriarchal family structures and traditional ideas of morality, that were not necessarily in the Bible or the Koran. Another way of describing his point is that religious language was used to articulate grievances connected to experienced social disruptions, even though that religious language was inconsistent with the religious texts they purportedly referenced.
Another important study is Hunter’s (1991) work on what he calls the “culture wars” in the United States. He describes the clash between the conservative orthodoxy (mostly conservative Protestant and Catholic Christians and Orthodox Jews) and the more liberal progressives (mostly liberal Christians and Jews, as well as some secularists) over how to govern the family, education, law, politics, and the economy. He claims that this conflict over how to organize and govern social institutions is ultimately a struggle over the sources of moral authority, which is why the competing groups often use religious language, even though the conservative group has tended to use religious language to greater effect.
One of Hunter’s (1991) arguments that is important for this paper is that the culture wars tend to involve a conflict between political and religious leaders, but that members of the public tend not to be engaged in those wars (Hunter 1991). We intend to demonstrate in this paper that members of the public engage in arguments consistent with the culture war now, even if the public might not have been engaged in these activities when Hunter first wrote his book.
It is important to clarify that these studies rely on ideal-type categories of political-economic conditions and cultural beliefs and values. These categories are useful for exploring social phenomena, but they become misleading if they portray political-economic conditions as purely material. After all, people have political and economic beliefs and values that they use to make sense of their political-economic material conditions.
The main point that we want to draw from these studies is that the social phenomenon they are describing is that people tend to draw from multiple categories of beliefs and values. It is not that political and economic conditions influence cultural beliefs and values, but rather that people may blend their political, economic, religious, and other beliefs and values as they make sense of their circumstances. Moreover, when people blend secular and religious beliefs and values, they may may no longer make a distinction between their religious beliefs and values and the secular beliefs and values when articulating their visions for the proper functioning of the economy, the government, vocations, science and technology, and the family. They may not even make distinctions between antithetical beliefs and values.
The three belief systems that we found at the heart of the controversy over the ELCA’s genetics statement were libertarianism, agrarianism, and the Christian concept of the common good. The ELCA’s social statement argued that those using genetic knowledge and technologies should do so with the motivation of promoting the Christian concept of the common good, while the opponents to the social statement drew primarily from libertarianism and agrarianism to argue that the ELCA’s social statement was wrongheaded.
3.1 Agrarianism
Agrarianism is a powerful belief system in the US that has become blended with Christian beliefs about vocation. According to Hilde and Thompson (2000: 1), “Agrarianism is the belief that ‘agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society,’ and that ‘the practice of agriculture and farming establishes a privileged outlook upon fundamental questions of human conducting, and, sometimes, the nature of reality itself.’ ” It can be traced back to Rousseau’s concept of the “noble savage,” which referred to someone who is more virtuous for being closer to nature than those who are spoiled by civilization. Agrarianism is not necessarily hostile to Christianity. There are early examples of agrarianism in the Old Testament portrayal of people being formed from the soil to till the ground and of people in the Old and New Testaments needing to wander in the wilderness before they could be redeemed (Hiebert 1996).
The most prominent proponent of agrarianism in the US was Thomas Jefferson, who claimed that farming helped to create virtuous citizens. Emerson and Thoreau continued the tradition. More contemporary proponents include progressive commentators, such as Wendell Berry and Jim Hightower (Hilde and Thompson 2000). Conservatives, like Paul Harvey, also espoused agrarianism. In 1978, to celebrate the special virtues of farmers, Harvey delivered a speech titled “So God Made a Farmer,” which built on the Genesis creation narrative by explaining how God made a farmer on the eighth day of creation. Harvey’s speech was revealed to a new generation when it was made into a television advertisement for Dodge trucks, which famously ran during the 2014 Super Bowl.
Academics have also perpetuated these agrarian stereotypes by describing how farmers who primarily reside in rural areas are uniquely moral when they are compared to people living in other geographic settings.4 Using a survey of the general population, Drury and Tweeten (1997) compared responses from American farmers, who are predominantly rural, to other Americans who live in rural areas (but are not farmers), in suburbs, in modest-sized cities, and in large cities. They found that, compared to the others, farmers have more stable families, are more conservative politically and religiously, are more satisfied with their jobs, and are happier. Offutt, Smith, and Ballenger (1998) criticize Drury and Tweeten’s article by noting that the farmers in the survey tended to be older, whiter, and wealthier than the rest of population. Therefore, they argued, it should not be surprising that farmers are more stable and more satisfied. However, Drury and Tweeten’s analysis offers evidence that farmers are different than the rest of the US population on some political-economic, religious, and other values and beliefs.
Agrarianism has communitarian implications, to the extent that the emphasis is on virtuous character formation and the overall benefits to the larger society. Communitarianism rests on the idea that communities shape individuals, influence what they deem to be just, and emphasize individual duties to their communities (Sandel 1998). Ironically, however, agrarianism in the US has come to be the opposite of communitarianism, since it tends to promote private interests and individualism, to privilege large farms and agribusinesses over smaller ones, and to provide exemptions from environmental and labor regulations.
Specifically, agrarianism is often referenced by politicians to support the regular renewal of the federal agricultural subsidy programs, which tend to benefit the largest farmers. Between 1995 and 2012, the US Federal Government spent $ 292 billion on agricultural subsidies, and just 10 percent of the nation’s farmers received 75 percent of that money (Antle and Houston 2013; Kirwan 2017). Although agricultural production generates substantial environmental harms, including resource depletion, water pollution, and air pollution, agriculture has enjoyed safe harbors from the enforcement of environmental laws (Ruhl 2000). And agriculture is also exempted from many labor laws, including laws that apply to minimum wage, overtime wages, and child labor (Zerger 1977; Colihan 2015). Therefore, although agrarianism has roots in communitarianism, agrarianism in the US tends to be more aligned with libertarianism and to be hostile towards government and the notion of a public or common good.
3.2 Libertarianism
Libertarians typically express a devotion to markets and a hostility towards governments, since proponents tend to believe that “laws that interfere with the free market violate individual liberty” (Sandel 2009: 75). The US political economy has become increasingly libertarian over the past five decades (MacLean 2017). Some refer to this governing philosophy as neo-liberalism. It tends to emphasize individuality and markets to the point where it denies the existence of the public as anything more than an aggregation of private interests. Libertarianism is hostile to the idea of the common good.
Perhaps the most famous expression of this hostility to the idea of a social, public, or common good comes from former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who said that “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families” (Guardian 2013). Ronald Reagan’s statement about government is also illustrative: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” (De Groote 2011). These quotations are important because Thatcher and Reagan were the leading proponents of what is considered the beginning of the libertarian political-economy that has become dominant in the US, the United Kingdom, and other parts of the world over the past four decades (Glenna et al. 2015).
Libertarianism has become so prominent that Christians in the US and UK often treat self-regulating markets and individual liberty as Christian dogma (Cox 1999; Glenna 2002). A survey conducted in 2000 provides further support for this claim. The survey revealed that 75 percent of 1,002 American respondents agreed with the statement that “The Bible teaches that God helps those who help themselves” (Broadway 2000: 2). Reflecting on this finding, McKibben (2005) observed that this is so astounding, not just because the statement is not in the Bible, but that it is antithetical to the Christian faith. And it is not just average citizens who get it wrong. In 2011, White House spokesperson Jay Carney stated that, “Well, I believe the phrase from the Bible is, ‘The Lord helps those who help themselves’ ” (Randall 2011). These assertions are significant because they reflect how pithy, secular proverbs can become so taken for granted that they are assumed to be included in the sacred texts.
3.3 The Common Good
Christians have traditionally treated the common good and private interests as antithetical (Glenna 2002). However, because libertarianism seems to be more prominent among US Christians than the common good, it is important to explore how libertarian economic theory has become somehow compatible with Christianity.
Economists distinguish between private goods, public goods, common goods, and club goods. Private goods are defined as being rivalrous (depleted or made less available when someone uses them) and excludable (relatively easy to prevent someone from using the good without paying for it). A commercial product is an example of a private good. By contrast, public goods are non-rivalrous (tend not to be depleted or made less available when someone uses them) and non-excludable (not easy to prevent others from using without paying for it). Knowledge is an example of a public good. Club goods are non-rivalrous, but excludable (can prevent others from using it, but more than one person can use it without depleting it for others). Watching a film in a movie theatre is an example of a club good because the viewers must pay to enter, but they can all watch it without depleting it for others. A common good is rivalrous but non-excludable (difficult to exclude others, but able to be depleted). An example is wildlife. Wildlife roam freely, but some people hunting the animals would make the wildlife inaccessible to others (Brandl and Glenna 2017; Samuelson 1954; Arrow 1962).
It is important to clarify that, according to welfare economists, the public good is different from a public good. In fact, welfare economists tend to claim that the public good is the aggregation of private and public goods (private goods + public goods = the public good) (Glenna et al. 2007). The idea is that when there is a market failure, there are inadequate private goods supplied to meet public needs. Therefore, public institutions need to supply the public goods to make up for the market failure. We emphasize this claim that the public good is defined as an aggregation because this is something that distinguishes it from the common good, since the common good cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts.
The early sociologist Emile Durkheim (1982[1895]) argued that those who study social phenomena should avoid reductionism because social phenomena exist as something more than the sum of their parts. A social system, institutions, structures, and communities are social phenomena that exist before individual members are born into them and continue to exist after individual members die. His point is that social phenomena shape people’s beliefs and actions in ways that individuals are not necessarily aware of. And, furthermore, they may have little, if any, capacity to change those things during their lifetimes.
We argue that the common good corresponds to Durkheim’s social phenomena as something that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. Specifically, the common good is something that can only be created collectively, and it is shared by its members. The common good may be comprised of various elements, but it cannot be reduced to those elements. By way of analogy, one could consider an equation that tools plus building supplies equals a house (tools + building materials = house). It captures the basics of what is needed to build a house. However, that equation cannot be used to suggest that one could increase the number of tools and decrease the amount of building materials and still get the same house. The point is that the common good may be comprised of things, but the common good cannot be reduced to the various elements in a summary equation.
Aquinas was one of the first Christians to discuss the common good when he listed social order as an example of the common good (Mansbridge 1998). Social order is a phenomenon that is not reducible to constituent parts. More contemporary elements of the common good might include human rights, social equity, knowledge, and justice, since these are elements that a society holds in common and benefit all members of that society. In a more concrete sense, social equity, knowledge, rights, and justice can be thought of as collectively facilitating the creation of common goods, such as public health, public education, and the environment. Some communitarians are critical of liberal theorists, like Kant and Rawls, for considering human rights as being prior to the common good and for treating individual rights as outweighing “considerations of the common good” (Sandel 1998: 185). Lutheran ethicists seem to echo this sentiment. Deifelt (2009) observes that the emphasis on human rights often ignores the responsibilities that we have to others and that Lutheran notions of the common good begins with Luther’s emphasis on neighbor love.
Although we agree with the need to emphasize responsibilities and duties when discussing the common good, we also believe that such communitarian critiques of rights-based theorizing are premised on a narrow definition of human rights. Wellman (2000) argues that there have been three stages in the development of human rights and that those stages roughly correspond to the ideals of the French revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Individual liberty could be portrayed as privileging freedom from the community. But human rights related to equality and fraternity (such as the right to food, education, and health care) are consistent with the common good, because they emphasize people’s responsibilities to others more than people’s autonomy from the community.
Our goal here is not resolve the communitarian-liberalism debate, but rather to emphasize that the social elements that comprise the common good are distinct from private interests and that the common good is not reducible to the sum of its parts. This clarification is important because the ELCA’s social statement on genetics emphasized that genetic knowledge and technologies should be used to enhance the common good, but it also recognizes that genetic knowledge and technologies are being used to advance private interests. It does not overtly label such practices as sinful. However, the social statement asserts that it is the responsibility of the Church and individual Christians to do what they can to make sure that genetic knowledge and technologies are used for more than private interests. In fact, the statement calls on them to strive for the common good.
One could argue that an appeal to the common good raises questions about who decides what the common good is. And we recognize at least two responses to the question. The first is the one offered by the ELCA social statement, which is that public deliberation is the proper process for determining what the common good is. A second response would be to return to the discussion on private, public, common, and club goods. As we noted earlier, there is a difference between a common good and the common good and a difference between a public good and the public good. However, social welfare theory has largely been premised on the need for wide array of private, public, common, and club goods to generate the public good. If genetic knowledge and technologies are being used in agriculture to generate more private goods than other goods, then one could argue that the private good is being advanced at the expense of the public good. And although we have made a distinction between the common good and the public good, to the extent that the common good cannot be reduced to contingent parts, we would still argue that it would be difficult to envision a common good in a society that lacked both public goods and common goods.
Research indicates that concerns about whether genetic technologies in agriculture are advancing the public or common good are legitimate. A National Academies of Science (2016) report found that most of the applications of genetic knowledge in agriculture have been used to develop technologies that enhanced the private interests of farmers and agricultural businesses, with few clear benefits for consumers or the broader society. Although this National Academies of Science report was published after the ELCA generated its social statement, the ELCA’s social statement is clearly addressing the concern that genetic technologies could be used to enhance private interests more than advancing the public good or the common good.
4 Data and Methods of Analysis
To test our theory that the conflict over the ELCA’s social statement represented a deeper clash between Christian conceptions of the common good, libertarianism, and agrarianism, we turned to two data sources. The first is the General Social Survey (GSS). The second is a collection of qualitative data, including news stories, blog posts, and synod resolutions.
The GSS is an annual survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago since 1972. The data are publicly available. We downloaded and analyzed the data like Drury and Tweeten (1997) did. As we indicated earlier, Drury and Tweeten (1997) sought to confirm the agrarianism premise that, when compared to people living in other geographic locations, rural farmers are morally exceptional. They compared people living on farms (assumed rural) to people in rural areas who were not farmers, people in towns with fewer than 50,000 people, people in towns with between 50,000 and 250,000 people, people in cities with more than 250,000 people, and people in suburbs of a large city.
We need to address three caveats. One is that the GSS does not survey enough rural people in any given year to make it possible to do a statistically meaningful comparison year after year. Therefore, Drury and Tweeten (1997) pool the data, which yields a substantial number of rural respondents. We do the same. Second, the GSS does not ask if respondents currently live on farms, only if they are rural. However, it does ask respondents if they lived on a farm when they were 16 years old. Thus, the survey captures those who were raised on farms, but does not designate whether they still live on farms. Although this is not ideal for our purposes, it is a reasonably useful variable because it is likely that agrarianism ideals are instilled during those formative years. Third, although the GSS asks many questions every year or nearly every year, some questions are asked less often. This does not create a problem for our analysis, but we want to reader to be aware of the limitations in our data. We capture the variation by listing overall number of responses in the table. Categories with fewer responses indicates that some questions are asked less often.
Following Drury and Tweeten (1997), we analyzed the data using cross-tabulations and a statistical test of significance. To save space, we focused on a smaller number of variables than they did. To connect our analysis to our theoretical framing, we explore the relationship between people’s geographical location and their stated perspectives related to religion, political-economic beliefs and values, and their commitment to what could be considered indicators of the common good. For religion, we included “How often do you attend religious services?” and “Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible? a. The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, b. The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally word for word, c. The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men.”
For political-economy, we used the variables measuring whether respondents think of themselves as liberal or conservative (“I’m going to show you a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal—point 1—to extremely conservative—point 7. Where would you place yourself on this scale?”) and “How much do you agree or disagree with each of these statements? Private enterprise is the best way to solve America’s economic problems.”
To measure their commitment to the common good, we used variables measuring whether respondents think that the nation is spending enough money to improve public health, the education system, and the environment. For education and public health, the question was “for each [problem] I’d like you to tell me whether you think we’re spending too much money on it, too little money, or about the right amount.” For the environment, the question is slightly different: “Some countries are doing more to protect the world environment than other countries are. In general do you think that America is doing [enough]?.”
To conduct a cross-tabulation analysis, a computer program randomly assigns values to each cell of a table. That random distribution becomes the expected frequencies for each cell. The actual data is then inserted into the cell and compared with the randomly assigned values. If the computer program finds that the actual frequencies are different from the expected frequencies, and if the differences between those frequencies is likely to occur 95 percent of the time or more, then we can conclude that the relationship between the variables represents a statistically significant pattern.
We then turn to the qualitative data to determine if some aspects of agrarian exceptionalism were present in expressed opposition to the ELCA’s statement on genetics. This qualitative data is comprised of numerous news reports. Our data gathering began when the second author of this paper (lives in North Dakota) noticed that stories about the controversy were appearing in North Dakota newspapers. Using Google, we then began systematically searching for stories in newspapers, farm magazines, and blogposts on topics related to the ELCA’s statement on genetics and faith. Since The Lutheran magazine covers all synodical gatherings related to the approval or rejection of the ELCA’s social statement, we collected all the stories in the magazine on the controversies and voting results in the synods across the US.
To analyze the various documents, we assembled a timeline of major news stories and the efforts directed at derailing the ELCA’s social statement. We then analyzed the arguments presented in the various documents for indications that advocates were defending agrarianism and private interests against their perceptions of how the ELCA’s statement call for a contribution to the common good was threatening their agrarian and private interests.
5 Results of Analysis
5.1 Quantitative Analysis
Our survey analysis indicates that farmers who mostly reside in rural areas are different from people living in other areas. Farmers are significantly more likely than those in other areas to go to church at least once a week (Table 1) and to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God (Table 2).
Table 1
How often attends religious services in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Never |
12.6 |
17.3 |
16.7 |
17.5 |
20.1 |
19.0 |
|
Less than once a year |
6.8 |
8.4 |
7.7 |
7.7 |
8.3 |
7.5 |
|
Once a year |
10.3 |
14.0 |
13.0 |
13.8 |
15.1 |
14.2 |
|
Several times a year |
10.9 |
12.8 |
11.9 |
13.2 |
14.6 |
13.7 |
|
Once a month |
6.6 |
6.9 |
7.3 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
|
Two or three times a month |
9.8 |
8.9 |
9.2 |
8.9 |
7.9 |
8.5 |
|
Nearly every week |
7.8 |
5.6 |
5.8 |
4.9 |
4.2 |
4.5 |
|
Every week |
24.0 |
17.8 |
20.5 |
19.6 |
17.8 |
18.9 |
|
More than once week |
11.1 |
8.4 |
7.8 |
6.8 |
4.9 |
6.4 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
(8973) |
(6312) |
(18161) |
(8783) |
(6289) |
(8925) |
χ2=816.5, prob.=.000, df= 40, n=57443
Table 2
Feelings about the Bible in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Word of God |
48.00 |
40.20 |
33.90 |
30.40 |
20.00 |
29.70 |
|
Inspired word |
41.30 |
44.30 |
48.60 |
50.70 |
53.60 |
47.10 |
|
Book of fables |
9.90 |
14.10 |
16.30 |
17.80 |
24.80 |
21.50 |
|
Other |
0.80 |
1.30 |
1.20 |
1.10 |
1.60 |
1.70 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
(3986) |
(3450) |
(9719) |
(4994) |
(3795) |
(4655) |
χ2=962.2, prob.=.000, df= 15, n=30599
Farmers are also distinctive in their political beliefs. Farmers are significantly less likely than others to consider themselves liberal and more likely to consider themselves conservative (Table 3). And they are significantly more likely than others to agree with the statement that private enterprise will solve the United States’ problems, which is a statement that is consistent with libertarianism (Table 4).
Table 3
Think of self as liberal or conservative in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Extremely liberal |
1.90 |
2.50 |
2.40 |
2.90 |
3.60 |
4.00 |
|
Liberal |
8.10 |
10.30 |
10.50 |
13.00 |
14.90 |
14.80 |
|
Slightly liberal |
10.20 |
12.30 |
12.90 |
13.50 |
15.00 |
13.50 |
|
Moderate |
41.40 |
39.10 |
39.50 |
38.00 |
33.90 |
38.00 |
|
Slightly conservative |
16.60 |
17.10 |
16.10 |
16.40 |
16.40 |
13.70 |
|
Conservative |
17.30 |
15.00 |
15.30 |
13.30 |
13.90 |
13.40 |
|
Extremely conservative |
4.50 |
3.70 |
3.20 |
2.80 |
2.30 |
2.50 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
(7333) |
(5384) |
(15473) |
(7608) |
(5527) |
(7493) |
χ2=595.6, prob.=.000, df= 30, n=48818
Table 4
Private enterprise will solve U.S. problems in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Strongly agree |
18.8 |
13.6 |
15.5 |
14.5 |
14.0 |
18.2 |
|
Agree |
39.5 |
36.3 |
35.5 |
32.9 |
36.6 |
32.5 |
|
Neither agree nor disagree |
26.4 |
32.9 |
30.7 |
34.6 |
33.2 |
29.3 |
|
Disagree |
13.9 |
15.0 |
16.1 |
15.5 |
13.0 |
15.3 |
|
Strongly disagree |
1.4 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
2.5 |
3.1 |
4.8 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
(692) |
(575) |
(1604) |
(788) |
(644) |
(813) |
χ2=51.12.9, prob.= .000, df= 20, n=5116
Farmers also have a weaker commitment to communal institutions and resources. Specifically, they are significantly less likely than others to think that too little is being done to improve and protect the nation’s health (Table 5), to improve the nation’s education system (Table 6), and to improve and protect the environment (Table 7).
Table 5
Improving & protecting nations health in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Too little |
58.20 |
67.50 |
66.20 |
67.90 |
66.50 |
71.20 |
|
About right |
34.70 |
26.20 |
27.60 |
25.90 |
26.60 |
23.10 |
|
Too much |
7.10 |
6.30 |
6.20 |
6.10 |
6.90 |
5.60 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
5448 |
3715 |
10489 |
4934 |
3534 |
5149 |
χ2=232.0, prob.= .000, df= 10, n=33269
Table 6
Improving nations education system in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Too little |
52.90 |
63.10 |
63.60 |
68.80 |
70.40 |
69.70 |
|
About right |
37.50 |
30.20 |
29.40 |
25.20 |
23.40 |
24.60 |
|
Too much |
9.60 |
6.70 |
7.00 |
6.00 |
6.20 |
5.70 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
(5478) |
(3736) |
(10531) |
(4956) |
(3565) |
(5183) |
χ2=485.5, prob.=.000, df= 10, n=33449
Table 7
Improving and protecting the environment in percentages
|
Response |
Farm |
Country, |
Town lower |
50000 to |
Big-city |
City greater |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
nonfarm |
than 50000 |
250000 |
suburb |
than 250000 |
||
|
Too little |
47.70 |
60.40 |
60.30 |
64.60 |
68.30 |
67.00 |
|
About right |
39.20 |
30.70 |
30.20 |
28.20 |
25.40 |
26.10 |
|
Too much |
13.10 |
8.90 |
9.50 |
7.30 |
6.20 |
7.00 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Sample size |
(5298) |
(3647) |
(10345) |
(4881) |
(3533) |
(5105) |
χ2=602.8, prob.=.000, df= 10, n=32809
Our analysis of the survey data supports the Drury and Tweeten (1997) conclusions that farmers who tend to live in rural areas are unique when compared to non-farm rural people and people who live in suburbs, small towns, and cities. However, the findings also suggest that the farmers’ beliefs are not necessarily consistent with the Christian concept of the common good, even though farmers seem to be more regular churchgoers than others. Furthermore, although they seem to have stronger beliefs about the Bible than others, their beliefs are not necessarily consistent with Christian teachings about the Bible, especially Lutheran teachings. For example, although Lutherans think of the Bible as the “word of God,” Lutherans tend to place more emphasis on the role of the spirit in interpretation than is implied in the statement that the Bible is the literal word of God (Kleinhans 2006). Indeed, sociological research reveals that the survey question on the Bible being the word of God is a better indicator of social status than knowledge or understanding of the Bible. Specifically, people who claim the Bible is the literal word of God tend to be economically privileged white men who vote Republican (Hirschl et al. 2012).
Although a respondent’s perspective on conservativism or liberalism is not necessarily consistent or inconsistent with Christianity, the responses to other questions are suggestive. As we discussed earlier, individualism and a belief that God helps those who help themselves is antithetical to Christianity. Therefore, a belief in private enterprise and a tendency to think that too much is being done to improve public health, education, and the environment would seem to run counter to Christian teaching about the common good. Therefore, our analysis of the survey data indicates that farmers, as the manifestation of agrarianism in the US, have become more interconnected with libertarianism than with Christianity. This finding is important for our efforts to understand the controversy over the ELCA’s statement on genetics.
5.2 Qualitative Analysis
The initial opposition to the ELCA’s statement on genetics emerged on May 7, 2010, when a farmer in North Dakota named Sarah Wilson posted a comment on her blog about the ELCA statement on genetics. Her original post on the subject was on May 5, but that post urged people to read the document and to participate in a conversation with church leaders that was scheduled to happen in her church on May 6. The May 7 posting was when she took an oppositional position:
My faith and my farming practices have always gone hand in hand. I feel farming is my God-given purpose in life. I am to do my best at farming by efficiently and effectively using the resources He has provided to feed His people so that they are strengthened and nourished to serve Him. I feel that one of the greatest freedoms we farmers have the luxury of is being self-employed. We choose the management practices that best suit the needs of our land, our animals, our families and our consumers. Each farm is as unique as a fingerprint, even in small, close-knit communities. We have the choice of such a vast array of technologies—that in itself is a blessing.
The statement’s appeal to agrarianism is most clear in the second sentence, where she indicates that farming is a God-given vocation. It is also evident in the statement that she sees this vocation as including a responsibility to effectively and efficiently use the resources that God provides to feed people. These assertions reflect a strong belief that farming is a noble and God-blessed profession. And there is an implication of a global responsibility to feed people. However, that responsibility is later converted into an afterthought:
The basic principle I keep coming back to is that I do NOT believe it is the church’s place to give recommendations on farm management practices. Similarly, I do not think it is acceptable that the church tell everyone in town what tires to put on their car, etc. We go to church to worship and study scripture, but from there it is up to individuals to apply the lessons we’ve learned in our lives.
This statement emphasizes a clear distinction between her role as a farmer and the role of the Church in influencing her perspective on the common good. According to her, the Church should not be making recommendations about anything related to the common good or even reminding people to consider the common good. It should only be directing individuals to worship and study scripture.
Lichterman’s (1995) description of the obstacles to bringing a predominantly white, middle-class environmental group and an African-American church together to address an environmental issue is useful for making sense of this perspective. Lichterman (1995) finds that the mostly middle-class and white environmental organization saw community as empowering individuals to do what they think is right, a type of personalized community or a culture of self-fulfillment. By contrast, the African-American church adhered to more of a communitarian perspective, which emphasized the good of the collective over individual interests.
This distinction between a personalized community and communitarianism is useful in analyzing a point that Sarah Wilson makes in an October, 2010, blogpost, which is a response to a woman named Janet Jacobson. Jacobson (2010) argued in The Dakota Farmer that the ELCA’s social statement was a “thoughtful and balanced document,” and that the Dakota Farmer coverage of the topic was “profoundly one-sided.” After reflecting on Janet Jacobson’s comments, Sarah Wislon responded:
I respect the fact that there are likely folks who disagree with my take on things and everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but I believe it is the responsibility of each individual Christian farmer/rancher who is utilizing genetic technology to analyze the impact of each of their management practices, especially considering God’s command for us to be stewards of His creation. This individual analysis cannot be achieved through a social statement. I also believe farms are as unique as fingerprints and to have a vast array of farm management tools and method available and the freedom to choose which ones to utilize is a blessing in itself.
The key point in this quotation is that she claims that ethical decisions should be left to individual Christians. She further argues that a social statement somehow inhibits an individualistic approach to ethical decisions. She does not explain why a social statement that claims to have the goal of stimulating deliberation would prohibit individual decision-making. However, that is not as relevant here as her claim that the Church has no business calling individual Christians to strive towards the common good, which is an extremely limited ecclesiastical vision for the Church. The implication is that individual Christians and individual farmers are beyond reproach.
Our goal here is not to single out Sarah Wilson for critique. Rather, we find it necessary to focus on her blog posts because she inspired enough controversy that her comments were regularly quoted by others and because she was interviewed repeatedly.
In June 2010, a journalist for The Dakota Farmer wrote an article about Sarah Wilson’s post. He started the article with the provocative question: “Could planting biotech seeds be a sin?” (Tonneson 2010a). Later, in September, Tonneson (2010b) described a hearing held at a Lutheran Church in Gackle, North Dakota, which is Wilson’s home church. The article reports that of the 30 people in attendance, only one was not in opposition to the ELCA social statement on genetics. Tonneson’s article relies heavily on quotations from Sarah Wilson. Tonneson (2010b: 8) even quotes her as saying that “it is clear to me that the ELCA has been infiltrated by a radical animal rights and environmental agenda.” She said that “Every day I go to battle against [their] agenda to defend my ability to farm. And now [they] … have infiltrated my church.”
In December of 2010, Jerry Youngquist, a blogger for “Word Alone Ministries” posted a diatribe on the issue, which he titled “ELCA At It Again.”5 He claimed that the ELCA moved from adjusting the meaning of Scripture to accommodate homosexuality to criticizing farmers. Echoing Wilson’s sentiments, Youngquist stated: “Isn’t the real mission of any church that which would enable people to know Jesus Christ and to enable His presence in their lives?” He goes on to clarify that the Church has no business making social statements, since the real mission of the church is to empower Christians to be God’s “boots on the ground.” This statement seems ironic at first, since the ELCA’s social statements ostensibly seek to promote Christians to act in the world. However, if one starts from a libertarian perspective, it is not ironic.
Youngquist was responding to a November 12 article in the Grand Forks Herald titled “North Dakota church bolts over ELCA agricultural proposal: There’s a feud brewing on the prairie between faith and farming.” In that article, Mercer (2010) states:
Congregation members at Anselm Trinity Lutheran Church in rural Sheldon, N.D., don’t like the ELCA’s proposed position on genetics—specifically in relation to farmers’ use of genetically modified seeds, which are common in Red River Valley agricultural production. The congregation voted on Sunday to leave the ELCA because it feels the group’s draft social statement on genetics is an attack on farmers.
Again, the key insight here is that farmers seem to consider themselves beyond reproach. Anything that could be construed as questioning agricultural technologies is an “attack on farmers.” The Anselm Lutheran Church’s president, Jill Bunn, reportedly said that “the Anselm congregation feels the ELCA is making too many social statements that don’t have anything to do with the church.” This comment perpetuates the refrain that the Church should focus on the Bible, not on social teachings.
That article was followed by another Grand Forks Herald article on 26 December 2010, “Devils Lake church votes 87–0 to leave ELCA” (Grand Forks Herald 2010). Then, on 24 February 2011, another Grand Forks Herald article appeared: “UPDATE: ELCA issues revised statement on genetics and faith.” The author, Stephan J. Lee (2011), explained that “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America released today a proposed social statement, ‘Genetics, Faith and Responsibility,’ revised somewhat since a draft last year raised controversy among members who said it rejected modern farming practices such as genetically-modified seed.” The article is based primarily on interviews with Sarah Wilson and with Per Anderson, who was the chair of the ELCA’s genetics task force. While reading the article, it becomes clear that Lee (2011) is striving to present competing arguments fairly. However, the effort to provide a balanced portrayal is less important than some of the assertions that get reported without being further questioned. First, the article states:
Wilson said there was not enough representation on the ELCA task force from ‘people like me,’ meaning conventional farmers from the Upper Midwest. There was one retired farmer, from Worthington, Minn., on the task force, Wilson said.
The assertion was not completely accurate, since the farmer was still relatively active as a farmer. And two other members of the committee owned farms in Iowa and Minnesota, even though their primary occupations were as professors. One of those professors is an agronomist and the other a rural sociologist who studies agriculture and farming. A good journalist would be expected to fact check such statements. Regardless of its lack of factuality, however, the point that Wilson was making is that a task force should not be able to comment on agriculture if it did not have more farmers involved.
Furthermore, Lee (2011) singled out one paragraph from the ELCA genetics statement as being especially relevant:
This church also rejects the tendency to cede moral deliberations to those whose primary interest is determining what kinds and levels of technology economic markets will bear. Self-interested pursuits in an economic marketplace cannot serve as a substitute for direct and explicit respect for the needs of participants in the community of life.
Although this statement seems reasonable from a Christian ethics perspective, it deeply offended those opposed to the genetics statement. As Lee (2011) reports, Wilson said:
‘But it’s bigger than just the genetics issue,’ she said. ‘It’s their position on a number of farm bill issues, and their position on cap and trade and any number of political issues they have become involved in, on which I fall on the other side of the fence. They really are taking a very liberal stand when it comes to agriculture; that is really it, in a nutshell.’
This seems to clearly mark the lines of the conflict. According to Wilson, Youngquist, and others, by appealing to the Christian concept of the common good, the Church is crossing a line for them because it might lead to claiming that farmers are capable of sinning. From their libertarian-agrarianism perspective, that was not acceptable.
It should be noted that the news reports and editorials were not all negative. On November 23, 2011, Sarah Lovas (2011) wrote a commentary for The Grand Forks Herald claiming that she is a North Dakota farmer with 100 percent of her acreage planted with biotechnology seeds and that she is also an agronomist who sells seeds. She further stated that the previous summer’s “infamous Dakota Farmer article was used as an instrument of fear in my congregation.” She said that she responded by reading the genetics statement and concluded:
I did not find any place in the document where the ELCA bans the use of GMO technology in farming. It does not outline specific farming practices at all. As a matter of fact, I found the document actually telling me to use GMO technology, but in a responsible manner. This is so that we may be good stewards of God’s creation, which includes feeding the people of the world without destroying creation. This is a difficult task that farmers deal with every day. I think the farmers that I have had the opportunity to work with throughout my career in North Dakota and Minnesota are complying with this concept quite well.
She went on to claim that the statement is “a well-written document that is fair to all aspects of agriculture. I believe this document to be an excellent starting point for a bridge between urban and rural, one that could help explain how genetic technology fits into agriculture today.” She then asserted that the reporter who wrote the November 12 Grand Forks Herald article was so biased that it “bordered on libel.”
Despite Lovas’s comments, the controversy spread through the farm media and seemed to reach its peak when Orion Samuelson interviewed ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson on his radio program, “This Week in Agribusiness,” on WGN-AM radio in Chicago on March 5, 2011. During the interview, Bishop Hanson affirmed agrarianism with the statement that “farming is a God-given call and that farmers are exercising that call as they feed the hungry in the world, as they care for creation, as they provide for their own families and communities.” He also stated that 47 percent of the ELCA’s 10,000 congregations were in rural areas or in areas of fewer than 10,000 people. He took a reflective position when he stated that just because a technology is available does not mean that it should be used. He said that Christians must also ask “Should we, and for whose sake.” He asserted that “Those kinds of questions are faith questions for the sake of God and the stewardship that God has placed in our hands for God’s creation, and for God’s people to be fed.” He also clarified that the ELCA’s social statements are not intended to tell people what to do or what to think; rather they are meant to be a starting point for theological deliberation on the topics that Christians are concerned about.6
Eventually, the conflict moved from debates in the press to efforts by nine ELCA synod assemblies to defeat or alter the social statement on genetics (The Lutheran 2011a; The Lutheran 2011b). Two of the proposals did not address the agricultural issues. The West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod proposed changing the words “human fault” to “sin” and to use more confessional and Trinitarian language. And the Upper Susquehanna Synod proposed excluding the use of embryonic stem cells in research or treatment (The Lutheran 2011b). However, seven other synods addressed the agricultural implications of the statement, and those synods represent areas with substantial agricultural production.
The first synod to challenge the statement was The Eastern North Dakota Synod, which debated a proposal May 14–15, 2011, to withdraw the social statement from consideration. That resolution was defeated (The Lutheran 2011a). Several synods sought to disrupt the process by altering the way social statements are developed or approved. Western North Dakota met June 2–4, 2011, and “Voiced strong support of farmers and ranchers in their use of technology to produce safe and bountiful food, asking the 2011 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to do the same” (The Lutheran 2011b: 35). The Western Iowa Synod sought to adjust the voting process to require a two-thirds vote by all ELCA congregations to adopt social statements. The proposal was defeated (The Lutheran 2011b: 36). The South Dakota Synod proposed an amendment to the Church’s constitution that would have allowed members of the ELCA to petition decisions made by the Churchwide Assembly, which was defeated (The Lutheran 2011).
Three other synods offered more direct challenges. At its June 3–5, 2011, the Nebraska Synod proposed accepting the task force’s statement as a study, but not as a social statement. The reasoning was as follows:
Whereas, voting members of the 2011 Churchwide Assembly are asked to vote on the proposed social statement on genetics without precise direction for advocacy concerning genetically modified organisms; and Whereas, Nebraska is a farming state where the use of genetically modified organisms is widespread and common; and Whereas, the Nebraska Synod has suffered in the past two years from the loss of congregations, the loss of members, financial loss for mission, and division within congregations; and Whereas, without precise direction for policy and advocacy concerning the use of genetically modified organisms, advocacy by this church could be direct to prohibiting their use; and Whereas, any advocacy against the use of genetically modified organisms could cause hostility between those who sell and use this type of seed and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America bringing possible further loss of members, loss of congregations, loss of finances for mission, and division within congregations; and
The primary justification seems to be that, in a farm state where genetically engineered crops are widely used, the genetics statement would generate too much division. The resolution passed (The Lutheran 2011b).
The Southwestern Minnesota Synod, which met June 10–12, 2011, challenged the breadth of the study and the lack of adequate representation from potentially affected professions. It also questioned the “bias toward extreme environmental views.” It recommended breaking the study up into farming, medicine, and other fields, rather than addressing them all simultaneously. Furthermore, it recommended that “efforts be made to include representative individuals and organizations from a balanced set of ideologies in any policy or advocacy activity to more accurately represent the balance of opinion among members of the ELCA and the scientific community.” The resolution was rejected (The Lutheran 2011b).
The Northern Illinois synod introduced a resolution, June 17–18, 2011. Appealing to agrarianism, it sought to derail acceptance of the social statement. The two key points follow:
WHEREAS, the study fails to show the benefits of Genetically Modified Organisms in agriculture to maintain the sustainability of our natural resources and still meet God’s commandment to feed the poor; and WHEREAS, the study fails to realize that God has provided, everything in the world, the earth, sea, skies, birds, animals, fish, humans, everything and provided the skills for humans to “farm the land” and raise livestock for foods, milk, grains, fuel, and clothing for God’s creation; and
In this case, the appeal to agrarianism is evident in the assertion that God provided humanity with all that is necessary to produce what is needed for God’s creation. The resolution was defeated (The Lutheran 2011b).
As has already been noted, despite this opposition, the Churchwide Assembly voted to adopt the social statement in August of 2011. Still, the opposition expressed before the vote is relevant because it reflects how the opposition had blended libertarianism and agrarianism into a statement about the proper role of the Church in guiding deliberations. Furthermore, that combination of agrarianism and libertarianism provided strong opposition to claims that Christians should work toward the common good. This indicates that statements made by those opposed to the ELCA’s statement on genetics reflect elements of an agrarian privilege that is more consistent with libertarian ideals than with a commitment to the common good.
6 Conclusion
The ELCA seemed surprised by the opposition from farm and agriculture synods to the social statement on genetics. Bishop Hanson’s appearance on Orion Samuelson’s radio program, “This Week in Agribusiness,” reflected how the Church was caught off guard. And it is understandable that a Church would be caught off guard. A reasonable person would not expect the Church to have to defend its position of reminding other Christians that they should always ask whether a technology is being used for the wellbeing of all.
Since the ELCA claims that the goal of its social statements is to promote deliberation, the controversy could be viewed as a success. People were discussing the ELCA’s genetics and faith social statement. However, the discussion seemed to generate less deliberation than conflict and polarization over whether the Church should be engaged in ethical deliberations at all.
Questions about how human actions affect the common good are fundamental to the Christian faith. However, the reality is that, over the past four decades, some professed Christians in rural areas of the US have incorporated elements of agrarianism and libertarianism into their Christian beliefs and values so that they now deem it inappropriate for the Church to make comments that even have implications for such matters.
First, agrarianism has come to serve less as a celebration of the role that farmers serve by growing food to feed people and more as a political weapon to make harmful agricultural practices exempt from social, economic, and environmental regulations. Second, the rise of libertarianism in the US has changed the way people think about the role of government. Third, libertarianism and Christianity have become intermingled to the extent that many people who profess to be Christians contend that the Church should leave Christians alone to practice their faith as they see fit. The blend of agrarianism, libertarianism, and Christianity seem to have generated a sense of righteousness that led them claim they are beyond reproach. They become offended at the very idea that something they are doing might not be righteous.
This creates a problem of ecclesiology for the Church to the extent that it challenges the very notion that the Church should be engaged in the world. If Christians argue that the Church should not urge people to pursue a higher calling in their work and other aspects of their daily lives, then the Church has a very diminished role in the world from previous eras.
Research by Hunter (1992), Riesebrodt (1998), and Inglehart and Baker (2000) demonstrate that it is not uncommon for people to wrestle with the role of religion in the world. When political-economic circumstances disrupt people’s social reality, they often turn to religious beliefs and values to make sense of their circumstances. That can lead to a blending of religious beliefs and values with secular, even antithetical, beliefs and values.
In this context, the Church might benefit from aggressive outreach that clarifies the role of the Christian ethics in the lives of the faithful and even describes the role that the Church has played in past eras. Furthermore, the church might benefit from making clear statements about the distinctions between Christian beliefs and values and other beliefs and values, such as libertarianism and agrarianism. Agrarianism is not consistent with Christian beliefs and values when, as we have explained, it is used as a tool to make agricultural practices exempt from labor and environmental laws. And when libertarianism is directed primarily at self-interests and libertarians argue that the Church should not call people to strive for the common good, then it becomes antithetical to Christian beliefs and values. The Church could then clarify when the intermingling of secular ethics and political-economic ideologies are corrupting Christian beliefs and values and distracting Christians from ethical expectations.
A summary of this paper appeared on the Journal of Lutheran Ethics website as “When “Farming and Faith Collide”: The Role of Agrarianism and Libertarianism in the Opposition to the ELCA’s Statement on Genetics and Faith.”
Social statements tend to promote deliberation, while social messages are likely to draw on social statements and to be directed at policy advocacy and action.
The social statement is available here:
Social scientists in the US typically define rural with objective and subjective measures. Objective measures include population density. The US Government defines a community with fewer than 20,000 people or a county that has no cities larger than 20,000 as rural (Comartie and Bucholtz 2008). Subjective measures tend to focus on people’s experiences as living in areas with few people around them. People may consider themselves to be rural because they live in an area of a county that has low population density, even though that county might have a city of more than 50,000 people in it, making it a metropolitan county by government definition. Since nearly all farmers live in areas with low population density, even if their farms might technically be located in a metropolitan county, we treat farmers as part of the rural population for this paper.
References
Antle, J., and L. Houston. 2013. “A Regional Look at the Distribution of Farm Program Payments and How It May Change with a New Farm Bill”. Choices. Quarter 4. http://choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/a-regional-look-at-the-distribution-of-farm-program-payments-and-how-it-may-change-with-a-new-farm-bill (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Anonymous. 2011. “ELCA Assembly Adopts Genetics Statement.” https://ministrylink.org/elca-assembly-adopts-genetics-statement/. (Accessed 12/20/2021.)
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1962. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors—A Conference of the Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and the Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, edited by National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, 609–626. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Banks, Adelle M. 2010. “Rural church leaves ELCA over gay clergy, genetics proposal.” The Christian Century. November 15. https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-11/rural-church-leaves-elca-over-gay-clergy-genetics-proposal. (Accessed 12/20/2021.)
Brandl, Barbara and Leland Glenna. 2017. “Intellectual Property and Agricultural Science and Innovation in Germany and the United States.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 42(4): 622–656.
Broadway, Bill. 2000. “You May Swear on the Bible, But It’s Not in the Bible.” The Los Angeles Times. 11 September. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/11/news/cl-18991. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Colihan, Leigh E. 2015. “Child’s Play: The Case Against the Department of Labor for Its Failure to Protect Children Working on America ’s Tobacco Farms.” American University Law Review 64(3): 645–686.
Cox, Harvey. 1999. “The Market as God: Living in the New Dispensation.” The Atlantic. March. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/03/the-market-as-god/306397/. (Accessed: 12/20/2021.)
Cromarie, John, and Shawn Bucholtz. 2008. “Defining the ‘Rural’ in Rural America.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2008/june/defining-the-rural-in-rural-america/. (Accessed 1/20/2021.)
Deifelt, Wanda. 2009. “Seeking the Common Good: Lutheran Contributions to Global Citizenship.” Intersections 29: 22–27.
DeGroote, Michael. 2011. “Ronald Reagan’s 10 Best Quotes.” Desert News. 7 February. https://www.deseretnews.com/top/103/6/Government-is-the-problem-Ronald-Reagans-10-best-quotes.html. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Durkheim, Emile. 1982[1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by W.D. Halls. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Engels, Frederick. 1926(1850). The Peasant War in Germany. Translated by Moissay J. Olgin. New York, NY: International Publishers. Available online. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm (Accessed: 21 October 2017)
Glenna, Leland, Sally Shortall, and Barbara Brandl. 2015. “The University, Public Goods, and Food & Agricultural Innovation.” Sociologia Ruralis 55(4): 438–459.
Glenna, Leland L., William B. Lacy, Rick Welsh, and Dina Biscotti. 2007. “University Administrators, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Academic Capitalism: Defining the Public Good to Promote University-Industry Relationships.” The Sociological Quarterly 48(1): 141–164.
Glenna, Leland. 2002. “Liberal Economics and the Institutionalization of Sin: Christian and Stoic Vestiges in Economic Rationality.” Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion 6: 31–57.
Goldberg, Joshua A. 2009. “Lutherans Narrowly Adopt New Sexuality Statement.” The Christian Post. 20 August. https://www.christianpost.com/news/elca-delegates-narrowly-adopt-new-sexuality-statement.html. (Accessed 1/14/2021.)
Grand Forks Herald. 2010. “Devils Lake Church Votes 87–0 to Leave ELCA.” Grand Forks Herald. 26 December. http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/devils-lake-church-votes-87-0-leave-elca. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Guardian. 2013. “Margaret Thatcher: A Life in Quotes.” The Guardian. 8 April. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-quotes. (Accessed 21 October 2017).
Hiebert, Thodore. 1996. The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hilde, Thomas C. and Paul B. Thompson. 2000. “Introduction: Agrarianism and Pragmatism.” Pp. 1–24 in Paul B. Thompson and Thomas C. Hilde (Eds.) The Agrarian Roots of Pragmatism Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Hirschl, Thomas A., James G. Booth, Leland L. Glenna, and Brandn Q. Green. 2012. “Politics, Religion, and Society: Is the United States Experiencing a Period of Religious-Political Polarization?” Review of European Studies 4(4): 95–109.
Hunter, James Davison. 1992. Culture Wars: The Struggle To Control The Family, Art, Education, Law, And Politics In America New York, NY: Basic Books.
Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne E. Baker. 2000. “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values.” American Sociological Review 65(1): 19–51.
Jacobson, Janet. 2010. “ELCA Right about GMO Warning.” Dakota Farmer. Page 11. http://magissues.farmprogress.com/DFM/DK10Oct10/dfm011.pdf. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Kirwan, Barrett E. 2017. “U.S. Farm Dynamics and the Distribution of US Agricultural Subsidies.” Applied Economics Letters 24(3): 207–209.
Kleinhans, Kathryn A. 2006. “The Word Made Words: A Lutheran Perspective on the Authority and Use of the Scriptures.” Word & World 26(4): 402–411.
Lee, Steve. 2011. “Update: ELCA Issues Revised Statement on Genetics and Faith.” Grand Forks Herald. 24 February. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/agriculture/2148836-update-elca-issues-revised-statement-genetics-and-faith. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Lichterman, Paul. 1995. “Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural Differences in Community Building Among Grass-Roots Environmentalists.” Social Problems 42(4): 513–533.
Lovas, Sarah E.H. 2011. “ELCA Not Rejecting Biotech.” The Grand Forks Herald. 23 November. https://www.inforum.com/letters/2941996-elca-not-rejecting-biotech. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Lutheran, The. 2011a. “Assemblies Discuss Bullying and Other Issues.” The Lutheran. July. Pages 34–37. http://content.yudu.com/A1sl1m/July2011/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelutheran.org%2Farticle%2Fpastdigital.cfm. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Lutheran, The. 2011b. “Assemblies Discuss Bullying and Other Issues.” The Lutheran. August. Pages 34–37 and 47. http://content.yudu.com/A1sysd/August2011/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelutheran.org%2Farticle%2Fpastdigital.cfm. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
MacLean, Nancy. 2017. Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. New York, NY: Viking.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1998. “On the Contested Nature of the Public Good.” Pp. 3–19 in Walter W. Powell and Elisabeth S. Clemens (Eds.) Private Action and the Public Good. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mercer, Shane. 2010. “North Dakota Church Bolts over ELCA Agricultural Proposal.” Grand Forks Herald. 12 November. http://www.inforum.com/content/north-dakota-church-bolts-over-elca-agricultural-proposal-0. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
McKibben, Bill. 2005. “The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong.” Harper’s. August. https://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/the-christian-paradox/. (Accessed 21 October 2017).
National Academies of Science. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Offut, Susan, Katherine R. Smith, and Nicole Ballenger. 1998. “Have Farmers Lost their Uniqueness? Comment.” Review of Agricultural Economics 20(1): 203–205.
Randall, Eric. 2011. “Jay Carney’s Not The Only One Misquoting the Bible.” The Atlantic. 3 November. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/jay-carneys-not-only-one-misquoting-bible/335959/. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Riesebrodt, Martin. 1998. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ruhl, J.B. 2000. “Farms, Their Environmental Harms, and Environmental Law.” Ecology Law Quarterly 27(2): 263–349.
Samuelson, Paul A. 1954. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 387–389.
Sandel, Michael J. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tonneson, Lon. 2010a. “Farming and Faith Collide: Our Say.” Dakota Farmer. June. Page 8. http://magissues.farmprogress.com/DFM/DK06Jun10/dfm008.pdf. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Tonneson, Lon. 2010b. “Farmers at Odds with ELCA Proposal.” Dakota Farmer. September. Page 8. http://magissues.farmprogress.com/DFM/DK09Sep10/dfm008.pdf. (Accessed: 21 October 2017).
Wellman, Carl. 2000. “Solidarity, the Individual, and Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 22(3): 639–657.
Zerger, Kirsten. 1977. “The NLRA Agricultural Exemption—A Functional or Mechanical Approach.” Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law 2(1): 131–161.