VITAL SIGNSrnRELIGIONrnInterpretingrnCompassionrnby Janet Scott BarlowrnBecause the New York limes is a continualrnsource of annoyance andrnamazement to me, I was predictablyrnstunned and incensed to read last Mayrnthat this most self-important of publicationsrnwas presenting as news the followingrninformation: “[T|here is no evidencernof an anti-poor mentalit)-, at least as measuredrnby reported [financial | giving,rnamong political and theological conservatives.”rnTo whom, I wondered, is thisrnnews? How ignorant of, and isolatedrnfrom, polidcally and theologically conservativernAmericans must one be to findrnit “surprising” that the’ are not “antipoor,rna la Ebenezer Scrooge, in their personalrnoutlook”?rnTo be fair to the New York Times, thernpaper was only passing on the latest findingsrnfrom the world of sociology. (To bernfair to the sociologists, howeer, theyrnmade no mention of F.benezer Scrooge.rnThat reference —so deft, so subtle —wasrnthe Times’ own.)rnThe Times article in question was arnsummahon of a study that appeared inrnthe September 1998 issue of the ]oumalrnfor the Scientific Study of Religion. Curiousrnto know whether the original surveyrncontained anything that could have encouragedrnthe New York Times in its glibrnexercise in stereotyping, I obtained arnback issue of the publication and readrnthe article. Titled “Who Gives to thernPoor? The hifluence of Religious Traditionrnand Political Locahon on the PersonalrnGenerosih’ of Americans Towardrnthe Poor,” it is the work of Mark D.rnRegnerus, Christian Smith, and DavidrnSikkink.rnWhile “Who Gives to the Poor?” isrnfilled with the fairly daunting (to me) languagernof science (“covariates,” “logit regression,”rn”bivariate statistics”), its premisernis plain enough: The politicalrnconservatism of hardcore Christians, especiallyrnProtestants, is evident in their oppositionrnto typical (coimterproductive)rntax-and-spend governmental approachesrnto the problems of povert}; in turn, oppositionrnto typical tax-and-spend governmentalrnapproaches to the problems ofrnpovert)’ is suggestive of “hostility,” i.e.,rnstinginess, toward the poor. If thatrnsounds like circular thinking, one reasonrnmight be that Messrs. Regnerus, Smith,rnand Sikkink characterize their primaryrnassumption — that “religious and politicalrnconser’atism . . . prcdictfs| less giving tornthe poor”—with hvo different terms thatrnthey appear to believe arc synonymous,rnterms which are in fact not s)’non’mousrnat all.rnThe authors refer to the premise underrnquestion as an “hypothesis,” an obviousrnchoice of words, hypothesis implying thernapplication of objectie, specializedrnknowledge or intellection —an openmindedrnexploration guided by the scientificrnmethod. But they also characterizerntheir assumption as “conventional wisdom,”rna not-so-iuiderstandable description,rnsince that term suggests a widely acceptedrnidea that ma- or may not, inrnactual fact, be wideU’ accepted, a generalizedrnview that may or ma not have factualrnvaliditv, a supposition devoid of scientificrncontext. An hypotiicsis is a theor)- tornbe tested. Conventional wisdom can encompassrnanything from an opinion to arnstereotpe to a bias.rnTo hypothesize that religious conservativesrnare ungenerous to the poor is onernthing. To suppose via conentional visdomrnthat religious conseratives are selfevidentlyrnungenerous to the poor is somethingrnelse altogether. And while Irnwelcome any public acknowledgmentrnthat conservatives of whatever variet)’ arernnot heartless meanies, I find it difficult tornsee the significance of a .study that concludes,rn”Fundamentally, making thernjump from economic conservatism torndeclaring persons to be hostile toward thernpoor seems unwarranted.” Witi: all duernrespect, that’s like saing, “Making thernjump from an affinit- for green beans tornan hostility- toward tomatoes seems unwarranted.”rnWhat on earth do thesernthings have to do with each other? Nothingrnat all, of course, unless “conventionalrnwisdom” dictates that if you’ve tasted onernvegetable, you’ve tasted ’em all.rnHere’s what is interesting about “WiornGives to the Poor?” First, Mr. Regnerusrnet al., use a specific standard to measurerngcncrosib.’ tovard the poor: the proportionaternamount of one’s personal financialrnresources given dircctiy to organizationsrnserving the poor and needy. This isrnan excellent standard, it seems to me, becausernit focuses not on abstractions or attitudesrn(talk, after all, is cheap), but onrnspecific, individual, self-initiated action.rnSecond, the authors determine that therngreater one’s personal religious commitmentrn(or “rcligiosih,” as they call it), thernmore likely one is to give “a lof to thernpoor. Third, the- conclude that conservativernProtestants, especially those “whornhave used politically conservative Christianrnleaders and organizations such as thernChristian Coalition to assist them in voting,”rnreport giving significantly morernmoney to poverty relief organizationsrnthan do other Christian groups.rnIn other words, the authors discoverrnthat religion trumps politics, even whenrnthe two commingle. I think a possiblernreason these sociologists end up “surprised”rnby their discovery is that theirrnmethod is to go from A to C without examiningrnB: the degree of personal religiousrncommihnent. While “religiositv'”rnis listed as a factor in the study (an “independentrnvariable”), its actual meaning, asrna context for human choices, goes unexplored.rnThe difference between a surprisernand an ine itabilitv’ rests within thisrnunasked question: What are devoutrnChristians committed to?rn”Who Gives to the Poor?” concludesrntliat, among members of all Christian denominations,rnthose who most often giern”a lot” of their personal income to thernpoor arc exangelieal Protestants. If onernunderstands tiie basic fact that the firstrncommihnent of a devout evangelical is tornhonor the teaclungs of Christ (which arernfound in the Bible, a helpful resource inrncases like this); and if one further understandsrnthat those teachings include instructionrnon feeding the hungr)-, clothingrnthe naked, and visiting the sick and imprisonedrn— if one understands this, thernonly “surprise” one might experience isrnthe unlikeh’ discovery that such personsrndon’t gi’e a lot to those in need. It isrnslightiy demoralizing to realize that onlyrnby disproving an already flawed assumptionrnis the compassion of the more generousrnamong us made credible.rnTo feel demoralized, however, is notrnnecessarily to be downhearted. Beforernconcluding this encounter with the sci-rn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn