Richard Mourdock: the theology behind his rape comments

Senate candidate Richard Mourdock was apparently espousing the doctrine of providence in his comments about rape earlier this week. But he bungled it, and some Evangelicals aren't pleased.

Michael Conroy/AP
Republican Richard Mourdock, candidate for Indiana's US Senate seat, participates in a debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly and Libertarian Andrew Horning in New Albany, Ind., Tuesday. Mourdock said when a woman is impregnated during a rape, 'it's something God intended.'

When Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock this week spoke provocatively of rape-induced pregnancy as “something that God intended to happen,” liberals and atheists weren’t the only ones outraged.

The furor extends into Evangelical camps, too. Believers have taken Mr. Mourdock to task for bungling the important doctrine of providence, which holds that a benevolent God upholds and cares for an imperfect world.

In awkwardly wading into theological waters, Mourdock apparently aimed to affirm the belief – widely held in Evangelical circles, in particular – that God's sovereignty knows no limits. It is a concept that has strong ties to 16th-century Swiss religious reformer John Calvin, who saw in scripture and day-to-day events evidence of a hands-on God. Mourdock showed, however, how tricky it can be to apply the doctrine in discussing tragic events.

What Mourdock said “is offensive,” says Richard Lints, a theologian of the Reformed tradition, which has Calvinist roots, and dean at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass. “The clumsiness is [to] so align God with evil that God becomes a horrific figure. It’s contrary to anything you read in scripture, and it removes the human responsibility.”

Later, Mourdock sought to explain himself, saying, “God creates life, and that was my point.” But the nuances of theology can often be difficult enough to elucidate in a classroom, much less a press conference or a live television debate.

“The Calvinist would say God has permitted [bad] things to happen” because humans have free agency, says Gary Scott Smith, a Presbyterian minister and historian at Grove City College in Grove City, Pa. “But we should not attribute [evil things] to God, even though God can bring good things out of them.”

Providence and theodicy, which asks how a good God could allow bad things to happen, have stirred debate throughout Christian history. Fifth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo argued, for instance, that birth defects were a just consequence of original sin.

These days, Evangelicals emphasize God’s sovereignty for many reasons.

Some in the pews are comforted to think everything is part of God’s plan and therefore no suffering is meaningless, according to religion scholar Peter Thuesen, author of "Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine."

What’s more, some also worry that “if you start restricting the scope of providence, that’s a slippery slope to atheism,” says Mr. Thuesen, a professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. “It calls into question whether there really is a God who controls all things.”

Mourdock isn’t part of any obscure sect. He reportedly attends Christian Fellowship Church in Evansville, Ind. It’s a “fairly typical Evangelical megachurch,” not a hub of fringe theology, according to Larry Eskridge, associate director of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College in Illinois. Insofar as Mourdock seeks to emphasize God’s sovereignty in all things, he belongs to a “vocal minority subculture” in the United States, Thuesen says.

He’s also vying for a spot in an American political tradition. Presidents from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy have emphasized how God provides amidst difficult circumstances. Making good come from evil was an oft-heard theme from a range of politicians after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

In the meantime, though, Mourdock might have reluctantly become part of another tradition. As Thuesen sums it up: “politicians are terrible theologians.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.