I read with interest the Wald, Owen and Hill article linking status politics to the New Christian Right (NCR), a relationship that has been an important concern in my own research (Miller, 1985). The authors' new methods of measuring status politics and discontent is a valuable contribution. However, in my view, there is one conceptual ambiguity in this study which needs to be clarified before the validity of their conclusions can be assessed. Wald et al. are not clear about whether status politics is being used to explain who joins certain types of social movements (recruitment) or why certain social movements, as movements themselves, come into existence at certain times and places. It is possible to see both conceptualizations in this paper. On the one hand, Wald et aL (1989: 1) say say that the status politics model asserts that moral reform movements attract groups who resent their cultural, political, and moral devaluation by the dominant society. This seems to indicate that the authors are using status politics to understand recruitment to the NCR, that a preexistent social movement called the NCR became powerful because it was able to attract individuals who were experiencing status discontent. However, at other points in this article, Wald et aL seem to imply that status politics is being used to explain why the NCR, as a movement in itself, came about at the time it did (e.g., see the discussion in the last paragraph on page two). Why is it important to distinguish analytically between these two ways of using status politics? Because each conceptualization must be tested using a different research design. If the status politics model is concerned strictly with recruitment, then Wald et al.'s design is more than adequate and their conclusions would seem to have validity. However, if status politics is being used to explain why the NCR as a movement developed in the late 1970s, some type of historical and/or longitudinal design is necessary. We must be able to see if the status discontent of fundamentalists was low before NCR mobilization, increased as the movement began forming, and was at its highest point when the NCR entered the political arena in the late 1970s. Wald et al offer no such design. My own research (Miller, 1985) used such a design to test this status politics-NCR relationship. In a quantitative content analysis of fundamentalist publications from 1955 to 1980, I found no systematic linear or curvilinear trends in lifestyle concerns amongst fundamentalists. Status discontent, while high, remained the same throughout this time period. I concluded that status discontent cannot explain why the NCR developed at the time it did. In conclusion, then, while Wald et aL do offer important evidence on who joins and