Related articles and links |  1 of 2

The first shall be photographed for Time, and the last shall blog about it
Lists of "most powerful," "most influential," best, or other superlatives always have some ostensibly high goal. Time magazine doesn't say why it published a cover story on "the 25 most influential evangelicals in America," but the idea seems to be to communicate to the country that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell aren't really the faces of the movement. This is a group that's broader than you think.

The introduction is delightfully sweet: "American evangelicalism seems to defy unity, let alone hierarchy. Yet its members share basic commitments. Time's list focuses on those whose influence is on the rise or who have carved out a singular role."

But really, the de facto purpose of lists like this is to get people talking, to develop some kind of buzz, to spur some kind of debate. And so it has begun.

Here's the list: Howard & Roberta Ahmanson, David Barton, Doug Coe, Chuck Colson, Luis Cortès, James Dobson, Stuart Epperson, Michael Gerson, Billy & Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, T.D. Jakes, Diane Knippers, Tim & Beverly LaHaye, Richard Land, Brian McLaren, Joyce Meyer, Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Noll, J.I. Packer, Rick Santorum, Jay Sekulow, Stephen Strang, Rick Warren, and Ralph Winter.

Okay, let's get the obvious out the way: there are 28 names on this list of 25 (due to the inclusion of three couples), and not everyone is an American (CT executive editor J.I. Packer British born and lives in Canada).

Then there's the question of influence: Influencing whom? Some seem to have been included for their influence outside the evangelical community (especially on national politics) while others for their influence on the evangelical movement itself.

But the trickiest word of all is that e-word: evangelicals. Already, several bloggers are questioning the inclusion of First Things editor Richard John Neuhaus and Sen. Rick Santorum—both Roman Catholics. But Time notes this, and offers solid argument for including both: Santorum, the magazine says, is "the darling of Protestant Evangelicals" and "the standard bearer of social conservatives on the Hill." Neuhaus translates "conservative Protestant arguments couched tightly in Scripture into Catholicism's broader language of moral reasoning" and "has worked tirelessly to persuade conservative Catholics and Evangelicals to make common cause."

In the Chuck Colson entry, one thoughtful commentator (okay, it's Weblog) says, "If he gets on a bandwagon, it's likely to move." The same could be true of just about anyone on this list. If you were to issue a document and wanted influential signatories to show that it has important and widespread support in the movement, you'd probably ask Neuhaus to sign it, whether the matter was political, ethical, or theological. If you wanted to propose legislation of particular interest to evangelicals, you'd knock Frist (oops, I mean, first) on Santorum's door.

Others on the list have questionable credentials for the "evangelical" label. Both Doug Coe and T.D. Jakes focus on Jesus to the point of omitting other important Christian doctrines (though their overemphasis takes different forms), and asking "Is Brian McLaren an evangelical?" is a popular parlor game in several circles.

But the mosaic that emerges from these 25 tiles is worthy of note. This is the evangelical movement understood in its historical context. Some of these names would like to pull the movement back into places evangelicalism has expressly rejected in the past: either into a cultural disengagement that "circles the wagons" or into a cultural embrace that compromises the gospel (and no, I'm not naming names; interpret as you will). But evangelicalism as a movement has largely succeeded because it includes both of these voices correcting each other's overstatements. Once we stop having the debate over how to be "in but not of the world," we're in trouble.

next page... |  1 of 2

February (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49