Post-Election Fight over the 'Evangelical' Brand
Emmanuel Dunand / AFP / GettyPost-Election Fight over the 'Evangelical' Brand
Election night did not go the way most evangelicals wanted. President Obama's reelection, losses by social conservative candidates in red states, and outcomes of four same-sex marriage ballot initiatives are all causing some evangelical leaders to reexamine what it means to be an "evangelical" in American politics.
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler called the election a "catastrophe" and a "disaster" for evangelicals. Mohler told The New York Times that the "disaster" was more than the outcome—it was how social conservatives lost.
"It's not that our message—we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong—didn't get out. It did get out," Mohlersaid. "It's that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them."
While social conservative groups think that the election loss was due to a failure of Republicans to emphasize social issues, other evangelical leaders are calling for a divorce of evangelicalism from partisan politics.
Sojourners president Jim Wallis said the elections were not a disaster for evangelicals per se, just those who "had again tied their faith to the partisan political agenda of the Republican Party."
Wallis wants evangelicals to be defined by their faith, not their politics. "Evangelical," said Wallis, is too often equated with "conservative white evangelical."
According to a post-election poll by the Pew Center for the People and the Press, 22 percent of Americans are white, self-described evangelicals. Of these, 84 percent voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. When non-whites are included in the evangelical category, evangelicals make up 31 percent of the electorate. This also makes them less Republican, but still solidly in the GOP camp. 65 percent of all evangelicals voted for Romney, keeping it one of the most-Republican demographic groups in the electorate.
"The ironic and tragic thing about the religious right is how little of their own agenda they have achieved. And by voting for a conservative ideological agenda, they have actually hurt the poor, resisted immigration reform, promoted endless wars, and neglected the environment," Wallis said. "There is a new evangelical agenda for a new evangelical demographic."
Wallis's critique is echoed by conservatives. Matthew Lee Anderson, founder and lead writer of Mere Orthodoxy, said that evangelicals and conservatives "seem to be standing by the status quo of viewing politics as the most significant cultural bellweather [sic] on the one hand and of privileging the acquisition of political power over principles on the other. It's an unholy mess and unbecoming of our leadership."
Peter Leithart of New St. Andrews College also said that it was time for a new evangelical politics.
"Conservative Christians have much to die to," Leithart said. "The more basic death has to be a death to the Reaganite creed on whose coattails the religious right rose to power. Christians have the opportunity to construct a genuinely evangelical public philosophy, a public philosophy and practice that is not an ill-fitting addendum to the gospel but arises from the gospel."
Focus on the Family president Jim Daly told National Public Radio that evangelicals need to find ways to collaborate with those who disagree with them politically in order to make progress on major social problems.
"I think as Christians, we need to anchor down, not with hostility but with humility, and just ride this forward and continue to talk to people about the message of Christ, what the Gospel means," Daly said. "And if that resonates and if people connect, I think the other issues will come in line."
The Latest in Movie News, May 20, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).












Comments
Displaying 13 of 79 comments
See all comments
Jon Trott
And back to the topic of the article... I'm still waiting for someone involved with Evangelical politics on the Right to come out and say bluntly, "We were WRONG to suggest that our political views were synonymous with so-called 'biblical values.' We admit that some liberal, even some so-called 'socialist' ideas, have biblically defensible features to them. And we're wrong to ignore the bible's continual bias toward the very poor. We're also wrong -- there's no real biblical defense for what we've done here -- to suggest that the government has no role in aiding the poor." I know. It will never happen. But wouldn't it be sweet if it could? Sigh.
Jon Trott
Alinksky Alinsky. Sheesh. If you're gonna keep going with literary uses of Satan as admirable rebel, why go Alinksy when Mark Twain did such a better job of it! His unfinished and extremely dark "The Mysterious Stranger" exploits Satan fully in this regard (two or three different versions of the story exist). Then there's his "Letters from the Earth." Plenty for the Christian to object to in both works, and plenty to ponder (because we Christians really are ridiculous creatures much of the time and ought to cultivate the humility to admit as much). But of course Twain wasn't political, and Alinsky's one sentence or so on Satan makes his politics easier to assassinate with a few words. I think Twain would have made some great humor at our expense if he saw this little interchange.
Paul Schryba
J Thomas: I choose to neither confirm nor deny what you state my beliefs to be. Whether Saul Alinsky's methods and beliefs are of God is certainly a subject for TRUTHFUL, HONEST, HUMBLE, and CHARITABLE discussion in the church. What is a greater threat to the Christian church than Saul Alinsky and his methods are the group of Christians who are blind to their own faults and condemn others (humility) and fail to seek to understand others first and seek the good in them (truth and charity). I do not believe that the Bible supports fully either conservative or liberal political viewpoints (the subject of this article); for Christians to fail to seek to understand, to have charity towards Christians who have differing political viewpoints; who turn what should be a charitable, humble discussion into a win/lose debate; that is to sow discord among believers, and according to your own beliefs, is that not 'of Satan?'