The New Evangelicals

[Lux Lex Pax]

These boards are slow. I'm kind of hoping to start an interesting discussion.

Here's an article: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/the-new-evangelicals/?hp.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[onoma]

As the article suggests, this is a significant (and growing) part of the population. I can't think of any politicians off the top of my head that are really accounting for this group, and I think that has a lot to do with the general dissatisfaction with both parties.

[Lux Lex Pax]

Onoma, I agree. I think the current configuration of political ideologies and parties is such that it's nearly impossible for a candidate to be for economic justice, immigration reform, environmental protection AND pro-life or at least for reducing the number of abortions. The first 3 have been the traditional bailiwick of Democrats; whereas, the latter of the Republicans. Some Republicans have hinted at immigration reform, but each time they were chastised by the far right, nativist/xenophobic element of their party. I think the Democrats can really reach out to this demographic, but the Democrats are unlikely to budge on abortion.

[Emma Maroon]

I agree that the pro-life issue can be a really difficult twist in the whole "evangelicals are leaving the Right" debate. Christians in my generation seem to be going pretty liberal on gay rights, the environment, and the role of government... but eh, what to do about abortion? I remember reading some statistics about how kids 18-28 are more liberal than their parents on gay rights but considerably more conservative on abortion rights. Is there a candidate that can fill that void? Probably not. So we compromise. It's a bummer.

But I loved the discussion of a new vision for the church's role in politics.

'This is the church’s “prophetic role” — not to become the government but to “speak truth to power.”' Instead of getting so caught up in the power struggle of gaining political office in order to "create change," to realize that "when the church gets in bed with the state, the church always loses." We lose our credibility, we lose our voice, and we lose our "moral high ground" to speak into political situations, on both sides, calling for peace and justice in places that it's lacking.If we had the courage to step outside of the power game, we could actually be heard more clearly.

Also, I read something by (Tolstoy? I think?) once about Christians in government:

‎"According to Christ's teaching, the good are those who are meek and long-suffering, do not resist evil by force, forgive injuries, and love their enemies; those are wicked who exalt themselves, oppress, strive, and use force. Therefore, by Christ's teaching, there can be no doubt whether the good are to be found among the rulers or ruled, and whether the wicked are among ruled or rulers. Indeed it is absurd even to speak of Christians ruling."

[Lux Lex Pax]

But I loved the discussion of a new vision for the church's role in politics.

'This is the church’s “prophetic role” — not to become the government but to “speak truth to power.”' Instead of getting so caught up in the power struggle of gaining political office in order to "create change," to realize that "when the church gets in bed with the state, the church always loses." We lose our credibility, we lose our voice, and we lose our "moral high ground" to speak into political situations, on both sides, calling for peace and justice in places that it's lacking.If we had the courage to step outside of the power game, we could actually be heard more clearly.

These are interesting points. The point about the church losing when it climbs into bed with the state was actually one of the concerns driving the founders when they disestablished the church from the federal government in the First Amendment. However, I want to push back a little on the point about the church's prophetic role. I think there's a lot of talk nowadays about being prophetic, but can't the church play other roles as well? Perhaps we err when we ascribe to the "church" any role. Perhaps we should only talk about the role of individuals and groups of Christians, but not about the "church" in its institutional form. I think it's inevitable that Christians will occupy positions of power in a country where they are the majority. If they abdicated their civic responsibility, who would govern? Non-believers? It seems to me that Christians can and should play various roles -- prophetic, priestly, kingly, etc. -- because all of them are necessary. The difficult part is finding the right balance between them.

[Emma Maroon]

Oh, I have a question: what is an "evangelical" defined as, technically? What do ya'll (inside and outside) the evangelical church define evangelical as? Wikipedia was no help here.

[Lux Lex Pax]

Oh, I have a question: what is an "evangelical" defined as, technically? What do ya'll (inside and outside) the evangelical church define evangelical as? Wikipedia was no help here.

Evangelical is a term that imperfectly encompasses a large group of people, so there will obviously be disagreement. However, by evangelical is normally meant someone who believes in 1) the inspiration and authority of scripture, 2) the divinity of Christ, 3) the triunity of God, 4) the need for rebirth and transformation, and 5) the importance of sharing one's experience with others (evangelization). As you can see, the first three (and to varying extents the fifth, although for evangelicals this is more a personal thing, not relegated specifically to missionaries) are common to most of Christianity. The fourth (and maybe fifth) is more specific to evangelicalism.

[AmoDman]

I remember reading some statistics about how kids 18-28 are more liberal than their parents on gay rights but considerably more conservative on abortion rights. Is there a candidate that can fill that void? Probably not.

Sounds like Ron Paul to me.