The Evangelicals aren’t really cracking up
Last week, we blogged on the Times essay by David Kirkpatrick titled “The Evangelical Crackup,” about the splintering of the Christian right. One Evangelical says this isn’t the case, though. Evangelicals aren’t cracking up, because we never were a bloc in the first place.
David Sessions writes:
The evangelical right is actually doing no such thing. These trends are largely invented, indicative of a media knack for chronicling evangelical impact in absurdly narrow cycles. Contrary to [one writer's] assertion in 2000, the Christian Coalition’s financial troubles and Gary Bauer’s withdrawal from the presidential race didn’t signal a decline of the religious right. Karl Rove may have used evangelicals to defeat John Kerry in 2004, but the media’s inflation of that victory to mythical proportions is a wild overstatement of the facts. And this year, Kirkpatrick overshoots his case by suggesting that all the grumbling over presidential candidates prophesies Christianity’s political apocalypse.
Instead, evangelicals, a notoriously diverse and fastidious demographic, are doing what they always do: bickering their way to a compromise over a candidate.
The Times especially does seem to like the idea of a splintering Evangelical demographic – kind of a The-Boogeyman-is-Human! reporting.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top21 Comments to “The Evangelicals aren’t really cracking up”
I don’t buy it, HSK. I’ve been in churches and small groups over the last 8 years. In my experience, evangelicals certainly do operate as a bloc, and they are hardly a “notoriously diverse” group. A vote against George Bush in 2000 or even 2004 was a vote against God.
The problem this year is that even the Republican marketing machine cannot sell Guiliani as a man of God. Look for compromises like those of Sawgunner’s friend (mentioned in another thread) to become the talking points:
* Guiliani may not support a Christian platform, but he’s a good man who understands the epic fight of good vs. evil we’re engaged in. Right now the most important thing is to defend our homeland against the forces of darkness, and we can get around to Christian social reforms next election cycle.
* Hillary Clinton is the devil.
Report comment to moderator
Hillary Clinton isn’t the devil, JJF. She just works for him.
Report comment to moderator
Exit polling and repeated surveys say that conservative Christians have voted as a block in the last few elections. Jimmy Carter was the last person to split the vote among conservative Christians. Since then, it has almost exclusively gone to the Republican nominee by huge margins. The 2004 election was the high-water mark.
I believe there has always been a tension just below the surface between those conservative Christians who believe that political power is the way to advance their agenda and those who believe it takes changing people’s hearts and minds (through faith) to bring about a change in society.
It’s my opinion that we’re seeing the cracks in the wall between the two groups. On one side you have the Rick Warren’s and the Bill Hybels and on the other side you have the “Moral Majority” types.
I think more and more conservative Christians are realizing the limits of politics. They’re also seeing that 30 years of political activism has produced little results, except an image of a church that hates abortion and gays.
So yes, I see a break-up coming, though I think it’s still a ways off. The 2008 election may be the beginning of the end though.
Report comment to moderator
Do Evangelicals ALWAYS vote as a bloc? The 2008 elections may be the best test yet of that theory. In the past I have definitely held my nose while casting my vote, (Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II in 2004). If Rudy is nominated I will need to hear more pointed pronouncements on SC justices than I’ve heard so far — pronouncements I’m not expecting to hear frankly — for me support him in the general election.
David Souter is the reason that so many of us refuse to believe politicians when they say “trust me on this one” in conjunction with SC nominations. That’s why conservatives stood against Bush II on Harriet Miers’ SC nomination. The GOP is making an error if they don’t understand this.
Report comment to moderator
I believe we need to separate the theological views within evangelicalism and the outworking of those views within the political arena.
Theologically evangelicals are not a monolithic bloc. I’d certainly not invite Rick Warren, Pat Robertson or Tony Campolo to share my pulpit. Yet when it comes to some matters regarding family, marriage, abortion, and parental choice in education I am certain we stand together.
JJF- I’d never say or preach that God favors one candidate over another (remember the Chad Mitchell Trio’s “With God on Our Side”?). What I do is preach what the Bible says about God’s principles of righteousness. I am certain that many pastors took the stance you mentioned, but it is a illegitimate use of the pulpit and an abuse of the pastoral office.
Report comment to moderator
So…are evangelicals what they are cracked up to be?
Maybe these South Koreans have a better idea for effecting change in society?
Frankly, too often I seem to care more about who gets chosen as US President than who chooses Jesus as Master. I certainly need to have a heart!
Blushing — or he should have been — he hopes WoWebbers indulge his self-linking.
Report comment to moderator
Exit polling is a lousy place to learn about people. Alternatives like Kerry tend to produce the appearance of solidarity.
Doesn’t matter much, though. No amount of protest is going to knock the monolithic image of christorepublican off the pedestal. The most vocal of both sides need it too badly. The few true adherents in the “religious right” need it to legitimize their claim of great influence in politics. The few true disdainers in the “secular left” need it to legitimize their claim that religious belief is a dangerous influence in political life that needs to be aggressively curtailed. They also find it handy to have a low-mentation method for criticizing faith itself by criticizing the politicians Christians tend to end up voting for.
Report comment to moderator
Most observers of the Religious Right credit Jimmy Carter with getting it started (albeit inadvertently). He called for a special “White House Conference on The Family”
The use of “the” in front of the word “family” got lotsa folks irked: Never-married or divorced single parents, Grandparents raising their kids’ kids, homosexuals. They all felt that it was simply wrong to speak of “the” family. They got the conference name changed: The White House Conference on Families
And thus began the culture war courtesy of the same man who brought you Amadinejad and company!
Report comment to moderator
I believe that evangelicals have always been pretty diverse, but I think what is happening isn’t so much as evangelicals moving toward the left as it is most evangelicals realizing that we shouldn’t be beholden to a particular party.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – 2 – isn’t that the truth!
Report comment to moderator
Sessions’ article is great, and parses the NYT thesis quite well. Speaking as a slightly disillusioned young evangelical, I don’t feel any more beholden to Jim Wallis than I do Pat Robertson, and probably less.
But I do agree with the idea that there’s a generation of evangelicals coming to influence (if not power) within the GOP (not now, probably start seeing tangible effects within 6-8 years), built on a foundation of Reformed theology and bored with two issue thinking, and inspired by social change wihtout resorting to big gov’t handouts. In short, we’re Bonotheists.
I hope that Sessions is right. Only time will tell.
Report comment to moderator
#9
You know what they say about girls who are “easy.”
Same is true of political/religious groups.
Keep your panties bunched.
Report comment to moderator
The complexity has always been there. As a younger evangelical, I make the following observations.
On abortion: Younger evangelicals oppose abortion because they see it as a human effort to terminate life; older evangelicals oppose abortion because of its tie to sexual promiscuity.
On homosexual rights: Younger evangelicals oppose making homosexuals a protected class; older evangelicals simply want to bash homosexuals.
On creationism: Younger evangelicals object only to the philosophical materialism that dominates some articulations of evolution; older evangelicals just engage in a knee-jerk anti-intellectualism (a la Ken Ham).
On school prayer and public displays of religious symbols: Younger evangelicals could not care less; older evangelicals confuse cultural Christianity with Biblical Christianity.
On American power: Younger evangelicals see problems with American foreign policy; older evangelicals prefer American exceptionalism.
On immigration: Younger evangelicals want an orderly process that permits immigration to meet the needs of our growing economy; older evangelicals just want to keep the brown-skinned people out.
On theology: Younger evangelicals trust more in the power of God; older evangelicals trust more in the power of man.
On eschatology: Younger evangelicals are waiting for the New Jerusalem that will be ours at Christ’s return; older evangelicals are interested in preserving their own comfort in this life.
On leaders: Younger evangelicals look to guys like John Piper; older evangelicals look to guys like Dobson and Falwell.
In some ways, I believe we’re seeing the replacement of cultural Christianity (a la Branson, Missouri) with a true Biblical Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi,
I’m only another bloke, but think some of your observations are perceptive and insightful. Others are garbage. If you number them, I’d be glad to do the arithmetic {:~) This is symptomatic of what happens when you try to respond to open-ended, noncommittal topic headings?
Note to WMB bloggers (not commenters): consider making a point, supporting it, and following up now and again, and not this constant “gosh, waddyathink” lead, which often smells much more like chum than an incitement to think. Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore, since hungry fish will likely always be with us.
Report comment to moderator
#14
“Feel free to ignore…”
This fish plans to swear off bait pretty soon.
(Sometimes I choose to play straight man.)
Report comment to moderator
To Kiyoshi (post 13): I’m a 52 year-old evangelical. I almost have to assume that you’re being facetious in your post. If I’m wrong, however, and you really are serious, you really ought to get out and actually talk with some flesh-and-blood examples of the older people you are trying to caricature.
Report comment to moderator
They have been for awhile now, cracking up I mean.
Report comment to moderator
I think Kiyoshi was being serious in his observations. Some of them were dead on right, some of them are debatable, and a few were “red meat” that will make some people mad.
All in all, they are good points worth discussing.
Report comment to moderator
If evangelicals throughout America voted in a bloc to the same extent that African-Americans for for Democrats (90 percent) or self-proclaimed homosexuals vote for Democrats (80 percent, by one poll), then Democrats would by no means be in control of congress today.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir made a false distinction at #3.
Actually, conservative Christians who take their U.S. citizenship seriously and believe that all the people should have a voice in the USA to seek to advance their agenda are usually the SAME as those conservative Christians who believe it takes changing people’s hearts and minds (through faith) to bring about a change in society.
Report comment to moderator
I have been asking people why they post on worldmagblog even though their posting does not seem to change minds (by any measure I can evaluate or measure). The people who have been answering are the ones with more or less reasonable answers.
“those conservative Christians who believe it takes changing people’s hearts and minds (through faith) to bring about a change in society.”
Joel, do you believe your posts here are achieving that end? Or do you have some other purpose you feel you are accomplishing?
The three I wanted to hear from were Victoria (who had a marvellous answer), you, and Solon.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!