First, mainstream evangelicalism appears to be shifting away from the populist demagoguery that been a hallmark of evangelical activism for the last quarter century. Younger evangelicals tend to be wealthier, better educated, and more likely to live in urban areas than their parents. But upper-middle-class urbanites tend to loathe populism and demagoguery of any kind, whether it be from Jerry Falwell or Al Sharpton.

Second, this shift is also having a cultural effect. Branson, Missouri, is a perfect symbol of the evangelicalism of yesteryear — a syncretistic admixture of orthodox Christianity and American rural folk culture. Many on this blog, such as Leavitt, above, can see no distinction between the prejudices of American rural folk culture and Christianity. Therefore, as younger evangelicals seek to create an orthodoxy free of our ugly revivalistic past, we are accused of being compromisers. But nothing could be further from the truth. We’re just not repeating the compromises of the previous generations — compromises that many in the Dobson/Falwell crowd simply take for granted (as orthodoxy).

Report comment to moderator

There has also been a steady changing of the guard in the leadership of conservative Christianity, which is exposing some real tensions. I think we could see another split, much like when evangelicals split into two camps: fundamentalists and mainline Evangelicals.

The thing is, people grow up and mature. They realize that fighting over things doesn’t bring as much pleasure as it once did and that everything is more nuanced in life than they once thought it was. One cannot stay angry their whole life. Well, they can, but they end up bitter and alone.

Some of our conservative Christian friends are starting to realize that politics is never going to bring about the change they seek. They’re starting to become more thoughtful, more reasonable, and (gasp!) kinder. Their more argumentative brethren are starting to direct their anger toward them. It doesn’t bode well when you have members of one group going after one another.

Report comment to moderator

Politics is based on economic philosiphis. Many Christians I know in SD county are ‘Pubs while all of the Christians I know in LA County are Dems. On the essentials there is a pleasant unity, on the rest there is, well, just politics.

And both are finding–no matter how they vote–that God can set up kings and take them down and in the meantime, we have work to do.

Report comment to moderator

Regarding evangelism, the gospel cannot be compromised or it is just another religion.

The various political positions are just political positions and should not be confused with Christianity. Yes, many Christian hold similar views based on their understanding of Scripture, but let’s not define Christianity by politics.

Report comment to moderator

Mead’s shibboleth is ‘moderate’ which means not conservative.

Report comment to moderator

While serious Christians don’t want any sort of statist meddling in their religion, they do want a voice in the public square on serious moral issues including abortion and homosexual marriage.

Report comment to moderator

So, is American Christianity that changeable?

Of course it is. The Bible itself is perfectly malleable, so that people can generally find whatever they want to in it. Even when they ignore/contradict its plain teachings, i.e. that God approves of slavery and polygamy, they can always find a “principle” in the Bible that renders those clear and undeniable, but currently unfashionable, Bible teachings null and void. The same process is underway right now with regard to homosexuality. Joel Mark says the Golden Rule negates everything the Bible says about slavery; Barack Obama says the Golden Rule negates everything the Bible says about homosexuality.

In every way, the evangelical movement in the United States looks as if it is maturing.

By maturing, the author means becoming more liberal politically.

That means more social and political influence, not less, as the movement broadens, reaches into the elite, and develops messages with wider appeal.

No, it means more acceptance, not influence, as the movement becomes more liberal, becomes more acceptable to the elites, and sheds those parts of its platform that turns liberals off, like opposing abortion and homosexuality.

Yet it also means a more pluralistic and less strident movement, more apt to compromise and less likely to be held hostage by a single issue or a single party.

See? What did I tell ya?

The real story of the evangelical political movement today involves neither its death nor its triumph, but rather its slow (and ongoing) shift from insurgent to insider, with all of the moderating effects that transition implies.

See? What did I tell ya? It just means that evangelicalism is becoming more liberal, and therefore more acceptable. And, again, this is nothing new. Evangelical Christianity is the root of liberalism in this country. There may be a few self avowed secular humanists out there, but the vast majority of American liberals are professing Christians, and even among those who aren’t, most of them grew in Christian homes. It’s simply the nature of evangelicalism to become more and more politically liberal over time. It’s message contains the seeds of its own destruction.

Report comment to moderator

Just as reasonable people can and do disagree on whether to be “pacifist [or] jingoist; laissez-faire [or] populist,” so can people of faith. I would think they’d want the Gospel to reach all, regardless of transient political divisions, and thus try to appeal as broadly as possible across the political spectrum.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator