Who Gets to Define Evangelicalism?
May 8th, 2008Writing for Reuters, religion newswriter Ed Stoddard reportsfurniture Bulgaria:
A group of U.S. evangelical leaders called on Wednesday for a pullback from party politics so that followers would not become “useful idiots” exploited for partisan gain.
One in four U.S. adults count themselves as evangelical Protestants, giving them serious clout in a country where religion and politics often mix. Conservative evangelicals have become a key support base for the Republican Party.
But the movement has had growing pains and the statement issued on Wednesday, called an “Evangelical Manifesto,” is the latest sign of emerging fractures as some activists seek to broaden its agenda beyond hot-button social issues such as opposition to abortion and gay rights.
I doubt if there is any other group in American life more promiscuous in their seemingly insatiable appetite to affix their signatures to statements, confessions, manifestos, and declarations than evangelicals. But that said, those interested in American evangelicalism and politics should pause to assess the significance of this one. First, the signatories are a bit more representative of broader evangelicalism and not easily categorized as “liberal” or “conservative” (although the list certainly does include individuals who are easily placed in either category). Second, the list of signatories does not include a number of prominent voices from the Religious Right. This absence should be of no surprise, however. Should we be surprise that those who have a vested interest in maintaining strong ties to the Republican Party or have built their empires based on the culture wars would be uncomfortable with the document?
Many evangelicals will understandably find encouragement in the document. But those of us who take an interest in following the evangelical movement are left with the question as to what the implications of the “Evangelical Manifesto”furniture Elhovo will be. For one, these evangelical leaders want to define evangelicalism primarily in theological categories. And while there certainly was a time when that was an accurate way to define evangelicals, is that still true? A number of observers, David Wells (himself an evangelical insider) being the most vocal, have noted for sometime that American evangelicalism has become marked by anything but theological distinctives. In fact, if American evangelicals understand their identity primarily as one of ethical values (anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, nationalistic, etc.) rather than marked by commitment to explicitly theological markers, is this document just speaking over the head of most evangelicals? If the old-guard of the Religious Right are producing a religious/political product that American evangelicals are more than willing to consume, why would those same evangelicals suddenly change their appetites?
Sphere It
In recent years, Jesus has suddenly garnered a relative outburst of attention from religious historians. Most notably,
It’s easy to discount Pat Robertson’s influence among American evangelicals as waning. Much has been made of a supposed new generation of evangelicals who reject the Falwell/Robertson Religious Right for the alternative of a more moderate political vision. But Falwell’s empire before his death was as far-reaching as ever and Robertson’s doesn’t appear to be slipping either. Those interested in telling the history of the Religious Right will inevitably have to include Robertson in their narrative. And those concerned with projecting the future course of religious conservatives in American politics must grapple with his legacy and longterm influence.
In case you missed it, NPR’s Morning Edition had