Here we go again. Presidential elections are coming and the role of "the evangelicals" is predictably becoming a hot political story.
Ironically, voices on both the right and the left want to describe most or all evangelicals as zealous members of the ultra-conservative political base.
Why? Perhaps because some conservative Republicans want to claim a religious legitimacy and constituency for their ideological agenda, and some liberal writers seem hell-bent on portraying religious people as intellectually-flawed right-wing crazies with dangerous plans for the country.
Let me try to be clear as someone who is part of a faith community that is, once again, being misrepresented, manipulated, and maligned. Most people believe me to be a progressive political voice in America. And I am an evangelical Christian.
I believe in one God, the centrality and Lordship of God's son Jesus Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, the authority of the scriptures, the saving death of the crucified Christ and his bodily resurrection -- not as a metaphor but a historical event. Yep, the whole nine yards.
I love my liberal church friends, but am more theologically conservative. I have many allies on the religious left, but I am not a member of it. I work closely with brothers and sisters of other faith traditions where we have common concerns, but I will never compromise the truth of my own faith.
I also collaborate with people of no religious affiliation at all, because I believe that religion has no monopoly on morality. But I also believe in evangelism, and have called and led people to faith in Jesus Christ. Like I said, I am an evangelical.
For me (and a growing number of others), it is precisely because we are Bible-believing and Jesus following evangelical Christians, that we have a fundamental commitment to social, economic, and racial justice, to be a good stewards of God's creation, to be peacemakers in a world of conflict and war, and to be consistent advocates for human life and dignity wherever they are threatened. Because we are all made in the image of God. We are all God's children.
And, because we are first members of the global body of Christ, before we are Americans, we don't believe God blesses and loves our country more than others, and that the gospel doesn't co-exist well with empires.
Millions of evangelicals are neither conservative Republicans, part of the Religious Right, nor members of the tea party, and they don't believe that Christian "Dominionists" or any other religious group, should take over America -- despite what a rash of recent articles and commentaries have said.
Case in point: In the new book, Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics, a hefty and provocative read that drops next week, Sojourners' own Lisa Sharon Harper and co-author, The King's College professor D.C. Innes, demonstrate that two authentically evangelical voices can hold very different views across a wide range of political, economic, and social issues. Many -- even most -- evangelicals don't fit media stereotypes and are growing weary of hearing them repeated over and over again, especially from writers who know nothing about us, have an agenda to use or distort who we are and what we believe, or simply should know better.
After the election in 2004, I wrote a book the next year called God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. Now in 2011, the Right still gets it wrong when they claim that most evangelicals are firmly in their base; and the Left still doesn't get it when they tacitly agree with the Right's claim that all the evangelicals essentially belong to the most conservative candidates. But the myth survives. Why? Perhaps because it's in the interest of people on both sides to keep it going.
The Republicans have a longstanding strategy of using religion for their political purposes, while Democrats are just beginners at their own "faith outreach." And some liberal writers -- many of whom live in the same zip codes in New York, Washington, D.C., and California -- seem all too eager to discredit religion as part of their perennial habit and practice.
On the one hand we have religious fundamentalists who are eager to use evangelicals, and on the other hand we have secular fundamentalists who want prove that evangelicals are stupid and dangerous extremists. But millions of evangelicals feel stuck and almost invisible in the middle of that political and cultural battle. One of the best responses to the recent articles about evangelicals came from Mark I. Pinsky, author of A Jew Among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed and a self-professed "secular liberal," who has covered evangelicals astutely for many years and counsels his fellow writers and commentators to take a deep breath and stick to the facts.
The facts do belie the stereotypes. Evangelicals run the political gamut from conservative and moderate to progressive and decidedly liberal. To suggest that most evangelicals reside on the far right is simply not true.
Younger evangelicals are more concerned than some of their parents with issues of social justice, human rights, environmental protection, and peace. Evangelicals in black and Hispanic churches tend to be more focused than many of their white co-religionists on economic and racial justice, and related issues such as immigration. Differences do exist between older and younger evangelicals, and between white and ethic evangelical churches. And the evangelical center has shifted significantly over the last decade.
Every journalist who wants to write intelligently about evangelicals should begin by reading the National Evangelical Association (NAE) landmark statement For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, that spells out biblical commitments on poverty, the environment and climate change, immigration reform, war and peace, the protection of life, and the promotion of family, which should clearly dispel any notion that evangelicals as a monolith adhere to an ultra-right-wing political agenda. Rather, the NAE's evangelical social and political ethic challenges all outposts along the political spectrum.
The untold story almost nobody covers is that global evangelicals have almost no affinity with America's religious right or tea party. Even the math from election exit polls, challenge the political stereotypes.
In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won Indiana by 28,391 votes with 160,918 more white evangelicals voting for him than voted for John Kerry in 2004.
Isn't that the way it should be?
In the future, evangelicals may likely vote more and more as independents, depending on the issues and the candidates, rather than according to any party loyalty.
It is precisely that kind of moral integrity -- in politics and any other arena -- that should re-define "evangelical" in this or any election.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
Christian Piatt: 'God Is': From Biblical Literalism To A Mystical Understanding Of God
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Ummm... Mr. Wallis is asking critics of evangelical Christianity to stick to the facts. Is that too tall of an order? If so, why?
However, I have to wonder how Christian is it to have voted for people who would put the greed of wealthiest among us above the needs of the poor and the elderly?
And just why they are the target.
All the more reason for the separation of church and state.
On the basis of your article, I will stand corrected, as I am one of those progressive liberals who have generally seen evangelicals as a monolithic block always voting for the most conservative candidate available. I will be more willing to recognize that not all evangelicals are opposed to everything I support.
That said, I must admit that I fled from a fundamentalist/evangelical cult over 30 years ago, and every time I encounter an evangelical, that is the standard by which I measure him/her. Unfortunately, I have usually come away believing that the individual falls somewhat short of that cult, but that it is a measure of degree in most cases.
As I have begun to engage in conversation with Frank Spencer and have read two of his books, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and seek out your book as well. Perhaps you two will steer me toward less hostile waters, although I can imagine no circumstance whereby I would embrace any religion today. Good conversation serves its own purposes, to bring people together, even when they agree to disagree.
I hope that we will continue the conversation and agree to peacefully disagree when we are not in agreement. May we find many issues on which we agree!
I don't question the sincererity of your religious beliefs, or your committment, or empathy.
You made assertions about five states out of fifty, without any supporting evidence. Those I question.
How do you explain that the most deeply Evangelical states are also those that are the most Republican, and work hardest to in their "voter suppression" efforts?
It's like Democratic politicians claiming they don't take Black voters for "granted".
And yes, way more than half the Jewish vote in Democratic.
Why not add truth telling to your preaching
Evangelical Christianity typically reads the whole Bible literally (literal hermeneutics is a non-sequitur) which then leads many to reject science and embrace creationism. The literal reading of scripture also leads to a morbid fascination with the end of the world. There are a sizeable number of Evangelicals who CONSTANTLY think the end of the world is going to happen in 5 years. Finally, this literal interpretation leads many Evangelicals to read the Bible as if it were a foreign policy periodical. Not to mention that Evangelicals routinely bash other Christian denominations for not believing in the same manner that they do.
In my estimation, this makes all of Christianity look bad. What really upsets me is how the mainstream media portrays all "Christians" as subscribing to the Evangelical variety, totally ignoring Mainline Protestants and Catholics. I'm also a person of faith, but I am not a fundamentalist!
Evangelical Christianity has its roots in the British Isles during the mid-1700s. However, this particular brand of Christianity didn't find its way to the United States until, at the very earliest, the mid 1800s. It really took off after the 1906 Azusa Street Revival. There you have it! A brand new religion altogether where the roots of the faith don't even go back 200 years in the case of American Evangelicalism.
Fundamentalism is where you find that literal interpretation of Scripture, a 10,000 year old Earth, as well as the end-times fixation.
Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are apples and oranges, and you seem to have confused the two.
I do not think I have confused the two.
The literal definition of "Evangelical" is "good news" and this can be interpreted any of a number of different ways, but I'm sure the fundamentalist points I've enumerated can be found within that Evangelical umbrella so-to-speak. I suppose the ambiguity concerning modern Evangelical Christianity arises from how amorphous and disorganized the whole movement is. As I understand it, one of the main selling points of Evangelicalism today is that it is not a "religion but a relationship." As a result, there are differing takes on what gets emphasized in the message.
Most pointedly, I'm sure Evangelical theology on the end-times is exclusive to the Evangelical movement and does not apply to any other branch of Mainline Protestantism or denomination of Christianity. It's a slippery slope from speculating on a rapture to embracing a morbid fascination with eschatology like a Hal Lindsey would embrace. In other words, the views on end times (as well as other points on theology) do tend to lead many within the movement toward a fanaticism exclusive to Evangelicalism, even though there may be many more rational Evangelicals than we may be led to believe.
Fanatics make a lot of noise.
Go to the Maddow Home Page and click on the box titled "2012 through an Evangelical Christian lens."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#44738360
I hope Huff Post picks it up and features it.
Agreed! faved since a fan
At this point, even conservative good 'ol boy country singer Toby Keith has come out publicly in support of equal marriage rights for homosexuals. It's right here on HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/01/toby-keith-weighs-in-on-g_n_990404.html
Wallis, OTOH, cannot bring himself to do so. Read his interview in leading fundamentalist/evangelical publication Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/may/9.52.html
Of course, he's entitled to believe what he wants, because we live in a country that supports that right. But progressives need to be on the alert - and particularly careful with their financial support - of anyone whose progressive positions can be so easily undermined by the bumper sticker "God said it. I believe it. That settles it".
Make no mistake. Fundamentalists, who took to calling themselves evangelicals several decades ago, remain a clear and present danger to the rest of us who will not march to the sound of their biblical drum.
The issue of gay rights, and particularly the right to marry, is THE defining civil rights issue of our day, just as the issue of black rights was in the mid-twentieth century.
Those who turn their backs, close their ears, or simply remain silent are on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of morality, too.