The 'Evolution' of Evangelicalism

EJ Dionne wrote a piece in the Wash Post today about the recent SBC election. Dionne, who fancies himself a political liberal with a sensitivity to religion, believes the election of Frank Page to head the Southern Baptist Convention could be a watershed in the 'evolution' of evangelicalism in America. Naturally, the word 'evolution' is used in a positive sense to refer to what Dionne believes is a moderating trend in evangelicalism. Assuming for the moment that such a trend really is occurring, others might look at the same trend and call it 'backsliding', or 'repeating the same mistakes of the past all over again'. This just highlights that readers need to be on guard when interpreting the terminology used by writers in making their points. Dionne, given his personal views, will of course think positively about any moderation in evangelicalism and will use terminology like 'evolution' to communicate the idea that this moderation is a step above what he considers the primitivism of conservative evangelicalism. Put simply, we shouldn't take Dionne's terminology at face value, because it reflects his own biases and worldview. As a columnist rather than a beat reporter, this is fine; he's paid to offer his opinions. But the reader should keep in mind that that's all it is - opinions of someone who is not approaching the question objectively any more than I am.

But beyond these kind of language games, is there some truth to this trend that Dionne says exists? Well, yes and no. It is true that evangelicals generally have broadened their menu of political and social concerns in the last decade - notice, I said 'last decade'. Dionne, naturally, doesn't remember that evangelicals were a major voice for human rights in Sudan and China long before the 2004 election, and we were fighting against human trafficking back in the 1990s as well. But of course, when evangelicals were offering these principled voices of exhortation to the political leadership in America a decade ago, Bill Clinton was the one in charge, not Dubya. Back then, Dionne was not talking about any 'moderation' or 'evolution' in evangelical thinking, even though a great deal of what we stand for now we stood for then. The difference is that before, we were lobbying a president that Dionne liked and agreed with, so naturally, his perspective on evangelical exhortation was quite different. But now that we are lobbying a president that Dionne doesn't like politically, suddenly evangelicals are maturing in his mind. Again, beware the biased eyes of columnists; they see what they want to see like most of us do.

But having said that, I think there is some truth to the idea that evangelicalism is in a state of flux, although I would argue that this has always been the case. What has changed recently is a simple fact that Dionne does not mention; we've won. Conservative denominations no longer have to fight as hard against heterodoxy in their own ranks. Why? Because we've won that debate, although Dionne would no doubt refer to it as a loss. What Dionne doesn't get and never has gotten is that contrary to popular belief that he often helps perpetuate, evangelicals are not stagnant in their areas of concern and never have been. The idea that evangelicals are only concerned about gay marriage and abortion is a media myth that has never been true. It is true that many of us care about such things, and that a number of us are quite passionate about it. But it has never been true that these two issues are our only concern. This myth is to be expected, since it is usually perpetuated by people who don't know us very well, and rarely if ever associate with us voluntarily and try to get to know us. What we're seeing now in evangelical circles is not really the 'moderation' that Dionne thinks or hopes it is. It's much a more a 'now what' response to the successes we've had. It's true that we don't have to be as concerned about theological liberals as we used to be, because the liberals are dying out and self-destructing. It's entirely believable that they will make a comeback at some point, at which time we will once again have to fully reengage them. But in light of the successes we've had in forcing theological liberals to fend for themselves rather than glum on to the massive resources that evangelicalism has at its disposal, it is only natural that we would want to move on to something more profitable than beating a dead horse.

Evangelicals are a long way from being perfect. I am deeply concerned about the lack of care for the poor both tangibly and mentally that I too often see in my circles. It is good and right for us to be more pronounced in our public activities regarding the poor and the sick. I also wrote a paper in seminary (that's been published in Reformed Perspectives magazine on thirdmill.org) on evangelical environmentalism. In this paper, I argued that of all people, John Calvin himself is a mostly reliable guide in helping us develop a solid doctrine of environmental stewardship that cares for God's creation and rejoices in its beauty without worshipping it. Evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike would likely be shocked at the degree to which Calvin discussed the created world in his writings and both God's and humanity's relationship to it. To whatever degree evangelicals take up the cause of environmental stewardship, I applaud it. But let's not get carried away by calling this a watershed trend. This is wishful thinking by Dionne that reflects his own bias. One wonders why Dionne doesn't urge liberal denominations to 'evolve' by developing a much more responsible doctrine of the sanctity of human life and the reality of sin in the world. Liberal denominations, I would argue, are far more out of balance in living out the whole Christian experience than most evangelicals are. The fact that Dionne is silent on the 'primitivism' in liberal denominations is a mark against his own sophistication on matters of religion analysis. Or, perhaps Dionne is unwittingly admitting the increasing irrelevance of the liberal denominations through his own silence towards them.