Recently, I wrote about the “evangelical identity crisis” precipitated by this situation: (1) large numbers of people identify as evangelical but don’t adhere to its historic doctrinal commitments, and (2) large numbers of people adhere to common doctrinal commitments but don’t identify as evangelical.
Where does that leave us? With a two-track understanding of the movement: (1) an aspirational definition focused on the renewal of Christian belief and practice and (2) a cultural definition focused more on the sociological and political significance of the term.
Insider Conversations on the meaning of evangelical
Still Evangelical? Insiders Reconsider Political, Social, and Theological Meaning is a new book edited by Mark Labberton, the president of Fuller Seminary. He brings together a number of people to tackle the “evangelical identity crisis” head-on by discussing the meaning of the movement in the wake of the 2016 presidential election. The contributors are Lisa Sharon Harper, Karen Swallow Prior, Mark Young, Robert Chao Romero, Soong-Chan Rah, Allen Yeh, Sandra Maria Van Opstal, Mark Galli, Shane Claiborne, Jim Daly, and Tom Lin.
I appreciate the efforts of Labberton to bring clarity to this conversation. He recognizes the reality of what I wrote about in my previous article: the danger of “evangelical” morphing from “being a reference to a set of primary theological commitments into something akin to a passionately defended, theo-political brand” (3). He warns about a “theologized ideology”—“belief that has an attachment to biblical faith but is fundamentally shaped by the social and political mindset in which that faith is nurtured” (6). He sees this danger present on all sides, but it is clear from his introductory chapter that he locates the greater danger within the right wing, whose dominance makes it hard for there to exist an “evangelical left” without its members being “lambasted as heretics or frauds” (12).
The rest of the book is uneven (as is the case with many multi-author books). Some of the essays speak directly to the subject of evangelical identity while others come at the topic from different angles (some of which are just as politicized as the evangelicals they oppose). Because the contributors do not interact here, every chapter feels like a leader walking into the room, saying what he or she has to say, and then walking out. The reader gains knowledge of the complexity of the issues and the heightened sensitivities in the wake of the 2016 election, but no clear path emerges for next steps, and there doesn’t appear to be any consensus, even though most of the writers would probably sympathize with each other’s viewpoints.
Need for True diversity
That leads me to the biggest problem with this book: it is not as diverse at it appears. All of the insiders, it seems, were opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy. If it is true that 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016, then surely a conversation about the meaning of “evangelical” should include two or three of the leaders who made the pragmatic case for a Trump presidency. If this election exposed fault lines in the movement, wouldn’t it be good to listen to people on opposing sides of that fault line? Such a book may have made the emergence of a path forward or a consensus even more difficult to achieve, but the conversation would have been much more productive.
Mark Galli’s essay comes closest to the soul-searching I recommended take place in my previous article on this subject. He recognizes that “elite evangelicals” belong to a “distinct social class” that feels betrayed by the white evangelicals who voted for Trump. Many of these Christians feel similarly betrayed by their leaders, to the point that evangelicals who divided over Trump are embarrassed about one another. (Galli includes an email from a man who calls out a panel of evangelical leaders for an attitude of condescension and disrespect toward those who came to a different conclusion in 2016.) Evangelicalism is divided not only along racial and ethnic lines but also by class, and until we look deeply into the class divisions, we will continue to put together panels and books that appear diverse from one vantage point (gender and ethnicity) while the underlying sameness in ideology and class go unmentioned.
Due to this oversight, most of the contributors in this book would likely echo Labberton’s sentiments on how many white evangelicals are formed more by political ideology and cultural location than their biblical theology. I agree with this assessment; it explains why so many evangelicals are inconsistent in the outworking of their moral and ethical views in the public square.
But isn’t it also true that many evangelicals on the left are also formed more by political ideology and cultural location than their biblical theology? The inconsistencies are found in both camps. Yes, there are Trump voters whose alliances and group identity led to compromise on key Christian values. But there are Clinton voters whose alliances did the same. Some of the ideologies on the left (steeped in theories of intersectionality and identity politics) combine aspects of biblical truth with problematic elements that lead to further disunity and theological compromise. Is it only white working-class voters who have been unduly formed by their group identity, or also educated, upper-class evangelicals who no longer offer public support for true marriage over against society’s redefinitions? Cultural blinders do not belong exclusively to the right wing.
A faithful and authentic evangelical witness requires us to listen carefully to people who come to different conclusions on political matters and on Christianity in public life. We need to challenge each other and call out each other’s compromises. Even more importantly, we need to challenge one another on how our cultural contexts and political affinities are forming us, well before we choose our parties or cast our votes. But we cannot do this if we decide to leave stranded the “problematic evangelicals” after we burn the bridges we could have built.
