Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Ken Connor :: Townhall.com Columnist
The "Changing" Evangelical Movement?
by Ken Connor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Pundits love to put their subjects into tidy little boxes—it makes their talking points easier. After all, people in little boxes are not complicated or nuanced. No doubt that's why the media has long tried to put evangelicals into a box. The problem, however, is that the media has been using the wrong box for evangelicals for decades.

Ever since the rise of the Moral Majority, the media has been labeling evangelicals "values voters." The assumption has been that evangelicals are concerned with a limited set of values, that they always act on the basis of those limited values, and that they are, therefore, less complicated or sophisticated than the rest of society. In the past few decades, the media has spotlighted abortion and homosexuality as the primary evangelical issues. Now with the waning popularity of the Bush Administration—an administration that has gotten a lot of mileage out of those issues—the media is trumpeting the downfall of traditional evangelicals and the rise of a new "centrist" or "leftist" evangelicalism. The old evangelicals who put Bush in office have lost. They are dying and being replaced by a new evangelicalism that is concerned with the environment, poverty, and human rights.

Charles Colson and Anne Morse respond to this supposed shift eloquently in Christianity Today. They argue that evangelicals have always had a broad set of concerns, including Sudanese slavery, sex trafficking, AIDS in Africa, and prison rape, in addition to abortion and homosexuality. Colson and Morse believe that the limited perception of evangelicals was put in place by the media, who like to build up and then destroy groups because "it's good copy."

The reality is that evangelicals are not characterized by one or two "values" any more than any other large voting group. Most voters have a number of concerns on which they base their voting. These issues can vary: leadership, abortion, war, foreign relations, experience, economic policy, marriage and family, bioethics, welfare, healthcare, etc. Diversity among evangelicals on issues is no less common than among other large voting groups. Some evangelicals have always leaned left while others leaned right.

Expressions of concern about the need to protect the environment or to fight poverty do not indicate a gigantic shift among evangelicals. They do not represent abandonment of the old for the new. Christian duties are far more numerous than the two-to-three issues subsumed under the label "values voter." Concern for people dying from AIDS in Africa does not negate concern for babies dying in the womb in America. Sensitivity to these issues stems from evangelicals' main source of guidance: the teachings of the Bible.

The beliefs of evangelicals are the basis of their actions. The media has long picked up on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage while ignoring their root: belief in the Bible. This is why so many members of the media have trouble understanding and predicting the actions of evangelicals. Right now, they see evangelicals as shifting their core values or giving up the cultural war. But if they would dig down to the root of evangelical issues, they would see that both the old and the new are based on a biblical ethic.

Many also misinterpret the evangelical shift away from the Republican Party. Evangelicals are not leaving the Republican Party because they've changed—they're leaving because the Party didn't come through on its promises. Evangelicals joined in with Republicans because they were in sympathy with the party on a number of issues, including ending abortion, strengthening the family, eliminating scandal, and restoring fiscal accountability in government. The Republican Party made grand promises in all of these areas; yet when the Party gained power, it ignored many of these concerns for the duration of its tenure (except for short spurts right before elections). A retreat from the Republican Party does not suggest a fundamental evangelical shift—it suggests their disillusionment with the Republican Party.

There is, however, one positive and real change that the media has picked up on. While evangelicals aren't changing their concerns, they are changing their approach. They appear to be moving away from some of the vitriolic rhetoric of the past. Increasingly, they are approaching the political sphere with carefully reasoned arguments. In 1995, William Buckley was interviewed by Michael Cromartie on the subject of the "growing influence of religious conservatives." Buckley saw no real danger in evangelicals participating in politics. In fact, he saw their positions as consistent with their beliefs. On the motivations of evangelicals, he said, "They've figured out that our foundations need restoring, and I have never doubted that those foundations are religious."

Buckley's only concern for evangelicals was that they would be careful which answers they presented and how they presented them. He emphasized careful rhetoric, saying, "What frightens people most about the Religious Right is the rhetoric that is sometimes used." His advice seems to be affecting evangelicals today. Young evangelicals are still concerned with the same broad set of issues, but they appear to have embraced a rhetoric which is more reasoned than bombastic.

Evangelicals have a broad array of concerns that flow from the truths of the Bible. They are every bit as complicated as any other voters. Until the media understands evangelicals on their own terms, they will continue to misunderstand their political effect.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I can't resist
Ah, Fabius... I can't resist, but I promise I'll let you have the last word on this thread if you're still around.

You note that the Devil used the words of God to tempt Jesus. You fail to note that Jesus used the Word of God to refute him. Of course, Jesus needed no Pope to give him the correct teaching. But it is interesting that he did not rebuke the Devil upon His own authority, but that of scripture.

As to the sufficient authority of scripture:
1 Timothy
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

You hold to some doctrine of preserved teaching authority that is itself a doctrine of man and appeal to it over protestant teaching authority. There is no "teaching authority" in our tradition that is analogous to what you understand to reside in the Pope. We reject the Pope's teaching were it conflicts, distorts or negates scripture. And we believe much of it does, especially in the areas you listed. The conclusion must be that it is the RCC that has separated from the true church as evidenced by it's separation from scripture.

Again, thanks for your sincerity and willingness to engage. I think this will be instructive to anyone who comes to this thread wondering why Catholics and Evangelicals disagree. As Lincoln said (paraphrase), "Either one or both are wrong."

Fabius-- wrap up
You wrote:
[The Holy Spirit guards over the teachings of ONE Church. Others are outside the fold. Although we trust the Spirit works lovingly in the midst of people of other flocks; He was never Advocate and Comforter to their sects. They are NOT inerrant in the spiritual capacity of the true CHURCH. They teach error becase they're founded on mens' errors.]

It does not offend me that the RCC has this position about us. Nor should it alarm or offend you that we hold the same position in regard to the RCC. Your very first post on this thread expressed worry about evangelicals feeling superior and your own feelings of de-legitimization. I hope these exchanges give you a better understanding as to how we think and on what basis we can argue our points together.

I probably won't be posting any more on this thread. I think it's run its course. See you on another TH thread.

Best regards.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.