I am sure many of you have seen Nicholas D. Kristof’s Op-Ed column for the New York Times titled “Evangelicals Without Blowhards”. If not, I recommend it. Kristof notes correctly that evangelicalism has been defined wrongly by media-attention grabbing personalities like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson over the last couple decades. He points out that this is unfortunate and he appeals to the late John Stott as “ a gentle British scholar who had far more impact on Christianity than media stars like Mr. Robertson or Mr. Falwell.”
Kristof has many positive things to say about Stott and in this he found grounds for reminding his readers that there are many, many evangelicals who are nothing like Falwell, Robertson, et al. He writes the following:
“Evangelicals are disproportionately likely to donate 10 percent of their incomes to charities, mostly church-related. More important, go to the front lines, at home or abroad, in the battles against hunger, malaria, prison rape, obstetric fistula, human trafficking or genocide, and some of the bravest people you meet are evangelical Christians (or conservative Catholics, similar in many ways) who truly live their faith.”
This is important to acknowledge. Yes, evangelicalism has problems. Yes, there are loud voices who grab the headlines with their rants. But there are those like Stott and many, many others who go about their lives living in the love of Christ in order to point people to the Kingdom of God.
Kristof’s most succinct paragraphs were these two:
“Partly because of such self-righteousness, the entire evangelical movement often has been pilloried among progressives as reactionary, myopic, anti-intellectual and, if anything, immoral.
Yet that casual dismissal is profoundly unfair of the movement as a whole. It reflects a kind of reverse intolerance, sometimes a reverse bigotry, directed at tens of millions of people who have actually become increasingly engaged in issues of global poverty and justice.”
Let this be a reminder both to non-evangelicals who fall trap into using the same language and bias as the more annoying in our ranks, and let it serve notice to current evangelicals who are more likely to join the crowds in ranting against evangelicalism than they are to act like the great John Stott in doing something to bring some dignity back to evangelicalism.
That said, at the end of the day I think there was something that made Stott a great evangelical: He sought to be a Christian. If more of us evangelicals would follow that example the face of evangelicalism would change and maybe the label wouldn’t even matter anymore.
August 2, 2011 at 7:06 am
I love your points here, Brian. I think one of the most important thing that we can do as evangelicals is to help the culture differentiate between contemporary evangelicals and contemporary Christian fundamentalists (who adopted the term “evangelical” in the latter third of the 20th c.). I really appreciate that Kristof is able to differentiate between the two.
August 2, 2011 at 7:43 am
So wait, Stott rightly defines evangelicalism and Robertson and Falwell wrongly define it? Who gets to make that decision? Did he cite any evidence to support the assertion that Stott did more for Christianity than Falwell or Robertson? If I were to examine that issue anecdotally then I’d say the opposite were the case. But I won’t generalize my experience (as perhaps Kristof might have).
August 2, 2011 at 7:45 am
Hey Brian,
I recognize the hegemonic nature of the “liberal” media for anyone not willing to dance in line with its agenda and all. At the same time, I see too many evangelicals nowadays all the more willing to play the victim, and cry foul while simultaneously being privileged to afford to create a “counter culture” i.e., Christian universities, Christian music, Christian homeschools, Sunday School curriculum. I think we Christians in the USA truly have a problem with gratitude and fail to realize just how blessed we are.
August 2, 2011 at 8:08 am
@BG: It does seem like the group traditionally known as fundamentalist have merged into the evangelical identity. I am not saying that they are not “evangelical” since the word is very fluid, but they do not monopolize the word, and this is an important point. I find it unfortunate that the evangelicals that I know that go about their day to day work for the Kingdom are often ignored while other evangelicals with bigger personalities and louder mouths are declared the true representatives of the movement.
@Nick: I don’t know that he is saying Stott is a real evangelical and that Robertson and Falwell are not. Rather, he is saying that Stott is just as much an evangelical as Robertson and Falwell, and he may be subjectively announcing that he thinks Stott is a better embodiment of the word evangelical. Toward the end of the article he speaks of his distaste for people in his own circles who lambaste evangelicals under the presupposition that they are all like Robertson and Falwell when this is simply not true. His great criticism is against those who would ignore the other side, which he finds Stott represented.
As far as the “doing more for evangelicalism” part, yes, this is subjective, but that is part of the discussion. Who better represents the gospel and the content of the evangelical proclamation? Kristof argues that Stott did, and he says this as an outsider. I tend to agree as an insider though I am well aware that Robertson and Falwell (and Hagee, and whoever else we see in news headlines) have done many, many great things. I don’t think that is the focus of his discussion though. I think it is more about the way in which these men went about living the love of Christ to the world from a larger, PR type perspective.
@Rod: I’d agree with that assessment. It shows that we evangelicals have the tendency to disengage and create our own religious ghetto because interaction with non-evangelicals can be threatening.
August 2, 2011 at 8:21 am
“Evangelicals are disproportionately likely to donate 10 percent of their incomes to charities, mostly church-related…”
Let’s not mistake “tithing” with charity. Most of that 10% goes to services that the local church provides back to it’s members in the form of facilities, activities and programs. Our church spends more than half of it’s budget on staff which invest only a small fraction of their efforts outside the membership of the church.
I have struggled to determine how much of my contribution actually goes to “charitable” purposes, weighing ministry to spiritual needs of the middle class congregation and outreach to the community and beyond against stained glass windows and gymnasiums. Regardless, I am not prepared to credit $20 dropped in the collection plate with $20 given to the Red Cross or local shelter.
August 2, 2011 at 8:24 am
@Scott F: First, I am not sure that Kristof is speaking of tithing, per se. Since it is an Op-Ed he didn’t include footnotes, but it may be that evangelicals are generous beyond tithe. Second, while there is some truth to your observation it should miss the point that even tithe is giving to a community to share with others. Yes, one may benefit from it, but that doesn’t make it bad. I can give to a local charity supporting the homeless or a recreation center for youth and it will make my society better. I will benefit from that, but that doesn’t make my giving null and void, right?
August 2, 2011 at 8:59 am
@Brian
No, not null and void. Consider if he had written “disproportionately likely to donate to their child’s sports team” or “disproportionately likely to donate to Haitian orphans” and decide whether there would have been a difference. I contend that the term “charity” carries the later connotation and is intended to deliver just that rhetorical effect.
August 2, 2011 at 9:00 am
@ Scott F: Fair enough, though if it is going to come down to precise definitions I guess that will have to be feedback directed toward Kristof himself.
August 2, 2011 at 9:04 am
@Brian … oh, and I meant to say that using a figure of 10% and saying “mostly church-related” demands that we assume a reference to tithing unless proven otherwise. The historical connection is just too strong.
August 2, 2011 at 9:46 am
Brian, Way to go! ~ Jim
August 2, 2011 at 11:20 am
Maybe Kristof was mistaking LDS for Evangelicals
.
August 2, 2011 at 12:44 pm
@ Jim : Thanks.
@ Bobby : ?
August 2, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Just a joke. Playing off of your dialogue with Scott F on 10% tithing and the good that that does for the sake of all. Since LDS are known for and obligated to give 10% to their “church”; I didn’t think Evangelicals were known for that, I thought we were known for being “cheerful givers”
. Anyway. Yet, I agree with Nick’s push-back, a bit.
August 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@ Bobby : Ah, I did catch that you were alluding toward Scott’s comment. I see what Nick is saying regarding the subjectivity, but I cringe a bit at the mere allusion that Robertson and/or Falwell have been better for evangelicalism than Stott. All three contributed to global missions, their local ministry context, education, and financing, but Stott has not given misleading sound bites that discredit him and his supporters. At least I don’t recall him ever doing so.
August 2, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Brian,
I wonder how much of this has to do with personality versus theological convictions? And then I wonder how much of our theological convictions have to do with certain personality types — and ethnographic/demographic situation? I would gather that there is more to do with sociology versus theology in Kristof’s observations. He seems to be in a charitable ‘mood’ (knowing nothing of Kristof). Couldn’t his observations about Evangelicals be made just as cogently towards folks involved in the Peace Corps, or in social justice movements? There seems to be a certain kind of immanent ethos that Kristof is appealing to in his distinguishing between Stott types versus Falwell/Robertson types; I don’t think his observations are probably all that favorable towards Christianity (even towards Stott types), instead I think his sentiment is more favorable toward a particular cultural ethos that “appears” a certain way — i.e. noble. Just trying to provide a little more push-back.
August 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm
@ Bobby : Yes, sure, this is not something limited to evangelicalism. I don’t think that is Kristof’s point. He pointed out in the article that the circles in which he runs often stereotype evangelicals because they see people like Robertson and Falwell on the news, they see that these people are called evangelicals, and they deduct that all evangelicals are like Robertson and Falwell. Kristof is challenging his peers by saying that this is not the case. He is using Stott as an example.
That being said, I am not so sure we can slice our understanding of theology away from social implications. It is a theological concern when Falwell said this or that about HIV/AIDS and homosexuals or Robertson says this or that about earthquakes in Haiti or the flooding of New Orleans. Kristof probably doesn’t use these categories since he isn’t pretending to be an evangelical. But as an evangelical it seems to me that Stott was a humble man with a realistic epistemology. He knew he didn’t know the Lord’s mind in everything whereas Falwell and Robertson often mixed their political and social ideals with the Lord’s will.
August 2, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Brian,
I understand Kristof’s context.
I don’t think I sliced theology from sociology; in fact I thought I just said that I see them as inextricably related things. All I’m saying about Kristof, is that his defense of Evangelicals is based upon a purely socio-cultural norm and not a Christian one, per se. Falwell and Robertson weren’t/aren’t “theologians,” Stott was, in his own right. And there is something, I think, to the impact that someones socio and even ecclesial situation has upon their role, place and voice in society. Stott was part of a high church Anglicanism in the UK. Both Falwell and Robertson are part of low Free church denominations in America. I suppose my point has to do with the fact that I dislike the dogging of Fundies just because they’re fundies, culturally. I think Falwell and Robertson, both have said some wreckless things; but by accepting Kristof’s caricature, we ostracize all Fundies and paint them in Falwell/Robertson colors. I don’t really think this is all that helpful or Christian. And so I think Kristof’s defense, while, I guess, laudable (in some ways); if followed, will only really promote sectarianism amongst Christians, and won’t foster an attitude of Christian love for our brothers and sisters stuck in the Fundamentalist trenches.
August 2, 2011 at 2:49 pm
@ Bobby : This is a risk, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be very, very, very clear that those things promoted by Fundamentalist as the very fundamentals of Christianity are not the very fundamentals of Christianity. We don’t have to slander them, or call them ugly names, but we must maintain clear distinctions between their complex claims and our own.
For instance, I have no problem seeing my Roman Catholic friends as brothers and sisters in Christ while also being very, very clear that I do not find that the Pope has universal authority over the Church. If a vocal Catholic pushed this claim and pushed this claim to the point where some assumed that all of us Christians think you have to listen to the teachings of the Bishop of Rome then I would be a bit disheartened to hear that this had gained the support of the popular imagination. Likewise, when people think certain groups of Christians who claim that something is universal for all Christians gains popular imagination we are responsible to make it clear that though they are our siblings in Christ, they are wrong in their claim.
I support unity and Christian love, but I don’t think that means ignoring the misleading claims of very Fundamentalist groups or personalities.
August 2, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Brian, I am certainly not advocating the support of every abberrant teaching that comes from various teachers in the Protestant Church. But my point, I think, is that I am not comfortable with a pagan drawing lines between various Christians. It is true, I don’t want to be associated, for example with TBN theology or something; I don’t want people to think that Harold Camping represents Christianity. But at the same time, Kristof’s observations could tend to puff up the kinds of Christians he finds acceptable versus the kinds he doesn’t. There is just something that I find objectionable about this. His observations are rather surfacey to me; based upon a performance kind of an ethic, and he seems to use this as his ground for adjudicating the distinctions between his types of Christian groups. His distinctions aren’t based upon theological or material points, and it is these that distinguish one group from the other. There are plenty of Fundy missionaries, and groups that do the very kind of work that he cites exclusively for his Evangelical Christians. Is Kristof just saying that he likes John Stott and doesn’t like Falwell/Robertson; or is he saying that he likes “Evangelicals” (whatever that means), and dislikes Fundamentalists? There is a difference between the two parallels (individual versus community).
And it is at this level that I would want to challenge the misleading claims of individuals; whether they be in the Evangelical or Fundy camps of the Protestant church. I think, in the end, Kristof’s observations are more general than I am making them (I didn’t actually read his article, only what you reported from it); I just think, though, that his generalization is too sweeping for me to find much fruit from (I suppose it suggests that pagans can differentiate differing types of Christian personalities, but what does that say?).