I Didn't Move; You Did (#20) May The Revival You Desire For America Begin In You

As I said at the beginning of this series, I have not abandoned evangelicalism’s stated theological convictions. I just no longer recognize them in its public expression. If faith without works is dead, evangelical orthodoxy without evangelical orthopraxy might just be dead too.

If we are going to call for truth and respect in our nation, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about truth.

If we are going to emphasize the importance of personal character, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason think we are serious about character.

If we are going to lobby for laws that support strong traditional families, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about the importance of traditional families.

If we are going to focus on sexual honor and purity, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about either of these things.

If we are going to demand that all people be treated with the value, worth and dignity due them as image bearers of God, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people won’t think this applies to all people.

If we are going to reject the Black Lives Matter and the #metoo movement because there are woke DEI socialist plots, please, for the love of God, also demand that we find even better ways to address the very real sins of racism and sexual harassment that have haunted our nation, lest people think we are either ignorant or heartless.

If we are going to demand a wall at our borders, we should also demand lots of doors, so that our desire for order and safety when it comes to immigrants and refugees is clearly matched by our desire to show compassion and generosity.

If we are going to follow Jesus' lead from the Sermon on the Mount, and be blessed as peacemakers as individuals and a society, we are going to need to use and promote language, attitudes and policies that are in line with peacemaking, or people may observe that we take our cues from Rome's pax Romana - the peace by the sword - rather than the pax Christi - the peace of cruciform love.

If we are going to value the economy more than anything else (which, according to polls, we do), we should commit to being radically generous with our money, lest people think we are trying to serve both God and mammon.

If we are going to value life, let us do it from womb to tomb, and let us show it by supporting parents and children with our money, time, friendship and things, and by supporting private and public systems that make the choice for life easier rather than harder, lest people think we only care about the lives of children when the weight of the support is on the mother, and costs us nothing.

If we are going to support America First, we should explain what that looks like for someone whose allegiance is first and foremost to the global kingdom of God rather than to the local empire of the United States. And if we don't know what that means, maybe we should figure that out.

I Didn't Move; You Did (#19): The Shift Toward Political Idolatry

During this series, I've looked at the public moral witness of evangelical leaders over the last fifty years (start reading them here). 

Again and again, I found the same themes: care for the poor, concern for racial justice, compassion for immigrants, peacemaking, honesty, the honoring of the imago dei in everyone, the need for personal integrity, the rejection of nationalism, the necessity of impartial justice, and the conviction that the Church must never become captive to any political ideology.

This is a loaded list of issues to address by the political parties of the American empire. Historically – perhaps because of the complexity – evangelical declarations of faith and practice publicly refused to equate the gospel with any political party. All parties and politicians were held to a shared standard; followers of Jesus were expected to follow paths that look like Jesus, whatever direction it would take them. As cited in the earlier posts that excerpted from historical conservative evangelical declarations of faith and practice:

“We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.”

“Our equal duty (is) never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”

“The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer,” Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests...”

“The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: ‘The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.” The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price...”

Yet in spite of such clear direction, there is an increasing litmus test for being a Christian: support of one party, with almost unwavering loyalty. You must be all in or all out, and there can be no questioning or challenging of the leadership. Perhaps when leaders insist that “I alone can save you,” (as stated at Trump’s acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016), well, the stakes are pretty high.

This has resulted in a demand for unflinching loyalty to Trump that has moved beyond the moral flexibility I have been recording in this series and into borderline idolatry. Christians in the halls of power who are meant to be the prophetic heirs of Nathan, speaking truth and righteousness to power, have abandoned their calling.

“We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.”

“Our equal duty (is) never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”

The near-total alignment with a party or person is a siren call that for many is hard to resist - and difficult to maintain. This position is going to need over-the-top justification, since no one deserves that kind of loyalty. And there is a comparison at the very top for evangelicals – Jesus, to give the ultimate stamp of approval to comparisons to David, Cyrus, and Jehu. [1]

So, let's look at some of the ways admiration has moved toward idolatry.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 18) - The Shift Toward Accepting Unjust Scales Of Justice

My last post bemoaned the willingness of so many evangelical Christians, followers of a faith that commands us not to bear false witness, to minimize, defend, repeat, or simply stop caring about truth.

In this post, I want to look at how Christians damage the credibility of the gospel when we highlight failures of character and integrity in our opponents while finding ways to excuse it in our allies.[i]

Throughout this series, I have been returning to the same claim concerning the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised: I didn't move; you did.  When I look at the things that increasingly separate me from American evangelicalism, I keep finding that it's because of the values evangelicalism itself taught me.

For example, I remember being raised amidst the conservative evangelical insistence that character and integrity mattered in private and public life. This wasn’t reduced to merely our sex lives. Greed was spiritually and societally dangerous. Dishonesty and hypocrisy eventually corrupt everything they touch. Having power or being popular did not excuse immorality but made character even more important, because the consequences impacted so many more people. 

The statements and declarations I have been revisiting throughout this series are remarkably consistent in warning about greed, corruption, selfish ambition, dishonesty, covetousness, the seduction of wealth, and the danger of Christians becoming too comfortable with the rich and powerful. They insist that Christian proclamation must be accompanied by Christian character unmarred by greed and corruption, because otherwise our testimony loses its credibility.[1]

“When there is no distinction in conduct between Christians and non-Christians – for example in the practice of corruption and greed…then the world is right to wonder if our Christianity makes any difference at all. Our message carries no authenticity to a watching world…”

“The proclamation of God’s kingdom necessarily demands the prophetic denunciation of all that is incompatible with it. Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth…”

“Our challenge to others to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ will be plausible only if we ourselves have evidently died to selfish ambition, dishonesty, and covetousness, and are living a life of simplicity, contentment, and generosity.

“We are called, as those who serve God and not mammon, to recognize that greed perpetuates poverty, and to renounce it."

Scripture repeatedly condemns dishonest scales, an image I think will be helpful for this post. For example:

“A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them.” (Proverbs 11:1-3)[ii]

There is something profoundly unjust about having one measure for one person and another measure for someone else. It’s not just about weighing grain; it’s about measuring a fair, righteous and consistent judgment on all attitudes, words and actions.

What happens to our Christian witness when the standards we once proclaimed loudly become negotiable when applying them consistently would cost us political power?

I see a relevance here not just for individual witness (which is really important), but to corporate witness as well. To whom or what have we hitched our moral wagons? And at what cost? And is it a consistent, steady scales or a compromised, sliding one that a watching world sees the people of God using?

“I Didn’t Move; You Did" (Part 17) : The Shift Away From Defending Truth

Throughout this series, I have been returning to the same claim concerning the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised: I didn't move; you did.

I don't mean that I haven't changed. Of course I have. My theology has changed in some significant ways over the years. I hope my character has changed too. But when I look at the things that increasingly separate me from American evangelicalism, I keep finding that many of them are values evangelicalism itself taught me.

Tell the truth. Keep your word. Admit when you are wrong. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor. Don't spread gossip. Don't excuse dishonesty simply because the dishonest person is on your side. Character matters. Integrity matters. Truth matters because God is a God of truth.

None of that was controversial when I was growing up evangelical.
And this is where this post connects with the others in this series. 

Whether I am writing about racism, violence, war,  human dignity, care for the vulnerable, or now truthfulness, I keep finding myself in roughly the same place: trying to hold onto things I learned from the conservative evangelical tradition while watching influential parts of that tradition make accommodations I was once taught Christians should never make.

This time, the issue is truth.

Every president in my lifetime has exaggerated, shaded the truth, misrepresented opponents, and sometimes simply lied. This isn't an argument that dishonesty began with Donald Trump, nor is it an argument that Democrats are uniquely truthful.

Something different has happened, though. Donald Trump's (lack of) relationship with truth is extraordinary in its frequency, brazenness, and persistence. Even more troubling to me has been the willingness of so many evangelical Christians—people formed by a faith that commands us not to bear false witness—to minimize, defend, repeat, or simply stop caring about truth.

That change matters to me, because I remember when we said truth mattered.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 16): The Shift Away From Honoring The Imago Dei In Everyone

One of the things evangelical Christianity taught me was that every human being bears the image of God. Probably everything in this series references this is some fashion: the help of the poor, the care for the immigrant and refugee, the rejection of racism and unjust discrimination, the interest in alleviating global poverty, the concern for the environment so that deadly pollution is curbed, the rejection of war as the preferred way to solve conflict, the importance of honoring the autonomy of people, etc. 

All these things were embedded in the evangelical creeds that formed my life and my evangelical church community for decades.

That conviction helped make me "pro-life" (though these days I prefer the term "whole-life".) I believe human life should be protected and honored from the moment it begins until the moment it ends. But honoring life means more than keeping someone physically alive. It means treating people with dignity, justice, mercy, kindness, and love.

The unborn child bears the image of God. So does the immigrant at the border. So does the prisoner. So does the person with a disability, the elderly person, the poor person, the Muslim, the atheist, the political opponent, the transgender person, the Republican or Democrat politician...the list goes on.

Human dignity cannot depend upon whether someone looks like me, votes like me, worships like me, shares my citizenship, or seeks my approval. If the image of God means anything, it means that human beings possess a dignity we did not give them, and we cannot take away.

That is why the last decade has been so disorienting for me.

Something has changed in significant parts of American evangelicalism. Language and behavior that Christians once would have recognized as cruel, vulgar, degrading, or dehumanizing are increasingly excused—and sometimes celebrated—when they come from the right political leaders.

We seem to have lost something more fundamental than civility. We have lost some of our capacity to walk in another person's shoes—to do and say unto others as we would have them do and say unto us. We have lost not only sympathy, but empathy.

Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us. Charlie Kirk famously said that he couldn't stand the word empathy. Books with titles such as The Sin of Empathy and Toxic Empathy have found receptive audiences in conservative Christian circles.

Of course, empathy can be misguided. Feeling another person's pain does not require agreeing with everything that person believes or does, and it doesn't mean we have to avoid truth and confrontation.

Yet the Christian tradition that has often spoken about orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right action) has an underused third "ortho" -  orthopathy (rightly ordered affections). It asks. "What kind of heart am I cultivating? Or, more simply: am I learning to feel about people the way Jesus does?

I am concerned that conservative evangelicals will win political battles while losing something far more important: empathy. We can become the kind of people who no longer recognize dishonor and cruelty when we see it - or, even worse, when we do it.

So, let’s look at how the administration that evangelicals have put into office twice is doing in the areas of orthopraxy and orthopathy when it comes to viewing, treating, and speaking about everyone as image bearers of God.

"I Didn't Move, You Did": A Musical Interlude

I collaborate with Chat GPT and Suno to put my ideas to music. I was an English major, so I do work on the lyrics, but I am not a musician, so Suno helps me out in that area. Here is a link to the song, if you care to listen: https://suno.com/s/JKyLwNpuWdwD4D42

"I've Seen The Things You Applaud"

The way I see life, it makes you so angry 

But I see what kind of things make you smile 

So I’ll stick with my side of history 

Even if it makes me an exile 

And I hear how you think I’m flawed, 

but I have seen the things you applaud, 

and it’s an Empire-style façade, 

because it doesn’t look at all like God. 

You nod when kids get ICED at school

 Like dignity is something they’re beneath 

Laugh at the nicknames and public shaming 

I guess cruelty trumps kindness on TV 

Leaders wave a Bible over words of violence 

Call war crimes “protecting liberty”

 But the man who said, “love your enemies” 

Sounds nothing like these wannabe kings 

 

The way I see life, it makes you so angry 

But I see what kind of things make you smile 

So I’ll stick with my side of history 

Even if it makes me an exile 

And I hear how you think I’m flawed, 

but I have seen the things you applaud, 

and it’s an empire style façade, 

because it doesn’t look at all like God. 

You dedicate golden statues with pious prayers 

While our bombs kill school children in Iran 

The poor get buried under mountains of debt 

While the wealthy get tax breaks from the man

They slash the bread lines, gut programs in schools 

Tell refugees their welcome has ceased 

Then quote a verse about “God blessing nations” 

Like Jesus never said we should care for the least. 

The way I see life, it makes you so angry 

But I see what kind of things make you smile 

So I’ll stick with my side of history 

Even if it makes me an exile 

And I hear how you think I’m flawed, 

but I have seen the things you applaud, 

and it’s an Empire-style façade, 

because it doesn’t look at all like God. 

You target drag queens and profanity 

While abusers boast behind white house doors 

Excuse the sins of the wealthy and strong 

The victims of Epstein are the one you ignore 

You say immigrants are poisoning our blood 

You say they’re animals, thieves, and snakes 

But every face you’ve learned to vilify 

Bears an image God Himself made.

 

The way I see life, it makes you so angry 

But I see what kind of things make you smile 

So I’ll stick with my side of history 

Even if it makes me an exile 

And I hear how you think I’m flawed, 

but I have seen the things you applaud, 

and it’s an Empire-style façade, 

because it doesn’t look at all like God.

And yes I’m flawed like you keep saying 

Surely I don’t always see things right 

But I know the fruits of fear and power 

don’t look anything like Christ. 

The way I see life, it makes you so angry 

But I see what kind of things make you smile 

So I’ll stick with my side of history 

Even if it makes me an exile 

And I hear how you think I’m flawed, 

but I have seen the things you applaud, 

and it’s an Empire-style façade, 

because it doesn’t look at all like God. 

I Didn't Move; You Did (Part 13): The Shifting View On Immigrants and Refugees

In a series of previous posts, I've tried to let evangelicalism speak for itself. I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

Across decades, evangelical leaders consistently taught that Christian discipleship includes caring for the vulnerable, defending human dignity, pursuing justice, and loving our neighbors in tangible ways. Those themes weren't occasional side notes. They were presented as central implications of following Jesus.

Previously, we looked at conservative evangelicalism's shifting moral landscape in regards to war and violence, environmental stewardship, racism and discrimination, and the care for the impoverished. 

The plight of immigrants and refugees is another crucial place where those convictions meet the real world.

“The vulnerable may include not only the poor, but women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and prisoners. God measures societies by how they treat the people at the bottom.” 

"Because men and women are made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he or she should be respected and served, not exploited…"

"The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another, but evaluates all cultures according to its own criteria of truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture..."

"God identifies with the poor (Ps. 146:5-9), and says that those who “are kind to the poor lend to the Lord” (Prov. 19:17), while those who oppress the poor “show contempt for their Maker” (Prov. 14:31). Jesus said that those who do not care for the needy and the imprisoned will depart eternally from the living God (Matt. 25:31-46). The vulnerable may include not only the poor, but women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and prisoners. God measures societies by how they treat the people at the bottom."

"Ethnic diversity is the gift of God in creation…[it]reflects God’s promise to bless all nations on earth and God’s mission to create for himself a people drawn from every tribe, language, nation and people. We must love all that God has chosen to bless, which includes all cultures… Such love for all peoples demands that we reject the evils of racism and ethnocentrism, and treat every ethnic and cultural group with dignity and respect, on the grounds of their value to God in creation and redemption." 

"The Bible tells us that the Lord is loving toward all he has made, upholds the cause of the oppressed, loves the foreigner, feeds the hungry, sustains the fatherless and widow… God holds responsible especially those who are appointed to political or judicial leadership in society."

"Vast numbers of people from many religious backgrounds, including Christians, live in diaspora conditions: economic migrants seeking work; internally-displaced peoples because of war or natural disaster; refugees and asylum seekers; victims of ethnic cleansing; people fleeing religious violence and persecution; famine sufferers – whether caused by drought, floods, or war; victims of rural poverty moving to cities. We are convinced that contemporary migrations are within the sovereign missional purpose of God, without ignoring the evil and suffering that can be involved."  

"We encourage Church and mission leaders to recognize and respond to the missional opportunities presented by global migration and diaspora communities, in strategic planning, and in focused training and resourcing of those called to work among them....We encourage Christians in host nations which have immigrant communities and international students and scholars of other religious backgrounds to bear counter-cultural witness to the love of Christ in deed and word, by obeying the extensive biblical commands to love the stranger, defend the cause of the foreigner, visit the prisoner, practice hospitality, build friendships, invite into our homes, and provide help and services..."

"The vulnerable include not only the poor, but those with less power, such as women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, prisoners and victims of human trafficking."

"...concern for the plight of refugees, with churches and ministries to continue welcoming, resettling and assisting in the integration of refugees."

Historic evangelicalism consistently spoke of immigrants and refugees as vulnerable neighbors deserving dignity, protection, and compassion. Today, many evangelicals defend rhetoric that portrays migrants primarily as invaders, criminals, or threats to national purity. [1]

Christians can reasonably disagree about border policy, visa systems, levels of immigration, and how laws should be enforced. Those are prudential questions. But before they are political questions, immigrants and refugees are moral realities, because they are people made in the image of God.

Policies may be debated prudentially, but fear-based dehumanization and fear-mongering is fundamentally opposed to the biblical concern for the stranger and sojourner.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 10): The Shift In Addressing Racism and Discrimination

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments our mainstream leadership once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift in leadership - revealed through votes, endorsements, and voices (or lack of them) - in the evangelical stance toward the poor and underprivileged. 

Next is one of the other consistently important commitments: addressing racial justice and seeking reconciliation. [1]

The declarations and statements I posted spoke clearly about racism as a sin, acknowledged the lingering effects of our nation's history, and called Christians to stand with those who suffered under discrimination and injustice as it shows up in personal relationships and societal structures. 

"We deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism and the conspicuous responsibility of the evangelical community for perpetuating the personal attitudes and institutional structures that have divided the body of Christ along color lines. Further, we have failed to condemn the exploitation of racism at home and abroad by our economic system."

"The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination..."

"The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another...

"We deplore the failures in Christian consistency...[concerning]  racial, social, and sexual discrimination."

"While the United States has achieved legal and social equality in principle, the legacy of racism still makes many African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable to a variety of social ills. Our churches have a special responsibility to model good race relations (Rom. 10:12). To correct the lingering effects of our racist history, Christians should support well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility."

"Such love for all peoples demands that we reject the evils of racism and ethnocentrism, and treat every ethnic and cultural group with dignity and respect, on the grounds of their value to God in creation and redemption."

"In the name of the God of truth, we...denounce and resist the racist prejudice, hatred and fear incited in popular media and political rhetoric.

"When accompanied and sustained by imbalances of power, prejudice moves beyond individual relationships to institutional practices. Such racial injustice is the systemic perpetuation of racism."

These statements do not speak reluctantly or quietly about racism. They speak with clarity, confession, and urgency at both an individual and systemic level. 

That is why the shift that is happening has been so disorienting. When advocacy for racial justice is offered today, it is too often dismissed ("This is a woke DEI agenda!") or turned back on the speaker: “Actually, it’s an anti-white agenda that is the problem.”  

Evangelicals can and do disagree about what the best public policy is for addressing racism, of course. But do we still recognize that racial injustice on both a personal and systemic level is something the church should grieve, actively oppose, and seek to heal? It appears not, considering the unwavering support for an administration that has been characterized by the following personal attacks and policy implementation.

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 8): The Move

I am chronicling why I don't think I can associate myself with the label "evangelical" anymore after decades of association.

After reading through all of the evangelical statements and declarations in the past five decades (start here), what strikes me is not any single issue, but a remarkably holistic moral vision that appears over and over again from 1973 through 2024.

1. Recognize that discipleship has public implications. Christianity is not merely private spirituality. Faith should shape how believers think about poverty, justice, war, racism, economics, immigration, human rights, and public life.

2. Care for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized as a central expression of Christian discipleship. Help the poor and disadvantaged; defend the oppressed. Protect children (including the unborn), widows, refugees, immigrants, minorities, and the disabled. Work to alleviate poverty both locally and globally.

3. Pursue justice. Address both personal sin and structural injustice. Challenge systems that perpetuate poverty, exploitation, discrimination, and oppression by advocating for fair economic and legal structures. Speak prophetically (as if we are Nathan and the Empire is King David) against injustice wherever it exists.

4. Reject racism, ethnocentrism, and ethnic supremacy. Repent of racism in both personal attitudes and institutional structures and work to end racial discrimination. Model the affirmation of dignity and goal of reconciliation across racial and cultural boundaries.

5. Treat every human being as bearing the image of God. Respect the dignity of all people by refusing to practice or ignore exploitation, dehumanization, or contempt wherever it it found.

6. Maintain a clear distinction between the Kingdom of God and political power.  Refuse idolatrous loyalty to any nation. Avoid identifying "being Christian" by a close alignment with any political party, person, ideology, or national movement. Since we must resist the temptation to seek influence through domination or state power, Christian nationalism must be rejected.

7. Practice peacemaking and restrain violence. Be on the front lines of pursuing peaceful resolution of conflict whenever possible. Be skeptical of war-making and militarism; oppose violence motivated by political, economic, ethnic, or religious interests.

8. Defend religious liberty for everyone. Protect freedom of conscience and defend the rights of religious minorities. This will mean demand for others the same freedoms Christians seek for ourselves. Reject coercive evangelism, which will mean opposing the urge to theocracy, which will use the state to coerce adherence to the church.

9. Love neighbors, strangers, immigrants, and even enemies. Practice hospitality by building friendships across cultural and religious boundaries. If people are hostile, respond with kindness rather than retaliation.

10. Engage people of other faiths with humility, respect, and truthfulness. Reject caricatures that cause fearmongering; reject hostility and contempt while recognizing truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it exists.

11. Live lives of personal integrity and visible holiness. Reject greed, corruption, dishonesty, pride, exploitation, lying, hypocrisy, and cruelty. Ensure that public and private behavior aligns with professed beliefs.

12. Care for creation as a Christian responsibility. Steward the earth rather than exploit it, which will mean opposing environmental degradation by addressing pollution, resource depletion, and climate-related harms.

13. Challenge materialism, greed, and consumerism. Reject excessive wealth accumulation as something to be applauded, because greed is a contributor to poverty and injustice.

14. Work for the common good of society. Support policies that strengthen families and communities: encourage education, health care, opportunity, and human flourishing for all of society.

15. Show solidarity with those who suffer. Enter into the experiences of others with humility and empathy. Listen to the pain of the oppressed and share their burdens rather than remain detached from them.

Across five decades – the five decades that formed my 56 years as an evangelical - evangelical leaders repeatedly called Christians to be this kind of people. [1] This broad, holistic ethical vision is what I was trained to believe the conservative evangelicalism should look like when faith is put into practice. There weren't just one or two issues that guided how we lived (and voted). There were many.

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 6): The Capetown Commitment (2010)

In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical. Since then, I have been highlighting parts of mainstream evangelical Declarations and Statements that highlight expected orthopraxy (right actions) for evangelical followers of Jesus. This will lead into a much closer look at what kinds of shifts have taken place in the past 15 years.

My second post offered a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders and organizations that examined how evangelics should live.

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, published at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

The fourth post highlighted the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004).

The fifth post looked at the Evangelical Manifesto of 2008.

* * * * * 

In 2010, the Cape Town Commitment emerged from the Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. It brought together 4,200 evangelical leaders from 198 countries. As far as I can tell, it is one of the first formal evangelical documents (at least of this magnitude) that begins to specifically address marriage and sexuality. This does not mean what they said was necessarily a new stance; it’s just the first time I see it firmly articulated in a global declaration. [1]

Aside from the extensive re-stated commitment to orthodox evangelical pillars of faith, there is so much in this statement on orthopraxy - penned a mere 16 years ago - that is relevant to our discussion. I urge you to read the whole thing, of course. I am heavily excerpting the parts relevant to this series, but it will still be a lot of reading!

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 5): An Evangelical Manifesto (2008)

 In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical, as it has become increasingly willing to excuse attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus as taught to me in my evangelical upbringing.

My second post began to offer a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders and organizations.  

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, published at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

The fourth post highlighted the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004).

This post remains in the 2000s. There will be two more 'declaration' posts to consider after this one, and then we will move into the contrast between the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised vs. what it has now become.

I know this is a lot of background, but the framing is important. 

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 2): Evangelical Declarations in the 1970s

 In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical. My concern is not that evangelicalism has become too conservative or too liberal (depending what branch of evangelicalism you are in). My concern is that it has increasingly abandoned a prophetic critique of attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus in favor of partisan allegiance.

Even as I recounted my memories of growing up evangelical in my previous post, I realized that memories can be selective. Nostalgia has a way of polishing the past, and personal experience is never the whole story. So before I make my case, I want to start with something more objective than my recollections.

For decades, evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, and ministries regularly published statements, declarations, and manifestos explaining what they believed evangelical Christians should value and how they should engage the world. These documents were not perfect, and they did not always reflect how evangelicals actually behaved. Nevertheless, they provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for.

What follows in the next few posts is a sampling of those statements from the 1970s through the early 2000s. [1] As you read them, I would encourage you to pay attention not only to what they affirm, but also to the tone, priorities, and moral instincts they reveal.

Once again, my argument is not that evangelicals always lived up to these ideals. Clearly, we did not. My argument is that many of the virtues these statements called us to pursue are now often ignored, minimized, or even treated with suspicion within the movement itself.

Before we discuss what evangelicalism has become, it is worth remembering what evangelicalism has said, over and over again, it aspires to be.

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Five - The Trajectory Of Evangelicalism

Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" - Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and Neo-evangelicalism.

Part Three: Evangelicalism And Politics

Part Four: Identifying And Clarifying Modern Evangelicalism

__________________________

My wife and I attended a marriage conference in which the speakers talked about “polar opposite” trajectories. One spouse is strict with the kids, the other lax. The strict spouse doubles down to make up for the lax spouse…who also doubles down to offset the increasingly controlling other spouse. This trajectory in polar opposite directions never ends well. A ditch becomes a chasm over time.

I think the same thing is happening in evangelicalism, and it’s currently centered around politics more than theology.

Evangelicals have been united for 30 years on two key issues: abortion[1] and religious freedom.[2] Since Supreme Court justices will make the final call on these issues, that’s usually presented as the current foundational evangelical voting trifecta: defunding abortion and maybe overturning Roe; religious freedom; and electing a President who will nominate sympathetic Supreme Court justices.

It’s all the other ones that are moving us further and further apart.

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Four - Identifying And Clarifying Modern Evangelicalism

Honestly, I didn't expect to write this much about evangelicalism. The more I'm writing, the more I'm realizing what I didn't know, and how what I now know is... confusing.

This series of posts is my attempt to organize the inside of my head. I don't know if it resonates with you or not. I hope it does.

I think I have one final part after this one - but I thought that after my last post, so we will see.

Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" - Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and Neo-evangelicalism.

Part Three: Evangelicalism And Politics

___________________________________________________


Identifying and clarifying modern evangelicalism is difficult for a number of reasons.

The Lack Of Shared Belief

A 2017 LifeWay research report noted that many who identify as evangelical don't hold traditional evangelical beliefs.[1] Many self-identified evangelicals rarely go to church. As long as anyone can claim the term without adhering to at least the minimal standards of identification, it’s going skew polls. When Christianity Today and Gallop did a poll in the late 1970s about self-identified evangelicals, so many respondents did not accept evangelical attributes that the survey had to cut their estimate of evangelicals in America from 34% to 18%[2].

The Self-applied Label

A surprising number of Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox Christians identified themselves as evangelical, even though that's supposed to refer to a subset of Protestants. Is an evangelical Catholic vote an evangelical vote or a Catholic vote? Which part has more influence in the booth?

The Leadership/Laity Gap

There is a gap between how evangelical leadership and evangelical congregants think about the intersection of faith and politics. 83 percent of evangelical leaders do not believe evangelicals in America should be identified with the person and policies of the current president. You don’t hear this kind of sentiment expressed by the average ‘evangelical’ voter you see interviewed on TV.

The Changing Gatekeepers

Leadership in evangelicalism has always been a reflection of whoever gets the most attention or is taken the most seriously. In recent years, mainstream institutions have ceded leadership to the evangelical/industrial complex of televangelists and megachurch pastors. Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory council - with Paula White, the Copelands, and other CBN/TBN/NOW celebrities - exemplifies this. Now, says Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute, this “weird slice of the evangelical world” has gained so much power that “they are the [evangelical] world.”[3] The institutions that once guided and stabilized evangelicalism - CT, Wheaton, the NEA - are a “vanguard without an army.”

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Three -Evangelicalism and Politics

Evangelicals have always been drawn to the halls of political power, even when that has meant partnering with strange allies. This has led to governmental influence, but it has also corroded what Roger Williams called the “separation between the garden of the church in the wilderness of the world.”


Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" (Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, Neo-Evangelicalism)
__________________________________________

BILLY GRAHAM’S POLITICAL LEGACY

A major turning point for American evangelicals came in 1951 when Billy Graham urged Dwight Eisenhower to run for president. Eisenhower had grown up in a Christian family (he was named after Dwight Moody). He had no particular religious commitment, but he felt that the Judeo-Christian tradition was essential to the health of the American republic. Graham liked Eisenhower's strong anti-communist views,[1] and Eisenhower invited Graham to help him inject spirituality into his speeches.
Eisenhower and Graham became the modern architects of an American Civil religion that combined spirituality and patriotism. This trend accelerated during the 1980s, when many evangelicals began to conflate political power and access to Republican leaders with the advancement of God's Kingdom.[2]

In 1979, Paul Weyrich, a Catholic Republican who founded the Heritage Foundation, convinced Jerry Falwell that there was a “moral majority” of Americans who still believed in the Judeo-Christian principles of the Ten Commandments. Whoever organized these people could secure political power through the Republican party in the name of traditional morality.

This had been simmering for a while. Republicans and Democrats both shared an anti-communism fervor during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, but for evangelicals, fear of communism and nuclear war took on an apocalyptic cast and fueled interest in End Times theology.[3] An evangelicalism once skeptical of the of the military found a new admiration for men in uniform. Those fighting for Communism must conversely be fighting for Christians values, right?[4](This support would only increase post-9/11. The enemy was different, but the fight was the same.)

Republicans cultivated evangelical support by presenting themselves as tough on communism. Communism was anti-God, anti-American, anti-family, and anti-God given rights.[5] Nixon made this a defining issue. The spiritualization of anti-communism helped to make the privately profane Nixon, a lapsed Quaker, a favorite of white evangelicals.[6] (Nixon was already preferable to Kennedy because of enduring Protestant hostility toward Catholics.) Billy Graham, the NAE, and the SBC all preferred Nixon over Kennedy.[7]

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Two - Quadrilateral"isms"

If you’ve not read Part One, you should. It’s long, but it give context to the following installments. 

Four “isms” have deeply impacted evangelicalism as we experience it today. Some are bad; some are good; some just are. All of them have been formative. I will try do draw them together in Part Three. For now, I offer them as separate pieces in the evangelical kaleidoscope. 

_______________________________________________________________

RACISM

The failure to address racial issues well has been a long-standing and pervasive problem in American history, and evangelicalism has not been exempt.

The strain of evangelicalism that most closely aligns with modern evangelicalism developed the Midlands and the North initially, where people believed that salvation manifested redemptive movements in the community, not just the individual. However, in spite of this belief in communal justice as an expression of personal salvation, the struggle over race and inequality plagued evangelicalism from the beginning.

• Jonathan Edwards owned household slaves. Though he was critical of the abuses in the slave trade, he never came to believe that slavery was wrong. 
• George Whitefield actually bought a South Carolina Plantation and became a slave owner before seeking to legalize slavery in Georgia. In fact, he became a leading pro-slavery voice instrumental in getting slavery legalized in Georgia in 1751.[1]

White evangelicals sat in churches and revival tents with their black slaves. They believed God offered salvation of all souls, but too often they believed this would simply make slaves better slaves.[2] Not all evangelicals felt this way - generally speaking, the further North one moved, the more evangelicals defended the rights and freedom of slaves. Prior to the Civil War, the vast majority of white Southern evangelicals were pro-slavery, or at least saw it as a political issue rather than a church issue.

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part One - Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

I've always been an evangelical - maybe even a fundamentalist? - but I've recently realized I need to spend some time gaining a better understanding of the terminology in which I was immersed and by which I identify my Christian faith. I credit at least four developments for this new interest:

• fielding dozens of queries like this from my non-religious friends: "Help me understand why 81% of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump." On the other hand, I also heard from a lot of evangelicals, "Why would you not?" Those two comments are worlds apart, and yet somehow they both resonate. 
• reading Colin Woodard’s American Nations: A History Of The Eleven Rival Regional Cultures Of North America, a fascinating book on the regional cultures that shaped North America, and the influence that has had on politics, religion, and the intersection of the two. [1]
• listening to The Holy Post’s podcast about evangelicalism vs. fundamentalism after Christianity Today’s editorial about Trump’s impeachment blew up the Christian internet. 
• a brewing sense that Inigo Montoya’s insight is relevant in connection to the use of the word ‘evangelical’ by myself and others: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” 

So, I picked up Thomas Kidd’s Who Is An Evangelical?[2]and Evangelicals: Who They Have Been, Are Now, And Could Be (edited and partially written by three of the big historical hitters in the discussion - Mark Noll, David Bebbington, and George Marsden), and started digging through evangelical/fundamentalist articles, websites and organizations online. What follows is not a definitive overview by any means, but hopefully it will serve to provoke your thoughts as it has mine.

I’ll give away my conclusion: “evangelical” is, I’m afraid, no longer a helpful word.[3] It is simply too imprecise to describe the current forms of Christianity fragmented together in what Timothy Smith has called an evangelical kaleidoscope.

George Marsden offers a partial list of what that evangelical kaleidoscope looks like today: 

• Black and White evangelicals (read "Democrats and Republicans." More on this in a later post) 
• Calvinists and Arminians 
• Pentecostals/Holiness and Separatist Fundamentalists (who don't care for Pentecostals) 
• Pacifist Churches (such as Mennonites) and Baptists (who are not pacifists) 
• Southern Baptists (are they really evangelical, though?) 
• Missouri Synod Lutherans and Reformed church (confessional heritage) and Methodists (Pietist heritage) 

Saying “I am an evangelical” is like saying, “I like fast food.” That’s interesting, but not terribly informative. What kind of fast food? What counts as “fast food” anyway? You mean Paneras, Boston Market and Culvers are the same kind of restaurant as Dairy Queen and McDonalds?[4] Pizza Hut is considered fast good but has a salad bar. Does "liking fast food" mean you eat out twice a week or just a few times a year?

Those are the kind of follow-up questions one must ask concerning evangelicalism: What kind of evangelical? Are you sure you know what it means? Should all those who claim to be evangelical be on the same list? Do they actually attend an evangelical church and do evangelical things on a regular basis?

So...let's look at this kaleidoscope.

The Up/Down Side of Labels

Labels make it easy to offer a quick identification: Christian, atheist, Buddhist, conservative, Republican, liberal, Democrat, evangelical, socialist, Ohio State fan. (O-H!) Labels also make it easy to apply all of our own bias and baggage to that overly simplistic identification - how many of you are still working to get past that Buckeye reference?

Is there a way to use labels well, or are they simply going to undermine our ability to understand each other? Can they ever be a helpful shorthand to help us connect more quickly, or will they always tend to create unfair categories that divide rather than unite us?

I've been thinking about this more often as a Christian in terms of what it means to have a 'brand':

“A brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing Association). 

Businesses want brand recognition. This is often accomplished by iconic images such as the Coke or Apple logos. A brand is a shortcut: we see an image (or hear a jingle), and we are flooded with all kinds of instinctive connections - for better or worse.  There has been a recent push in church circles to more fully invest in purposeful branding so that people build a the kind of connection we want them to build between the name of a church or a church logo on a bumper sticker.

Everything is branded, intentionally or not. Everyone takes away impressions of  businesses, organizations, churches, schools, sports teams, car dealers, and products that build thoughts and emotions over time.

The question isn't if something is branded. The question is how it's branded, and what kind of impact that brand/label has on those who see it.

So, like I said, I've been thinking about what it means to have a 'brand' as a Christian.

What do people think when they hear someone say, "I am a Christian evangelical"?  That's a huge question already, but there are other labels that brand us as well: Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. Conservative. Liberal.

As a Christian, how concerned should I be about whether or not the labels I willingly apply to myself could be a huge roadblock to effective evangelism? I don't mean my identification as a Christian, though I think there is room to talk about the best way to boldly state our identity in a way that carries the least amount of baggage to those around us. (Should I say Jesus follower, for example?) I'm talking about anything else that I don't have to say to be true to my identity in Christ.

What is the brand of Trump, Sanders, Obama, or the Clintons that Christians takes upon themselves, intentionally or unintentionally? What is the brand of a Republicans or Democrats? What is the brand of evangelical? Conservative or liberal? I know what I associate with these people, parties, and labels, but what do others see when they see me branded with this? These are all brands, for better or worse, and it's just as important that I know what I mean when I apply it to myself as it is to know what others think when they see it branded on me.

This question has been haunting me, because it's not just about me. It's about the reputation of the church, and of Christ. I need to get this right. As a follower of Jesus, I am constantly branding myself when I freely choose labels, and I have to remember that what others see in me through their filters, they will project onto the faith community of which I am a part, the church I attend, and the God I serve. It might not be fair, but it's reality.

* * * * * 

Last week, Beth and I talked through this issue - well, we started to talk through it :) You can listen to Etcetera 22: The Up/Down Side Of Labels on Soundcloud or on various podcast apps (such as Podcast Addict or Stitcher Radio).  As always, Beth and I appreciate interaction with you! Feel free to comment on this blog, the Etcetera blog, or on the Etcetera Facebook page.  We value your feedback as well as any ideas for future guests or shows!

LINKS ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE

Political Labels, Political Identity, and Bias
Read the Label: The new political group No Labels shows why labels exist
Media: Label Whores
Are the labels 'right' and 'left' still useful shorthand for political belief?
Defining 'Evangelical'
No, Evangelical Does Not Mean "White Republican Who Supports Trump"