Blogalogue

Blogalogue


Evangelicals Want Power, and They Have it (Jeff Sharlet)

posted by nsymmonds

I can’t help but admire David’s determination to make “evangelical” something other than a political term. David wants to be part of a real movement, one for which politics is no more than one front among many. The good news for David is that he is — contemporary American evangelicalism is probably changing more lives at very intimate levels than it is through public policy. But then, politics, in the broad sense, is about more than policy, more than Washington — more, even, than elections. Modern evangelicalism is a cultural politics.


There’s no better illustration of that than Jerry’s novels. This is literature, of course, but it’s also very political. It shapes the way readers think about what society is and what their role in it is, and ought to be. Sometimes in unexpected ways — I don’t imagine that Jerry or his co-author thought that when they wrote about the tongues of unbelievers exploding in “Glorious Awakening” that that passage would end up serving as a sort of reverse rallying call for leftists who’d perceive it as, um, violent and hateful. (Sorry, Jerry, but I think they have a point.)
But, with respect to both David and Jerry, that kind of thing isn’t any closer to what David wants evangelicalism to be (I write this based on his book, “Tempting Faith,” and a long conversation with him a little while ago) than are the bullies at the Family Research Council. Jerry and David both speak of servanthood, but I have to draw a distinction between their definitions of that term, as understood out here by one of the poor unbelievers presumably in need of service. Jerry’s fiction presents “service” as a my-way-or-the-highway (to Hell) kinda deal. In his personal life, I gather, he’s more interested in simple helping, soup kitchens and the like. Great. But that only goes so far. David, meanwhile, thinks of service systemically — which puts him at odds not only with most American evangelicals, but with the history of American evangelicalism, which has long defined itself as an alternative to systemic critiques.
Or, at least, since 1942, when the National Association of Evangelicals formed with three big goals: to replace the term “fundamentalist” with “evangelical”; to present a spiritual/social alternative to the big left/right systems of that day (not just socialism and fascism, bu what the NAE called the “real dangers” represented by F.D.R.); and to unite believers of many varieties so that together they’d have a stronger voice in Washington.
Of course, “evangelical” was a political term before that. It was certainly political when applied to Charles Finney, the key figure of America’s Second Great Awakening. And it was political when applied to abolitionists, among whose ranks we must count John Brown, the most God-led social reformer in American history, God bless him. No one called MLK an evangelical (not then, anyway; today, far right evangelicals try to claim him as an ancestor), but they could have. I happen to like these guys, even Finney, despite the way he shilled for big business.
Which brings me to my answer to David’s question: “Jeff – What would it take for you to be less forlorn about evangelical attempts to form/shape/manipulate/dominate the political/cultural scene? And/or, what sort of engagement could you welcome?” It would take evangelicals like those. Not at the leadership level — I’m with Ella Baker, who famously declared that “Strong people don’t need strong leaders” — but in everyday life. Not everyone can be an MLK, but everyone can aspire to that clarity of vision combined with his understanding of the endless complexity of morality. Evangelicals are strong on what they think of as clarity, not so good on complexity.
I’d be a lot less forlorn if evangelicals joined the rest of us in the world (they can still say they’re not of it) and acknowledge that they have political ambitions, and that that’s ok. Power, in itself, is not a sin, it’s a fact. But power that claims to be humble is usually sinful, and it’s always a lie. Senator John Thune is a “servant-leader”? That’s like the foreman of the factory insisting that he’s just like a worker. He’s not; he shouldn’t pretend to be.
So, step one: Evangelicals, when gathered as a movement, should be open with themselves and the rest of us about what they want. And — this is key — what they already have. The most sickening aspect of evangelical political discourse is the cry of victimization. Not here, not in this country, not compared to the lot of any number of other groups of people. Evangelicals need to be open about the fact that they want power, and the fact that they already have it.
Then what? What sort of engagement might people like me welcome? Well, we’re already seeing that, aren’t we? I’m thinking of global warming. But here, again, I think we need to recognize the real differences between us — the ways in which evangelicalism is inherently political. I’m glad evangelicals are out front on getting the public to really face the problem of global warming. But I foresee a split down the road, since evangelicalism — unless it’s going to undertake a huge theological shift — is in no position to embrace the kind of deliberately systemic response a problem as big as global warming demands. Personal relationships aren’t going to do it; and “free market” economics sure as hell are going to help. So far, that’s mainly what we’ve heard.
But, as I write above, there are these odd ducks like David who’re thinking in evangelical terms and systematic terms. So — with the caveat that David and I are probably miles apart on most issues — let him lead the way. His book, “Tempting Faith,” is a great example. I disagree with much of it, and even more of its underlying assumptions, but it does everything I’ve asked for. In it, David acknowledges the desire for power, the necessity of power, and the possession of power. And it condemns the humility rhetoric that so often serves as a veil for lack of systemic action. David wants to see things change, he wants to use power to make those changes, and he knows that has to happen on a scale bigger than soup kitchens. Me, I welcome engagement like David’s. He’s an evangelical I can really disagree with, and I mean that in the best sense.
***
A clarification of a point Michael rightly took issue with: Michael writes, “So I have to disagree with Jeff that the elite and populist branches of evangelicalism have merged. If anything, I think they have grown farther apart. Populist evangelicals go on as they always have, trying to storm the gates. But cosmopolitan evangelicals are already on the inside.”
Michael, like you I don’t believe that populist and elite evangelicals are marching to a single drum. But what’s different now is that elite evangelicals, long more concerned with foreign policy than domestic issues, have signed on for culture war, albeit to be fought in subtler ways, while populist fundamentalists have increasingly learned NOT to storm the gates. A great example is Rick Warren, who but for global warming is pretty nearly politically identical to the late Jerry Falwell. But Warren doesn’t storm the gates, he functions much more like an elite activist, combining nice guy rhetoric with back room maneuvering — and the denial of political ambition — to pursue his goals. Another example is the Fellowship, which we’ve both written about. For most of its history, the politicians associated with the Fellowship were primarily cold warriors, little interested in domestic affairs or the preachers who spoke about them. But if you look at some of the more prominent Fellowship fellow travelers today — Senator Sam Brownback, Representative Joe Pitts, John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, among them — you see guys who are maintaining strong ties to populist fundamentalism as well as the traditional concerns of elites. I’d argue that elite and populist evangelicalism are merging — not merged — toward a more sophisticated and effective center-right politics than either branch has ever achieved on its own.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Jerry B. Jenkins

posted October 19, 2007 at 11:25 am


“Modern evangelicalism is a cultural politics. ”
Oh, I hope not, Jeff. Maybe the very term ‘evangelical’ has been so bastardized that it should be discarded. Believers’ should long to be Christ-like, not political.
“There’s no better illustration of that than Jerry’s novels. This is literature, of course, but it’s also very political. It shapes the way readers think about what society is and what their role in it is, and ought to be. Sometimes in unexpected ways — I don’t imagine that Jerry or his co-author thought that when they wrote about the tongues of unbelievers exploding in “Glorious Awakening” that that passage would end up serving as a sort of reverse rallying call for leftists who’d perceive it as, um, violent and hateful. (Sorry, Jerry, but I think they have a point.)
But, with respect to both David and Jerry, that kind of thing isn’t any closer to what David wants evangelicalism to be (I write this based on his book, “Tempting Faith,” and a long conversation with him a little while ago) than are the bullies at the Family Research Council. Jerry and David both speak of servanthood, but I have to draw a distinction between their definitions of that term, as understood out here by one of the poor unbelievers presumably in need of service. Jerry’s fiction presents “service” as a my-way-or-the-highway (to Hell) kinda deal. In his personal life, I gather, he’s more interested in simple helping, soup kitchens and the like. Great. But that only goes so far. ”



report abuse
 

Jerry B. Jenkins

posted October 19, 2007 at 11:36 am


Oops, sorry, hit the post button way too soon.
Rather than paste your portions here again, Jeff, I hope those interested can refer back to them. Thanks for using the term ‘literature’ and ‘Jerry’s novels’ in the same paragrpah. Don’t believe I’ve ever seen that before, even among my fans. :)
In truth we weren’t terribly surprised at the response to the scenes you cited, but did you think that was part of the fiction? That’s straight out of prophecy, which becomes a loving Christian’s crucible. How do we represent what we believe is a loving, merciful God who would cause such a thing to happen? Dr. LaHaye has an entire non-fiction book entitled The Merciful God of Prophecy, in which he tries to handle this dilemma. The bottom line is that it seems God has tried everything to get our attention — from paradise (Eden), the the Old Testament laws, to the grace of the church age (the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus) — and then in the future the rapture, the tribulation, and the Glorious Appearing. And then when we have thumbed our nose at Him long enough, His patience runs out and Armageddon is the result.
People like the loving God and the meek Jesus as they pick and choose what they want from the smorgasbord of Scripture. But when the just and righteous and holy God finally responds with power, they call it hate or — as I mentioned — assume some novelist has made it up.



report abuse
 

Jeff Sharlet

posted October 19, 2007 at 12:00 pm


Jerry, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Didn’t expect that, did you? The part that I agree with is your disdain for the cherry picking that results only in a nice-guy Jesus, so clearly at odds with the character depicted in Scripture. Whatever else he was, Jesus was no sweetie-pie, and he makes it clear in the Gospels that there will indeed be hell to pay sometime soon.
That said, you’re disingenous about your assertion that such prophecies are plainly stated. You know as well as I do that “Dr.” LaHaye’s (sorry about the scare quotes; I can’t extend the respect I really do have for you to that bully) interpretations are just that. Unless you’re going to claim that “Dr.” LaHaye has been granted super-extra Bible reading powers that make his discernment greater than that of 2000 years of history. In which case, I refer you to the late Rebbe Menacham Schneerson, still seeing supplicants at his grave in Queens.
Now that I’ve been mean, I’ll be nice, because, unlike Jesus, I AM a sweetie pie: Your novels are literature, Jerry, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. You’re a genre writer, and genre writers are wrongly looked down upon. What the literary establishment dismisses as excessive simplicity, or cliched language, is actually the medium in which you’re working. So I think it’s literature, and since I’m not familiar enough with the genre, I’m not even sure if it’s good literature. I can’t “read” it the way I can a more conventional novel.
Lastly, and most important — above I write, “free market” economics sure as hell are going to help.”
Sure as hell, that’s a typo.



report abuse
 

Jim

posted October 20, 2007 at 2:48 am


Jesus was no sweetie pie? I would say that the woman he saved from stoning would disagree. I would say the sinners he dined with would disagree.
Those to whom Jesus spoke most harshly were those who claimed to know and enforce the will of God, but were really just acting in the interests of their own power. Those were the same people who were ready to stone a woman to death and condemn Jesus for dining with sinners. They even said his healing power was the work of the devil. From my observation, modern evangelicals are the Pharisees of today, seeking power in the name of God and dismissing contemporary acts of love as namby-pambyism.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm


Those to whom Jesus spoke most harshly were those who claimed to know and enforce the will of God. . . . From my observation, modern evangelicals are the Pharisees of today
But you’re not judgmental, right?



report abuse
 

Donny

posted October 21, 2007 at 9:20 pm


If Evangelicals had political power, 11-year old children would not be given birth control pills. They would have both better parents to guide them and better role models to follow. They would desire to have sex later in life. Far, far later in life like, say, as adults.
It is clear that Liberals and Progressives (anti-Christians) are in complete power and in total control of our country. One just needs to look at our shattered and destroyed youth, the products of shattered and broken homes to see that.



report abuse
 

jim

posted February 25, 2010 at 2:01 pm


http://www.wowhotsale.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,adidas, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time
http://www.wowhotsale.com
…………./??/’.??..??’
………./’/…/…./…./…/¨?\
……..(‘(…?…?…. ?~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·?
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
thank you for your visit



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Blogalogue. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 9:34:57am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

How Do We Tell A True Act of God From A False One?
Dear Michael: Thank you again for this exchange, Michael; I am grateful that you took the time to teach me with such patience and tolerance. In all honesty, I can't follow your subtle discussion of the relationship between natural laws and Divine Providence. The fault is mine. I think you are sayi

posted 3:46:50pm Nov. 17, 2008 | read full post »

Do You Wonder About the Source of Meaning?
Dear Heather, I really enjoy the way you conduct a path through our disagreements. You are tough, but open to differences. As we have agreed from the first, to achieve real disagreement is a long-term task; it takes a lot of brandies sipped slowly together (so to speak) to get past the misunderstan

posted 10:51:30am Nov. 14, 2008 | read full post »

What About Other Religions?
Dear Michael: Thank you so much for your candid and probing response; it is most illuminating. Before addressing your final question, I am going to risk characterizing your presentation of religious faith. Some of our readers, if not you yourself, may find this presumptuous; if so, I accept their c

posted 4:21:02pm Nov. 13, 2008 | read full post »

Faith Is Not Just Belief
Dear Heather: There are many aspects of popular Catholic faith that have sometimes shocked me and turned me away. Yet I well remember visiting the great Catholic shrine at Czestechowa, in Poland, where once almost a million people turned out for Pope John Paul II when he first pierced the Iron Curta

posted 3:48:33pm Nov. 12, 2008 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.