Progressive and Religious

Home

Podcasts

Blog

About Me

In the News

Public Schedule

Store

Community


 Subscribe to this blog

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Add to My AOL

Archives

July 2007   August 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Thursday, August 2, 2007

 

Creating a Better Evangelical Map for a Better Politics

Note: This originally posted on Faith and Public Life's Blog as part of a dialogue with Randy Brinson and Pastor Bill Devlin of Redeem the Vote; Shaun Casey of Wesley Theological Seminary and Center for American Progress; Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite of Chicago Theological Seminary; and Rev. Rich Killmer of National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

One thread running through this exchange is the need to understand the size (one in four Americans) and the complexity of Evangelicals as a group. Shaun Casey and Randy Brinson are right to point out that one significant upshot of the new coalitions being built is that they expose once and for all the fallacy that Evangelicals are a monolithic group. This complexity is especially true as one moves down the chain from the most vocal political (and increasingly partisan) activists like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, to umbrella groups like the National Association of Evangelicals (remembering to note that the largest Evangelical denomination, Southern Baptists, are not members of the NAE), to non-denominational relief groups, denominations, and finally to individuals. In Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Christian Smith summed up his research among rank and file Evangelicals by noting, “When it comes to politics, the millions of ordinary evangelicals look not like a disciplined, charging army, but something more like a divided and hesitant extended family.”

To give just two telling examples, The American Values Survey that I directed last fall at the Center for American Values found that:
• Like the general public, when thinking about voting their values, more Evangelicals (44%) think about the honesty, integrity and responsibility of the individual candidate than any other single issue. Only 1 out of 5 (19%) Evangelicals thought primarily about same-sex marriage or abortions when voting their values.
• Fully 44% of Evangelicals say that Evangelical leaders like James Dobson and Pat Robertson do NOT speak for them.

Because of the complexity and decentralization that Shaun cites, a clear map doesn’t really exist right now; there is a state of ferment among Evangelicals that has opened up possibilities for new thinking and new ideas. But the partial maps we put together along the way matter. On this point, I am grateful to Susan Thistlethwaite for putting on the table the “enormous concerns” that she and others feel about these new coalitions, both because these concerns are operative in various ways in progressive circles and should be addressed directly and because they are prudent for politics in the real world—something people in faith circles sometimes neglect, as Susan notes, to their later regret.

But I want to quibble with Susan’s map and note the connection between the landscape of the map and the magnitude of the worries. Susan names six groups that make up the landscape: four groups (gospel of prosperity megachurches, creationists, theocrats, and religious right activists) are clearly difficult partners for political progressives; one group (“intent on saving souls”) is either problematic in terms of the challenge it represents to the progressive value of pluralism, or simply an irrelevant sectarian group disengaged with politics; and the final group is “left-wing” Evangelicals who are already allies in significant ways. Although Susan notes that there are others along this continuum, naming only these groups with no place for the large group of Evangelical moderates makes progressive coalitions seem either like fool’s errands or fait accompli.

Creating accurate maps that reflect a mix of realism, humility, and generosity is a key part of the work progressives need to do in this time. To link this back to my earlier post, there is a fine line between prudence and defensiveness, and more accurate maps can help us avoid the latter.

(Note: there are at least two major projects underway that will address this mapping problem: David Gushee’s forthcoming book in January 2008, A Public Witness of the Evangelical Center: The Future of Faith in American Politics, and a forthcoming paper in September that I’ve been working on with Rachel Laser at the Third Way Culture Project and Randy Brinson at Redeem the Vote).

Labels: