Last week, historian Thomas Kidd described a subset of evangelicals who are reluctant Republicans. Inspired by the term paleoconservative, he calls them paleo evangelicals. These evangelicals, according to Kidd, are suspicious of American civil religion, and skeptical that much good comes from allegiance to any political party. Although conservative, paleos do not agree with the modern GOP on all issues. On balance, the GOP may be the party that gets their votes, but they are not enthusiastic that voting one’s values is the salvation of the nation.
Kidd specifically raises the differences between paleo evangelicals and the Christian nation movement led by David Barton. He writes
Our faith needs to be focused on Christ, the paleos say, and rooted in the deep, wide tradition of orthodox church history. We do not base our faith, in any sense, on the personal beliefs of Jefferson, Washington, or Adams. Especially when viewed from the perspective of the global church, American civil religion looks peculiar, at best. Yes, Christianity played a major role in the American founding, but that fact does not place the founding at the center of Christianity. The paleos admire many of the founders, but do not wish to read the founders alongside Scripture, as Barton would have us do in his new Founders’ Bible.
Kidd does not speculate about the size of this group but I think he is correct that such evangelicals exist. I certainly would be close to this camp. Picking up on his ideas, Bart Gingrich and Anna Williams see paleos as being more prevalent among younger people. I hope they are correct.
One leading voice among evangelicals in the younger generation is Jonathan Merritt. His book A Faith of Our Own finds fault with the culture war and the conflation of Christianity with politics. Merritt’s experience may give insight into the making of paleos. About his peers and the church, Merritt writes
Having come of age during the first aftershock period, young people today seem especially dissatisfied. A culture-warring church is the only one they’ve experienced, and they are running away as fast as they can. (p. 77)
Merritt seems to be describing paleos when he writes:
Today’s Christians are rising up to rediscover the faith in a world that is, not a world that was. They desire to reclaim the faith from the partisan spirit so pervasive among some Christians in America…These Christians aren’t consumed with a platform or a party or a policy; they are devoted to a person who emptied Himself to rule supreme over a new kind of kingdom. (p. 86)
I hope Merritt and the others are correct about a rising group of evangelicals who reject the conflation of religion and politics and who want to reclaim the faith. To me, it is interesting to consider what it would look like for this group to become the majority within evangelical circles. Would new leaders take existing groups (e.g., Family Research Council, Focus on the Family) in a new direction? Or would these groups disband? Currently, evangelicals are known more for what evangelical para-church organizations are against than what they are for. Surely, the paleos would go in a different direction.
Although leaning toward cynicism, the following serves as the soundtrack for this post:
People like me would call them Christians. As opposed to “Christians”.
BTW, how did they come up with the term “Paleo Evangelists?”
Obviously, there are three factors to regard: religion (or faith), culture and politics. Religion steers personal behaviour and, via mutual support, collective behaviour (either we support abortions or we don’t) – so, culture wars are quite inevitable. I understand reluctance w.r.t. party poltics, I don’t understand the attempt to evade culture conflicts.
What I would prescribe in terms of Christians and social engagement would be quite different from Mr. Merritt’s recommendations. I think Merritt better describes the rising evangelical liberals (which Kidd mentioned in his first sentence of the initial blog post). The label of “paleo evangelical” (which isn’t really the best one at least for me since I’m not much of an evangelical, but a High Church Anglican) applies to young orthodox Christians that tend to be traditionalists in the political theory sense (at least, that’s been the reaction I’ve been receiving).
Bart – Thanks for the comment. I am hoping you might give one example of how Merritt’s recommendations would put him in the evangelical liberal camp.
I feel like “I resemble that remark” myself, though I’m sure that there are times when I probably don’t come off that way.
Of course. there a long period in English history when it was a case of “No Catholics Need Apply”. But that does not excuse any unjust treatment of anyone else, of course.
Indeed – so often, the ‘Big Picture’ is made ‘real’ by small acts of generosity and/or gratitude.
Didn’t enjoy school that much myself, if I’m honest, though I think I learnt a lot. The school motto is okay: roughly translated from the inevitable Latin it is “if you’re alright inside, don’t worry!”
Just on the subject of ‘moral arbitration’: I would not accept the idea that such is the preserve of bishops, however worthy they might be. ‘Moral understanding’ worthy of the name is the fruit of a joint enterprise of soul-searching and wider exploration undertaken by people of good will. Part of the Church’s calling is to facilitate (in part by providing a proper theological and philosophical framework) that ongoing process, but the Church should, in my opinion, never presume to own or control that process or its (proximate) results (‘proximate’ because we are never entirely free from our own biases); after all, how often Jesus himself pointed to someone ‘outside the club’ who ‘got it right’ (and indeed to someone ‘inside the club’ who ‘got it wrong’).
That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? Small acts of kindness to one another, especially to children.
In Fighting The Good Fight, and seeing the Big Picture, it’s easy to forget to be merely human. Worse, those who fight monsters often become monsters themselves: stare into the Abyss too long, and it stares into you.
An aside: Mr Perham (Bishop Michael) was a young, wet-behind-the-ears early 20-something teacher at a prep school. A school that rejoiced in the name of “Bigshotte”.
http://www.friendsreunited.com.au/bigshotte-school/b/67669067-7ffb-4ab4-b2b5-5546853b1bd9
1895 School founded
1923-26 Extension of buildings
1945 50th anniversary
1967 Building of Science Lab & entry of day boys
1970 75th anniversary
Circa 1974(??) sold to Wellington
Circa 1978(??) closed
Now a housing estate.
STATISTICS 1918-1970: Total number of boys 775
To Wellington 133
To Bradfield 89
To Marlborough 42
To Charterhouse 21
Should be 774 not 775 – but no-one knew I was biologically female, though Matron Senior knew I was Intersex from the minor (then) physical differences from the male norm.
It was a very old-fashioned school even for the 60s. Even for the 20s, something straight out of Kipling’s “Kim”. Cave! Quis? Ego die! and so on.
I was very happy there. I had my own spot in the midst of the surrounding woods, a little flower garden, and would happily sit there reading, alone. It was there that I picked the name “Zoe”, after the Dr Who companion.
And talking of Africa: I’ve just received some beautiful gifts from contacts of mine in Uganda – lovely traditional clothes for my two nieces! 🙂
Zoe says: “The best I can do is recognise the bias, and try to work around that.”
@ Zoe
That’s what we should all do, especially those of us who are engaged in the business of Science.
I’ve heard very good things about Bishop Michael, but I don’t know him personally.
That the Anglican Communion is ‘factionated’ is very obvious. My own wish would be us to live with that ‘factionation’ in an atmosphere of mutual respect, but when certain people, like Orombi, express support for key aspects of things like the Bahati Bill, it becomes very difficult to do that.
As for my giving advice on how to explain things to your son: your comment above notwithstanding, I still do not feel qualified to do that, especially as I have never met either him or you.
Indeed – so often, the ‘Big Picture’ is made ‘real’ by small acts of generosity and/or gratitude.
Didn’t enjoy school that much myself, if I’m honest, though I think I learnt a lot. The school motto is okay: roughly translated from the inevitable Latin it is “if you’re alright inside, don’t worry!”
Just on the subject of ‘moral arbitration’: I would not accept the idea that such is the preserve of bishops, however worthy they might be. ‘Moral understanding’ worthy of the name is the fruit of a joint enterprise of soul-searching and wider exploration undertaken by people of good will. Part of the Church’s calling is to facilitate (in part by providing a proper theological and philosophical framework) that ongoing process, but the Church should, in my opinion, never presume to own or control that process or its (proximate) results (‘proximate’ because we are never entirely free from our own biases); after all, how often Jesus himself pointed to someone ‘outside the club’ who ‘got it right’ (and indeed to someone ‘inside the club’ who ‘got it wrong’).
That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? Small acts of kindness to one another, especially to children.
In Fighting The Good Fight, and seeing the Big Picture, it’s easy to forget to be merely human. Worse, those who fight monsters often become monsters themselves: stare into the Abyss too long, and it stares into you.
An aside: Mr Perham (Bishop Michael) was a young, wet-behind-the-ears early 20-something teacher at a prep school. A school that rejoiced in the name of “Bigshotte”.
http://www.friendsreunited.com.au/bigshotte-school/b/67669067-7ffb-4ab4-b2b5-5546853b1bd9
1895 School founded
1923-26 Extension of buildings
1945 50th anniversary
1967 Building of Science Lab & entry of day boys
1970 75th anniversary
Circa 1974(??) sold to Wellington
Circa 1978(??) closed
Now a housing estate.
STATISTICS 1918-1970: Total number of boys 775
To Wellington 133
To Bradfield 89
To Marlborough 42
To Charterhouse 21
Should be 774 not 775 – but no-one knew I was biologically female, though Matron Senior knew I was Intersex from the minor (then) physical differences from the male norm.
It was a very old-fashioned school even for the 60s. Even for the 20s, something straight out of Kipling’s “Kim”. Cave! Quis? Ego die! and so on.
I was very happy there. I had my own spot in the midst of the surrounding woods, a little flower garden, and would happily sit there reading, alone. It was there that I picked the name “Zoe”, after the Dr Who companion.
And talking of Africa: I’ve just received some beautiful gifts from contacts of mine in Uganda – lovely traditional clothes for my two nieces! 🙂
I didn’t mention the factionated communion of Anglicanism because, while certain reactionary functionaries here in Australia make public comments that are regrettable, they stop short of testifying before parliamentary committees. They’re all talk, no action. Unfortunately, so are the more sane.
Besides which, Bishop Gloucester in the UK is a friend and former teacher of mine. I’ve given him some data on the biology of sex and gender. What is morally correct is his area of expertise, not mine. He’s the opposite, all action, little talk, and his work in Africa has been wonderful.
Zoe says: “The best I can do is recognise the bias, and try to work around that.”
@ Zoe
That’s what we should all do, especially those of us who are engaged in the business of Science.
I’ve heard very good things about Bishop Michael, but I don’t know him personally.
That the Anglican Communion is ‘factionated’ is very obvious. My own wish would be us to live with that ‘factionation’ in an atmosphere of mutual respect, but when certain people, like Orombi, express support for key aspects of things like the Bahati Bill, it becomes very difficult to do that.
As for my giving advice on how to explain things to your son: your comment above notwithstanding, I still do not feel qualified to do that, especially as I have never met either him or you.
Richard Willmer
Not anger – that’s counterproductive. Unhelpful. Impractical. Unjust? Beyond my pay grade, but I’ve never valued justice untempered by mercy particularly highly. too many deciduous forests in my own eye to worry about that. I just wish they’d wake up to themselves and stop doing this. Or not wake up, but stop doing this anyway. Much as I’d like to help them out with their own salvation, my concern is to prevent the harm they’re doing to others first. Sorry, Life’s too short and my own imperfections too great to worry about anyone else’s salvation but my own..
As for whether I can increase my objectivity – probably not. Won’t stop me trying though. The best I can do is recognise the bias, and try to work around that.
Arrogantly commanding me to do something is one thing. Kindly giving gentle suggestions another. I always listen to well-meant advice, even if I decide it’s not worth taking.
Besides which, though I’m my son’s biological parent, I’m not his mother. Motherhood was never biologically possible for me, and fatherhood only a remote and improbable chance. I was quoted 100:1 against at age 20, true odds far worse as we now know. But we hit the jackpot.
Compared to the many biologically more usual women who can never give birth, I’m blessed – and I know it.
I didn’t mention the factionated communion of Anglicanism because, while certain reactionary functionaries here in Australia make public comments that are regrettable, they stop short of testifying before parliamentary committees. They’re all talk, no action. Unfortunately, so are the more sane.
Besides which, Bishop Gloucester in the UK is a friend and former teacher of mine. I’ve given him some data on the biology of sex and gender. What is morally correct is his area of expertise, not mine. He’s the opposite, all action, little talk, and his work in Africa has been wonderful.
Richard Willmer
Not anger – that’s counterproductive. Unhelpful. Impractical. Unjust? Beyond my pay grade, but I’ve never valued justice untempered by mercy particularly highly. too many deciduous forests in my own eye to worry about that. I just wish they’d wake up to themselves and stop doing this. Or not wake up, but stop doing this anyway. Much as I’d like to help them out with their own salvation, my concern is to prevent the harm they’re doing to others first. Sorry, Life’s too short and my own imperfections too great to worry about anyone else’s salvation but my own..
As for whether I can increase my objectivity – probably not. Won’t stop me trying though. The best I can do is recognise the bias, and try to work around that.
Arrogantly commanding me to do something is one thing. Kindly giving gentle suggestions another. I always listen to well-meant advice, even if I decide it’s not worth taking.
Besides which, though I’m my son’s biological parent, I’m not his mother. Motherhood was never biologically possible for me, and fatherhood only a remote and improbable chance. I was quoted 100:1 against at age 20, true odds far worse as we now know. But we hit the jackpot.
Compared to the many biologically more usual women who can never give birth, I’m blessed – and I know it.
It is interesting that Zoe has not mentioned the Anglican Communion, of which I am (nominally) a member (I say ‘nominally’ because I take the view that the Communion has in practice ceased to exist – I do not consider myself ‘in communion’ with reactionaries such as Peter Akinola and Luke Orombi, and believe, with – admittedly – the odd pang of regret, that the time has come to ‘own up’ to reality and split). GAFCON (the ‘reactionary’ portion) is quite strong in Australia, and probably makes the kind of ‘noises’ to which both Zoe and I would, for our various reasons, object.
It is interesting that Zoe has not mentioned the Anglican Communion, of which I am (nominally) a member (I say ‘nominally’ because I take the view that the Communion has in practice ceased to exist – I do not consider myself ‘in communion’ with reactionaries such as Peter Akinola and Luke Orombi, and believe, with – admittedly – the odd pang of regret, that the time has come to ‘own up’ to reality and split). GAFCON (the ‘reactionary’ portion) is quite strong in Australia, and probably makes the kind of ‘noises’ to which both Zoe and I would, for our various reasons, object.
@Dave – I suspect you are right. Even among the learned faculty of GCC, I often have to explain who Scott Lively is.
As it happens, I’m not a (Roman) Catholic either – just for info..
Also, @ Zoe, I would not presume to tell a mother how to ‘explain things’ to her own son. That would be ‘exceeding my brief’, as well as, in my view, illiberal, and perhaps even ‘human-ecologically unsound’! 🙂
Zoe,
Can’t comment much on the official actions of the Catholic Church as I am not Catholic and do not really know how much the everyday Catholic is aware of these things.
But as a Protestant I can tell you that if I were not involved on this blog and other places I would know very little of the visible Christianity that concerns us. For example: Most protestants I know are totally unaware of Scott Lively .. of the Uganda situation .. and so forth. Also they likely have no knowledge of dominionist / theonomist teachings. There may be some/many that suport organizations like the FRC and others due to their opposition to abortion but have little to no knowledge of the other activities of these organizations. I could go on and on about what people don’t know. I realize that might be hard to believe .. but its true. There are plenty of clueless Chrisians out there .. and I used to be one of them. Having said that .. I wouldn’t doubt that there are other issues apart from the ones we discuss here on this blog that I am clueless about.
Dave
Of course. there a long period in English history when it was a case of “No Catholics Need Apply”. But that does not excuse any unjust treatment of anyone else, of course.
@ Zoe Brain –
I understand there is a very big problem still, but the point I was making is that the Church (as is ‘the community’ – not just the hierarchy) is of more than one mind on these issues, with more than a few of us beginning to understand that many people do not actually fit ‘neatly’ into clear ‘categories’ with respect to sexual identity. (By the way, I though that the Pope’s ‘human ecology’ strapline was – to put it frankly – silly, simplistic and wrong.)
As for financing campaigns against gay marriage: it is mute point whether all ordinary Catholics do this, especially given that there are many Catholic churches that are ‘subsidized’ by the hierarchy.
I do understand your anger, but wonder if you could perhaps be a little more (as you put it) ‘objective’ in your attitude to those of us who have religious faith?
@Dave – I suspect you are right. Even among the learned faculty of GCC, I often have to explain who Scott Lively is.
As it happens, I’m not a (Roman) Catholic either – just for info..
Also, @ Zoe, I would not presume to tell a mother how to ‘explain things’ to her own son. That would be ‘exceeding my brief’, as well as, in my view, illiberal, and perhaps even ‘human-ecologically unsound’! 🙂
Zoe,
Can’t comment much on the official actions of the Catholic Church as I am not Catholic and do not really know how much the everyday Catholic is aware of these things.
But as a Protestant I can tell you that if I were not involved on this blog and other places I would know very little of the visible Christianity that concerns us. For example: Most protestants I know are totally unaware of Scott Lively .. of the Uganda situation .. and so forth. Also they likely have no knowledge of dominionist / theonomist teachings. There may be some/many that suport organizations like the FRC and others due to their opposition to abortion but have little to no knowledge of the other activities of these organizations. I could go on and on about what people don’t know. I realize that might be hard to believe .. but its true. There are plenty of clueless Chrisians out there .. and I used to be one of them. Having said that .. I wouldn’t doubt that there are other issues apart from the ones we discuss here on this blog that I am clueless about.
Dave
@ Zoe Brain –
I understand there is a very big problem still, but the point I was making is that the Church (as is ‘the community’ – not just the hierarchy) is of more than one mind on these issues, with more than a few of us beginning to understand that many people do not actually fit ‘neatly’ into clear ‘categories’ with respect to sexual identity. (By the way, I though that the Pope’s ‘human ecology’ strapline was – to put it frankly – silly, simplistic and wrong.)
As for financing campaigns against gay marriage: it is mute point whether all ordinary Catholics do this, especially given that there are many Catholic churches that are ‘subsidized’ by the hierarchy.
I do understand your anger, but wonder if you could perhaps be a little more (as you put it) ‘objective’ in your attitude to those of us who have religious faith?
@Richard Willmer –
How have the Mighty fallen! The USCCB now objects to equal treatment for Trans and Intersex people on the exact same grounds that equal treatment for Black people was opposed in the 60’s. No moral or religious objection, just “freedom of association”.
Of course if anyone said in a job advert, “No Catholics Need Apply”, that would be entirely different. That would be unjust, prejudiced, wrong, even Evil. Segregation is “morally wrong and sinful.” as Bishop Russel said in 1955.
Note that there’s some wiggle-room regarding gays – after all, so many in the Catholic hierarchy are gay but (mostly) celibate – but none for those who are, to put it crudely, Vermin. A threat to the human ecology, and all of Creation.
– His Holiness Benedict XI, in two speeches, one to the Roman Curia, one to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps.
I really appreciate the kindness and goodwill of many Catholics, the vast majority in fact. But the fact is, they must be obedient to the Church – it’s part of the deal. So while on a personal basis, they are just normal, decent human beings, they support, enable, and finance political Powers who have the ear of Congress, and are anything but kind to those like me, and my son – now eleven.
How do I explain to him?
@Richard Willmer –
How have the Mighty fallen! The USCCB now objects to equal treatment for Trans and Intersex people on the exact same grounds that equal treatment for Black people was opposed in the 60’s. No moral or religious objection, just “freedom of association”.
Of course if anyone said in a job advert, “No Catholics Need Apply”, that would be entirely different. That would be unjust, prejudiced, wrong, even Evil. Segregation is “morally wrong and sinful.” as Bishop Russel said in 1955.
Note that there’s some wiggle-room regarding gays – after all, so many in the Catholic hierarchy are gay but (mostly) celibate – but none for those who are, to put it crudely, Vermin. A threat to the human ecology, and all of Creation.
– His Holiness Benedict XI, in two speeches, one to the Roman Curia, one to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps.
I really appreciate the kindness and goodwill of many Catholics, the vast majority in fact. But the fact is, they must be obedient to the Church – it’s part of the deal. So while on a personal basis, they are just normal, decent human beings, they support, enable, and finance political Powers who have the ear of Congress, and are anything but kind to those like me, and my son – now eleven.
How do I explain to him?
Thank you, dear! How polite and tolerant of you!
Blah, blah, blah! More religious nonsense.
Thank you, dear! How polite and tolerant of you!
Blah, blah, blah! More religious nonsense.
Bust perhaps we should not stray too far into one particular area of interest (LGBT issues) on this post. The key point is the relationship between religion and power politics, and on this on needs only to look at history.
There have been countless attempts to use religion as a ‘power tool’ to ‘put right society’, and these attempts have, pretty much without exception, ended in abject failure. Maybe the Founding Father understood this in their attempts to keep separate Church and State? And those of us who are Christians should never forget the words of Jesus at his ‘trial’: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
I can’t pretend pretend to know what we should do when it comes to ‘playing out’ in practice that politics-religion relationship, but I’m fairly certain what we should NOT do: think and act as if imposing some kind of ‘religious template’ on society is going to sort out the day-to-day problems we face.
An interesting ‘take’ on what I said, Zoe! Obviously, I am sorry that your experience has apparently been so bad. Perhaps you’d like to come to the church (where I was recently privileged, at the request of his surviving partner, to assist with the funeral of gay fellow member of our congregation and generous benefactor) I attend to experience a rather different approach?
Many of us on this blog are aware of the ‘big noise’ made by certain (as I would see, politically-motivated “Christians”), and deplore the aforementioned ‘noise’. Fortunately, it would seem that many ordinary folk in, for example, the Catholic Church in the USA, are supportively open to what they consider the fair treatment under civil law of LGBT people: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/half-americans-support-legal-gay-marriage.aspx (the percentages by ‘religious grouping’ make very interesting reading).
@Richard Willmer –
I agree, in fact, all my personal dealings with those calling themselves “Christians” have involved them making extreme, even fanatical efforts to ensure oppressed groups are treated “properly”. The Australian Christian Lobby, for example, go to strenuous lengths, as do various official organs of the Catholic Church.
This has included them testifying that the oppressed groups are mentally defective, inherently evil, a danger to all and sundry by their very existance, too small a group to warrant consideration, in rebellion against God, worthy of death, etc.
Since both I and my son are members of one of these oppressed groups – labelled in front of a Parliamentary committee “mentally incompetent to contract a marriage” by the Catholics, and “too small a group to warrant consideration” by the Presbyterians, my objectivity here must be questionable.
Bust perhaps we should not stray too far into one particular area of interest (LGBT issues) on this post. The key point is the relationship between religion and power politics, and on this on needs only to look at history.
There have been countless attempts to use religion as a ‘power tool’ to ‘put right society’, and these attempts have, pretty much without exception, ended in abject failure. Maybe the Founding Father understood this in their attempts to keep separate Church and State? And those of us who are Christians should never forget the words of Jesus at his ‘trial’: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
I can’t pretend pretend to know what we should do when it comes to ‘playing out’ in practice that politics-religion relationship, but I’m fairly certain what we should NOT do: think and act as if imposing some kind of ‘religious template’ on society is going to sort out the day-to-day problems we face.
An interesting ‘take’ on what I said, Zoe! Obviously, I am sorry that your experience has apparently been so bad. Perhaps you’d like to come to the church (where I was recently privileged, at the request of his surviving partner, to assist with the funeral of gay fellow member of our congregation and generous benefactor) I attend to experience a rather different approach?
Many of us on this blog are aware of the ‘big noise’ made by certain (as I would see, politically-motivated “Christians”), and deplore the aforementioned ‘noise’. Fortunately, it would seem that many ordinary folk in, for example, the Catholic Church in the USA, are supportively open to what they consider the fair treatment under civil law of LGBT people: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/half-americans-support-legal-gay-marriage.aspx (the percentages by ‘religious grouping’ make very interesting reading).
@Richard Willmer –
I agree, in fact, all my personal dealings with those calling themselves “Christians” have involved them making extreme, even fanatical efforts to ensure oppressed groups are treated “properly”. The Australian Christian Lobby, for example, go to strenuous lengths, as do various official organs of the Catholic Church.
This has included them testifying that the oppressed groups are mentally defective, inherently evil, a danger to all and sundry by their very existance, too small a group to warrant consideration, in rebellion against God, worthy of death, etc.
Since both I and my son are members of one of these oppressed groups – labelled in front of a Parliamentary committee “mentally incompetent to contract a marriage” by the Catholics, and “too small a group to warrant consideration” by the Presbyterians, my objectivity here must be questionable.
Thomas Oden coined the term “paleo-Orthodox evangelicals” referring to those who seek to take their understanding of the Christian faith from the historical, concensual Christian faith, with special emphasis on patristic wrters. Whether that helped inspire the term peleo-evangelical, I know not.
Warren, unfortunately Jonathan Merritt no longer has credibility in my view, and I am disappointed to see you use him as the example of younger evangelicals. He chose to respond to his outing with a convenient lie because to tell the truth would cost him his place in the evangelical community. I have considerable empathy for him, but frankly wish he would be out of the public eye to deal with his own integrity issues on his own, without pressure. But by way of disclosure, I am an out and happily-partnered gay man who has left evangelicalism for reasons both of faith and sexuality.
As for a third great awakening, really? Where’s the evidence?
Thomas Oden coined the term “paleo-Orthodox evangelicals” referring to those who seek to take their understanding of the Christian faith from the historical, concensual Christian faith, with special emphasis on patristic wrters. Whether that helped inspire the term peleo-evangelical, I know not.
Warren, unfortunately Jonathan Merritt no longer has credibility in my view, and I am disappointed to see you use him as the example of younger evangelicals. He chose to respond to his outing with a convenient lie because to tell the truth would cost him his place in the evangelical community. I have considerable empathy for him, but frankly wish he would be out of the public eye to deal with his own integrity issues on his own, without pressure. But by way of disclosure, I am an out and happily-partnered gay man who has left evangelicalism for reasons both of faith and sexuality.
As for a third great awakening, really? Where’s the evidence?
I would probably do the same, Zoe.
(Of course, a person’s ‘political’ – in the broadest sense of the word – views will be influenced by their faith; many Christians are very concerned about ‘social justice’, and the proper treatment of those who are in some way oppressed, because of their understanding of much of the teaching of the O.T. prophets and, above all, of Christ himself. How such ‘justice’ might be furthered will always be a matter of debate; my own views often tend to a more ‘socialist’ and ‘progressive’ politics; others will focus more on individual freedoms and responsibilities; both approaches have their place – after all, it can credibly be argued that personal responsibility and social justice go hand in hand.)
People like me would call them Christians. As opposed to “Christians”.
I would probably do the same, Zoe.
(Of course, a person’s ‘political’ – in the broadest sense of the word – views will be influenced by their faith; many Christians are very concerned about ‘social justice’, and the proper treatment of those who are in some way oppressed, because of their understanding of much of the teaching of the O.T. prophets and, above all, of Christ himself. How such ‘justice’ might be furthered will always be a matter of debate; my own views often tend to a more ‘socialist’ and ‘progressive’ politics; others will focus more on individual freedoms and responsibilities; both approaches have their place – after all, it can credibly be argued that personal responsibility and social justice go hand in hand.)
I feel like “I resemble that remark” myself, though I’m sure that there are times when I probably don’t come off that way.
What I would prescribe in terms of Christians and social engagement would be quite different from Mr. Merritt’s recommendations. I think Merritt better describes the rising evangelical liberals (which Kidd mentioned in his first sentence of the initial blog post). The label of “paleo evangelical” (which isn’t really the best one at least for me since I’m not much of an evangelical, but a High Church Anglican) applies to young orthodox Christians that tend to be traditionalists in the political theory sense (at least, that’s been the reaction I’ve been receiving).
Bart – Thanks for the comment. I am hoping you might give one example of how Merritt’s recommendations would put him in the evangelical liberal camp.
Obviously, there are three factors to regard: religion (or faith), culture and politics. Religion steers personal behaviour and, via mutual support, collective behaviour (either we support abortions or we don’t) – so, culture wars are quite inevitable. I understand reluctance w.r.t. party poltics, I don’t understand the attempt to evade culture conflicts.
As Dr. Throckmorton said, they are inspired by the term “paleoconservative”. But Paleoconservatives are rightly called so, because they are inspired by the tradition of Coolidge, Taft, Eisenhower or Goldwater. Whereas I can’t see that so-called paleo-evangelicals are inspired by pre-Billy Graham evangelicalism. What would be the important persons, or concepts, of that era? And in which way would paleo-evangelicals rely on them?
As Dr. Throckmorton said, they are inspired by the term “paleoconservative”. But Paleoconservatives are rightly called so, because they are inspired by the tradition of Coolidge, Taft, Eisenhower or Goldwater. Whereas I can’t see that so-called paleo-evangelicals are inspired by pre-Billy Graham evangelicalism. What would be the important persons, or concepts, of that era? And in which way would paleo-evangelicals rely on them?
BTW, how did they come up with the term “Paleo Evangelists?”
In many ways, politicizing religion was the logical next step for evangelicals and fundamentalists in re-shaping the American landscape. These “culture wars” go far back. We have had two highly profound Religious Awakenings in America and appear to be going through a third one. Much of this evangelism came out of the Second Awakening and has come to be a dominant force in American religion and politics. Religion has ebbed and flowed in politics. I would say that ever since the 1950s, when religious groups pushed for and got “In God We Trust” printed on bills and “One Nation Under God” added to the Pledge of Allegiance, we began this “Third Awakening.” But, it is nice to see young persons looking beyond these political trapping and seeking a purer form of faith.
In many ways, politicizing religion was the logical next step for evangelicals and fundamentalists in re-shaping the American landscape. These “culture wars” go far back. We have had two highly profound Religious Awakenings in America and appear to be going through a third one. Much of this evangelism came out of the Second Awakening and has come to be a dominant force in American religion and politics. Religion has ebbed and flowed in politics. I would say that ever since the 1950s, when religious groups pushed for and got “In God We Trust” printed on bills and “One Nation Under God” added to the Pledge of Allegiance, we began this “Third Awakening.” But, it is nice to see young persons looking beyond these political trapping and seeking a purer form of faith.