In 2016, the media was full of stories about how "81% of white Evangelicals" voted for Trump. Now, on the face of it, it is patently false. First, I don't think 81% of white Evangelicals voted. I'm sure the percentage was lower than that ... likely much lower. So if, say, 50% of Evangelicals voted and 80% of them voted for Trump, that would be 40% of Evangelicals. To attribute that "81%" to all Evangelicals is nonsense. Second, by making the point that it was "white Evangelicals," they betrayed a racial component that neither supported the argument nor had any bearing on the truth. Third, by "Evangelicals" they mean "people who self-identify as Evangelicals." We live in a world now when "what I say means exactly what I mean, even if the words aren't what I mean." We live in a world where "Evangelical" had a definition, but people are happy to identify as such without actually qualifying for it. "Evangelical" is supposed to include "born again," a fundamental belief in an inerrant, authoritative Bible, a centrality of the Cross, and a focus on living the life and sharing the gospel. The word, in fact, is rooted in "the Gospel." Are these self-identified "Evangelicals" on board for any of that? So there is a sizeable number of "self-identified Evangelicals" that do not qualify for the term1, yet end up in this "81%" who voted for Trump then ... and now. "Evangelical" is now often defined as "white Republicans who consider themselves religious, but not Catholic." How far from the truth can we get?
Paul wrote, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom 2:24). He was writing to sinning Jews at that particular moment -- "You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law" (Rom 2:23). We have our own version today. Most people today believe that "Evangelical" is a political movement. They are people who make politics our spiritual service of worship. They correlate how you vote with godliness. They claim to honor God -- the One from whom all authority comes (Rom 13:1) -- by insisting that the only way to achieve His will is to vote for Trump. True Evangelicals would be hanging, instead, on their faith in Christ and their confidence in the truth of Scripture, not on the polls. They would be focused on the Cross and sharing the gospel, not on religiously campaigning for a man who would be king. And I fear that the term, "Evangelicals," misused as it is today, is being used to give God a black eye, as it were. Because we're supposed to be in this world, but not of it, and either the media is misleading (and that's a given, isn't it?) or we are failing miserably (which is possible, too). God help us.
________
1 In 2023, Ligonier did their annual "State of Theology" report. They ask basic questions about theology and include a specific breakout for Evangelicals. So, for instance, when Americans were asked, "Does God change?", 31% said, "No" while 52% said, "Yes." Among Evangelicals (who have the Bible which says God does not change), 43% said, "No" while 48% said, "Yes." Clearly a problem. While 67% of all respondents said that God accepts the worship of all religions, 58% of Evangelicals agreed, a marked improvement but a horribly bad number among people who claim to subscribe to the Bible. On whether or not Jesus was God, 54% of all respondents said He was not God and a stunning 44% of Evangelicals said the same. On "God counts a person as righteous on the basis of faith in Christ," 57% of all respondents and 80% of Evangelicals agreed. Which suggests that at least 20% of self-identified Evangelicals are not Evangelicals.
6 comments:
I'm going to put the bulk of the onus on the churches that have decided that theology and doctrine doesn't matter. The churches that have tried to woo the world into the church by looking like the world. Act like the world long enough and you eventually won't be any different from it.
Those who say that God changes, that Jesus isn't God, that God accepts all religions, and deny that righteousness is determined by faith in Christ may be "Evangelicals," but they're not Christians.
First, I'd suggest that if one looks at the roots of the Evangelical movement that Biblical illiteracy is actually par for the course. In the early days, things like theological education were frowned on in favor of zeal and showmanship.
Second, I'd suggest that Evangelical has become a political category more so than a theological category over the last 40 years.
The numbers of christians who deny even the most basic of Christian doctrines is growing steadily. As more and more people realize that they can redefine what it means to be a Christian to suit their own tastes.
You wrote: "Evangelical" is now often defined as "white Republicans who consider themselves religious, but not Catholic." That could almost describe me, but yet it is so far from the truth, as you say. That self-identification as “evangelicals” you highlight is very concerning to me--not for how it might skew the political polls but because of how many people are under delusions and false assurances about their own spiritual state; this is confirmed when you consider to whom they are looking for “salvation”--i.e. God or a politician. As you rightly conclude, “God help us”!
Jack, "Evangelical" is originally defined as a subset of "Christian," but, as you say, if they deny that righteousness is by faith (a basic premise of what is "Christian"), they are not Christian ... nor are they "Evangelical."
I struggle with the identification part of the conversation. Politically, Evangelical is mostly a term applied by those on the left to some of those on the right. At one point I would have identified myself as an Evangelical, but now I wouldn't. I agree that Christian is the only important identifier, but even that has been stripped of much of it's meaning.
Post a Comment