Evangelicalism in the Crosshairs: Kobes Du Mez, Constantine Campbell…and Francis Schaeffer (Part 2)

In my last post, I began to explore the curious “tradition” within American Evangelicalism of constantly bashing American Evangelicalism. And it isn’t just a matter of saying, “Hey, there are problems within Evangelicalism.” It always seems to be criticisms from Evangelicals that amount to, “Evangelicalism has corrupted Christianity! Evangelicalism is a disaster! It’s a scandal!” We see this in recent books like Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s book, Jesus and John Wayne, and older books like Francis Schaeffer’s 1984 book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. Even though these two books claim that Evangelicalism is a train wreck for entirely different reasons, the common denominator is that those reasons are rooted in partisan politics. Evangelicalism is being destroyed…by liberalism…or the Republicans.

I find that tendency rather sad. As I said at the end of my last post, it’s a tricky business being a Christian in America, where the government is (at least in theory) is of and by the people. As Americans, Christians have the right and obligation to argue for their views in the public square, just like everyone else. And if Christians ultimately win the day in convincing people in a particular law or government policy, so be it. Still, being involved in politics carries with it the danger of corruption, and I have come to the view that, regardless of your own political views, if you start using partisan political standards as your measuring stick to judge (in this case) Evangelicalism, that’s not a good thing. Your faith should inform your political views; partisan politics and controversies should not be the judges of your faith.

Jesus v. Evangelicalism
All that said, there was a third book I mentioned in my previous post: Constantine Campbell’s Jesus v. Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement. On the whole, it is a much better book than Jesus and John Wayne. It is thoughtful and introspective, and you get the feeling that you’d be able to have a constructive conversation with Campbell about Evangelicalism, even over parts that you might disagree over. This is the exact opposite vibe I got from Kobes Du Mez’s book. Disagree with that book, and you’re guilty of patriarchy, misogyny, and white supremacy.

In any case, what I’m going to try to do in this post is provide a brief overview of Campbell’s book. My goal is to keep this little blog series on “Evangelicalism in the crosshairs” to three posts…let’s face it, four. Let’s see if I can do it. What I am going to do for the rest of this post is provide a brief summary and commentary on the first three chapters of Campbell’s book. Take a breath and let’s dive in.

Chapter 1: God and Country
Campbell’s first chapter focuses on Evangelicals’ involvement in politics, with issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in schools, religious freedom, and creation vs. evolution taking center stage. Of course, the big issue Campbell immediately brings up is the Evangelical vote for Trump for president. This, Campbell says, has discredited Evangelicals in the eyes of many people. Tied into this are the issues of gun control, abortion, border security, war, and social justice. Evangelicals chose their guns, hatred of immigrants, and a lying bully over social justice and more respectable candidates.

More than that, though, Campbell argues that Evangelicals are guilty of blurring the lines between patriotism/politics and allegiance to the Kingdom of Christ. Campbell says that Evangelicals should take their cue from the early Church, when Christians were known for loving their enemies and helping the poor. The early Christians, Campbell argues didn’t try to get Christians into positions of government, change laws in their favor, or legislate Christian belief. They simply went about being salt and light in the world and were “deeply countercultural in their beliefs and practices” (35). Therefore, “Christians should be known less for their self-seeking political fervor and famous for our service to others” (35).

***

Generally speaking, much of what Campbell says is true. Evangelicals have often mistaken patriotism for Christianity, and the entire push of the “Moral Majority” to gain political power was wrong-headed. That being said, I feel many of the things Campbell says are much too vague and over-generalized, and in some cases, simply not true. I’ve said it before: Evangelicals simply are more conservative in their political views and social stances, and therefore are just going to vote GOP no matter what. Saying they have gone against Jesus by voting for Trump makes about as much sense as saying black churches have gone against Jesus by voting for Bill Clinton.

On top of that, there is a huge difference between voting for a candidate simply because you feel he is the least bad of the two options and veritably worshipping the candidate like he’s an American messiah. Let’s be clear: not all Evangelicals are “Trump worshippers,” even if they voted for him. Let’s just admit it—Americans have been really scrapping the bottom of the barrel in the last two elections. I’m not going to question someone’s faith regardless of if he/she voted for Trump, Clinton, or Biden. I will question their sanity if they honestly think any one of those three are honest, good, moral candidates.

Also, I think the way Campbell portrayed the early Church is a bit too romanticized and simplistic. Many Christian apologists wrote treatises to Roman emperors and other leaders, not only defending Christians, but also completely savaging pagan practices and beliefs, and appealing to Rome to be a more just society. Yes, they loved their neighbors, but they openly spoke out against the rampant immorality and utter stupidity of many pagan beliefs and practices.

Finally, I simply do not think Evangelicals are trying to “legislate Christian belief.” I don’t know of anyone who is trying to enforce Christianity on the American public. Evangelicals might get involved in public discourse and politics to get the government to enact laws on certain issues near and dear to them—but what is wrong with that? That’s the American political system at work. If Evangelicals (and Catholics) find abortion abhorrent, and for 50 years peacefully have an annual Right to Life rally in Washington DC and vote for candidates who claim to share their values on that topic, and eventually, the political winds change in their favor and Roe v. Wade is overturned, thus putting the issue of abortion back to the states, even if you disagree with their stance on abortion, isn’t that how our political system is supposed to work? That’s no more “legislating Christian belief” than legislating laws against child prostitution, or hard drugs, or anything facing society. (And actually, in the case of the recent SCOTUS ruling, it is the exact opposite of “legislating” Christian belief. If anything, the ruling said to Congress and the states, “This issue IS a legislative issue that is YOUR responsibility to deal with.”)

Bottom line, Campbell is right to say that Evangelicals are wrong for thinking political power is the way to make a Christian culture, and they do often fail to maintain a clear distinction between patriotism and allegiance to Christ. That being said, there is nothing wrong with Christians entering the public square and arguing for their values and views. And even though we shouldn’t confuse patriotism with allegiance to Christ, that doesn’t mean simply being patriotic is a bad thing.

Chapter 2: Exclusion Zones
In the next chapter, Campbell argues that Evangelicals are more often known for their judgmentalism, rather than their love for others. The first few pages of this chapter deal with the gay marriage debate. To his credit, Campbell says that the Evangelical opposition to gay marriage isn’t a case of cherry-picking verses but can be rather nuanced and thought out. He also goes through the main criticisms against Evangelicals on this issue. Without coming down hard either way on the issue, Campbell says that if Evangelicals focused more on “loving their enemies,” rather than “opposing the sexual preferences of mainstream America,” then maybe more people would be interested in what Evangelicals have to say.

And, like he did in Chapter 1, Campbell appeals to the early Church who, “did not attempt to enforce its sexual values on the Roman Empire” (42). Granted, Campbell acknowledges they would have failed if they tried because Roman society didn’t share Christian values. Once again, though, I think Campbell is missing something. Sure, the early Christians didn’t try to “enforce their sexual values” on Roman society, but anyone who has read the early Church Fathers will tell you that they certainly spoke out against the sexual practices of Roman society.

On top of that, the fact is that gay marriage became a legal issue in America just over this past decade, and as happens in our system, there was debate over the issue. And we have to remember that “heterosexual marriage” was never an exclusively “Christian” concept of marriage. In fact, “gay marriage” is a purely modern western phenomenon. Therefore, we should remember that the push for gay marriage was a push for something that had never really been a thing in the history of the world. Therefore, it’s a bit trite to blame Evangelicals for “trying to enforce their idea of Christian marriage” on society.

In any case, from a legal perspective, once gay marriage was made legal, I really don’t hear anybody, even among my Evangelical acquaintances, still fighting that battle. The general sentiment seems to be, “Oh, it really doesn’t affect me if Bill and Steve get legally married.” Whether or not someone might think it is moral or not is another issue, but in terms of its legality, I don’t see anyone, even Evangelicals, trying to turn back the clock on that issue. That being said, when it comes to how Evangelicalism is perceived as simply treating gay people in general, yes, the bad rap is certainly deserved. And I think that is at the heart of what Campbell is trying to argue here: the need for Evangelicals to truly love their homosexual neighbors instead of judging them or hating them.

Another thing Campbell talks about in Chapter 2 is gender identity. Although he rightly acknowledges that the very idea of “gender identity” wasn’t even a thing until the 1950s, and although he notes that it was coined by “sexologist” John Money, I wasn’t impressed with his handling of the topic. Not only did he not note the truly disturbing and horrific practices John Money engaged in as he developed this idea, he also just seemed to blindly accept the claims of gender identity, and this results (in my opinion) in a very shallow and superficial take on the issue.

Given the topic of the book, I would have liked Campbell to emphasize the need for Evangelicals to love and care for anyone who “identifies” as a gender not connected to his/her biological sex, but then that there are legitimate scientific questions to the whole “gender identity/expression” issue. Linked to that, of course, are other extremely serious issues regarding things like puberty blockers, sex re-assignment surgery for children, sexually explicit “children’s books” in schools, etc. The problem right now in our society is that to even suggest there is something wrong with those things often gets you labelled a “transphobe” who is engaging in hate speech. Simply put, the attempt to just discuss and debate whether or not doing such things is right or wrong, healthy or harmful is being shouted down—and that is not good. I am not going to get into an in-depth discussion on that topic at all. All I’ll say is that I think Campbell’s take is woefully superficial and thin. There are extremely serious medical issues in play that should not be taken lightly.

The final thing Campbell touches upon in Chapter 2 is the issue of race. Once again, I feel his take is somewhat superficial and takes a decidedly politically partisan bent. Although acknowledging that American Evangelicals claim to oppose racism, Campbell says they don’t oppose it “in all of its forms.” What does that mean? For Campbell, that means they disagree with the claim that there is “systemic racism” that still oppresses non-white people. For Campbell, that means they question the claims of critical race theory. Again, these issues are extremely complex and such superficial, blanket analysis of them does little to no good. Indeed, Campbell’s section on this topic is filled with generalized statements and thin on any concrete details. And again, what tends to happen is that if one expresses objections, let’s say, to the claims of CRT, then one is quickly labelled a racist or white supremacist who is supports systemic racism. Again, dialogue and discussion are shouted down as “hate speech.”

That’s obviously not to say there isn’t racism in our country or that there aren’t some parts of our society that still need fixing in terms of racial relations. But to reduce things to “Evangelicals are racist because they vote Republican and don’t agree with CRT, or don’t support BLM, or voted for Trump, who is ‘the most extreme white backlash candidate’ (47) is to resort to some incredibly shallow, thin, and generalized caricatures. I’ll just throw out one stat that should make you think. Regardless of whether or not you love or hate Trump, the fact is that Trump got the highest percentage of the black vote as the GOP presidential candidate in 40 years. That doesn’t mean Trump is necessarily a good guy, but it should make you think.

***

Now, the bottom-line Campbell is getting at in these first two chapters is that Evangelicals have the reputation of politicizing their faith too much and being way too judgmental of various groups of people that aren’t “like them.” To be clear, such a criticism is well-warranted, no doubt. At the same time, we should always remember that such a blanket statement, while true in a general sense, is still nevertheless a blanket statement and should not be turned into a bludgeon to be used in a politically-motivated debate.

That leads me to my final observation regarding these two chapters. What did you notice about them? When it gets right down to it, much of the criticism of Evangelicals was limited to political issues. Or to put it another way, the standard against which Evangelicals are judged in these chapters is a political one. That makes me uneasy. Even though Campbell is a lot more thoughtful and careful in his remarks than, let’s say, Kristin Kobes Du Mez, he still, in my opinion, slides into rather liberal political talking points to make his criticisms of Evangelicals, possibly without realizing it.

I’m beginning to think the problem with Evangelicalism, whether it comes from Schaeffer, or Kobes Du Mez, or even Campbell, is that Evangelicals’ criticism of Evangelicalism always seems to be, at its heart, a political critique that says, “The problem with Evangelicalism is that it is…too far politically right or too far politically left.” Or simply put, maybe the problem with Evangelicalism is the way they see what the problem with Evangelicalism is.