This shift from a more loving heritage has largely been caused by the rise in evangelical political power of recent decades. In an attempt to achieve a noble vision ”” defend the unborn, apply a moral grid to government policy, assure religious liberty ”” loving, patriotic Christians soon found themselves becoming the religious base of the hard-right wing of U.S. politics. Quickly defined by what they were against rather than the good they hoped to do, evangelicals became increasingly identified as a people of faith-based rage, as haters in the name of Christ. They became more Rush Limbaugh than Billy Graham, more Ayn Rand than the Apostle Paul. They became the Republican Party at prayer.
Now, though, as the 2008 presidential election nears, a new evangelical is emerging. Though he stands on the shoulders of the faithful who have come before, he approaches politics with a new caution, with a new prophetic distance. He has seen the excesses, felt the betrayals, understood the deceptions. He is no longer willing to see either party as the Party of God, to regard either as though it has descended unblemished from heaven. He recognizes that both are flawed, yet that both contend for policies near to the social mandate of Scripture ”” on the left the care for the poor, the cause of the stranger in the land and the plea for social justice, and on the right the defense of the unborn and the protection of the traditional family.
This new evangelical seeks to be more biblical than narrowly political and serves both parties by refusing to align exclusively with any party.
Well, there certainly is a change in progress, but I don’t think this article goes beyond superficial analysis. It seems full of shallow stereotypes and wishful thinking. Mansfield seems to be playing to a largely secular audience, and trying hard to present what he calls “the new evangelicalism” as a gentler, kinder version than the old kind. But I think he is exaggerating the trends, magnifying the drawbacks of the old, combative, partisan politics of the old style evangelicals he wants to distance himself from, and heightening the strengths of the supposed new evangelicals, who are indeed less ideological and more pragmatic than their forbears, but probably less radically so than he suggests.
In the absence of reliable, quantitative data, perhaps we are left for now anyway with anecdotal evidence. All four of us in my own family consider ourselves evangelicals (my wife and our two 20-something-age children). All four of us are graduates of that premier evangelical school, Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater. All four of us attend churches that are proud to call themselves evangelical, although they are Anglican (linked to Uganda or Rwanda). But I am the only one of the four of us who would never even consider voting for Barack Obama. In the famous, close election of 2000, my wife pointedly refused to vote for either major candidate and registered her protest by voting for…Ralph Nader! My children are just as considered about environmental issues and world poverty and treating immigrants hospitably as they are about abortion and gay marriage. And I’m concerned about all those things too. But there is no doubt that they are less rigid in their political views than I am and more willing to engage in compromise.
And perhaps it’s significant that since my wife and I live in Virginia, we will be cancelling out each other’s vote in the senatorial election in VA next month. She plans to vote for the Democratic candidate, former governor Mark Warner, because she has far more respect for him as a person and much more trust in his general abilities to govern well and wisely. That matter more to her than party platforms etc. I, on the other hand, can’t stomach his open support for such toxic liberal dogmas as abortion on demand, and I will vote against him even though I agree with my wife that he’s a better politician than the Republican candidate, ex-governor Gilmore, who seems at times to think that the answer to all our nation’s problems is to close the borders and lower taxes. But I remain acutely aware that the Culture War is not over, and that is the decisive factor for me.
David Handy+
I don’t understand how anyone can see an ultrasound and not understand that there is a baby there, with it’s own distinct DNA, it’s own finger prints, and it’s own God given life.
Take a look: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ultrasound+baby&hl=en&emb=0&aq;=-1&oq;=#
Then, having that understanding, how can anyone support abortion?
How can anyone vote for a candidate that supports abortion?
[i] Graphic abortion descriptions deleted by elf. [/i]
Methods of Abortion are described here:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/methods.asp
I wholeheartedly agree that Christians should not be the captives of any political party. But I don’t understand how a Christian can support a party that endorses abortion. I am, in fact, a “single issue” voter–but what an issue!