Thanks for signing the letter, Jim. The networks need to live up to their responsibility to provide the public with accurate information about candidates and voters, and that won't be possible until they stop pigeonholing evangelicals into the Republican party.

Posted by: Dan | January 11, 2008 12:38 PM

"Sojo encouraged some of the media distortions of candidates by holding a forum (good idea) but then inviting only the three candidates that had been annointed by the mainstream media as "frontrunners"

Tom Brokaw ranted about this the other night . That the way the media has reported this election cycle has really taken away from the issues .

From my perspective the over reporting of Evangelical concern on the right is not something that is done for political favor , but to alert the masses of the extremism of the right . Jim should be careful for what he wishes for .

Posted by: Mick | January 11, 2008 1:12 PM

Posted by: I and I | January 11, 2008 1:03 PM

'...candidates Jim invited to the Republican forum (which was cancelled because they all declined),...'

If I were running any of the Rep. canidates bid for the White House, I would have told them to respectfully decline. If Wallis was truly interested in bring each side together for meaningful discussion - he would have asked 3 from each party and if needed - have several debates. After watching the Dems and seeing the softballs that were thrown at them. The Rep. - in my never to be humble opinion - would have been given questions that were intentionally harder and more divisive than the Dems were given.

It's Friday - have a great weekend

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | January 11, 2008 2:28 PM

"Evangelical" was supposed to differentiate between those who privately sit on their faith and those who take it out and share it with others.

I don't think we could classify many - or any - politicians as Christian evangelists themselves - "evangelical" - since their success as politicians relies on appealing to the widest number of voters, rather than calling people to repentance and following the way of Jesus. Moreover, every seeker of office appears to be very ambitious personally and strongly ego-driven toward pre-eminence. Where does this leave the humble and those oriented to servanthood, rather than those making promises to the elites in order to receive the billion dollars worth of media traction from the wealthy that it now takes to win a presidential election?

If they are seeking to establish a political theocracy, moreover, they are treading a path that Jesus refused to take, having refused the offer from Satan for all the Kingdoms of the world, if only He would bow down. Too often the fall of our "Christian" politicians and political pastors has really been that story of their own bowing down in order to gain that political pre-eminence. Obviously, we are going to be offered that same temptation if it was offered to Jesus.

Even if some politician really is evangelical - which will hopefully morally inform his decisionmaking - the job description is for a different role which is administrative and bureaucratic in service to an entire country which is never going to be Christian, but only Christian-influenced at best, not soul-winning.

It would be a case of cognitive dissonance on a colossal scale, for instance, for an overtly evangelical Christian pastor to be carrying around the nuclear football and commanding a vast army to engage in killing in support of political and economic hegemony for one nation which would always have collateral damage - which some Americans might not recognise, but surely a majority of the world's population would grasp immediately as gross hypocrisy. There could be nothing worse for the reputation of Christ: the damaging consequences would exceed that of the worst excesses of medieval papal hypocrisy.

It's absolutely true that evangelicalism doesn't have a thing to do with political affiliation. It's well-known that Carter shared his Christian faith with other world leaders in private conversations in a completely evangelical sense - something that few of any political affiliation or religious persuausion in leadership have done.

It is also well-known that Reagan engaged in prayers with various and sometimes humble people even when he was advised not to be seen doing so, prior to his election. It was clear from his diaries he wanted to maintain the courage of his convictions and not engage in what would for him have been hypocrisy for denying his true beliefs.

Moreover, religion is often used to cement allegiance to national priorities established in the interests of elites,rather than to evaluate those priorities. It is good advice, as scripture warns, not to let anyone make merchandise of us, as sometimes even religious leaders have done in promising to deliver our vote.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 11, 2008 3:03 PM

How many self-described "evangelicals" actually are? "Evangelical" has supplanted "conservative" in many people's minds. George Barna (like him or not) did some research on this that raised questions about whether or not "evangelicals" actually knew what the term meant. My suspicion is that some of those "evangelicals" may not even be Christians.
The sad thing is, my cynical self has doubts about the faith of any candidate, republican or democrat. After '04, every politician in America saw that if they wanted to run for office, they better put their "Jesus hat" on. If I were choosing a candidate based on their faith, I don't think I'd have much to choose from, save for Huckabee. The others? I need to see that they went to church before they decided they wanted to be president.
Have a great weekend!
gmacb

Posted by: gmacb | January 11, 2008 3:28 PM

FWIW, Lutherans were the first ones who used the term "evangelical". In Germany today the Lutheran churches are still known as evangelische Kirchen. And the reason is that the Gospel, the "evangelium" or good news, is central to Lutheran belief and theology. The Gospel is the lens through which Lutherans interpret the Scriptures.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 11, 2008 3:47 PM

"Evangelicals emerged from fundamentalism and still hold a lot of fundamentalist doctrines (infallibility of the Bible, substitutionary atonement, eternal punishment, ect)."

Sorry, Adam, but that isn't true. The Evangelical Revival predates what most people now understand as fundamentalism by more than a century. It emerges in Europe in the mid-18th century from a fruitful mingling of several streams of tradition, including (as Don rightly points out) the Evangelische (i.e. Lutheran) Kirche in the German lands. But it was also influenced by such movements as Pietism, and by the Moravians, who (in the person of Peter Bohler) had such a profound effect on the brothers Wesley - who, in turn, with George Whitefield, had an enormous impact on English-speaking Christianity.

Historically, evangelicalism has combined a deep concern for personal holiness AND what John Wesley called "social holiness" with a desire to grow in personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ (crucified and risen). Its practical and political outworking is seen in such developments as the British abolition of slavery in 1807 (strongly supported by John Wesley and carried through the UK parliament largely by the exertions of the Evangelical MP William Wilberforce) and the British legislation against the exploitation of child labour in the middle years of the 19th century, which was the fruit of long campaigning by the Evangelical parliamentarian Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury.

Fundamentalism arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, primarily in the USA and largely in reaction against developments in 19th-century thought such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the rise of Biblical criticism. Its five marks (as set out in the 1895 Niagara Conference) are the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, a substitutionary theory of the Atonenent and the physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ. Its basis is, in essence, propositional, where classical evangelicalism is, in essence, relational. It might be truer, therefore, to say that Fundamentalists hang on to some Evangelical teachings, though I'm not sure that all Evangelicals would cling quite so closely to the ones Adam lists as the fundamentalists I have encountered seem to.

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | January 11, 2008 5:31 PM

"Sorry, Adam, but that isn't true. "

It is in the sense he meant it. He was not parsing the etymology of the term, but rather commenting on the broader movement. Properly understood, evangelicalism does, in fact, hold to the elements Adam describes.

The point was to draw a line between evangelicalism and the faith expressions of the Democratic frontrunners, which is a valid observation if we are accusing the media of mischaracterizing evangelicals.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 11, 2008 6:44 PM

Posted by: George | January 11, 2008 9:26 PM

If you don't call her on this then I doubt your credibility concerning this election.

Dare I say 'welcome to the doubt club'.

We shall see - have a great day.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: moderatelad | January 11, 2008 10:12 PM

"How many "non-conservatives" get on the 700 Club or Focus on the Family on a consistent basis?"

I think it is fair to say the 700 Club, PTL, TBN, James Kennedy, FOTF, Salem Radio, Jerry Falwell, etc. each ran/run somewhat of a monologue on their own mediums. But what does that have to do with asserting that voices not on those specific mediums were either silent or silenced?

I feel you basically affirm my point--i.e.to the extent those voices were mobilizing/targeting a political audience (which has been true to varying degrees) they were going along with a half-truth and half-lie. The lie being that there was a huge monolithic block of socio-theological-political conservatives.

There was an element of truth and a knowing lie within that. That is my point.

Both they and journalists were willing to play on the lie for their own purposes. And the new story is also half-true and half-lie--that there is a new movement of Christian citizens not confined to a narrow conservative agenda.

The broadening of the conversation has not occurred on 700 Club or FOTF. It has been advanced by mainstream media and mainstream politicians. But these mediums were never as hostile (if at all) to the positions of Rick Nowlin, Jim Wallis, Jimmy Carter or Mark Hatfield.

My plea to Sojo (etc.) is not to play the same media game the Moral Majoity played. The conservative voices organizing for power were willing for the media to 'tell a story' about tens of millions of blind sheep voting in a block--if that advanced their ability to wield power.

Let us rest on truthful prophetic speech, action and organizing.

I think you are simply not being fair in portraying Christians who were not in the 'conservative' block as not having a voice. Were you without a voice? No.

Were there voices who abused, name-called, dismissed, and did all other forms of non-Christian behavior towards you? You would probably say, "If you only knew. I don't begin to have the time or energy to tell." That is not the point because there are still folks on all sides of the equation willing to do that. (And my point has nothing to do with dismissing that behavior on an individual or corporate basis).

I suggest FOTF was not 'all-that' ten years ago--and neither is it nothing now; as multiple voices (including yours) wish to portray them. To the extent they believed they were 'all that' then I likely agree with you they essentially are reaping what they sowed as they are dismissed by you and many others. But they are what they are and it is better to simply relate to them in loving truth versus elevating or demoting them based on false story lines.

I just want Sojo to stay in the bounds of truth. In that is freedom

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 12, 2008 9:28 AM

Both they and journalists were willing to play on the lie for their own purposes. And the new story is also half-true and half-lie--that there is a new movement of Christian citizens not confined to a narrow conservative agenda

Posted by: letjusticerolldown

From my years of local experience , and seeing the different perspectives and groups promoting these perspectives over the years , this is spot on . Love always needs the truth to go along with it .

Posted by: Mick | January 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Do you consider that representation as being THE Christian viewpoint was true or false? Do you believe the misrepresentation was done knowingly or unknowingly?

Why and how it was done ultimately is irrelevant. They really believed that they had the truth, weren't going to argue about it and even fellow Christians weren't going to stand in their way.

Do you think those organizing for power (e.g.Concerned Women, Family Research Council, etc.) welcomed the "You represent the voices of tens of millions of this monolithic block" false conclusion as a way to increase the volume of their voice?

That's exactly how they promoted themselves.

Do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton welcome the media designation as "Black Leader of a monolithic voting block?" How many thousands of times do you think journalists have been taken to task for treating Black America as a one-dimensional voting block represented by a half-dozen voices? I consider it knowing misrepresentaion. And persisting for decades is more than a lie.

However, the truth remains: Jackson and Sharpton do indeed represent the views of most African-Americans even if they don't like those men personally (and I'm not fond of them myself). Their presence has absolutely nothing to do with the reality that over 90 percent of black Americans, including evangelical, "born-again" Christians, consistently vote Democratic. (But that's a whole different issue.)

But I truly fail to see how that has restricted in any way the ability of Christians from the full sweep of positions to communicate, project their case, publish, broadcast, preach, organize, elect, serve in powerful positions, and vote.

One reason: $$$$$. The conservatives had it (and as a result, the organization) in spades and the progressives didn't and still don't -- and the conservatives were able to build their machine largely by scapegoating others, which the progessives as a rule don't. Even on this blog, criticism of conservatism is limited largely to fellow Christians. (Remember, much of that conservative money came from secular sources.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 12, 2008 5:58 PM

In the broad scope of journalistic treatment of a group of persons in this society, if you hold that the reporting on Black America has been fair, that the countless appeals (over decades) to media companies to alter their practices have been groundless, and that the views of African Americans are not as broad, nuanced, divergent and conflicted as in white America...

That's a different issue, however. The reality is that media have altered their practices. I'm in the media and we talk about that regularly, so I see that first-hand -- in fact, we actually had a diversity committee at work at one point to discuss those very things. (Once in a while we even get phone calls from racists who complain that we're not "tough enough" on urban blacks.)

In what realm, exactly, do you feel progressive Christians have been restricted from projecting their voice, organizing, or exerting political power over the last 30 years? I am asking so I can explore a specific area.

In virtually every area, because of one thing I've already mentioned: Money. It has always been far easier to access, say, a Focus on the Family than an Evangelicals for Social Action because Focus has always had a larger funding stream and can pay for air time on a consistent basis. Most of the "culture warriors" and their underlings are, among other things, fairly wealthy, in many cases millionaires.

On the other hand, not even Jim Wallis, as long as he's been in this ministry, has his own show on either radio or TV -- he can't afford it (and probably doesn't have the time to do it even if he could). Besides, the "progressive" side doesn't lend itself well to easy demarcation of "bad guys/good guys" that conservatives do consistently. It's no accident that Dobson went to war this week against about the letter to the Muslim scholars -- that's how he's always operated, and since that technique does raise money he has no reason to change.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 12, 2008 11:13 PM

" The reality is that media have altered their practices."

I agree. In 1995 the president of Associated Press Managing Editors asserted (in response to a call from Rev. Jackson to do better)--"newspapers have portrayed Blacks poorly in the past but said they are now doing a better job."

Best case scenario, it took 25 years of consistent pressure for newsrooms to shift. The problem was not that newsrooms did not know. That was my point. They persisted telling misrepresentations they knew were hurtful and wrong.

But maybe you don't agree. (I feel I'm 'pulling teeth' trying to find a starting point of agreement with you).

You commented: "In virtually every area, because of one thing I've already mentioned: Money."

I was wishing you would choose a specific area in which progressive Christians were locked out in expressing their views so I could attempt a specific response.

I summarized the religious makeup of the Senate as one specific place to explore whether non-conservative/evangelical/right-wing were able to organize, express their views, and obtain access to the most powerful positions in the nation.

Do you see evidence they were not able to win elections?

Take the issue most aggressively used by the 'religious right' to organize around: abortion. I agree FOTF has not given its microphones to pro-choice or consistent-life advocates. But please show me where progressives were unable to make their case.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 1:18 AM

"On the other hand, not even Jim Wallis, as long as he's been in this ministry, has his own show on either radio or TV -"

And There is a good reason for that

Posted by: Mick | January 13, 2008 4:01 AM

OK Rick, I have tried to assert there have been a full range of political views amongst Christians for at least the half century I have been around; and that these storylines about, "There is no Moral Majority. Now there is a Moral Majority. Now all Evangelicals are part of the Religious Right. Now they aren't. Now there is a progressive Evangelical block. Blah.Blah.Blah." are largely fiction.

I am not trying to pin you down beyond being clear on what you are looking at.

You seem to say progressive Christians have not been able to assert thier voice/influence because they do not have money. But where would you expect such influence to show up. All you have told me is that you did not know about Sojo or ESA until 1980. Are you really arguing progressive Christians had no capacity to speak, organize, vote, influence policy, teach, write, publish, broadcast, etc. because you didn't know about ESA until 1980?

You say they don't have money. To do what?

What has been stopped?

The place they did not exist, but now do exist, is in the storyline of the mainstream media. And that is not a function of money. That is not a function of journalists not having known Christian political views span the full range of possibilities. It is a function of their 'story.'

You concede the Moral Majority crowd were willing to ride media storyline as long as it amplified their voice/influence (even if it meant going along with a myth).

You don't answer as to whether the election of US Senators or debate over abortion rights has only been accessed by the Religious Right.

You won't engage as to whether the media can engage in long-term, damaging myths about groups of people (e.g. African Americans; evangelical engagement in politics); and you defend the propping up of Jackson/Sharpton as representative of a monolithic Black America (or else you refuse to clarify). Why am I getting the feeling you wish to not answer?

You skip most of my questions and tell me I don't understand the big picture is money. Money to do what?

The Evangelical broadcast mediums are donor funded and in place because of differing socio-theological views as to how to engage one's faith in the culture. More liberal voices have a view of culture which draws them into mainstream institutions (e.g. universities, arts, media,politics etc.). These are differing ways of living out faith and exerting influence. It is not exclusion or lack of access.

The Assemblies of God broadcast to save souls and the Episcopalians/Presbyterians/Catholics write for the editorial page and run for the Sentate.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 11:12 AM

The Assemblies of God broadcast to save souls and the Episcopalians/Presbyterians/Catholics write for the editorial page and run for the Senate.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown

I can only speak to Assembly of God here and you are spot on to that emphasis of our denomination . We support the poor with means to help them , our focus is winning souls to Christ . Either in the city , rural areas and foreign countries . Our Missions are designed to teach to those residents in
that area to be the head of the missions . The best way to spread the word , is to find people who speak their own language and know their own cultures . Interestingly enough we also have helped Muslim People with food and shelter because of our ministries , the recent grand standing of the Focus on the Family and Sojorners McFarren was quite revealing from my view . We send food , medical , and the Love of Christ if they will receive it , at least the good will of Christ . Then read as two different views attacked each other on political
foreign policy . Then because of the divisive rhetoric , saw my Fundamentalist religious views portrayed as small and arrogant . While as far as I know , my Fundamentalist church is the only one of these three organizations that sends medical , food and help for Muslims , individuals make change , not rhetoric.

The politics came much later to the denominations
such as the Assembly of God .

No one in my church was political till I became so , and I still am the only one . I have been attending 23 years now .

When the liberal Council of Churches were the only political active folks around here in the 80ss no complaint of lack of diversity on their boards and participation was being uttered . In fact it off our radar . Legislators use to reference them to support their political views in my state . In the 80s there was no Christian Movement or churches organizing to get out any votes , that came in the early 90s here with Pat Robertson run for office .
That network of using Believers for political support by a wave of candidates , and I think it hurt the church in my opinion doing so.

Preaching politics has not helped Christ or the unity of the church in my opinion . As witnessed here no doubt with the opinions we have of other people we never met and stereo types from our personal encounters or media type depictions.

BELIEVERS SHOULD BE HELPING AND ENCOURAGING ONE ANOTHER . WALLIS DOES NOT DO THAT . The Council of Churches rhetoric I always took as loony tunes when they were the only voice . Why would not liberal Christians think the same of the Jerry Falwell's?

Love In Christ , Mick

"Yep -- he can't get the money because he's not telling people what they want to hear."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin

I know BET at night has Pastors who sell Holy Water to viewers so they can be healed or become
rich . On TBN way too much claim it and get it prosperity theology on it that I believe most of us here find disingenuous . Or at least false theology . Can we agree on that ?

The simple fact you can't get a person who insults the intelligence of his listeners to imply people who are hurting , searching for God ,have families in distress , facing economic and emotional problems, only care about two issues . There is importance in all of us ,and
Jim Wallis appears to only support the human dignity and respect of
those who agree with him . At least the snake charmers on TBN and BET fake that they care about the individual first . That is not fact that is the truth , that is a the way he comes off from his style .
Robertson got viewers because he was leading people to Christ and helping the poor , his politics perhaps helped get people doing their civic responsibility , but
over all his ministry was hurt by becoming too republican .
Christian TV and radio grew despite this mistake , not because of it .

Reaching out to people to Love God with all our heart and minds , unfortunately some people used this blessing to invest into their private Kingdom's instead of the Lord's /

Love In Christ ,

And am sorry to have offended you , I admit I intended to try .

Posted by: Mick | January 13, 2008 4:44 PM

In my previous post I meant to say the following:

"In fact, Jim Wallis interviewed Cal Thomas after he and former fellow Moral Majoritarian the Rev. Ed Dobson (no relation to James) -- you can find the article elsewhere on the website -- wrote a book, "Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America -- and Thomas said..."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 13, 2008 10:21 PM

DH,

"I find it curious that you are so mad at conservative evanglical sites. What did they ever do to you that made you so mad at them?"

Um, for starters, they have consistently borne false witness about God's gay and lesbian children.

"I in fact love Focus on the Family and think they are doing wonderous things for God's kingdom. Dr. James Dobson as done more for the kingdom of God then you will ever know."

Yeah, like urging parents to beat their kids. Like lying about gays. Like mixing Christ's realm with the earthly politcial realm. The "things Dobson has done" have been so detrimental and harmful to society, we sure as heck DO know about them and we're mad because he puts Christianity in such a bad light.

Posted by: Question Everything | January 14, 2008 10:16 AM

Rick, how sorry will you be when you get to heaven and you see all these people you have been ripping on. Won't that be awakward?

Hardly -- because they will realize just how misguided they were.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 14, 2008 10:30 AM

Sometimes it seems we all need bogeymen to incarnate all we consider wrong or evil. Bill Clinton, Osama bin Laden, James Dobson, George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Soros, Pat Robertson, Martin Luther King, the Pope and on and on.

I get that. The real question is: What would happen if one of these bogeymen were somehow neutralized -- would you then be satisfied or try to find another one? I think the answer depends on what you're trying to do. Some people live to fight and fight to live and literally need an enemy; others really see a problem that needs to be corrected. I like to think I'm in the second category.

I say that because for years I talked about what I think the Church should look like -- a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-socio-economic community. Well, the church I go to is just like that, and I'm so happy there that I have no plans to leave, ever, because what I believe should happen actually does. Frankly, I have nothing major to complain about.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 14, 2008 11:56 AM

As a Canadian observing the US political scene from a distance, I can say that I would personally find it absurd to be polled on a question of denominational identification-this question strikes me as quite contrary to the ethos of strictly Liberal (and by this, I mean political liberal) roots of the democratic political movement.

This is also a problem of the creation of ideal types (i.e. "Evangelical") where there actually is quite a bit of controversy defining these very terms. Jim's work in contributing to this letter, I imagine, is strategic in trying to redefine the notion of Evangelical itself, although, I don't imagine that he, or Sojourners, wants to create a totalizing category..he simply wishes to make space, in the definitional and identification sense, for a broader territory of Evangelical. Which cannot be other than a good thing.

However, this said, I don't know how this kind of an identification on a political poll would lead to increased robust political deliberation; it seems, rather, to lead to dangerous favour-currying and "representation" of the parties as partial to particular groups.

As a Canadian, I actually find it not only absurd...but dangerous.

Posted by: Jennifer Hompoth | January 14, 2008 4:04 PM

I largely agree Jennifer. Attempts of my earlier posts was to argue there is already (has always been) room in the Evangelical world for a "Jim Wallis Camp." It is not strange or marginal to Evangelicalism.

But it has been absent from the popular political/media treatment of Evangelicalism over the last 30 years.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 14, 2008 6:40 PM

Rick,

Was Jim Wallis an Evangelical or not in 1976? Was Tony Campolo? Was Ron Sider? Was Jimmy Carter? Was Senator Mark Hatfield? Were there over 10 million Black evangelicals in 1976? Were there 75 million white Evangelicals who were not part of the Moral Majority?

Posted by: letjusticeforall | January 14, 2008 11:39 PM

I understand there is a segment of the Evangelical world for whom Jim Wallis, Bill Moyers or Rep. John Lewis do not exist. My point is simply they do exist. e.g. Racism attempts to make peoples invisible; but that does not mean they do not exist. There is a slice of folks who don't even want Mike Huckabee to exist.

I appreciate your point about organization--but I think you are not fully appreciating that more progressive viewpoints attempt to exert influence through mainstream and secular institutions and hence do not appear as an organized sect. And progressive Evangelicals, as you pointed out, lean towards the 'non-partisan' middle--where again their energies move in multiple directions. But that is far different from not having influence. Would you even want a progressive Evangelical infrastucture where you felt you could only walk out your faith if you worked for Sojourners instead of a secular news organization?

And the point I have been trying to engage you on: The main media storyline for 25 years also treated them as non-existent (how is the New York Times making them invisible any different than FOTF making them invisible); and we make a fundamental error when we agree with misleading journalism and attempt to exploit it.

Hence, my appreciation for Jim Wallis calling the media/pollsters on the assumption that Evangelicals would only be among Republican voters. And my concern Jim follows the pattern of Falwell/Dobson/Bauer/Robertson's willingness to ride a "New Media Story" to greater influence (whether or not it is truthful).

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 15, 2008 10:13 AM

I appreciate your point about organization -- but I think you are not fully appreciating that more progressive viewpoints attempt to exert influence through mainstream and secular institutions and hence do not appear as an organized sect.

But, in my experience, they also are not always specifically identified as "evangelical," and in many cases the conservatives disavow them. The ultra-right-wing World magazine, which bills itself as the U.S.'s fourth most circulated weekly newsmagazine and regularly denigrates even fellow evangelicals who don't subscribe to its ideological agenda, both panned "God's Politics" and insulted Ron Sider during an interview following up the book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience." And remember that a large number of white evangelicals abandoned Carter for Reagan in 1980. (It is my understanding that Jerry Falwell hated Jimmy Carter.)

The real change in perception that evangelicals don't make up a monolithic voting bloc will have to come from evangelical media themselves, and I don't see that happening.

Would you even want a progressive Evangelical infrastucture where you felt you could only walk out your faith if you worked for Sojourners instead of a secular news organization?

Good question. I have no doubt, however, that it would be easier for me to do so under Sojourners than, say, FOTF because of the latter's restrictive agenda.

The main media storyline for 25 years also treated them as non-existent (how is the New York Times making them invisible any different than FOTF making them invisible); and we make a fundamental error when we agree with misleading journalism and attempt to exploit it.

In fairness to mainstream media, however, they would have no real reason to suspect there was an "underground" progressive movement because, as we both agree, it wasn't that well-organized and well-connected. You have to remember that the conservatives were both almost from the start, and for that reason the conservatives dismiss us.

My favorite story, as I've mentioned on this blog several times, is a feature on ABC News "Nightline" that took place during the 2006 general election campaign which juxtaposed a ragtag group of religious "liberals" in Ohio against the machine of Columbus "patriot pastor" Rod Parsley, who while being interviewed was almost bragging about the power of his organization. However, in this case the "liberals" were not identified as evangelicals, even though some may have been.

My point is that the term "evangelical" these days represents not so much a theological but cultural/political construct. Because of that perception a number of fellow evangelicals who know me personally were at first truly puzzled that I take ideological stances that don't jibe with theirs.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 15, 2008 11:57 AM

I think I'm just saying, "Hey Rick, Let's stop using that narrow construct--even if media and a big chunk of 'Evangelicals' have agreed to it. And for sure let's stay given to the Love of a Jesus outside of our socio-political boxes."

I have no quarrel with that -- that's what I've been trying to do for years in writing and speaking from a non-conservative viewpoint. (In my city I was among the first evangelicals to embrace Martin Luther King Jr. openly, though in fact it was he who to me made the Christian faith appear practical.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 15, 2008 2:28 PM