What Do You Mean By "Evangelical?"

I have followed the career and writings of Dr Thomas Kidd for years and grown to trust and appreciate his thoughts.  As a result, I was delighted to see his recent article "How Evangelical are Iowa's Evangelicals?" in the Wall Street Journal.  CLICK HERE to read the full article.

As an ordained pastor in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I have observed the sudden redefinition and confusion around the term "Evangelical" with personal interest.

Dr. Kidd writes in his January 12 newsletter:

The 2024 presidential campaign begins in earnest on Monday, with the Iowa caucuses. On the religion front, this means a new round of reports by journalists, pollsters, and scholars about how “evangelicals” support the twice-divorced Donald Trump.

But who exactly are these evangelicals? It’s difficult to know. Some self-identified evangelical voters don’t even attend church. Many in the media seem to define “evangelicals” as white Republicans who consider themselves religious. Such a definition, in both a spiritual and a historical sense, is ludicrous…

For technical reasons related to sample sizes, most pollsters ask only white people if they are evangelicals. The result is that the news media’s label mostly refers to white Americans who respond to polls and identify as evangelicals. In a time when conservative churches are booming in Latin America, Africa, East Asia and elsewhere, this white Republican cohort is a thin slice of the world’s evangelical community. Globally, most born-again churchgoers aren’t white and they certainly aren’t Republican, because they aren’t American.

For those of you who have read my book Who Is an Evangelical? these may be familiar themes. That book was one of the reasons the Journal editors asked me to write this piece.  CLICK HERE for the Amazon Link.

(My) column was also prompted by Ruth Graham’s excellent story at the New York Times, which actually profiles some of the nonchurchgoing “evangelicals” in Iowa. This is one of the only attempts I have seen in the media to identify and understand nonchurchgoing voters who still call themselves evangelicals.  CLICK HERE to read that article.

I don’t expect that my column will “move the needle” much in terms of intelligent discussions about evangelicals and politics. Journalists and scholars who simply want to trash evangelicals will continue to do so. But I have actually seen some improvement since 2016 in the relative nuance of some reporting on evangelicals.

I talked to a writer for a major national magazine in 2016, for example, who had no idea that polls about “evangelicals” usually only ask white people if they are evangelicals. That level of basic unfamiliarity with the subject may be receding a bit. Still, we can expect that in certain quarters “evangelical” will continue to be used as an all-purpose slur, especially in an election year.

What does it tell us that in current survey polling only white people are given the option of identifying as "evangelical?"  What does it tell us that a significant percentage of those whites that choose to identify as evangelical in those polls never attend church? 

This is life where the "Church of Self-Definition" predominates.  Words loose meaning when self-expression takes over.  Journalism using those polls can no longer inform or clarify, but becomes instead an exercise in advocacy.

 Dr Kidd points out that aross the globe, churches that fit the historic and classical definition of the label "evangelical" are growing dramatically.  The Gospel of Jesus continues to move and transform lives.  Thank God for that.  Frankly, I'm no longer sure what term to use in order to best introduce myself if "evangelical" is redefined to become a political category for white people only but increasingly filled with non-church-going people.  But this I know, I'm doing my best to stay centered in the Gospel of Jesus.

Consider The National Association of Evangelicals

I find few people are aware of an organization called The National Association of Evangelicals.  CLICK HERE for their site.  Formed in 1942, it represents the movement with historical roots back to the 1500's.  CLICK HERE for their video What is an Evangelical? for their answer to the question.   And note how different that answer is than what you hear in the cultural conversation of the moment.

Hope For the Religious, The Revolutionaries and The Rest of Us

Perhaps you have heard from a friend or family member that "religious faith has caused more harm than good," and so religious faith of all kinds - but usually Christianity in particular - is to be rejected.

An oft-repeated example of the harm caused by religious faith is the Spanish Inquisition(1478-1834).  From wikipedia: According to modern estimates, around 150,000 people were prosecuted for various offences during the three-century duration of the Spanish Inquisition, of whom between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed, approximately 2.7 percent of all cases.  CLICK HERE  Surely, the Spanish Inquisition is a real and concrete example of a horrible abuse of power by the institutional religion.

But it would do us all well to put that human horror in a bit of context.

As it turns out, the ten-year French Revolution (1789-1799) occurred within the time frame of the Spanish Inquisition.  Within the decade of that events is a nine-month period of the Revolution referred to as The Reign of Terror.  Consider these paragraphs by John Dickson in his book Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History

Some seventeen thousand men and women were “tried” and put to death during the Reign of Terror (September 1793 to July 1794), whether by gunshot, drowning, or the newly invented guillotine. The public drowning of about two thousand men and women in the Loire River near the town of Nantes was coldly dubbed by officials “the national bath” and “republic baptisms.” In any case, the numbers are hard to fathom. In just nine months, the newly enlightened revolutionaries executed three times as many people as the Spanish Inquisition had killed in over three centuries. 

Those in command of the Revolution—all of them Enlightenment rationalists—insisted that what they were doing was “virtuous” and that the result of this policy of terror would be a “virtuous France.” The great leader of the revolution at the time of the Terror, Maximilien Robespierre, famously argued that “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.” The Terror is a disturbing reminder that neither religion nor rationalism is protective against the human propensity toward cruelty. 

Let me be clear. My point here is not that secular liberty is more dangerous than religious dogmatism. Nor am I offering a kind of whataboutism. I wish only to highlight a fascinating historical phenomenon, a paradox: while no one today rails against the “ferocity of secular liberty” or the “viciousness of the French,” a great many of us (me included) have grown up decrying the legendary brutality of the Inquisition, as if it epitomized all that is worst in humanity and all that is wrong with religion.

Dickson, John. Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History (pp. 229-230). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.  CLICK HERE for Amazon Link

It would be my conviction that the problems that we see in both religion - including Christianity - AND revolutions is not so much about religion or revolution:  The problem rests within humans themselves, whether religious humans or revolutionary humans.  And the only real hope for the religious, the revolutionaries and the rest of us is a rescue that comes from outside humanity itself.

More Than A Question of Pronouns: Considering a Recent Lawsuit Against Rockford School District

I was winding down on a Tuesday afternoon when a headline in my Google News caught my attention:  Michigan Parents Sue School District for Allegedly Hiding Autistic Dauther's Gender Transition.  WHOA! CLICK HERE for full article.

I gave it a quick skim and learned:

• The student was a Rockford high school freshman on the autism spectrum.
• Parents, working with a school psychologist to help their daughter, received a report that referred to their daughter with a male name and pronouns.
• The parents pursued and began to realize that multiple people connected with the school had facilitated their daughter's "gender transition." This included books given to the student and doctored reports that went home to parents with name and pronouns altered to conceal what was being done at school.
• This had apparently been going on since 7th grade.
• Upon inquiry, the parents were told by the principle that the child's demands supersede parental rights under school policy.

I marked the post for future reference and went in to help with dinner.

To my surprise, while preparing dinner no more than an hour after reading the article, I saw this news segment on our local TV station with this headline: Parents Sue Rockford Shool District Over Pronouns.  CLICK HERE for the transcript and video in full.  Here is one paragraph: "In May of 2022, the student asked the counselor to tell teachers to use he/him pronouns and a masculine name when referring to the student. That fall, as the then-13-year-old entered 8th grade, teachers referred to the student with he/him pronouns and used the student’s preferred masculine name, but the school did not notify the parents."

Imagine the impact on everyone who heard the TV report without the benefit of reading the article I had an hour earlier.

I am certain of several things at this point:

• I do not have all the information about this situation.  For my part, I will continue to collect and consider information as I can find it. Listen, learn and pray for discernment.
• This situation is not likely to go quietly into the night.
• This situation is about FAR MORE than a grammar dispute.

It is the worst sort of trivializing to treat the many aspects of this situation as if it were no more than a matter of preferred pronouns.  Regardless of the options one chooses when considering gender transition, there are consequences, risks and unknowns that need to be openly and carefully considered.  Here are just a few in summary form:

• There is a young woman's life and future on the line here.
• Pro-transition folks will often say, "affirm the transition or risk suicide."  A growing body of research and the emerging stories of "De-transitioners" make me think the pro-folks have greatly oversimplified the potential problems.  This is a set of decisions fraught with difficulty and risk of all sorts.  My heart and prayers go out for teens and their parents who enter into these questions.
• Puberty blockers have known risks for brain development and bone development that last a life-time.
• Trust between parents and schools will be further strained.  Old folks - like me - tell stories about getting in trouble in school and facing consequences at home.  If I dis-respected my teacher, I was dis-respecting my dad was the reasoning at that time.  When I was later involved in leading a church-based school in the 2010's I saw how that perspective had changed!  This situation in Rockford - and others like it that are springing up - only aggrevate that problem.  
• Policies like the one in Rockford leave teachers especially in a real squeeze.  They become required by policy to withhold information from parents that may be more consequential than a class grade.

There are nuances, values, unknowns, misinformation and profound consequences permeating the wide-ranging collection of issues that surface in this young person's life and her parent's law suit.  I suspect that there are no one-sentence answers.

But treating this as no more than a dispute over pronouns as our local TV stations have, only makes a healthy outcome more difficult to reach.  And for my convictions, this young woman and her parents deserve more support, understanding, honesty and compassion than that.

As a pastor, I find myself in relationship with and serving people in my congregation who are facing these same questions with children, family, friends and nighbors.  The question of gender dysphoria is not a simply a concept to be understood or discussed.  It now has a face of someone we know and with whom we will interact.

For those who find themselves facing these new situations and questions, I am committed to providing:

• Godly counsel growing out of prayer, the Scriptures and the wisdom of other believers through history.
• Best understanding I can of the issues involved from reliable resources - medical and psycholgical research in particular
• Honest presence for as long as needed.  Along this journey, people will be welcome to call me or worship with my congregation whether you take my counsel or agree with me.  The gospel calls us "to love as we have been loved." (John 13:34)

As always, if you would like to talk more, let's find a way to connect in some way: over the phone, over coffee or whatever is appropriate.  Simply call the Harderwyk Ministries office and they can help make arrangements.

What's A Pastor To Do? Pastoral Care for Those Considering Gender Transition

Here's a real experience from my life as a pastor in these tumultous times.  I share it not so much that you know what I face, but that you might get a clearer sense of the significance of some of the changes that are happening all around us.  I'll keep a few of the names/situations obscured to protect specific people's private lives and decisions.

It was mid-June, 2022 and I was winding down the day skimming headlines.  I stopped and read the entire New York Times article entitled: The Battle Over Gender Therapy.  Posted June 15, 2022 by Emily Bazelon it is a 22-page pdf in my files.  CLICK HERE for the entire article.

The article is extensive and seems well-researched.  It felt like conversations with real people - medical researchers, young people considering gender transition and their families.  I came away with the impression that there is far more that is unsettled regarding the matter of gender transition with teens than is settled.  Research was thin and conclusions seemed all over the map.  European countries are backing away from what are called "gender-affirming therapies" because of lack of evidence on which to base policy.

There were interviews with young people who had considered gender transition and not gone on, those who had started and stopped as well as those who had completed.  There was a lot to ponder and think about.

The VERY NEXT MORNING, we received an unsolicited email from a distant acquaintance - more a commercial relationship than personal friendship - who laid out the story of their own child making the gender transition beginning - as I recall -  in middle school.  I was immediately taken by the difference in tone between the NY Times and this local acquaintance.  This person was exuberant about the change for their child, positive about the future, thankful to all who had helped and closing with what I have found common in listening to these stories: If I/you/we do not affirm and support a request for gender transition by anyone - regardless of age - we push them towards suicide.  Ouch!

Two thoughts:

This transition or suicide binary does not seem to be the case.  As best I can tell at this point: anyone considering gender transition will have a higher incidence of suicide across the next five years than the general population whether they transition or not.  This is a hard reality if this holds up over time.

If I had dared - or had the opportunity - to point this parent towards the NY Times article that I had read the night before, would I be seen as indifferent to their situation and putting their child at risk for suicide?

As always, if you would like to talk more, let's find a way to connect in some way: over the phone, over coffee or whatever is appropriate.  Simply call the Harderwyk Ministries office and they can help make arrangements.