How the press remakes evangelicaldom for a post-Falwell age.
By Kathryn Joyce
 |
Eight pastors — four white, three black and one latino; representing various theological and political backgrounds and church types; all of them evangelical — walk into a bar. Make that a hotel room near Chicago’s O’Hare airport. It’s not the set-up for a joke, but for something that’s becoming about as regimented: religion reporting that tries so hard to avoid stereotyping evangelicals as Falwell-esque culture warriors that it ends up inadvertently relaying a new PR line for a post-Falwell era: evangelicals are racially and politically diverse and they’d like to be known for more than opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Transcending stereotypes is of course a worthy aim, and it’s attempted again in Cathleen Falsani’s ambitious three-part series for The Chicago Sun-Times, “Evangelicals: Beyond the Label,” which strives to show the diversity of American evangelical culture through the microcosm of Chicago-area churches. But though Falsani is a perceptive and knowledgable religion reporter, two-thirds of the series falls a little flat, suggesting that the problem isn’t with the reporter, but with the new, judgment- and conclusion-free mode of reporting Evangelical U.S.A.
In the first report of her series, Falsani talks to a group of eight evangelical pastors who call themselves “the Gatekeepers” and who want to fix evangelicalism’s “PR” problem — the post-election perception of evangelicals as angry Christians more concerned with judging than helping — by planning efforts to combat poverty, AIDS, and racism. In her second report, Falsani speaks with Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna about the lack of evangelical influence on local politics, and with church history rock-star Martin Marty about the range of evangelical political opinion. There’s plenty of accuracy in both reports — evangelicalism is not the monolithic movement suggested by newspaper shorthand — but after dutifully reporting what evangelicals say they are not, little light gets shed on what they are.
 |
| Rev. James Meeks |
Falsani’s third report, on the Gatekeepers’ desire to bridge the divide between Chicago’s white and black evangelicals, is an exception to this, and largely because she’s not attempting to show all sides of the argument. This article is dominated by the arguments of Rev. James Meeks, the pastor of a black Baptist church in South Chicago who cites real differences between white and black evangelicalism, differences that could complicate any attempted union. According to Meeks, white evangelicals are opposed to social programs, think most black poverty is self-imposed, and would rather “plan” than “do.” “‘The religious tools that [white] evangelicals use are completely individualistic,'” Meeks said. “‘There are no social problems, there are only problems with individuals…But for black evangelicals, there are, and that’s a fundamental difference. It can be seen as a theological difference as well.'”
These are arguable statements, of course, but they are arguments — proofs of individual differences — and as such do more to show evangelical diversity in reality than any sympathetic coverage of evangelicals trying to re-image themselves as part of a rainbow nation.
Hi Kathryn
I’m hoping that Cathleen Falsani’s piece is a starting point; Evangelical are a pretty complicated and diverse bunch, with some ties through parachurch groups–like the BGA (Billy Graham Association), Willow Creek Association, Youth With a Mission, Focus, Campus Crusade, Moody, Wheaton College–but little heirarchy. So they are difficult to cover, and the ones with the loudest mouths or biggest megaphone– Falwell, etc, get the most press.
I don’t think it’s just a PR problem; there is a journalism problem as well, that sees Evangelical as monolithic.
One thing I’d add to Meek’s comments–white Evangelicals tend to be much more concerned about World Mission–and that includes both evangelism and more wholistic concerns–building schools and hospitals, etc–in the developing world than they are in the US.
The Feb. 7 issue of Time magazine had a cover article on the most influential evangelicals and similarly they attempted to cover blacks, latinos, academics and clergy (even including one catholic priest). Yet by throwing so much diversity into the story it left behind little substance. What we get is a “yes there is Tim LaHaye, but there is also Mark Knoll” argument.
I think it may be time to begin picking apart the “Evangelical” label and putting specific movements and group within the umbrella under the microscope (i.e. Christian Reconstructionists, Evangelical Academics, etc.)
I think Mike may be right. Part of what bothers me about the present moment is the successful campaign against the term “fundamentalist” with regard to Christians who, in private, still refer to themselves as such. Sure, some jackasses who’re liberal still use the term, but such a wide array of evangelicals have denounced as unfair to themselves that we can no longer use the term. Which would be fine, if there were no longer fundamentalists. But I visit “evangelical” churches where the pastor whips up the crowd by demanding to know what’s wrong with the name “fundamentalist”; very same pastor screeches loudest if the press uses the term.
This obscures the presence of a large contingent of culturally bellicose and no-compromise believers. I’m not saying they can’t believe what they believe; but I’d like the press to be smart and up front about it.
On a smaller scale, the same goes for Christian Reconstructionists, a type of believer who holds “stealth” as a core value. Reconstructionist texts instruct believers to mingle with more mainstream groups in order to quietly shift them rightward. Blanketing all believers who are evangelical under the label evangelical makes their work easier for them.
And this too-polite avoidance of “fundamentalist” and “reconstructionist” means other evangelicals get tarred by the actions and words of the most aggressively media-seeking. I was in Colorado Springs not long after Dobson’s spongebob comments. I didn’t meet a single evangelical, no matter how conservative, who didn’t cringe at the mention of Dobson’s name. They didn’t want to be labeled with him.
Now, you could say that it’s up to these evangelicals to make that clear, to stand up and say that Dobson doesn’t speak for them; but it’s also up to the press to get the names straight and figure out who’s who in the religious landscape.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your comments (and for pointing out the series in the first place). I agree with you that it’s a more general journalism problem. I think Falsani’s a great reporter and writer — her story on Hugh Hefner’s beliefs was first-rate and showed a great ability to look beneath the surface — and don’t mean to knock her specifically, but rather the inadequacy of these well-intentioned (no sarcasm) attempts of the media to portray evangelicalism as about more than James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. It seems to me that they’re making a good-faith effort to respond to criticism and calls for better understanding of evangelicals, but as Mike rightly says above, by trying to cover so many bases, they end up just listing examples of “diversity” without going into the substance of the differences themselves. And that inadvertently ends up serving as a PR-line: reporting on so broad a spectrum of ideas tends to result in less in-depth exploration and more reliance on representatives’ statements of ideals and claims. I like Mike’s suggestion to break up the term “evangelical,” and start covering the various factions as the discrete groups they want to be known as and in fact are.
Jeff,
Where (geographically) are the churches where the pastor has whipped up the crowd “demanding to know what’s wrong with the name ‘fundamentalist'”? Are they Southern churches (where most Evangelicals are). I’d be suprised to hear that at a place like Willow Creek, for example, or many Midwestern or Western evangelical churches. I don’t think Rick Warren would use fundamentalist. (I’ve heard James Meeks embrace both fundamentalist and Evangelical.)
An interesting reporting project would be to look at the geographical difference in Evangelicals, especially the newer Evangelicals that worship in megachurches–a group of about 3 million people, according to a report on church growth in Outreach magazine.
Pow! A moment of self-recognition! If Jeff Sharlett is right, I’m a jack ass for I still believe in the integrity and value of the word fundamentalist to define one whose practice of faith is built on a firm mind set. It’s a perectly good word and an apt description.
More important, just because Carl F. H. Henry decided fundamentalist was a pejorative term that could be avoided by replacing it with the word evangelical doesn’t mean that’s the proper use of the word which identifies a noble theological concept that reloates to the whole body of believers of the gospel as spelled out in the first four books of the New Testament. I am an evangelical Christian but not a fundamentalist. It’s time for journalists to restore the word evangelical to its proper definition.
I’ve said to fundamentalists that if those who were derided as methodical Methodists could live down the taunts of elite high churchmen and in so doing give new meaning and appeal to the name of their religious movement, fundamentalists solid in their faith can do as much by holding their banner aloft (or sticking to their convictions.)
A rose by any other name is still a bloom and a rock star by any other name is still a Prince.
Part of what bothers me about the present moment is the successful campaign against the term “fundamentalist” with regard to Christians who, in private, still refer to themselves as such. Sure, some jackasses who’re liberal still use the term, but such a wide array of evangelicals have denounced as unfair to themselves that we can no longer use the term. Which would be fine, if there were no longer fundamentalists.
Jeff,
I think the problem is a historical one. The so-called evangelicals Falwell and LaHaye originally came out of the fundamentalist movement that was strongly opposed to the emerging neoevangelicalism (reformed fundamentalism–small “r”–as George Marsden would say) of Henry and Billy Graham and Fuller Seminary and Christianity Today etc. It was only for political reasons in the late 70’s/early 80’s that they adopted the term evangelical for themselves and thus started moving the movement toward their own beliefs. It’s what I call the fundamentalist takeover of evangelicalism. Thus, those who have held to the core values of the founders of the neoevangelical movement–scholarship, ecumenicalism, social progress–have become increasingly marginalized, at least in the media’s narration.
The only problem with dividing the movement back up into fundamentalist and other groups is that this has all become blurred again. Falwell and his ilk have not only changed evangelicalism, but have been changed by it, adopting stances of social involvement (in his way) and certain ecumenicalism. So, Falwell may be a fundamentalist, but he’s no classical fundamentalist (he hangs out with pentacostals for goodness sake!) just as he is no classical evangelical. And as there are still classical fundamentalists around, it become difficult to label him as such. I think some new terms need to be assigned.
I think the term “evangelical” can still be useful, if the media would simply understand that it is no homogenous group of people with the same values and beliefs. Which I guess gets us back to the issue above.
Journalistic reporting about religion is only important when the religions’ messages are political. Otherwise who, in the general public, cares? Schisms are fun to read about, but the religious differences between American Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalists only matters if they affect the political economy.
As a liberal jackass, I like to refer to the politically inclined Christian movement in America as big box nondenominational. From my perspective, people want to join these campus like churches for the services, while they are run by iron fisted authoritarians who leave no issue untouched for biblical indoctrination. It is the ability of these churches to mobilize its members to action on political issues, like abortion and evolution, that requires more journalistic attention.
Jeff
The big box non-denominatiol churches–following the examples of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren–tend not to be extremely political or iron fisted. It’s more the Southern Baptist wing—those that self-identify as Baptist (Warren is one but you’d never know).
My brother attends a big box non-denom, and after they finished building the new big assembly hall there was a call from the congregation for a cross to be installed, since one was not part of the original plan. The pastor/priest told the congregation that if they wanted a cross for worship they could join another church. Social issues, like stem cell research, are a very large part of this church’s ministry. Each issue is given a very conservative position with biblical evidence to support it. As someone nurtured as a protestant, I was brought up to believe the congregation is the church, not the priests. But my experience is that the priests, even protestant ones, want to be supreme moral leaders who embody the truth.
Jeffy,
cruxifiction
Now there’s an interesting story, and one of the ironies of last years Passion phenomena. The film had a huge screening, with Gibson present, at Willow Creek, one of the ultimate big boxes, last year–and yet, there’s not a cross to be found in the building, except maybe in the bookstore. I wonder if the embrace of the cross and cruxifiction in that film is related to the absence of the cross in so many new churches.
The first “cruxifiction” in my comment was a typo