American culture’s favorite whipping boy

Back in 2014, when I still listened to NPR, Terry Gross interviewed one of my favorite filmmakers from my home state of Texas. Richard Linklater had just released his masterful film, Boyhood. Shot across 12 years with the same actors, this film was unique and interesting. But what struck me in the interview was Gross’ surprise that he portrayed a set of conservative, Christian, gun-owning grandparents in such a positive, sympathetic light—as “lovely people.” Linklater said they were loosely based on his own step-grandparents, who were “the sweetest people,” but he also offered a subtle challenge to an audience that might struggle with this positive portrayal: “They represent a lot of our country.”

I was reminded of this moment while reading Bonnie Kristian’s In Defense of Evangelicalism: A Response to Its Cultured Despisers (Forum Books, 224 pp.). In this apologia for evangelicalism, Kristian performs a similar act of piety—seeking to honor the tradition against the frequent attacks it receives among prominent commentators. As she states in the opening line of the introduction: “Evangelicalism is a favorite whipping boy of American public life.” The subtitle hearkens back to Friedrich Schleiermacher’s attempt, over two centuries ago, to defend Christianity against the hostility it faced from the modern intelligentsia who increasingly viewed supernatural religion as beneath enlightened persons. However, the opponents Kristian responds to attack evangelicalism less for offending reason than for offending popular moral sensibilities (as I have argued elsewhere). Conservative Christianity today is charged not so much with irrationality as it is with immorality. Not only has the nature of the attack changed, but the identity of the accusers themselves is different. Schleiermacher was largely addressing critics outside the faith, while Kristian’s “cultured despisers,” as the book subtly reveals, come mostly from within the church. The “monstering of evangelicalism” comes not merely from secular commentators at The New York Times, but from evangelical-adjacents like Kristin Du Mez, Beth Allison Barr, Samuel Perry, and Andrew Whitehead.

As Kristian demonstrates throughout the book, many of these attacks are unfair and often contradictory. These opponents hold evangelicals to standards they don’t apply equally to progressive Christians or other faiths. They don’t recognize the moral progress within evangelicalism (particularly on the issue of race). They characterize as hateful and oppressive views that are well within the bounds of historic, orthodox Christianity (especially on sex and gender), and which were up until very recently common across the political spectrum. Kristian is correct: Much of what the mainstream commentariat and popular exvangelicals portray as evangelical evil is mundane Christian stuff.

The book makes the case not that evangelicalism is perfect, but that it is good. Studies reveal that evangelicals are “routinely among the most generous people in America.” Furthermore, evangelicals are characterized by social concern and a commitment to the comprehensive call to love one’s neighbor—which inevitably involves political engagement (for which evangelicals are often uniquely and unfairly derided).

Kristian argues that the answer to the problems of evangelicalism is more evangelicalism. I agree to some extent. Yes, we need more commitment to the Bible, prayer, church, and service. But the individualism that constitutes, according to Kristian, “a defining mindset in evangelicalism” and the broader disregard for church history, which she thinks can be easily remedied, give me pause about evangelicalism as a foundational Christian identity. If evangelicalism sought to situate itself within historic Christian traditions, I would be more hopeful.

Kristian ends the book with a set of images or analogies to understand what evangelicalism is really like. The last one is particularly important for these cultured Christian despisers to consider: Evangelicalism is like your mom. Yes, it is entirely legitimate to recognize your mother’s failures and flaws. But it is impious to speak only of such while ignoring the goods she has given you and the filial debt you owe because of the nurture you have received from her. Many of evangelicalism’s most hostile accusers are exvangelicals who were raised in this tradition but now only see its flaws and broadcast those to the world. As Wheaton professor Matthew Milliner notes in an interview, bashing what is left of evangelicalism is one of the easiest ways to advance one’s career. This is cheap, cynical, and lacking in charity.

Some of the most powerful moments in the book are the little vignettes of conversations Kristian had with evangelicals outside of her particular social circles and visits to evangelical churches quite different from her Anglican parish. Two particularly struck me, and they both involved Texas: a cowboy church and a big nondenominational church in Dallas. Though such worship is not her cup of tea, she was moved by these experiences. In the most important respects, their faith is the same as hers: They love Jesus, study the Bible, preach the gospel, and seek to love their neighbors in concrete and costly ways. Though flawed like all of us, they deserve better treatment than is common among the chattering class. They represent a lot of the country, and they represent our Savior. Bravo to Kristian for giving them a proper defense.