Nicholas Kristof's defense of evangelicals

On Sunday, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof observed a cemented bias against evangelical Christians among his erudite colleagues:

“Today, among urban Americans and Europeans, ‘evangelical Christian’ is sometimes a synonym for ‘rube.’ In liberal circles, evangelicals constitute one of the few groups that it’s safe to mock openly.”

All serious Christians should read this column, but maybe not for the reason you suspect. Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, is a highly regarded national voice of our time. But, fellow evangelicals, you should hold your applause and listen to why he defends us.

Kristof’s argument is not ideological. He is driven by the most practical motivation: He has seen sincere evangelical Christians around the world sacrificing their personal health, well-being, and livelihood to feed the poor and care for the sick. He has seen evangelicals running into war zones and humanitarian crises—even as other aid workers were escaping:

“Yet the liberal caricature of evangelicals is incomplete and unfair. I have little in common, politically or theologically, with evangelicals. … But I’ve been truly awed by those I’ve seen in so many remote places, combating illiteracy and warlords, famine and disease, humbly struggling to do the Lord’s work as they see it, and it is offensive to see good people derided.”

These words come from the foremost writer at one of the world’s most respected media outlets (ironically, a publication many evangelicals decry as so liberal and biased they would never read it). This is a significant moment.

As Christian bloggers and commentators discover Kristof’s defense of evangelicals, expect two responses.

One group will say, “See, I told you so, world. There is bias against us. A liberal elitist himself says so, and it’s so bad that even he thinks it’s not fair.” This is a natural response that grows from an urge to justify ourselves, to pursue our own fair treatment. It may be the most common response among evangelicals, but it may be the least like Christ.

A better, humble response would be to consider Kristof’s words and how tidily they align with Scripture:

“I must say that a disproportionate share of the aid workers I’ve met in the wildest places over the years, long after anyone sensible had evacuated, have been evangelicals, nuns or priests. … In the United States and abroad, the safety net of soup kitchens, food pantries and women’s shelters depends heavily on religious donations and volunteers.”

Kristof then shares the story of Dr. Stephen Foster, a grown child of Christian missionaries who has given his life to care for the poor and sick in Angola. So sincere and selfless is the work of Dr. Foster and others like him, they have redefined Kristof’s idea of what an evangelical is.

This is precisely how Scripture instructs Christians to live, in 1 Peter 2:12 and 15:

“Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God. … For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people” (NIV).

Kristof’s eloquent plea to respect evangelicals should motivate us to live like Dr. Foster—lives overflowing with good deeds that eclipse any accusations hurled against us.

This is a big moment in the national perception of evangelicals. If we respond to Kristof’s defense of evangelicals in a posture that is proud, declaring, “See, we demand our rights and fair treatment,” then we only confirm the worst stereotypes about evangelicals.

If we respond by living more like Dr. Foster, more like God’s Word directs, then this moment becomes significant for us. Such living begins with humble hearts. Such living begins in our living rooms and offices, then emanates into neighborhoods, social networks, and out into the world.