Shorter, this time.
Is evangelicalism dead? Basham’s Shepherds for Sale continues to dominate my feed on Twitter. It’s popular, I suspect, because it makes a case that Protestant theological conservatives have been waiting to be made: that their ranks have been infiltrated by the left, just as mainstream denominations were a few generations ago. Sometimes the situation is described by saying evangelicalism is a “mess” or “in disarray,” etc. The problem is more serious than that, I think—it is existential.
I don’t deny that there are plenty of liberal Christians, who really deserve to be called Christians, despite being, perhaps, wrong about any number of issues. The problem is that when they come to dominate a church or a whole denomination, either in numbers or in influence (frequently the latter rather than the former), the conservatives quit in disgust. In this way, many former Presbyterians have been driven to Independent Baptists, and former Lutherans have gone over to the more conservative Orthodox (etc.).
For their part, the liberals are utter fools on this subject. They actually think that it’s simply about politics, that the “evangelicals” (a term they use with great contempt, when they’re not among them) are just unhinged MAGAs, part of a political cult, etc. This is of course a silly diagnosis. The fact is that theological conservatives tend to read—and understand, more or less—the Bible, and they note massive discrepancies between doctrines clearly expressed in scripture and the attitudes inculcated by liberal clergy and most seminaries. Nothing less than the very nature of organized Christianity, our various church institutions, is at stake.
Maybe “evangelicalism” as an identifier for non-“mainline” Protestant denominations is outliving its usefulness. I don’t like the word myself. “Traditional” seems much clearer. I could go on, but I will forbear.
69,020 books on a thumb drive. Soon. Just need to get a few things ready and then take pre-orders. I’ll be posting more info here.
Kamala is the ultimate left-wing Establishment talking head. I don’t actually like talking partisan politics that much, but I have to get this off my chest: I grew up hearing about politicians described as “empty suits,” wondering what it meant. I know now; and Kamala Harris is the perfect embodiment. I say this because, if you have heard her speak coherently in the Senate before she became quite so famous, you know she’s actually pretty smart and knows how to string a sentence together. But when she gives speeches, she drops into an extremely condescending “let’s talk down to the people” mode in which she simplifies everything and, as a result, makes herself sound like an idiot. When she becomes the Giggling Simplifier, as it turns out, she frequently speaks slowly, hunting for words, constructing just what she thinks is expected of her. She is basically a paid actor, unusually and constantly insincere—and appearing rather stupid, stupider than she really is, as a result. (Whatever his faults, with Trump you get something much closer to an unexpurgated version.) She is, in short, an empty suit. And her views align 100% with the leftists that dominate the Establishment media, who absolutely adore her, of course; she is more “liberal” (i.e., leftist authoritarian) even than Bernie Sanders. The Democrats couldn’t have picked a worse candidate. Anyway, I could say much more about her, but won’t. I just wanted to say this: I just can’t listen to her because I don’t like being talked down to as if I am a child. She’s an enormous phony.
Leave a Reply