Its been awhile since I put a new post online and its not because I haven't figured out anything to talk about (could that be a bad thing?). One of the things fascinating me these days is that major media outlets in the U.S. seem to be having an epiphany these days, discovering as if for the first time that the group broadly described as "evangelicals" does indeed have significant differences/nuances within and are neither monolithic in commitments nor can they/we be equated with our "fundamentalist" brethren, least of all to that group broadly painted as the "religious right". After so many years of patently ignorant writing, it has been refreshing to read (especially since the American elections last Tuesday) that at least some reporters are "doing their homework" in explaining evangelicalism. (Reminds me of the true story years ago when the Religion Editor of a major Denver newspaper told me that he didn't think one had to be particularly "religious" in order to write as an Editor of Religion! I resisted the urge to ask this fellow if he felt equally adamant that film critics didn't have to understand/enjoy movies, political columnists understand/enjoy politics, etc. Probably one reason why major media outlets usually don't get much of anything right when writing on issues of faith.)
In this context, however, I was so very pleased to read several accurate stories in the November 13th edition of Newsweek (provided once again by my student friend Sadie who has helped me "spy out the land") with the cover story identified as "The Politics of Jesus". If you can lay your hands on this issue, there are several excellent articles headlined by (1) An Evangelical Identity Crisis, (2) Church Meets State (which accurately projects the full range of evangelical voices under the "revival tent" from Tim LaHaye on what they call the ultraconservative right to Jim Wallis on what they call the liberal left. FYI, Brian McLaren accompanied Jim Wallis on the liberal side of the tent.) and (3) A New Social Gospel authored by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson subtitled "Many evangelicals are chafing at the narrowness of the religious right. A New Faith-based Agenda". Gerson in particular demonstrated a admirable breadth of understanding and perhaps even wisdom in articulating the present context. As just one example, consider his opening and closing paragraphs:
"During my time in the White House, the most intense and urgent evangelical activism I saw did not come on the expected values issues--though abortion and the traditional family weren't ignored--but on genocide, global AIDS and human trafficking. The most common request I received was, 'We need to meet with the president on Sudan'--not on gay marriage. This reflects a head-snapping generational change among evangelicals, from leaders like Falwell and Robertson to Rick Warren, focused on fighting poverty and AIDS in Africa, and Gary Haugen, confronting rape and sexual slavery in the developing world. Since leaving government, I've asked young evangelicals on campuses from Wheaton to Harvard who they view as their model of Christian activism. Their answer is nearly unanimous: Bono. . . . There is a tendency (in the media) to elevate the most irresponsible and strident religious figures, mostly because it makes for better cable TV. This practice reflects a stereotype held by many media decision makers, who view every orthodox Christian as a fundamentalist, and every fundamentalist as a theocrat. The stereotype is unfair and uninteresting. Evangelicalism is both more diverse and more idealistic than its critics understand. And that should be welcome news for Americans, religious and secular alike."