The New Face of American Evangelicalism

by Q Ideas

One would be hard pressed to find a sociologist or Western historian who would deny that Christians in America—specifically, so-called “evangelicals”—have not been a force with which to be reckoned in the last 30 years. It seems, however, that as the faces of that movement are changing, their agendas might be as well.

Dan Harris, senior correspondent for ABC World News, recently sat down with some rising Christian leaders at this year’s Q Conference in Chicago to talk about where this movement is headed. Gabe Lyons, founder of Q and author of The Next Christians, was joined by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, Shannon Sedgwick Davis, Nicole Baker Fulgham, and Jon Tyson to talk about why the “new face of American evangelicalism” should encourage us.

WATCH THE INTERVIEW WITH ABC NEWS

“In America we’ve enjoyed a moment where we had a lot more power maybe then many Christians have has throughout the ages,” remarked Gabe Lyons. “And so it is not bad for us to be in a place where it is not just assumed that everyone is just a Christian. And I think that is a good thing for the movement of Jesus.”

When asked what issues this generation cares about, no panelist initially mentioned a traditional hot button issue, such as abortion or gay marriage. They did mention, however, other pressing issues such as educational reform, poverty, healthcare, violent human conflict, genocide, AIDS, and climate change. According to the panelists, many issues define this generation—not just a few.

“We are citizens of the most powerful nation that’s ever existed, and as such we have responsibility to deal with that power to grapple with it in some way,” remarked Tyler Wigg-Stevenson of the Two Futures Project. “I think that encompasses a whole spectrum of issues and activities that Christian citizens need to bring their faith to bear when they are considering.”

According to Gabe, the previous generation focused heavily on the political channel as a way for us to realize our faith’s vision. But the next generation uses many cultural channels to restore our broken world. As Pastor Jon Tyson said, “they are putting more of their effort into being proactive rather reactive.”

Rather than reacting to what’s wrong with the world or reacting against the previous generation of Christians, we are now witnessing a movement toward proactive restoration. “You don’t hear us define the issues in terms of something that’s wrong . . . we even frame the question and the response very differently than a previous generation may have because we are seeing the world, I think, in a different light,” Gabe said. “We see us having a role and an opportunity to be a part of partnering with God to solve those issues in any way that we can.”

This new way of partnering with God makes this is an exciting time to be a follower of Jesus. As Shannon Sedgwick-Davis of Bridgeway Foundation commented, this new generation in the church is “one that’s daring and one that’s courageous and one that’s willing to jump off a cliff for [what they believe in] and not just sit around and talk about it from a distance.”

Do you think these panelists represented the future of the Christian movement in America accurately? In your opinion, where did they get it right? Where did they get it wrong?

Comments

Roy Keely

very thankful you guys had the oppt to be interviewed and come off as well reasoning, thoughtful individuals seeking a greater common good.

Randy French

Hey Gabe, Praise the Lord!! I hope your site here and your message can stand a little scrutiny. I can appreciate your desire to communicate the Gospel in a relevant way to a new and curious, yet jaundiced generation. Tragically, the perception of Christianity and especially what you call "so called evangelical Christianity" that young people have doesn't come as much from the Church misrepresenting the Gospel as it does the secular community denigrating and attacking Christianity at every turn. I am reminded of the person who has never experienced peanut butter (the secular media) trying to explain it to a hungry person. The brown gooey stuff might not be easy to communicate.

I can appreciate your desire to reach out to this generation, but to do so at the expense of the mainstream evangelical movement is a sad testimony to your perspective.

In my humble opinion, one example of how your perspective has been compromised is a contradiction in what you say. In your CNN interview you said (after quoting a litany of stats about what young people think of Christianity) "What they're saying to us is that Christianity is no longer like Jesus intended"

Here is where a long philosophical explanation won't work. But where the ideological lines have been seriously blurred and redrawn in the last 20 or 30 years has been in the application of Christian principles in regards to biblical economics, the biblical family model, social justice (a term I detest) and (one I really get a kick out of) “environmental stewardship”.

We are called to be “in the world and not of the world”. We are also admonished by the Apostle Paul not to be conformed to this world. This unbelieving world does not define what Christians do. The unbelieving world has a worldly, temporal or secular sense of righteousness. God does not. God wants the poor fed, but not because He is concerned about their hunger or their bellies. God is more concerned with the soul of the downtrodden, and that the heart of the Christian is truly representing the love of God. I am convinced that Jesus gave the admonishment to “feed my sheep” not for us to be as concerned about peoples bellies as their souls. If the current generation is going to judge the church based on a standard that has been fabricated by Hollywood as to what Christians are supposed to be like, rather than on the Love that we show to them, then you are correct…we do have a problem.

The world will never understand Christianity. Jesus said “They hate me, they will hate you also”. We are not called to live up to a false perception of what unbelievers think we should be. We are called to love other like we love ourselves and to obedience.

Here are some examples of the current misrepresentation of God in the world. It is the homosexual community that misrepresents Christians as judgmental. It is those in the world that choose to justify unchristian like life principles that would call Christians hypocrites. It is those with a worldview rooted in mother earth worship pagan ideology that would put an unhealthy emphasis on “environmental stewardship”. God is not green.

You said Christians should get back to “contributing to the common good of culture and to society”.

Not to belabor a point, so I will end with this statement.

Christianity, particularly American Christianity is responsible for feeding more people, healing more people, clothing more people, housing more people, educating more people, employing more people, politically liberating more people, forgiving more debt, (even to our enemies) than any other culture or country in history. This has been done in the name of God, under the banner of spreading “freedom” by a people who have been predominantly Christian.

You should rethink your “shtick”. All ministers of the Gospel have a perspective. Some are vital and some are caustic. It is obvious that you want to walk a fine line between being perceived to be relevant and not a member of the establishment church community. In many ways I don’t blame you. With the Catholic church embroiled in horrible scandal, and mainstream denominations on the decline, it is easy to want to distance oneself from some of those perceptions. Just remember, to try to embrace the world’s perspective at the expense of the Great Commission is a failure to know Gods heart for the world. And lastly, collectively in our unregenerate state………we chose Barabbas.

Mark Goode

From 1850 to around 1915, the evangelical church in America focused heavily on social issues: the abolition of slavery, "white slavery" (prostitution) in new urban America (e.g. Chicago), women's suffrage, and the prohibition of alcohol sales seen quite correctly as a tax on the poor.

After WWI and the publication of Graham Mechan's "The Fundamentals", the church's focus divided into two: personal/pietistic beliefs (fundamentalist) and social reform (main stream liberals).

The modern Evangelical movement, born in the early 1970s in coffee house ministries, took the personal and pietistic emphasis of fundamentalism to its apogee of power and influence, arguing that personal transformation through Christ would change society. Further, outside of "crotch conservative" issues relating to sexual orientation and reproduction, the evangelical movement had little to say or do about wider social issues.

Forty years after its resurgence, the data is in and as even Barna Research has shown, not only is personal transformation NOT proprietary to a Christian epiphany, modern evangelicalism does not necessarily motivate its adherents to address the wider social issues that press upon each of us. It is not surprising that so many of today's youth simply see nothing unique or compelling about the evangelical Christian message or claims.

But this phenomenon is not new. In the late 18th century, the famous preacher George Whitfield stormed across New England with a fiery message of hell and damnation. He is credited with what is called the Great Awakening, a revival of belief. But what rarely gets mentioned in the evangelical histories is that after years of hearing a shame-based, guilt ridden message, the people of New England began to turn a deaf ear. In fact, by the early 19th century, upper state New York was known as the "burned out" region. Few people came to revivals, church attendance dropped, and interest in Whitfield's pietistic message waned.

What filled the void? A message that looked outward towards our fellow man . . . a more social gospel, one that animated the abolitionist movement, woman's suffrage, and other efforts that truly transformed America.

I hope that the Q Movement is the beginning of a resurgence of this much needed emphasis.

Mike Gonyea

Evangelical Christians--progressives and fundamentalists alike--are problematic. The Pat Robertsonesque fundamentalists and their belief in biblical inerrancy are legendarily idiotic. But the allegedly ‘open tented’ progressives are of far greater concern to me. They present themselves as tolerant, even hip. They eschew the boring old dogmas that turn many [especially younger] people away from religion. But they are oppressively dogmatic on one key issue. Evangelicals of any stripe, when pressed, believe the bottom line is that personal faith in Christ, except for those that have never heard His word, is a prerequisite for salvation. If the belief that the one God has an inclusive plan for salvation was more widespread, the motivation for any religion to violently impose its beliefs on another would be, if not eliminated, at least reduced, and far less blood would be shed under the cover of God.

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Verify Code:
	Please keep me informed with the latest updates from Q

ALSO BY Q IDEAS

ALSO IN CHURCH

The New Face of American Evangelicalism

Comments

Leave a Comment