The Fracturing and Marginalization of Evangelicals

Just finished writing a review of Ken Collins' work, Power, Politics, and the Fragmentation of Evangelicalism: From the Scopes Trial to the Obama Administration for the Westminster Theological Journal. It is an outstanding work that traces the history of evangelical Christianity in America since 1925. Collins' main thesis is that in the wake of their loss of cultural influence in the early 20th century, evangelicals sought to compensate by reaching for political power. But this reach failed to recover the Protestant cultural consensus of the 19th century, or the intellectual credibility that evangelicals enjoyed prior to the Scopes trial. Instead, evangelical Christianity in America was fractured into liberal and conservative factions, indirectly contributed to the cultural marginalization of religion in general, and lost its prophetic vision and voice amid the many challenging social issues of contemporary times.

Collins identified several fascinating aspects of evangelicalism in his historical treatment, but the aspect that stuck out the most in my reading was his critique of both liberal and conservative evangelicals' identification of the church with a political agenda. Liberal evangelicals, such as Campolo and Wallis, are too quick to see public policy through the lens of a social gospel. Conservative evangelicals, like Land and Falwell, frequently see America as God's representative on earth. Both have a way of conflating America with the kingdom of God, albeit in different directions. But by politicizing the message of the gospel, both groups have contributed to the loss of a political theology in public discourse. Religion once was a public activity, in other words, religion had a voice in public policy (cf. the Progressive era). Now, however, religion is seen as a purely private affair best kept within the four walls of a church. Collins explains how evangelical Christians, in their desire for political power, helped to contribute to that wrong understanding of the role of religion.

Much of what Collins says in his work is relevant to the book I am now writing for IVP Academic on the history and theology of American exceptionalism as an aspect of civil religion and nationalism. By using theological categories to define American exceptionalism, evangelicals distort the meaning of Christianity and exalt America to transcendence. The dangers inherent in this are legion.

What is Collins' solution? I think he is on to something here--evangelicals have work to do in two directions. First, evangelicals can recover a political theology by appealing to natural law arguments to advocate for the dignity of human beings as created in the image of God. His model is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s appeal to white clergy in the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." In this, evangelicals can make headway (slow headway, to be sure) in offering reasoned defenses of their positions on pressing social issues such as the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and religious liberty. Second, evangelicals must reject liberal and conservative factions and recognize that there is immensely more that unites them than what divides them. They can also reach out to Roman Catholics, who have been their allies in pleading the Christian case on social issues. Related to this, evangelicals must purify themselves and be true to their calling as ambassadors for Christ (King spoke of this in his letter, too), in order to allow the Spirit to empower them.

Collins' work has a great deal to offer. The question is, are evangelicals even interested enough to pay attention? That remains to be seen.

Dolls and Civil Rights: May 17, 1954

Today marks the 59th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that segregation necessarily violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earl Warren, who had replaced Fred Vinson as Chief Justice, was instrumental in bringing about the 9-0 ruling in both vote and opinion.

One of the central aspects of the Court's opinion, written by Warren in an intentionally concise and nontechnical style so that laymen could understand it, was the assertion that public school segregation was psychologically damaging to African-American children. This was significant, because Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the decision which established the doctrine of "separate but equal," asserted the opposite--that segregation has no adverse effects on children whatsoever.

Horace English, a psychology professor at Ohio State, and Louisa Holt, a psychology professor at the University of Kansas, both testified to the Court concerning the adverse effects of segregation on African-American children.

But the work of Kenneth Clark (the first African American to receive a doctorate in psychology at Columbia University) and his wife Mamie was also instrumental in the Court's ruling.In 1939, the Clarks conducted an experiment now known as the Clark Doll Experiment, which tested childrens' perceptions of racial differences using little white and black baby dolls.

The Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Topeka, KS will be placing the dolls used in the Clark's study on display to mark the anniversary of the great decision. Here is a portion of the report provided by the Chicago Sun-Times:

In the years before the May, 17, 1954, ruling, husband-and-wife psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark presented children with a black doll and a white doll as part of a series of social science experiments. The black couple then asked the children which doll was the nicest, smartest and prettiest. The Clarks said the system of racial segregation at the time was the reason most chose the white doll. . .

The doll research influenced the court, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing that separating children “solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.”

Dealing with Rejection in an Academic Career

When I was considering applying to the PhD program at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the first professors I spoke with was John Hammett, Professor of Systematic Theology. He asked me what I wanted to do with a PhD (at the time I was interested in studying theology). I told him I wanted to teach.

Mercifully, Dr. Hammett did not start laughing.

When I graduated with my shiny new PhD, I thought my days of experiencing major rejection were behind me. After all, hadn't I gone through the enormously humbling program of study that is a PhD? Hadn't my work been scrutinized by all my peers, not to mention my professors? Was it so hard to remember the moments of sheer panic, uncontrolled bawling, and hyperventilating, realizing that my deadlines were coming up quickly despite my being woefully unprepared for their unwelcome arrival? How many times did I feel humiliation equal to that of finding myself standing in a crowded mall wearing nothing but my underwear? Too many.

Since that time, I found that dealing with rejection had not really yet begun. After I graduated, I found out fairly quickly that rejection comes with the territory of an academic career. I learned to say to myself, "Self, get used to rejection."

How many job applications did I complete, thinking that my qualifications would surely get me at least an interview. How many interviews did I endure (they're awful, by the way) thinking that surely I presented myself well enough to be hired. How many rejection emails from schools did I receive after going through the tedium of filling out applications, and bugging my professors for one reference letter after another? Too many to count.

How many papers have I submitted for publication that were rejected? For the love of Mike, it takes reviewers forever to get back with you once you've submitted a draft for an article. Most of the time, their first response acknowledging your mere existence comes weeks and weeks after you've submitted your draft. Then, how many times did the email read something like this--"your submission was obviously carefully researched, well articulated, impeccably argued, but unfortunately..."? Too many times.

How many conferences have I submitted proposals--that again, it takes forever to hear back--and the responses are always the same--"we had so many worthy proposals, and we regret we could not accept them all."

If mine was so great, then why wasn't it accepted? They never say.

How many publishers have I set up interviews with, sat for meetings with, made the effort to personally appear before, prepare book proposals for--and the waiting, the endless waiting to hear a response--only to be told, "While your proposal is sure to find a market, at this time it does not fit with our line of titles"?

Again, if it's so great, then why are you making me cry?

If you want to be an academic, you have to learn how to deal with rejection. You have to find a use for all those rejection emails and letters. You can decorate your bathroom walls with them. But you can also use them to motivate you to press ahead with your ideas.

Sometimes a rejection of a proposed paper, article, or book is well placed. Yours might be a lousy idea. I know that has been true for me. I'm glad that some of my article submissions were rejected, because if they hadn't been, I would be on record saying some pretty stupid things.

But sometimes, your idea might just need to find the right home. I have found that to be true also--and more so than I ever thought possible.

By the grace of God, and some hard work hitting the pavement and putting myself out there, I got a teaching position. My dissertation was published. Some national conferences have made a place for me behind their podiums. Some journals have found my writing to be persuasive and intelligent enough to include alongside other very good articles. And InterVarsity Press put me under contract for a book on the history and theology of American exceptionalism--my dream topic.

So keep at it. Despite the overwhelming number of articles on the Chronicle of Higher Education website that talk about how depressing the prospects are for ABDs and new PhDs, don't let that discourage you. Despite the incredible number of rejection emails you'll necessarily receive--some of them will be unbelievably rude and condescending (this is academia, after all)--keep researching, and keep writing. Despite the number of conferences you'll have to attend after being rejected by them--maybe by even some of your colleagues--keep proposing paper ideas. Rejection humbles you in a healthy way. Rejection sharpens your thinking. Rejection means that you are doing something rather than nothing, and that's good!

You'll find, as I have, that it's a numbers game. Be like old Abe Lincoln, and learn how to take rejection. Right in the face. Because you really won't be rejected every single time. For every thirty rejections you get, that one acceptance is all the more sweet. And that sweetness makes it all worthwhile.

Hey, I just got an email. Wonder if my paper was accepted. Gotta go!

Asking Good Questions During Q&A

This summer, I am teaching an undergraduate survey of church history to a small group of students here at Southwestern's Houston campus. Since it is a small group, the course can take more of a seminar format than if a large group of students were involved. We'll have a great deal of discussion, writing, and presentation and it should be a great course.

There are a lot of great resources on critical thinking (see here and here for a couple of examples). I put together a little resource for my students that provides some general criteria for asking good questions. Since the students will be graded on the quality of their questions during the course, it seemed fitting to give something of a rubric for them so they'll know what I'm looking for as they frame questions. I hope this set of criteria for good questions--as well as bad questions--is helpful as a general tool.


Asking good questions is the outward demonstration of critical thinking. A good question asked of a presenter reflects engagement with the material, the speaker, as well as broader issues that set the context for the presentation.

Good questions do not merely seek more information on a particular issue. Good questions probe the information that is already given. They mean to test the soundness of premises and conclusions and the connections between statements. They seek to reveal assumptions in the mind of the presenter, which are hidden not only from the audience but sometimes even from the presenter. Good questions generate reflection on the part of everyone involved in the discussion, reflection that contributes meaningfully to understanding issues and ideas.

There is such a thing as a bad question. I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting that there are no bad questions. Here are some criteria for good questions and bad questions, and hopefully these criteria will help you make satisfying contributions to class discussions.

Good questions:

-Are relevant to the issues being discussed or presented.

-Have the issue itself as the point of reference; seek objectivity

-Are based on the premises and conclusions of the argument being presented

-Utilize the raw information from the issues to probe stated premises and conclusions

-Seek elaboration and justification for points presented

-Bring assumptions, which are unstated, into the open for scrutiny

-Provide greater understanding not only for the questioner, but also for the presenter and the audience as a whole

-Contribute to the flow of the overall discussion

-Stimulate thinking resulting in further questions

-Are gracious and charitable in spirit

Bad questions:

-Chase rabbits; are not relevant to the issues being discussed

-Have the questioner or the presenter as the point of reference; are subjective

-Are based on the conclusions of the questioner, rather than those of the presenter

-Have little relation to the raw information from the issues

-Take the premises and conclusion of the presented arguments for granted

-Are laden with assumptions and bias

-Contribute little to nothing to the understanding of the relevant issues for anyone other than the questioner

-Do not move the discussion into a profitable or an appropriate direction

-Begin and end with themselves; do not encourage deeper thinking or further questioning

-Are combative, ingratiating, arrogant, sarcastic, flattering, coy, or insolent in tone and spirit

Pray for Families Struggling With Cancer

This Christmas season, commit to praying for at least one family that is struggling under the burdens of cancer.

If you don't know anybody who has cancer, then please consider the McKinion family. Steven and Ginger McKinion have a precious son named Harrison, who is in the fifth grade. He was diagnosed with cancer a year ago. The McKinions are strong believers in Christ, and Harrison is an exceptionally brave follower of His.

Steven wrote a powerful blog post giving a testimony of his family's journey this past year. I can't do justice to it by summarizing it, or by providing an excerpt. Just read it for yourself here.

Please pray for the McKinions. Pray for Harrison. Give financially to Harrison's cause (there's a link directing you on how to give on Steven's blog). And if you have a mother, a father, a wife, a husband--if you have a son or a daughter--at the soonest possible moment, gather them into your arms and embrace them fervently. Tell them how precious they are to you. Thank God for giving them to you. And rededicate yourself to being faithful to them.

"The Play"--30th Anniversary

A truly amazing way to win a football game.

Cal vs. Stanford, 1982

Happy Holidays! ...Or Something Like That

The Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons are upon us.

I love this time of year. I love the weather (even in Houston), the break from toil, the time with friends and family, and I especially love to live these holidays through the eyes of my little children. I also love to reminisce about celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas with my family when I was growing up. And I love to worship God in the context of these holidays at home, at church, and in my devotional times.

What I don’t love is all the chatter that flies around about the terms we use to describe Christmas. In the weeks ahead, there will be much outrage over the substitution of “Christmas” with “holiday.” There will be bumper stickers, Facebook memes, blog posts, and even sermons from committed believers communicating messages like “Keep Christ in Christmas,” “Jesus is the Reason for the Season,” etc. There will be other pithy catchphrases. There will probably be protest movements over the fact that stores and government agencies no longer say “Merry Christmas” but instead, “Happy Holidays.”

Enough emotional energy is going to be generated over this issue in the weeks to come to light a small Midwestern city.

Can we stop?

Let me be blunt. Who cares what the White House calls the big Christmas tree in Washington? Who cares what Wal-Mart employees are or are not allowed to say in greeting their customers in the month of December? Who cares if the county courthouse stops putting a nativity scene out front? It doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter because none of that diminishes the meaning of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ in the slightest. The political correctness of department stores and government employees has no bearing on either the celebration of the birth of Christ or the significance of that event in human history. Christmas is a holiday celebrated by Christians, and if non-Christian individuals or non-Christian entities do not want to celebrate it, that’s fine.

What does matter is the impression Christians give to those non-Christians during the Christmas season. When Christian folks express outrage over what Christmas is called, or what greeting to use, they are letting the world in on their priority list. They are also letting people in to their attitude toward the culture. Thus, how the term “Christmas” is used around town is of supreme importance; and if the culture substitutes “Christmas” out in favor of another term, then a line has been drawn between “us and them.” How are these impressions consistent with the Great Commission?

Christmas is the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ, who came into the world to save the lost from the death penalty of sin. The Incarnation is celebrated by people who actually believe that God came in the flesh by being born of a virgin. This event is not celebrated by those who do not believe. That’s perfectly logical and acceptable.

The celebration of Christmas has been utterly corrupted in many ways by the culture. Everyone knows that. One way it has been corrupted is that it has become a civil religious holiday. That is, the celebration of Christmas has the American God as its referent, and commercialism as its method.

When the state and the marketplace abandon this form of Christmas, and substitute it for some amorphous, inclusive, civil religious season that has vacation days and consumption as its identifying marks, I would say that’s a good thing. Why should Christians desire that the celebration of God’s Incarnation in Christ be specially identified with those things?

If we Christians want to keep Christ in Christmas, the way to do that is to make the Incarnation of Christ the focus of our celebration. We should not insist that non-Christians celebrate, or even recognize, our celebration of the Virgin Birth. We should see the secularization of Christmas in the culture as a way to clarify the meaning of Christmas—and welcome that secularization with open arms! The secularization of Christmas liberates us to reject the idolatry of civil religion and the various forms of the corruption of Christmas. We ought then to share the good news of the Incarnation with non-Christians, and do so in sincere love.

The non-Christian world will know us by our love and our accurate and authentic communication of truth; they will not know us by our sloganeering and protests.

Valuing Intellectual Struggle

Alix Spiegel of NPR tackled a fascinating topic today in a piece entitled, “Struggle For Smarts? How Eastern And Western Cultures Tackle Learning.” She identifies some key differences in the value placed on intellectual struggle among schoolchildren in Eastern and Western cultures. Generally speaking, in the West intellectual struggle is viewed as a weakness, while in the East, it is viewed as a strength.

Here is a taste. You can read the article, or listen to it: 

Jin Li is a professor at Brown University who, like Stigler, compares the learning beliefs of Asian and U.S. children. She says that to understand why these two cultures view struggle so differently, it's good to step back and examine how they think about where academic excellence comes from.

For the past decade or so, Li has been recording conversations between American mothers and their children, and Taiwanese mothers and their children. Li then analyzes those conversations to see how the mothers talk to the children about school.

She shared with me one conversation that she had recorded between an American mother and her 8-year-old son.

The mother and the son are discussing books. The son, though young, is a great student who loves to learn. He tells his mother that he and his friends talk about books even during recess and the American mother responds with this:

Mother: Do you know that's what smart people do, smart grown ups?
Child: I know... talk about books.
Mother: Yeah. So that's a pretty smart thing to do to talk about a book.
Child: Hmmm mmmm.

It's a small exchange — a moment. But Li says, this drop of conversation contains a world of cultural assumptions and beliefs.

Essentially, the American mother is communicating to her son that the cause of his success in school is his intelligence. He's smart — which, Li says, is a common American view.

"The idea of intelligence in believed in the West as a cause," Li explains. "She is telling him that there is something in him, in his mind, that enables him to do what he does."

But in many Asian cultures, Li says, academic excellence isn't linked with intelligence in the same way. "It resides in what they do, but not who they are, what they're born with," she says.

She shares another conversation, this time between a Taiwanese mother and her 9-year-old son. They are talking about the piano — the boy won first place in a competition, and the mother is explaining to him why.

"You practiced and practiced with lots of energy," she tells him. "It got really hard, but you made a great effort. You insisted on practicing yourself."

"So the focus is on the process of persisting through it despite the challenges, not giving up, and that's what leads to success," Li says.

All of this matters because the way you conceptualize the act of struggling with something profoundly effects your actual behavior.

Obviously if struggle indicates weakness — a lack of intelligence — it makes you feel bad, and so you're less likely to put up with it. But if struggle indicates strength — an ability to face down the challenges that inevitably occur when you are trying to learn something — you're more willing to accept it.

This piece seems to bear out what many of us have been saying all along: that learning takes place as a result of grappling with the material. A person does not have to be smart to learn, only willing to work hard enough to overcome every obstacle. Some obstacles require more diligence than others. But taken little by little, many seemingly overwhelming obstacles yield themselves up with perseverance.

It is also interesting to consider the premium we Westerners place on feelings. Notice in the piece that Spiegel identifies Westerners as following where their feelings lead when it comes to intellectual struggle. Struggle often "makes you feel bad," so many of us give up. But intellectual struggle, as is evidenced by Eastern cultures according to Spiegel, is "an ability," a skill to master.

The piece identifies the embracing of intellectual struggle as primarily an Eastern value. It certainly is, but it is also found in Western culture. Certainly the Puritans valued intellectual struggle, and that tradition has been a uniquely American trait. The question remains, how can it be recovered in Western culture in a healthy, beneficial, and lasting way?

"Take That, Mitches"

These are the words of that paragon of virtuous and enlightened citizenship, Beyonce.

Romney supporters are doubtless going to be subjected to a lot of gloating from Obama supporters in the coming days. It's difficult, to say the least, to absorb the significance of the defeat of your candidate when you hoped he would prevail. This has been a difficult day for me, because I sincerely hoped Romney would win. I truly believed he was the better choice to lead our country, and I was bitterly disappointed that he lost.

Beyonce didn't help.

But that's OK. Beyonce is irrelevant. What matters now is living with the reality that President Obama is the choice of the majority of Americans to be the leader of our country, and that his policies are going to be planted deeply into our way of life. That leads to this very important question: what does this fact mean for evangelical Christians, of whom I am one?

It seems there are a set of options for us. We can be despondent, bitter, angry, and mean-spirited. We can lash out. We can characterize Democrats as "enemies." We can talk of God's judgment on the nation. We can retreat from political discourse. We can equate the United States with the kingdom of God, or Old Testament Israel, and look forward to all sorts of divine chastisement. We can theorize about what God is going to do to us since Obama was re-elected.

That's stupid. Let's not do those things. Please.

I have a better idea. Let's look to one of our forefathers in the faith--Justin Martyr. He died around the year 165 as a martyr for his confession of Jesus Christ. He had his head cut off.

Justin wrote several classic works in apologetics. His First Apology was addressed directly to the emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. In this letter to the highest Roman authorities, he pleaded for justice for the Christians who were being persecuted solely on the basis of their confession of Christ. He said, in effect, if you are going to judge us, then do so on the basis of whether or not we have acted wickedly, not simply because we carry the name of "Christian." Christians, Justin said, are the most loyal of the emperor's subjects, committed to truth, righteousness, compassion, and civic duty.

Why? Justin told the emperor and the senate that the reason Christians were the most loyal subjects was because of their belief in the righteousness of God. Christians look to a heavenly kingdom where they will be in the presence of the holy God forever. It was because the Christians lived in the sight of God that they were good citizens--not to mention the fact that Christ explicitly taught them so.

He went on to explain what Christianity is, by discussing fulfillment of prophecies concerning Christ, the person and work of Christ, and Christian worship practices and the reasons for those practices.

Christians have a golden opportunity right now to follow this example.

Christian citizenship was modeled for us by the early Christians. They were worshippers of the true God, which meant that their actions were motivated by the fear of God. They took Christ's moral teaching very seriously. They were salt and light in their culture. They protected the lives of unwanted infants, the infirm, the elderly, the outcasts. They were generous, they prayed for their persecutors. They payed their taxes joyfully. Yes, joyfully. Justin said, "everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him" (First Apology XVII, 168 in vol. 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers).  They sought the kingdom of heaven prior to everything else and were not obsessed with preserving their earthly lives, in obedience to the clear teaching of their Christ.

Still, they did not compromise on their convictions. They refused to worship idols, refused to abort their unborn, refused to expose their infants, and refused to do anything against the teachings of Christ. They accepted the consequences of their counter-cultural actions by going to their deaths, many of them. But they were loyal to the Roman state. Justin said to the emperor, "And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace" (First Apology XII, 166).

Justin's writings to the emperor reflect faithfulness to Paul's admonition to believers in Romans 13 about being submissive to government. That passage is binding on us--particularly to those of us who say we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

So to evangelicals, I say--stop complaining about Obama and the liberals. Stop dressing up in cheesy colonial costumes in order to make a splash for that which is passing away. Quit gay bashing. Leave off persecuting people who came to the US illegally. Forget about the pipe dreams that America is supposed to be a Christian nation, or that it is exceptional. And for everyone's sake, stop claiming that God is judging America. God doesn't judge nations. The judgement of God is on those who do not believe on the Son, no matter their nationality. See John 3.18.

Instead, be true to your confession. Don't rely on the state to do the job of the church. Obey the teachings of Christ. Be compassionate and merciful. Champion the interests of those who cannot do so for themselves. Educate yourself on what Christianity is, and why it is the truth. Believe in Christ, not merely on the basis of your experience or on sentimentality, but on the basis of who Christ is in reality, and the transcendent truths of His words. Stay true to your moral convictions, and joyfully and lovingly accept the consequences. Love your detractors. Pray for those who think you are a bigot, an idiot, intolerant. Be a friend to everyone. Do not repay evil for evil. Overcome meanness with grace. Never suffer for sinning (I Peter 4.15). Suffer for the glory of Christ (I Peter 4.16).

That's our pattern. Get with it.

Are You a "Paleo-Evangelical"?

Thomas S. Kidd posted an article on The Anxious Bench a couple of weeks ago that I've been meaning to comment on for several days now. This particular Sunday night offers me a good opportunity to do so.

He wrote about a segment of evangelicals who do not fit neatly into the category of "traditional Republican." This represents a change that has taken place since the 1990s, and perhaps even the 2000s, when evangelicals could largely be counted on to fully support certain traditional Republican platform planks: a commitment to American exceptionalism, a strong national defense (and readiness to use force overseas), and confidence in Republican presidents and Congressional majorities to enact lasting and meaningful social changes (think repealing abortion, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, stopping the flow of illegal immigration, etc.)

Without stealing his thunder, I will summarize Kidd's article by saying that paleo-evangelicals are "reluctant Republicans" on three main issues--a) they are less comfortable with American civil religion, b) they are not as confident that political parties can follow through on their lofty promises, and c) they are not sure that certain issues come in as uncomplicated a package as they are often presented. Here is a sample of Kidd's comments:

The mainstream media loves politically liberal evangelicals, especially at this time of year, as we wonder whether the evangelical base will turn out sufficiently to win the election for the Republicans. But the media seems to have missed another category of evangelical that is ill at ease with the Republican Party. Borrowing loosely from the term paleoconservatives, let’s call them paleo evangelicals.

The paleo evangelicals are not liberal in any sense. They come from diverse backgrounds and perspectives: some are deeply conversant with the ancient history of the church, and with the Reformation; some are sympathetic to Roman Catholic social doctrines and traditions (if not all Catholic theology and ecclesiology); some are deeply conscious of the church’s mission outside of America; some gravitate toward outlets such as The American Conservative or the Front Porch Republic, publications and blogs focused on the conservative themes of local culture, limited government, and ordered liberty.

Kidd is putting his finger on the beginnings of a major change in evangelical Christianity, in my view. I not only agree with Kidd, I think that the trend he is identifying is bound to continue. As the generation of evangelicals defined by the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition grows older and loses influence, a new generation arises to take its place. In my own experience in twenty years of ministry as a pastor, Christian school teacher and administrator, and seminary professor, I have seen these changes firsthand.

Perhaps paleo-evangelicals will bring about needed perspectival changes in church life, as well as in politics. As they shift their confidence and loyalty away from political parties, perhaps they will also embrace a more rigorous Christ centered value system. Maybe evangelicals will place more of their attention on the person and work of Christ than on whether or not Wal-Mart allows their employees to say "Merry Christmas." Maybe evangelicals will be more concerned about the ethical treatment of children of illegals than whether or not George Washington was a Christian. Or maybe evangelicals will care less about the so-called "worship wars" and care more about the ethics of war as it relates to the projection of American power.

The exciting thing is to watch how evangelicals relate to the culture in which they live. Perhaps too, evangelicals will look to how previous generations have done so, and learn from their mistakes as well as their triumphs.