A Brief Narrative Summary

Throughout American history, evangelicals infused society and politics with an egalitarian or progressive impulse, yet often holding conservative views on issues. This mixed ideological record of the past is difficult to translate into liberal-conservatives categories when evaluating evangelical impact.

This ideological complexity of evangelicals remains a stumbling block to understanding their engagement today. Believing in fixed moral codes and traditional families, opposing abortion and homosexuality, and voting increasingly Republican, evangelicals fit nicely into the “Christian Right” frame used by journalists and scholars. But that “right wing” frame does not explain present-day evangelical activity in world-wide prison reform effort, international human rights, relief enterprises, nor efforts to bridge the racial divide. It does not accounts for the internal complexity of this community.

The ideological differences are translated into diversity in the way members engage society. Some evangelicals of the past combined a quest to save souls with a zeal to transform the broader society. But others, especially fundamentalists beginning in the 1920s, urged separation from the world to avoid its temptations, to build alternative cultural institutions, and to save souls. There are examples all along this continuum and between the poles of purists who shied away from alliances and compromises and pragmatists who embraced such alliances with their incremental victories.

Civic Engagement: A Short History

Although the evangelical Christian community has received more attention in the past three decades, it remains one of the most misunderstood religious communities in America. Therefore, given the growing numbers and energy of modern evangelicals and the complexity surrounding their historic engagement, now is an especially important time to assess the role of evangelicals in American civic life.

But how can we make sense of a tradition that has produced both dramatic, reformist engagement and societal retreat with defense of the status quo? Two themes help capture evangelicalism’s complex heritage: 1) the quest for faithful witness, and 2) the entrepreneurial and multipolar character of evangelical leadership.

Evangelicals’ civic engagement is informed by the community’s character: Protestant, decentralized, fractious, pluralistic. Evangelicalism has no clear hierarchy and no single denominational home. Congregations were often started by enterprising pastors, remaining independent of denominational affiliation; likewise, evangelical denominations exist as loose confederations of congregations. These characteristics point to the multipolar and entrepreneurial nature of evangelical leadership. A constant thread in the history of evangelicalism is the continuing waves of energetic, institution-building entrepreneurial leaders.

Charting these waves of leaders and movements helps to illustrate how they have shaped this community and its civic involvement. By the 1730s many of the Congregational heirs of the Puritans had become comfortable with the world, so initiative fell to Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and others who led revivals during the Great Awakening. Though not overtly political, this “change in religious sentiments,” prepared Americans for the break with England. When churches formed during this time again became comfortable, another wave of evangelists moved into the frontier. The subsequent revivals, led often by untutored, itinerant preachers (especially Baptists and Methodists), helped to democratize the culture of the Jacksonian era. These revivals also led believers to make real their religious visions in the disappointing world. They established schools, hospitals, and orphanages; reformed prisons; created temperance and abolitionist societies; and passed laws against dueling.

While earlier evangelists were optimistic about transforming society, Dwight Moody brought to prominence pre-millennial theology, which fit with a less optimistic, more resigned era for evangelicals, who felt challenged in the late 19^th century by Darwinian theory and modern biblical criticism. Some scholars argue that pre-millennial theology contributed to the fundamentalist retreat in the 1920s.

In our own time, the entrepreneurial enterprise of Billy Graham stressed an ecumenical approach that helped bring evangelicalism out of isolation. Graham’s work was apolitical with some exceptions, but he paved the way for the next generation of leaders who were more publicly aggressive in their political witness.

This continuing entrepreneurial spirit makes it difficult to capture the strands of evangelical witness. Engagement and separatism alternate in dominance at different times. To the outsider the “Jesus talk” among believers might seem identical, but within the community one finds a bewildering array of theological views, worship styles, ideas about societal engagement, leadership rivalries, organizational networks, and entrepreneurial initiatives. Mapping these contemporary differences, and their civic impact, will be one of the signal contributions of the Pew initiative.

Around 40-45% of Americans (including a majority of African Americans) will answer “yes” to the question, “Do you consider yourself a born-again or evangelical Christian?” (Gallup 1996). Greater precision can be obtained by looking at a more complete set of evangelical views. Thus scholars identify as evangelical those who 1) hold a high view of scripture (the Bible as inspired, inerrant, or literal word of God); 2) have had a born again experience; 3) affirm the orthodox tenets of Christian faith (the virgin birth, Jesus as Son of God, his death as sacrifice for our sins, his way as the only path to salvation); and 4) believe in the importance of evangelizing, or sharing the message to others.

But simply noting religious convictions is not necessarily helpful in charting the impact of the evangelical community in the wider society. Volunteering, voting, engaging in political advocacy-these activities occur more frequently when people belong to a church. Participation matters more for political purposes than mere profession of belief. Moreover, the greater their involvement, the more likely parishioners will absorb and act on political cues. According to Green, Guth, Kellstedt, and Smidt, surveys indicate that people who belong to conservative evangelical congregations and exhibit a high degree of commitment comprise some 20% of the American population. This constituency demonstrates greater political cohesiveness and impact than the broader evangelical measures.

Green et al. also separate out Black Protestants, many of whom fit the evangelical category, but whose history has produced a unique expression. Indeed, so distinctive is the black church that it will receive well deserved focus as one of the “religious traditions” in the Pew initiative. Nonetheless, the Pew evangelical initiative should be sensitive to the possibility of bi-racial coalitions on some issues in some settings. While African Americans tend to vote Democratic, on some issues they share the moral and theological traditionalism of white evangelicals. And a few African Americans, such as congressman J.C. Watts, consciously identify with the Christian Right. At the least, effort should be made not to equate “evangelical” with white.

Evangelical Mobilization

The most notable public witness has been in the forefront of conservative politics in the past three decades. Evangelical journals have become more political, social movement organizations have sprouted, and previously apolitical groups, such as the Pentecostal denominations, have moved into active engagement. But a cadre of others-denominational leaders, state activists, prominent pastors, heads of parachurch organizations, and writers-contribute to the dynamism of the evangelical community, sometimes competing with one another on theological or political grounds.

The content of that engagement has been extensively documented at the national level. Abortion, pornography, family breakdown, public expressions of faith, and the situation of public schools are issues of vital concern for many evangelicals. Less well appreciated, though, is an emerging international focus. The campaign against global religious persecution was fueled by grass roots pressure from evangelicals, and leaders are now taking on the international trafficking in women and children. Increasingly in tension with big business lobbyists, evangelical groups have emerged as leading voices for moral considerations in American foreign policy.

Even less well known are the diverse initiatives of evangelicals at the state and local levels. With devolution of policy initiative to states, charitable-choice provisions in welfare programs, and experimental partnerships between local or state governments and churches, the context is ripe for a religious impact on a range of public policies. The Pew Initiative should attempt to capture this increasingly important civic dimension of faith communities.