The Bird Is The Ward

Has Evangelical political engagement been underwhelming?

By
41

Yahoo News’ Jon Ward makes his Remnant debut to discuss his new book, Testimony: Inside the Evangelical Movement That Failed a Generation. The resulting conversation—which fuses highfalutin theology with just a dollop of rank punditry—touches on just about everything you could want to know about America’s crisis of Christianity. Topics range from spiritual abuse, to the history of American Christianity, to Trump’s effect on the integrity of evangelicalism, all of which are covered with the utmost nerdery.

Show Notes:

-Watch: Jonah interview Jon Ward

– Testimony: Inside the Evangelical Movement That Failed a Generation

– Jon: “Lead Us Not Into Temptation”

– The Long Game, Jon’s podcast

– Julien Benda’s The Treason of the Intellectuals

By
Comments (41)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Tracie

    Didn't know that snake handling is what differentiated us from the Pentecostals.

    Lots I recognized in this discussion.

    One of the things growing up amongst charismatics taught me was how to spot insincerity. I retain a certain respect for true believers, even when the beliefs they devote themselves to are highly questionable.

    Collapse
  2. Will

    I feel like the framing of "Why do Evangelicals care more about sex than the poor" is a bit of a straw man. Christian teachings about helping the poor are not particularly controversial, though there is certainly political disagreement about how best to do that. Christian sexual ethics, however, are extremely counter-cultural in modern Western society. "Why are Christians so focused on sex" gets asked less because of an excessive doctrinal focus on sex and more because Christian beliefs about sex are weird to someone who doesn't share them, so that's where the conflict between Christian culture and mainstream culture arises.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jake Hunt

    Good conversation, and I look forward to reading the book. I'm a conservative Christian pastor and agree with Ward's critique of the "God told me" tendency in leaders. I also share his distaste for the mingling of Christianity with simplistic partisan politics.

    Where I thought it got a little curious was his distinction between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. Again, he and I probably agree on a lot. But he seems to define "intellectual" as "more or less agreeing with Jon Ward" and "anti-intellectual" as "affirming historic Christian teaching contra Jon Ward."

    He mentions a conversation with a relative who says "God says" what Paul wrote. This, for Ward, is anti-intellectual. He doesn't explain why. Is it possible that Ward is unaware of the historic Christian teaching about the divine and human authors of Scripture? Some very intellectual Christians have written about this from time to time! As a matter of fact, Wayne Grudem's systematic theology, which he refers to toward the beginning of the interview, is very strong on the doctrine of Scripture.

    Ward seems to equate anti-intellectualism with certainty. To the extent that he's urging epistemological humility, I'm all for that. But he seems very certain about some of his views. He seems very certain that evangelicals are engaging in groupthink, that Paul's writings are not inspired, that Jesus didn't say much about sexual immorality. He doesn't seem very curious about these assertions at all.

    I share Ward's concern about the moral, spiritual, and intellectual decay of American evangelicalism. But at times it sounded like his solution is "be less Christian," which seems to me to be the opposite of what's needed at the moment.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Sean McCormick

      the part where Ward asserts a categorical distinction between "Jesus said" and "Paul said" had me scratching my head too.

      Collapse
  4. Meverest

    I thought it was a little strange that Jonah was complaining about the zeal of converts with…a convert.

    Collapse
  5. Hartzlk

    I am still unconvinced that there is a wider "love of victim" from evangelicals that comes anywhere close to the "hate of lies" which gets automatically attached to everything that left wing media says.

    I think a more (American?) Christian problem is the eagerness to forgive people who have not yet acknowledged doing wrong. Forgiveness is such a central and powerful facet of Christianity, it's embarrassing when it gets used so carelessly and cheaply.

    Collapse
  6. Shadraq

    Speaking of intellectualism, Mr Ward is on the opposite side of the spectrum from Frank Kagan. Dr Kagan is a mesmerizing expert of the military and Russia, whereas Mr Ward's "expertise" in evangelical Christianity is informed only by being a youthful member of an extreme form of said evangelicalism. I actually felt sorry for him.

    Collapse
  7. Rblik

    If Jonah doesn't like "emotionalism", he wouldn't like Charismatic Christianity, which Mr Ward says he was a part of. That is their hallmark. Its not surprising that politics has seeped heavily into this branch of Christianity. I'm not sure if I'd lump all evangelicals in with them though, which Mr Ward seems to do. Yes Jonah....us boring Catholics don't seem to have these problems.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    I’ve never really liked to hear “I think.” What does that mean? I know or I don’t know is much better. That doesn’t dispute there are some matters where ‘I know’ might be relevant, at least for a time. Relativity and quantum mechanics come to mind but, you know, science is never settled. I always aspired to intellectualism, but I’ve never understood what it meant. Still don’t. Now, I realize it might mean, ‘I think.’

    Collapse
    1. LucyTrice

      "I think" is akin being half-way through putting the pieces together. You can see a final shape but are acknowledging there may be some necessary tweaking or even re-thinking.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Dana

    Hi Jonah, really enjoyed. As an Orthodox Jew I wanted to clarify something that you had a “theory” about. When an observant Jew does something not in line with standard practice (to an outside observer), it’s because they are observing a “heter,” a special permission for a particular circumstance, not just choosing to be more lenient randomly. For example, I’m epileptic, and fasting triggers seizures, so I never fast even on Yom Kippur. I’m literally not allowed to per Jewish law bc it would be injurious to my health. On a simpler level, observant men and women don’t shake hands, but in a situation like a business meeting, you’re allowed to shake hands with someone who doesn’t know these rules, in order to avoid embarrassing them. You can also consume non kosher food in a case of need such as a newborn who needs a specific formula. But I do agree with your overall theory that people tend to be more doctrinaire when they know fewer of the details. It doesn’t make someone knowledgeable more likely to be “lenient” but does form the basis of when they should ask their rabbi if there is a leniency that applies in a circumstance. By doing so, they are actually observing with more specificity than the person who just assumes that something is out of bounds. The danger of a little knowledge and all that. Again, great episode!

    Collapse
  10. Bobby D

    Good interview. As a refugee of the New Calvinist movement from the 1990s, I enjoyed listening to it. Several things jump out.

    Jonah makes a great point on the bend-break analogy. The current evangelical movement dates back to 1946. Carl Henry, the movement’s de facto founding father has only been dead for two decades. That has two important implications.

    First, it’s undergoing its first instance of inter-generational transfer now. Many of the divisions we see emerging within the movement (and the concomitant exhaustion of those of us who left the movement) is related to a division between those who are open to change and those who are fearful of change.

    Second, the movement borrows much more heavily from the culture than it likes to admit. In most cases, the movement has merely adopted some variant of the bourgeois morality that was popular in the early years of the movement, namely, the 1950s. In many areas, the movement’s theology is woefully underdeveloped. Take sexuality as an example. The movement mostly borrowed the sexual ethics of 1950s bourgeois culture, with its Freudian hobby horses and all. But the debt to Freud and the culture of the time was never acknowledged. So, the certainty that one sees in much of evangelicalism is actually hiding a secret doubt. The movement hasn’t had 2000 years to debate these things. It was trying to create everything ab initio in the late 1940s and early 1950s. So, as the culture shifts, the movement lacks the foundation that Catholicism has to avoid the drift. So, you get the head-in-the-sand types who cling to a brittle certainty because they have. And you have those of us who left.

    Also, I appreciate Jonah’s skepticism of enthusiasm. Following my departure from the movement two decades ago, I’ve become increasingly skeptical of movements and mass gatherings and their attendant enthusiasm.

    Collapse
Load More