The first must set some kind of record for brevity:

I don't want to be harsh, but I wonder whether Mr. Ramaker's response/reaction proves Rev. Taylor's point(s).

Chris Baker

~~~~~~~~~~

The second is a tad longer, but worth reading for another point of view:

Dear Dr. Taylor and Editors:

There are many points at which I disagree with Dr. Taylor's analysis of evangelicalism, published on the Witherspoon Society website . I cannot go into all of them in one letter, but I will highlight a few. (I might add here that I am an evangelical myself.)

To begin with, Dr. Taylor does not seem able to differentiate between evangelicals and fundamentalists. Perhaps what he says is true; perhaps fundamentalists prefer to be called evangelicals now. I do not know; I have rarely been well acquainted with fundamentalists. However, it is not true that all evangelicals are fundamentalists in disguise. This is particularly true of Presbyterian evangelicals; it is quite rare to find fundamentalists in the PCUSA. The fact that Dr. Taylor does not know that there is a difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists calls into question his ability to analyze evangelicalism with any degree of seriousness.

Dr. Taylor also seems to attribute a belief in Dispensationalism to all evangelicals. This is not true. Dispensationalism is more fundamentalist than evangelical, although it does not exactly coincide with the fundamentalist/evangelical distinction. It is not, I think, common for Presbyterian evangelicals to be Dispensationalists.

In the section on personal salvation, Dr. Taylor characterizes the idea of belief in personal sin and personal need of salvation as being an American evangelical theology based on self-interest. I would like to suggest that Dr. Taylor re-read Acts and the Epistles (for example, Romans or Hebrews) and consider revising this surprising opinion.

The following sentences of Dr. Taylor's convey a false impression: "Strict evangelicals reject the salvation not only of people of other religions, but also of other Christians who do not agree totally with their doctrines and practices." "...God is 'outside,' but from time to time invades the world to intervene in miraculous ways on behalf of true believers or to punish unbelievers." It is true that evangelicals believe that salvation comes only through Christ. However, this is why evangelicals place an emphasis on evangelism; they wish for all other people to be saved as well. Dr. Taylor makes it sound like evangelicals are happy about excluding the rest of the world and are glad to have God punish those other people. But this is why evangelicals send so many missionaries around the world--precisely so as NOT to exclude them, precisely so they will NOT be punished. And the concept that God is outside but invades from time to time in miraculous ways to help believers and punish unbelievers sounds so medieval; I don't know anyone who thinks that way. The evangelicals I know (and I know many) believe that God is constantly acting in the world, and not just on behalf of believers, but on behalf of all humankind, whom he dearly loves and seeks to have repent and return to him.

In regard to the section on sexual orientation, Dr. Taylor is simply wrong when he says that evangelicals "cite a few biblical texts condemning homosexual behavior without due consideration of the historical and cultural circumstances in which the original texts were written." The most thorough studies of homosexuality and the Bible, including the historical and cultural circumstances, have been done by an evangelical, Robert Gagnon, and no progressive has been able to successfully refute his analyses. Moreover, since evangelicals place utter confidence in the infallibility of the Bible in regard to faith and practice, whether or not gays and lesbians are born that way could never affect evangelical views of the morality of gay sex, any more than the fact that alcoholics are born that way affects their view that drunken behavior is wrong.

By far the most offensive part of Dr. Taylor's article is the section on virtuous violence, a term which to me (an evangelical, remember) is an oxymoron. Once again Dr. Taylor characterizes evangelicals as gleefully looking for the punishment of others: he says, "The myth of virtuous violence is typical of American culture, but evangelicals promote it enthusiastically with biblical underpinning. Their God is the God of justice, who wreaks vengeance on sinners, and who will by no means clear the guilty. Though patient and long suffering, eventually God exerts his irresistible power to crush the wicked as they so fully deserve." Perhaps there are churches where this theme is propounded in this vindictive way, but I have never been in one. I have, however, been in many churches where the heart of the congregation longs for the healing and salvation of the lost. Far from wanting those outside the church to be crushed, evangelicals want them brought into the loving arms of God.

But this is not the part that offends me most. Here is the most offensive sentence: "At the farther right wing of the movement, evangelicals tend to advocate corporal punishment for children and tolerate spousal abuse by the husband, whom they exhort to exercise his authority as head of the household." This is not at the farther right wing of the movement. Spousal abuse is outside evangelicalism. To get an idea how offensive this sentence is, consider if I were to write this sentence about progressives: "At the farther left wing of the movement, progressives tend to tolerate terrorism to attain justice."

As I said at the beginning of this letter, there are many other points of disagreement that I found in the article, but I cannot mention them all here.

I understand that Dr. Taylor was trying to be fair in writing this article, and I appreciate the intention. However, it seems that it has been too long since Dr. Taylor belonged to the theologically conservative side of the church. When his article is read by an evangelical, it is clear that although he knows some of the doctrines, he does not really understand evangelicals. In particular, he does not understand what motivates us. His tendency is to attribute motivations to us that are self-serving and unkind.

It would have been better for the Witherspoon Society to have asked an evangelical to describe evangelicals. Then they would have had a truly accurate picture.

Deborah Milam Berkley
Member, First Presbyterian Church of Bellevue (WA)

Dear Deborah

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my article in the Witherspoon Society's website. You make some valid points, particularly when speaking as an evangelical in the Presbyterian Church. My paper was not, however, an analysis of evangelicalism per se, but of the conservative vote that supported Bush and the Republicans. That includes many, many more US citizens than the Presbyterian evangelicals you represent. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and many TV and radio evangelists are quite outspoken on issues I raised.

I am personally acquainted with self-proclaimed fundamentalists, and I have attended services and heard sermons by some of them. I don't have space or time just now to give specific examples, but believe me, they can be almost hair raising when they get wound up. This is especially true of those who are ardent dispensationalists, and their number is legion. Evangelical Presbyterians who voted for Bush are on the same side as this multitude on certain important issues.

As I noted in my paper, early last century dispensationalism was popular in some parts of the old PCUS, including my family and my home church, but the church took an official stand against that view, and so, as you note, if there are any dispensationalists in the PCUSA today, they are extremely rare. But especially in the independent churches they are numerous and strong. We need to know them and their views and be warned. The authors of the Left Behind series of novels have used some of their millions of dollars of profits in funding efforts to place people of their persuasion on the staffs of members of Congress. Tom Delay, John Ashcroft, and a number of others in high Republican circles are ardent in this kind of belief.

Your closing critique about my use of the term virtuous violence leaves out of account the documented cases of domestic violence occurring in families where the men attended "Promise Keepers" meetings a few years ago. Domestic violence still occurs in homes of people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians, supported by proof texts. I hope you are correct that "spousal abuse is outside evangelicalism," but it is not totally outside conservative Christianity.

These elements go to make up the broad spectrum of conservative Christians who supported Bush in the Nov 2 election.

In peace, for peace,

One of them expressed great appreciation from one who has "been there":

Dear Dr. Taylor,

What an absolutely fascinating piece. I too have fundamentalism in my background, having given up my Catholic upbringing to join the ranks of those that were "saved." In time, and with much initial trepidation, I found my way out and am now an ardent progressive. Your paper seemed exactly on the mark to me. One can see that it was well thought out and extensively researched. I want to thank you so much for making it available to all of us.

I agree with you that the dangers this worldview holds are huge and largely unknown to the progressive religious, and secular world. It is vitally important as you point out that we "offer a more attractive vision for the nation and the world than we have done so far." So my question is - do you have any thoughts on what that vision might be? Are you planning on writing a follow-up paper describing progressive Christianity?

Warm regards and thanks,

~~~~~~~~~~

The other is critical:

Rev. Taylor, Jr.'s "Understanding the Conservative Evangelical Vote" is such pathetic propaganda it does not deserve a response on individual points. It does serve a valuable service to conservatives. After reading this, any idea of a conservative attempting to fellowship or discuss issues with liberals is probably counter productive.

Doug Ramaker
Indpls., IN

[12-6-04]