[This is a reaction to Nicholas Kristof's NYT piece, "Evangelicals Without Blowhards."]
It isn’t particularly useful to judge a huge, infleuntial movement by its intellectual fringe. While it isn’t fair to say that every Evangelical falls into a certain mold, it is also true that there are compassionate, rational individuals present in every movement: from Evangelicalism, to “New” Atheism, to Socailism and Fascism. At its core, and for most believers, Evangelicalism is not about social justice or, what are, essentially, Elightenment values of pluralism, tolerance and reason. Evangelicalism is a movement defined by its comittment to one fact: that those who do not believe the correct things are damned to hell.
That’s not to say that Evangelicals aren’t compassionate people. I would say that compassion and love are central to Evangelicalism. But, if you truly believe the credo of Evangelicalism then the most important thing you can do for other people is serve as a testimony to the moral authority represented in scripture (which explains the need for salvation) and share with others the “truth” of their need for salvation. Evangelicalism is about a truth claim: that we are inherently sinfull and damned to hell without saving faith in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. That’s the starting point for the Evangelicalism that is taught in the vast majority of Evangelical seminaries and churches.
John Stott was in no way representative of main-stream Evangelicalism, at least in America. In fact, he believed some things that most Evangelicals would regard as heretical (annihilationism, infant baptism). He really is part of a different tradition. That may seem like splitting hairs, but a huge chunk of Americans identify as “Evangelical,” so it’s useful to clarify our terms.
I think that as secularism continues to become acceptable in the US more and more will call for tolerance toward the religious. And, I’m OK with that. Those of us who are secular should strive towards the ideals of tolerance and a pluralistic society — while tirelessly striving toward the development of our own convictions and the improvement of the public discourse. Some people (from whatever persuasion, but in this case secularists) will make sweeping, irrational statements, that condemn other viewpoints and thus will, rightly, attract criticsm for intollerance. But, I don’t think we should go the route of loosy-goosy pseudo-intellectualism that preaches “tollerance” toward all viewpoints. That’s really a cop out. In the marketplace of ideas some arguments are better than others.
It is ridiculous to call religious people stupid, or to equate every individual with the worst of his kind. But, neither does it make sense to say that one world view is as good as any other, based upon the best members of that group.
There is a danger of failing to criticise where criticism is due. Yes, out of Evangelicalism there can arrise individuals (and groups) who espouse the values that the rest of us hold dear. But, it isn’t traditional Evangelical theology that is leading to those conclusions.
Tolerate and seek to understand, but remember that the religious faithful will not do the same for us. Religion is, fundamentally, based on the premise of revealed, certain, divine knowledge. It intentionally puts a kink in the flow of reasoned questioning and exploration by asserting that knowledge is not something found from research and reason, but handed down from on-high and meant to be defended; morality is not a sacred struggle, but a set of rules codified by semi-nomadic, ancient tribes.
The “it’s all good” pseudo-intellectuals have conveniently ignored the absolutism of their own proposition. To say that every view is equally valid is an immediate contradiction.
So, I for one will continue to say that the religious are most probably basing their lives on fictions. Sometimes those fictions are useful and contain genuine insight. But, holding on to religious beliefs hinders the development of society.
I also defend the religious person’s right to wholeheartedly believe I’m damned.