Welcome to The Square Inch, a Friday newsletter on Christianity, culture, and all of the many-varied “square inches” of God’s domain. This is a paid subscription feature with a preview before hitting the paywall. Please consider subscribing to enjoy this weekly missive along with an occasional “Off The Shelf” feature about books and Wednesday’s “The Quarter Inch,” a quick(er) commentary on current events.
Dear Friends,
It is time for some honest talk. I confess that I have found myself becoming increasingly alienated from a lot of people on the religious, cultural, and political right. I know what you’re thinking. That is usually a tell-tale sign of going “squishy” or “progressive” or “liberal.” Am I in danger of “selling out”?
Not in the slightest. I have become more firm in my essential convictions about theology and culture and politics, not less. In our populist era, however, that has meant breaking significantly from certain sectors to my “Right.” The problem is saying so. The tribal warfare characteristic of our day makes it hazardous to one’s health—or profession. Andrew Walker recently wrote an essay at National Review about this very phenomenon: “Can Evangelical Journalists Say Anything Good About Evangelicals?” He begins like this:
The ability to receive critique is a mark of health.
The tendency to give nothing but critique is not.
That’s a wise maxim designed to set the frame for his essay. He goes on:
I raise this question of critique because if anyone has followed along for the past two or three years, self-identified Evangelicals with elite-media platforms at such places as the Atlantic, Yahoo, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even Evangelical outlets have a ceaseless fixation on criticizing Evangelicals, especially “white Evangelicals.” Think of such writers as David French, Pete Wehner, and Tim Alberta. Or Evangelical thought leaders who participate in documentaries about “Christian nationalism” produced by fabulously rich and progressive celebrities. The same column and the same argument are on repeat.
This is all pretty much incontestably true, and Walker’s analysis is very good and well-worth reading if you can get behind the paywall. I’ll share the punchline, as well:
The problem is not Evangelical pundits publishing in elite media. The issue arises when these pundits repeatedly reinforce the prejudices that their readers already have against Evangelicals. Few, I’m almost sure, are conscientiously trying to appease secular elites. All of this, however, begins to look a little suspicious after some time. Either the Evangelical critic has become a progressive but is happy to keep the Evangelical label because it provides access, or the critic remains a sincere Evangelical but is oblivious to the fact that he is being used to beat up on other Evangelicals in ways that perfectly align with a progressive narrative. Either way, there’s a problem, and correction is needed. It is hardly courageous, after all, to take a disfavored demographic and denounce it.
Heaping scorn on Evangelicals in all the ways that progressives love does not make one a prophet. It makes one a shill for Evangelicalism’s enemies.
And to all that I can utter a hearty, “Amen.” But it strikes me that there is a pretty gaping hole in the essay. It began with a two-part maxim, and Walker spends almost all of his allotted word count writing about only the second of those parts. He breezes past the first part: “The ability to receive critique is a mark of health.”
He dedicates a single paragraph to admitting that some of the critiques of Evangelicalism should be taken seriously. But then … he doesn’t take them seriously:
If Evangelicalism were immune from self-criticism, that would indeed be a major problem. Yet I cannot think of a single high-profile Evangelical who would not admit that Evangelicalism has problems. We should acknowledge that certain precincts within Evangelicalism are too political, have been too cozy with bizarre conspiracies and suspect charlatans, and have leaders who are hypocritical and scandal-plagued — or went too far in dismissing the many valid concerns about Trump. I wish to excuse none of this, even while I can look on at the behemoth of American Evangelicalism and see profoundly good gospel ministry. It is also the case that any demographic label that accounts for an estimated one-quarter of America is going to have its share of charlatans, problems, and cringey outliers.
This is an exercise in abstraction. Nobody is asking high-profile Evangelicals to admit that Evangelicalism “has problems.” They are asking them to admit to and to address very specific problems—the ones Walker himself gestures at with as little specificity as possible. “Certain precincts” are too political. Which ones? Name some names. Some are cozy with bizarre conspiracies and charlatans. Which conspiracies? Which charlatans? Some “went too far in dismissing the many valid concerns about Trump.” Who? And what does “too far” mean? I would’ve thought dismissing valid concerns is a problem, per se.
Walker then widens the angle to further minimize these problems. He points to the size of Evangelicalism (behemoth) and spots in it “profoundly good gospel ministry.” And then he casually expels the “problem” people to the fringes as just the “cringey outliers” you find in any large group.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Square Inch to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.