Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

As a young evangelical, I think the generational distinction is a philosophy that can best be understood by looking at that old phrase: “Jesus commanded us to be in the world, but not of the world.”

Older evangelicals might theoretically agree, but theirs is a tendency toward consolidation. Having grown up in an age where such stark lines were drawn on a coterie of issues (Vietnam, rock and roll, drugs, sex, women’s rights etc), older evangelicals retain much of their identity by viewing the culture in terms of Our Side vs. Theirs. Indeed, evangelicals have been late to the game on civil rights, poverty and other issues because the Sinners who wanted drugs and sex also fought for equal rights and better wages.

Younger evangelicals, such as myself, don’t see American culture in terms of “the good guys” and “the bad guys”. Instead, we’d like to (if we succeed is another question) think of it in terms of “the good ideas” and “the bad ideas”, and so if Mr. X supports abortion but also environmental protections, we’ll say “One position is right” and “One is wrong” instead of saying “Mr. X is wrong on four issues; therefore, he must also be wrong on the fifth.”

To come back to the “be in the world but not of it” saying, younger evangelicals are trying to, if possible, live at peace with all men, and in the true zeitgeist of the age, tolerate everything possible to tolerate. Speak with an older evangelical, on the other hand, and that very word “tolerate” is truly noxious, for it smacks of accepting cultural change incompatible with God’s standards.

They would claim it’s fundamentally impossible to be a Christian, carry the offense of the cross, and live at peace with all men. Which is true, to a point. Where I disagree is that drawing lines in the sand over the entire beach somehow helps the Christian cause. But they seem to think that by consolidating an interminable number of positions into That Side vs. My Side, they’re standing brightly as lights in a darkened room. An older evangelical once explained to me his particular position by saying “I’m not sure about it, but at least it’s drawing a contrast, and shows we’re different.”

Different, yes. But human still. And in the world still.

I agree with Skeel and Ch as well.  But I also think there is a certain fatigue among younger evangelicals about the culture war issues. 

As Bill Stuntz suggested in his last Weekly Standard essay, some (if not many) of these culture war issues are lost and I think many evangelicals are just plain skeptical that the GOP is really committed to overturning Roe, reducing pornography, etc.

That said, fatigue is a funny thing: People may be tired now, but sometimes a few years of “rest” results in renewed enthusiasm for certain issues. 

Just my 2 cents.

"I think many evangelicals are just plain skeptical that the GOP is really committed to overturning Roe, reducing pornography, etc.”

The GOP is really committed to using Roe v Wade in their fund raising letters.

It will be close, but if McCain can ramp up the War on Christmas rhetoric starting around October I see the flock coming around.

I tend to agree with what CH said—it would of course be a better world if we all did the sort of thing he/she alludes to.

However, thinking of the Professor’s claim to not be as hot on Culture War thinking as he used to…

I’ve heard many of my conservative friends say similar things lately. But I wonder if it’s a way of preparing themselves for a few years in which they won’t have much political power, so being more fired up about the Culture Wars in such times would mean getting more frequent instances of agita.

Steve-but have no doubt, the Dems are committed to entrenching Roe in perpetuity.  If overturning Roe is important to you, voting for the Dem makes no sense.

CH,

aren’t we all Sinners?

John,

I meant that tongue-in-cheek. Sometimes, Christians are a bit self-righteous and was using their vernacular in that paragraph