The Problem with the Evangelical Elite

833 Views | 19 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by Realitybites
BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thought this was a good article to share on a topic that is often overlooked.

The Problem with the Evangelical Elite by Aaron M. Renn

One of the long-running themes of my work is regenerating effective leadership in America. This month I have an important new essay in First Things magazine that continues this investigation. It's on the problem of the evangelical elite:

The problem with the evangelical elite is that there isn't one. All too few evangelical Christians hold senior positions in the culture-shaping domains of American society. Evangelicals don't run movie studios or serve as editors in chief of major newspapers or as presidents of elite universities. There are no evangelicals on the Supreme Court. There are hardly any leading evangelical academics or artists. There are few evangelicals at commanding heights of finance. The prominent evangelicals in Silicon Valley can be counted on one hand. There are not even many evangelicals leading influential conservative think tanks and publications, despite the fact that evangelicals are one of the largest and most critical voting blocs in the Republican coalition. Two domains are exceptions that prove the rule: politics and business.
I undertook an extensive investigation while researching this piece. I not only read several books, I also interviewed a substantial number of people in various domains to get their perspective on the problem.
I don't believe that I've yet gotten it quite right or that this is the final word on the subject, but this is a critical area for reform, and my essay advances the ball. It's a mix of diagnostic, critical analysis, and also practical suggestions on what needs to be done to change things, across both the institutional and individual domains.

One thing I point out is that evangelicals rarely think of "elite" in terms of the domains I mention in my opening paragraph. In the evangelical world, the term "evangelical elite" almost always refers to evangelicalism's internal clerical elites.

How can we explain this lack of representation in the halls of power? One reason is that evangelicals do not typically understand "elite" in these terms. Ask evangelicals who their elites are: the bulk of the names will be pastors, theologians, and other professional Christians. Pose the same question to Catholics and far more lay leaders will be on the list.


This is also how the culture more broadly perceives things. Artificial intelligence is trained to operate as a cultural summarizer. A Grok AI query for the top fifteen evangelical elites in America returned a list that was 100 percent pastors and other professional Christians, whereas only 20 percent of the names from an identical query about Catholic elites were clergymen.

If you are interested in what Grok returned, here is the document. Note: Tim Keller was actually dead when I ran this query, but Grok still returned him. John MacArthur was still alive when I ran it, however.
You may get different results if you run these queries today.

One of the areas I say needs continued work is the evangelical theology of vocation. The "faith and work" movement has come a long way, but fails to get at structuring and ordering activities in elite domains.
The sociologist Andrew Lynn studies the evangelical "faith and work" movement, which seeks a robust theology of vocation. In Saving the Protestant Ethic, he notes that the movement's own practitioners "see their religious tradition as completely devoid of any theological frameworks that confer value on secular work." Faith and work leaders have attempted to fill this lacuna, but they have been only partially successful. Their movement assigns a value to secular vocation, but it has a limited vision of what Christians should aspire to do in their vocations. The faith and work movement stresses conducting business ethically, doing high-quality work, sharing the gospel in the marketplace, practicing love-your-neighbor relationships with colleagues, and taking a "redemptive" approach to business or entrepreneurship. These are all good things, but they can and should be done by all Christians at all levels of society. What's needed is a theological mandate for leadership at the top of the key domains of society.

You'll note that the things the faith and work movement advocates are things that I also tout in my book Life in the Negative World. So I'm not negative towards them. They are just insufficient.
The best regarded evangelical treatment of vocation is in Tim Keller's book Every Good Endeavor, but it also does not go far enough into elite activities in key domains.

The most widely cited book in mainstream evangelicalism that links faith and work is the late pastor Timothy Keller's Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God's Work. This book marks a significant advance in vocational theology. It describes Adam's naming of the animals, and discusses the work of structuring and ordering. Keller writes, for example, "Work not only cares for creation, but also directs and structures it." He goes on to say, "That is the pattern for all work. It is creative and assertive. It is rearranging the raw material of God's creation."

Unfortunately, structuring and ordering make up only a small portion of Keller's book, and he offers no example of a person in a recognizably elite position engaging in structuring and ordering activity. Of the book's many examples, none involves a positive portrayal of a person engaged in elite activity who uses the central power of his role to direct, shape, reorder, or restructure some element of society. Instead, Keller gives examples of elites behaving badly, or people abandoning high-powered positions in search of fulfillment or more ethical work.

Every Good Endeavor was an important step forward, but its approach must be extended. Evangelicalism needs a theology of vocation that comprehends the exercise of powerthat validates and valorizes people who reform public policy, invent new technologies, become presidents of elite universities, acquire major media properties or foundations, organize research teams, or serve as Supreme Court justices. It is especially important that the pursuit of such achievements and positions be prized by Protestantism's flagship churches.

I counted 28 illustrations in Every Good Endeavor. This document contains a list of them, along with every passage in the book I identified as referring positively to structuring and ordering activities.

Candidly, I am skeptical that initiatives arising out of the clerical or parachurch portions of evangelicalism will produce more and more effective evangelical elites in America, a further elaborated vocational theology being the main exception. Rather, any such activities are more likely to arise from lay efforts, and in the short term from individuals who reorient their life ambitions and activities in a new direction towards that type of accomplishment.

I suggest such individuals need to center their Protestant identity in their public persona, the way prominent Catholics do. Too many of the Protestant elites who do exist are putting their lamp under a bushel.

Protestant elites need to be forthright about their Protestant identity, in the way many Catholics are. Catholic identity is central to the public personas of Vice President JD Vance, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, and Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen. One is hard pressed to identify a Protestant of similar status who leads with his religious identity.


The breaking down of barriers between mainline Protestant and evangelical laymen would help in this regard. Evangelical ardor can help mainline Protestants overcome their reticence. There are impressive, theologically traditional Protestant elites, most of them Episcopalian. But they rarely make their religion central to their public identity. Some have never publicly mentioned their faith at all. Existing Protestant elites have to stop putting their lamps under a bushel. Having public role models for younger aspirants to admire and imitate is critical.

One of my ideas that did not make it into the piece is that someone needs to write a Plutarch's Lives of elite Protestants in American history who serve as the kind of role models we'd like people to imitate. Right now your average evangelical has no idea what an actual Protestant elite would even look like.
I also say American Protestants need more cultural confidence - and I'm not talking about political activism here. I'll actually have much more to say on this in a future article or two.

Most importantly of all, evangelicals must become culturally confident. Talented people of all stripes are rightly encouraged to participate in elite culture and institutions. Evangelicalism should offer that encouragement while at the same time inculcating a degree of critical detachment from present-day elite culture, which has been secularized. But more than critical detachment, evangelicalism must encourage a positive elite vision, one that views Protestant Christianity as crucial to moral, cultural, and political renewal. Catholic elites are comfortable in elite milieux while believing that Catholicism and its social doctrine can inform a better and more humane public policy. Catholic elites seek to be agents of change within elite institutions. Again, a new generation of Protestant elites, confident in their identities, can learn from their Catholic brethren.

And I talk about the need to be comfortable operating as a minority in a pluralistic elite milieu:
Finally, aspiring evangelical elites must adopt the mindset of being a minority in a pluralistic elite. America's historic Protestant elite was a hegemonic majority. Today the old WASP establishment is long gone. Protestants are a minority in America, albeit still a plurality. They are a tiny minority among the American elite. The rising generation of evangelical elites must achieve a group consciousness, a sense of unique purpose as Christian leaders in a country very different from that overseen by the once all-powerful WASP elite. They must be comfortable operating in a pluralistic society. Attaining this combination requires two things: a thick skin and recognition of their unique and indispensable role in shaping America's future.

Article itself: https://firstthings.com/the-problem-with-the-evangelical-elite/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Bruisers Burner Phone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorFTW said:

Thought this was a good article to share on a topic that is often overlooked.

The Problem with the Evangelical Elite by Aaron M. Renn

One of the long-running themes of my work is regenerating effective leadership in America. This month I have an important new essay in First Things magazine that continues this investigation. It's on the problem of the evangelical elite:

The problem with the evangelical elite is that there isn't one. All too few evangelical Christians hold senior positions in the culture-shaping domains of American society. Evangelicals don't run movie studios or serve as editors in chief of major newspapers or as presidents of elite universities. There are no evangelicals on the Supreme Court. There are hardly any leading evangelical academics or artists. There are few evangelicals at commanding heights of finance. The prominent evangelicals in Silicon Valley can be counted on one hand. There are not even many evangelicals leading influential conservative think tanks and publications, despite the fact that evangelicals are one of the largest and most critical voting blocs in the Republican coalition. Two domains are exceptions that prove the rule: politics and business.
I undertook an extensive investigation while researching this piece. I not only read several books, I also interviewed a substantial number of people in various domains to get their perspective on the problem.
I don't believe that I've yet gotten it quite right or that this is the final word on the subject, but this is a critical area for reform, and my essay advances the ball. It's a mix of diagnostic, critical analysis, and also practical suggestions on what needs to be done to change things, across both the institutional and individual domains.

One thing I point out is that evangelicals rarely think of "elite" in terms of the domains I mention in my opening paragraph. In the evangelical world, the term "evangelical elite" almost always refers to evangelicalism's internal clerical elites.

How can we explain this lack of representation in the halls of power? One reason is that evangelicals do not typically understand "elite" in these terms. Ask evangelicals who their elites are: the bulk of the names will be pastors, theologians, and other professional Christians. Pose the same question to Catholics and far more lay leaders will be on the list.


This is also how the culture more broadly perceives things. Artificial intelligence is trained to operate as a cultural summarizer. A Grok AI query for the top fifteen evangelical elites in America returned a list that was 100 percent pastors and other professional Christians, whereas only 20 percent of the names from an identical query about Catholic elites were clergymen.

If you are interested in what Grok returned, here is the document. Note: Tim Keller was actually dead when I ran this query, but Grok still returned him. John MacArthur was still alive when I ran it, however.
You may get different results if you run these queries today.

One of the areas I say needs continued work is the evangelical theology of vocation. The "faith and work" movement has come a long way, but fails to get at structuring and ordering activities in elite domains.
The sociologist Andrew Lynn studies the evangelical "faith and work" movement, which seeks a robust theology of vocation. In Saving the Protestant Ethic, he notes that the movement's own practitioners "see their religious tradition as completely devoid of any theological frameworks that confer value on secular work." Faith and work leaders have attempted to fill this lacuna, but they have been only partially successful. Their movement assigns a value to secular vocation, but it has a limited vision of what Christians should aspire to do in their vocations. The faith and work movement stresses conducting business ethically, doing high-quality work, sharing the gospel in the marketplace, practicing love-your-neighbor relationships with colleagues, and taking a "redemptive" approach to business or entrepreneurship. These are all good things, but they can and should be done by all Christians at all levels of society. What's needed is a theological mandate for leadership at the top of the key domains of society.

You'll note that the things the faith and work movement advocates are things that I also tout in my book Life in the Negative World. So I'm not negative towards them. They are just insufficient.
The best regarded evangelical treatment of vocation is in Tim Keller's book Every Good Endeavor, but it also does not go far enough into elite activities in key domains.

The most widely cited book in mainstream evangelicalism that links faith and work is the late pastor Timothy Keller's Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God's Work. This book marks a significant advance in vocational theology. It describes Adam's naming of the animals, and discusses the work of structuring and ordering. Keller writes, for example, "Work not only cares for creation, but also directs and structures it." He goes on to say, "That is the pattern for all work. It is creative and assertive. It is rearranging the raw material of God's creation."

Unfortunately, structuring and ordering make up only a small portion of Keller's book, and he offers no example of a person in a recognizably elite position engaging in structuring and ordering activity. Of the book's many examples, none involves a positive portrayal of a person engaged in elite activity who uses the central power of his role to direct, shape, reorder, or restructure some element of society. Instead, Keller gives examples of elites behaving badly, or people abandoning high-powered positions in search of fulfillment or more ethical work.

Every Good Endeavor was an important step forward, but its approach must be extended. Evangelicalism needs a theology of vocation that comprehends the exercise of powerthat validates and valorizes people who reform public policy, invent new technologies, become presidents of elite universities, acquire major media properties or foundations, organize research teams, or serve as Supreme Court justices. It is especially important that the pursuit of such achievements and positions be prized by Protestantism's flagship churches.

I counted 28 illustrations in Every Good Endeavor. This document contains a list of them, along with every passage in the book I identified as referring positively to structuring and ordering activities.

Candidly, I am skeptical that initiatives arising out of the clerical or parachurch portions of evangelicalism will produce more and more effective evangelical elites in America, a further elaborated vocational theology being the main exception. Rather, any such activities are more likely to arise from lay efforts, and in the short term from individuals who reorient their life ambitions and activities in a new direction towards that type of accomplishment.

I suggest such individuals need to center their Protestant identity in their public persona, the way prominent Catholics do. Too many of the Protestant elites who do exist are putting their lamp under a bushel.

Protestant elites need to be forthright about their Protestant identity, in the way many Catholics are. Catholic identity is central to the public personas of Vice President JD Vance, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, and Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen. One is hard pressed to identify a Protestant of similar status who leads with his religious identity.


The breaking down of barriers between mainline Protestant and evangelical laymen would help in this regard. Evangelical ardor can help mainline Protestants overcome their reticence. There are impressive, theologically traditional Protestant elites, most of them Episcopalian. But they rarely make their religion central to their public identity. Some have never publicly mentioned their faith at all. Existing Protestant elites have to stop putting their lamps under a bushel. Having public role models for younger aspirants to admire and imitate is critical.

One of my ideas that did not make it into the piece is that someone needs to write a Plutarch's Lives of elite Protestants in American history who serve as the kind of role models we'd like people to imitate. Right now your average evangelical has no idea what an actual Protestant elite would even look like.
I also say American Protestants need more cultural confidence - and I'm not talking about political activism here. I'll actually have much more to say on this in a future article or two.

Most importantly of all, evangelicals must become culturally confident. Talented people of all stripes are rightly encouraged to participate in elite culture and institutions. Evangelicalism should offer that encouragement while at the same time inculcating a degree of critical detachment from present-day elite culture, which has been secularized. But more than critical detachment, evangelicalism must encourage a positive elite vision, one that views Protestant Christianity as crucial to moral, cultural, and political renewal. Catholic elites are comfortable in elite milieux while believing that Catholicism and its social doctrine can inform a better and more humane public policy. Catholic elites seek to be agents of change within elite institutions. Again, a new generation of Protestant elites, confident in their identities, can learn from their Catholic brethren.

And I talk about the need to be comfortable operating as a minority in a pluralistic elite milieu:
Finally, aspiring evangelical elites must adopt the mindset of being a minority in a pluralistic elite. America's historic Protestant elite was a hegemonic majority. Today the old WASP establishment is long gone. Protestants are a minority in America, albeit still a plurality. They are a tiny minority among the American elite. The rising generation of evangelical elites must achieve a group consciousness, a sense of unique purpose as Christian leaders in a country very different from that overseen by the once all-powerful WASP elite. They must be comfortable operating in a pluralistic society. Attaining this combination requires two things: a thick skin and recognition of their unique and indispensable role in shaping America's future.

Article itself: https://firstthings.com/the-problem-with-the-evangelical-elite/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Things are changing in this respect. Alliance Defending Freedom and the Blackstone Scholars program has had an incredible impact in the law and the judiciary. And it is VERY elite.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.
Bruisers Burner Phone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The sad thing is what is happening to the think tanks we have (had). Buh-Bye, Heritage Foundation.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
American Center for Law and Justice
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems to me that strong Christian leadership leans as much towards the wellbeing of others as it does the wellbeing of for-profit organizations.

World Vision
Samaritan's Purse
Compassion International
Alliance Defending Freedom

muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.

Do you even know the difference between in and out and CHick Fil a bc I dont think you do.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.

Tell me you've never been to In n Out without telling me you've never been to In n Out.

First, In n Out doesn't have a chicken sandwich. Their menu is basic, and only includes burgers and fries. Maybe you're confusing them with the frozen chicken sandwiches at Whataburger, which does in fact suck.

Second, anyone that thinks burgers and fries that are fresh, and never frozen, are "terrible" has disqualified himself from ever having an opinion that holds any water.

Just my personal opinion.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

J.R. said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.

Do you even know the difference between in and out and CHick Fil a bc I dont think you do.

junior's drunk posts are the best. As if AI had a moron-TDS mode.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

J.R. said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.

Do you even know the difference between in and out and CHick Fil a bc I dont think you do.

To the extent he was referring to Chik fil A, I would argue he has likewise disqualified himself from every offering a valid opinion regarding what constitutes good food.

Of course, I suspect his opposition to chik is more about his wingnut politics than chik.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

J.R. said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.

Do you even know the difference between in and out and CHick Fil a bc I dont think you do.

He doesn't know the difference between his @ss and a hole in the ground either.
BearBall
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

J.R. said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

R G LeTourneau (earth moving technology)

Charlie Kirk (TPUSA)

Dr James Tour (nanotechnology and graphene)

Truett Cathy (chic-fi-a)

Dave Thomas (Wendy's)

David Green (Hobby Lobby and Mardel's)

Harry and Esther Snyder (In and Out Burger)

They are out there and, when they are not being shot, sued or drug through the mud by the media; they do a great job.

I think part of the issue is scripture itself:
Matthew 6:1-18

Charlie Kirk was doing wonderful things. I think Tim Tebow also does wonderful things. But, the left hand not letting the right hand know what it is doing kind of ties both hands.


I know evangelicals love their Chik-fil-A, but it's not what most people think of as an influential think tank or elite university.

Nor is Wendy's, In an Out, or Hobby Lobby but I felt the need to put something in there you'd get riled about.

firstly, In and Out is just terrible and I mean terrible. However, props to their marketing for convincing the. suburban soccer mom that it is "healthY". It is still a fried chicken sandwich. If one looks on the bottom of the In and Out, you will find a bible verse.

Do you even know the difference between in and out and CHick Fil a bc I dont think you do.

At 5'7" and 300 lbs. He knows!
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Evangelicals don't run movie studios"

Angel Studios and Kendrick Brothers come to mind in regard to movie studios helping to shape the culture.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Howard E. Butt, founder of HEB comes to mind.
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's be real, Hollywood studios aren't going to allow an evangelical into any real position of power or influence. The upstart, Angel studios is Mormon, not Christian or Evangelical, but it shares similar values.

The political establishment, largely controlled by atheist or agnostic ivy leaguers, isn't going to allow an evangelical to have undo sway. The supreme court only allows ivy leaguers.

Banking and finance ... pretty much the same as Hollywood. Evangelicals (or any Christians) aren't allowed to run the fed, nor any banks are financial institutions.

It's not because evangelicals aren't capable or wanting, it's because the system self-perpetuates and ensures that the "right kind of people" stay in power. None of this is by accident, evangelicals aren't wanted at the elite echelons.

Evangelicals need to start recognizing that the world wants them shut out of power. Unfettered immigration has helped. Progressives have helped. We need Christian schools and churches to actually teach/preach Christian civic leadership and to build up the kingdom by striving to lead.
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.


BaylorFTW
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Comments on the Evangelical Elite Problem

Here, was a followup post Aaron Renn did on his post filled with comments that people here may find interesting.

Yesterday's post on the evangelical elite problem article generated a lot of reader feedback. I wanted to share some of what has come in so far.
Brandon wrote:
Quote:

My experience is that many evangelical leaders and communities in the south suppress ambition, intentionally or not, by frequently condemning selfish motives, the trappings of success, the evil of pride, etc. Young people receive a message that a quiet, upstanding family life is morally superior to making sacrifices necessary to excel professionally in a highly competitive field. This suppression of ambition is definitely a factor impacting talent development in evangelical churches.
Oddly, this doesn't apply to sports. In sports, evangelicals are all-in and ambition is not a concern at allkids (especially young men) are overtly encouraged to push themselves to perform to the utmost of their ability, make sacrifices, and achieve as much as possible. My sense is that evangelicals are well-represented (if not over-represented) among the ranks of collegiate and professional athletes, potentially confirming that attitude toward ambition matters.
If this thesis is correct, evangelicals need to develop more sophisticated ways of talking about ambition to channel the same zeal to excel into music, fine arts, literature, scholarship, civic engagement, etc.

Jim Grey wrote:
Quote:

Another thought I had from reading the article. In the evangelical (and anabaptist) churches I've been a part of, culture is a dangerous external force. No wonder there are no cultural elites from these churches - we shun the outside culture because to engage in it is a slippery slope toward sin. Until these churches and their members shift their mindset from "culture is dangerous, avoid" to "culture is malleable - engage, influence, change" there's no hope.

Jackson wrote:
Quote:

One of those things that made me feel out of place [in my college evangelical student ministry] was the suspicion they had toward ambition. I recall particularly zealous students (and their mentors) believing that academic success was tantamount to idolatry. This attitude, along with changes in my theological convictions, drove me out of evangelical churches and into the Anglican.
The issue with an evangelical elite is that it seems generally true that to become elite means to cease to be evangelical. The origin of these attitudes can be traced to the anabaptists. It's my impression that evangelicals see any relationship between their church or faith with powerful institutions as having a corrupting effect on themselves and not a purifying effect on culture. To them the church is a bottom up organization and therefore to evangelize culture it starts at the individual and not at the culture making institutions.

SchneiderKunstler shared:
Quote:

From my perspective, having grown up within mainstream conservative Evangelicalism and having made the now-usual pilgrimage through the Episcopal church into the Roman Catholic church, I feel like you explained the problems quite accurately, even if I disagree with your optimistic ideas for solving them. I do think that you accurately laid out the conundrums facing Evangelicals, which are deeply rooted in their theology (or lack thereof in key areas) and lead them into ways of seeing the world which actively mitigate against what you're asking them to do. As one way of illustration, I grew up both in and near Wheaton, then spent from '95-2010 basically in international development work but having to raise donor support through a Christian ministry. Towards the end of that time we wanted/needed to get back into working with artists, designers and the Arts, overseas, and when we excitedly communicated that to our donors our income literally overnight cut itself in half -- and, in talking with many of them, learned that they had always thought we had been doing something more like church planting, in a country where it's simply not possible -- or necessary. Quite a strange experience, and quite a hard lesson, but it epitomizes everything you describe.

Kevin writes:
Quote:

Speaking from my own experience as an evangelical that went to a top 25 US secular university, I noticed a lot of my Christian peers would form a majority of their friend groups within the church. They would then spend a lot of time serving the church in various capacities (leading small groups, joining worship team, etc.). When they finished college, while they got their degrees they lacked influence and a skillset to navigate through the real world, because most of their college experience was inside this Christian bubble.
This is going to sound like a bit of a pat on the back, but I specifically rejected calls on me to lead small groups and things like that. While church pastors framed those as "leadership positions", I saw them as little more than low level coordination/facilitation roles. Instead, I invested my time in a large 100+ student run club and eventually ended up as the president for that organization. That opened doors where I interacted with other leaders within the school community that actually affected people at a larger scale.
I've thought a lot about the divergence in experience I had vs my 20+ years as an evangelical Christian, and I think it boils down to:
- Theologically, evangelicals have a weak understanding of how to interact in the world. Their theology boils down to being saved by grace and then waiting for Jesus to return. It's very passive. Perhaps this is a difference between dispensationalism (evangelical) and covenant theology (mainline).
- Socially, evangelicals lack confidence to interact with the real world, and much prefer the safe space of the church and church roles. I think this extends from theology: we're taught about the kindness and graciousness of God, but there's not a lot of emphasis on shaping the world. Contrast this to Redeemed Zoomer, who has a very forward-looking and high agency approach to how he plans to shape the world through retaking the mainline denominations. I've become very inspired by his work.
- Culturally, evangelicals are afraid of secular culture (Don't watch this/that movie because it's a bad influence). The Catholics I knew were much more open to that stuff, even if I found their faith a bit more nominal than that of evangelicals. Those Catholics ended up rising up to much higher leadership positions in college and beyond.
In any case, my wife and I just moved to a new area and we're now exploring mainline churches and not evangelical ones, with the mainline posture towards the world (more forward-facing, high agency) as a significant reason why.

John Yeats:
Quote:

Aaron, I think you are really on to something. We must not neglect the impact of the "gospel only" years where evangelicals abandoned, for whatever reason, the public square. For decades their only strategy, their hope was that gospel transformation would reshape culture. The thinking was that the more you introduce the public to Christ the more adherents would instantly embrace a biblical world-view. While the gospel does bring transformation from the inside out, withdrawal from the public square to operate the machinery of the "gospel train" does not.

Anthony Bradley posted:
Quote:

[ol]
  • We will never have "evangelicals" in elite positions because evangelicalism does not exist as a church communion. It is not a real ecclesial body. It is simply a loose collection of individuals. It has no consensus teaching on anything. By contrast, mainline Protestants who occupy elite positions do so as members of denominations. Evangelicalism and Protestantism are not synonyms.
  • Evangelical institutions tend to raise children to become cubicle workers who focus their energies on the so-called "Great Commission," not on becoming culture-shaping "salt and light" leaders.
  • American evangelicals are drowning in the idols of self-centered personal success, comfort, and ease. They then raise their children to worship these same idols.
  • A theology of work is not the problem. This is precisely what Boomers believed would "fix" the issues raised in Hunter's book. Redeemer in New York City launched the Faith and Work project as an extension of this logic. The faith-and-work framework will always fail to produce elites. Always. The real problem is eschatology and ecclesiology. Evangelicalism at its core operates with a "Christ Against Culture" posture, regardless of how much beer its adherents drink or how much Bavinck and Kuyper they read. There is no mechanism for "evangelicals" to receive centralized and formative teaching on a "Theology of Vocation." If the "Great Commission" considered the chief mission of the raising up boys and girls for their role in society (which is wrong, BTW), you'll never (ever) get cultural elites. Ever.
  • [/ol]


    Greg Scalise said:
    Quote:

    When you identify as catholic that does not commit you to catholic doctrine, it's more of an ethnic, cultural, and sacramental identifier (you were baptized). The world is full of catholics of every political and theological persuasion. Vance can identify as catholic without pushback because Biden does too. Vance gets pushback as a right-winger, not as a catholic.
    But to be an evangelical is without exception to be committed to theological doctrines which are not socially acceptable. The reason evangelicals aren't loud and proud about their identity in these institutions is that they would be rejected for it in a way that catholics won't be. My Christian fellowship in college was put on probation basically for being evangelical. And you can find plenty of parallel news stories like that about evangelical groups, but I've never come across that happening to a catholic group.

    This is a topic I plan to write more about myself in the future.
    Jabster writes about the role of Young Earth Creationism:
    Quote:

    Evangelical Protestantism has two main flaws; I speak this as a Protestant that is not comfortable with either the Evangelical or Mainline traditions today, all the while having my own issues with the Catholic Church:
    1) An insistence on doctrines that fly in the face of science, most notably young-Earth creationism. The universe has God's fingerprints all over it, and science doesn't contradict that. However, an adamant belief that, say, the universe was created in six 24-hour days if one takes Genesis literally doesn't bode well for intellectual acceptance. The Catholic Church has made its peace with science--while not yielding ground on Christian doctrinal essentials and matters that are the property of the realm of faith--and, as a result, is taken more seriously. Evangelical Protestantism is still fighting that war.

    Realitybites
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    The breaking down of barriers between mainline Protestant and evangelical laymen would help in this regard. Evangelical ardor can help mainline Protestants overcome their reticence. There are impressive, theologically traditional Protestant elites, most of them Episcopalian


    Outside of the LCMS, WELS, and a couple of other minor Lutheran bodies I think you would be hard pressed to find a "mainline Protestant" church in America that today is authentically Christian. Given the LCMS' move to add woke commentary to their latest edition of Luther's Large Catechism I don't know how long they will hold out.

    The Episcopal Church Is Dying
    https://www.anglicanwatch.com/its-official-the-episcopal-church-is-dying/

    One comment on the article:

    " The problem began when Episcopal priests started apologizing for instead of proclaiming the Gospel. The last time and I mean the last time I attended an Episcopal service, the priest on the first Sunday of Lent, greeted me with "Namaste:" (a Buddhist greeting) from the pulpit and then turned things over to a guest speaker. A Black woman who harangued the congregation for 45 minutes about the "1619 Project" and our hereditary guilt as White people of "racism" and our perpetual obligation to apologize to a serve Blacks. Missing was any mention of God, Jesus, forgiveness and sin. My Family have been Episcopalians for at least four generations…"

    The same thing can be said about the Presbyterians, Reformed Churches of America, Methodists, etc. The Christians in those bodies are leaving and moving to Orthodoxy, Trad Catholicism, and to an extent a Pentecostal brand of evangelicalism although that last trend was much more pronounced in the late 20th century and first decade of the 21st than it is today. You can only fake apostolic miracles for so long before most people catch on.

    If you look at the SBC in particular, through the work of Greear, Moore, et al the same poison that took down mainline Protestantism has come to steer the convention.

    "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by people." - Matthew 5:13.
    Refresh
    Page 1 of 1
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.