Evangelicals Should Change Their Name to Religious Neoliberals

Last updated on: November 6, 2021 at 2:23 pm by Darrell Lackey

Evangelicals Should Change Their Name to Religious Neoliberals 2021-11-06T14:23:06-07:00 Darrell Lackey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

For at least the last 10 years or so, the decisions and behaviors of a wide swath of white evangelicalism have been hard to grasp or understand, to say the very least. And I’m sure many read that sentence and thought… “the last 10 years!?…” Yes, I know for many it may be many, many more years than that. Putting that aside, they’ve left many onlookers perplexed and confused. For many, their decisions and behaviors were/are a mystery—they didn’t make a lot of sense—given their history (rap lyric?).

This has been most evident in the political realm. It has been revealed in other areas too, which can also most likely be traced back to the political as well. Part of the explanation is that when a group of people begin to see everything through a political prism, everything takes on a political hue (see my last post).

Still, that only explains it a bit. I think we have to dive deeper and talk about what sort of political view they are seeing everything through. Whereas once white evangelicals would have viewed most matters, including the political, through their peculiar theology and understanding of the Bible, they now more and more view their theology and Bible through a political prism. And this, of course, touches everything—all areas of life.

Rather than bringing American history, its political founding, concurrent documents, concepts like individual rights, liberties, law, property rights, gun rights, and a host of other areas under the scope of scripture and Christian theology, they seem to do the exact opposite. In other words, scripture and Christian theology are made to fit or align itself with their modern, Western, American political philosophy.

This can be done on both sides, whether the left or right. The problem is awareness. Many Christians on the left and right know they are often pushing a line of thought that may have no clear or obvious support as far as the Bible or Christian theology. Perhaps they think it implied or, at the least, not something contrary to the teachings of the Bible or Christian theology. The key, though, is they are aware of this tension.

Too many white evangelicals, it seems to me anyway, are completely unaware of this tension. They too often see their right-wing, hyper-patriotic, gun friendly, “don’t tread on me,” pro-capitalism, pro-small government, and fear of the “other” political views as somehow straight from the Bible and orthodox Christian theology (which is one of the greatest myths of our time).

Not only are their political views seen as “Biblical” and “Christian,” they are often their defining views, in the sense they draw their identity more from these views than they do from the fact they are baptized Christians who belong to an entirely different Kingdom and are citizens, ultimately, of heaven.

This has led me to conclude that many white evangelicals are in reality just religious neo-liberals, with the emphasis on the neo-liberal part. Rodney Clapp describes neo-liberalism thusly:

“Neoliberalism is a panoply of cultural and political-economic practices that sets marketized competition at the center of social life—even as the sole ruler of social life. It aims to create a society that does not merely include markets but is based on the market…” (Pg. 32)

When applied to religion, the state, the political, the social, and cultural, it turns everything into an amoral, supposedly neutral (not), and competitive playing field of “winners” and “losers” instead of a created space wherein there are ethical and moral frameworks that are bent toward, and protective of, the least of these. This market sensibility is baked into evangelicalism. Big churches, with many members, are just naturally viewed as “winners.” They would not use that term, they would say “blessed” or that God is working in that church, etc.

The obsession is with perception. Brand. The façade. The content is important…but, secondary. This allows those who are entirely without a moral core, but possessed of inherent powers of persuasion, authority, blind/unearned confidence, and some intelligence/charm, to become the leaders in every area of life. These are the “winners.”

While neo-liberalism and classical liberalism in general, place a premium on personal freedom/liberty, and democratic government it seems to be inherently authoritarian, over time. It creates the space for the “winner” to finally emerge from the “marketplace of ideas” and take charge. We can see the evangelical attraction to this phenomena in both how they perceive pastors, leaders, and political figures (everything really) in general. It is the very opposite, however, of the type of servant leadership displayed in the life of Christ or early Christian leaders.

We don’t need to add the qualifier “Christian” to this designation as it just wouldn’t be very, well, …accurate. Their add-on to neo-liberalism (which is amoral—the market decides what is moral) is a set of white, 1950s, middle-class American values, which they confuse with Christian morality or ethics. This sensibility could take the place of any “Christian” designation, which they would probably be fine with as they already assume (wrongly) they are the same thing.

It would be more accurate to just denote they are “religious” in general, in the sense of an ethereal weak deism of sorts, followed by market and country (which is where their Calvinism really comes into play). In reality, it’s more Market, Country, and god. The last member of this unholy trinity is to simply bless and give some sort of magical ethical or moral legitimacy to the first two, which encompasses their Nietzschean pure Will to Power. At the end of the day, it’s just a boring consumerist, religious, atheism. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, it’s also dangerous.

I have a Patreon—please consider supporting my writing.

Previous Post

October 16, 2021

The Political as Religion

Next Post

December 10, 2021 The Sufficiency of Scripture Slogan is a Dodge

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2025 February 2025 December 2024 October 2024 September 2024 July 2024 May 2024 January 2024 November 2023 September 2023 July 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 December 2022 November 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A leper A centurion A tax collector A blind man