Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Mark D. Roberts

Home
Evangelical
John Stott: Not an Evangelical Blowhard according to the Times

John Stott: Not an Evangelical Blowhard according to the Times

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 3:37 pm by Guest Contributor

John Stott: Not an Evangelical Blowhard according to the Times 2015-03-13T15:37:40-05:00 Guest Contributor

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.

John Stott gets a thumbs-up from the New York Times. Specifically, Pulitizer-prize winning op-ed columnist for the Times, Nicholas Kristof, gives the late John Stott his stamp of approval, his imprimatur, if you will. (To be accurate, this is the second time, to my knowledge, that the Times has approved of Stott. The first came in a 2004 op-ed piece by David Brooks, “Who is John Stott?”)

In “Evangelicals without Blowhards,” Kristof admits that he is “not particularly religious.” Nevertheless, he honors Stott because of Stott’s wisdom, humble demeanor, and especially his concern for social justice.

Kristof wastes no time laying down the gauntlet: “In these polarized times, few words conjure as much distaste in liberal circles as ‘evangelical Christian.'” He lays the blame at the feet of evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: “That’s partly because evangelicals came to be associated over the last 25 years with blowhard scolds. When the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discussed on television whether the 9/11 attacks were God’s punishment on feminists, gays and secularists, God should have sued them for defamation.”

Yet, according to Kristof, blanket condemnation of evangelicals is not fair:

Partly because of such self-righteousness, the entire evangelical movement often has been pilloried among progressives as reactionary, myopic, anti-intellectual and, if anything, immoral.

Yet that casual dismissal is profoundly unfair of the movement as a whole. It reflects a kind of reverse intolerance, sometimes a reverse bigotry, directed at tens of millions of people who have actually become increasingly engaged in issues of global poverty and justice.

This compassionate strain of evangelicalism was powerfully shaped by the Rev. John Stott, a gentle British scholar who had far more impact on Christianity than media stars like Mr. Robertson or Mr. Falwell.

Stott, Kristof observes, was not a fire-and-brimstone television evangelist, but rather a brilliant, careful scholar who “underscored that faith and intellect needn’t be at odds.” A couple of days ago I blogged on my own personal interaction with John Stott, which serves as an apt demonstration of this very point. On this theme, Kristof observes:

Centuries ago, serious religious study was extraordinarily demanding and rigorous; in contrast, anyone could declare himself a scientist and go in the business of, say, alchemy. These days, it’s the reverse. A Ph.D. in chemistry is a rigorous degree, while a preacher can explain the Bible on television without mastering Hebrew or Greek — or even showing interest in the nuances of the original texts.

I get what Kristof is trying to say here, but he bungles his argument. Serious religious study is still extraordinarily demanding and rigorous. Getting a Ph.D. in the study of religion is about as demanding as getting a Ph.D. in chemistry. In fact, in my grad school, it usually took longer to get a Ph.D. in religious studies than in science. Kritof’s language suggests the reverse, which is wrong. What is true, however, is that today anyone can go on TV or the Internet to make religious claims, without any training or disciplined knowledge of the subject. This is just as true, by the way, of critics of religion as it is of religious gurus. Most of the popular atheist critics of religion seem to know very little about that which they so vigorously condemn.

Kristof is impressed, not only by John Stott, but also by evangelicals who invest their lives in fighting poverty and injustice:

Evangelicals are disproportionately likely to donate 10 percent of their incomes to charities, mostly church-related. More important, go to the front lines, at home or abroad, in the battles against hunger, malaria, prison rape, obstetric fistula, human trafficking or genocide, and some of the bravest people you meet are evangelical Christians (or conservative Catholics, similar in many ways) who truly live their faith.

I’m not particularly religious myself, but I stand in awe of those I’ve seen risking their lives in this way — and it sickens me to see that faith mocked at New York cocktail parties.

My Response

As you might imagine, I’m thankful for Kristof’s column. It rightly honors John Stott and rightly observes that many evangelicals are nothing like the stereotype many “progressives” hold in their minds. I would like to suggest a few words of critique, however.

First, the prominence of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson has to do, in part, with media outlets like the New York Times that give them so much attention. Why? Partly because these people fit and promote the stereotype of the religious person as a blowhard. Partly because people like Falwell and Robertson sell advertising. Making John Stott a spokesman for evangelical Christianity would have been wise and fair, but it wouldn’t have sold papers or motivated people to tune in to CNN. There will always be religious blowhards, just as there will always be irreligious blowhards. The media will need to choose who gets the attention. Unfortunately, they tend to choose the blowhards, especially when these blowhards represent positions contrary to the preferences of the media outlets.

Second, Kristof neglects that fact that there are millions of politically liberal or progressive evangelicals. He says things like: “few words conjure as much distaste in liberal circles as ‘evangelical Christian'” and “the entire evangelical movement often has been pilloried among progressives as reactionary, myopic, anti-intellectual and, if anything, immoral.” But there are many circles of liberal, political evangelicals. This became most apparent in the last presidential election, when millions of evangelicals voted for Barack Obama. (According to one survey, 21 percent of white evangelicals voted for Obama. The percentage is much higher if you consider non-white evangelicals.) Kristof seems to be unaware of this data. It would be much more accurate to speak of secular liberals and secular progressives as disrespecting evangelicals. In his effort to endorse the social concern of John Stott and those like him, Kristof perpetuates the very stereotype that obscures the reality of evangelical Christianity in America and promotes the very kind of prejudice that Kristof is fighting.

Third, Kristof runs the risk of missing what motivates evangelical social action. He labels the evangelicalism of Stott and others like him as the “compassionate strain of evangelicalism.” To be sure, evangelicals are motivated to reach out to the poor and oppressed because of their compassionate hearts. But, compassion was not the primary motivation of John Stott. Nor is it the primary motivation of those who follow his lead. Beneath compassion lies a foundation of biblical truth, a belief that the authoritative Scripture reveals a God who seeks to redeem the world, an observation that social justice and care for the poor are central to the Bible, a commitment to following Jesus in everyday life, and a profound concern for God’s glory. Stott would have been the first to say that we should reach out with the love, truth, and justice of God whether or not our hearts feel compassion. (In fact, I imagine he did say this in his many writings. I’m just not aware of where he did it.) We who seek to honor Stott’s memory must be more than people of tender hearts. We must also be people who stand upon God’s revelation in Scripture and in Jesus Christ. Here we find, not only the imperative to seek first God’s reign and justice, but also the means to be transformed so as to be agents of transformation in the world.

Finally, I want to note that sometimes life is strangely ironic. As I read Kristof’s article online, I was startled to see the banner ad at the top of the page. Check it out:

Screenshot from the NY Times online, Sunday, July 31, 2011

Liberty University was founded by one of Kristof’s leading “blowhards,” Jerry Falwell. The current president of Liberty University in Falwell’s son. In the wonders of the Internet, an ad for Liberty University his helping to fund Kristof’s column at the Times.

Previous Post

July 31, 2011

Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling: Beloved and Saints

Next Post

August 2, 2011 Why Web Videos Work . . . And Why They Bomb

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advent Advent Calendar Alissa Wilkinson Archeology Art and Faith Ash Wednesday Bible Books Business Business and Faith Christian Year (Liturgical or Church Year) Christmas Christmas according to Dickens Christmas, Culture, and Christ Christmas: Keeping Christmas Well Church and Culture Church and Ministry Church and Technology Church Life Church: What is a Church? Cities Code of Ethics for Pastors Contentment Creativity Cultural Commentary Culture Daily Reflections Dallas Willard Deliberating on Digital Dignity Easter Education Ephesus and the New Testament Ethics Eugene Peterson Evangelical Existential Questions Faith Faith and Work Family Food Friendship Fun Good Reads Gospel Centered Christianity Grace Handel's Messiah Harvard University Health High Calling History Holidays Holy Spirit Holy Week Hospitality How Does God Guide Us? Hunger Games Insights for Leaders - De Pree Center Inspiration from the High Calling Jesus Jesus: Following Him as a Disciple Jesus: Seven Last Words Jesus: Was Jesus Married? Jesus: What Was His Message? Jesus: Why Did He Have to Die? Laity Lodge Leadership Leadership Conversation Lent Les Miserables Life for Leaders Linda's Advent Doodles Linda's Lenten Doodles Living Well Loving Neighbors Max De Pree Center for Leadership Mental Health Mission of God and Missional Church Money Moral Dilemmas Mormonism Movies Nature New York City Pastors and Churches Pentecost Photos to Share Poetry Police Blotter Politics Prayer Preachers Portal Preaching Presbyterian Church Quotations Reading the Times Recommendations Reflecting on Technology Religion and Culture Ruminations Sabbath Science Seven Last Words Sexual Harassment Social Media Something to Think About Spiritual Warfare Sports Stations of the Cross Stephen Hawking: Heaven and Faith Stories Technology and Culture Technology and Education Technology and Mental Health Technology Bits Texas Thanksgiving The High Calling Thin Places Uncategorized Vocation Women Words Work Worship

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 April 2015 March 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 November 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the Christian holy day typically observed with rest and worship?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Monday Saturday Friday Sunday