Those Not-So-Scary Evangelicals

Yale PHD candidate offers her take on Armageddon Factor

Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor, the book which has set Canada's far left alight, is a mixed bag of fastidious research, misunderstood theology, and rhetoric leeched from politically-motivated works offered in the United States.

So says Yale scholar Molly Worthen, a PHD candidate who is an expert on Evangelical Christianity, and its relationship to politics.

Worthen takes issue with McDonald's treatment of Evangelical Christians. Her book doesn't seem to give them sufficient respect in the sense of being autonomous and thinking human beings.

"McDonald has spent hundreds of hours interviewing evangelicals, but still seems to view them as Christian zombies masked as ordinary citizens, who 'burble' and 'enthuse' rather than merely speak, and whose emotional prayers make them look like 'kung fu masters channelling spiritual vibes,'" Worthen writes. "She reduces their diverse beliefs to two extreme nodes: Christian Reconstructionism, a theocratic vision that seeks 'dominion' over society by reinstating Mosaic law; and dispensationalist premillennialism, a view of the end times in which human history tumbles into chaos until Christ sweeps up believers in the Rapture and fights the final battle of Armageddon."

In fact, McDonald's work suffers from an over-reliance on American works that actively sought to spread panic about the alleged theocratic agenda of George W Bush for political ends.

"Her source notes reveal that her account relies heavily on a handful of books by American journalists who over-simplified Evangelical thought in an effort to galvanize liberals during the George W Bush era," Worthen explains, noting that McDonald fails to give sufficient credence to the diversity of Canadian Evangelical demoninations.

"Some of her subjects may indeed dream of ruling Canada by divine mandate, but she paints all – from Dutch Reformed to Lutheran to Mennonite – with the same theocratic brush, despite the fact that many of these churches have either rejected or severely qualified their views of Christian 'dominion' and the Rapture-centred vision of end times," Worthen continues. "Although most Evangelicals still believe that prophecy has something to do with current events, premillennialism has mellowed significantly in recent years."

While Worthen notes that McDonald has spent a great deal of time researching Evangelical Christianity in Canada, she hasn't spent nearly as much time on the subject as Lloyd Mackey.

Mackey categorizes Canadian Evangelical Christianity into seven cores:

-Mainstream Evangelical Churches.
-Pentecostal Assemblies, who embrace emotion as the core of their worship.
-Evangelical churches of the Charismatic Tradition, who embrace Pentecostal worship techniques within a theological foundation derived from Catholicism.
-Reformed Evangelical churches, who embrace Calvinism.
-Evengelical churches of the Holiness Tradition, who embrace Christian charity via the Social Gospel.
-Ethnic Evangelicals -- Evangelicals who immigrate to Canada from abroad.
-Evangelicals within mainstream Christian churches.

Understanding the amount of theological diversity within Canadian Evangelical Christianity leads to a better understanding of Worthen's criticism of McDonald's work. Though McDonald may treat Evangelical Christianity as monolithic, it's anything but.

By doing this, McDonald commits another error: while she treats the Evangelicals she speaks to as representative of the whole, the choices McDonald has made in which Evangelicals she interviewed for her book further mis-coloured this representation.

"The Evangelicals that McDonald meets occasionally declare their 'biblical worldview' or denounce the myth of neutrality in the public sphere," Worthen writes. "What she takes for the language of Christian Reconstructionism is actually a feature of Reformed cultural theology, a broad tradition that urges Christians to engage in all spheres of life through a unified worldview. To miss this point is fundamentally to misunderstand the intellectual position of many evangelicals."

"They have critiqued secular ideas of objectivity and the exclusion of religion from the public square by suggesting that in this postmodern age – when even atheist philosophers doubt there is just one true understanding of reality – Christian presuppositions are no less valid grounds for a worldview than those of secular rationalism," Worthen notes. "McDonald does not take on this argument, nor give the reader any hint of this broader context."

McDonald also makes the error of mistaking many mundane political activities as exceptional.

"McDonald sees Christian nationalist conspiracy everywhere she looks," Worthen concludes. "Yet much of what she describes sounds merely like politics as usual, which perhaps makes it no less disturbing to some."

Worthen concludes -- quite rightly -- that in a country as characterized by religious tension as Canada has been, Canadians perhaps should be wary of politically-active believers.

"In a country where religious conflict has historically threatened the foundations of Confederation, where political culture is as much buttoned-up and British as it is non-American, and where most view the American zoo of politicized faith as the great exception of the civilized world, Canadian Evangelicals who set their minds on politics do not have to be zealots in order to be disconcerting," Worthen explains.

Clearly, those in a rush to believe The Armageddon Factor to be an exhaustive expose on any danger posed by Evangelical Christianity would be well-advised to curb their enthusiasm.

After all, if Marci McDonald has so clearly misjudged and misunderstood Evangelical Christianity, it's more than reasonable to wonder what kind of errors she's made in her treatment of other denominations.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Deborah Gyapong - "More on Marci McDonald's Bigoted anti-Christian Book

Strictly Right - "New Canadian Anti-Christian, Anti-Israel Book

Dean Skoreyko - "Goldstein Challenges Others in the Media to Cover Positive Christian Stories"

My, How the Cultural Warriors Pretend to Be Moderates

Marci McDonald continues to insist she's a "moderate"

Speaking in an interview with Lloyd Mackey of Canadian Christianity, Armageddon Factor author Marci McDonald insists that it wasn't her intent to demonize Evangelical Christians.

"I am not an atheist," says McDonald, who also says that she is a Christian. "I believe that faith is a strong motivator for some of the finest actions in public life."

"I am a Christian who lost my faith for some years, and came back to it," McDonald explains.

She also described herself as a "centrist".

McDonald further insists that her book is not meant to make a case for the isolation of religion -- or any religion -- from public life.

"I think having a secular Canada where all faiths have a place -- and feel comfortable and welcome -- is what most Canadians still want," she continues.

These words may be somewhat comforting to many of those who have found the tenor of her work alarming. But that comfort will be meagre, as those who intend to make use of McDonald's work to wage a cultural war against conservatives -- such as Antonia Zerbisias and Murray Dobbin -- to wage a culture war such as the one recommended to the Liberal Party by Frank Graves.

Even if Marci McDonald is herself a centrist, or a moderate, the truth is that her work is then being used by far-left extremists to wage a cultural conflict designed to pit citizens against one another -- with Evangelical Christians being exploited as convenient scapegoats.

If Marci McDonald doesn't want to see her work abused to such ends, it will stand to her to speak out against extremists such as Zerbisias and Dobbin.

Jesus For President

In a certain sense, it may have been only natural that a Presidential candidate who campaigned on a message of hope would embrace -- and, in turn, be embraced by -- a religion whose message so often aspires to be a message of hope.

The de-hijacking (or perhaps re-hijacking) of Christian faith from the religious right certainly came as a surprise for those who had long grown accustomed to the association of Evangelical Christianity with conservative (and particularly Republican) politics.

But there were clearly large portions of the American Evangelical vote that were simply waiting to be de-hijacked.

In Like Father, Like Son (a book actually about Ernest and Preston Manning and the religious themes within their political careers), Lloyd Mackey splits Evangelical Christianity into seven categories. These categories demonstrate the oft-ignored variety amongst Evangelical Christians.

Mackey's first category of Evangelical Christians was Mainstream Evangelical Churches,

The second category is the Penecostal assemblies (featured so prominently and comically in Borat), who use emotion as a tool of worship.

Simililar to Penecostal assemblies, Evangelical Churches of the Charismatic Tradition also use emotion as a tool of worship. The key difference is that while the Penecostal assemblies developed out of distinctly Protestant traditions, Churches of the Charismatic Tradition derived from Catholic traditions.

A large portion of Evangelical Christians (particularly in Canada, but also in the United States) are Evangelicals in mainstream churches, who promote Evangelical traditions within the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and mainstream Baptist churches.

Reformed Evangelical churches are heavily influenced by the Calvinist philosophy, which believes that God's outreach is irresistable, and thus that God chooses whom to reach out to -- who invariably believe -- and whom not to.

Evangelical churches stemming from the tradition of Holiness include the Salvation Army Church. These churches tend to subscribe to the Social Gospel. (Interestingly enough, George W Bush's United Methodist Church subscribes to the social gospel.)

Mackey also classifies Evengelicals who immigrate from other countries -- Ethnic Evangelicals -- as their own particular segment, and notes that Ethnic Evangelicals have traditionally supported whichever political party is in power then they arrive in the country.

In paying attention to Obama's campaign style, it becomes immediately apparent that his campaign offered a great deal of appeal to Penecostal Assemblies, Ethnic Evangelicals and Churches of the Charistmatic and Holiness Traditions.

The de-hijacking of the Evangelical vote was certainly abetted by John McCain's reluctance to pursue the religious vote, in particular vast portions of the Evangelical vote.

But it's apparent that Obama is the kind of leader who would simply appeal to large portions of Evangelical Christianity, as defined by Lloyd Mackey.

Hopefully, the swing of so many Evangelical Christians toward Barack Obama will promote better understanding of the nuances of Evangelical Christianity.

Tracking Canada's Evangelical Vote

Evangelical Christians flock to Tories, NDP from Liberals

For the casual follower of Canadian politics, one may think it's safe to assume that the Conservative party has the votes of Canada's Evangelical Christians essentially locked down, and always have.

But that assumption is really only half-true.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada recently released a report on the voting habits of Evangelical Christians. They concluded that Canadian Evangelicals are turning away from the Liberal party. Two-thirds of the Evangelicals are moving to support the Conservative party. The other third are supporting the NDP.

Few Canadians would intuitively equate the Liberal party with Evangelical Christianity.

This has increasingly been the case over the past 12 years. As the Examiner's Brian Lilley notes, in 1996 -- in the midst of the Reform party's heyday -- Evangelical votes were well predicted by regional preferences. In Western Canada 33% of Evangelical voters supported the Reform party (30% supported the Liberals). In Ontario, 44% of Evangelical Christians supported the Liberal party (an anemic 15% supported Reform).

But by 2008 the preference of Evangelicals have tipped inexorably away from the Liberals. Only 11% of Canada's Evangelical Christians continue to support the Grits. In 1996 the figure was 44%.

Senator David Smith attributes the loss in the Liberal share of the Evangelical vote to Liberal party stances on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

"These have been polarizing issues. I would hope that with the work [Toronto Liberal MP] John McKay is doing, (many former Liberal voters) will come back," Smith said.

Indeed, John McKay has been at the head of efforts to solidify Liberal party inroads to religious communities. McKay has been working not only with Evangelical Christians, but but also with Catholics.

“I am hoping that this initiative will free up some political space for faith leaders to speak into the marketplace of ideas and not feel that they will end up battered and bruised and run out of town on a rail,” McKay said.

McKay believes -- hopefully rightly -- that more reasonable debates on moral issues can be fostered if only enough people cared to try.

"I think from time to time the Liberal party has edged into the areas of being disagreeable," he explained. "And I don’t think that’s right or respectful. It doesn’t allow for a fruitful, mature, intelligent dialogue on both differences and commonality."

"The Liberal Party is a big tent," he concluded. "I would hope that all things being equal that Evangelical and active Catholics would feel very comfortable in that tent."

Evangelicals concerned about same-sex marriage and abortion are clearly turning toward the Conservative party. Even if Conservative policy declines to substantively address either one of those issues, their views still tend to find a more receptive audience amongst the Tories.

According to former NDP MP Bill Blaikie, many young Evangelicals are moving toward the NDP. Blaikie argues that these Evangelicals have "moved beyond the culture wars and see their commitment to be acting out the gospel, preserving the environment and fighting AIDS."

These Evangelicals have clearly subscribed to the Tommy Douglas brand of the social gospel -- it can be easy for many Canadians to forget that Douglas was an ordained Baptist minister.

Blaikie notes that Evangelicals are "principled voters", and will vote with whatever party pays the most attention to their particular principles.

The EFC paper also notes that "the growing evangelical support for the Conservatives had more to do with the Conservative' offering a viable alternative to the Liberals, whom many perceived as corrupt and hostile, than with a hope for potential policy gains."

As those Canadians who pay close attention to Canadian politics can easily conclude, the Liberals have rarely been a viable alternative to the NDP. Their commitment to issues of social justice have constantly be proven to be far too flexible for anyone who embraces social justice as a tenet of their religious beliefs.

Various Liberal electoral tactics -- including 2004 push polls that concerned the Conservative party's association with Evangelical circles -- have also served to distance the Liberals from Evangelical voters.

The Liberals once had one significant portion of Canada's Evangelical vote essentially sewed up. In Like Father, Like Son (a book about Earnest and Preston Manning) Mackey notes that Ethnic Evangelicals -- one of several subcategories of Canadian Evangelical Christianity, which also includes the Pentacostal, Charismatic, Holy, Reformed and Evangelicals in Mainline Churches, as well as "Mainstream" Evangelicals -- often tended to support the Liberal party (mostly, by his reckoning, because the Liberals happened to be in power when they arrived).

As Brian Lilley notes, Canadian Evangelicals are not nearly so frightening as some observers of Canadian politics would want Canadians to believe -- the EFC's study seems to bear this to be true. The Liberal party's loss of faith (so to speak) amongst the Evangelical vote has certainly contributed to its downfall. Arresting its declining poll numbers among Evangelicals may be a crucial step in reversing its general electoral fortunes.

Canadian Conservatism Needs to Save Itself

Adam Daifallah annoints Tim Hudak as conservative saviour

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah all but annoints Tim Hudak as the saviour of conservatism not only in Ontario, but perhaps in all of Canada:

"Tim Hudak's ascension to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is an important development in the Canadian conservative movement for several reasons. Most importantly, it represents a clean break from the rudderless and inept leadership that has guided the party for more than five years. Let's not mince words: Ernie Eves and John Tory were unmitigated disasters as leaders. Hudak represents a clear return to the conviction-based politics that vaulted the Tories to power -- and kept them there -- in the 1990s."

It would be unreasonable to suggest that Tory and Eves, as leaders, could not have done more.

That being said, it's unreasonable to overlook the fact that, as leaders, Tory and Eves had to work with what Harris had left behind him when he resigned as leader. It wasn't a pretty sight.

Mike Harris left behind him an extremely unpopular incumbent party, which had failed to deliver on its espoused fiscally conservative principles, had made controversial moves in relation to education and relations with municipal governments, and had often stirred up a wasp's nest of public protest against it.

To saddle Tory and Eves firmly with the failure of the Ontario Tories to retain power -- or win it back from Dalton McGuinty in the years since -- is partially unfair. While one cannot overlook their own failures as leaders, one also has to remember the position Harris had left them in.

Yet Daifallah seems to believe that only a leader practically hand-picked by Harris can deliver the Ontario Tories from the ignominous position they currently find themselves in.

"For the first time in recent memory, during the course of the leadership race no candidate ran on an explicitly centre-left platform. Hudak, runner-up Frank Klees and maverick Randy Hillier all staked out clear conservative ground. Christine Elliott ran a formidable campaign and was essentially forced into positioning herself as the centrist candidate due to crowding on the right. (Frequent cheerleading from the Toronto Star also helped burnish her image in that regard.)"

Daifallah seems to do everything but label Elliott Liberal-lite.

"Elliott miscalculated in making the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- a cause championed by Hudak and Hiller -- a wedge issue. This didn't sit well with Hudak's and Hillier's supporters, whose second-choice votes she needed to gain in the preferential ballot voting system. Her announcement that she would implement a flat tax if elected -- effectively outflanking Hudak on the right -- sent an electroshock through the other camps. In the end, Elliott proved to be a master of the air war, but lacked the ground game necessary to mount a serious challenge."

But Daifallah would be foolish to insist that the policy of abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not, in and of itself, designed to be a wedge issue.

Hudak used that policy as a method to determine those who were, allegedly, true conservatives from those who were simply "Liberal lite" -- a label he applied to both Elliott and Klees.

"The significance of the Hudak victory should not be downplayed. The Ontario Tories now have a leader who, unlike his predecessor, won't shy away from drawing clear distinctions between himself and the McGuinty Liberals. Hudak believes in ideas -- he won't be afraid of making bold proposals going forward. His mandate of presenting policies that respect conservative principles yet recognize the current difficult economic context will neutralize Liberal attempts to paint him as a reincarnation of Mike Harris."

And yet Hudak's branding of himself as a "common sense conservative" has already done so much to accomplish this very act.

Distancing himself from Harris will be a difficult act for someone who enjoyed such fervent support from Harris to do. And, really, one may wonder what reason Hudak would have to want to distance himself from who has proven to be his most valuable supporter.

"The McGuinty government is vulnerable on almost every important issue: Ontario's economy is in shambles, taxes are up, spending has soared with no correlative improvement in service quality, unemployment is skyrocketing and the deficit and debt have ballooned. Admittedly, not all of these problems are Dalton McGuinty's own fault, but in politics, the party in power wears the good news and the bad, regardless of its cause.

The next provincial election is still more than two years away. Anything can happen in that time, and it is still unknown whether McGuinty will run for a third term. But if he does, he will be ripe for defeat as an out-of-touch, tired leader who bungled the economy. In the meantime, the way Hudak conducts himself as opposition leader will have important ramifications far beyond Ontario politics."

Hudak has yet to accomplish anything during his (to date short) audition to be Premier of Ontario.

Yet Daifallah already seems to have Hudak pegged as a successor to Stephen Harper's leadership of Canadian conservatism, particularly fiscal conservatism:

"Small-c conservatives across the country are disheartened by the Harper government's numerous capitulations on a whole host of red-meat issues. They are desperately looking for a new champion for the conservative cause. If Hudak can make conservative policies stick and bring the Ontario Tories up in the polls -- and, in the unlikely event that the 2011 election occurs before the next federal campaign, win a government -- it will give great comfort to principled conservatives to know that their ideas still have traction. It would also discredit the Harper government's calculation that the public is only interested in statist solutions to the current economic situation."

Yet Daifallah seems to be overlooking what the historical trend in Canadian politics has tended to be.

That is, when Liberal governments reign in Ottawa, Conservatives tend to win power in Provincial elections. When Conservative governments are in power in Ottawa, Liberals and the NDP tend to win in the provinces.

While the Saskatchewan party claimed victory in the first post-Harper election in the Land of Living Skies and Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives won in Newfoundland, it's worth noting that Rodney MacDonald's Conservatives were defeated by the NDP, Gordon Campbell's Liberals retained power in British Columbia and Gary Doer's NDP won the 2007 vote in Manitoba.

To expect that Hudak alone will be enough to buck this trend in Ontario and deliver salvation to the federal Tories is, in and of itself, a bit of a pipe dream. Hudak has to be up to the task, and we have yet to see if he actually is.

"Tim Hudak as Canadian conservatism's saviour? Someone needs to assume the role, and I know he would relish it."

Not only does Daifallah's analysis of Hudak's emerging role within Canadian conservatism seem overly Wagnerian, it's also deftly out of touch with the roots of the conservative movement in Canada.

Lloyd Mackey provides a reasonable list of the differing philosophical strains on conservatism. He classifies them as following:

1. Fiscal conservatism - This is the strain of conservatism that prefers controls on government taxation and spending. This is also the very strain of conservatism that Daifallah seems to appeal to most in this article.

2. Social conservatism - Social conservatives prefer family-friendly policies and government regulation -- if not outright prohibition -- of abortion. This particular strain of conservatism has found itself at odds with Human Rights Commissions as many of its most vociferous proponents find themselves paraded before them on an ongoing basis.

3. Democratic populism - Democratic populism insists that the spirit of democracy is found in the will of the people. It favours the "common sense of common people", and has been most strongly represented nationally by Preston Manning.

4. Progressive Conservatism - Progressive conservatism, as embodied by leaders such as Joe Clark, John Diefenbaker and the late Robert Stanfield, advocates using conservatism to moderate political and social change.

5. British Toryism - Proponents of British Toryism favour the preservation of existing institutions, including current parliamentary structures and offices such as Canada's various vice-regal offices such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.

6. Libertarianism - Libertarians prefer that government stay out of the lives of its citizens as much as possible. Libertarians favour as much freedom as possible for citizens, and tend to be the strongest voices in favour of small government.

Of Mackey's six strains of Canadian conservatism, only one -- British Toryism -- arguably sets the table to favour the salvation of Canadian conservatism by a single leader.

Where the other strains of conservatism -- notably libertarianism and democratic populism -- weigh in on this topic, they weigh in against such an option.

Where Daifallah would argue that Tim Hudak is the one man who can save conservatism in Canada, democratic populists would rebel against the notion of any single leader leading Canadian conservatism without a strong consensus to back his direction. That was the act that Preston Manning accomplished so masterfully as leader of the Reform party.

Libertarians would point out the sheer scope of the power, influence and authority conservatives would have to grant such an individual upon being annointed as a conservative "messiah". Libertarians would reject such a notion outright.

Small-p, small-c progressive conservatives would find the urge to reject Hudak as a conservative saviour almost irresistable. To such individuals, Hudak represents the kind of ideologically-isolated neoconservatism that is utterly offensive to their particular values, even as fiscal and social conservatives would likely react favourably to Hudak in such a role.

Contrary to whatever Adam Daifallah may like to believe about Tim Hudak, no one man can save conservatism. Not in Ontario, and not in the rest of Canada. Rather, conservatives must save conservatism together by maintaining the common bonds between its varying -- although often over-simplified, by Lloyd Mackey's own admission -- strains.

Conservatism must save itself.

Progressive Conservatism Is Not "Standing for Nothing"

Randy Hillier embraces small tent conservatism

When the Ontario Progressive Conservative party leadership candidates locked horns in a leader's debate at the University of Ottawa, it couldn't have possibly become any clearer that the 2009 Ontario PC leadership race is a battle for the very heart and soul of the party.

The battle lines seem to be drawn: Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier firmly favouring the socons, and Christine Elliott and Frank Klees carrying the banner for procons.

Perhaps no one in the field has embraced this apparent internal culture war as Hillier, who told Elliott that "watered-down conservatism" will not lead the party to victory, and power.

"When we stand for nothing, we lose everything," Hillier insisted.

Elliott had previously described herself as a "compassionate" conservative.

Hillier seemed to be thinking in a similar vein as Tom Long, who recently gave a speech to the Manning Institute's Networking Conference in which he took note of the fact that, in recent history, hardline Mike Harris' fiscal conservatism has been more successful than its more progressive counterpart -- as recently represented in leadership by John Tory.

Such ideas stand in stark contrast to the widely-disseminated beliefs of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who continues to insist that building consensus between the various strains of conservatism -- usually defined in Canada as fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, democratic populism, progressive conservatism, British Toryism and libertarianism -- in order to be truly successful. Segal has often added that the best way to do so is within a "nation and enterprise" model in which government collaborates with society's various institutions in order to produce an environment in which free markets can provide for the needs of Canadians.

As Lloyd Mackey noted of David Orchard -- who ceded the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative party to Peter MacKay only under the condition that he refused to merge the party with the stronger Canadian Alliance -- people like Hillier and Long represent a sense that their particular brand of conservatism is the only truly "pure" brand of conservatism. Consider the rhetorical implications of Long's description of his favoured strain of conservatism as "unhyphenated" conservatism.

Mackey brilliantly describes individuals with such small-tent notions of conservatism, such as Orchard and Hillier, as virtual mirror images of each other.

Hillier's particular brand of conservatism is best described as a fusion of fiscal conservatism with libertarianism -- a stark contrast to Elliott's mix of fiscal conservatism and progressive conservatism.

Whether Hillier agrees with it or not, Elliott's progressive conservatism is necessary to strike a balance with his particular brand of conservatism. Even though Long may disagree, the only conservatism that has ever proven sustainable in Ontario was a conservatism respectful of progressive values.

Though Long may not understand it, Mike Harris' hard fiscal conservative coalition was not sustainable without its progressive counterparts. If it had been, Ontario wouldn't be governed by the Dalton McGuinty Liberal party right now.

Randy Hillier's and Christine Elliott's strains of conservatism need each other. It's rather unfortunate that Hillier doesn't seem to have the wisdom to recognize this.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy - "Randy Hillier for Premier"