Introduction
Evangelical Christianity refers to a branch of protestant practice of the Christian faith. The movement was introduced to the United States from Great Britain by the migrant settlers and has continued to flourish since.
The group can be distinguished from other models of Christianity by four unique characteristics that they display; the first is the personal surrender to conversion commonly known as being ‘born-gain’. The second characteristic is the practice of frequently expressing the gospel. The others are the belief in the supremacy of the bibles authority and the reiteration of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These four parameters have been dubbed conversionism, activism, Biblicism, and crucicentrism respectively.
In America, evangelism straddles the gap between liberal views and fundamentalism and is among the leading sectors of American Protestantism. Evangelism should not be confused with fundamentalism; these are two different formations of Protestantism in America each with its own convictions [Reichley, 1986].
The evangelical generally seek to be theological conservatives while at the same time engaging the unbelieving world around them for the purpose of ‘bringing them to the light’ in form of being born again.
The American society perceives the evangelicals as also being social conservatives; this stems from some of their positions regarding various societal changes taking place in America and around the world; for example, the refusal to recognize same sex relationships and defining marriage strictly as the union between a man and a woman; also the tough opposing stand regarding abortion [Reichley, 1986].
Evangelical christianity in the United States
Proportion
In 2004, the proportion of evangelical Christians in the United States was placed at 26.3%. This in comparison to the mainline Protestants who made up 16% and the catholic community stood at 22% [Reichley, 1986].
The evangelical influence in America
History
The evangelicals have been playing a part in shaping the cultural and political environment in the United States. Today, many such claim that the United States was formed on the basis of (evangelical) Christian value and that over the years these values have been eroded. Additionally, they advocate for a system of returning to this values.
Arguably, the greatest influence of the evangelicals to the American life was late in the 19th century and early in the 20th century. This was the period when the prohibition policy was formulated and enforced with the support of the evangelicals. The official nationwide prohibition of the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol for consumption was between 1919 as stipulated by the Eighteenth amendment to the United States constitution until 1933 when the amendment was repelled.
The prohibition movement however started earlier among the evangelical churches with the formation of temperance groups to compel people to reduce their alcohol intake. With the prohibition becoming law, the groups took to going into saloons in gangs to sing hymns and smash liquor bottles. These groups while acknowledging that alcohol was a gift from God and in itself was harmless reiterated that its consumption made it prone to the abuse of the devil to lead people astray.
The prohibition, with time, became very unpopular, and caused the explosion of an initially obscure mafia as the black market for liquor grew. The prohibition also led to an increase of other crimes stemming from the illegal sale of alcohol, which often resulted to violence and murder. Additionally, many people were disobeying the prohibition resulting in a paradoxical increase in alcohol intake.
To stem this negative tide, the then president Franklin Roosevelt signed the Cullen-Harrison act on March 23, 1933 reversing the prohibition. The total failure of the system that the evangelicals had championed so actively made everyone more skeptical of their moral stands; thus initiating the steady decline of the immense influence on American life that they had held for so long. In the recent past, the evangelicals have sought to recover more influence on the way the government is run [Reichley, 1986]; in this regard they have had mixed success. Proponents of separation of church and state have attacked some of the historical advantages that the evangelicals wielded and won; for example the banning of institutionally sanctioned prayer in school by the Supreme Court in 1962 was seen by the evangelicals as a direct attacks on the very values they were trying to cultivate in the American society [Reichley, 1986].
They have had some successes even amounting to the election of Christian conservatives to the highest office in the land; such presidents who were overtly ‘saved’ include Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The evangelicals have additionally been able to get adequate audience in this office including the period where Billy Graham, an evangelical minister was an adviser of Richard Nixon. Arguably, the biggest influence that the evangelicals had stemmed from the term of George W. Bush who rather than viewing the evangelicals as advisor took their mission to the center of government; this led to the governments domestic and foreign policy having a conservative Christian flavor to it.
The following are some of the areas where the evangelical movement has had influence in the American culture.
Abortion
This has become a major point of conflict between the Christian/social conservatives and the liberal views. The two sides have been dubbed pro-life for those opposing abortion and pro-choice for those supporting the legalization. The evangelical opposition of abortion stems from a definition of the beginning of life drawn from various sources including bible verses that point that a person starts to exist in the womb and that an abortion is equivalent to murder [Hoffman, 2005]. Since this definition in its entirety is not shared by everyone, opponents of abolition of abortion argue that a legal restriction would tantamount to imposing religious beliefs on people who do not generally accept them.
The opposition of abortion has also morphed into an abortion of stem cell research; since, the evangelicals argue, a person starts existing when the embryo is formed, then any manipulations of human embryos that will ultimately lead to their death is also equal to murder [Hoffmann, 2005]. There is however a disconcerted state among the evangelicals regarding the nature of abortion; whether it should be classified as a crime; and if so, who should be prosecuted and what punishment should be instituted. Also there is no consensus on whether exceptions should be allowed on hypothetical laws banning abortion.
Although the Supreme Court in 1973 made a ruling to the effect that no state can make legislation banning abortion, the evangelicals have sought to exert pressure through political influences. During elections, the politicians seeking the evangelical vote have to state his or her position regarding abortion with those supporting loosing this portion all together. This trend applies even to the presidential elections in America [Hoffmann, 2005]. Consequently, the policy of supporting or opposing abortion shifts between the governments with and without support of the evangelicals.
Although the government (that has a pro-life policy) cannot legally ban abortion, it can pursue policies that make it difficult for abortion clinics to operate. For example, President Bush, a pro-life supporter on ascent to office enacted a policy that sought to freeze federal funding to any foreign organization that offered abortion services or advice [Hoffmann, 2005]; this policy, known colloquially as the global gag order saw the demise of many reproductive health clinics in the developing countries funded by the united states through its aid agency, USIAD, with serious repercussions to the reproductive health status of these communities.
The Church and the Government
Most of the evangelical Christians are of the view and believe that America was founded on protestant values rather than on secular definitions of a country. This has led to the proliferation among these Christians of the belief that the Christianity should be regarded as a privileged religion among others in the American public life due to its historical significance in the American history. This was demonstrated clearly from objections raised after Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala, a Hindu priest, became the first person from that religion to offer an invocation before congress in 2000. The evangelicals then felt that even though the American forefathers in the constitution ensured freedom of religion they had not intended other ‘pagan’ religions to be viewed to equal the supremacy of Christianity in America.
The belief that the government should play a bigger role in preserving the ‘Christian morals envisioned by the American fore fathers’ have led to the rise of red states where the evangelical Christianity has a wide following. Consequently, any person elected to government in this states has to be in support of this sentiments. The evangelical Christian states have become a major political force wielding immense power of vote thus influencing the policies of the politicians seeking this vote [Cook, 2004]. Their strength has been increased by the fact that their views on some of the social issues are shared with other conservative Christian groups in the country trying to shore up support for their religious and moral agendas.
Evangelicals and the Public schools
The banning of institution sponsored prayer in public schools is seen as an assault to the rights of the Christian pupils to express their faith [Beyerlein, 2004]. The evangelicals also call for the teaching of the historical significance of the protestant Christian faith as a cornerstone of American society.
One of the most controversial issues in schools is the curriculum regarding the origin of man and life. The evangelicals are emphatic in calling for the teaching of the theory of ‘intelligent design’, that is, the earth was created by God alongside other scientific theories regarding this subject. The efforts to introduce this aspect into the curriculum have however been futile in the face of unfavorable court rulings [Beyerlein, 2004].
Alternatively, the evangelicals have resulted to launching a loud albeit disconcerted campaign for an exodus from the public school system in favor of Christian based private schools and home schooling. Apart from the ‘evolutionary’ curriculum that the evangelicals are opposed to, the call for the exodus has also been propped up by claims that the pupils were being taught pro-gay values; and that they learned immorality, drug and alcohol abuse and promiscuity. The public school system has not been impacted significantly by these calls; and enrollment into the schools continues to increase; this can be partly attributed to the fact that not many people can afford the hefty tuition fees usually charged in private schools; and that home schooling cannot substitute for the kind of skilled teaching a child receives from an accredited teacher [Beyerlein, 2004].
However, impact of the exodus calls has been seen in the increase in the enrollment in private, mostly religious schools; and an increase in the number of children that are home-schooled. There has also been a subtle change in the attitudes of young parent who are now more willing to consider home schooling as an alternative; a generation before, the proportion making this consideration was very small.
In the face of this affronts, the public school administrators have moved in to dispel the perception that the public school environment is atheistic and hostile to religion. Today, students are being encouraged to form religious groups and clubs among themselves; additionally, the reading of the Bible along a non-sectarian context is also being encouraged. Various administrators have also resulted to denying the usually false allegations of the public school intolerance to Christianity that is usually spread through the internet from person to person. These efforts however are usually tampered by a fear of litigations from liberal parent who may feel that this may lead to forced imposition of religion to their children.
Evangelicals and foreign policy
The influence of the evangelicals on the foreign policy reached its peak in the late 19th and the early 20th century. Their influence has reduced. However, they continue to wield a significant amount of power in directing how the US foreign policy is run. The evangelicals are strong supporters of the Jewish state of Israel; this can be attributed to the biblical teaching that the Jewish people are part of the greater plan of God for the salvation of mankind; and that the Jewish state will be blessed as stipulated in the biblical prophecies [Wagner, 2009]. Therefore, any nation that will side with Israel stands to gain these blessings by extension [Wagner, 2009]. The evangelicals thus support the Jewish claims of the Palestinian settlements based on divine allocation stipulated in the respective religious manuscripts [Wagner, 2009]. In April of 2004, the then president Bush was pressured by this group to support Israel in keeping some of its settlement in occupied west bank; this was the first in the American history and was seen as a significant victory for the pro-Israel evangelistic Christians.
America faces a new amorphous danger in form of terrorism [Cook, 2004]. The majority of the terrorist targeting the US are drawn from Islamic zealots from various countries. This is in contrast with the vast political and economic ties that the US has with most majority Islamic states [Corwin, 2005]. The evangelists have been blamed for the negative portrayal of Islam as a religion in support of mindless violence that has led to the lack of differentiation between terrorism and Islam by many American citizens and other people world wide. Although such sentiment had been expressed in the past, the September 11th attacks served to confirm this notion in the evangelical mind [Corwin, 2005]; the definition of Islam through the narrow context of the militant terrorist has led to the categorization of Islam as the new Antichrist [Cook, 2004].
Some evangelical preachers have a habit of making spectacular claims about the intention of Islamic states in regards to waging a holy war with the purpose of converting the world to Islam. They argue that the US has the divine mandate to ‘protect Christianity’ worldwide against Islamic encroachment [Cook, 2004]. This notion may have been the main motivation for the support of the war in Iraq initiated by the Bush administration [Cook, 2004]. Additionally, it has galvanized the resolve of evangelical missionaries to preach in countries where Islamic rules strictly prohibit such practice and where the sentence for such a ‘crime’ is death; the missionaries usually pose as tourists or aid workers in order to gain entry into such countries.
The evangelicals have also come out strongly in opposition of persecution of Christians in other countries. They cite their fears from the Jewish holocaust where the America Jews are blamed for failing to read the signs of the impending disaster. No doubt, there have been many confirmed reports of atrocities committed against Christian communities in the Sudan, in North Korea and china; and Indonesia.
The evangelicals are credited in pushing forward the agenda that helped quell one of the longest civil strife in the world in southern Sudan. The evangelicals are credited for pushing for the enactment of the Sudan Peace act of 2002 that threatened the Islamic government of Sudan with diplomatic action if it did not take steps to end the conflict. These effort resulted in the signing of the peace treaty that saw the end of the fighting between John Garang’ of the SPLA and President Omar el Bashir of the central government based in Khartoum.
The evangelicals are calling for the government support to enable them to evangelize in territories where such attempts would prove fatal; for example in Afghanistan, North Africa, Uzbekistan; some are even eyeing Iraq [Corwin, 2005].
The evangelicals have also been calling for a policy that would peg any future aid to North Korea to be pegged with sanctions that would compel the regime to widen the space for religious expression.
However, analyst can foresee a conflict in the future in a situation where the US has to take a side between protecting a Christian minority that is being persecuted and the American political and economic vested interest in such a country; such situations may occur in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Nigeria [Corwin, 2005]. This issue therefore has the potential of becoming a major political contentious issue whereby politicians will have to take a stand when seeking the evangelical vote.
Faith based organizations and humanitarian efforts
Under the presidency of George W, Bush, faith based organizations received a new lease of life. The president created the white house office of faith based organizations to foresee the increased federal funding of their activities. The president also sanctioned changes on the requirements to be met in order to get this funding; especially removing the stipulation that required these organizations to separate their religious and charitable activities. Consequently, these organizations have been able to utilize these funds to combine abroad missions to have both an evangelistic and a charitable aspect. Since 1996, the number of protestant missionaries going for charitable missions has increased eight fold to over 350,000 in 2001. The faith based organizations have also done a lot of charitable work in the United States and have improved the lives of many people.
Reservations have however been raised about government involvement with organizations that exclusively profess one view (that of Christianity) in direct opposition and non-recognition of any other belief. This would erode the impartiality of the government in regard to issues pertaining religious affiliation. This relationship may also undermine the separation of church and state.
These organizations have also been accused of proselytizing the persons supposed to benefit from their services thus infringing on their rights to have an independent religious view. Additionally, the organizations have been accused of discrimination in hiring; this stems from their nature that requires the workforce to be able to proselytize the societies they are operating in.
Finally, the government has been accused of abdicating some of its roles that it owes the people in favor of letting these organizations do these jobs.
The Evangelicals and George W. Bush
The two terms that Bush sat in the white house will be remembered both for its favorable aspect and for not-so-flattering one. One certainty however is that the evangelical crowd’s opinion held considerable sway on the presidency during the period [Wagner, 2009]. The influence was also seen in the appointment of Supreme Court judges. William Rehnquist was replaced with john Roberts as the chief justice; the latter is a conservative. The president also made other appointments that sought to influence the way court ruled in issues regarding the state and the religion. The bush presidency also had an evangelical flavor in regards to the people working in the white house; the administration had the largest number of Born-again Christians in modern history. These included the national security advisor (and later the secretary of state) Condoleezza Rice and the attorney general john Ashcroft.
As expected, the administration was strictly pro-life; the president pushed for the enactment of the Partial-birth Abortion act of 2003 through bi-partisan means; the administration was accused of eroding some rights to legalized abortion [Hoffmann, 2005]. The president went further to freeze federal aid to foreign charitable organization (under the supervision of the US aid agency USAID) that offered abortion as an alternative to women in these countries or even gave advice on how to procure a safe abortion [Hoffmann, 2005]. We can also attribute the administrations opposition of embryonic stem cell research to the influence of evangelical beliefs regarding the beginning of human life [Hoffmann, 2005]. As an alternative, the president was a staunch supporter adult stem cell research and of umbilical cord stems cell research.
The president was also an opponent of legalization of euthanasia.
Conclusion
The evangelical movement is arguably not growing at any remarkable rate as the religious affiliations are more or less static in regards to the various states. However, their influence in the various aspects of the American society is obvious and significant.
More important of this is the way the movement has fashioned itself as a political entity that has to be appeased by any political candidate that is seeking their collective vote. By using this power the evangelical Christians have been able to push one of their own, for example George Bush, to the highest office in the land. From this vantage position the movement can then influence the various aspects to their liking and/or faith and beliefs.
In order to achieve this, the greatest asset to this group has been the unity of thought and belief; whereby in regards to some issues, only one voice is heard.
The evangelical ministers see it as their personal mission to exert influence on the American society for the purposes of bringing back the values that were lost in terms of morality and other issues; and they are aggressively carrying out their divine mandate; no doubt then, we will be seeing more of the evangelical Christians on the national platform.
Work Cited
- Beyerlein Kraig. Specifying the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Educational Attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Volume 43 Issue 4, Pages 505 – 518. Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2004
- Cook Anthony E. Encountering the Other: Evangelicalism and Terrorism in a Post 911 World .Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-30, 2004 – 2005.
- Corwin E. Smidt. Religion and American Attitudes toward Islam and an Invasion of Iraq. Sociology of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 243-261, 2005.
- Hoffmann John P. and Sherrie Mills. Attitudes toward Abortion among Religious Traditions in the United States: Change or Continuity? Sociology of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 161-182, 2005
- Reichley A. James. Religion and the Future of American Politics. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 101, No. 1 (1986), pp. 23-47
- Wagner Donald. Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance.