What's the problem with US evangelical Christianity?

I’m a direct descendant of Anne Hutchinson, so definitely knew about Puritans not encouraging heresy.

To get back to the original question from way back when. What happened with Evangelical Christianity is what happened to everything else. The 60s. (Actually it started before that, but the 60s make a good enough breaking off point.) Prior to the 60s, Mainline Protestantism was the dominant religious force in America and Mainline Protestantism was much more conservative than it is today, but still relatively liberal in its outlook. Well, let’s back up a bit.

Beginning in the late 1800s as the Third Great Awakening was winding down, there was a pretty serious rift in the Church united and particularly in the American Church as to how to deal with a world that was increasingly non-agrarian and increasingly more social rather than communal in aspect. The church largely began moving toward more liberal stances and developed a number of Modernist Theologies that eventually led to very liberal theologies that we still use today. These theologies apply Enlightenment philosophical thought and scientific discovery to Traditional Christian theology and you end up with something not too different than what United Methodists or Episcopalians or most Mainline Protestants believe today. Unfortunately, the Third Great Awakening had brought a lot of people into Christendom though that we’ll say were less amenable to such things. The Modernist movements were largely the work of very educated very wealthy people and they were academic and dry and not necessarily particularly appealing at an emotional level.

New people brought in by the Third Great Awakening as well as Southern Americans were not satisfied with this mainstream Academic trend (whom Southerners saw as dominated by Northerners) and they fought back. They created a new Theology that they called Fundamentalism. It was essentially an idea that regardless of whatever new discoveries or evidence we get, there are certain fundamentals which are necessarily true. There have actually been a number of these ‘fundamentals’ over the years, but they typically center on Biblical inerrancy and the literal account of the Bible (although in the beginning, fundamentalists would NOT have said the Bible is literal, that came later.) Needless to say, in Mainline Christianity, liberalism won fairly easily and within 15 years of Fundamentalism hitting the Academic circuit, there was not a single mainline Protestant seminary that taught it.

In Evangelical churches though, things were different. Evangelicalism arose out of the Second Great Awakening and gave us such hits as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. It was a time of serious religious revival, particularly in the frontier and for whatever reason the Burned Over District. Basically, there was a serious religious fervor that took hold of the country, particularly among Methodists (who later became mainline, but we’ll get to that.) As often happens in these movements, there was a bit of an Apocalyptic element and the idea that as many people as possible needed to be saved from the pits of Hell. So you get people traveling around holding revivals and camp meetings and all sorts of things to try to convince as many people as possible to repent of their sins and start living the good life. The abolitionist movement certainly aided in this and lent credence to the idea that the world was in serious need of saving. Basically, this is the start of Evangelicalism.

One of the hallmarks of Evangelicalism was its focus on the people on the outskirts of society. Evangelicalism for all of its faults in the beginning was extremely equal opportunity and was really at the forefront of social justice. Groups like the Salvation Army got their start as Evangelical groups. They really felt that they needed to reach the poor and destitute that society had forgotten about. This causes lots of problems down the road and honestly it’s why we’re where we are today, but we can get to that as well. Prior to Evangelicalism, the poor weren’t particularly cared about by pretty much anyone. Church was not something for the poor. The poor were working not attending services and there were roadblocks to get into churches like pew rental fees. Evangelicals thought that was serious bullcrap and you ended up with denominations like the Free Methodists who abolished fees for churches and particularly aimed at converting the poor. Evangelicals were responsible for the blue laws that closed down workplaces on Sundays and were instrumental in the early labor movement. So anyway, what’s important to remember is that Evangelicals actively courted the poor and so largely became comprised of the lower classes.

So hopefully, you can see what’s happening. These mainline churches and movements that are largely comprised of wealthy, educated Northerners have become bastions of liberal theology (We still are! Go us!) Evangelical churches which which largely consisted of poor, lower class southerners and minorities, rejected this and became increasingly fundamentalist. What’s important to note though is that largely it didn’t matter. Evangelicalism was largely looked at perhaps the way that we look at the Black Church today - they do their thing, it might be a little bit different, but it doesn’t really matter because by and large the vast majority of people were mainline and went to their Lutheran or Presbyterian or Methodist churches and the Baptists and other Evangelicals were just a group of weirdos from the south that could be safely ignored.

Then, we get Baby Boomers who basically suck and ruin everything that they touch. What began happening in the 1960s was that Boomers had largely decided that they had enough of organized religion. They decided that organized religion was for schmucks and the Beatles and Timothy Leary had the right idea and you see young people start to leave. The people that left though were largely white, wealthy and educated - which was the exact group of people that dominated mainline Protestantism. So all of these white, wealthy educated people start to see their white, wealthy educated spawn drop out of the church and it causes a crisis. People start asking themselves, what the heck is going on? They look at who is leaving and it’s basically the sons and daughters of the people who are advocating a very liberal theology. Meanwhile, they look at Evangelicals who aren’t having that problem at all. They’re actually growing and some mainlines go “Here’s what happened, we embraced these liberal theologies and people abandoned us.” From here, you actually start to see movement from mainline churches towards Evangelical churches. This encourages their worst tendencies. During the 70s and 80s, Evangelicals are slurping up disillusioned mainlines and mainlines are getting absolutely hammered from both sides. Conservative mainlines are becoming Evangelical and liberal mainlines are dropping out of Christianity completely.

Evangelicals figure, “Hey, the problem is that these liberal ideas are killing Christianity, we need to fight these ideas or else we’ll become mainlines.” (To be fair, they aren’t wrong.) So they get these new influx of converts who are generally wealthier and increasingly better connected and people begin to take the fight to the political sphere. We end up with groups like the Moral Majority who are actively supporting conservative candidates. Mainlines on the other hand have lost their moderating voice and are increasingly seen as irrelevant while Evangelicals essentially take up the mouthpiece of Christendom. As they gain power and prestige, they become more and more associated with their political wings. This encourages people on that side of the political spectrum to join Evangelical churches. Eventually what we see by early 2000 is that liberals are essentially persona non grata within Evangelical churches, so you end up with a sorting effect. Mainlines were able to recoup some of those disillusioned liberals, but largely they have just left the church. What this does to Evangelicals is that they see attendance fall and they are going through the same crisis that mainlines did 40 years ago. Their response though is to look back on their history and say, “Why were we successful then?” “Because we were fundamentalist and conservative.” Instead of saying, “Why isn’t that working now?” They are saying, “We need to become more fundamentalist and conservative. We know that becoming liberal makes you die like the mainlines have, so the only other option is to go further right and further fundamentalist.”

So, the long and the short of it is that it’s really Baby Boomers and Millennials fault that Evangelicals are the way they are. If you actually managed to read this tome, I hope you learned something.

Not Intelligent Design; that one is actually from a French SJ, a final attempt at shoveling science and faith into a single box. And I haven’t seen anything about Young Earth Creationism either - yet. Sadly we do have people who buy into anti-vaccination (although most of our unvaccinated people are immigrants, some of whom hadn’t even seen a doctor in their lives; trying to not vaccinate your kid altogether can get the kid removed for abuse) or conspiration theories (who tend to pose it as “just asking funny questions haha” and get drowned by people explaining that you shouldn’t ask questions that you already know to be stupid).

Inerrant Bible, Flat-Earthers, Biblical Literalism… yep, we’re having explanations on those. One of these days I’m expecting an explanation on Constitutional Literalism (we already had a legal case which tried to import that one; it got thoroughly kicked down by those Fathers of the Spanish Constitution which were still alive at the time).

Sadly, very often the information we get on that kind of thing is in the form of badly-translated articles from the US. The whole context is taken for granted, when in Spain it’s either unknown or different. One which stuck in my mind for some reason listed several LGBTI athletes in the Rio games, including two women who had been accused of being men in disguise: in Spain that’s not a medical condition, it’s grounds for a libel suit.

Having read it, I have learned that, while you are in possession of some facts, you have some age and cohort/“generation” filters that skew your presentation out of any good representation of history.
For example, most of the opinions that tend to be condemned by the Left, these days, were frequently expressed by Evangelicals in the early 20th century, (and supported the rise of the 1920s Ku Klux Klan). The term Fundamentalism was made popular by a 1910 book, The Fundamentals. The movement from which that book sprang began around the 1880s with reactions to new scientific studies that challenged some accepted doctrine. It might be more accurate to say that Evangelicals were well on their way to becoming their own strong movement when the Depression, WWII, and the post-war boom distracted them.

The 1960s did see an explosive growth of the movement, but laying the “blame” on Baby Boomers (the oldest of whom were only 24 in the 1968 turmoil) while ignoring the many other social dynamics of the period sounds a lot like scapegoating. (It also ignores that Boomers, themselves, make up more than a third of Evangelicals and ignores that it is also delineated, very much, by geography.)
The Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movements, with their associations with Boomers, certainly affected the movement, but, again, they were, themselves subject to social dynamics that played out regardless of which age cohort was participating.

When did you go to school? I grew up in the '50s and early '60s when we learned that America was great, period. And this was NY. By AP History time we did get a more nuanced view.

A bit later, and the overall tone was that America was great with a few mistakes along the way, but the important basic facts were in the text books.
Usually one or two sentences that the teacher definitely did not want to expand upon. I was horrified by the Trail of Tears as a child and even disturbed by the concept of Manifest Destiny.

You don’t have to go so far back. What about the Satanic ritual abuse scandals of the 1980’s and 1990’s.?There was a whole national network of organized Satanist doing icky things? Odd that the FBI found no evidence of that whatsoever.

But we were discussing religious persecution by the government; I don’t think random rumors of Satanism really count.

He does though grok that the politicization of evangelicalism is a recent development - the Christian right coalesced during the late 1970s; the Moral Majority was founded in 1979 (and formally disbanded in 1989). A self styled critic of secular humanism, Francis A. Schaeffer, went on the road that year with an anti-abortion film.

Possibly there’s nothing special about evangelicalism, except that it happens to be a ready market for direct mail appeals from 1976-1990, and talk radio/Fox news thereafter. I don’t know.
This guy says that the real origins of the religious right aren’t abortion but rather segregation. He doesn’t back his stance with polling though. The 2014 article is plausible, but I thought the evidence was insufficient. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

I would have said that the RE-politicization of the religious right occurred in the 1970s. Prohibition was very much an Evangelical (or Fundamentalist) effort. (The blatant failure of Prohibition may have contributed to its backing down, as well.)
As to abortion vs segregation, abortion might have provided the tipping point after the Civil Rights and anti-war movements had riled them up. Nixon’s “silent majority” was invoked quite often in the early 1970s, even after he had departed.

They’re getting good at it now. They are about to achieve their dreams with the Supreme Court.

Prohibition wasn’t Evangelical. It was heavily Methodist in character which had Evangelical elements, but was much more closely aligned with the liberal wing. The Womens Christoan Temperancr Union was heavily influenced by the women’s suffrage movement. Its second president was Frances Willard, a noted feminist, Christian socialist and possible lesbian. Prohibition was seen as a way of breaking up male dominated social spaces. Later it took on anti-immigrant tones, but was still largely seen as a womens power issue (the Catholic Church was largely anti suffrage.)

If the US evangelical Christianity existed back in early church period or medieval times it would been condemned as a heresy. Jesus would have nothing to do with the prosperity gospel and it’s moral justification. That’s the problem with it.

The Disillusioned. It’s like, such is their life and whatever has happened to them and individuals they care about, what they are really waiting for is ‘The Second Coming’. The return of Jesus in all his glory and then everything will be alright.
The Rapture. Which is not mentioned in the bible., will occur and take away all their problems. You can see why the poor, vulnerable and weak are attracted to it. It’s really like they can’t wait for this world to be finished along with all of it’s problems. Sooner rather than later.
They want the second coming to be imminent. Comforted to think that they are living in the ‘end times’.

Religion is the opiate of the masses?

But that doesn’t answer the question, why are they so hateful to others, especially those also unfortunate?

Well, ‘hate’ is a strong term but i think that is how most feel about their own predicament.
I think it’s more than an opiate for the masses. They are not anaesthetised - they have a fervent attitude for Armageddon which informs their politics. It’s very worrying.

They have this ‘intense yearning’ to be rid of this world and all the bad things that have happened to them. Perhaps that’s the one thing they all
have in common. That’s the essense of US evangelicalism - and since this intense yearning is based on for want of a better word ‘hate’, then perhaps
consideration of whether they are being hateful to others is just redundant / superfluous. Concern for others is just not what they are about - they just want ‘out’.

I might also add that perhaps most if not all don’t really believe in God at all and that deep down they know it’s just a racket - thus heightening their anger
and resentment.

I don’t think Evangelicals hate others, necessarily, but they are very easily led into hateful behavior to women, people of color, LGBTQIA, the differently poor, and others who are not powerful.

They most certainly are concerned for some, for other Christians for their sects, for unborn fetuses, and especially for men who have cheated on their wives but been forgiven by Jesus.

Is it seeing those in power as the chosen, one step closer to God, who must be believed and trusted? Or a naturally spiteful people drawn to Evangelical leadership? Okay, I’ve lost it. I am being hateful myself.

At that period in time, Methodism was, itself, more closely aligned with Evangelicalism. The WCTU, with its pro-suffrage message, was regarded as liberal, but the liberal/conservative divisions of that period do not line up perfectly with what we now regard as liberal or conservative. Do you have any example of any Evangelists opposing Prohibition? Methodism, like Presbyterianism, and several other denominations spent several years closely aligned with Evangelicalism.

Your argument is confusing tomndebb, because the history is confusing. What polling existed during Prohibition was pre-scientific, so it’s harder to ID the percentage of Methodists who were wet, never mind distinguish between mainline and evangelical Methodists.

More confusing is that the term Evangelicalism had a somewhat different meaning at the time, implying a penchant for proselytizing, as opposed to opposition to Mainline Protestantism (the latter which has evolved as well).

Which modern institutions are the successors of the WATU and the Anti-Saloon League? You seem to argue it’s the Pentacostles/Fundamentalists. My take is that support for prohibition had a cross-group appeal that the anti-abortion movement lacks.

What polling exists suggests 21% support for repealing prohibition in 1922 and 74% support for repeal in 1932. That’s a pretty big shift, which I’m guessing makes characterizing group positions more challenging. Repeal of Prohibition

The official position of that denomination was dry, so the number of members following that view is not relevant to my comment.

The word Evangelical has had slightly different meanings, at times, but we are using the word, in this thread, in the sense that the Fundamentalists took the word for themselves when the rise of Wahhabist Islam made the word Fundamentalist unpalatable.

I doubt that there is any large group that is the successor to the WCTU.
While the WCTU and Suffragettes shared some beliefs and attitudes, I would say that the religious groups that championed Prohibition tended to be the predecessors of the current Evangelicals.

The increase in organized crime and related issues changed a lot of minds on the issue of Prohibition, but the religious groups that promoted it tended to be the predecessors to today’s Evangelicals.

I’d point our readers to this wiki page on the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy of the 1920s and 1930s. According to wiki the Modernists won and the fundamentalists re-emerged in the 1970s.

Here’s one quote: [INDENT] Several leading Presbyterians, notably Robert E. Speer, played a role in founding the Federal Council of Churches in 1908. This organization (which received 5% of its first year’s budget from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) was heavily associated with the Social Gospel, and with the Progressive movement more broadly. The Council’s Social Creed of the Churches was adopted by the Presbyterian Church in 1910, but conservatives in General Assembly were able to resist endorsing most of the Council’s specific proposals, except for those calling for Prohibition and sabbath laws. [/INDENT] From that I glean that Prohibition united both wings of the church. The article also said the following: [INDENT] The dispute between the fundamentalists and modernists would be played out in nearly every Christian denomination. By the 1920s, it was clear that every mainstream Protestant denomination was going to be willing to accommodate modernism, with the exception of the Presbyterians and Southern Baptists, where it was still unclear. When the outcome of the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought the Presbyterians into the camp willing to accommodate modernism, this left the Southern Baptists as the only mainstream denomination where fundamentalists were still active within the denomination. Fundamentalists and modernists would continue to struggle within the Southern Baptist Convention and the triumph of fundamentalist views in that denomination would not be secure until the Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence of 1979–1990. [/INDENT] So that’s what happened to evangelicalism I say. The fundamentalists wrangled with mainliners for 60 years, then finally dominated the Southern Baptist convention during the 1980s. Their political awakening was both cause and effect of this: external enemies assisted the fundis in consolidating control.

More wiki, this time in support of Tom: [INDENT] Prohibition in the early to mid-20th century was mostly fueled by the Protestant denominations in the Southern United States, a region dominated by socially conservative evangelical Protestantism with a very high Christian church attendance.[99] Generally, Evangelical Protestant denominations encouraged prohibition, while the Mainline Protestant denominations disapproved of its introduction. However, there were exceptions to this rule such as the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (German Confessional Lutherans), which is typically considered to be in scope of evangelical Protestantism.[100] Pietistic churches in the United States (especially Baptist churches, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others in the evangelical tradition) sought to end drinking and the saloon culture during the Third Party System. Liturgical (“high”) churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran and others in the mainline tradition) opposed prohibition laws because they did not want the government to reduce the definition of morality to a narrow standard or to criminalize the common liturgical practice of using wine.[101] [/INDENT] Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

…and Presbyterians were apparently caught in the middle.