A Roadmap to a Murky Future Exists for Evangelicals to be Elite
Editor’s note: part of a symposium on Evangelical elites.
My friend Aaron M. Renn makes a very strong case, in “The Problem with the Evangelical Elite,” over at First Things, that such an elite can hardly be said to exist. Having read him for years, I think I understand his thinking, but just to make sure, I’ve talked to him about the subject. As always, I’m impressed with his seriousness and his practical, no-nonsense attitude. I do not, however, agree with his judgment, and I’d like to lay out both my objections and an alternative path closer to what’s already going on in America.
First, a quick historical sketch. In the century or so since the “fundamentalist” versus “liberal” split in the Protestant churches, the “liberal” elites rose to the mid-century heights of American life, whereupon they promptly self-destructed, both religiously and sociologically. The “Main Line” is now rather like the “inner cities” or “projects,” the vestige of an overproud civilization.
Meanwhile, the “fundamentalists” accepted a kind of retreat into the hinterland, especially in the South, but eventually became politically important as part of the Reagan coalition, just like the South has become the favorite part of the country for Americans to move into. We are now seeing a rehashing of that conflict, as younger Protestants are trying to bring God and specifically Jesus back into religion, in the face of the manifest failures of liberal atheist elites.
In this context, Aaron’s recommendations seem to me to lead to weakening the only strengths evangelicals have, according to him: Politics and business. Accordingly, the most important man in the evangelical elite in America goes entirely unmentioned in his long essay: Charlie Kirk! Instead, Aaron offers us a provocative statement, to embrace defeat with Mitt Romney.
The future evangelical elite should worry seriously about politics. Men should look to their strength in organization, as Charlie did with Turning Point. It’s a waste of resources to try to cultivate a counter-elite at Yale, where evangelicals are unwelcome.
Yes, Catholics excel at the Ivies, for precisely the historical and theological reasons Aaron presents, which do not favor evangelicals. Catholics had solidarity in America for similar reasons to the Jews, who also excelled in elite higher education. Both had ethnic solidarity going for them and quite some doctrinal continuity, because they had priests. Jews have yeshivas to study Judaism; Catholics have seminaries. Evangelicals have neither ethnic solidarity nor a priestly class. No one is offering either prophetic or practical ways to change this situation.
Let us look around us instead and make the most of the good we have. Men like Charlie, surely including many men he has inspired, could become the cadre of the evangelical elite. Charlie’s mix of unusual intelligence, voracious reading, and dropping out of college is almost a recipe. As to business, evangelicals should embrace social media and technology to give the new generation a chance to make a future for themselves. It is precisely the lack of doctrinal focus that allows evangelicals to be at home almost everywhere in America and to offer brotherhood and confidence to newcomers.
I largely agree with Aaron’s presentation of our situation, yet, when it comes to the future, I entirely disagree about what to do. My guess is, Aaron thinks the American elite of the next generation will largely resemble the elite of the previous one. I believe that’s not so. Moreover, if evangelicals want a future, they have to bet on change. They have to bet on their own strengths, so they shouldn’t follow Aaron’s suggestions but something closer to mine. I’m not evangelical; it’s not my fight, but Charlie was, and I think his activity should matter.
If you find this persuasive, think about the political teaching of Charlie and imitate him. Focus on men, organize men while they’re young, which is easiest done in schools and colleges, get them to understand their needs in terms of work, marriage, a home, a family, and a church, and get them to demand that they be treated with respect as citizens. Only political representation can protect our private lives; only a new elite can achieve that for us; and only such a mission can call forth an elite.
I therefore also vehemently disagree with Aaron about the issue of female ordination. Evangelicals must fight it with all their might—keeping the women out of church authority is incredibly important if evangelicals want to avoid the very vices Aaron deplores about the Main Line Protestants, i.e., that they’re Progressive atheists who get sentimental about any number of fashionable causes but are profoundly unserious morally. Instead, you should think every day about the fatherhood of God that makes for an evangelical brotherhood of man.
I’ll add another bit of friendly criticism: Colin Redemer also reviewed Aaron’s important book for Ad Fontes and made similar recommendations, to imitate the Catholics and Jews. Now, I admire Catholics and Jews, but I cannot help noticing that neither group has shown any political wisdom. So this strikes me as largely impractical, the proposal of an ‘intellectual.’ Colin phrases it this way: “Think like a minority community.”
I admit that we should begin to think about our unprecedented situation, an America in which only a minority are Christians. We must face up to atheists who use the state, educational system, and corporations to wipe out faith. But what relationship to national character makes a community a community. Put otherwise, what can evangelicals do? How can we speak to the vast majority of people who are not anti-Christian, but only confused, ignorant, or indifferent? A minority of apostles might do that. Nothing else can.
I admit, too, that our situation nowadays is worse overall; Christianity is, as Aaron says, in a “negative world.” But evangelicals used to be in a much worse situation from the decisive point of view. During the liberals’ domination, who dared to talk about God in schools? Now, we can run campaigns on returning the Bible to its rightful place in education. We have much to offer the next generation.
I believe evangelicals must look to Ronald Reagan. At the peak of liberal power, just imagine how elites who thought they were achieving world-transforming Progress looked at someone like Reagan, who was not an intellectual, who lacked institutional credentials, and who lacked a national reputation. Reagan’s virtues are not too unlike Charlie’s—great public speakers who made their reputations through organization. Rather like Trump’s rallies, too.
Look, therefore, for such impressive public figures. Politics is inherently competitive and adversarial, so evangelicals can recruit as elites men who fight and fight wisely, while also escaping the unusually tame rhetoric of most apolitical institutions. It’s not very useful now to imitate feminized liberal institutions that are collapsing; it would be wiser to bet on strengths rather than weaknesses, to push toward organization through digital communities, which can establish reputations and careers. The problem, of course, is that to take this path, you have to put your trust in young men and pay them.
