I’m looking forward to read Stegner’s book.

This afternoon I had a spirited conversation with a Christian friend who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and remains supportive of his presidency, even though he disagrees with the recent assaults on religious liberty. He made an allowance for the President, as if the dirty hands belong to his underlings. Just as I held George W. Bush – more than John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld – ultimately responsible for the preemptive war in Iraq and its mismanagement (e.g., enhanced interrogation techniques, Abu Ghraib prison scandal), I hold Barack Obama – more than Eric Holder or Kathleen Sebelius – ultimately responsible for his administration’s attacks on religious liberty. The buck stops at the president, as Harry Truman famously said. We vote for the President – not the Health & Human Services Secretary or Attorney General.

I regarded an unjust war in Iraq and torture as a “deal breaker” in my support for Bush. So too, I regard an unconstitutional and, dare I say, un-Christian assault on religious liberty as a deal breaker. Obama’s actions against religion are not “fairly minor,” as my friend suggested. They are egregious.

While I am not committed to voting for Mitt Romney in the general election and may abstain altogether, I think it’s highly ironic that the “cult follower” (Romney) would probably be a greater defender of religious liberty, given the persecution of the Mormon Church in the United States, than “the born-again Christian” (Obama).

To exonerate myself from the perception that I suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, let me go on the record for saying that I support the administration for . . .

* Ending the war in Iraq started by the Bush administration.
* Ending the harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration.
* Ordering the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
* Continuing the Bush administration’s disruption and dismantling of Al-Qaeda.
* Using drones in the war against terrorism.
* Supporting the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
* Requiring health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
* Preventing children from being refused health insurance coverage.
* Beginning a reform of the military to reflect present day threats and technology.
* Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel.
* Improving benefits for veterans.
* Rejecting the Keystone XL project.
* Increasing federal spending and tax incentives for renewable and clean energy.
* Appointing Dr. Francis Collins as Director to the National Institutes of Health.

I guess my gripe is that the evangelical outrage machine still seems to be very one-dimensional when both parties are deserving of it. (And I would add that if you’re resolved to vote for one candidate or the other, I don’t think the case against Obama is nearly as clear cut as it is if you’re committed to a more idealistic approach in which you’re perfectly content to abstain. If you have to choose between Obama or Romney… man, I might still vote Obama. Of course, I’m choosing to abstain entirely, so it ends up being a moot point.)

I think you accurately summed up the situation here:

“I am still restless with “evangelical” (uppercase, in my reading) as a descriptor of my own religious identity. That restlessness owes to what I perceive as the cultural captivity and politicization of the movement during my lifetime. Add to this “the anointed” authority structure, pointless heresy hunting, institutional weakness, ad hoc liturgy, anti-intellectualism, middlebrow aesthetics, and flaccid theology (“moralistic, therapeutic deism”)—and you will begin to understand the winter of my discontent.”

I think there are important consequences to this idea that would be great to talk out:

“…my restlessness with evangelicalism is sensible because a protest movement should never be ‘put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions.’ ”

I agree completely when you write: “Generic evangelicalism is just too damn generic for deep discipleship.” I think this is exactly what Lewis had in mind when he said you have to leave the hallway to be fed. The danger for our generation—the burned-over (out?) children of evangelicals—is that we have learned well the lessons of generic christianity. We have been discipled for homelessness.

Interestingly, I think there is a connection between what you write here and your interest in two-kingdoms theology, at least I’d like to see you explore that.

Thanks so much for the article! When the kids (who have just gotten up and broken my quiet reading time) are less in need of dad’s attention, I look forward to reading your full treatment in Books and Culture.

Kevin