Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want. - book review

Sociology of Religion, Spring, 2002 by Sam Reimer

Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want by CHRISTIAN SMITH. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000, 257pp. $27.50 (cloth)

In Christian America?, Professor Smith seeks to debunk the popular (negative) stereotypes of evangelicals and their sociopolitical agenda in the United States. Drawing largely from media sources and some personal experience, Smith points out popular fears about evangelicalism: that they threaten tolerance, civility and democracy, that they wish to force their conservative religious and political views on others, and that they represent a powerful and united front in the "Culture Wars." Like Rodney Dangerfield, evangelicals don't get much respect, and "remain one of the last social groups in the United States that people can speak disparagingly about in public and get away with it" (p. 195). Drawing mostly from 187 in-depth interviews with evangelicals from various locations around the country, but also from other national surveys including the 1996 Religious Identity and Influence Survey (on which much of Smith et al.'s 1998 book American Evangelicalism is based), he refutes these stereotypes. Smith finds th at few American evangelicals are interested in engaging the culture wars, they have diverse political agendas, and the majority embrace tolerance and civility. Evangelical views are "diverse, complex, ambivalent, and inconsistent", hardly the sort of united front that is capable of a political take-over (p. 194). Smith concludes that "most of those who disparage evangelicals in general terms really don't know what they are talking about" (p. 195). 195).

In the Introduction, four fallacies about evangelicals are suggested: the "representative elite fallacy" (the views of the noisiest evangelicals represent those of the rank-and-file), the "factual survey fallacy" (the picture of evangelicals taken from survey research is sufficient), the "ideological consistency fallacy" (evangelicals have internally coherent views), and the "monolithic religious block fallacy" (that evangelicals can be treated as a single entity). Of course, scholars who are familiar with the literature on American evangelicalism recognize these as fallacies. Previous research, including challenges to Hunter's "Culture Wars" thesis, demonstrated the multivocality and diversity of evangelicals (see Jelen's review in Review of Religious Research, December 2000). But it is qualitative data like Smith's that brings out this diversity the best. Qualitative data usually challenge simplistic, all-or-nothing views of subcultural groups.

One should not forget, however, that attitudes toward evangelicals are also diverse. The stereotypes Smith posits are drawn from media and academic circles, and may not represent the rank-and-file non-evangelical's views of evangelicals. The "representative elite fallacy" cuts both ways. Later in the book, Smith notes that most evangelicals feel they are personally treated with respect and carry on good relationships with people who disagree with their religious views. This suggests that negative stereotypes are not widely held or are at least cloaked in external civility.

However, I agree with Smith that there is no shortage of disparaging remarks about evangelicals in the U.S., and it is no better in Canada. Media mud-slinging in reference to the religious views of Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day, an evangelical, have been legion. For this reason, this volume is a valuable corrective to media views of evangelicals on both sides of the border, since Canadian evangelicals are assumed to be simply a smaller version of their U.S. counterparts.

The problem of accurately defining evangelicalism has been raised before, particularly by reviewers of the 1998 American Evangelicalism volume. In both books, respondents are those who self-identity as evangelicals, not those who hold a certain set of orthodox beliefs or belong to conservative Protestant denominations. The author is well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of different definitional strategies, as the topic is given some discussion in Christian America and extended discussion in American Evangelicalism. I do not wish to revisit this issue here. However, it should be noted that the sampling strategies used naturally select active (which was the researcher's intention) and well-educated evangelicals. Interviewees were chosen from a subset of "card-carrying" evangelicals from the 1995 telephone poll, and from regular attenders of "local knowledge" evangelical churches who tended to be highly educated and urban (see Appendix A in American Evangelicalism). In my view, this strategy of selecting active evangelicals makes good sense for the interview project, since active evangelicals best represent the subculture. Those interviewed would be considered evangelical and would meet the criteria of other measurement strategies as well. The strategy, however, maximizes support for the argument Smith is making. Some research suggests that actively religious people are more tolerant than those who are moderately active. One would expect greater diversity and multivocality from educated, active evangelicals, since they are more likely to reject simplistic views, and will reveal the diversity of local congregations. It is likely that Smith's results would be less convincing if evangelicals were selected for the study based simply on denominational affiliation or orthodox belief.