Stones Cry Out

This weekend I began reading a book by Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, which is a philosophical defense of the Christian faith. This book poses an extended argument supporting the notion that Christian belief is intellectually acceptable and justified in the modern era. Mr Plantinga distinguishes between de facto and de jure objections to Christian belief. De facto objections are those which dispute particular Christian truth claims whereas de jure objections are those which speak more to the intellectual defensibility, that such belief is not reasonable or justified … or following two earlier books by Mr Plantinga warranted.

In the first part of this book (and I have not finished but am only about 200 pages or so in), Mr Plantinga begins to examine what arguments have been made supporting the claim that such belief is not justified. Ultimately he finds only two, after having discarded as inadequate quite a few. I thought this passage, supporting the notion that one is being responsible with respect to ones deontological epistemic duty, that is one has done one’s due diligence to support ones foundational beliefs. He writes (pp 100-101):

Consider such a believer: she displays no noticeable dysfunction. She is aware of the objections people have made to Christianity and has relfected on Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche (not to mention Flew, Mackie and Nielsen) and other critics of Christian or theistic belief; she knows the world contains many who do not believe as she does. She doesn’t believe on the basis of propositional evidence; she therefore believes in the basic way. Can she be justified (in this broadly deontological sense) in believing in God in this way.

The answer seems to be pretty easy. She reads Nietzsche, but remains unmoved by his complaint that Christianity fosters a weak, whining, whimpering, and generally disgusting kind of person; more the Christians she knows or knows of — Mother Theresa, for example — don’t fit that mold. She finds Freud’s contemptuous attitude toward Christianity and theistic belief backed by little more than implausible fantasies about the origin of belief in God (patricide in the primal horde? Can he be serious?) and she finds little more of substance in Marx. She thinks as carefully as she can about these objections and others but finds them wholly uncompelling.

On the other side, although she is aware of theistic arguments and thinks some of them not without value, she doesn’t believe on the basis of them. Rather, she has a rich inner spiritual life, the sort described in the early pages of Jonathan Edwards Religious Affections; it seems to her that she is somtimes made aware; catches a glimpse, of something of the overwhelming beauty and loveliness of the Lord; she is often aware, as it strongly seems to her, of the work of the Holy Spirit in her heart, comforting, encouraging, teaching, leading her to accept the “great things of the gospel” (as Edwards calls them), helping her to see that the mangificent scheme of salvation devised by the Lord himself is not only for others but for her as well. After long, hard, conscientious reflection, this all seems to her enormously more convincing than the complaints of the critics. Is she then going contrary to duty in believing as she does? Is she being irresponsible? Clearly not. […] She could be mistaken […] nevertheless, she isn’t flouting any discernable duty. She is fullfilling her epistemic responsibilities; she is doing her level best; she is justified.

Another cute logical demonstration Mr Plantinga elaborates is related to arguments concerning evidence. Classical foundational or evidential arguments separate statements as basic or contingent. A contingent statement is one which is dependent on other tatements or evidence which should in turn rest on those until founds the whole array on basic truths and evidence.The statement that evidence is required is not a basic statement but is complex and contingent on other statements. Alas, it seems there is no chain of logic and propositional evidential argument that leads to any evidential support for the evidential method. This is stated baldly here and if needed I’ll attempt to unpack and express Mr Plantinga’s argument on this matter in more detail. If you really want the goods, of course, buy or borrow the book.

I should mention that ultimately the complaints of lack of warrant given by Freud and Marx are found to be the only sustainable objections. In part III, which I have not completed, Mr Plantinga mounts argument for Christian warrant against these complaints.

According to Freud, theistic belief is produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, but the process that produces them — wishful thinking — does not have the production of true belief as its purpose; it is aimed instead at something like enabling us to carry on in the grim and threatening world in which we find ourselves.

Therefore it fails one of the conditions for warrant, namely reliability. Marx’s view is similar.

He thinks first that theistic and religious belief is produced by cognitive faculties that are not functioning properly. Those faculties are, to the extent that they produce such belief, dysfunctional; the dysfunction is due to a sort of perversion in social structure, a sort of social malfunction. Religious belief therefore doesn’t meet the first condition of warrant; it is therefore without warrant and an intellectually health person will reject it. Further, Marx also thinks that a person whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly and who knows what was known by the middle of the nineteenth century will see that materialism is very probably true, in which case Christian and theistic belief is very likely false.

As, in the future, I return to this book I will attempt to summarize Mr Plantinga’s defense against the “F&M” objections to Christian warrant and as well, if elaborations of arguments or discussion of matters from the early sections are desired, let me know and I’ll attempt to provide them.

Pave. Le Enfer du Nord (the Hell of the North). Paris-Roubaix. Last week I began a short description of one of the jewels of the pro-cycling calendar, the one-day classics of April. Sunday the Ronde de Vlaanderen unfolded, one account can be found here. This weekend an even more famous or infamous race is to be held, namely a race from Paris to Roubaix. Pave, or cobbles-stones are included, in 28 sections on the race course. These vary in length between from 200m to over over 3km. These aren’t the even neat brick-like cobblestones found in American cities and alleyway. Pave in this and the other Belgium and spring races is a feature of the European farm-country. These are irregular large rocks. One American racer, on encountering pave for the first time rode on it a bit and remarked, “This isn’t racing, this is stupid.” See the photo on wiki for an illustration. Another feature of the early spring is of course that the weather is uncertain. As the race goes through muddy and rural pave sections and pathways, if it has rained recently or is raining then just completing the race is a challenge.

Terrain affects bike racing in a number of ways. Flat races and/or headwinds keep the peloton together leading to a sprint finish. A strong tailwind can help a breakaway effort. The effect of the cobbles are twofold. Cobbles take power to negotiate. This favors the stronger riders who need phenomenal bike handling skills. Additionally, crashes and mechanicals are common as the pave takes its toll on men and equipment. The pave is often narrow as well and a crash can impede riders behind the crashes significantly. So, to do well those who hope to win must stay at the front. As the most significant poritions of which start with the Arenberg section, which leaves over 100km in the race that means the “contenders” and race leaders need to ride at the front for 60 miles or more. For the non-participants (that is the rest of us) that is a good thing. That means the dueling. The give and take and tactical battles for victory takes place for a long time.

1. Disagreement with Mr Obama’s tawdry charactarization of the American people. Another view here.
2. The progressives don’t think it’s a good idea either. Who does?
3. Adam, Eve, and Islam.
4. She is a prole? So what is the particular significance of that for non-Marxists?
5. Theology and Led Zeppelin.
6. Economic complaints.
7. For St. Mary of Egypt … the Saint remembered and honored by the East for the fifth and last Sunday of Great Lent.
8. Winners and losers.
9. Easter marketing … or not getting it right.
10. North Korea.
11. An Obama gaffe discussed and arriving at a good conclusion.
12. Porn and an analogy.
13. Mr Obama wants ponies for everyone.
14. Some (inconvenient) facts about the guns from the US (or not) in Mexico.
15. Tricki.
16. Li.
17. GR video.

1. Lancet and the mythical mass numbers of Obama donors.
2. Our youth and infantilization.
3. Another slippery slope … euthanasia slips to murder, two posts here and here.
4. G20 signing our economic death warrants.
5. The other April showers.
6. Examining Fannie and Freddie.
7. So … what will Mr Obama do?
8. A man retires.
9. Interesting infra-structure usage.
10. More big brotherliness.
11. Why so many cults in America?
12. The death of a writer/translator noted.
13. Mr Spencer not impressed by Harold Koh.
14. Global warming perhaps?
15. Considering miracles.
16. Economics of and in Nazi Germany.

1. Breast nazis exposed, err, in a manner of speaking.
2. Faith and science … and a Russian Saint.
3. Advice on selecting what to read.
4. Looking for a book on anger and forgiveness and the Christian life. My suggestion was The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World.
5. A problem with the de-baptism thing. Including of course … why?
6. Petraeus on Pakistan. More on that front here.
7. Heh, the bike and April 1.
8. A “not funny” April 1 joke.
9. Verse.
10. Temptation and Lent.
11. On living the Christian life.
12. Parents. Not perfect (well, duh).
13. A notable ex-Baptist swims the Tiber.
14. Will he do it?
15. A paper on materialism and mathematics (HT: Mr Reppert).
16. Gaffe. So, is he being stupid or intentionally insulting?

"Slippery Slope" arguments involve a bit of prediction.  If A happens, B will happen next.  It’s easy to dismiss these sorts of arguments are mere guesses.  However, when initial predictions become true, it’s time to take the arguments more seriously.

David Warren charts the course down the slippery slope in Canada.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005, I argued that polygamy would follow. This is now happening.

There is nothing much we can do about it — the Canadian Constitution has "evolved," so that the judges who interpret Pierre Trudeau’s Charter of Rights have the power not only to overturn Acts of Parliament, but to make new law from whole cloth, according to their whims and ideological commitments. "The people" — mere voters — need not be consulted.

A test case is already heading towards the Supreme Court, from Bountiful, B.C. Lawyers for the fundamentalist Mormon, Winston Blackmore, who has long been openly practising polygamy, will invoke the Charter. The old goat has actually boasted of his multiple teenaged brides: estimates run to more than 20 wives in total. (And you thought Brad Pitt was a chick magnet.)

That this test case will not only proceed, but succeed, almost goes without saying. Even the attorney general of British Columbia doubted his chances with the Charter, when he brought polygamy charges in January against Blackmore, and Jim Oler. This was after a delay of about half a century: for the polygamous cult has been established openly in Bountiful since the era of Peyton Place (the late 1950s). The very fact that the authorities had not found the guts to enforce Section 293 of the Criminal Code, in all this time, will now be counted against the law itself.

This is nothing very new, actually.  Here are posts from 2007, 2005, May of 004, and January of 2004, and that’s just my noting of the arguments.  Others have been warning of this for longer than that.  Things have moved (slipped?) faster in Canada, but they have a more liberal mindset.  If you think it can’t happen here, you’re just completely mistaken and/or you haven’t been paying attention. 

1. Considering monasticism.
2. Hmm.
3. A myth considered.
4. Online resources for daily prayer.
5. Evidence for another myth, i.e., that the pro-abortion contingent of the pro-choice crowd is insignificant in numbers. More here.
6. Alas for the blogger.
7. The sky is blue.
8. Zap. Boom.
9. A lesson.
10. Extension of mind.
11. A libertarian praises Mr Limbaugh. I’d be curious to hear what criticism of that segment the left has to offer.
12. Categories.
13. Bombs and … more people really do need to read the COIN manual.
14. An awesome recovery.
15. A thought.
16. Freedom of speech, not in the UK apparently.

April brings spring showers … and the great one day classics. The professional cycling calendar runs from, well, January through October. July’s big race, the Tour de France is known by everyone. Many people and all cyclists know that the Tour is one of three “Grand Tours” three week races with the other two being the Giro de Italia which begins in May and the Vuelta a Espana which begins in late August or early September. These three week races are complex events with many overall races within races occurring and complex strategies unfolding over three weeks of racing.

Stage racing is a major part of the professional cycling calendar but is not everything. There are also the one day races. The most prestigious one day races are the “classics”, four of which are coming up over the four weekends in April. In stage racing recovery is key, one can never go too far into one’s reserves of endurance and exhaustion because one is required to respond and be able to race well the next day. With one day races that is not a factor. The race is all or nothing with everything on the one finish. The Tour GC (overall time winner) can be won by a rouleur (time trial specialist) or a climber or a rider who is excellent at both. The spring classics are won by the “hard men” of the peloton. The spring classics are often cold and wet, littered with short steep climbs, and the road conditions often include Northern European cobblestones, or the pavé.

This weekend the first of the one day classics for this year will be held, the Ronde van Vlaandaren, or in English the Tour of Flanders. Here is a short interview with a former Ronde winner on this particular race.

Some Representatives who voted for the "AIG tax" privately expressed regret after the emotional vote.  It doesn’t look like it’s actually going to pass now.  Looks like we might have dodged that bullet.

Or not.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

(Emphasis mine.)  The bill passed in the Financial Services Committee on a nearly-party-line vote.  I’ll let you guess which party was for it and which against. 

The government is doing what government does best; increase its power.  When there is that much money flowing around DC, it is bound to become the tool used to that end.  Tax cuts and smaller government would reduce that ability, if not that propensity.  Our founding father knew this very well, which is why we started out with a more decentralized form of republic.  Over time, the federal government has indeed become powerful enough to buy into the public sector and start running the show, deciding who can work for your company and, if this passes, for how much.

Remind me again how these very fears were, and are still, labeled "paranoia"?

1. Ethics and the state.
2. Relativity and light.
3. From the other left coast.
4. Bubble as myth.
5. The War on Terror is over? Hmm.
6. Feds as super-CEO.
7. Who was Rambam?
8. Octopus orgy.
9. Talking Fireproof.
10. No … (as an answer to the lede … and following the essay concurs).
11. This is not, to my view, persecution.
12. A five favorites list.
13. I don’t know if spectacular is the adjective I’d use by it is impressive.
14. Data on AIDS, via Mr Dreher.
15. Yer nuts.
16. What is the why for Mr Obama? More here.
17. One wonders if as the President gathers even more power, if the Democrats realize that there won’t always be a Democrat in the White House?

Considering the amount of discussion that an offhand comment on fidelity and monogamy stirred up, I’m considering returning to a chapter by chapter overview/discussion of what I feel is the hands down best book on the subject of relationships, dating, and marriage. Namely the compilation by Amy and Leon Kass entitled Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying.

This book is not polemical or one which takes any position in particular. The purpose of the collection is not to drive the reader to any particular conclusion but instead provide a resource of thoughtful discourse on the insights of the great thinkers of the past on the subject. In that vein, it follows more in the line of a Great Books approach, and comprises with a few exceptions a fairly complete series of excerpts collected from the Western Canon which deal specifically with courtship, romance, and marriage. Each excerpt includes a brief half page to one page introduction describing the piece, providing some thoughts to motivate the reader, and in some cases assist the reader to penetrate the stylistic methods employed by the author. Contributors include Rousseau, Aquinas, Darwin, Shakespeare, and many more.

I began that endeavor a year or more ago but set it aside, should I return to it? Would that be interesting?

…when the President of the United States can do this:

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

On Monday, President Barack Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler. The plan is based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government’s behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason.

General Motors issued a vague statement Sunday night that did not officially confirm Wagoner’s departure.
"We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry. We continue to work closely with members of the Task Force and it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement," the company said.

The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.

Don’t want to call it "socialism"?  Fine, but don’t call it "capitalism", either. 

I will note that this descent into "whatever-it-is-ism" was entered in mutually.  GM begged for money, the government gave it to them, and then government started pulling the strings.  Both sides contributed to this, but just because it was consensual doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. 

This is path taken by most anyone who takes money from the government, whether they be churches, schools, welfare recipients or major automakers.  When you surrender your self-sufficiency, you lose much more in the bargain than originally thought. 

Could companies be bailed out by the government without leaving capitalist, free market principles?  Possibly.  But is this move by the President in line with those principles?  Not really.  An underperforming CEO would be removed by any responsible leader…of the Soviet Union.  We should not be putting our President in the position of being able to do that, and he shouldn’t be accepting that position.

Don’t want to call it "socialism"?  Fine.  What do you want to call it?

1. Rome had hundreds of religions beneath its wings. Why kill the Christians?
2. A journal noted, Syriac Studies.
3. A great rider’s win noted.
4. Another coveted prize noted as well here.
5. Read the bill?
6. “Incite?”
7. That’s not what “persecution” means I think.
8. Mech-speak.
9. After the horror, the wife of the slain speaks.
10. Popular song as lede.
11. A short secular argument against abortion.
12. Imagining what it should look like.
13. A pretty bike.
14. Odd, the “bonuses” given to politicians like Obama aren’t mentioned in this piece, and many are larger than those mentioned here.
15. Beer. Map.
16. A tax noted.
17. I suppose actual mega-church members will disagree.
18. Obama’s buddy.
19. On drawing the line.
20. On extraordinary claims and evidence.
21. Freeman Dysan, two statements, here and here.

The phrase “In but not of” is heard in Christian circles, entreating and encouraging the Christian community to live and love their neighbors but to remember that many of the concerns of the secular community affect the faithful differently than the secular. Catholic Saint and Jewish philosopher Edith Stein had a sea change in her life. She went from being from one of the preeminent German philosophers and an atheistic Jew and converted to Christianity, becoming a Carmelite monastic and ultimately perishing in Auschwitz. According to the intellectual biography of her life by Alasdair McIntyre, her conversion was in a large part driven by the surprising (for her) reaction of her Christian friends to the deaths of family and friends during the trials of the Great War.

Apparently today we are undergoing great global economic trials. Our response to stressful times is an opportunity for martyrdom (which means witness). And it will be witness to our beliefs … or lack thereof. And, I suggest that if our reactions and our actions are indistinguishable from our secular neighbor … then our faith is indistinguishable as well.

Don’t believe what you hear about the decline of the evangelicals. 

There isn’t a more potent force in American life and society than active, believing evangelical Christians, marked by their vibrant faith, clear expression of their beliefs, biblically informed habits, and selfless and life-altering ministries.  Where can you find these believers?  They’re everywhere–in every town; nearly on every block.  Their numbers are increasing and their involvement in all aspects of national life and policy is growing and morphing and infiltrating like a viral storm.

Are evangelicals in decline, as posited by Rodney Clapp in Christian Century?  He writes:

[Evangelicalism is in] deep trouble because it faces a significant cultural and generational shift. Identifying itself with the wedge tactics of the political right, which is now falling (at least for a time) out of power, the movement cannot easily shake the image of being primarily negative and destructive. Indicators show that it is losing attractiveness not only among unconverted fellow Americans, but among its own young.

More significantly, evangelicalism is in deep trouble because the gospel really is good news, and reactionaries are animated by bad news, by that which they stand against. Undoubtedly Jesus Christ faced and even provoked conflict. But he embraced conflict as a path or means to the health and liberation—the salvation—of the world. And he hoped for salvation even, perhaps especially, for his enemies. If evangelicalism is innately reactionary, then it can follow Christ only by being born again.

Clapp pretends that the evangelical church is the same as the vocal evangelical politic whose public voice has been dominated by its most conservative leaders.  As a former senior writer at Christianity Today, he knows better; but the feigned confusion serves his purposes here.

The faithful and vibrant American Christian church that is evangelical in its beliefs, either as defined by Barna or by Gallup is very different from the evangelical politic.  While the two configurations align theologically and indeed in some key areas of public concern [Clapp calls them wedge issues], they are very different and the thriving church at worship, at life, and in service transcends and routinely ignores the residents in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

I have learned in 31 years consulting with Christian ministries and causes that while many activists wish that local evangelical churches and their members would be politically active, the vast majority of them are not.  Although they vote in high numbers, evangelical Christians are not particularly political and their churches rarely use facilities and services to advance any political positions. 

I know this is extremely difficult to believe for people whose understanding of evangelicals comes only from mainstream media, which portray evangelicals as heavily involved in partisan and issue politics.

There are evangelicals who are very active in politics. My wife, Debbie, and I have been quite active in partisan and cause-related political action.  But we are the exception, and friends and family often turn to us for readings on the political environment.  Our level of political involvement is extremely rare among our church friends and our strongly evangelical families.

The levers of institutional power and notably the microphones and gateways of communication of the evangelical politic have been controlled by politically oriented conservative evangelicals for some time (often to good effect, in my opinion, but certainly not always).  

The power of these leaders is waning as they age—many are in the 70s and 80s–and as the next two generations begin to be heard.  These new generations are open to many new areas of public concern, and yes they are generally more open to at least a new tone on issues such as gay rights.  I agree that if the NAE board was dominated by one generation removed from the present leadership, Rich Cizik would still be working the halls of power for the association. 

But to suggest that young evangelicals are politically and socially to the left of their forebears on most issues is wishful thinking by those who would benefit from that shift.  It’s much more complex than that, and on abortion, polls show that young evangelicals are more pro-life than their parents.  

While young evangelicals are more concerned about the environment than the previous generation, this is hardly a swing to the left.  As I have said previously, a green evangelical does not a liberal make. 

For a number of years the public relations firm I was with represented Jerry Falwell as public relations counsel.  We saw over and over how Falwell was featured and interviewed by mainstream media about topics on which he clearly was not the most qualified evangelical spokesman.  Jerry never met a microphone he didn’t love, and media loved to portray him as the face and voice of American evangelicals.

Of course he wasn’t, nor are many of the current common voices of the evangelical politic.  But they are presented as such, even as writers such as Clapp portray their declining influence as evangelical decline. 

In the recent national survey that found a decline in the number of people who call themselves Christian, the reach of evangelical belief spread.  One in three people in the country now consider themselves to be evangelical Christians.  But note the following from the study itself (I couldn’t find this in any media reports)–

[The study] “reveals the dimensions of a significant trend in “belief” among the 76 percent of contemporary Americans who identify as Christians. These respondents were specifically asked “Do you identify as a Born Again or Evangelical Christian?” No definition was offered of the terms, which are usually associated with a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ together with a certain view of salvation, scripture, and missionary work. As the table shows, 45 percent of all American Christians now self-identify in this manner and they account for 34 percent of the total national adult population. What is significant is the recent spread of Evangelicalism well beyond Christians affiliated with those groups that are members of the National Evangelical Association so that millions of Mainliners and Catholics now identify with this trend.”

The CNN story on the study said:

The survey also found that “born-again” or “evangelical” Christianity is on the rise, while the percentage who belong to “mainline” congregations such as the Episcopal or Lutheran churches has fallen.  One in three Americans consider themselves evangelical, and the number of people associated with mega-churches has skyrocketed from less than 200,000 in 1990 to more than 8 million in the latest survey.

If there is national evangelical leadership, it has shifted to the megachurches, but it is largely pastoral, not political

Certainly, all is not well. There is work to do on the image of evangelical Christians, as explored by Gabe Lyons and Dave Kinnamen in UnChristian.  Their introduction: 

Christians are supposed to represent Christ to the world. But according to the latest report card, something has gone terribly wrong. Using descriptions like “hypocritical,” “insensitive,” and “judgmental,” young Americans share an impression of Christians that’s nothing short of . . . unChristian.

Groundbreaking research into the perceptions of sixteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds reveals that Christians have taken several giant steps backward in one of their most important assignments. The surprising details of the study, commissioned by Fermi Project and conducted by The Barna Group, are presented with uncompromising honesty in unChristian.

But those who follow Christianity closely know that the true heartbeat of evangelicalism isn’t behind microphones or plying the halls of Congress.  If you pay attention, you hear the heartbeat of evangelicalism:

• In the villages of Angola, where Christians involved with Living Waters International have provided clean water to thousands of people in recent years in a country where 56 percent of the people don’t have clear water.
• In an abandoned building that now serves as a school and clinic for rescued child soldier girls just north of Gulu, northern Africa, where young woman and their babies born in captivity are given the basic building blocks of new lives they never thought they’d see by a group of Christians operating under the name ChildVoice International.   
• In a series of gers—round teepee-like structures—in northern Mongolia, where Christians in a group called LifeQwest houses hundreds of orphans that they swept off the brutally frigid streets of Mongolian cities to literally save their lives and give a future vision to children of an ancient people.   
•  In the homes of staggering Atlanta neighborhoods, where Christians in the Charis Community Housing group help families purchase and care for homes in ways that will help them recover from the foreclosure crisis that has hit the inner cities far worse than the cushy suburbs.   
• In a large churchyard garden in Boise, Idaho, where a retired Christian farmer helps dozens of church volunteers grow fruits and vegetables, “producing and giving away over 20,000 lbs. of produce, feeding approximately 1281 families, representing around 4108 individuals.” 
• At an unimpressive building on New York Avenue in Washington, D.C., Christians at The Salvation Army’s Harbor Light Center take in down-and-out drug addicts and rather than just getting them off drugs, they get them into a new relationship with Jesus Christ—and the recidivism rates are dramatically better than run of the mill recovery centers.

The heart of American evangelicalism beats in places and ministries such as these, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other places in this country and around the world. 

We see faithfulness in small group meetings in the homes of millions of Americans that are opening their Bibles and searching together for the way God wants them to live their lives.  Yes, the heart beats in worship in churches blanketing the country—most small, 75-200 members, and in some very large.  People eschewing an extra hours sleep on Sunday morning to point to their Creator and give praise and to listen to a minister trying to help them in their walk with God. 

Don’t believe that evangelicalism is fading.  It’s changing to be more relevant to the problems of a new time, just as it has for millennia.  And its political power rises and falls and stagnates.  But bellicose commentators and lobbyists are not the church, and they never have been.  Prescient observers know that.  Many just won’t tell you.