Ingram, Willam

English

Asbury Theological Seminary

Great Commission Research Journal Volume 4 Issue 2 Donald McGavran Article 13 1-1-2013 Book Review: Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? by George G. Hunter III Willam Ingram Journey of Faith Church Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/gcrj  Part of the Christianity Commons, Practical Theology Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Ingram, W. (2013). Book Review: Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? by George G. Hunter III. Great Commission Research Journal, 4(2), 288-291. Retrieved from https://place.asburyseminary.edu/gcrj/vol4/iss2/13 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Commission Research Journal by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. “Do you want me to be polite or honest?” “Diagnosis is more constructive than surprise.” “Never overlook the power of the Holy Spirit, and do not neglect the doctrine of original sin.” “Normal and predictable behavior.” “Mergers should rank no higher than twenty-eighth on any list of twenty-five options open to contemporary small congregations.” “What is God calling you to do today that twenty years from now folks will say was smart and Holy Spirit led?”2. A sample of a two-page monthly The Parish Paper.3. An example of a Friar Tuck cartoon which was featured in many of hisbooks and in The Parish Paper.4. An illustrated chart from Looking in the Mirror of Schaller’s classificationby church size and type. For example, a small fellowship tends to act like acat (and thus may have nine lives).Who should read this book? Seminary students, pastors, and church leaderswho do not want to spend hundreds of hours on unproductive tasks should read it.Schaller would concur that Jesus is still in the business of resurrecting persons andcongregations. Jesus still creates new ventures out of “nothing.”Hunter, George G., III. Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? Nashville: Abingdon Press,2006. 108 pp. $13.00 Reviewed by William Ingram, Executive and Outreach Pastor at Journey of Faith Church inManhattan Beach, CaliforniaGeorge G. Hunter III is a well-known author in the area of evangelism andchurch growth. He has written ten books on this subject including Christian,Evangelical & . . . Democrat? He is the founding dean of the E. Stanley JonesSchool of World Mission and Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary wherehe serves as Distinguished Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth, a titlethat was given to him in 2001 after eighteen years of faithful service.At first glance this book seems outside the expertise of Hunter, as he is ascholar in the areas of church growth and evangelism, but as one reads this book,the goal of the book becomes clear. The purpose of this book is to encourageChristians to be engaged in all aspects of culture including the main two opposingpolitical parties in order that believers may reach “pre-Christians” in both of thesepolitical parties with the good news of Jesus Christ. This is an important issue forHunter, and his passion to reach the lost for Christ comes through in the book.288BOOK REVIEWSGCR4n2_text:GCR 4-2 Winter2013  2/26/13  4:05 PM  Page 2881Ingram: Book Review:  Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? by GeorgePublished by ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange, 2013“All of the people,” Hunter states, “who are politically involved (in either of themain political parties) matter to God, and all of the people who are affected bypublic policy matter to God; therefore, all people who are politically involved oraffected ought to matter to all branches of Christ’s church” (3).Hunter handles the possible divisiveness of the subject with grace and charm,discussing Christian ethic, the stewardship of the Christian message, the power ofcommunication, and some straight talk about areas within both political partiesthat Evangelicals can and cannot support. His “platform” for reaching “pre-Christians” in both parties is classic Hunter, along the lines of How to ReachSecular People.The American political landscape experienced a seismic shift during the 1980presidential campaign. Evangelicals—both leaders and church attenders—discontinued “evangelical policy and strategy of bipartisan influence” (1) andthrew their support behind one candidate, Ronald Reagan, who at best was anominal Christian. The lack of bipartisan participation continues today where“more than 75 percent of professing ‘evangelical Christians’ now classifythemselves as Republicans” (2). The seismic shift away from two-partyparticipation to a single party identity and, for the most part, ideology, weakensevangelical Christianity by making it a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Thishas not produced the kind of Christians who are transforming the world forChrist. Christians are called to be salt and light to the community and the world inwhich they live. Hunter points out that the evangelical church’s one-sided supportof the Republican Party has not always promoted the greater good. Hunter statesthat except for five exceptions throughout the world, the “Evangelical Christianleaders are usually ‘progressive’ and active on most of the issues that matter to thepeople’s general welfare” (6). Unfortunately, since 1980, the United States ofAmerica is one of these exceptions. A number of specific political issues are on the Democratic platform thatevangelical Christians should support. They should care about: 1) the maintenanceof the environment, 2) “oppressed people,” and 3) “world peace.” Hunter’s choiceof these three items seems evident from his clearly-stated Democratic bent. Alsohis statement that “today, we no longer expect Republicans to even speak on thetopic” (67) reveals his clear bias. He states, “Since, the Democratic Party is nowmore ecologically informed and serious, let’s support them on this cause—whilecalling Republicans out of their amnesia” (67). I think it would have been far morepowerful if  he had stayed away from the topic of global warming, which hebelieves to be a closed topic—fully supported by science—and rather stayed289great commission research journalGCR4n2_text:GCR 4-2 Winter2013  2/26/13  4:05 PM  Page 2892Great Commission Research Journal, Vol. 4, Iss. 2 [2013], Art. 13https://place.asburyseminary.edu/gcrj/vol4/iss2/13focused on conservation or stewardship of God’s resources. By bringing globalwarming into the topic, he muddies the issue and comes across as far left of center. A second issue that shows his Democratic bias is the issue of abortion. Hunterstates, “I also side with many contemporary Republicans on the issue of abortion”(74). His two reasons for being pro-life, a term that he does not use for himself  atleast in this book, are 1) that the fetus has a right to life and 2) “that viable humanlife begins much earlier in a mother’s womb than the crowd who regards abortionas merely another method of contraception has ever acknowledged” (74). He saysthat many pro-choice Democrats “believe that our society must provide otheroptions (such as interim support, health insurance, day care, and adoption) forwomen who have experienced an unwanted pregnancy” (74). Hunter goes on toencourage those who want no abortions to work with those who want fewerabortions. If  Republicans had “accepted some compromises” (75) during theClinton presidency, more children would be alive today.His real bias is seen in the last paragraph of this section. Hunter challengespro-life evangelical Christians to be more consistent in their pro-life views.Logically, those who are pro-life should “join the people who work (say) for seriousgun control and a healthy creation, and we would oppose war and capitalpunishment, without apologizing for moral consistency (or rationalizing our wayout of it.)” (75). I personally do not see how supporting serious gun control andbeing in favor of a healthy creation has anything to do with being pro-choice. Theopposition to war is too large a topic to handle in this critique. Opposing capitalpunishment, however, is not synonymous with being pro-life, in my opinion, nordo I see this supported in Scripture. When I read this, I felt it was a clear bias ofHunter’s and an extension of his Democratic leanings. In the Bible, it seems justthe opposite; Scripture seems to teach that life is so sacred that the only responseto the premeditated killing of an individual is death to the one who committed themurder. How far should this be taken? Some might argue if  a woman has had anabortion she has committed premeditated murder and should die for her crime. Interms of capital punishment, the Bible indicates that killing the wrongdoer is thepunishment for capital crime, i.e., taking someone else’s life. The main point to notmiss is that the Bible is pointing out how precious life is. The issues in regard tothis topic could be discussed forever; the point is that Hunter’s bias towards theDemocratic agenda is clearly seen in the last paragraph of his discussion onabortion. It appears that Hunter believes, and I might add rightly so, that many withinthe evangelical Christian community support the Republicans without question.He blames (for lack of a better term) the “social influences” for this phenomenon.290BOOK REVIEWSGCR4n2_text:GCR 4-2 Winter2013  2/26/13  4:05 PM  Page 2903Ingram: Book Review:  Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? by GeorgePublished by ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange, 2013These social influences turn into a folk religion or what many scholars call the“American civil religion” (44). At the center of this civil religion is the belief  orassumption that God is on the side of America and that it “was America’s manifestdestiny to win the West, and to expand the United States’ influence, globally” (44).According to Hunter this civil religion has greater influence on Americanevangelicals than most are willing to admit. “It’s not that American evangelicalshave no ethic, but it is astonishingly similar to the ethic of American folk religion;its themes are sometimes more derived from American cultural values than fromthe biblical revelation” (51). On this point Hunter hits the nail on the head.Evangelical Christianity has (unconsciously) moved away from the Bible as the soleauthority for faith and practice and has accepted a “later revelation that looked awhole lot like the contextualized ethic that Protestants had developed for thechallenges of the nineteenth century frontier towns” (52). Hunter hopes thatevangelical leaders will embrace the Biblical faith that is relevant “for every area oflife and society” (52). Every church leader should hold this desire.Overall, I have mixed thoughts about recommending this book. For pastors,church leaders, and serious students of Scripture and culture, this book is a mustread that will be of great benefit in helping people to understand the politicalclimate of the United States. This book will cause some soul searching and maybeeven raise some questions about certain ministries in the church. 291great commission research journalGCR4n2_text:GCR 4-2 Winter2013  2/26/13  4:05 PM  Page 2914Great Commission Research Journal, Vol. 4, Iss. 2 [2013], Art. 13https://place.asburyseminary.edu/gcrj/vol4/iss2/13

Book Review:  Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? by George G. Hunter III

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1262&context=gcrj

Book Review: Christian, Evangelical & . . . Democrat? by George G. Hunter III

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Asbury Theological Seminary