Introduction
George Marsden has suggested that the growth, vision and ideals of the Evangelical movement in the USA after WW II makes it, in many important and significant ways, a informal denomination (‘The Evangelical Denomination’ in Evangelicalism in Modern America). If this is the case, and I agree with Marsden on this point, who are the leaders and organizations that have defined, shaped and guided this denomination? It is the leadership in a movement that is the Sanhedrin, hence the title of this essay. And, what are the promises and perils of the Evangelical Sanhedrin? There is no doubt that leadership is essential for any movement, but what is the relationship between the Evangelical Sanhedrin, Evangelicalism and the republicanism tradition? This essay will unpack this troubling and perennial dilemma both within the USA and Canada.
I. The American Evangelical Sanhedrin
The New Evangelicals that emerged throughout and after WW II attempted to define and clarify their identity and denomination as a middle path between a militant, narrow and reactionary fundamentalism and a form of liberalism that had capitulated to modernity and the trends of culture. The Sanhedrin that guided the ship over such turbulent waters did much to make it clear that there was a third way of understanding the faith journey, and such a way need not be liberal nor fundamentalist. Who were the leaders and the institutions/organizations that formed this appealing denominational Sanhedrin? And, what were the faults and failings of such a Sanhedrin?
There are a variety of leaders and organizations that make it quite clear that the New Evangelicals had a distinct identity, and to these we now turn. There are two essays that needed to be heeded and read to get a feel for this new denomination. The dates are significant, also. Remaking the Modern Mind (1946), by Carl Henry, is a pithy and clear headed missive on the future trail to be hiked by the New Evangelicals. Henry was, in many ways, the dean and intellectual backbone of Sanhedrin life. ‘Can Christians Win America?’ (June 1947) and ‘The Challenge to the Christian Culture of the West’ (October 1947), by Harold Ockenga, are companion pieces to Henry. Henry was the first editor of Christianity Today (the flagship of the New Evangelicals), and Ockenga’s ‘The Challenges to the Christian Culture of the West’ was the opening convocation address at Fuller Theological Seminary. Both Henry/Ockenga and Fuller Theological Seminary and Christianity Today were central to defining and shaping the New Evangelical way.
Fuller Theological Seminary was named after Charles Fuller, and Fuller’s ‘The Old Fashioned Revival Hour’ was listened to by many in the 1940s. It is important to note that Fuller was a Presbyterian, and he had been part of the clashes of the 1920s between liberals and conservatives. But, the Calvinism that underwrote and undergirded the thinking of Fuller, Henry and Ockenga is important to recognize here. Calvinism became, for the New Evangelicals, the theological ideology and password that purchased entrance into the club and clan. Those who dared to differ or deviate from such a position, as did Clark Pinnock in the 1980s-1990s, felt the wrath of the Sanhedrin for doing so.
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942 to draw together a variety of those with evangelical leanings. Youth for Christ was formed in 1945, and Billy Graham was hired as their first full time evangelist. Needless to say, Billy Graham was a key member of this New Evangelical Sanhedrin. And, Fuller Theological Seminary was founded in 1947 with Ockenga as captain of the ship. Fuller Evangelical Seminary attempted to be sensitive to the evangelical and revival tradition of Charles Fuller and the emerging popularity of Billy Graham. Carl Henry was on staff at Fuller for a season, also. Dots do need to be connected to bring the picture into focus.
There were three obvious tensions in the New Evangelical coalition, though, and these had to be dealt with and sorted out. First, many of the older fundamentalists turned evangelical were committed to a dispensational and premillennial theology. Such an approach tended to have a rather negative view of history and culture. Time was winding down, and things were getting worse, so why bother to get involved with larger political and cultural issues? The task was to save souls and assist them from living through the dark days of the final dispensation. The dispensational and premillennial ideology had to be doubted and dispensed with. A turn to Augustine and Calvin was the best way to make such a move. Second, there were those who still pitted faith against serious thought and good education. The intellectual Sanhedrin made it clear this would not do. The pietistic heritage that tended to oppose the ethos of thinking, university and seminary life against faith, belief and a retreat from the world of thought into Bible schools and missions had to be bridged. Augustine and Calvin, once again, offered a way to both honour and interpret the Bible in a more integrated, consistent and organic manner. Third, many of the older fundamentalists tended to retreat, turtle like, under their shells, far from the world of politics, economics, social issues and the arts. The New Evangelicals would have none of this, and Augustine and Calvin remained mentors and guides.
The fact that the more soul saving, born again, emotive and heart driven Billy Graham and the more public oriented and rigorous intellectual stance of Carl Henry could and did work together did signal a new ecumenical and evangelical way of doing things. The feisty, confrontational and oppositional mentality of Carl McIntyre was considered inappropriate for the New Evangelicals. In short, the Reformed tradition of Calvin and the more pietistic and Evangelical tradition of Fuller and Graham met and merged in a healthy way and set the standard for many, banner held high. The Sanhedrin, in short, was carving out a middle way with much finesse, soundness and clarity. The fact that the old separatist and purist fundamentalists would not back Billy Graham in his more ecumenical New York campaign in 1957 signaled an obvious cleavage between the New Evangelicals and the older fundamentalists of the McIntyre type. So, it is important to realize that the Evangelical tradition in the USA and the Fundamentalist tradition cannot be equated. There are distinctive and substantive differences in style and content, and these do need to be recognized. Sadly so, the popular media often merges these two traditions.
There were some important and deeper things to ponder in this New Evangelical coalition, though. It is true that Billy Graham supported the birth of Christianity Today, and it is significant to note that Carl Henry was the first editor and Ockenga was the chair of the board. But, who financed such a magazine, and what were the practical leanings of such a patron? This might tell us much about the Sanhedrin and where their bread was buttered and why. J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil was the economic backbone that facilitated much of the work of Henry, Graham and Ockenga, and Pew had definite republican and capitalist leanings. This essential reality does need to be noted for a variety of reasons. The fact that the New Evangelical Sanhedrin, consciously so, broke from much of the simplistic reductionism of their predecessors does need to be applauded. The turn from something presupposes a turn to something. Such a turn by the Sanhedrin had some worrisome aspects to it. God, capitalism and the republican way became the new trinity that many in the Sanhedrin bowed and genuflected before. The USA became, for them, the great and good place, the bastion against unions, communism and secular humanism. The Neo-Constantinian tradition was now back in place, and the New Evangelical Sanhedrin of Fuller, Henry, Ockenga, Graham and Pew insisted that this was the way to interpret the Bible, Augustine and Calvin.
The 1960s raised some hard questions for the New Evangelicals. American involvement in Vietnam did not go unnoticed. The treatment of the blacks was a source of much concern. Poverty could not be missed. The American military and its growing arsenal was questioned by many. And, for Christians who did not retreat from the fray, the dominating question was this: how should the Bible be interpreted to address such pressing issues as militarism, economics, politics and social issues? Pietism had been found wanting by the New Evangelicals, but the position of the New Evangelical Sanhedrin was now questioned and found wanting. Was it truly Biblical to interpret the Bible and life-teachings of Jesus in such a way that it squared with American republican and patriotic issues? A new generation was afoot and on the move that chose to differ with the elders in the Sanhedrin. J. Howard Pew was committed to the American nationalist and republican way, and those he backed, although not so extreme, towed the republican line. Billy Graham was a good friend and supporter of republican presidents, and Henry was a republican Calvinist. Was it, possible, though, to interpret the Christian faith in either a more democratic or a more radical way? These were questions that were being forcefully posed to the Sanhedrin. Democrats such as Mark Hatfield and radicals such as Jim Wallis and Sojourners begged to differ, and did so in articulate ways, with the Calvinist Sanhedrin that dominated much of the New Evangelical American way.
Carl Henry was dethroned as editor of Christianity Today in 1968, for the simple reason that he was not as hawkish as Pew demanded. Harold Lindsell, much more the aggressive patriot, was offered the crown and editorial throne. Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible (1976) drove a wedge in the New Evangelical clan that fragmented the club in many substantive ways. The Sanhedrin was being threatened by both democrats and radicals, and such a Sanhedrin saw that concessions to either group offered a slippery slope to unions, socialism and communism.
The challenge to the elders of the New Evangelical Sanhedrin grew and intensified in the 1970s-1980s. The tale is well told and ably recounted in Fowler’s A New Engagment: Evangelical Political Thought, 1966-1976 (1983) and Gay’s With Liberty and Justice for Whom? The Recent Evangelical Debate over Capitalism (1991). There is no doubt battle lines were being drawn in the Evangelical sand, and the republican, democratic and radical clans were lining up with their different interpretations of the Bible and the meaning of Christ and the Holy Spirit for the hard issues of the 1970s-1980s.
One of the dominant hot button issues in the 1970s was abortion, and this became a lightning rod issue for many (as it is today). It was the prolife-prochoice debate that brought another prominent evangelical into the fray.
Francis Schaeffer and the many scattered L’Abri communities in Europe and North America had played a significant role in the 1960s-1970s in highlighting, in word and deed, the fact that faith had to engage larger cultural questions and had to do so in a loving, articulate and well reasoned manner. Schaeffer became an ikon and mentor for many, and his many missives, books and films drew a generation of the young to an organic and integrated faith vision. Schaeffer, like Fuller, Henry and Ockenga had Calvinist commitments, and Schaeffer and Ockenga were fans of Gresham Machen (the elder dean of the clash with liberalism). Much of Schaeffer’s work in the 1960s-1979s was of a higher cultural nature (at a more popular level), but with the coming to be of the abortion issue in the 1970s, Schaeffer could no more be silent. The publication of Christian Manifesto (1981) made it abundantly clear where and why Schaeffer stood on the abortion question. Schaeffer had become, thoughout the 1960s-1970s, a darling of the New Evangelical Sanhedrin, and Christian Manifesto consolidated his place. Charles Colson, the well known republican of the Watergate fiasco, became a fan of Schaeffer, and very much part of the New Evangelical Sanhedrin, also.
It is significant to note that as the elders of the Sanhedrin of the New Evangelical clan were feeling the challenges from the democrats and radicals, the emergence of the New Fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority offered them some hope. The irony is this. The New Evangelicals had walked the extra mile to distance themselves from the fundamentalist past, and now, the New Fundamentalists and the old guard Sanhedrin of the New Evangelicals both concured that faith and the republican way had much in common. In short, as Evangelicals of the democratic and radical bent moved off to the social liberal left, the New Fundamentalists and the old guard Sanhedrin joined hands to support the republican vision of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It was this merging and affinity between the republican Roman Catholic tradition of Richard John Neuhaus, George Weigel, Michael Novak of First Things, the New Fundamentalism of Falwell and the Moral Majority and the New Evangelical Sanhedrin that made for a heady mix. New paths were being carved out, and such trails had much to do with social and political issues. The more sophisticated Neoconservatives of the Roman Catholic and New Evangelical clans were not sure what to make of Falwell and tribe on a variety of issues, but common causes were made with this more populist brand of republican patriotism on substantive political issues. God, republicanism and the USA were almost one, and republican presidents did well the work of the Holy Spirit in domestic and foreign policy.
Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority represented the more staid and solid Baptist approach to faith and republicanism, but the rise of the charismatic and Pentecostal traditions did much, on the political right, to buttress the American patriotic cause. TV evangelists such as Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson and Jim/Tammy Baker blended faith and republicanism in an emotional and active way. The old Sanhedrin, certainly, had little in common with the theology, populism and emotivism of Falwell and the TV evangelists, but all agreed (whether sophisticated, popular or crude) that the American neo-conservative way was under attack, and Christian republicanism was the definite and defiant answer to secular humanism, wobbly liberalism and communism.
It is important to note here that Hal Lindsay’s popular The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) was a bumper crop seller, and Lindsay did much, with the sale of this book to bring Israel back into focus as a site of doomsday theology. The upshot of Lindsay’s book was to further link, for the populist evangelicals, the connection between American foreign policy and Zionism. This tradition is still very much with us today. The fact that the ‘Last Times’ series by Tim LaHaye are some of the best sellers in North American makes it clear that there is a form of the evangelical right that has both strong republican leanings and is pro-Zionist. The Lindsay-Lahaye USA-Israel connection has had an impact on many. Again, the more sophisticated New Evangelicals and Roman Catholic conservatives would be wary of Lindsay and Lahaye, but all three groups, at voting time, turn to the republican tradition as their great and good place. LaHaye, like Chuck Colson, has been quite a fan and supporter of Francis Schaeffer.
It was short step from the 1980s into the 1990s. George Bush Sr. was brought to power by a coalition of Christian republicans of the Pentecostal, charismatic, fundamentalist, Roman Catholic and Evangelical clans. The battle over the Bible or denominations was subordinated to larger questions of American patriotism, military, economic and social issues such as family values, abortion, death penalty, gay rights, crime and punishment, drugs and the ‘clash of civilizations’. Books such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission (1995) and Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue (1997) brought together many in the old republican Sanhedrin and the New republican right. Such a common mission in dialogue brought together republican Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and those from the Orthodox traditions. Members of the old and new Sanhedrin were finding their seats lining up well. Those who signed the Evangelicals and Catholics (ECT) manifesto and contributed essays to the book tell us much about how the Sanhedrin continues to grow and unfold: Charles Colson, Francis Schaeffer, Richard John Neuhaus. George Weigel, Peter Kreeft, Thomas Oden and others signed this timely ecumenical republican text.
The publication of Why the Left Is Not Right: The Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe (1996), by Ronald Nash, yet another Calvinist, makes it quite clear that the evangelical left of Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and Tony Campolo are outside the camp. Clark Pinnock is drawn in as an example to illustrate the folly of the evangelical left. Pinnock was once drawn to and committed to such a cause. He has seen the light, and is now a good evangelical republican. Nash very much stands within the Reformed-Evangelical Sanhedrin that links faith to capitalism, republicanism and patriotism. Nash had edited an earlier book, Liberation Theology(1984) in which he brought together Christian intellectuals of committed republican tendencies: Harold Brown, Michael Novak, James Schall, Clark Pinnock, Edward Norman, Robert Walton, Carl Henry, Dale Vree and Richard John Neuhaus. In short, Ronald Nash, like other members of the republican Sanhedrin have so merged faith with a right of centre perspective that it is hard for them to think outside such an ideology and limited envelop.
It is significant to note that J. I. Packer (who has taught in Canada at Regent College since that late 1970s) contributed articles to both Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Reclaiming the Great Tradition. Packer is, without much doubt, one of the most important Calvinists of the 20th-21st century, and the fact he has contributed to such books speaks volumes about the way a form of both Evangelical and Calvinist thought blend and interpret the Bible and the Great Tradition to serve and suit a republican agenda.
J.I. Packer and Clark Pinnock are prominent members of the Canadian Evangelical Sanhedrin (even though there are obvious tensions between them). Pinnock, like Packer, has a great deal of affinity with the American republican way. The fact that both Packer and Pinnock, as Canadians, and Canadians of substantive influence in the Evangelical ethos, have turned to American models and the American republican way, does speak much about the Canadian Evangelical tradition, also. There is more to the Canadian tale and drama than this, though. It is to Canada and the Canadian Sanhedrin we now turn.
II. The Canadian Evangelical Sanhedrin
Canada is a much smaller country, numerically, than the USA, hence the Evangelical tradition is not played out on as large a landscape. But, there are important points of convergence and divergence between the New Evangelicals in Canada and the USA. Needless to say, more work has been done on the New Evangelicals in the USA than in Canada, but, gratefully so, some solid thought and fine research is being done on the New Evangelicals in Canada. Some of this research is done in a way that is generous to the Evangelical denomination, whereas other books have been less kind and gracious.
The publication of Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century: An Introduction to its Character (1993), by John Stackhouse (Regent College) and Pilgrims in Lotus Land: Conservative Protestants in British Columbia, 1917-1981 (1995), by Robert Burkinshaw (Trinity Western University), set some fine standards in describing aspects of the Evangelical tradition in Canada in the 20th century. Both books are must reads for those with a deeper interest in the Canadian Evangelical way and heritage. There is a breadth to Stackhouse’s tome lacking in Burkinshaw, but there is an intricate depth to Burkinshaw’s tome lacking in Stackhouse. Both books, when read together, offer the reader a fine insight into the Canadian Evangelical ethos. And, to mention again, distinctions do need to be made between the complex nature of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists on a variety of issues. But, it is important to note, that both clans, for the most part, lean towards the American republican way, and the Sanhedrin does a fine job in pointing in such an alluring direction.
Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century is neatly divided into four parts: 1) The Eccentrics: T.T. Shields and Aberhart, 2) The Mainstream of Canadian Evangelicalism to the 1960s, 3) The Mainstream Broadens and Coalesces: Canadian Evangelicalism to the Early 1990s, and 4) The Character of Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century. Each of these parts is yet further broken down into smaller units. Stackhouse tends to focus, to his credit, on major formal and informal educational institutions, and how such institutions embody various strands of the Evangelical way. Hence, in part two, Toronto Bible College (1894-1968), Prairie Bible Institute (1922-1977) and Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship (1929-1970) are covered, and in part three, Sermons for Science at Expo 67, Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary, Prairie Bible Institute, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Trinity Western University, Regent College and The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada are dealt with in some depth and detail. Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century has walked the extra mile to clarify both the breadth of the Canadian Evangelical tradition via formal and informal Evangelical educational institutions such as Bible Schools, Universities and Seminaries and groups like Inter-Varsity and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Many of the tensions between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are probed and unpacked in this well crafted book.
We might wonder whether the ‘eccentrics’ that Stackhouse mentions have not become more mainstream in the last decade. Preston Manning, for example, was the son of E.C. Manning, and both, as Albertans, are children of the Aberhartian republican tradition. The fact that our present Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is also a child of the Albertan republican way does make it rather obvious that the ‘eccentrics’ have moved more to the centre of mainstream Evangelical and Canadian life. In short, the fact that Canada has, in the last few decades, been drawn more into the American gravitational field means that what might have been on the fringes and rather eccentric has become more mainstream. E.C. Manning (Preston Manning’s father, an evangelical and premier of Alberta for many years) made it clear in Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians (1967) why he thought Christianity equaled republicanism. Preston Manning did most of the research for this missive. The Canadian Evangelical Sanhedrin of Aberhart, the Manning dynasty, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper do speak much about a way of being evangelical and republican. This does need to be noted, and compared with the older Canadian Tory tradition of George Grant and Stephen Leacock. Needless to say, Grant and Leacock would be ill at ease with the likes of Aberhart, Ernest/Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper.
Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century tends to focus on institutional Sanhedrins, and the various actors who serve or challenge such Sanhedrins. Stackhouse has made it plain in Canadian Evangelicalism that there are differences within the Canadian Evangelical Sanhedrin (just as there was between the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Jewish Sanhedrin), but those amongst the ruling and power elite do share many things in common, also.
I mentioned above that J.I Packer and Clark Pinnock have dominated, at an intellectual and theological level, much thought in the New Evangelical Sanhedrin. Stackhouse, given his institutional approach, lights but does not land much on the work of Pinnock and Packer. It is important to linger longer with Packer and Pinnock. ‘Clark Pinnock has been one of the most prominent and provocative theological voices in North Atlantic evangelical Christianity since the 1960s’ (Clark Pinnock: Journey Toward Renewal: An Intellectual Biography: foreward), and, as I mentioned above, Packer has played, perhaps an even greater role because he is more predictable and much more the establishment man. The biography of Packer, J. I. Packer: A Biography (1997), makes it quite clear why Packer is a leading light in the evangelical Sanhedrin. Those who ignore Packer and Pinnock while studying the American and Canadian Evangelical Sanhedrin miss the towering peaks of the movement and denomination. I will return to these two men later in the paper for the simple reason that they are the Mount Waddington and Mount Robson of the Canadian Evangelical tradition.
Pilgrims in Lotus Land is more focused than Canadian Evangelicalism, but there is a convincing depth to it that needs pondering. The book is divided into eleven chapters: 1) Protestantism in British Columbia before 1917, 2) Polarization in Vancouver, 1917, 3) Mainline Conservatives, 1917-1927, 4) The Separatist Solution: Fundamentalist Baptists, 1917-1928, 5) The Supernatural Solution: The Pentecostals, 1917-1928, 6) The Broadening of the Institutional Base, 1928-1941, 7) Period of Transition, 1941-1961: Developments among the Original Conservative Groups, 8) Period of Transition, 1941-1961: Immigrant Groups, 9) The Worshipping Majority in Protestantism, 1961-1981, 10) Components of Growth, and 11) Epilogue. Burkinshaw has, like Stackhouse, done a superb institutional job of clarifying the tensions and struggles of the Evangelical clan.
It is interesting to note that, as in the USA, the charismatic and Pentecostal traditions tend to lean towards the political right. This can be aptly and clearly seen, for example, by three illustrations. First, 100 Huntley Street has been at the forefront in Canada of promoting a view of Christianity that is both populist and right of centre. Pat Robertson was often on 100 Huntley Street, and David Mainse has made it clear where he leans on a variety of issues and why. 100 Huntley Street (1979), by Mainse, tells the tale well. The populist evangelical way of Mainse has some affinity, in a toned down way, with many American TV evangelists. Second, the populist tradition on the west coast is embodied in those like Bernice Gerard and Bob Birch. A Statesman of Prayer for Canada: Pastor Bob (2003), by Beth Carson and Bernice Gerard: Today and for Life (1988), by Bernice Gerard, make it clear that those who are open to the Holy Spirit will lean towards the political right. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, traditional family values and other hot button issues on the ideological right often dominate such an agenda. Again, support of Israel often factors large in such a clan. Grant Jeffries, in Canada, plays the same role as Hal Lindsay did, and Jack Van Impe and LaHaye now do in the USA. Merv/Merla Watson, more than most in Canada, have merged the evangelical way with Jewish Zionism. Merv/Merla Watson go back to the Jesus People of the 1960s-1970s. I live in Abbotsford, and this intimate connection between Bible prophecy and the politics of the end times is embodied by 2 local authors: William Goetz in Apocalypse Next (1980) and Jake Friesen and The Seer (2003). The connections between Mainse, Birch, Gerard, Goetz, Friesen, Jeffries and Merv/Merla Watson are easy to track and trace at a variety of levels and on a variety of issues on the Chistianity-Zionist-republican connection. Third, such a tradition has been called into question and exposed by Judith Haiven in Faith, Hope, No Charity: An Inside Look at the Born Again Movement in Canada and the United States (1984). Haiven can be overly critical and unfair at times to the Christian right, but she does raise some hard questions, also. Faith, Hope, No Charity is somewhat dated a this point, and it tends to probe more the thin edge between right wing evangelicals and fundamentalists, but, the point to be noted is that such tribes, regardless of many of their different nuances tend to be republican when day is done.
What, though, does the more populist evangelical tradition of Mainse, Gerard, Birch and Jeffries have to do with the more centrist Sanhedrin of institutions like Regent College, Trinity Western University and Evangelical Fellowship of Canada? This same question was raised in regards to the USA. What has Henry, Schaeffer, Ockenga, Colson, Neuhaus and clan to do with Falwell, the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson and the TV evangelists? Obviously, on one level, not very much. But, on a variety of political, economic, social issues and American foreign policy a great deal. There are differences on how the Bible is to be interpreted for personal experience and ecclesial questions, but when it comes to public moral and political questions, there is often convergence and concord.
Trinity Western University, Regent College and many Prairie Bible Schools do have right of centre leanings. Preston Manning, for example, has been on the board of Regent College, and Trinity Western University has had Manning speak at many of their events. The well known right of centre politician, Robert N. Thompson, has a building named after him at Trinity Western University, and Paul Chamberlain (formerly in the philosophy department at Trinity) has published important books that appeal to the social conservative tradition. Robert N. Thompson, interestingly enough, worked with Ernest Manning in the 1968 election to merge the Progressive Conservative and Social Credit parties. It failed at the time, but Manning’s son, Preston, following in his father’s footsteps, worked towards such an end, and the task was accomplished by McKay and Harper.
It is hard to imagine a union president or NDP MP/MLA offered frontstage honors at institutions such as Trinity Western University or Regent College. Why is this the case? What does this say about a way of interpreting the Bible and the Christian tradition? Some of the MPs in the Reform/Alliance parties and the Conservative party are graduates of TWU. There are obvious connections between many educational evangelical institutions and American republican and Canadian conservative thought. It is a quick transition from James Dobson, Focus on the Family and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to George Bush Jr., the Republican Party in the USA, or Harper and the Conservative Party in Canada. The Constantinian merging of faith, state and military is an obvious trinity for those who connect the intricate dots on the page.
James Dobson and Focus in the Family has played a significant role in defining, in the USA and Canada, what social issues evangelicals should priorize and why. There is, of course, a larger political agenda at work in his pronounced republican leanings. In Canada, Tristan Emmanuel and Equipping Christians for the Public Square (ECP) has done much to both further the tradition of Dobson and make it clear that genuine Christianity will enter the public square with a concern for a few select social issues like abortion, gay rights and traditional family values. Emmanuel’s thinking, though, has some important Canadian connections. Ken Campbell, who was a significant right of centre Canadian evangelical in the 1980s of the Falwell variety, has had his impact on Emmanuel. Both Campbell and Emmanuel see God working at His best through a republican and conservative ethos and party. There is no doubt the eccentrics are much less on the margins these days.
Emmanuel and Equipping Christians for the Public Square is a more popular version of the much more sophisticated think tank, Centre for Cultural Renewal. Iain Benson has taken heroic stands on a variety of issues, and he has attempted, in a wise and judicious way, to carve out a more sophisticated Canadian conservatism via Centre for Cultural Renewal. The more populist and reactionary perspective of Tristan Emmanuel and Equipping Christians for the Public Square and the more sophisticated approach of Benson and Centre for Cultural Renewal do need to be watched if any serious understanding of evangelicals and republicanism is to be pondered and why. There is, obviously, more than evangelicals in Centre for Cultural Renewal, but there are important Canadian evangelicals that support the think tank.
An important Canadian that is often ignored in this discussion is John Redekop. Redekop taught political science for many years in Ontario, and he has retired in the Abbotsford area in BC. He very much stands and works within the Mennonite and Evangelical Sanhedrin. He is prolific writer, and a thoughtful and incisive commentator and has been at the centre of much evangelical life in Canada in the last 50 years. Redekop’s PH. D. thesis, The American Far Right: A Case Study of Billy James Hargis and Christian Crusade (1968), is a trenchant examination of the far right in American religious and political thought. Redekop had, when younger, been an active voice in the CCF, and an earlier book of his, The Star Spangled Beaver (1971), did a fine job of unraveling the differences between Canada and the USA, and the dilemmas Canadians have living so close to the USA. But, Redekop, in the last few years, has tended to move, in a thoughtful and critical manner, to the political right. Why is this? We see the same thing
in many Evangelical think tanks, educational institutions and leading theologians. Redekop, like Pinnock and Packer, tend to see the republican way as the closest to the Christian way, and they have pointed out such a way to many.
I mentioned above the book by Craig Gay, With Liberty and Justice for Whom? The Recent Evangelical Debate over Capitalism (1991). Gay teaches at Regent College, as does J. I. Packer (and as did Clark Pinnock in the 1970s). With Liberty and Justice for Whom? is an interesting book. The book was Gay’s Ph.D. thesis, and Peter Berger (another well known American republican) was Gay’s advisor, and wrote the foreward to the book. The thesis/book is about the debate about capitalism, within the evangelical tribe in the USA. The thesis argument is somewhat disturbing and worrisome. Gay argues, and wrongly so, I think, that there is the evangelical left, the populist right and the sensible centre. The sensible centre for Gay, when translated into political reality, is American republicanism. Again, we can see the link between evangelicals and republicans, and such republicans are seen as the sensible centre between two extremes. Does such a model fit the Canadian context, though? Has, in Canada, the sensible centre been defined as American republicanism? Hardly! But, Gay, teaching at Regent College, does bring such a perspective to a bastion and mecca of evangelical educational thought.
The connection between Regent College and the right of centre tradition is reflected in a graphic way in the debate between Tom Harpur and Maxine Hancock. Hancock has taught at Regent for many a year, and Harpur vs. Hancock (1994) highlights the stubborn ideology of both clans in the liberal-conservative clash of civilizations.
I return to John Redekop. Redekop had worked with Brian Stiller and Gerald Vandezande when he was in Ontario. Stiller was the head of Evangelical Fellowship of Canada at the time, and Vandezande was the chair of Citizens for Public Justice. The combination of Redekop, Stiller and Vandezande was important. All three men represented variations of the Calvinist and Evangelical traditions. Vandezande and CPJ stood on the soft liberal left, whereas Stiller and the EFC tended to lean to the soft and far right. Vandezande was a left of centre Calvinist who had learned, in an ecumenical fashion, to work with the centre and right of centre evangelical clan, but this is not where he rested his head by day’s end. Books such as Christians in the Crises: Toward Responsible Citizenship(1983) and Justice: Not Just Us: Faith Perspectives and National Priorities (1999) make it clear that there is a way of articulating Christian public responsibility that is not republican.
The left of centre reformed tradition in Canada that CPJ tends to represent and Vandezande embodied has been carried on by such writers as Brian Walsh. Walsh has worked with Inter-Varsity, CPJ and the Institute of Christian Studies in Toronto. In many ways, the centrist and left of centre Evangelical tradition in Canada goes back to the pioneering work of Wilbur Sutherland. Sutherland was the head of Inter-Varsity in Canada for almost 25 years after WW II. He moved the organization from a pietistic and centrist-right organization to a centrist-left organization. The pressures on him were strong to halt such a direction and path breaking trail, hence he resigned in the early 1970s to begin Imago. Imago, now guided by John Franklin, represents a centrist and soft left of centre way of being evangelical (although Imago tends now to be more philosophical and focus more on the arts than serious politics). Sutherland and Vandezande worked closely together from the 1970s-1990s, and such a left of centre Calvinism and Evangelicalism prepared the path for those like Walsh and clan.
The left of centre evangelical tradition in Canada that we find in the well known church historian George Rawlyk (with strong NDP leanings) does not find a comfortable seat in the halls of power and the Sanhedrin, though. Those like Stiller, Packer, Pinnock and Redekop have the final word in many ways.
I have mentioned The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. They have contributed some significant articles to public debate in Canada. Shaping A Christian Vision for Canada: Discussion Paper’s on Canada’s Future (1992) brought together some of the Sanhedrin: Paul Marshall, Don Page ( 2 articles) Janet Epp Buckingham, Joseph Jolly, Peter Jervis, Darrel Reid & Bran Stiller (2 articles). Many of these thinkers have strong republican leanings of a sophisticated sort, and all of them have been quite involved in serious public debates about faith and politics.
The life and writings of Brian Stiller, more than most in the Canadian Evangelical Sanhedrin, tells the tale of a journey through the ranks to the top. Stiller is not of the same intellectual calibre Redekop, Pinnock or Packer, but his audience has not asked as much of him; he is more the popularizer of the evangelical way. Stiller began as a Pentecostal, became head of Youth for Christ in Canada, then moved onto provide leadership in the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in the 1980s-1990s. He is now president of Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. Stiller has never flinched from facing the political questions, and in From the Tower of Babel to Parliament (1997) to Jesus and Caesar: Christians in the Public Square (2003) he clearly outlines a moderate evangelical stance that leans towards the soft right.
I mentioned earlier in this paper that Calvinism in the USA set the agenda for how the New Evangelicals would define themselves. Those who dared to deviate would be punished, shunned or marginalized. Clark Pinnock began as a rising star in the evangelical world in the 1960s-1970s. He was deeply imbued with the Calvinist way, and many saw him as the future king of the movement. Those like Carl Henry and J.I. Packer were more than pleased with the things Pinnock was saying, writing and doing. Pinnock wrote thoughtful and cogent apologetics, and he was grounded in the proper line and lineage. He did veer off, momentarily, to the anarchist left in the 1970s, but he turned, by the late 1970s, as Reagan came to power, to the republican right. He seemed to have learned that the anarchist left and the New Evangelical Sanhedrin got along as well as cats and dogs. I have tracked Pinnock’s political journey in 2 essays (‘Clark Pinnock and Political Theology: A Test Case’ and ‘Clark Pinnock: Canadian Theologian of the Empire’: www. clarion-journal.ca). But, by the 1980s-1990s Pinnock was questioning the excessive reliance of the New Evangelical Sanhedrin on Augustine and Calvin. There were other evangelical traditions, equally true to the Bible and the Christian tradition, Pinnock argued that dared to differ with Augustine and Calvin’s rather extreme views of grace and human depravity and sinfulness. The Sanhedrin, of course, like yaks in the winter, gathered round, conversed and realized Pinnock and followers had to be dealt with. The Evangelical tent was getting too big, and Augustine-Calvin were not the masters they once were. Arminius, Wesley and the Methodist tradition were brought forward as true to a more complex evangelical way.
The Sanhedrin pondered what to do with Pinnock. He had dared to disturb decades of hard work. The fact that Pinnock broadened the evangelical tent on a variety of issues has often obscured the fact that when questions of high theology are translated into practical political, economic and social issues, Pinnock is very much on the republican ship. Pinnock, when day is done, is still very much part of the club. Where would Pinnock be if he pushed his Wesleyan theology into a social liberal or Canadian Red Tory way? I suspect the Sanhedrin would not know what to do with him. Packer and Pinnock do differ on the Calvinist-Wesleyan debate, but both tilt their heads in the republican directions when political issues are raised. Pinnock’s transition from an a-political pietism to the anarchist left to the political right has been well articulated his essay, ‘A Pilgrimage in Political Theology’. He made his republican commitments even clearer in The Untapped Power Of Sheer Christianity (1985). The Untapped Power of Sheer Christianity was dedicated to Francis Schaeffer. The circle does come full circle. American and Canadian Evangelicals do link warm and affectionate hands to support that republican and conservative way.
III. Conclusion
The New Evangelical Sanhedrin in the USA and Canada, and its think tanks, institutions and intellectuals, for the most part, have strong conservative and republican leanings. There are exceptions to the rule, but the exceptions are just that. Those who ever expect to be welcomed into the clan do need to bow and genuflect before a certain theological, political and ideological agenda. If this is not done, the door will be closed.
Few are the authors, activists and institutions that have clearly separated the Evangelical notion of faith from American republican and Canadian conservative values and political parties. Such a task does need to be done, and such a task does not mean a turn to liberalism and modernity is the answer. It is this deeper third way that needs to be thought through and lived forth.
Canadians, of course, do need to dig deep into their resources and dip their buckets into their wells. There is little point in turning to other traditions. This is the mark of a colonial, and we do not need more colonial theology and political thought in Canada. We have been overwhelmed by such an approach for decades, and there is an eager comprador class in Canada that is quite willing to rob us of our national heritage. It is to such a heritage and tradition we need to turn for real reform and renewal of the True North. This is the deeper conservatism we must turn to if the fool’s gold of neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism is to be exposed and found wanting.
RSD
Comments