Owing to their political leanings, the largest religious group in the United States, Evangelical Christians, have come under fire in recent years. In the latest volley, Dr. Curtis Freeman,[1] Director of the Baptist House of Studies at Duke University Divinity School, tweeted, “…Evangelical Christianity is the greatest threat to human existence today. It must be laid waste.” After he was challenged on his tweet, he deleted it, saying it was hyperbolic. Then, however, he reiterated his larger point. He wrote, “…I am concerned about the white evangelical culture that is focused on 5 fundamentals: guns are good, vaccines are bad, science is bunk, news is fake, & black lives don’t matter.” Describing his preferred version of the Faith, Freeman further attacked Evangelicals. “I am not an Evangelical Christian. I follow Jesus Christ. I affirm life. I accept science. I am not a know-nothing. Evangelical Christianity is a threat to human existence.”
To say that his words are appalling is not strong enough. Freeman’s words are incendiary. They border on slander. To see how unfortunate his words are, imagine if he had said them about some other group. Imagine if he had said, “Wahabi Islam is the greatest threat to human existence today. It must be laid waste.” Imagine if he had said, “Reform Judaism is the greatest threat to human existence today. It must be laid waste.” Imagine if he had said, “The Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) is the greatest threat to human existence today. It must be laid waste.” The first thing that would happen is that everyone would have recognized his words were a call to violence. How exactly is a religious or political group “laid waste?” Perhaps we should give Freeman the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he was not referring to people but to ideas. Perhaps we should allow that “laid waste” was an unfortunate choice of words—just a hyperbole gone wrong. We must note, however, if Freeman had used the exact same words about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, BLM, or even Planned Parenthood few would give him the benefit of the doubt. I suspect he would have been fired summarily from Duke, his deletion of the tweet notwithstanding.
Freeman wisely deleted his first tweet, but the only part of it that he really disowned was the “laid waste” line. The problem, however, is he still argues Evangelical Christianity is the greatest threat to humanity. Governments and institutions are responsible for the health and safety of humanity, are they not? If something emerges that is a threat to human existence, must they not work to eliminate it? If Evangelical Christianity is a threat to human existence, must it not be eliminated? While backing off his “laid waste” language, the logic that leads up to it remains.
Freeman’s opinions are based on some of the crudest caricatures one will ever see coming from a trusted intellectual. Who in evangelical life is saying vaccines are bad? There are perhaps some, but I have not heard of them. In fact, the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Russell Moore, made it a point to argue it is morally permissible to take the Covid vaccine. Who are the Evangelicals against vaccines, exactly? Whoever Freeman has in mind, they hardly are representative of 90-100 million evangelicals many of whom prayed fervently for a vaccine to end the pandemic.
His crude caricatures continue. Evangelicals are anti-science. Evangelicals are know-nothings. Those caricatures are quite ill-informed. They so trite they are hardly worth critiquing. The worst of his caricatures, however, is his race slander. It must be rebutted. Freeman argues one of the five fundamentals of Evangelical belief is that black lives do not matter. This is untrue and outrageous. Again let’s play what if. What if he had said, “The BLM movement has as one of its pillars that Asian-American lives do not matter.” The comment would have rightly generated howls of outrage. To slander a group of 90-100 million people as believing black lives do not matter is unacceptable. No Evangelical leader has made that argument. None. It is true, many Evangelicals have concerns about the BLM movement. It is also true that many Evangelicals and others have issues with Critical Race Theory (CRT). Being concerned about the leadership of the BLM movement and the introduction of CRT (a theory based in Marxism) in our schools and military is not tantamount to denying the value of black lives. In short, black lives matter because black lives are created in the image of God. They are persons God has equipped for His Kingdom’s ends. Black lives matter because Jesus gave his life for them. Black lives matter because every human being is created in the image of God. Every. Last. One. I know of no Evangelical leader who differs on this point. Freeman’s language here is unacceptable.
The Evangelical faith is based not on Freeman’s frivolous and unscholarly “fundamentals.” The Evangelical faith is a broad-based movement, so it can be very difficult to define. If one were to ask evangelical leaders what they believe, however, a list like this would likely emerge: the cross of Jesus Christ reconciles people to God, conversion to Christianity is required for eternal life, those who have faith in Jesus Christ inherit eternal life, those who have faith in Jesus are required to share their faith, and the Scriptures are the final authority for faith and practice.
What Freeman has done is malign a group of people with accusations and innuendo. He has looked at a large and diverse group of people and labeled all of them. He may have a few examples of bad behavior in Evangelical life, but taking a few examples of bad behavior and arguing from them that a whole group is dangerous and a threat is exactly how racial prejudice works. It is how all prejudice works. It is wrong. It is not enough for Freeman to delete a tweet. It is enough for him to say his first tweet was hyperbole. He needs to repent.
[1] This article gives me no pleasure to write. I know Freeman. He has been helpful to me in my research in the past. Specifically, he pointed me to Baptist authors who use the term “sacrament” in discussing the Lord’s Supper, baptism, and preaching while I was researching for my Doctor of Ministry. He and I also shared the pulpit for the ordination his students. He is normally very friendly and thoughtful. I am disappointed in his words.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In