On April 16 a private group of evangelical leaders met in Wheaton, Illinois, to discuss what at least one participant called the “crisis of evangelicalism.” That was the subtitle of a talk on evangelical’s “Political Dealing,” given by Mark Labberton, president of Fuller Evangelical Seminary.

The crisis he identifies is best summed up by, “When you Google ‘evangelical,’ you get Trump.”

Labberton’s analysis was confusing if not downright contradictory. He wants to discourage evangelicals from taking up the reins of political power, yet he wonders why we haven’t used our power to support liberal political causes.

Too Much Political Power — Or Not Enough?

There’s no denying evangelicals have become strongly associated with conservative politics and with Donald Trump in particular. That’s unfortunate. Neither Christians in general, nor evangelicals in particular are supposed to be voting bloc. In fact, the Church has historically suffered spiritual loss when it acquired too much political power.

Labberton said as much in his talk. Our first failing, he says, is latching on to power. “The apparent evangelical alignment with the use of power that seeks dominance, control, supremacy and victory over compassion and justice associates Jesus with the strategies of Caesar, not with the good news of the gospel.

But “compassion and justice” are a matter of power, too, Labberton says. “When white evangelicals … pass laws and tax changes that create more national indebtedness and elevate the top 1% even higher … one has to ask how this is reconciled with being followers of Jesus.”

So apparently evangelicals should have used our power to stop “the instigators of change” who are “serving elite interests and disregarding the 99%.” Otherwise, he says, “it’s very hard to recognize the influence of the gospel narrative on compassion, let alone justice.”

This is confusing: Are we to seek to use political power or not?

How To Use Power

One could read his remarks as saying it’s okay to use power as long as it’s in support of the powerless. But in a democracy all citizens have power. On voting day as well as in year-round national debate, we all have a real share in governing. Thus we have a moral responsibility to use that power to support those who are weaker among us.

Unfortunately, though, Labberton buys into language that conservative policies necessarily “disregard” the 99 percent. He gives short shrift to “the complexities of social support for the vulnerable.” And from there he jumps immediately to judgment on conservatives.

This is hasty at best. All serious Christians want social support for the vulnerable. But it doesn’t follow that liberal fiscal and social policies do them much good in the long run. Thus, it’s “hard to recognize the influence of the gospel” — borrowing his own language — in his judgmentalism toward brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with his assessment of liberal policies.

The Church’s Reputation in the World

Granted, we do have an image and reputation problem. Labberton insists it is our own doing. He’s partly right, especially in regard to racial issues. White evangelicals have not done nearly enough to build understanding across the racial divide. As for the rest of our reputation, there’s something healthy about taking responsibility for our own problems. Besides being a true expression of Christian humility, it’s the most direct route toward real solutions.

It’s the best route, that is, unless it’s the wrong diagnosis of the problem. For those of us who truly believe conservative financial policy is good for the poor in the long run, any “repentance” we might make for it would only be for show. It would be political gaming — hypocrisy in action.

Not All Our Own Doing — Especially in the Political Realm

And some of our image problem comes by way of distortions in the media. Very few of us, for example, have said we support Trump outright in all ways. None of us have said his character doesn’t matter. Most voted of us voted for him because the alternative was so much worse.

But our best role now isn’t to “repent” of a media-crafted “association” with Trump. Our best role is to recognize that for better or worse, he’s our president; to support him where he makes wise policy; and where he is wrong politically or morally, to speak truth to power.

We must disavow his errors, certainly. He’s been rude to the disabled, he has disrespected people of other nations, he has mistreated women. That’s wrong and the Church needs to say so. Beyond that, though what else are we to do? Disavow the man? What would that even mean? Should we be Democratic in our politics? Sorry, but both morally and politically that’s even worse.

Our Public Face Isn’t Our Whole Reality

Labberton’s focus on evangelical politics is itself a distortion. It reminds me of the many times I’ve been asked, “If Christians are so concerned about marriage, why don’t they campaign against divorce?” I answer, “Do you have the slightest idea how many sermons pastors preach in support of marriage? How many books Christian writers publish on it? How many hours of radio we devote to it? How many conferences and retreats? How many Sunday School classes and small groups? How many hours of counseling?”

Conservative evangelicals have a public reputation of lacking in compassion. That’s almost entirely because of our public stance on liberal politics. We believe their “compassion” policies are bound to fail.

Meanwhile, though, we’re running soup kitchens and homeless ministries and rescue missions and crisis pregnancy centers in virtually every city. Our problem isn’t a compassion problem. It’s a public reputation problem. What then is our best solution to the problem — to yield to others’ opinions on what constitutes public compassion? That would do our reputation some good. But not our integrity.

The Message: Mixed and Simplistic at the Same Time

Labberton sends a mixed message on the use of power. He treats justice for the poor simplistically, and he passes judgment on his brothers and sisters who may actually agree on the importance of justice but who disagree strongly on the means to achieve it.

He’s right insofar as he tells us we have a reputation problem. He’s right to tell us we need to examine ourselves closely, to humble ourselves, to repent and correct our errors. I only wish he hadn’t painted those errors so broadly. I wish he had been more realistic about the way media and the entertainment world have distorted the true character of American Christianity. I wish, too, his description of evangelicalism’s problems didn’t look so much like the secular world’s image of evangelicals. We don’t answer to the secular world.

Let’s take a more honest and nuanced look at ourselves. Let’s solve our real problems. Not the ones the world thinks they see in us, but those that the Holy Spirit reveals to us through the Word of God.