Evangelicals, Protest, and Culture Engagement

The Arab Spring in 2011 led the prestigious TIME magazine to give their “Person of the Year” award to what they called “The Protester.” The award is traditionally given to whoever the publication deems most influential that year, whether for good or ill, and with pro-democracy protest movements and armed uprisings taking place in northern Africa and the Middle East, they decided a broader profile celebrating the bravery of the dissenters was in order (Flock).Much of human history is marked by protest, whether it be levied against perceived corruption in authority or broader injustice. Public dissent without fear of repercussion is a fairly modern notion, as those with power traditionally don’t take kindly to anything which might strip them of it. Furthermore, acts of protest have evolved to suit modernity as well, with the guillotine, by and large, being replaced by picket signs and chants. Though bound by their locus and time, the language of protest is rather universal, acting as the vehicle by which the masses can express pain and longing for a better reality. Evangelicals have a complicated and sometimes incoherent relationship with protest. Though the precise nature of what it means to be Evangelical is rather nebulous (an attempt to define it will appear later), it is safe to say that those who identify as Evangelical also identify as Protestant. While modern Evangelicals are several centuries removed from the inception of the Protestant tradition, it is ironic that their relationship to protest is so tenuous, considering the historical and linguistic connection between Protestantism and protest. Moreover, American Protestantism not only boasts of Martin Luther’s theses in its tradition, but the specific strain of Protestantism which led to American Evangelicalism came through the English Puritans dissenting against the Church of England (Stetzer).As a movement birthed out of protest, one would think that Evangelicals would more readily praise similar tactics when they are used by other oppressed groups, but it is unfortunately not so simple. Apart from the protests within the early days of their own tradition, Evangelicals speak fondly of the American Revolution and specifically the legendary Boston Tea Party (Stetzer), the national pro-life rally “March for Life” (Burton), and the more recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong (Fulton). Conversely, Evangelicals are reluctant at best and aggressively opposed at worst towards marching for racial justice. A study by the Barna Group concluded that Evangelicals are the least likely out of any religious group to support the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement (Barna). The fact that an overwhelming majority of Evangelicals are white and affiliate with the Republican party (Pew) ought to give some context as to why this is the case.The debate surrounding the Christian response to BLM within Evangelical circles and the broader Protestant (and even Catholic) tradition is pervasive, sometimes discussed in good faith and other times dismissed out of hand. The discussion appears to have skipped a step, however. The merits of protest are always discussed in terms of broad messaging (e.g. can believers support BLM) but never on the act of peaceful protest itself, namely whether believers should engage in the act of protest at all. Hence, the purpose of this essay: to provide an analysis of protest as communication and reach a conclusion on its implications for Western Evangelical culture engagement. To achieve this properly, a robust understanding of protest as communicative action must be established; this will be accomplished through examining how various communication theories inform the act of protest and through a historical examination of the stated goals of protests movements. As this is specifically a discussion centered on Evangelicals and protest, it would also be prudent to develop a theology of culture engagement (i.e. what is the church supposed to do outside of itself?). The primary text for this section is James Hunter Davison’s To Change the World which argues for a theology of “faithful presence within” culture (Hunter, 237). Finally, the concepts must be married: based on a comprehensive understanding of protest as communication and a meaningful theology of Christian culture engagement, should Christians paint signs, chant slogans, and march or should they stay home?DefinitionsNeither protest nor Evangelical are easy to define. Protest, traditionally understood, is a public demonstration orchestrated by disenfranchised actors (and sympathizers) outside of the sphere of power for the purposes of policy or regime change, bringing attention to injustice, and solidarity. While this definition is comprehensive insofar as our topic is concerned, it fails to address the violence and destruction that can accompany protest movements, as well as the fact that sometimes people within the spheres of power can participate in the protest as in the cases of Egypt and Burkina Faso during the Arab Spring (Hitman, 96). There are those within the broader Protestant tradition who would argue that looting and violence are acceptable expressions of protest for believers, sometimes citing Jesus’ overturning of tables in the temple as justification (Matt 21:12-13, Goins-Philips). This position, at least as it relates to America’s current cultural climate, is firmly in the minority, however. Thus, the initial definition provided will be the one used henceforth.What makes Evangelical so difficult to define is its multifaceted nature as a series of theological tenants and a political identity. At the American strain of Evangelicalism’s inception, Evangelicals were marked by five theological emphases, according to the first English Anglican Bishop J.C. Ryle. These emphases are the supremacy of Scripture, the prominence of human sinfulness, the ultimacy of the office, work, and person of Jesus, the elevation of the Holy Spirit’s work in the hearts of man, and the importance of the outworking of the Spirit’s power. Ryle acknowledges that Evangelicals are by no means the only tradition which holds to these tenants, but the distinctive is found in the emphasis which is placed upon them (Rogers, 103-104). As mentioned previously, Evangelicals disproportionately identify as either Republican or Conservative (56% and 55% respectively) and are overwhelmingly white (76%) (Pew). The connection goes deeper than simple affiliation, however. The list of Evangelical political activism groups is extensive and Evangelicals are a reliable and coveted voting block for right-wing politicians (Dias). Left-leaning Evangelicals do exist but are by far the minority, both in pure statistics (Pew) and in the popular imagination of what it means to be Evangelical.While it would be foolish to try to definitively define Evangelicalism, whenever the group is mentioned in this essay it will refer to those who put a heavy emphasis on the tenants proposed by Ryle, believe that the Christian way of life is under attack by secularism (Hunter, 115-117), hold to traditional conservative policy positions and values (Pew), and put a lot of stock in conservative political activism.Protest as CommunicationProtest and Communication Theory“Everything communicates,” as the old adage goes. The most important thing to recognize in this conversation is the idea that there are implicit messages within the act of protest that go beyond the messaging presented by the movement. While many of those intrinsic messages are based upon the specific tactics used and the surrounding context, there are a handful of more universal truths which are regularly communicated via protesting writ large. Jón Ólafsson, a professor of cultural studies at the University of Iceland, believes that protest further divides the notions of deliberation and dialogue. Deliberation refers to the more common and accepted forms of political activism: lobbying, candidate promotion, petitions, etc. Dialogue, however, is the goal of the protester. Protesting does not fit into the established democratic processes that those in power would prefer be used. Thus, protest communicates societal and political failure, according to Ólafsson. When activists choose to take to the streets instead of the traditional avenues of political change, they are communicating a perceived ineffectiveness in the more socially agreeable methods. Thus, they are pursuing the issues at hand dialogically rather than deliberately. The term dialogue implies communication on behalf of at least two parties; protest is therefore a statement about not feeling heard. Protest does not facilitate well nuanced conversation, like the deliberation method does; therefore, the goal is dialogue, which is more base (Ólafsson, 433). Furthermore, protest, by its very nature, is defiance against power structures. By choosing to communicate dialogically instead of deliberately, protesters are telling the established powers that the prescribed method of democratic interaction is inadequate and it is time to play by their rules. It is also, as Ólafsson says, “a form of social disobedience serving as a constant reminder of the temporality, fragility and relativity of political structures, no matter how democratic or liberal their original design” (433).Dr. Thomas K. Johnson believes that not only are these cultural messages tucked within every act of protest, but that there are also spiritual messages which cannot be avoided. He points out that while not every protest movement is going to represent God-given truth or even accurately conform to reality, the act of protesting communicates an innate understanding of morality’s existence. Protesting says, “the way things are is wrong and we have an obligation to make it better.” Moreover, most protest movements contain a fundamental understanding of the value of life (Johnson, 295-296). Sometimes this notion is clear: BLM advocates for the value of African-American lives. The March for Life is, well, a march for the lives of the unborn. Other times, the discussion may be framed around quality of life or the lives of animals. People who protest the creation of oil pipelines argue that the economic boon and jobs provided by any given pipeline is offset by the toll it will take on the wildlife in its path. Ultimately, the debate is still centered upon the value of life. On an individual level, participating in a march or any other form of demonstrative protest is potentially a form of solidarity. The people most likely to protest are those who are most directly affected by perceived oppression (e.g. African-Americans and BLM, Hong Kong residents and the Hong Kong protests, etc.), but there are almost always those who recognize the plight of the group in question, though they themselves are not a part of it, and stand alongside the initial protesters. Thus, protesters who are not directly affected by the perceived injustice are communicating a message of solidarity, always implicitly, though sometimes explicitly.In summation, protest implicitly makes a statement about societal and political failure, defies existing power structures, expresses some sort of moral code, advocates for the value of life, and often includes messages of solidarity. While these implicit concepts are fairly universal, there are particularities within specific movements which should also be considered. A case study on the most well known protest movement in American history, namely the Civil Rights movement, is in order. Protest as PraxisIn chapter two of his book Where Do We Go From Here, Martin Luther King Jr. speaks to the division within his movement over the phrase “Black Power.” One of Dr. King’s friends, Stokely Carmichael, told him, “Power is the only thing respected in this world, and we must get it at any cost” (King, 31). Dr. King agreed, at least in part, arguing that legitimacy in the public sphere has been achieved by other minorities, but they attained cultural power through “unity, determination and creative endeavor” (King, 31), rather than slogans explicitly calling for it. The very notion of cultural power may be unsettling to some, as power inherently requires control (a topic which will be discussed later), but at its simplest and most pure, cultural legitimacy gives groups the comfort of knowing their concerns will be taken seriously by power structures. With cultural legitimacy/power as the umbrella goal, Dr. King enumerates the goals of his movement. He points out that the slogan “Black Power” was birthed in the state of Mississippi: a place where the lynching of civil rights leaders and the bombing and burning of black churches was rampant and went unpunished (King, 34). On the national level, leaders within the civil rights movement were discouraged at the hesitancy of the federal government to pass germane legislation. Furthermore, even when progressive legislation was passed, such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the disparity between promised outcomes and enforcement of those outcomes was stark, leaving African-Americans in the south with the same amount of legitimacy they had before. Problems in the north were less visible, but still unavoidably racist. Housing, employment, and education discrimination left many homeless or stuck in ghettos, financially destitute, and with none of the upward mobility provided by proper schooling (King, 35). The aforementioned afflictions experienced by African-Americans were addressed by civil rights leaders through calls for policy implementation and working alongside those within local communities who were willing to listen and respond, but the final goal of Dr. King’s civil rights movement (as it is presented in Where Do We Go From Here) involved a shift in the social imaginaries of both African-Americans and whites. “For years,” he writes, “the Negro has been taught that he is nobody, that his color is a sign of his biological depravity, that his being has been stamped with an indelible imprint of inferiority, that his whole history has been soiled with the filth of worthlessness” (King, 39). Thus, Dr. King protested for the establishment of black identity as human, an identity which both furthered the ends of cultural legitimacy but would also work toward healing the soul of a downtrodden people. “There is nothing essentially wrong with power. The problem is that in America power is unequally distributed… In his struggle for racial justice, the Negro must seek to transform his condition of powerlessness into creative and positive power” (King, 38). This essay’s brief sketch of the aims and purposes of the civil rights movement is by no means comprehensive, but at the very least provides a rudimentary understanding of the goals sought after by Dr. King and his contemporaries. Achieving cultural power by protesting for the purposes of ending physical, social, and economic oppression through policy, advocacy, local support, and altering social imagination concerning black identity proved to be a powerful and effective message. However, the notion of cultural power causes the crux of this discussion to emerge: what role, if any, does the church have in the accrual, establishment, or dissemination of cultural power? The Christian and Culture  Since Christ’s ascension, Christians have attempted to decipher what Jesus meant in the High Priestly Prayer of John 17 when He spoke of His disciples being in the world but not of it. The most base interpretation suggests that Christians are to be literally present in the world, as the only alternative is death, but not associate with ungodly things. This explanation introduces more questions than it answers, however. What does it mean to associate? How are believers to apply biblical principles of godliness to ideas and technologies which couldn’t even have been comprehended by the original audiences?NiebuhrOne of the most well-known works on the subject is Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. He proposes five views concerning Christian culture engagement demarcated by five pithy phrases: Christ Against Culture, Christ of Culture, Christ Above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ Transforming Culture (Niebuhr, xliii-liii). The various beliefs are effectively a spectrum, with the first two representing either extreme and the remaining three filling in the middle. While each of these theologies could take up an entire essay of their own, they will be dealt with in brief here. Christ Against Culture draws a distinct line between the church and the world (Niebuhr, 47) and posits that believers should have nothing to do with secular culture (Niebuhr, 53-54). Christ of Culture represents the alternative extreme, wherein the church effectively blurs the line between Christ and culture into nothingness (Niebuhr, 90). In this view, Christian thought and life is so thoroughly melded with secular culture that the two are practically indistinguishable. Christ Above Culture falls in between the first two, though it leans more towards the isolationist position. The argument here is that the church ought to emphasize the distinction between itself and the world while attempting to order the world around itself through public perception and right living (Niebuhr, 127). At the dead center lies Christ and Culture in Paradox, wherein the church views the cultural structures in place as twisted and broken, yet attempts to introduce Christian thought into them (Niebuhr, 156). Lastly, the Christ Transforming Culture position acknowledges Christ’s dominion over all and, while maintaining a degree of separation, seeks to introduce the atoning work of Christ to the culture around it through participation within it (Niebuhr, 92). Each perspective has valuable elements to contribute, but Christ Transforming Culture is what will be argued for here, via a comparison to James Davison Hunter's nearly identical paradigm: faithful presence within. HunterAmerican sociologist James Davison Hunter in his book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, provides a more localized perspective on Christian culture engagement. His conclusion for how Christians ought to perceive their role in culture most closely aligns with Niebuhr’s Christ Transforming Culture, though he provides his own phrasing, namely “faithful presence within culture” (Hunter, 237). Before establishing his view, however, Hunter addresses some failures within the current Evangelical cultural engagement paradigm, specifically as it relates to cultural power.Arguably the most important thing to understand about the American cultural climate is that the various facets of it are being dominated by the political part. As the melting pot of American identity continues to churn, facilitating less and less consensus on every conceivable value, validity and identity are found not in local community or relational institutions but by rights conferred by the state (Hunter, 102-103). Thus the public square is dominated entirely by policy positions and party affiliation. One of the consequences of this shift is the erasure of alternative methods of persuading or effecting public consciousness, namely through relationship, civil discourse, and community. Hunter is swift to point out that this also means that the seat of cultural power, insofar as it relates to enforcement, is primarily located within the coercive power of the state (106). For Evangelicals, this means that the witness of the church is a political witness (Hunter, 169), leading many believers to behave in ways that are utterly antithetical to the Christian ideals of charity and love in the name of “the good of the country.” Furthermore, if the Evangelical witness is political, and politics is inherently a struggle for cultural power, Evangelicals are embroiled in an endless, bloody war for cultural relevance. This is a hideous reality wherein the church’s Christian witness is often whored out in support of a candidate or party to the exclusion of both believers who differ in thought and unbelievers .This is not to say that the Christian is to disassociate entirely from politics. Hunter’s solution to politicized Christianity is to simply place politics in its rightful place within the believer’s experience. He advocates that we work to first separate the church’s identity as a primarily political actor and re-establish it as the hands and feet of Jesus. “At best,” he writes, “politics can make life in this world a little more just and thus a little more bearable” (Hunter, 184-186). Once the Christian witness is disentangled from political power, Evangelicals can begin exercising a more relational power, one which seeks good, cultural change based upon submission to God, rejection of status and privilege, and does not seek to coerce unbelievers (Hunter, 188-191). Hunter calls this paradigm “faithful presence within culture” and it looks like what God commands of the Jewish Babylonian exiles in Jeremiah 29:4-7: 

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” 

Hunter goes on to define his theory by saying, “The practice of faithful presence, then, generates relationships and institutions that are fundamentally covenantal in character; the ends of which are the fostering of meaning, purpose, truth, beauty, belonging, and fairness—not just for Christians but for everyone” (Hunter, 263). Notice that Hunter does not speak of establishing covenantal relationships with unbelievers for the purpose of cold-call evangelism. Working for the good of local communities is not a bait-and-switch; yes, the primacy of the Gospel and the salvation of the unbeliever is essential, but the moment a person becomes a target or project they are stripped of their personhood. Believers are to work towards beauty and harmony in local community because that is what God commands and because it is a prerequisite to beautiful and harmonious living. Proper Christian culture engagement, therefore, looks like working towards biblical peace within local communities, primarily through nonpolitical avenues, though not exclusively, for the glory of God and the good of people. The Christian and ProtestWith protest firmly established as communicative action and a theology of the church’s responsibility to be faithfully present within culture posited, the task at hand becomes one of synthesis. Does the act of protest fit within the paradigm of faithful presence? If so, does this mean Christians have license to participate in every and any protest? At risk of losing all suspense, the answer to the first question is yes: Evangelicals can witness faithfully through the act of protest, though perhaps not in the traditional way most would expect. Christians ought to be wary of political power as the pursuit of it has been a cancer upon Evangelicalism in America for some time. As established previously, protest is inherently a quest for cultural and political legitimacy; by marching, attendees are broadcasting perceived injustice and/or corruption within a power structure and asserting that the traditional avenues of change are insufficient. Even for the most just cause, this messaging is dangerous for believers: what starts as a quest for justice may swiftly turn to seeking power as an end unto itself. How then can Christians protest without caving to corrupting nature of power which mutilates faith traditions? It starts with conceiving of protest as prophetic work.Prophetic ProtestThe Old Testament prophets were well acquainted with protesting injustice. Ezekiel lay on his left side for 390 days (Ezk 4:5, ESV), baked bread with human feces as fuel (Ezk 4:12, ESV), and shaved his head with a sword (Ezk 5:1) to announce the coming judgement of Israel. Hosea married a prostitute to portray Israel’s faithlessness to the Lord (Hos 1:2, ESV). Let’s not forget the time Isaiah walked around naked to symbolize how Israel was to be led into captivity (Isa 20:2, ESV). While present day saints don’t have the luxury of direct divine instruction on why, how, and when to protest, their example provides us with a template for sign based communication, namely using the entire body to communicate instead of just words. Moreover, the prophets were concerned with the actions of the political leaders, but not exclusively. The general populace who went along with the wickedness perpetrated by the throne were in the crosshairs as well. Protest as a prophetic work is not primarily focused upon political outcomes, though they are still present and sometimes integral to the movement. For the believer, the primary reason to protest is a communal one. The importance of the local body of Christ and its relationship to local communities surrounding it cannot be overstated. The most effective witness is one that is relational. When people are hurting, whether it be from injustice or other worldly ills, the church must be first: first to arrive, first to listen, and first to give sacrificially. So when a community takes to the streets to express their pain, the church must seriously consider marching as well as a form of prophetic communication, proclaiming with the oppressed that the world isn’t as it should be.Standing in solidarity with the oppressed provides a unique opportunity for believers to provide an alternative to worldly solutions as well. As mentioned previously, it is critical that protesting is not a bait-and-switch; the goal is not to infiltrate a crowd in order to spring some cold-call evangelism on them. But especially in America’s current cultural climate, a marching Evangelical church is as rare as a Bigfoot sighting, thereby beginning the process of tearing down Evangelical stereotypes and starting friendships and conversations. How then should Christians protest? By first seeking to empathize and build relationships with their local community. Secondly, they ought to prophetically proclaim the world as a fallen reality. Thirdly, by seeking to shape public consciousness on an issue, as demonstrated by Martin Luther King Jr. in Where Do We Go From Here. Lastly (and it is last for a reason), if the injustice requires a political remedy, advocate and pressure for policy change. ObjectionsAre there movements in which Christians cannot participate, according to a theology of faithful presence? Could there be instances where the explicit messaging of a group is so antithetical to Christian life and theology that no amount of empathy and community building can justify participation? The answer is obviously yes. It would be quite the gymnastic feat to compile any worthwhile arguments for marching in a KKK rally. Ultimately, each decision to march is based on personal conviction and context, but there are a few things that ought to be kept in mind when discerning whether or not to join in.Consider first whether or not the most fundamental explicit messaging of any given movement is compatible with Christian theology. Does the movement advocate for the value of human life? Is the perceived injustice truly unjust? If the answer is these questions is yes, then perhaps marching for the cause is worthwhile. It is important to remember that most protests are going to contain significant traces of pluralism. Moreover, every movement is going to have bad actors. Marching alongside those of a different faith tradition or those whose lifestyle choices speak to spiritual lostness does not constitute a compromise of values; in fact, protesting with unbelievers is part of why Christians ought to protest, namely to speak into the pain and lostness. Furthermore, bad actors are just that: bad actors. They ought not to be taken as the face of a movement or issue.In summation, believers have no obligation to agree with every tenant posited by a movement, nor do they have to agree ideologically with all who decide to march. If the core of a movement is sound (i.e. do black lives matter, should the persecution of those in Hong Kong end, ought the lives of the unborn be valued) then the Christian can, and sometimes should, march for the reasons established previously.ConclusionChristian cultural engagement is messy. Every perceived miscarriage of justice is shades of grey upon shades of grey and polarization has degraded our discourse to primal shouts and tribalism. There are those who think the believer ought to have nothing to do with the dirty, taboo concept of “social justice.” This mindset does a disservice to the Christian’s mission to make disciples of all nations and to love the neighbor as self. By protesting for a just cause, the believer is prophetically proclaiming the sinfulness of humanity and providing an otherworldly alternative. A million sermons will not reach those who feel the church does not care for their physical and social condition, but humble empathy and action will.BibliographyBarna, “Black Lives Matter and Racial Tension in America.” 5 May, 2016. http://barna.org/research/black-lives-matter-and-racial-tension-in-america/#.VzSUJoQrIdUThe Bible, ESVBurton, Tara Elizabeth. “The March for Life, America’s Biggest Anti-Abortion Rally, Explained.” Vox, 18 Jan, 2020. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/1/18/16870018/ march-for-life-anti-abortion-rally-explained Dias, Elizabeth. “Most Conservative Christians Support Trump. Will They Help Him Win Again?” The New York Times. 30 Oct 2020. Updated 3 Nov 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/ 2020/10/30/us/trump-evangelical-vote.htmlFlock, Elizabeth. “Time Person of the Year 2011: ‘The Protester’” The Washington Post, 14 Dec, 2011.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/time-person-of-the-year-2011-the-protester/2011/12/14/gIQAvZtntO_blog.html. Fulton, Brent. “Hong Kong Christians Respond as Beijing’s Grip Tightens.” Christianity Today, 5 June, 

2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/june-web-only/hong-kong-christians-pastors- letter-china-security-law.html

Goins-Phillips, Tré. “Arizona Pastor Jeff Durbin Offers Biblical Response to Violent Looting, Rioting.” CBN News. 7 June, 2020. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/june/arizona- pastor-jeff-durbin-offers-biblical-response-to-violent-looting-rioting Hitman, Gadi. “Rethinking Social Protest Movements’ Theorization: Lessons from Egypt, Burkina Faso and Bolivia.” TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 95–112. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3176/tr.2020.1.05.Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World. Oxford University Press, 2010.Johnson, Thomas K. “The Protester, the Dissident and the Christian.” Evangelical Review of Theology, vol. 44, no. 4, Oct. 2020, pp. 294–301. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=146671597&site=ehost-live.King Jr., Martin Luther. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Beacon Press, 2010Niebuhr, Richard. Christ and Culture. HarperOne, 1951. Ólafsson, Jón. “Defiance: A Comment on the Logic of Protest.” TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, vol. 11, no. 4, Dec. 2007, pp. 432–442. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27982575&site=ehost-live.Pew. “Evangelical Protestants.” https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ religious-tradition/evangelical-protestant/. Accessed 10 Nov, 2020.Rogers, Ben. “Ryle and Evangelical Identity.” Foundations: An International Journal of Evangelical Theology, no. 70, Spring 2016, pp. 94–111. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=116903015&site=ehost-live.Stetzer, Ed. “Pro ALL Life: Why I Protest and Encourage You to Do So Too.” Christianity Today, 6 June, 

2020. https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/june/ why-i-protest-and-you-should-too.html