In the American Conservative, Darryl Hart worries that evangelicals are going to start joining up with the Left.
In the 1970s, concerns about declining standards of social morality and decency made evangelicals seem like a natural Republican constituency. But biblical standards of morality have a way of nurturing interest in biblical standards of social justice. Where the older generation of evangelicals reads the Bible for its application to sex and family relations, younger evangelicals are turning to holy writ for guidance on war, hunger, and poverty.
Christopher D. Levenick takes to the Claremont Review of Books to worry… actually, he doesn't worry about this at all.
The new Religious Left appears unlikely to gain many converts, preaching an old-time progressive gospel to an aging choir. Dubious assumptions, unsatisfactory methods, and theologically problematic conclusions render much of the project intellectually inadequate and (speaking for myself) spiritually unfulfilling.
Is it possible that they're both wrong?