BROOKS

How influential, exactly, is John Stott on the political agenda of America’s evangelicals? Not too much, I’d say. By picking a theologian in London, David Brooks strains somewhat to exculpate his conservative allies from the taint of intolerance. Yes, many of us need to understand the reality of evangelical conservatism better. And I’m delighted to see Brooks deride Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “bozos”. I hear the same thing privately from many other conservatives. But the real test is whether any leading Republican would ever publicly call such people “bozos”? McCain did – and look what happened to him. Who else has? Frist? Hastert? Bush? Never. I’m afraid David cannot have it both ways. If the real religious right is not represented by these blow-hard haters, why can’t a leading Republican say so? If the Democrats are always being required to castigate their extremes, why can’t the Republicans? The really interesting case study for David would be James Dobson. Dobson has said that granting gays civil marriage rights would lead to the “destruction of the earth.” Bozo or not a bozo? Nut-case or proud member of the big tent? Inclusive or intolerant? That’s a slightly more pressing and relevant question, I’d say, than the oeuvre of John Stott.