The main goal of this opinion piece is to persuade you to read the July 1 statement by the European Evangelical Alliance (EEA), entitled “European Evangelicals in Public Life.” If you are short on time, skip the rest of this post and read the EEA statement directly instead.
A statement adopted by a relatively small group of people (can) change the world.
Can a statement adopted by a relatively small group of people change the world? Yes, if it (1) mobilizes people to action and/or (2) reshapes public discourse on the topic and persuades a significant number of others to reconsider their beliefs.
Statements... effective because... global distribution encouraged and guided specific new actions at local and regional levels.
I recently edited a book on Christian efforts to combat climate change. The book describes many statements adopted by the World Council of Churches and other religious bodies over the past four decades. Some of those statements were very effective because their global distribution encouraged and guided specific new actions at local and regional levels.
In contrast, several attempts to facilitate a Christian response to (their perceived) undesirable trajectory of the United States government have achieved less success because they don’t meet either criterion for effectiveness.
In February, 400 US Christian leaders released “A Call to Christians.” In 1,850 words, they urged courageous resistance against “a cruel and oppressive government” and “the injustices and anti-democratic danger sweeping the nation.” The text is deeply theological and politically powerful.
I agree with its sentiments. But I don’t believe it met either criterion for effectiveness. Because its signers were overwhelmingly from politically left-leaning groups, the statement was not newsworthy and received little attention.
It may have only added to the polarization rather than persuading anyone.
It probably reached few people who were not already motivated to resist. By not acknowledging the reasons why some Christians became entangled in support for excesses of the US Republican party and the Trump administration, it may have only added to the polarization rather than persuading anyone.
A couple months ago, a friend alerted me to the appearance of a similar statement, “Christ Alone: A Call to Faithful Resistance,” composed by individuals associated with Fuller Seminary in California. This statement shows slightly greater balance in acknowledging “the tendency towards governmental overreach by both political parties,” but it calls on the church “to recognize the clear and present danger of rising authoritarian rule to all of us.”
This effort also seems to have had limited impact. Despite its origination at a relatively evangelical school, its list of signers is also heavily left-leaning and has grown by only a handful of people in the past month.
The world needed a different kind of statement.
I thought the world needed a different kind of statement—one that would sympathetically acknowledge why US evangelicals have allied with the Republican party and why they distrust the Democratic party, while causing them to oppose the corruption, retribution, cruelty, and self-aggrandizement of the current government. I wrote two versions and shared them with a dozen friends.
I quickly learned how hard reaching consensus is. The reactions were all over the map from enthusiasm to skepticism. I received a plethora of revision suggestions, some mutually contradictory. If you’d like to see my work, let me know me and I’ll send it to you because, barring a major surprise, it will never be published. My email address can be found on my Substack site.
That humbling experience causes me to be even more impressed by what the EEA has done. European evangelicals have faced unfriendly treatment and sometimes slanderous misrepresentation by their neighbors and some media sources. The perception that US evangelicals have been enabling Trump’s assault on Europe wasn’t the only cause, but it hasn’t helped.
EEA calmly explains that their tenuous situation... calls for “a clear explanation of who Europe’s evangelicals are and how we engage in public life.”
In response, the EEA calmly explains that their tenuous situation, which has caused evangelicals to be depicted as “dangerous extremists” in some cases, calls for “a clear explanation of who Europe’s evangelicals are and how we engage in public life.”
Without directly criticizing anyone, the EEA winsomely describes evangelicals’ commitment to holistic mission, their long history of positive social contributions, and their motivation to value every human being (especially the most vulnerable) as made in God’s image. It points out that evangelicals hold a wide range of political views but share a belief in “a tolerant, civil public square.”
The statement calls media and public leaders to pursue deeper understanding of evangelicals.
The EEA rejects Christian nationalism, embraces constructive dialogue and human rights for all, and invites others to hold evangelicals accountable when they “sometimes fail to live up to the gospel we proclaim.” Against this background, the statement calls media and public leaders to pursue deeper understanding of evangelicals.
When I was working on my ill-fated statement, skeptics kept wondering who my audience was. The EEA’s statement has an obvious answer to that question: everyone else, but especially media and public officials, should read it, learn who evangelicals really are, and treat them accordingly.
Its main goal is to persuade outsiders (which could include both Europeans who are not evangelicals and evangelicals outside Europe who do not do their politics as thoughtfully as the EEA does).
Unfortunately, evangelical organizations tend to have limited media relations capacity, and this statement will not persuade people who never find out about it. So I encourage you to do what you can to promote it and make it a news story, preferably well beyond Christian media. All of us whose public image is at stake will thank you.
Comment from the European Evangelical Alliance
I asked Julia Doxat-Purser, the EEA’s socio-political representative (whom I featured in a Substack post in March 2025) how they managed to achieve consensus among leaders from 30 countries. She responded:
The number-one tactic was to be positive. We criticize viewpoints but without naming names. We shared the statement with our advisory team—composed of individuals from across the continent, elected by our members—for comment and input. In that way, we knew it would gain our members’ support. Thus far, European evangelicals love the statement and say they want to use it. How others react to it remains to be seen.
Originally published on Bruce Barron's "Gently Provocative Thoughts" Substack. Republished with permission.
Bruce Barron has had a varied career that included investigating the charismatic movement, dominion theology, political campaigning and public policy in the USA. From 2015-2024 he volunteered for the World Evangelical Alliance as a communications aide and was executive editor of the WEA's theological journal from 2018-2024. Among other activities, he directs editorial services for the Society of Christian Scholars. Bruce writes a regular Substack blog, which can be subscribed to here: https://brucebarron.substack.com.
