You’ve lost the high moral ground on gay marriage and other issues. Take this opportunity to clean your own house.
Sexual sins other than homosexuality are widely tolerated among evangelicals. Prominent leaders divorce and remarry with no career consequences, and preachers “confess” sexual failings but never show any evidence of true repentance. (Haggard is the remarkable exception. A truly repentant individual desires only to get right with God. He relinquishes all “rights” and claims to position or status. Follow the example of Haggard’s church and demand true repentance.
...Stop persecuting gays outside the church and address the crisis of men and women in your own midst who struggle silently with same-sex attraction.
The vast majority feel like they have no one to turn to. They’ve noticed that you don’t place equal emphasis on other sexual sins that are prevalent in the church, such as adultery and the use of pornography. They’re hoping for someone to stand up who not only holds firmly to the truth of Scripture that homosexual relationships are sinful but understands their brokenness and can address it in its spiritual, physical and psychological dimensions. They’re also looking for a true demonstration of supernatural power–Christians who believe in the power of the Word of God and have the faith to access it. An intellectual approach to the truth of Scripture might persuade someone that he’s sinned, but it won’t free him from the brokenness of sin.
I'm not an evangelical, but I'd say those are words of wisdom right there.
Update I: While we're on the subject, let me mention this editorial in today's Washington Post.
Evangelicals led the grass-roots campaigns for religious liberty, the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. Even the Moral Majority in its most belligerent form amounted to nothing more terrifying than churchgoers flocking peacefully to the polls on Election Day. The only people who want a biblical theocracy in America are completely outside the evangelical mainstream, their influence negligible.
...Of course it's true that a handful of Christian figures reinforce the worst stereotypes of the movement. Their loopy and triumphalist claims are seized upon by lazy journalists and the direct-mail operatives of political opponents.
Yet it is dishonest to disparage the massive civic and democratic contribution of evangelicals by invoking the excesses of a tiny few. As we recall from the Gospels, even Jesus had a few disciples who, after encountering some critics, wanted to call down fire from heaven to dispose of them. Jesus disabused them of that impulse. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals have dispensed with it as well. Maybe it's time more of their critics did the same.
I truly do appreciate and have great respect for those who are motivated by their religious beliefs to serve their God and other people through their good works. But the authors here are disingenuous. It is correct to say that people who want a theocracy are outside the mainstream; but many conservative evangelicals don't want a theocracy, so much as they want a government dominated by conservative Christians that adheres to many conservative evangelical standards on social policy, economic policy and even foreign policy. It's not really the evangelicals making "loopy and triumphalist claims" that anyone is worried about (though they're out there); it is the people who believe that government should be guided by Christian political thought, that government should be used to encourage conservative Christianity in society, that conservative Christianity should actively seek to promote itself through partisan politics, and that conservative Christianity coincidentally and conveniently coincides with jingoism, nationalism and nativism, that people like myself and many other liberals and moderates worry about. We have good reason to be worried because despite the fact that many, many evangelicals do not believe in these things, the evangelical movement is dominated by people who do, and who have no compunctions about acquiring power through divisive partisan politics. So while I respect the point the authors are trying to make, and I understand why they would be tired of being lumped in with the "loopy" evangelicals, I would argue that until the political elements of Christianity are no longer dominated by the Christians I describe above, it will remain difficult to distinguish between them.