You have completely misunderstood, and/or misrepresented, the evangelical position on the "literal" interpretation of Scripture. Evangelicals adhere to the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture: Scripture taken in its historical context, with attention paid specifically to the literally genre of any given passage: poetry is interpreted differently from historical narrative, etc. You have created a straw man argument that does not apply to what evangelicals actually believe. Further, dispensational theology believes you must distinguish in the way in which God rules in this world or the economy by which He mediates His rule in this world at different points in time.
It is true that every time anyone says anything about any evengelical position, an evangelical will be found who would say it is a misrepresentation. You just followed up with two posts to me that apply the same error of fundamentalist literalism to monasticism and celibacy (combined with apparent ignorance of the scripture passages concerning John the Baptist). Well, whatever the evangelical manner of scriptural interpretation is, your posts illustrate why it is inadequate and un-Catholic.