An emerging cure for the common evangelical Print E-mail
Sunday, 20 February 2005 15:12
View Comments

The other day over brunch, we sat down with some friends to discuss our status as "angsty evangelicals." Given the cultural baggage associated with the term "evangelical," we debated whether we wanted to claim the label for ourselves or to create something new. Here are some of the points we touched on.


Photo by Naoko McCrackenAre we evangelicals?
We began with a theological definition of "evangelical" which Janel had taken from her studies:
  1. Christ-centered
  2. Belief in the infallibility of scripture
  3. Belief in the importance of evangelism
  4. Belief in the need for a personal "conversion"
It was quite telling that as soon as these four points were mentioned, hesitations were voiced, clarifications were requested, and nuances were added. (For example in reference to #2, distinctions were made between "infallibility" and "inerrancy." Some of us voiced a preference for the more general word "authority." Regarding #4,  "conversion" was replaced with language indicating that there had been a turning or that our lives were lived differently because of our faith.)

The conversation seemed to move away from definitions that fit into the "fundamentalist" stereotype and toward more Mainline Protestant phraseology (because we're not fundies), and then back again in the other direction (because we believe stuff). [Related: read "Death by ice or fire"]

Most of us, leery of identifying ourselves as evangelicals, were also hesitant not to identify ourselves as evangelicals. While the trend among evangelicals seems to be to define Christianity too narrowly, the trend among Mainliners is to define it so broadly that it no longer means anything.

Is there value in trying to redeem the term "evangelical" or do we need to form a new term because of the baggage that has become associated with it?
We discussed the historical definition of evangelicalism too--from its roots in 18th century Pietism, through the Second Great Awakening, the fundamentalist/Modernist controversy, and the "neo-evangelical" movement of Billy Graham to its present buzz in the media. The term "evangelical" has been conflated with the religious right, especially in recent days. Is there value in trying to redeem, or reclaim that term?

There is a history of social justice activism (e.g. abolitionism, suffrage) stemming from evangelicals and evangelicalism. (This is Jim Wallis' take on it--he's "a 19th century evangelical" born in the wrong century). Janel points out, however, that it isn't often acknowledged that 19th century evangelicals, as postmillenialists, were trying to usher in the kingdom with their progressivsim. ("If we make the world good enough, Jesus will come back"). They weren't necessarily motivated by a sense of justice or because people are made in the image of God.

The term "evangelical" is so problematic that in some ways it would be easier to scrap it and start again with a new term. It wasn't easy to even find a term that we could agree on, however. Denominational identity seemed too fluid or irrelevant, especially in a "post-denominational" age. "Orthodox" seemed like it had potential, but it is easily confused with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, the linguistic background of the term--"right thinking"--seems too Modernist. Just "Christian" was suggested, but then again most people in north America identify themselves as Christans, so the term says very little about someone's worldview and commitments.

After several hours of discussion and little consensus, one of our friends came up with a simple distinction that surprised us with its profundity. "What it all comes down to," she said," is whether you are a 'sex Christian' or a 'no-sex Christian.'" Although this statement was obviously a joke, it rings true in some respects. Angsty evangelicals  may have more in common with Mainliners or non-Christians than other evangelicals in some areas, but we aren't willing to identify with the religious left in other areas. (For example, when it comes to sex, we angsty evangelicals believe, with other evangelicals, that our "personal lives" also matter to God and that sex should be reserved for a marriage relationship.)

Needless to say, it was pretty clear that calling ourselves "no-sex Christians" was not the solution, especially considering that some of us are married. Besides, claiming a new identity for ourselves could create the appearance of cutting ourselves off from a community of believers with whom we want to dialogue and with whom we in many ways identify. It would be a variation of a church split, which always leaves hard feelings and defensiveness on both sides.

What are some problems with stereotypical evangelicalism, and what other positive aspects are missing from it?
  • Evangelicalism in our culture seems to be rather entrenched in both Modernism, individualism and consumer culture and it fails to acknowledge its cultural blinders--let alone beginning to search for them or remove them.
  • It comes off as too formulaic and dogmatic--as though God and faith are equations we can calculate.
  • It doesn't often address the complexities of reading a document like the Bible so many milennia after it was written. Rather than acknowledging that Scripture is rooted in history and culture, evangelicals often assume that the Bible is a book of propositions that can be easily extracted and pasted directly into a completely different cultural situation.
  • Leadership is often too hierarchical and overly dominated by white male Baby Boomers, without recognizing other voices within the church or dialoguing with the community of faith.
Not wanting to dwell on the negatives, we also came up with some suggestions to redeem evangelicalism. Our "emergent" evangelicalism (to borrow from Brian McLaren) sees the need for the following:
  • more humility, nuance, and mystery.
    Instead of what comes off as arrogance and pride (e.g. [Loudly] "This is how it is. End of discussion."), the church needs to be humble and acknowledge that the Spirit moves in mysterious ways. We also need to recognize that we are finite and creaturely, that there is nuance and shades of grey--not just black and white, and that the moment we strip away the mystery and awesome unknowableness of God, we have a dry dogma, not a living faith.
  • more of "love your neighbour as yourself."
    The tendency of evangelicalism in recent decades has been to focus almost exclusively on "love the Lord your God" in an individualistic, dualistic fashion ("myspiritual life"). We need more genuine concern, evidenced by our action, for our neighbours, both local and global. We also need to realize that faith is about more than our personal relationship with God--it is communal, and it comes through in all of our life decisions, which need to be made out of love, in a way that fosters justice and right relationship between people. We need to acknowledge that what we do (or do not do) to and for "the least of these" is the strongest evidence of our relationship with God.
What now?
None of the angsty evangelicals gathered around our table were over 35, and we collectively recognized that it is much easier to criticize something than to do it better ourselves. Besides, we each have our own lenses that we see through--and our vision of how the church should be redeemed isn't necessarily God's vision.

Although we had a lot of complaints about how the evangelical church has messed things up, our conversation was ultimately hopeful. Especially in light how the press has recently eaten up the unconventional evangelicalism of Brian McLaren and Jim Wallis, we sense a certian ripeness in culture for a fresh evangelical vision. And as the emerging church movement continues to grow and develop, we are encouraged that the term "evangelical" will grow along with it, developing into a more full and complete embodiment of the church. It's exciting to think that maybe we can be part of this development.


[Feel free to comment below or join a discussion at Catapult Magazine]
Christianity
blog comments powered by Disqus
back to top
< Prev   Next >
 
RocketTheme Joomla Novus Template Info