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.
Are we evangelicals? We began with a theological definition of "evangelical" which Janel had taken from her studies:
Christ-centered
Belief in the infallibility of scripture
Belief in the importance of evangelism
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]
Perhaps there is hope for the evangelicals after-all... I commend you all on being uncomfortable with evangelicalism as it is currently defined and being uncomfortable with it as it was formerly experienced. The idea of an emerging evanglelicalism probably cuts too close to identifying absolutely with the emerging church, but makes an effort at an important idea. That is, whatever evangelicalism will become it must be accessible for the emerging generation.I think that an inclusive definition of evangelicalism would be an experiential American protestantism that looks to the scriptures as a source for daily living. In this way there are many forms. There is no such thing as "the evangelical church." It is a spirituality, not an established movement, not an institution, not a politic, nor an eschatology. It is not primarily about what you believe about the scriptures. It is about knowing a person and depending on that One through authoritative revelation for guidance. 19th century evangelicals were mostly post-millenialists, which meant that they believed that establishing justice here on earth would precede the second coming. To conclude that they did not authentically care about people denies the freindships and heartfelt sacrifices people from Oberlin, OH to Syracuse New York made on behalf of slaves that were like them, touched by the stain of sin. It denies the motivation for women to work for temperance because they saw first hand the consequences of drunkeness in their own households. It denies Sabbatarian laws that were established to protect worker exploitation. It also denies that the same evangelical spirit is alive in many contemporary evangelicals, who engage the social arena, in spite of their premillenial dispensationalism (ala The Left Behind Series). While it is true that eschatology gave them some motives, their faith in a loving God enabled 19th century evangelicals to build inter-racial schools and have inter-racial congregations. Entirely missed in the discussion is the fact that not all evangelicals were "white." Persons like Samuel Ringgold Ward and Jermain Wesley Loguen, black abolitionists, had very close friendships with white evangelical abolitionists and would be counted among evangelicals themselves. Today, black evangelicals exist in the likes of Cheryl Sanders of Third Street Church of God (and me). African-Americans don't usually call themselves evangelicals because of the political connotations, but African-american Christianity is the result of the evangelical piety of the Methodists and Baptists, hence AME, AMEZ, NBC, ABC and eventually COGIC along with other pentecostal denominations. We need to hold on to the name evangelical for three reasons:1. Personal Faith- Evangelicalism is a form of heart felt Christianity that I call experiential protestantism. It is not as important that you can name a date and time of conversion as it is that you can talk about the experience of God in your life today. It is this experience that transcends denominational and theological barriers. It is a Spirit that invites evangelicals to consider racial-reconciliation and anti-racism. 2. Evangelical Heritage- draws us into fellowship with Whitefield, Edwards, Asbury, Hosier, Ward, Jarena Lee, Beecher Stowe, Finney, Moody, (Fosdick and Raushenbusch?), Sheldon, Graham, Sider, Wallis and a host of others black, white, women, men, Wesleyan, Reformed, Anabaptist and Pentecostal.3. Witness- The combination of an encounter with the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit and the rich heritage of evangelical history engenders a passion to share this experience with others. As DT Niles said, "evangelism is just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread." Like I said before, I wish I could have been there. I enjoy the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and the possibility that evangelicalism will live on in the 21st century. At the risk of sounding too liberal, I am led to repeat a question asked by Harry Emerson Fosdick as the tide of American Christianity seemed to hang in the balance, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" If this humble, servanthood, peacemaking faith is to survive we cannot allow for power pursuing, success oriented, violent Christians to be the only ones sharing their faith. It is time for those of us afraid to offend, ashamed of our imperialism, paralyzed by our privilege to tell someone where we found bread.Your Brother,David Evans
From "Jesus Politics"
-
Ron Sider and the Evangelical
|
68.165.246.xxx
|
Nov 14, 2006 (17:30:23)
Quote:
Ron Sider and the Evangelical Call to Civic ResponsibilityRon Sider's comments from last week appear in today's e-Pistle:a. Evangelicals have sometimes been accused of having a one- or two-issue political agenda. We have sometimes been accused of being concerned with the sanctity of human life only from conception to birth. Others can decide if that was ever fair. But this document makes it clear that a vast body of evangelicals today reject that approach. The declaration insists that it is precisely because the Bible makes it clear that God cares a great deal about marriage and the family and the sanctity of human life and justice for the poor and care for creation and peace and freedom and racial justice, that ?faithful evangelical civic engagement must champion a biblically balanced agenda.? This in no way represents abandoning a vigorous commitment to the sanctity of human life and a biblical understanding of marriage. But it does mean that racial and economic justice and care for creation are also central evangelical concerns. Especially noteworthy perhaps is that this is probably the first centrist, consensus evangelical document with a substantial section on creation care. This document demonstrates that evangelicals are not one-issue voters.b. Evangelicals have sometimes been accused of not understanding structures and systems. Some polls have found that most evangelicals think the only way to change society is one person at a time. This document is clear: social problems result both from bad personal choices and unjust systems and therefore we must correct social problems both by personal spiritual conversion and institutional, structural reform.c. Evangelicals have sometimes been accused of confusing God and country. Again, this document is clear. ?Our primary allegiance is to Christ, his kingdom and Christ?s worldwide body of believers, not to any nation.? We recognize the ?potentially self-destructive tendencies of our [American] society and government.?
From the NAE press release (10/8/04):"The Board of Directors of the National Association of Evangelicals unanimously voted at its annual Fall Board Meeting to adopt an historic document on public engagement called For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility..."The new NAE statement outlines a strong, compelling, and comprehensive framework for evangelical political engagement. It captures both our domestic and international priorities, while acknowledging areas of consensus and disagreement. This statement will help evangelicals to use our considerable political influence wisely and well, said Diane Knippers, co-chair of the project and an association Executive Committee member.Ron Sider, co-chair of the project with Knippers stated that "The declaration calls evangelicals to a biblically balanced concern that reflects the full range of God's concerns for the well-being of marriage, the family, the sanctity of human life, justice for the poor, care for creation, peace, freedom and racial justice. No longer dare one accuse evangelicals of being 'one-issue' voters focused exclusively on one or two issues."Download the statement (PDF)
From the PRISM ePistle:"In spite of a strong evangelical commitment to strengthening moral values in American society, evangelicals are often simply not practicing what they preach. In THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL CONSCIENCE, I cite poll after poll showing, as one evangelical leader noted, ?that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered and sexually immoral as the world in general.?...Evangelicals must also rethink the priorities for their political engagement. There is too much truth to the charge that we have been pro-life only from conception to birth. The sanctity of human life also pertains to people dying from hunger, AIDS, tobacco smoke, and capital punishment.The tragedy is that many evangelicals have listened more to clever political operators rather than to the Bible we claim to embrace when defining the public policies that shape our votes. Presumably a Christian political agenda ought to be decisively shaped by what the Bible says God cares about. If the hundreds of biblical verses about the poor mean anything, God cares about the poor and oppressed as well as the sanctity of human life. God cares about racial justice and creation care as well as the family. If evangelical political activists want to embrace a biblically balanced agenda, they will have to care about a lot more than abortion and family.The good news is that there is some indication that movement in that direction has begun..."Read more from this ePistle ("Love Justice, Do Mercy!")
I was encouraged by your essay "An emerging cure for the common evangelical". As an older 47 year old son of an evangelical (pentecostal) pastor, for almost two decades ,I and my wife, have been struggling with the concept that the true Church should be so different than what we experience each Sunday. I aggree with the precepts you have outlined.; however I would like you to consider one addition.christian service is not limited to that which is done in the church or affiliated with the churchToo often evangelicals and pastors view christian service as that which is done "In the Church". The message needs to be that Christian service is every where in our lives. From the way we treat our family ,to the tip we leave ou wait staff. It is not relagated to activities emblazoned with the church logo.
We're not the only one asking the question: Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical'...Some clips:"ALTHOUGH much of the attention on the emerging church movement has been on changes that its leaders have made in worship -- bringing back liturgy and ancient practices like meditation and chanting -- the movement has also sought to introduce theological innovations.It emphasizes reading the Bible as a narrative, perfect in its purposes but not necessarily inerrant; de-emphasizing individual salvation in favor of a more holistic mission in serving the world; even making evangelicals less absolutist on whether people from other religions might find their way to heaven.All of this has made many evangelical leaders nervous. They worry that the "emerging church" will water down the theology....These disputes are nothing new for evangelicalism. The evangelical movement as it is known today emerged in the 1940's and 50's as a middle way between what many Christian leaders perceived as theological liberalism in the mainline Protestant denominations and the cultural separatism of the fundamentalist movement.Today, with the term, "evangelical," often equated with "fundamentalist," many in the movement are even discussing whether the label evangelical should be jettisoned completely, said David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine."I did sit in a room with a number of key leaders, some Christian college presidents, some representatives of major college ministries," he said. "They were seriously discussing whether the word evangelical should be used anymore, or should we call ourselves classic Christians or historic orthodox Christians.""
RE: 'evangelical'"People within might understand, but what about those outside the church? Isn't it time to choose a new word that sums up our e-identity and commitment to following Jesus but puts distance between us and the damaging negatives?"Link
Leading scientists and evangelical Christian leaders have agreed to put aside passionate differences over the origin of life and work together to curb global warming.Representatives met recently in Georgia and agreed on the need for action. Details are to be unveiled in Washington on Wednesday."Whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today," said Rich Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches.
Here's how I understand the term, but I think something must be done quickly or the word will simply fall out of favor for evangelical moderates. I speak in the past tense because I don’t think it means this anymore, or at least it will not if something is not done...Read more at Jesus Creed. (By Scott McKnight)
The National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed an anti-torture statement saying the United States has crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible" in its treatment of detainees and war prisoners in the fight against terror.
Evangelicals for Human Rights (EHR) seeks to reaffirm the centrality of human rights as an unshakable biblical obligation fundamental to an evangelical Christian social and moral vision. We oppose the weakening of these commitments by the United States—especially (but not exclusively) in relation to the practice of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons detained by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the "war on terror."
Increasingly, evangelical Christian churches nationwide are preaching the gospel of “green” by pointing out that people of faith are called to care for the Earth, too.
Today at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., a special Earth Day service will feature Richard Cizik, a green leader in the National Association of Evangelicals, and Grammy-winner Sheryl Crow singing the hymn “Morning Has Broken.”
Cizik has been increasingly outspoken about global warming, sustainable energy and other environmental issues he calls “creation care.” His appearance in the best-known Protestant church in Washington is one more indication that the environmental message of Earth Day, which began 38 years ago as a secular and civic observance, is evolving as a faith message, too.
Chad Davis, a self-described evangelical Christian and environmentalist, attends Countryside Community Church in Spearfish. Davis believes those two labels are completely compatible, and he wishes more evangelical churches would act like they did, too.
In light of the above discussion, here is a brief word from someone definitely over 35 years of age. "Evangelical" is an outstanding word if we are prepared to be true to the Gospel! How's that, you say?
Some hints are in two new publications by Fresh Wind Press, a small church publisher in Abbotsford: Stricken By God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ is about reading the atonement nonviolently, and includes twenty essays from twenty authors across the ecumenical spectrum.
Chrysalis Crucible is a coming-of-age story about a young
Evangelical evangelist. The blurb reads:
Quote:
[/quote]When Andy Norton joins an evangelism team headed for West Berlin during the height of the Vietnam War, he thinks he has all the answers. Little does he realize the experience will become a crucible that forces him to re-evaluate virtually everything he believes. In the spirit of the best coming-of-age tales, Chrysalis Crucibletakes Andy—and the reader—on a journey of discovery, transformation, and rebirth.[quote]
Okay, now my confession: I contributed chapter fifteen of the first book, and I wrote the 732-page novel.
If you are interested in either, please e-mail: freshwind@shaw.ca.
I think that both books will contribute to the discussion in the above article, and just maybe to doing better at following Christ (and give a few hints at what not to follow!)
In this talk, "What are the risks for evangelicals?" Keller talks about what's happening within the evangelical movement right now. There's a new hostility toward evangelicals in culture, and post-evangelicals (the emerging church) are also expressing criticisms. How should evangelicals respond?
Are we evangelicals?
http://www.laizjj.cn
http://www.laizjj.cn
Is Dobson's Obama Hit Backfir - Is Dobso...
Dobson vs. Obama - Peter Wehner in the [...
McKnight on Dobson on Obama - [url=http:...