I have permission to reproduce below part of an editorial from an online Christian magazine published by post-evangelical writers. The editorial is quite strong and, typical of post-evangelical writers, flirts with phrases that will startle you. Unfortunately, it uses one too many phrases that also almost require philosophy training in order to understand. Nevertheless, I recommend reading the article in full, by clicking on the link earlier in this paragraph. You are welcome to respond either here or there.
Get Over It
The current obsession with definition is too late to save evangelicalism.
By The Editors | Nov 13, 2009
HOWEVER LONG it may take to relinquish its hold on American culture, evangelicalism in the United States—still probably best defined by the British historian David Bebbington as a movement whose members adhere to conversionism, Biblicism, activism and crucicentrism—faces near-certain extinction. It has been blinded by its symbiotic relationship with the Enlightenment, and has perpetually failed to see beyond its hopelessly Western perceptions. Confined to the paramaters of liberal rationalism, it has mounted no challenge to the present political order and offered no intellectually acceptable explanation for how one is to live and think in the postmodern world. As this magazine has chronicled, its brightest children are throwing up their hands in record numbers, defecting heavy-heartedly to less temporal churches, or to no church at all.
But rather than recognize evangelicalism for the sinking ship it is, its cheerleaders are calling in increasingly desperate tones for a regrouping. Last year, a collection of prominent leaders met in Washington, D.C. to consider an “evangelical manifesto” designed to clear up the theological and political confusion that is intrinsic in the movement. In January, the hard-right Web site WorldNetDaily offered a checklist for identifying “true Christians.” Southern Baptists assume the apocalypse is coming from within, and mobilized this year to draw lines between themselves and cussing drunkards like Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell. (Ironic considering that those same leaders, often perceived as “liberals,” are just as insistent on salvaging the term for themselves.) Most recently, the ecumenical journal First Things launched an evangelicalism-focused blog that devoted its first few days to further pulpifying the dead horse. Evangelicals simply cannot stop talking about who is and who is not an evangelical. . .
I find that I have mixed feelings about articles that continually predict the extinction of evangelicalism. Some of them are written by either fellow Eastern Orthodox or by Roman Catholics, generally converts. Those articles all too often have a triumphalistic tone of the “true” believer who now looks back at his/her former home with a certain degree of disdain. As Saint Paul said, my brethren it should not be so among you. If nothing else, reading the Desert Fathers should show us how much they fought against arrogance and how easy it is to unwittingly fall into it. After all, it was the Pharisee who was condemned because his prayer was to thank God that he was not like the Publican over there. Too many Orthodox articles and blog postings seem to me to fall into the attitude of thanking God because they are not like that Protestant over there.
But, there is little doubt that there is upheaval going on in the Evangelical camp. As new ministries have risen up, and as the Emergent Christians have flourished, questions about orthodoxy keep cropping up. In fact, the writers of the article are correct when they state that Evangelicalism is falling into the trap of trying to overdefine itself. I say trap because Evangelicalism is not a denomination but a way of thinking and acting. It has always been able to take in Calvinist and Armenian, low church and high church. It did have some understood common doctrine, but was strongly oriented towards the proclamation of the Gospel rather than the scholastic interpretation of written texts. The authority and infallibility of the Word of God, the Virgin Birth, the primacy of the proclamation of the Gospel, the importance of missions, a certain pietistic approach to life and worship, are among some of its most important emphases. Thus a C.S. Lewis could be an Evangelical hero despite the fact that he was not a 6-day creationist and was, in many ways, an Anglo-Catholic. But, it seems that in the struggle to nail down a definition of Evangelicalism that would prevent its being tainted, a C.S. Lewis could very well end up being declared to be not-Evangelical. And, that would be a shame.
The other reason I have mixed feelings about the article is my humorous bent of mind. I do read Church history quite a lot. And, almost every movement included within Evangelicalism started out as a reform movement that claimed that the then-current Protestant orthodoxy had become dry and lifeless. So, I can easily see that the next generation of post-evangelicals will simply be, yes, part of the evangelicals of the future. Time will tell, and I will not be around to see it, but . . .
As an Evangelical, I feel compelled to comment.
I think your take, Fr. Obregon, is more on target: “there is little doubt that there is upheaval going on in the Evangelical camp.”
That is different than saying it is “dying”. Rather, there are major changes taking place.
3 segments appear to be part of this issue. 1) those who are holding on to shallow traditional and/or pop American Evangelicalism, 2) those who are Evangelicals but are adapting and adopting new elements, such as ancient practices of the faith (including creeds and church fathers) and taking on more social issues (justice), and 3) those Evangelicals were are stressing core theological elements of the faith, that have been ignored (ie. grace). Segments 2 and 3 have some overlap, as many do both. Segment 1 is the one in trouble, especially if it is lacking the issues 2 and 3 are addressing.
Evangelicalism, as defined by Bebbing, is not going away. It is just taking on, and being incorported into, new forms (and perhaps new names).
Rick,
I agree with your assessment. I for one would love to see issues 2 and 3 strengthened. Issue 1 cannot expire too quickly, IMO.
“The demise of (name your movement)” is a favorite subject for critics of the movement. Just look at the long knives and hand wringing that followed the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008. The Democrats are dead. No, wait, it’s the Republicans who are in trouble. The analysts are grabbing one damaged piece of the tilting edifice and warning of its impending collapse, like big-word-spouting Chicken Littles with pieces of philosophical sky dropping all around them.
Evangelicalism may indeed be dead (bless God! as one of them I would shout “huzzah” for the movement’s demise or enfoldment into the Church Eternal). But me thinks the prognosticators presume too much. Ebb and flow, ebb and flow like the tide. Indeed people ARE leaving the movement, either by abandoning Jesus or embracing Him differently (two extremes which are also two generalized). Some become Orthodox, some Roman, some Canterburian (yes, even them), some Pentecostal (I know, I know, that can be still evangelical in the USA). Some become some form of emergent.
I am guessing what appeals to the refugees is the sense of MYSTERY and AMBIGUITY that other movements offer. Arminius versus Calvin cannot be adequately reconciled, so they chose not to worry about HOW they are reconciled. Six days versus “six epochs” does not seem to be core to the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross (pace Ken Hamm), so let’s not dwell on that. All of Scripture is TRUTH, but perhaps we will not microscopically define HOW it is true or WHETHER it is inerrant “in its orginal languages” (whatever that means). And some are just beginning to recognize that correct thinking is only one part of what it means to be a Christian. What are you doing? Are you feeding the poor and clothing the naked? Are you following Jesus with your feet and not just your brain?
To quote a wise prophetess (Rachel from “Batman Begins”): “But it’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”