Invitations to Reflect on Location and Engage Difference

I have appreciated reading my colleagues’ insightful responses to the topic of evangelicalism and tradition. One theme emerging in the conversation is that of social and theological location. This theme addresses the sixth forum question of whether evangelicalism is best understood as a particular movement with the larger history of the church or as something more central. As Vincent Bacote notes, “many contemporary evangelicals essentially eliminate what they regard as tradition.” This allows evangelicals to view their movement as the movement of God in Christian history. But as Peter Enns suggests, evangelicalism may be a “relatively recent, culturally conditioned, expression of Christianity.” It is what Smidt refers to as a religious movement (versus a religious tradition or categorical group).

And if evangelicalism is a located stream within the Christian tradition, then an important invitation involves acknowledging that location within the broader Christian tradition. This is not necessarily easy for a tradition that has eschewed tradition! Yet as Trevor Hart (Faith Thinking, 167) notes,

“The idea that it is possible to…achieve a pure reading of the text…is one which must be shown up for the self-deception that it is…Simple appeals to ‘what the Bible says’ are always the sign of (no doubt unconscious) subservience to an interpretative tradition, not liberation from it.”

It’s time that evangelicals acknowledge their social, religious, and theological locations and allow these to provide the helpful dose of humility that goes along with such acknowledgement. As Bacote notes, aversion to tradition is not a necessary corollary to the evangelical affirmation of fidelity to the Bible. Instead, deliberate reflection is necessary to acknowledge evangelicalism as a particular and located Christian movement.

Another theme from my colleagues that goes hand in hand with that of evangelicalism’s “locatedness,” is the breadth of the movement. As John Franke notes, evangelicalism has “a rich ecumenical diversity” that some of us are less than comfortable admitting. John Wilson speaks of “the fluidity and many-sidedness of evangelicalism.” And the range of scholars contributing to this month’s topic illustrates this complexity, both in their descriptions of evangelicalism and in their own representation of its spectrum. Limiting our descriptions to evangelicalism in the U.S., we can speak of evangelicals who are reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, charismatic, Anabaptist, and baptistic. There are self-described evangelicals in mainline denominations. There are strong evangelical currents in African-American, Hispanic, and Korean churches, along with many other ethnic communities of faith. And there is a growing influence within evangelicalism from the global south and east that finds expression in the U.S. in vibrant immigrant churches.

Given this internal diversity of evangelicalism, there’s a second invitation I hear arising from this conversation. It’s the invitation to recognize our lack of proprietary ownership of the movement we call our own. This is a tricky business. A sense of ownership is not in itself a bad thing. I would include myself among many who have found in evangelicalism a place to call theological home. But that experience does not mean any one part of the family gets to co-opt the whole and, by doing so, presume to kick others out of the family. Yet just this kind of dysfunction might be an apt assessment of contemporary evangelicalism, as it faces an identity crisis and struggles to make sense of its inherent internal differences.

Here is where I’m appreciative of a final motif I noted from the conversation. My colleagues have encouraged us toward an openness to difference, both within and outside of evangelicalism. Amos Yong, in his insightful analysis of what Pentecostal strains might offer evangelicalism (and what might come of “an evangelicalization of Pentecostalism”), demonstrates that the influence of the Other from within the evangelical fold could have powerful potential for renewal that will be absolutely necessary for the future of evangelicalism. Looking outward, Vincent Bacote speaks of fostering “a disposition of generosity” toward other streams of the Christian tradition (e.g., Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). And in the face of what he helpfully identifies as a branding problem, Richard Mouw calls for “cultivat[ing] the capacity for a kinder and gentler evangelicalism.”

I want to clarify that by openness to respectful and generous dialogue I do not mean that we must lose ourselves and our convictions in the process. There is a way to engage conversations with the Other, with a non-anxious presence, that allows me to hold onto myself and my convictions and yet be interested, curious, and engaged in true conversation and relationship that has the potential to change me. Such differentiation of self has been correlated to spiritual maturity and offers a way forward in the pursuit of authentic dialogue across difference (Majerus and Sandage). As Vanhoozer notes, we can possess both humility and conviction in our conversations (Meaning, 455).

So here are the invitations that emerged as I engaged the posts this week:

1. An invitation to reflect on evangelicalism as a movement with a history and a tradition of its own: By becoming aware of our locatedness, we might arrive at a potentially more modest self-assessment of our centrality within the Christian tradition that, paradoxically, could allow us to celebrate the diversity that is central to our identity.

2. An invitation to recognize the breadth of our movement and face our inability to control the future trajectory of evangelicalism, especially if that means forcing a single category or pattern upon the movement.

3. An invitation to offer, going forward, a more generous and kinder evangelicalism that sees our growth tied, in part, to learning more from one another—across the diverse expressions of evangelicalism that have been present throughout our history.

Resources Cited:

Majerus, B., & Sandage, S.J. “Differentiation of Self and Christian Spiritual Maturity: Social Science and Theological Integration.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 38 (2010) 41-51.

Hart, T. Faith Thinking: The Dynamics of Christian Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

Vanhoozer, K. J. Is There Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.