A Mad Evangelical Tea-Party
No, not that tea-party, with Sarah Palin pouring. I’m thinking rather of the tea-party presided over by the March Hare and the Hatter. The postings on “Evangelicalism and the Modern Study of Scripture” brought Lewis Carroll’s scenario to mind: a tea-party in which everyone is talking at cross-purposes. Of course the exchanges between Alice and her interlocutors are mostly quite rude, whereas the postings in our conversation are mostly respectful. But they do nevertheless induce vertigo.
The piece by my good friend Karl Giberson, for instance, is titled “Inerrancy Is Theological Flat-Earthism.” Presumably this is intended to make us blanch. We don’t want to be associated with flat-earthers! How embarrassing that would be! But if we’ve read, say, Jeffrey Burton Russell’s excellent little book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, we might instead wonder why Karl has trotted out this bogey-man in the first place.
Things don’t get any better after the title. Karl writes, for example, that “even dyed-in-the-wool fully pedigreed inerrantists can’t agree on what their inerrant Bible says.” But this criticism doesn’t apply only to figures such as the egregious Ken Ham: it applies to all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, and any others across the board) who believe that the Bible is God’s word. Throughout his piece, Karl conflates issues that arise specifically in connection with claims of “inerrancy” with issues that have to do with the authority of Scripture more broadly, along with issues of biblical interpretation which, again, are by no means peculiar to that subset of evangelical Christians who thump the pulpit for “inerrancy.”
And what of those stories about Karl’s students? The evangelical students he had at Eastern Nazarene were biblically literate but in thrall to wrong-headed notions about how Scripture should be read and understood: “Snippets from Daniel, Peter and Revelation could be combined to argue that the United Nations was the power base from which the anti-Christ would come.” What’s more, their misreading followed a predictable political script: “Many of my first-year evangelical students actually believed that universal healthcare, progressive tax structures, and social justice were unbiblical positions.” And most of them firmly believed that “evolution was the devil’s lie.” On the other hand, Karl’s students at Stonehill College, a liberal Catholic institution, “know almost nothing about the Bible. . . . But not a one of them reject[s] evolution and all of them learned somewhere along the way that Christians should promote social justice. None of them bring implausible biblical notions to class that interfere with the learning of new ideas.” Whew! That’s a relief.
It’s hard to know how to respond to this cartoonish contrast. We could play dueling stories. I could talk about a young (evangelical) man, who works as I do under the Christianity Today umbrella, who is moving with his wife to an apartment building in West Chicago where almost all the residents are refugees or immigrants. His wife works in refugee resettlement, and they decided to live among some of the people she has helped to place. And so on. But really, Karl’s caricature doesn’t invite this sort of response.
Then there is the post by the historian Molly Worthen, whose forthcoming book Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism will be widely noticed. (We will certainly be reviewing it in Books & Culture.) Some of what she says in her post seems right on target to me: for instance, “evangelicals have never been inclined to think of themselves as historical creatures.” Too true, alas. But she mixes up the discourse of “inerrancy” with broader claims to be reading Scripture “literally” (which is impossible, of course, but that doesn’t keep many people who know better from claiming to do so). As a result, she overemphasizes the influence of Reformed thinkers on contemporary evangelicalism. It’s not that they haven’t had a significant influence—of course they have!—but the picture, as she acknowledges without modifying her argument, is much messier and more diverse.
It’s always hard to gauge the degree to which one’s personal experience is representative. Since the late 1970s, my wife and I have been members of the Evangelical Covenant Church. The first of the six core “Covenant Affirmations” reads as follows: “We affirm the centrality of the word of God.” That affirmation has been reflected in our experience of the Covenant Church over the decades—and we have not heard, in that entire time, a single sermon on “inerrancy.”
I know that there are swathes of American evangelicalism where things are different. But the impression given by Karl’s and Molly’s posts differs sharply from my own experience. I’ll leave it to readers what to make of that.
Although I am trying to play a low-key role as one of the moderators of this conversation about American Evangelicalism, I cannot resist posting a follow-up to John Wilson’s posting.
Like John, I have also worshipped in the Evangelical Covenant Church (for 14 years in West Peabody, a suburb of Boston), and very much appreciate the “Covenant Affirmation” that reads: “We affirm the centrality of the Word of God.”
For some evangelical Christians this affirmation is far too minimalist for it does not address the manner in which the Word of God is “central” to Christian belief and practice. I take that perceived weakness to be a strength. I want to provide a welcoming space for evangelicals to hold to differing views as to the ways in which they take the Word of God to be “central” to their beliefs and practices, hoping that by means of respectful conversation about these differing views we can all gain a fuller understanding of the various ways in which the Word of God can inform our lives as Christians.
Like John, I also can’t recall ever hearing a sermon on “inerrancy” during my many years worshipping in an Evangelical Covenant Church. But all too often, when inerrancy is discussed there is ambiguity as to how that word is being defined. I believe that the inerrancy of scriptures means that “the Bible is true in all that it affirms.” Once again that definition is too minimalist for many evangelical Christians since it leaves open questions as to exactly what the Bible affirms. I view that as a strength, since, contrary to some views on the meaning of inerrancy, it doesn’t bypass the challenging hermeneutical work of biblical interpretation. Not just any interpretation of a given biblical passage will do. Therefore, there needs to be a welcoming space for equally committed evangelical Christians to discuss their differing interpretations, hopefully learning from one another.
Although I am trying to play a low-key role as one of the moderators of this conversation about American Evangelicalism, I cannot resist posting a follow-up to John Wilson’s posting.
Like John, I have also worshipped in the Evangelical Covenant Church (for 14 years in West Peabody, a suburb of Boston), and very much appreciate the “Covenant Affirmation” that reads: “We affirm the centrality of the Word of God.”
For some evangelical Christians this affirmation is far too minimalist for it does not address the manner in which the Word of God is “central” to Christian belief and practice. I take that perceived weakness to be a strength. I want to provide a welcoming space for evangelicals to hold to differing views as to the ways in which they take the Word of God to be “central” to their beliefs and practices, hoping that by means of respectful conversation about these differing views we can all gain a fuller understanding of the various ways in which the Word of God can inform our lives as Christians.
Like John, I also can’t recall ever hearing a sermon on “inerrancy” during my many years worshipping in an Evangelical Covenant Church. But all too often, when inerrancy is discussed there is ambiguity as to how that word is being defined. I believe that the inerrancy of scriptures means that “the Bible is true in all that it affirms.” Once again that definition is too minimalist for many evangelical Christians since it leaves open questions as to exactly what the Bible affirms. I view that as a strength, since, contrary to some views on the meaning of inerrancy, it doesn’t bypass the challenging hermeneutical work of biblical interpretation. Not just any interpretation of a given biblical passage will do. Therefore, there needs to be a welcoming space for equally committed evangelical Christians to discuss their differing interpretations, hopefully learning from one another.
Although I am trying to play a low-key role as one of the moderators of this conversation about American Evangelicalism, I cannot resist posting a follow-up to John Wilson’s posting.
Like John, I have also worshipped in the Evangelical Covenant Church (for 14 years in West Peabody, a suburb of Boston), and very much appreciate the “Covenant Affirmation” that reads: “We affirm the centrality of the Word of God.”
For some evangelical Christians this affirmation is far too minimalist for it does not address the manner in which the Word of God is “central” to Christian belief and practice. I take that perceived weakness to be a strength. I want to provide a welcoming space for evangelicals to hold to differing views as to the ways in which they take the Word of God to be “central” to their beliefs and practices, hoping that by means of respectful conversation about these differing views we can all gain a fuller understanding of the various ways in which the Word of God can inform our lives as Christians.
Like John, I also can’t recall ever hearing a sermon on “inerrancy” during my many years worshipping in an Evangelical Covenant Church. But all too often, when inerrancy is discussed there is ambiguity as to how that word is being defined. I believe that the inerrancy of scriptures means that “the Bible is true in all that it affirms.” Once again that definition is too minimalist for many evangelical Christians since it leaves open questions as to exactly what the Bible affirms. I view that as a strength, since, contrary to some views on the meaning of inerrancy, it doesn’t bypass the challenging hermeneutical work of biblical interpretation. Not just any interpretation of a given biblical passage will do. Therefore, there needs to be a welcoming space for equally committed evangelical Christians to discuss their differing interpretations, hopefully learning from one another.
Thanks for this follow-up, Harold. I like the generous spirit of what you say, and I agree with you entirely about the range of meanings "inerrancy" can carry. And yes: appeals to "inerrancy" or the "literal meaning of Scripture" are often clumsy stratagems intended to obscure the work of interpretation.
John claims Karl and Molly have misunderstood and misinterpreted Evangelicals/Evangelicalism by confusing "inerrancy" with "authority." Evidently John's denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, makes a clear distinction between these two ideas, but in this and other respects I think John would acknowledge they are a small minority within the broader Evangelical world.
Taking the opposite position, John Hawthorne suggests that Karl and Molly are getting things right, because Evangelicals themselves have mixed up authority and inerrancy. He writes, "Fundamentalism has reset definitions so that the only view of biblical authority seems to require a belief in inerrancy." As evidence of this, Hawthorne mentions how people quickly moved against the "evolutionist" on faculty as soon as the school explicitly embraced the "authority" of scripture.
This conflation of inerrancy/authority and its utility for purging "wrong-believers" is consistent with my experiences and views of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical world as well. So how do we get past the subjectivism of "dueling anecdotes?"
Simple! Do the math. I am sure there are many quantifiable ways to assess roughly how many Evangelicals think biblical authority+inerrancy means the facts about human origins must be rejected. The fact that Christianity Today recently chose to treat a settled question as an open one (humans originating from just 2 people) surely says something about how its editors understand their constituents.
According to Gallup, nearly half of Americans now believe humans were created by God (more or less ex nihilo) within the past 10,000 years. This is a much higher percentage than in the 1970s. We know who has been doing the missionary work to make this happen.
How many contributors to this discussion can honestly say they have never had first hand experience with efforts to oust "evolutionists" from evangelical college faculty or felt the chilling effects of institutional authority wielded by unreason in defense of fantasy against fact?
I wonder if the main disagreement among contributors is about the extent to which Fundamentalism is still the beating heart of Evangelicalism and quite committed to stopping it from developing a brain — and secondarily, how much it matters.
John claims Karl and Molly have misunderstood and misinterpreted Evangelicals/Evangelicalism by confusing "inerrancy" with "authority." Evidently John's denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, makes a clear distinction between these two ideas, but in this and other respects I think John would acknowledge they are a small minority within the broader Evangelical world.
Taking the opposite position, John Hawthorne suggests that Karl and Molly are getting things right, because Evangelicals themselves have mixed up authority and inerrancy. He writes, "Fundamentalism has reset definitions so that the only view of biblical authority seems to require a belief in inerrancy." As evidence of this, Hawthorne mentions how people quickly moved against the "evolutionist" on faculty as soon as the school explicitly embraced the "authority" of scripture.
This conflation of inerrancy/authority and its utility for purging "wrong-believers" is consistent with my experiences and views of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical world as well. So how do we get past the subjectivism of "dueling anecdotes?"
Simple! Do the math. I am sure there are many quantifiable ways to assess roughly how many Evangelicals think biblical authority+inerrancy means the facts about human origins must be rejected. The fact that Christianity Today recently chose to treat a settled question as an open one (humans originating from just 2 people) surely says something about how its editors understand their constituents.
According to Gallup, nearly half of Americans now believe humans were created by God (more or less ex nihilo) within the past 10,000 years. This is a much higher percentage than in the 1970s. We know who has been doing the missionary work to make this happen.
How many contributors to this discussion can honestly say they have never had first hand experience with efforts to oust "evolutionists" from evangelical college faculty or felt the chilling effects of institutional authority wielded by unreason in defense of fantasy against fact?
I wonder if the main disagreement among contributors is about the extent to which Fundamentalism is still the beating heart of Evangelicalism and quite committed to stopping it from developing a brain — and secondarily, how much it matters.
John claims Karl and Molly have misunderstood and misinterpreted Evangelicals/Evangelicalism by confusing "inerrancy" with "authority." Evidently John's denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, makes a clear distinction between these two ideas, but in this and other respects I think John would acknowledge they are a small minority within the broader Evangelical world.
Taking the opposite position, John Hawthorne suggests that Karl and Molly are getting things right, because Evangelicals themselves have mixed up authority and inerrancy. He writes, "Fundamentalism has reset definitions so that the only view of biblical authority seems to require a belief in inerrancy." As evidence of this, Hawthorne mentions how people quickly moved against the "evolutionist" on faculty as soon as the school explicitly embraced the "authority" of scripture.
This conflation of inerrancy/authority and its utility for purging "wrong-believers" is consistent with my experiences and views of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical world as well. So how do we get past the subjectivism of "dueling anecdotes?"
Simple! Do the math. I am sure there are many quantifiable ways to assess roughly how many Evangelicals think biblical authority+inerrancy means the facts about human origins must be rejected. The fact that Christianity Today recently chose to treat a settled question as an open one (humans originating from just 2 people) surely says something about how its editors understand their constituents.
According to Gallup, nearly half of Americans now believe humans were created by God (more or less ex nihilo) within the past 10,000 years. This is a much higher percentage than in the 1970s. We know who has been doing the missionary work to make this happen.
How many contributors to this discussion can honestly say they have never had first hand experience with efforts to oust "evolutionists" from evangelical college faculty or felt the chilling effects of institutional authority wielded by unreason in defense of fantasy against fact?
I wonder if the main disagreement among contributors is about the extent to which Fundamentalism is still the beating heart of Evangelicalism and quite committed to stopping it from developing a brain — and secondarily, how much it matters.
"I wonder if the main disagreement among contributors is about the extent to which Fundamentalism is still the beating heart of Evangelicalism and quite committed to stopping it from developing a brain — and secondarily, how much it matters."
Dan, I do think this is the big question that needs to be addressed. Too much of the sociology of evangelicalism has methodologically conflated fundamentalists with "pure" evangelicals. The most vocal popular figures in the media have been on the fundamentalist side of the spectrum and, until recently, there haven't been sufficient alternative voices. I think that's going to change very quickly.
"I wonder if the main disagreement among contributors is about the extent to which Fundamentalism is still the beating heart of Evangelicalism and quite committed to stopping it from developing a brain — and secondarily, how much it matters."
Dan, I do think this is the big question that needs to be addressed. Too much of the sociology of evangelicalism has methodologically conflated fundamentalists with "pure" evangelicals. The most vocal popular figures in the media have been on the fundamentalist side of the spectrum and, until recently, there haven't been sufficient alternative voices. I think that's going to change very quickly.
"I wonder if the main disagreement among contributors is about the extent to which Fundamentalism is still the beating heart of Evangelicalism and quite committed to stopping it from developing a brain — and secondarily, how much it matters."
Dan, I do think this is the big question that needs to be addressed. Too much of the sociology of evangelicalism has methodologically conflated fundamentalists with "pure" evangelicals. The most vocal popular figures in the media have been on the fundamentalist side of the spectrum and, until recently, there haven't been sufficient alternative voices. I think that's going to change very quickly.
That's interesting; why do you think it's going to change quickly?
Having grown up and lived in and around several regional variations of Evangelicalism in and out of the US for 4 decades now, I've always felt that "Fundamentalists" are indeed the "pure evangelicals" (or vice versa) — people who essentially subscribe to the old "five fundamentals" and the epistemic framework it assumes; I regard it as a framework for a "Protestant Positivism" that can be criticized as a form of materialism or even atheism from the standpoint of Barth, or Santayana strangely enough. Yet as problematic as this framework is, I have never run across another kind of Evangelical who has a working alternative to unless that is political and theological liberalism. For both liberals and fundamentalists, their main task seems to be finding ways to do without tradition and/or a magisterium. I'm not sure what "third way" is out there amid the jello of "emergent" and "postmodern" figures who do not impress for other reasons. What am I missing?
That's interesting; why do you think it's going to change quickly?
Having grown up and lived in and around several regional variations of Evangelicalism in and out of the US for 4 decades now, I've always felt that "Fundamentalists" are indeed the "pure evangelicals" (or vice versa) — people who essentially subscribe to the old "five fundamentals" and the epistemic framework it assumes; I regard it as a framework for a "Protestant Positivism" that can be criticized as a form of materialism or even atheism from the standpoint of Barth, or Santayana strangely enough. Yet as problematic as this framework is, I have never run across another kind of Evangelical who has a working alternative to unless that is political and theological liberalism. For both liberals and fundamentalists, their main task seems to be finding ways to do without tradition and/or a magisterium. I'm not sure what "third way" is out there amid the jello of "emergent" and "postmodern" figures who do not impress for other reasons. What am I missing?
That's interesting; why do you think it's going to change quickly?
Having grown up and lived in and around several regional variations of Evangelicalism in and out of the US for 4 decades now, I've always felt that "Fundamentalists" are indeed the "pure evangelicals" (or vice versa) — people who essentially subscribe to the old "five fundamentals" and the epistemic framework it assumes; I regard it as a framework for a "Protestant Positivism" that can be criticized as a form of materialism or even atheism from the standpoint of Barth, or Santayana strangely enough. Yet as problematic as this framework is, I have never run across another kind of Evangelical who has a working alternative to unless that is political and theological liberalism. For both liberals and fundamentalists, their main task seems to be finding ways to do without tradition and/or a magisterium. I'm not sure what "third way" is out there amid the jello of "emergent" and "postmodern" figures who do not impress for other reasons. What am I missing?