On Drawing Lines in the Sand
We like to draw lines in the sand. It shows that we’re serious. We have expectations. Beside, we argue, didn’t Dean Kelley say that conservative churches grow because they place expectations on their members? Shouldn’t we be avoiding Bonheoffer’s “cheap grace”?
There’s a big problem with sand. It doesn’t stay where you left it.
The wind blows across the dune and leaves no track of your footprints. The waves come into shore and obliterate the nice trench you just dug. Over time, water saturates the sand so that it turns to slush and the sandcastle falls down.
What then do we do with our lines in the sand? One option is to reinforce them. After drawing the line, we can build little Maginot lines to make sure the trench doesn’t collapse. A second option is to build little zones of protection around the line. We won’t actually deal with the moral challenge of the line, but will substitute other moral positions. A third option is to adopt the lines of those around us. Another option is to stop drawing lines altogether. Since they can’t be maintained, why even bother?
Exploring the questions of morality within evangelical culture is difficult because there are a host of prior questions that are unexplored. In the early 1980s, I presented data on Christian college students’ behaviors in areas like alcohol, drugs, and premarital sex (and other stuff as well). The first question was “Why are these the important measures? What about poverty, race, the arms race?” I really didn’t have a good answer beyond “That’s not what the sponsors asked about”. What I should have said was, “Much of evangelical discussion on morality is individual and pietistic. We may not like it, but there it is.”
It’s hard to draw lines in the sand in meaningful ways. In its early days, my denomination couched its moral stands (alcohol, circuses, and the like) as “Guides and Helps for Holy Living.” Twenty years later, the same section of the denominational standards was called “General and Special Rules”, the violation of which constituted “peril to your soul and the witness of the church.”
Here is a sociological question I’ve pondered throughout my career: How does a voluntary association like a religious organization pursue conformity to moral expectations?
If the organization is voluntary, then one has little risk of being forced out. Not so the situation of a state church with a monopoly on access to the means of grace, where failure to adhere meant denial of religious participation.
If one is ruled “out of compliance” in a local congregation, what is the penalty? Leaving this congregation for another than doesn’t hold out the same requirements? Giving up on religious practice in favor of a privatized spirituality?
It is with these lenses that I come to the question of evangelical morality. I suggest that there are some modern moral questions around which the evangelical church has built Maginot lines: abortion, homosexuality, creation (becomes a moral issue because “evolutionists” are seen as denying all morality). We are unable to examine these questions because we have built an infrastructure around the line in the sand. We can’t even get close to the real line.
There are other modern questions of morality that take the second form I suggested: creating demilitarized zones around the line, so we never run the risk of crossing over. Here I’m thinking of attitudes toward premarital sex. We’ve created entire subcultures about purity pledges and modesty norms to keep us far away from the real question. There are some remarkable things being written by young evangelicals right now about the damage created by these demilitarized zones. Purity pledges and modesty norms put great pressure on young women to keep their menfolk away from the line in the sand.
The third image I had of the sand involved outside forces (like the surf) crashing over the line. This relates to the primacy of individual morality over social morality. We can’t talk about broad issues like inequality, racism, the environment, immigration, the common good – moral questions all. The broader cultural and political dynamics have overrun our biblical and spiritual sensibilities. This is how “social justice” gets a bad name in political discourse.
Finally, the line just gets absorbed into the surrounding sand. For too long, evangelical morality had an identity component: “we’re not like them”. So dancing was out, as was social drinking, divorce, premarital sex, pornography, and so on. But the supposed separatism quickly gave way to an understanding of diverse social patterns. We met people who drank socially. We found that those folks in second marriages were pretty cool. The identity separation was overrun. That’s why Ron Sider can write such a scathing book in The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, documenting that the gaps between evangelical Christian behavior and that of the rest of society is distressingly small.
So, to use a phrase evangelicals have liked a lot over the years, “How Should We Then Live?” What is the basis for Christian morality in this diverse, busy, loud, postmodern age?
First, what it is not: it is not about identity politics from any perspective. It is not about being forced to hold a certain position of morality because that’s what our folks believe. It is certainly not about “liking” some random picture on Facebook.
We need morality framed in the discipleship of Christian community. We struggle together with questions in their complexity. We have to talk about sexual abstinence as a goal for young people while still recognizing the power of biology. We need to talk about the appropriate role of alcohol (that goes beyond the requirement of beer companies to tag “drink responsibly” at the end of the wild party commercial). We need to talk about the complexities of same-sex relationships. We need to consider what Justice looks like in a world of such inequality.
The scriptures provide us with guidance of general principle here but not specific answers. They suggest that the answer is “somewhere in that general direction” without drawing the line in the sand. We listen to the leading of the Spirit as we honestly strive together to engage in Holy Living.
The internet has been ringing this week with echoes of Rachel Held Evans CNN piece on millenials and faith (it’s getting almost as much play as Reza Aslan’s Fox Interview!). But millenials recognize that we live in a complex world. One in which simple answers that sell books in Christian bookstores won’t address.
I believe the evangelical church has much to offer the broader culture in terms of a human morality that is based in community and looking for the greater good. Doing so will require us to engage those different than ourselves in honesty and humility. It will call us to listen more than speak. It will mean that we have to tolerate ambiguity in a complex world. It will mean leaning toward shades of gray and not seeing things as black and white. It will mean being Christlike.
In reviewing the pieces written thus far…The intro by Rob Barrett starts us off with the following:
"American Evangelicalism stresses the centrality of the Bible for guiding Christian morality. The process of moving from the Bible to Christian moral formation is, however, not necessarily straightforward….The line between applying Christian morality to new situations and compromising our morals can be quite difficult to discern….What are the roles of the Bible and Christian tradition for guiding American evangelical Christians’ ideas of living a moral life?"
Giberson's piece then asserts:
"The degree to which condemnation of homosexuality is based on these two pillars of pseudo-science can be seen in the response to the overturning of those wrong ideas. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category 'mental disorder.' This scientifically informed reclassification was met with great hostility from the evangelical community….It seems to me that this sort of preliminary reflection on the basis of morality should precede taking stands, and motivate openness to reconsideration of traditional positions."
And Hawthorne in his piece adds:
"We can’t talk about broad issues like inequality, racism, the environment, immigration, the common good – moral questions all. The broader cultural and political dynamics have overrun our biblical and spiritual sensibilities. This is how “social justice” gets a bad name in political discourse….We listen to the leading of the Spirit as we honestly strive together to engage in Holy Living."
Conclusions to be drawn:
1. Barrett asks probing questions but sets up the Bible for a quick fall….Since most everyone involved in this particular topical thread seems quite willing to wriggle out of and qualify away any sort of moral clarity when it comes to actual guidance from the Scriptures….I find nothing of a positive way forward in terms of biblical authority for 21st-century Christians….I only hear how indeterminate and infinitely pliable and flexible the Scriptures are in terms of providing moral certainties (perhaps such certainties do not exist for the writers?). For all practical purposes, it would appear that the Bible is toast for us enlightened, progressive, 21st-century people.
2. Giberson's piece provides us with his perpetual mantra: SCIENCE will solve all such seemingly "spiritual" and moral dilemmas for us….Of course, the not-so-subtle exaltation of the zeitgeist also helps Giberson….Science and the zeitgeist….Supposedly,THERE we have assured answers to our contemporary dilemmas (the Marquis de Condorcet and Baron d'Holbach would have applauded Giberson).
3. Hawthorne would seem to have a dilemma: If, as he says, our spiritual sensibilities have now been overrun…and since the Bible now appears to be a relativistic nose of wax that's also been overrun…Then the voice of the "Spirit" cannot really be discernible by us….By Hawthorne's own definition. Ah, but there's the voice of another implied source of "revelation:" the zeitgeist (again).
4. Hawthorne's "listening to the Spirit" strategy (i.e. the zeitgeist as “voice of the Spirit”) was tried out decades ago….I.e. In the dying, liberal Protestant mainline denominations….I remember when the whole gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson controversy arose over 10 years ago….I was then working on my dissertation and spending a lot of time in the archives of a liberal Episcopal seminary in the DC area….The constant buzzwords in those liberal Episcopal circles then were, "We are receiving guidance from new and fresh voices from the Spirit" concerning homosexuality, ordination, etc. And the Episcopal church today? Many would not characterize that denomination as a beacon of soteriological and ethical ballast and clarity.
5. Giberson and Hawthorne are WAY behind the cultural and demographic curve….If they want to truly follow the zeitgeist, then they need to be much closer in spirit to the "millennials rapidly embracing atheism" bandwagon that's being even more widely covered in the press than Rachel Held-Evans' piece….Or if they want to hold on to some sort of "invisible" and "supernatural" element that Giberson's "science" cannot easily sweep aside in the public mind….Then perhaps a vague sort of Deism might be defensible….But little else.
6. The blog's main title involves probing "Future Possibilities" for American evangelicalism….Yet, Giberson and Hawthorne have apparently answered that inquiry with a resounding and clear implication that there really is no future for American Evangelicalism….That is, unless American evangelicals become like liberal/mainline Protestants (which would make them redundant and would mark the end of “evangelicalism” ala the mainstream, theological connotation of that term).
I can only imagine the widespread reaction in the evangelical world….If, say, pieces like Giberson’s or Hawthorne’s on this blog….Were published with a middle-of-the-road, evangelical outlet….Say, Christianity Today magazine….There would be enormous howls of protest….Calls for firings….Mass cancellations of subscriptions, etc. Why? Because the sentiments conveyed would simply be beyond the pale of what most would consider “evangelical” theologically and ethically.
The rhetoric often conveyed sounds EXACTLY like affirmations that were loudly trumpeted decades ago in the liberal mainline Protestant churches and secularized Catholic schools and in the pages of magazines like the Christian Century. This road has been trod before by many denominations, and we’ve seen how it all turns out in our times. Why 21st-century evangelicalism would want to repeat the same mistakes of the now dying liberal mainline denominations (or “sideline denominations,” as historian Martin Marty has termed them) is beyond me.
I continue to scratch my head when I read pieces on this blog by Giberson, Hawthorne, and others. They scarcely come near a credible theological and ethical approximation of mainstream American "evangelicalism" in relation to the various topics they address….But isn't that what a primary purpose if this blog is all about? And if these writers no longer view themselves as being proponents of such an "evangelical" identity, then shouldn't the blog be re-named? Perhaps to something like, “The Demise of American Evangelicalism?”
In reviewing the pieces written thus far…The intro by Rob Barrett starts us off with the following:
"American Evangelicalism stresses the centrality of the Bible for guiding Christian morality. The process of moving from the Bible to Christian moral formation is, however, not necessarily straightforward….The line between applying Christian morality to new situations and compromising our morals can be quite difficult to discern….What are the roles of the Bible and Christian tradition for guiding American evangelical Christians’ ideas of living a moral life?"
Giberson's piece then asserts:
"The degree to which condemnation of homosexuality is based on these two pillars of pseudo-science can be seen in the response to the overturning of those wrong ideas. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category 'mental disorder.' This scientifically informed reclassification was met with great hostility from the evangelical community….It seems to me that this sort of preliminary reflection on the basis of morality should precede taking stands, and motivate openness to reconsideration of traditional positions."
And Hawthorne in his piece adds:
"We can’t talk about broad issues like inequality, racism, the environment, immigration, the common good – moral questions all. The broader cultural and political dynamics have overrun our biblical and spiritual sensibilities. This is how “social justice” gets a bad name in political discourse….We listen to the leading of the Spirit as we honestly strive together to engage in Holy Living."
Conclusions to be drawn:
1. Barrett asks probing questions but sets up the Bible for a quick fall….Since most everyone involved in this particular topical thread seems quite willing to wriggle out of and qualify away any sort of moral clarity when it comes to actual guidance from the Scriptures….I find nothing of a positive way forward in terms of biblical authority for 21st-century Christians….I only hear how indeterminate and infinitely pliable and flexible the Scriptures are in terms of providing moral certainties (perhaps such certainties do not exist for the writers?). For all practical purposes, it would appear that the Bible is toast for us enlightened, progressive, 21st-century people.
2. Giberson's piece provides us with his perpetual mantra: SCIENCE will solve all such seemingly "spiritual" and moral dilemmas for us….Of course, the not-so-subtle exaltation of the zeitgeist also helps Giberson….Science and the zeitgeist….Supposedly,THERE we have assured answers to our contemporary dilemmas (the Marquis de Condorcet and Baron d'Holbach would have applauded Giberson).
3. Hawthorne would seem to have a dilemma: If, as he says, our spiritual sensibilities have now been overrun…and since the Bible now appears to be a relativistic nose of wax that's also been overrun…Then the voice of the "Spirit" cannot really be discernible by us….By Hawthorne's own definition. Ah, but there's the voice of another implied source of "revelation:" the zeitgeist (again).
4. Hawthorne's "listening to the Spirit" strategy (i.e. the zeitgeist as “voice of the Spirit”) was tried out decades ago….I.e. In the dying, liberal Protestant mainline denominations….I remember when the whole gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson controversy arose over 10 years ago….I was then working on my dissertation and spending a lot of time in the archives of a liberal Episcopal seminary in the DC area….The constant buzzwords in those liberal Episcopal circles then were, "We are receiving guidance from new and fresh voices from the Spirit" concerning homosexuality, ordination, etc. And the Episcopal church today? Many would not characterize that denomination as a beacon of soteriological and ethical ballast and clarity.
5. Giberson and Hawthorne are WAY behind the cultural and demographic curve….If they want to truly follow the zeitgeist, then they need to be much closer in spirit to the "millennials rapidly embracing atheism" bandwagon that's being even more widely covered in the press than Rachel Held-Evans' piece….Or if they want to hold on to some sort of "invisible" and "supernatural" element that Giberson's "science" cannot easily sweep aside in the public mind….Then perhaps a vague sort of Deism might be defensible….But little else.
6. The blog's main title involves probing "Future Possibilities" for American evangelicalism….Yet, Giberson and Hawthorne have apparently answered that inquiry with a resounding and clear implication that there really is no future for American Evangelicalism….That is, unless American evangelicals become like liberal/mainline Protestants (which would make them redundant and would mark the end of “evangelicalism” ala the mainstream, theological connotation of that term).
I can only imagine the widespread reaction in the evangelical world….If, say, pieces like Giberson’s or Hawthorne’s on this blog….Were published with a middle-of-the-road, evangelical outlet….Say, Christianity Today magazine….There would be enormous howls of protest….Calls for firings….Mass cancellations of subscriptions, etc. Why? Because the sentiments conveyed would simply be beyond the pale of what most would consider “evangelical” theologically and ethically.
The rhetoric often conveyed sounds EXACTLY like affirmations that were loudly trumpeted decades ago in the liberal mainline Protestant churches and secularized Catholic schools and in the pages of magazines like the Christian Century. This road has been trod before by many denominations, and we’ve seen how it all turns out in our times. Why 21st-century evangelicalism would want to repeat the same mistakes of the now dying liberal mainline denominations (or “sideline denominations,” as historian Martin Marty has termed them) is beyond me.
I continue to scratch my head when I read pieces on this blog by Giberson, Hawthorne, and others. They scarcely come near a credible theological and ethical approximation of mainstream American "evangelicalism" in relation to the various topics they address….But isn't that what a primary purpose if this blog is all about? And if these writers no longer view themselves as being proponents of such an "evangelical" identity, then shouldn't the blog be re-named? Perhaps to something like, “The Demise of American Evangelicalism?”
In reviewing the pieces written thus far…The intro by Rob Barrett starts us off with the following:
"American Evangelicalism stresses the centrality of the Bible for guiding Christian morality. The process of moving from the Bible to Christian moral formation is, however, not necessarily straightforward….The line between applying Christian morality to new situations and compromising our morals can be quite difficult to discern….What are the roles of the Bible and Christian tradition for guiding American evangelical Christians’ ideas of living a moral life?"
Giberson's piece then asserts:
"The degree to which condemnation of homosexuality is based on these two pillars of pseudo-science can be seen in the response to the overturning of those wrong ideas. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category 'mental disorder.' This scientifically informed reclassification was met with great hostility from the evangelical community….It seems to me that this sort of preliminary reflection on the basis of morality should precede taking stands, and motivate openness to reconsideration of traditional positions."
And Hawthorne in his piece adds:
"We can’t talk about broad issues like inequality, racism, the environment, immigration, the common good – moral questions all. The broader cultural and political dynamics have overrun our biblical and spiritual sensibilities. This is how “social justice” gets a bad name in political discourse….We listen to the leading of the Spirit as we honestly strive together to engage in Holy Living."
Conclusions to be drawn:
1. Barrett asks probing questions but sets up the Bible for a quick fall….Since most everyone involved in this particular topical thread seems quite willing to wriggle out of and qualify away any sort of moral clarity when it comes to actual guidance from the Scriptures….I find nothing of a positive way forward in terms of biblical authority for 21st-century Christians….I only hear how indeterminate and infinitely pliable and flexible the Scriptures are in terms of providing moral certainties (perhaps such certainties do not exist for the writers?). For all practical purposes, it would appear that the Bible is toast for us enlightened, progressive, 21st-century people.
2. Giberson's piece provides us with his perpetual mantra: SCIENCE will solve all such seemingly "spiritual" and moral dilemmas for us….Of course, the not-so-subtle exaltation of the zeitgeist also helps Giberson….Science and the zeitgeist….Supposedly,THERE we have assured answers to our contemporary dilemmas (the Marquis de Condorcet and Baron d'Holbach would have applauded Giberson).
3. Hawthorne would seem to have a dilemma: If, as he says, our spiritual sensibilities have now been overrun…and since the Bible now appears to be a relativistic nose of wax that's also been overrun…Then the voice of the "Spirit" cannot really be discernible by us….By Hawthorne's own definition. Ah, but there's the voice of another implied source of "revelation:" the zeitgeist (again).
4. Hawthorne's "listening to the Spirit" strategy (i.e. the zeitgeist as “voice of the Spirit”) was tried out decades ago….I.e. In the dying, liberal Protestant mainline denominations….I remember when the whole gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson controversy arose over 10 years ago….I was then working on my dissertation and spending a lot of time in the archives of a liberal Episcopal seminary in the DC area….The constant buzzwords in those liberal Episcopal circles then were, "We are receiving guidance from new and fresh voices from the Spirit" concerning homosexuality, ordination, etc. And the Episcopal church today? Many would not characterize that denomination as a beacon of soteriological and ethical ballast and clarity.
5. Giberson and Hawthorne are WAY behind the cultural and demographic curve….If they want to truly follow the zeitgeist, then they need to be much closer in spirit to the "millennials rapidly embracing atheism" bandwagon that's being even more widely covered in the press than Rachel Held-Evans' piece….Or if they want to hold on to some sort of "invisible" and "supernatural" element that Giberson's "science" cannot easily sweep aside in the public mind….Then perhaps a vague sort of Deism might be defensible….But little else.
6. The blog's main title involves probing "Future Possibilities" for American evangelicalism….Yet, Giberson and Hawthorne have apparently answered that inquiry with a resounding and clear implication that there really is no future for American Evangelicalism….That is, unless American evangelicals become like liberal/mainline Protestants (which would make them redundant and would mark the end of “evangelicalism” ala the mainstream, theological connotation of that term).
I can only imagine the widespread reaction in the evangelical world….If, say, pieces like Giberson’s or Hawthorne’s on this blog….Were published with a middle-of-the-road, evangelical outlet….Say, Christianity Today magazine….There would be enormous howls of protest….Calls for firings….Mass cancellations of subscriptions, etc. Why? Because the sentiments conveyed would simply be beyond the pale of what most would consider “evangelical” theologically and ethically.
The rhetoric often conveyed sounds EXACTLY like affirmations that were loudly trumpeted decades ago in the liberal mainline Protestant churches and secularized Catholic schools and in the pages of magazines like the Christian Century. This road has been trod before by many denominations, and we’ve seen how it all turns out in our times. Why 21st-century evangelicalism would want to repeat the same mistakes of the now dying liberal mainline denominations (or “sideline denominations,” as historian Martin Marty has termed them) is beyond me.
I continue to scratch my head when I read pieces on this blog by Giberson, Hawthorne, and others. They scarcely come near a credible theological and ethical approximation of mainstream American "evangelicalism" in relation to the various topics they address….But isn't that what a primary purpose if this blog is all about? And if these writers no longer view themselves as being proponents of such an "evangelical" identity, then shouldn't the blog be re-named? Perhaps to something like, “The Demise of American Evangelicalism?”
Henry:
There is much to respond to here although most of my response can be easily summarized by asking you to focus on what I did say rather than what you thought I said. More later.
First, three caveats are in order. Rob's comments shouldn't be held responsible for what we write. The instruction we are given is to review the guiding questions but to feel free to write the post as we want. Secondly, as one of the few social scientists on this team, I consciously allow the theologians and biblical scholars to address the topic from their vantage point. It's not that I'm unconcerned about biblical and theological themes, it's that I'm a novice and there's no point pontificating when folks like Young, Brown, Enns, Reuschling, and others are coming along to write as well. Third, we limit our posts to between 1000 and 1200 words, so some of the between the lines stuff you'd like to see just doesn't fit in this format.
Now to substance. I do believe that there is a future to evangelicalism but that the changing social dynamics of religious nones and postmodern culture will require a level of engagement not seen in evangelicalism of the past three decades, if ever.
I have not claimed for a vision of mainline churches of past decades, although I fear you may be underestimating the evangelical movement among some younger mainlines today. The contrast you offer seems timebound in ways that aren't helpful. An old fashioned social gospel divorced from theological grounding is insubstantial in postmodern society but a refusal to address complex issues is also insubstantial.
I must express strong personal displeasure at your mischaracterization of my use of the term Spirit. It's shorthand for me for the pneumatological acts of God through the third person of the trinity. I believe the Spirit to be always active, often in surprising ways. To equate that with cultural zeitgiest is to take away the theological point I was making and to caricature my argument.
Based on what I've read in Christianity Today, Religious News, and a number of other sources I follow regularly, I don't find these posts out of bounds with those. To suggest protests and firings in response to raising honest questions about the role of evangelicalism is one of the things that puts the future of evangelicalism at risk.
Finally, I noted how many of your references or comparators were several decades old. How does my argument today deal with Gene Robinson's ordination nearly a decade ago? Why are decades old mainline issues the deciding factor (and they aren't dead, still making up about 20% of American Christianity with evangelical making up another 20% and Catholics coming in at 60%).
I'm glad you're reading these posts. But our project is not to dismantle evangelicalism. There are lots of people doing that in comments on nearly any website that says anything positive about religion. (Karl is regularly critiqued for even suggesting that God has anything to do with science.) We're trying our best to raise questions (even among ourselves) that evangelicalism needs to consider for a robust 21st century.
Henry:
There is much to respond to here although most of my response can be easily summarized by asking you to focus on what I did say rather than what you thought I said. More later.
First, three caveats are in order. Rob's comments shouldn't be held responsible for what we write. The instruction we are given is to review the guiding questions but to feel free to write the post as we want. Secondly, as one of the few social scientists on this team, I consciously allow the theologians and biblical scholars to address the topic from their vantage point. It's not that I'm unconcerned about biblical and theological themes, it's that I'm a novice and there's no point pontificating when folks like Young, Brown, Enns, Reuschling, and others are coming along to write as well. Third, we limit our posts to between 1000 and 1200 words, so some of the between the lines stuff you'd like to see just doesn't fit in this format.
Now to substance. I do believe that there is a future to evangelicalism but that the changing social dynamics of religious nones and postmodern culture will require a level of engagement not seen in evangelicalism of the past three decades, if ever.
I have not claimed for a vision of mainline churches of past decades, although I fear you may be underestimating the evangelical movement among some younger mainlines today. The contrast you offer seems timebound in ways that aren't helpful. An old fashioned social gospel divorced from theological grounding is insubstantial in postmodern society but a refusal to address complex issues is also insubstantial.
I must express strong personal displeasure at your mischaracterization of my use of the term Spirit. It's shorthand for me for the pneumatological acts of God through the third person of the trinity. I believe the Spirit to be always active, often in surprising ways. To equate that with cultural zeitgiest is to take away the theological point I was making and to caricature my argument.
Based on what I've read in Christianity Today, Religious News, and a number of other sources I follow regularly, I don't find these posts out of bounds with those. To suggest protests and firings in response to raising honest questions about the role of evangelicalism is one of the things that puts the future of evangelicalism at risk.
Finally, I noted how many of your references or comparators were several decades old. How does my argument today deal with Gene Robinson's ordination nearly a decade ago? Why are decades old mainline issues the deciding factor (and they aren't dead, still making up about 20% of American Christianity with evangelical making up another 20% and Catholics coming in at 60%).
I'm glad you're reading these posts. But our project is not to dismantle evangelicalism. There are lots of people doing that in comments on nearly any website that says anything positive about religion. (Karl is regularly critiqued for even suggesting that God has anything to do with science.) We're trying our best to raise questions (even among ourselves) that evangelicalism needs to consider for a robust 21st century.
Henry:
There is much to respond to here although most of my response can be easily summarized by asking you to focus on what I did say rather than what you thought I said. More later.
First, three caveats are in order. Rob's comments shouldn't be held responsible for what we write. The instruction we are given is to review the guiding questions but to feel free to write the post as we want. Secondly, as one of the few social scientists on this team, I consciously allow the theologians and biblical scholars to address the topic from their vantage point. It's not that I'm unconcerned about biblical and theological themes, it's that I'm a novice and there's no point pontificating when folks like Young, Brown, Enns, Reuschling, and others are coming along to write as well. Third, we limit our posts to between 1000 and 1200 words, so some of the between the lines stuff you'd like to see just doesn't fit in this format.
Now to substance. I do believe that there is a future to evangelicalism but that the changing social dynamics of religious nones and postmodern culture will require a level of engagement not seen in evangelicalism of the past three decades, if ever.
I have not claimed for a vision of mainline churches of past decades, although I fear you may be underestimating the evangelical movement among some younger mainlines today. The contrast you offer seems timebound in ways that aren't helpful. An old fashioned social gospel divorced from theological grounding is insubstantial in postmodern society but a refusal to address complex issues is also insubstantial.
I must express strong personal displeasure at your mischaracterization of my use of the term Spirit. It's shorthand for me for the pneumatological acts of God through the third person of the trinity. I believe the Spirit to be always active, often in surprising ways. To equate that with cultural zeitgiest is to take away the theological point I was making and to caricature my argument.
Based on what I've read in Christianity Today, Religious News, and a number of other sources I follow regularly, I don't find these posts out of bounds with those. To suggest protests and firings in response to raising honest questions about the role of evangelicalism is one of the things that puts the future of evangelicalism at risk.
Finally, I noted how many of your references or comparators were several decades old. How does my argument today deal with Gene Robinson's ordination nearly a decade ago? Why are decades old mainline issues the deciding factor (and they aren't dead, still making up about 20% of American Christianity with evangelical making up another 20% and Catholics coming in at 60%).
I'm glad you're reading these posts. But our project is not to dismantle evangelicalism. There are lots of people doing that in comments on nearly any website that says anything positive about religion. (Karl is regularly critiqued for even suggesting that God has anything to do with science.) We're trying our best to raise questions (even among ourselves) that evangelicalism needs to consider for a robust 21st century.
Response to Henry:
I am accused of being “WAY behind the cultural and demographic curve.” This seems to be based on the fact that I am 56 rather than 21. I have to agree with Henry that I am not a millennial but I am not sure why that needed to be pointed out.
If I do the math here, it appears I am about 3 to 4 decades behind the times. I suppose this should rattle me but it doesn’t. I take consolation, rather, in being 10 decades ahead of American evangelicalism, which is still trying to catch up to the Scopes Trial. I take further consolation in being about 20 decades ahead of anyone who thinks the earth is 10,000 years old, which, alas, is most evangelicals.
What Henry seems to think is my “science will save us” mantra is actually something quite different. It is a more basic message of this sort: “Hey evangelicals! There is this thing called science and you should pay attention to it. The earth moves; it’s billions of years old; life evolved; there was a big bang; epilepsy is not caused by demons; homosexuality is not a mental disorder.”
Does Henry think I should stop encouraging evangelicals accept mainstream-in-all-the-textbooks science?” Am I muddled because I think a demographic dominated by 19th-century ways of viewing the world might be in trouble?
My professional work often leads me into conversations with scholars outside of evangelicalism. Without exception they are appalled at the persistence of anti-science in evangelicalism. Often, when I speak about how the popularity of belief in a 10,000 year old earth, they don’t believe me. When Ken Ham says “The earth is 10,000 years old and Jesus died for your sins” nobody is listening. But lots of people are laughing.
I don’t think science can save us. But I do think widespread anti-science can kill us.
Response to Henry:
I am accused of being “WAY behind the cultural and demographic curve.” This seems to be based on the fact that I am 56 rather than 21. I have to agree with Henry that I am not a millennial but I am not sure why that needed to be pointed out.
If I do the math here, it appears I am about 3 to 4 decades behind the times. I suppose this should rattle me but it doesn’t. I take consolation, rather, in being 10 decades ahead of American evangelicalism, which is still trying to catch up to the Scopes Trial. I take further consolation in being about 20 decades ahead of anyone who thinks the earth is 10,000 years old, which, alas, is most evangelicals.
What Henry seems to think is my “science will save us” mantra is actually something quite different. It is a more basic message of this sort: “Hey evangelicals! There is this thing called science and you should pay attention to it. The earth moves; it’s billions of years old; life evolved; there was a big bang; epilepsy is not caused by demons; homosexuality is not a mental disorder.”
Does Henry think I should stop encouraging evangelicals accept mainstream-in-all-the-textbooks science?” Am I muddled because I think a demographic dominated by 19th-century ways of viewing the world might be in trouble?
My professional work often leads me into conversations with scholars outside of evangelicalism. Without exception they are appalled at the persistence of anti-science in evangelicalism. Often, when I speak about how the popularity of belief in a 10,000 year old earth, they don’t believe me. When Ken Ham says “The earth is 10,000 years old and Jesus died for your sins” nobody is listening. But lots of people are laughing.
I don’t think science can save us. But I do think widespread anti-science can kill us.
Response to Henry:
I am accused of being “WAY behind the cultural and demographic curve.” This seems to be based on the fact that I am 56 rather than 21. I have to agree with Henry that I am not a millennial but I am not sure why that needed to be pointed out.
If I do the math here, it appears I am about 3 to 4 decades behind the times. I suppose this should rattle me but it doesn’t. I take consolation, rather, in being 10 decades ahead of American evangelicalism, which is still trying to catch up to the Scopes Trial. I take further consolation in being about 20 decades ahead of anyone who thinks the earth is 10,000 years old, which, alas, is most evangelicals.
What Henry seems to think is my “science will save us” mantra is actually something quite different. It is a more basic message of this sort: “Hey evangelicals! There is this thing called science and you should pay attention to it. The earth moves; it’s billions of years old; life evolved; there was a big bang; epilepsy is not caused by demons; homosexuality is not a mental disorder.”
Does Henry think I should stop encouraging evangelicals accept mainstream-in-all-the-textbooks science?” Am I muddled because I think a demographic dominated by 19th-century ways of viewing the world might be in trouble?
My professional work often leads me into conversations with scholars outside of evangelicalism. Without exception they are appalled at the persistence of anti-science in evangelicalism. Often, when I speak about how the popularity of belief in a 10,000 year old earth, they don’t believe me. When Ken Ham says “The earth is 10,000 years old and Jesus died for your sins” nobody is listening. But lots of people are laughing.
I don’t think science can save us. But I do think widespread anti-science can kill us.
Dear Henry:
I must admit a level of perplexity and even dismay that you would characterize my framing of the issues in this e-discussion as "set[ting] up the Bible for a quick fall." I will resist interpreting your words as accusing me of having that intent and instead read them as your judgment on what my questions in fact do. If indeed my leading questions are skewing the conversation in a prejudicial way that undermines evangelical commitments to the Bible and its role in moral discernment, then I would honestly appreciate hearing some constructive suggestions from you (and any others sharing your view) on how I could do better in this regard.
If I could venture a guess as to what you're thinking, perhaps you find it unfair that I describe the pathway from the Bible to contemporary moral decisions as "not necessarily straightforward" and that things "can be quite difficult to discern." I can only report that, in my personal experience and in my experiences with groups of committed evangelical Christians seeking to live lives glorifying to God, we have found these things to be true. I would not agree, however, that I or we have come anywhere near to concluding that the Scriptures are "infinitely pliable and flexible…in terms of providing moral certainties," as you put it in your characterization of this conversation.
Finally, a word about the range of perspectives represented in this e-conversation. It wasn't completely clear to me whether you were speaking of some or all of the primary contributors when you wrote that they "scarcely come near a credible theological and ethical approximation of mainstream American 'evangelicalism.'" Regardless, I have no doubt that–despite our best efforts–the contributors do not represent the full range of perspectives within American evangelicalism and that the distribution of perspectives is skewed in various ways relative to your experience of the spectrum of evangelical Christians. I would resist, however, any suggestion that this conversation is intended to predict or aid the "demise of American evangelicalism." Rather, my hope–and in this I ask for your help–is that underrepresented perspectives would make themselves heard in the comments. We accept comments in order to move the conversation forward from the starting points of the primary contributor essays. We do not want their words to be the final words by any means.
I do think that positively articulated comments would do the most good. While your lament that "I find nothing [in this e-conversation] of a positive way forward in terms of biblical authority for 21st-century Christians" is a valuable contribution, your own suggestions for possible ways forward would–I think–promote a more productive dialogue and offer the possibility of shared understanding and shared commitment among us as we work on this together.
Dear Henry:
I must admit a level of perplexity and even dismay that you would characterize my framing of the issues in this e-discussion as "set[ting] up the Bible for a quick fall." I will resist interpreting your words as accusing me of having that intent and instead read them as your judgment on what my questions in fact do. If indeed my leading questions are skewing the conversation in a prejudicial way that undermines evangelical commitments to the Bible and its role in moral discernment, then I would honestly appreciate hearing some constructive suggestions from you (and any others sharing your view) on how I could do better in this regard.
If I could venture a guess as to what you're thinking, perhaps you find it unfair that I describe the pathway from the Bible to contemporary moral decisions as "not necessarily straightforward" and that things "can be quite difficult to discern." I can only report that, in my personal experience and in my experiences with groups of committed evangelical Christians seeking to live lives glorifying to God, we have found these things to be true. I would not agree, however, that I or we have come anywhere near to concluding that the Scriptures are "infinitely pliable and flexible…in terms of providing moral certainties," as you put it in your characterization of this conversation.
Finally, a word about the range of perspectives represented in this e-conversation. It wasn't completely clear to me whether you were speaking of some or all of the primary contributors when you wrote that they "scarcely come near a credible theological and ethical approximation of mainstream American 'evangelicalism.'" Regardless, I have no doubt that–despite our best efforts–the contributors do not represent the full range of perspectives within American evangelicalism and that the distribution of perspectives is skewed in various ways relative to your experience of the spectrum of evangelical Christians. I would resist, however, any suggestion that this conversation is intended to predict or aid the "demise of American evangelicalism." Rather, my hope–and in this I ask for your help–is that underrepresented perspectives would make themselves heard in the comments. We accept comments in order to move the conversation forward from the starting points of the primary contributor essays. We do not want their words to be the final words by any means.
I do think that positively articulated comments would do the most good. While your lament that "I find nothing [in this e-conversation] of a positive way forward in terms of biblical authority for 21st-century Christians" is a valuable contribution, your own suggestions for possible ways forward would–I think–promote a more productive dialogue and offer the possibility of shared understanding and shared commitment among us as we work on this together.
Dear Henry:
I must admit a level of perplexity and even dismay that you would characterize my framing of the issues in this e-discussion as "set[ting] up the Bible for a quick fall." I will resist interpreting your words as accusing me of having that intent and instead read them as your judgment on what my questions in fact do. If indeed my leading questions are skewing the conversation in a prejudicial way that undermines evangelical commitments to the Bible and its role in moral discernment, then I would honestly appreciate hearing some constructive suggestions from you (and any others sharing your view) on how I could do better in this regard.
If I could venture a guess as to what you're thinking, perhaps you find it unfair that I describe the pathway from the Bible to contemporary moral decisions as "not necessarily straightforward" and that things "can be quite difficult to discern." I can only report that, in my personal experience and in my experiences with groups of committed evangelical Christians seeking to live lives glorifying to God, we have found these things to be true. I would not agree, however, that I or we have come anywhere near to concluding that the Scriptures are "infinitely pliable and flexible…in terms of providing moral certainties," as you put it in your characterization of this conversation.
Finally, a word about the range of perspectives represented in this e-conversation. It wasn't completely clear to me whether you were speaking of some or all of the primary contributors when you wrote that they "scarcely come near a credible theological and ethical approximation of mainstream American 'evangelicalism.'" Regardless, I have no doubt that–despite our best efforts–the contributors do not represent the full range of perspectives within American evangelicalism and that the distribution of perspectives is skewed in various ways relative to your experience of the spectrum of evangelical Christians. I would resist, however, any suggestion that this conversation is intended to predict or aid the "demise of American evangelicalism." Rather, my hope–and in this I ask for your help–is that underrepresented perspectives would make themselves heard in the comments. We accept comments in order to move the conversation forward from the starting points of the primary contributor essays. We do not want their words to be the final words by any means.
I do think that positively articulated comments would do the most good. While your lament that "I find nothing [in this e-conversation] of a positive way forward in terms of biblical authority for 21st-century Christians" is a valuable contribution, your own suggestions for possible ways forward would–I think–promote a more productive dialogue and offer the possibility of shared understanding and shared commitment among us as we work on this together.
I'm unfortunately out of pocket for a while, so I am not able to compose my usual novellas in response to all of the kind feedback here. So I'll have to be quite brief. First, regarding Rob's comment, my connotation of "setting up the Bible for a quick fall" had nothing to do with Rob and his intentions. In fact, I had no problems with Rob's intro piece. His questions were fair ones, and his comment about difficulties for us today in applying biblical teaching to specific moral issues in our day is most certainly true.
My main issues dealt with Karl's and John's pieces….Why? Because there is no hint as to how the Bible is to be used (if at all) in constructing moral positions dealing with tangible issues in our times.
I understand that Karl works in an arena in which he might be labeled the "religious" person, since atheism seems to be the de-facto position of many writing via the web today (blogs, science and faith boards, etc.).
But why continue with that "vaguely monotheistic" approach on a blog like this one that is supposedly "in house" and dedicated to intra-evangelical discussion?
Why only discuss a secular scientific board's re-classification of homosexuality…When such a change MUST be processed by evangelicals in light of their typical, go-to attitude regarding biblical authority. Yet, Karl, by his silence, seems to regard such biblical concerns as unimportant (or perhaps as even having the APA now overturning traditional evangelical views based in their reading of Scripture). And Karl can't seem to resist making Ken Ham THE ONE AND ONLY representative of evangelical views on creation (highly distorting and unfair).
John's piece continues the theme that the Bible, by virtue of our times (and general progressive, scientific outlooks via the youthful generations), offers evangelicals little in the way of clarity when forming moral opinions. The "listening to the Spirit" approach might apply to the small, Quaker-tinged branch of evangelicalism (i.e. "God speaks directly to my heart apart from Scripture")….But mainstream evangelicalism has always insisted that the Bible is the touchstone for "God's voice" to Christians…In all times.
And I still see nothing in the responses here that is indistinguishable by way of theological approach that I could also find on, say, a liberal Episcopal or United Church of Christ blog or discussion group.
I still don't see any compelling reason as to why "American evangelicals" shouldn't simply seek common cause and even institutional merger with the various liberal mainline denominations (PCUSA, UMC, ECUSA, etc.) and theological groups that one finds at places like Yale Divinity School, University of Chicago Divinity, etc.
The approaches here by especially Karl and John seem indistinguishable from a "mainline liberal" approach….In the past, "American evangelicalism" existed in separate form in order to offer a more conservative, explicitly biblical stance on a range of issues.
But Karl and John's rationales make all of that unnecessary now.
I'm unfortunately out of pocket for a while, so I am not able to compose my usual novellas in response to all of the kind feedback here. So I'll have to be quite brief. First, regarding Rob's comment, my connotation of "setting up the Bible for a quick fall" had nothing to do with Rob and his intentions. In fact, I had no problems with Rob's intro piece. His questions were fair ones, and his comment about difficulties for us today in applying biblical teaching to specific moral issues in our day is most certainly true.
My main issues dealt with Karl's and John's pieces….Why? Because there is no hint as to how the Bible is to be used (if at all) in constructing moral positions dealing with tangible issues in our times.
I understand that Karl works in an arena in which he might be labeled the "religious" person, since atheism seems to be the de-facto position of many writing via the web today (blogs, science and faith boards, etc.).
But why continue with that "vaguely monotheistic" approach on a blog like this one that is supposedly "in house" and dedicated to intra-evangelical discussion?
Why only discuss a secular scientific board's re-classification of homosexuality…When such a change MUST be processed by evangelicals in light of their typical, go-to attitude regarding biblical authority. Yet, Karl, by his silence, seems to regard such biblical concerns as unimportant (or perhaps as even having the APA now overturning traditional evangelical views based in their reading of Scripture). And Karl can't seem to resist making Ken Ham THE ONE AND ONLY representative of evangelical views on creation (highly distorting and unfair).
John's piece continues the theme that the Bible, by virtue of our times (and general progressive, scientific outlooks via the youthful generations), offers evangelicals little in the way of clarity when forming moral opinions. The "listening to the Spirit" approach might apply to the small, Quaker-tinged branch of evangelicalism (i.e. "God speaks directly to my heart apart from Scripture")….But mainstream evangelicalism has always insisted that the Bible is the touchstone for "God's voice" to Christians…In all times.
And I still see nothing in the responses here that is indistinguishable by way of theological approach that I could also find on, say, a liberal Episcopal or United Church of Christ blog or discussion group.
I still don't see any compelling reason as to why "American evangelicals" shouldn't simply seek common cause and even institutional merger with the various liberal mainline denominations (PCUSA, UMC, ECUSA, etc.) and theological groups that one finds at places like Yale Divinity School, University of Chicago Divinity, etc.
The approaches here by especially Karl and John seem indistinguishable from a "mainline liberal" approach….In the past, "American evangelicalism" existed in separate form in order to offer a more conservative, explicitly biblical stance on a range of issues.
But Karl and John's rationales make all of that unnecessary now.
I'm unfortunately out of pocket for a while, so I am not able to compose my usual novellas in response to all of the kind feedback here. So I'll have to be quite brief. First, regarding Rob's comment, my connotation of "setting up the Bible for a quick fall" had nothing to do with Rob and his intentions. In fact, I had no problems with Rob's intro piece. His questions were fair ones, and his comment about difficulties for us today in applying biblical teaching to specific moral issues in our day is most certainly true.
My main issues dealt with Karl's and John's pieces….Why? Because there is no hint as to how the Bible is to be used (if at all) in constructing moral positions dealing with tangible issues in our times.
I understand that Karl works in an arena in which he might be labeled the "religious" person, since atheism seems to be the de-facto position of many writing via the web today (blogs, science and faith boards, etc.).
But why continue with that "vaguely monotheistic" approach on a blog like this one that is supposedly "in house" and dedicated to intra-evangelical discussion?
Why only discuss a secular scientific board's re-classification of homosexuality…When such a change MUST be processed by evangelicals in light of their typical, go-to attitude regarding biblical authority. Yet, Karl, by his silence, seems to regard such biblical concerns as unimportant (or perhaps as even having the APA now overturning traditional evangelical views based in their reading of Scripture). And Karl can't seem to resist making Ken Ham THE ONE AND ONLY representative of evangelical views on creation (highly distorting and unfair).
John's piece continues the theme that the Bible, by virtue of our times (and general progressive, scientific outlooks via the youthful generations), offers evangelicals little in the way of clarity when forming moral opinions. The "listening to the Spirit" approach might apply to the small, Quaker-tinged branch of evangelicalism (i.e. "God speaks directly to my heart apart from Scripture")….But mainstream evangelicalism has always insisted that the Bible is the touchstone for "God's voice" to Christians…In all times.
And I still see nothing in the responses here that is indistinguishable by way of theological approach that I could also find on, say, a liberal Episcopal or United Church of Christ blog or discussion group.
I still don't see any compelling reason as to why "American evangelicals" shouldn't simply seek common cause and even institutional merger with the various liberal mainline denominations (PCUSA, UMC, ECUSA, etc.) and theological groups that one finds at places like Yale Divinity School, University of Chicago Divinity, etc.
The approaches here by especially Karl and John seem indistinguishable from a "mainline liberal" approach….In the past, "American evangelicalism" existed in separate form in order to offer a more conservative, explicitly biblical stance on a range of issues.
But Karl and John's rationales make all of that unnecessary now.
Henry's rejoinder makes a number of points that, upon further reflection, speak directly to the themes of the future of evangelicalism.
He says that listening to the spirit may work in certain Quaker-tinged parts of evangelicalism. I've certainly been shaped by readings in that area, but find them completely compatible with a Wesleyan model of Christian formation.
He suggests that I am not holding up the Bible as an independent measure of "God's voice". Other posts in this series have identified this as a challenge arising from an overly high view of Sola scriptura. So I guess I'm sensitive to those limits and find the Wesleyan approach a helpful corrective.
Third, he suggests a monolithic form of "mainstream evangelicalism" that I don't think the data supports. Take that away and the argument is challenged.
Finally, he argues that evangelicalism requires opposition to mainline protestantism. I think that is the main point of concern in this dialogue. I want an evangelicalism that is able to address all comers without spending so much energy on the sociology of boundary maintenance.
Which is what the original post was about. The energy spent in boundary maintenance rather than incarnation of the Kingdom of God may well be more harmful to an evangelical future over the long run.
Henry's rejoinder makes a number of points that, upon further reflection, speak directly to the themes of the future of evangelicalism.
He says that listening to the spirit may work in certain Quaker-tinged parts of evangelicalism. I've certainly been shaped by readings in that area, but find them completely compatible with a Wesleyan model of Christian formation.
He suggests that I am not holding up the Bible as an independent measure of "God's voice". Other posts in this series have identified this as a challenge arising from an overly high view of Sola scriptura. So I guess I'm sensitive to those limits and find the Wesleyan approach a helpful corrective.
Third, he suggests a monolithic form of "mainstream evangelicalism" that I don't think the data supports. Take that away and the argument is challenged.
Finally, he argues that evangelicalism requires opposition to mainline protestantism. I think that is the main point of concern in this dialogue. I want an evangelicalism that is able to address all comers without spending so much energy on the sociology of boundary maintenance.
Which is what the original post was about. The energy spent in boundary maintenance rather than incarnation of the Kingdom of God may well be more harmful to an evangelical future over the long run.
Henry's rejoinder makes a number of points that, upon further reflection, speak directly to the themes of the future of evangelicalism.
He says that listening to the spirit may work in certain Quaker-tinged parts of evangelicalism. I've certainly been shaped by readings in that area, but find them completely compatible with a Wesleyan model of Christian formation.
He suggests that I am not holding up the Bible as an independent measure of "God's voice". Other posts in this series have identified this as a challenge arising from an overly high view of Sola scriptura. So I guess I'm sensitive to those limits and find the Wesleyan approach a helpful corrective.
Third, he suggests a monolithic form of "mainstream evangelicalism" that I don't think the data supports. Take that away and the argument is challenged.
Finally, he argues that evangelicalism requires opposition to mainline protestantism. I think that is the main point of concern in this dialogue. I want an evangelicalism that is able to address all comers without spending so much energy on the sociology of boundary maintenance.
Which is what the original post was about. The energy spent in boundary maintenance rather than incarnation of the Kingdom of God may well be more harmful to an evangelical future over the long run.
In response to two main points that John makes here:
First, John says, "I've certainly been shaped by readings in that area (i.e. Quakerism), but find them completely compatible with a Wesleyan model of Christian formation."
Certainly, these traditions represent a sector of the overall "American evangelical" pie. But I would argue that such a Quaker/Wesleyan portion of American evangelicalism is a minority position within American evangelicalism overall.
Decades ago, there was vigorous scholarly debate amongst American evangelical historians as to what constituted any sort of theological core to the movement.
Then, scholars such as George Marsden and Mark Noll argued that a basically Reformed/Calvinist orientation (shaped further by subsequent revivalism and general cultural/ethical conservatism) was the "mainstream" of such American evangelicalism.
Scholars such as Donald Dayton counter-argued that such a viewpoint obscured the Wesleyan/Pentecostal/experiential sector of American evangelicalism (Dayton also pointed to the more socially/ethically liberal quality of such experiential evangelicals…Though most Pentecostals today remain highly conservative culturally and ethically).
Certainly, Dayton's corrective was necessary to round out the entire evangelical pie. But in the end, it was pretty obvious that Marsden and Noll were on to something in terms of the majority (or "mainstream") theological and ethical orientation.
In the intervening years, I have noticed that the more "experiential" (especially the Quaker/Wesleyan) sector of evangelicalism has regularly utilized such an approach in favor of liberal/progressive theological and social/ethical positions and platforms.
Such should not be surprising, since the early 19th-century theologian and so-called father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, elevated human subjectivity and inner experience as the touchstone of theological and ethical formulation.
I have regularly noticed the continuing imprint of Schleiermacher in many of the posts on this overall blog site. As such, the blog strikes me as unrepresentative of "mainstream evangelicalism." Rather, the blog seems to mostly be a venue for highly "progressive" (i.e. liberal) evangelicals who increasingly are indistinguishable from liberal, mainline Protestants in basic approach.
And this leads to the second quote from John:
"The energy spent in boundary maintenance rather than incarnation of the Kingdom of God may well be more harmful to an evangelical future over the long run."
Yet, a more conservative/traditional American evangelical would strongly assert
that issues of theological and ethical integrity are of the essence of promoting the Kingdom of God.
John's implication is that what we are dealing with here is narrow, petty, persnickety, and ornery fighting over positions that are either unimportant or even now superseded by modern insights (e.g. contravened by "science" as Karl regularly brings to the fore).
But conservative/traditional American evangelicalism (still a very large chunk of American evangelicalism and yet strangely and mostly absent from this overall blog) would insist that John's "boundary maintenance" is essential in the call to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" and in vigilance against being "taken captive by false doctrine" and generally corrosive ideologies.
Actually, if I were to accept the spirit of John's sentiments here, then I would again assert, "Isn't it time to simply become a liberal Episcopalian? Or a liberal Methodist? Or a liberal Quaker? Or a liberal United Church of Christ member?"
In such a scenario, the "American evangelicalism" described earlier by Marsden and Noll (and which continues today as a large demographic) would be exiled from the legitimate "evangelical" fold….I.e Rather jettisoned into the rhetorically shameful and reviled "fundamentalism" category.
And that's what many of the posts on this overall blog, in my opinion, really seem to be up to: i.e. Maneuvering the conversation such that traditional/conservative American evangelicals have no business being a part of the movement….No place at the table….No real legitimacy any longer.
Instead, it's mostly about co-opting the "evangelical" label and re-positioning it squarely within the liberal/mainline (and dying) theological world.
As such, I'm back to my earlier contentions that the prescription actually being advocated for the "future of American evangelicalism" is mostly, "There is no future for American evangelicalism."
Apparently, it's time for us all to become theologically and culturally liberal/mainline people.
In response to two main points that John makes here:
First, John says, "I've certainly been shaped by readings in that area (i.e. Quakerism), but find them completely compatible with a Wesleyan model of Christian formation."
Certainly, these traditions represent a sector of the overall "American evangelical" pie. But I would argue that such a Quaker/Wesleyan portion of American evangelicalism is a minority position within American evangelicalism overall.
Decades ago, there was vigorous scholarly debate amongst American evangelical historians as to what constituted any sort of theological core to the movement.
Then, scholars such as George Marsden and Mark Noll argued that a basically Reformed/Calvinist orientation (shaped further by subsequent revivalism and general cultural/ethical conservatism) was the "mainstream" of such American evangelicalism.
Scholars such as Donald Dayton counter-argued that such a viewpoint obscured the Wesleyan/Pentecostal/experiential sector of American evangelicalism (Dayton also pointed to the more socially/ethically liberal quality of such experiential evangelicals…Though most Pentecostals today remain highly conservative culturally and ethically).
Certainly, Dayton's corrective was necessary to round out the entire evangelical pie. But in the end, it was pretty obvious that Marsden and Noll were on to something in terms of the majority (or "mainstream") theological and ethical orientation.
In the intervening years, I have noticed that the more "experiential" (especially the Quaker/Wesleyan) sector of evangelicalism has regularly utilized such an approach in favor of liberal/progressive theological and social/ethical positions and platforms.
Such should not be surprising, since the early 19th-century theologian and so-called father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, elevated human subjectivity and inner experience as the touchstone of theological and ethical formulation.
I have regularly noticed the continuing imprint of Schleiermacher in many of the posts on this overall blog site. As such, the blog strikes me as unrepresentative of "mainstream evangelicalism." Rather, the blog seems to mostly be a venue for highly "progressive" (i.e. liberal) evangelicals who increasingly are indistinguishable from liberal, mainline Protestants in basic approach.
And this leads to the second quote from John:
"The energy spent in boundary maintenance rather than incarnation of the Kingdom of God may well be more harmful to an evangelical future over the long run."
Yet, a more conservative/traditional American evangelical would strongly assert
that issues of theological and ethical integrity are of the essence of promoting the Kingdom of God.
John's implication is that what we are dealing with here is narrow, petty, persnickety, and ornery fighting over positions that are either unimportant or even now superseded by modern insights (e.g. contravened by "science" as Karl regularly brings to the fore).
But conservative/traditional American evangelicalism (still a very large chunk of American evangelicalism and yet strangely and mostly absent from this overall blog) would insist that John's "boundary maintenance" is essential in the call to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" and in vigilance against being "taken captive by false doctrine" and generally corrosive ideologies.
Actually, if I were to accept the spirit of John's sentiments here, then I would again assert, "Isn't it time to simply become a liberal Episcopalian? Or a liberal Methodist? Or a liberal Quaker? Or a liberal United Church of Christ member?"
In such a scenario, the "American evangelicalism" described earlier by Marsden and Noll (and which continues today as a large demographic) would be exiled from the legitimate "evangelical" fold….I.e Rather jettisoned into the rhetorically shameful and reviled "fundamentalism" category.
And that's what many of the posts on this overall blog, in my opinion, really seem to be up to: i.e. Maneuvering the conversation such that traditional/conservative American evangelicals have no business being a part of the movement….No place at the table….No real legitimacy any longer.
Instead, it's mostly about co-opting the "evangelical" label and re-positioning it squarely within the liberal/mainline (and dying) theological world.
As such, I'm back to my earlier contentions that the prescription actually being advocated for the "future of American evangelicalism" is mostly, "There is no future for American evangelicalism."
Apparently, it's time for us all to become theologically and culturally liberal/mainline people.
In response to two main points that John makes here:
First, John says, "I've certainly been shaped by readings in that area (i.e. Quakerism), but find them completely compatible with a Wesleyan model of Christian formation."
Certainly, these traditions represent a sector of the overall "American evangelical" pie. But I would argue that such a Quaker/Wesleyan portion of American evangelicalism is a minority position within American evangelicalism overall.
Decades ago, there was vigorous scholarly debate amongst American evangelical historians as to what constituted any sort of theological core to the movement.
Then, scholars such as George Marsden and Mark Noll argued that a basically Reformed/Calvinist orientation (shaped further by subsequent revivalism and general cultural/ethical conservatism) was the "mainstream" of such American evangelicalism.
Scholars such as Donald Dayton counter-argued that such a viewpoint obscured the Wesleyan/Pentecostal/experiential sector of American evangelicalism (Dayton also pointed to the more socially/ethically liberal quality of such experiential evangelicals…Though most Pentecostals today remain highly conservative culturally and ethically).
Certainly, Dayton's corrective was necessary to round out the entire evangelical pie. But in the end, it was pretty obvious that Marsden and Noll were on to something in terms of the majority (or "mainstream") theological and ethical orientation.
In the intervening years, I have noticed that the more "experiential" (especially the Quaker/Wesleyan) sector of evangelicalism has regularly utilized such an approach in favor of liberal/progressive theological and social/ethical positions and platforms.
Such should not be surprising, since the early 19th-century theologian and so-called father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, elevated human subjectivity and inner experience as the touchstone of theological and ethical formulation.
I have regularly noticed the continuing imprint of Schleiermacher in many of the posts on this overall blog site. As such, the blog strikes me as unrepresentative of "mainstream evangelicalism." Rather, the blog seems to mostly be a venue for highly "progressive" (i.e. liberal) evangelicals who increasingly are indistinguishable from liberal, mainline Protestants in basic approach.
And this leads to the second quote from John:
"The energy spent in boundary maintenance rather than incarnation of the Kingdom of God may well be more harmful to an evangelical future over the long run."
Yet, a more conservative/traditional American evangelical would strongly assert
that issues of theological and ethical integrity are of the essence of promoting the Kingdom of God.
John's implication is that what we are dealing with here is narrow, petty, persnickety, and ornery fighting over positions that are either unimportant or even now superseded by modern insights (e.g. contravened by "science" as Karl regularly brings to the fore).
But conservative/traditional American evangelicalism (still a very large chunk of American evangelicalism and yet strangely and mostly absent from this overall blog) would insist that John's "boundary maintenance" is essential in the call to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" and in vigilance against being "taken captive by false doctrine" and generally corrosive ideologies.
Actually, if I were to accept the spirit of John's sentiments here, then I would again assert, "Isn't it time to simply become a liberal Episcopalian? Or a liberal Methodist? Or a liberal Quaker? Or a liberal United Church of Christ member?"
In such a scenario, the "American evangelicalism" described earlier by Marsden and Noll (and which continues today as a large demographic) would be exiled from the legitimate "evangelical" fold….I.e Rather jettisoned into the rhetorically shameful and reviled "fundamentalism" category.
And that's what many of the posts on this overall blog, in my opinion, really seem to be up to: i.e. Maneuvering the conversation such that traditional/conservative American evangelicals have no business being a part of the movement….No place at the table….No real legitimacy any longer.
Instead, it's mostly about co-opting the "evangelical" label and re-positioning it squarely within the liberal/mainline (and dying) theological world.
As such, I'm back to my earlier contentions that the prescription actually being advocated for the "future of American evangelicalism" is mostly, "There is no future for American evangelicalism."
Apparently, it's time for us all to become theologically and culturally liberal/mainline people.