Evangelicalism in Parallel Universes
It is almost time for the first round of responses for question #5, and I still haven’t weighed in on question #4. That’s not because I’m indifferent. On the contrary. I just don’t know what our conversation is really about. I’ve read all the responses regarding “evangelicalism and morality” at least once; most of them I’ve read more than once; some I’ve read several times. I’m still baffled. Many of my fellow participants appear to be living in a world that resembles the one I know in some respects but is also quite different—as if in one of those parallel universes we hear so much about these days.
Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, for example, offers “reflections on how ethics tends to be viewed and practiced in evangelical contexts,” based—she tells us—on her “own location in evangelical contexts, such as churches, seminaries and mission organizations, over the last 35 years, and as an academically trained Christian social ethicist.” And yet, in conclusion, she sees fit to pronounce that “evangelicals need to concern themselves with more than just matters of sexuality and the unborn.” I’m wondering what parallel universe this message comes from. It sounds remarkably like the imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media.
In the real world, and for both good and ill, evangelicals—like all human beings—are making choices all the time, in every sphere of life, choices that are morally freighted. Consider, for instance, my Uncle Ed—my mother’s younger brother, who was born in China to missionary parents, came to the United States when he was roughly eight years old, and grew up in Southern California. Around 1960, he and his wife (my Aunt Ardith) and their children left Los Angeles for a tiny town in Northern California, where he pastored a small church (for nearly fifty years) and taught and directed music at the public high school.
I liked riding with Uncle Ed in one of the old station wagons he invariably drove, even though I was often car-sick as we negotiated the curves on mountain roads. He was exceedingly generous in carrying on conversations with a talkative boy as if with another grown-up. But there were trade-offs. You never knew how long a day you were in for. Whenever Uncle Ed noticed a driver pulled over, with signs of car-trouble or some other problem, he would stop to offer his help.
Hmm. Looks like the fuel pump. Uncle Ed offered to take the driver to the nearest town where a replacement could be purchased at a reasonable price. (That might be an hour and a half away—but no worries.) And if the driver wasn’t a pretty confident do-it-yourself mechanic, Uncle Ed would install the new part himself. Extra money? He didn’t have any. But his time, his know-how, his good will: those he would share with a total stranger.
In his open-handed, unforced helpfulness, Uncle Ed was at once exceptional and typical of many evangelicals I have known. Not all evangelicals, needless to say, are so open-handed. (I am far more leery of strangers, and far more protective of my time, than my uncle was.) But an almost reckless generosity, taking many different forms—adoption, for example—is one of the most striking moral traits of the evangelical world I’ve known over the course of a lifetime: our friend Karen Lynip’s decades of literacy work in the Philippines, our friend Arne Bergstrom’s work in disaster relief (Cambodia, Rwanda, Kosovo . . . ), my wife Wendy’s years as a hospice volunteer.
Even more remarkable—to me, at least—is that the men and women (especially the women!) who practice this God-inspired open-handedness rarely talk about it. It’s almost as if they have read and absorbed certain passages in the gospels so deeply that they would be loath to draw attention to what they are doing.
Such generosity, of course, is not an unmixed blessing. We’re all familiar with instances in which blundering evangelicals have ended up doing more harm than good—in part from a failure to take account of the moral complexity of our choices. And it’s not my intention, in any case, to replace an absurdly negative stereotype of “evangelical morality” with an absurdly idealized view. Hardly.
I’d love to have a real conversation about evangelicalism and morality. But conversation between parallel universes isn’t so inviting.
From my senior citizen point of view the problem is generation gap related. I can't stand your worship music, worship attire and behavior, etc. The generation before me felt somewhat the same about my set.
From my senior citizen point of view the problem is generation gap related. I can't stand your worship music, worship attire and behavior, etc. The generation before me felt somewhat the same about my set.
From my senior citizen point of view the problem is generation gap related. I can't stand your worship music, worship attire and behavior, etc. The generation before me felt somewhat the same about my set.
Jack, there are always young people who grow up evangelical, get an education, and realize their Christian patrimony has been sold out to the CBA/CCM and t-shirt Jesus industry. They generally defect to churches and forms of Christianity that maintain fidelity to sacramental worship the early church would recognize. It's not just "old people" who see something wrong with the superficiality of history-less American pop Protestantism. But I'm not sure that engages the morality issue…
I am as perplexed as Harold at his (and John Wildon's and others) apparent inability to step outside the wonderful anecdotes of their own family and church ties to see what certainly stares them in the face as Evangelucalism's self-portrayal in the Midwest they know and reside in. It is absolutely focused on "stopping the gays," banning abortion, denouncing and destroying public education, introducing a libertarian state and economy, and supporting bigoted attacks on immigrants and minorities who have become figures if fear and hatred in the supposed heartland and Bible Belt of this country. Evangelucals who dissent from this are a tiny minority.
Jack, there are always young people who grow up evangelical, get an education, and realize their Christian patrimony has been sold out to the CBA/CCM and t-shirt Jesus industry. They generally defect to churches and forms of Christianity that maintain fidelity to sacramental worship the early church would recognize. It's not just "old people" who see something wrong with the superficiality of history-less American pop Protestantism. But I'm not sure that engages the morality issue…
I am as perplexed as Harold at his (and John Wildon's and others) apparent inability to step outside the wonderful anecdotes of their own family and church ties to see what certainly stares them in the face as Evangelucalism's self-portrayal in the Midwest they know and reside in. It is absolutely focused on "stopping the gays," banning abortion, denouncing and destroying public education, introducing a libertarian state and economy, and supporting bigoted attacks on immigrants and minorities who have become figures if fear and hatred in the supposed heartland and Bible Belt of this country. Evangelucals who dissent from this are a tiny minority.
Jack, there are always young people who grow up evangelical, get an education, and realize their Christian patrimony has been sold out to the CBA/CCM and t-shirt Jesus industry. They generally defect to churches and forms of Christianity that maintain fidelity to sacramental worship the early church would recognize. It's not just "old people" who see something wrong with the superficiality of history-less American pop Protestantism. But I'm not sure that engages the morality issue…
I am as perplexed as Harold at his (and John Wildon's and others) apparent inability to step outside the wonderful anecdotes of their own family and church ties to see what certainly stares them in the face as Evangelucalism's self-portrayal in the Midwest they know and reside in. It is absolutely focused on "stopping the gays," banning abortion, denouncing and destroying public education, introducing a libertarian state and economy, and supporting bigoted attacks on immigrants and minorities who have become figures if fear and hatred in the supposed heartland and Bible Belt of this country. Evangelucals who dissent from this are a tiny minority.
John,
Thank you for this magnificent set of reflections. You and I must be living in neighboring universes. Over many years in the evangelical world, I’ve known thousands of “Uncle Ed’s”. I have the privilege of teaching scores of them every year at Union University – students who give their lives to faithful service in ways small and great. To be sure, their sincere efforts are not to be “idealized” (as you say). But it would be refreshing to have a more hopeful conversation about the future of evangelicalism and morality – one grounded in the realities of ordinary life.
Sadly, (as the comments above illustrate) the moderators of this “conversation” continue to see fit to post reactions which traffic in the same sort of disrespectful vituperation that characterizes the “imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media.” It’s probably impossible to have meaningful dialogue on evangelicalism and morality when one whole set of interlocutors view the “Uncle Ed’s” of evangelicalism as really and truly being nothing more than denouncing, destroying bigots who attack the poor and marginalized by portraying them as figures of fear and hatred.
Thanks for your gracious efforts to disabuse the pathologically misguided. Perhaps universes will collide to good effect.
Peace,
Justin
John,
Thank you for this magnificent set of reflections. You and I must be living in neighboring universes. Over many years in the evangelical world, I’ve known thousands of “Uncle Ed’s”. I have the privilege of teaching scores of them every year at Union University – students who give their lives to faithful service in ways small and great. To be sure, their sincere efforts are not to be “idealized” (as you say). But it would be refreshing to have a more hopeful conversation about the future of evangelicalism and morality – one grounded in the realities of ordinary life.
Sadly, (as the comments above illustrate) the moderators of this “conversation” continue to see fit to post reactions which traffic in the same sort of disrespectful vituperation that characterizes the “imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media.” It’s probably impossible to have meaningful dialogue on evangelicalism and morality when one whole set of interlocutors view the “Uncle Ed’s” of evangelicalism as really and truly being nothing more than denouncing, destroying bigots who attack the poor and marginalized by portraying them as figures of fear and hatred.
Thanks for your gracious efforts to disabuse the pathologically misguided. Perhaps universes will collide to good effect.
Peace,
Justin
John,
Thank you for this magnificent set of reflections. You and I must be living in neighboring universes. Over many years in the evangelical world, I’ve known thousands of “Uncle Ed’s”. I have the privilege of teaching scores of them every year at Union University – students who give their lives to faithful service in ways small and great. To be sure, their sincere efforts are not to be “idealized” (as you say). But it would be refreshing to have a more hopeful conversation about the future of evangelicalism and morality – one grounded in the realities of ordinary life.
Sadly, (as the comments above illustrate) the moderators of this “conversation” continue to see fit to post reactions which traffic in the same sort of disrespectful vituperation that characterizes the “imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media.” It’s probably impossible to have meaningful dialogue on evangelicalism and morality when one whole set of interlocutors view the “Uncle Ed’s” of evangelicalism as really and truly being nothing more than denouncing, destroying bigots who attack the poor and marginalized by portraying them as figures of fear and hatred.
Thanks for your gracious efforts to disabuse the pathologically misguided. Perhaps universes will collide to good effect.
Peace,
Justin
Thank you, John, for reminding us that there is a whole wide world of evangelicals out there who are doing their best to follow the apostle's injunction: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18). Just as ethics is not just about dilemmas, so our "respectful conversations" should not be only about problems or disagreements. Sometimes, we might even humbly celebrate the acheivements of our brothers and sisters and we might even rejoice in the fact that we agree with one another as much as we do.
Sorry about the typos earlier and my thinking this was an article posted by Harold. I am not sure how I made that mistake, but my fingers are clearly too big to write well on a phone.
@Justin – Are you actually referring to my earlier comment as "pathologically misguided …. disrespectful vituperation that characterizes the 'imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media" — ? And were you really suggesting the moderators should censor my comment? I am surprised by that reaction.
I find John Wilson's type of perspective on this topic to be Pollyanna-ish, and others contributing to the conversation may too. Much of the dialogue with Karl has been of a similar nature between those who think Evangelicalism has some very pronounced negative qualities and those who want to minimize that assessment into oblivion.
You and John evidently find this other, more critical perspective to be awfully negative and question its validity based on alternate sets of experiences. Yes that may be progress; I certainly don't see any basis for anger and wiping off comments you dislike.
I haven't seen anyone suggest there are not "nice" Evangelicals or "Uncle Eds." There are. But they co-exist with — and sometimes also themselves are — more or less bigotted, tribally-minded individuals who have over-identified their faith with a libertarian political or social morality and often do "attack the poor and marginalized by portraying them as figures of fear and hatred."
Now there are Evangelicals who totally disagree with this sort of perspective too, but I have never found them to be any kind of majority (or even close) anywhere I've lived in enough places over enough time to know it's not an outlier experience.
This is not a made-up media construction either. In the suburban/exurban and rural parts of the US where Evangelicals have been taught to fight in a culture war with weaponized worldviews, a month's worth of mailings from local churches, schools and newspapers would do to make my points. I can think very specifically of what my family has received and what conversations I've had to have with my kids when they are confronted with adult leaders and teachers who offend both reason and conscience. This happens on a regular basis of some frequency. I can be more specific if you would like.
I think progress would be gained if everyone understood that we have to hold these realities together in mind — when we talk about Evangelicalism or there is no point in pretending to engage in critical discussion of it.
Sorry about the typos earlier and my thinking this was an article posted by Harold. I am not sure how I made that mistake, but my fingers are clearly too big to write well on a phone.
@Justin – Are you actually referring to my earlier comment as "pathologically misguided …. disrespectful vituperation that characterizes the 'imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media" — ? And were you really suggesting the moderators should censor my comment? I am surprised by that reaction.
I find John Wilson's type of perspective on this topic to be Pollyanna-ish, and others contributing to the conversation may too. Much of the dialogue with Karl has been of a similar nature between those who think Evangelicalism has some very pronounced negative qualities and those who want to minimize that assessment into oblivion.
You and John evidently find this other, more critical perspective to be awfully negative and question its validity based on alternate sets of experiences. Yes that may be progress; I certainly don't see any basis for anger and wiping off comments you dislike.
I haven't seen anyone suggest there are not "nice" Evangelicals or "Uncle Eds." There are. But they co-exist with — and sometimes also themselves are — more or less bigotted, tribally-minded individuals who have over-identified their faith with a libertarian political or social morality and often do "attack the poor and marginalized by portraying them as figures of fear and hatred."
Now there are Evangelicals who totally disagree with this sort of perspective too, but I have never found them to be any kind of majority (or even close) anywhere I've lived in enough places over enough time to know it's not an outlier experience.
This is not a made-up media construction either. In the suburban/exurban and rural parts of the US where Evangelicals have been taught to fight in a culture war with weaponized worldviews, a month's worth of mailings from local churches, schools and newspapers would do to make my points. I can think very specifically of what my family has received and what conversations I've had to have with my kids when they are confronted with adult leaders and teachers who offend both reason and conscience. This happens on a regular basis of some frequency. I can be more specific if you would like.
I think progress would be gained if everyone understood that we have to hold these realities together in mind — when we talk about Evangelicalism or there is no point in pretending to engage in critical discussion of it.
Sorry about the typos earlier and my thinking this was an article posted by Harold. I am not sure how I made that mistake, but my fingers are clearly too big to write well on a phone.
@Justin – Are you actually referring to my earlier comment as "pathologically misguided …. disrespectful vituperation that characterizes the 'imaginary world of evangelicalism that we encounter so often in the media" — ? And were you really suggesting the moderators should censor my comment? I am surprised by that reaction.
I find John Wilson's type of perspective on this topic to be Pollyanna-ish, and others contributing to the conversation may too. Much of the dialogue with Karl has been of a similar nature between those who think Evangelicalism has some very pronounced negative qualities and those who want to minimize that assessment into oblivion.
You and John evidently find this other, more critical perspective to be awfully negative and question its validity based on alternate sets of experiences. Yes that may be progress; I certainly don't see any basis for anger and wiping off comments you dislike.
I haven't seen anyone suggest there are not "nice" Evangelicals or "Uncle Eds." There are. But they co-exist with — and sometimes also themselves are — more or less bigotted, tribally-minded individuals who have over-identified their faith with a libertarian political or social morality and often do "attack the poor and marginalized by portraying them as figures of fear and hatred."
Now there are Evangelicals who totally disagree with this sort of perspective too, but I have never found them to be any kind of majority (or even close) anywhere I've lived in enough places over enough time to know it's not an outlier experience.
This is not a made-up media construction either. In the suburban/exurban and rural parts of the US where Evangelicals have been taught to fight in a culture war with weaponized worldviews, a month's worth of mailings from local churches, schools and newspapers would do to make my points. I can think very specifically of what my family has received and what conversations I've had to have with my kids when they are confronted with adult leaders and teachers who offend both reason and conscience. This happens on a regular basis of some frequency. I can be more specific if you would like.
I think progress would be gained if everyone understood that we have to hold these realities together in mind — when we talk about Evangelicalism or there is no point in pretending to engage in critical discussion of it.