Glimpses of Another Land

/0 Comments/in /by

 

 

Like many in my postwar generation of American evangelicals, I grew up in churches (mostly Baptist in my case) where the word “evangelical” was rarely heard. (References to “evangelism,” on the other hand, were ubiquitous.) Not until I was 12 years old—when I discovered Christianity Today magazine—did I begin to get a glimmer that there was something called “evangelicalism.” We had been evangelicals all along, but I hadn’t known. Even today, most American evangelicals don’t define themselves, in the first instance, as evangelicals, while others who appear to fit the definitions proposed by historians, sociologists, and theologians explicitly reject the label, often bristling at it.

Forgive me for emphasizing this point about the fluidity and many-sidedness of evangelicalism, which won’t come as news to anyone who has studied its history. I think it’s important to keep in mind in the course of our conversation. So, for instance, on our first topic—evangelicalism and the broader Christian tradition—we find in the history of evangelicalism no single stance or attitude that can be called definitive for this particular stream of the faith.

John Wesley, for example, whose influence on the development of American evangelicalism was enormous, drew from a rich array of Christian sources, ranging widely in time and space and crossing all kinds of ecclesiastical boundaries. At the other end of the spectrum, there have been strong tendencies  in evangelicalism toward a narrow biblicism, intensely suspicious of “tradition” and cut off by choice from conversation with other streams of the faith.

In my lifetime, both of these opposing tendencies—and manifold variations in between—have flourished. The impact of C. S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity,” evangelical-Catholic rapprochement, Richard Foster’s recovery of Christian disciplines, and projects such as the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture—from InterVarsity Press, an evangelical publisher par excellence—are but four salient examples from a long list attesting to evangelical openness to the broader Christian tradition.

“Openness” can lead to conversion. Our daughter Mary, the third of our four children, attended Wheaton College. In a seminar on Kant’s Critique of Judgment, she met a young man from Texas, John Puryear, homeschooled in a self-described fundamentalist family. John and Mary were wed shortly after graduation, and soon after that they began the RCIA process to enter the Roman Catholic Church. They are now the parents of our four grandchildren.

I couldn’t follow them into Catholicism, but I don’t feel that a gulf has opened up between us. On the contrary, Wendy and I rejoice in the depth of Mary and John’s faith and the everyday practices in which they are raising their children. The truths that we repeatedly affirm together—in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—put the differences between us in perspective.

In Glimpses of Another Land: Political Hope, Spiritual Longing, Eric Miller includes an essay entitled “Elusive Unity,” written just after the death of Carl F. H. Henry. The essay uses Henry’s life and work to consider the vicissitudes of modern American evangelicalism and the hope for Christian unity—“a unity always beyond our reach,” Miller writes, “yet necessary all the same.” Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evangelicalism, Ecumenical Diversity, and the Unity of the Church

/13 Comments/in /by

Before addressing the relationship between evangelicalism and the broader Christian tradition, let me offer a bit of background regarding my own relationship to the evangelical tradition. Throughout the course of my post-secondary educational career including undergraduate, seminary, and doctoral studies, as well as eighteen years as a faculty member of an evangelical seminary, I have been nurtured and formed by evangelical communities and convictions. While I continue to identify with and participate in the life of the mainline Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) in which I was baptized, raised, and confirmed, evangelical instincts and intuitions have deeply influenced my sense of what it means to be a Christian to the point that even where I have come to dissent from some of the hegemonic aspects of the North American evangelical tradition, I do so for reasons that seem to me to be very evangelical.

In terms of the basic content of these evangelical commitments I would include the following elements: a focus on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life and the one in whom God reconciles the world; the centrality of Scripture in the economy of God as the principle (but not exclusive) means by which the Spirit guides and directs the life of the Christian community; a commitment to the importance of intentional discipleship in the way of Jesus; and living a life of active participation in the mission of God in the world. I view these evangelical commitments from a missional and postmodern perspective within the Reformed theological tradition, shaped most especially by the theology of Karl Barth, the missiology of Lesslie Newbigin, and the philosophy of Merold Westphal.

From this perspective I have always had the sense that evangelicalism is more like a particular movement within the larger history of the Church and the churches, rather than something more central. I have never understood the evangelical tradition as something distinct from other traditions but rather as a general movement within various traditions. So we see Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anabaptists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. who also identify as evangelical. Of course, there are those who identify primarily as evangelicals but even in these cases such persons generally draw on the wider Christian tradition in expressing convictions on various theological matters. While one might speak of a particularly Reformed way of understanding the providence of God or soteriology, such a distinctive counterpart does not exist in evangelicalism. Evangelicals have no set of traditions or confessions that serve to frame these issues in distinctive ways. One can be an evangelical Calvinist just as easily as an evangelical Wesleyan.

This highlights an element of evangelicalism that is often overlooked and/or disregarded: its inherently ecumenical character. The North American evangelical tradition includes participants from the full spectrum of Protestantism representing many different theologies, hermeneutical trajectories, and ecclesial practices. Further, while the media often depict evangelicalism as a fairly monolithic right-wing movement, it is in fact characterized by considerable ideological diversity. In light of this, no particular group is in a position to define evangelicalism theologically, ideologically, or politically. It is a movement that crosses theological, denominational, confessional, and ideological boundaries. In so doing, it manifests a diversity that has been an inherent part of the North American evangelical movement since its beginnings.

However, while the evangelical movement has been characterized by a rich ecumenical diversity, this does not mean that evangelicals are comfortable with this plurality. For the most part they are not. Instead, they tend to be committed to establishing the one true faith over against other versions. They pursue the one true way to be a Christian, the one right way to read the Bible, the one true system of doctrine, the one right set of practices. In their collective search, different groups have come up with alternative and competing conclusions. This has spawned a seemingly endless series of contentious and ill-tempered debates concerning theology, hermeneutics, ethics, and church practices. These conflicts have produced a divisive and contentious spirit among many evangelicals that has significantly compromised our witness to the gospel. This divisiveness is often justified as a necessary consequence of articulating and defending Christian truth.

Ironically, this approach to truth runs contrary to the witness of the New Testament and its emphasis on the unity of Christ’s followers. In John 17 a close connection is made between the truth and the unity of the church. The church is entrusted by Jesus with the continuance of the divine mission as those sent by Jesus into the world to proclaim the reality that Jesus had been sent by the Father for the purpose of reconciling the world to God. The unity for which Jesus prays is to be a prime indicator of this truth. This unity can be seen by the world and is a visible testimony to the reconciling love of God in Jesus Christ and is a central aspect of its missional vocation to be the people of God, the Body of Christ, in the world. In light of this, evangelicals would do well to heed the admonition in Titus 3:9-11 (NIV): “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.”

Evangelicals should repent of divisive beliefs and behaviors and embrace the diversity of both the evangelical community as well as the broader Christian church as the blessing and intention of God. From a Reformed perspective, the notion of divine sovereignty leads to the conclusion that the diversity in the Christian tradition is by divine design and that therefore this must be a good thing. The diversity of biblical, theological, and confessional perspectives in evangelicalism and the broader Christian tradition are a necessary and appropriate manifestation of the church. This is because no single linguistic context or interpretive community is able to bear fully adequate witness to the truth of the living God. In this way of looking at things, the traditions of the Christian tradition (of which evangelicalism is but one) are bound together by their commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. All bear their distinctive gifts and treasures for the instruction and edification of the whole church in the shared task of teaching and bearing witness to the one faith.

As evangelicals we should continue to bear our distinctive and diverse witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But we must also realize that we are only a part of a larger body whose head is Jesus Christ. We are dependent on this broader community for our health and strength in the work we are called to do. We cannot bear our witness alone. We were never intended to do so. We need each other. It cannot be otherwise. We are called to bear the image of the triune God.

 

Alternative Approaches to Defining Evangelicals

/0 Comments/in /by

In order to engage in this conversation, it is necessary that discussants be clear about whom or to what they are referring when they employ the words “evangelicalism” and “evangelicals.”  Of course, the starting premise of this conversation is that evangelicalism as a religious expression has been, and continues to be, evident within American history and that evangelicals do exist.  Still, there are those who may choose to dispute even this basic contention.  For example, one scholar (Hart 2004, 16-17) has gone so far as to contend that any attempt to study evangelical Christians is simply doomed to failure in that the religious category “evangelicals” is basically a figment of one’s imagination—being “a constructed ideal without any real substance” that “needs to be relinquished as a religious identity because it does not exist.”   This conversation, of course, takes the presence of evangelicalism and evangelicals within American society as empirical realities and not some “constructed ideal without…substance.”

Nevertheless, both journalists and scholars have frequently employed, either knowingly or unwittingly, different conceptual understandings, varying definitional approaches, and divergent measurement strategies when trying to analyze the subject matter. Because it is not self-evident just to what one is referring when the terms “evangelical” or “evangelicalism” are used, it is easy for those engaging in conversations related to these topics to employ the same label to capture different phenomena.  These issues are no small matter, as one’s particular definition and conceptual understanding shape the findings and conclusions one draws.

As discussed in more detail within my most recent book, American Evangelicals Today, there are at least three distinct, yet interrelated, issues that confront the analyst when seeking to define just who should be classified as evangelicals (Smidt 2013, Chapter 2). The first relates to whether religion (and thereby evangelicalism) constitutes primarily a cognitive or a social phenomenon. Clearly, beliefs and behavior are interrelated, but they are analytically distinct.  On the one hand, beliefs are central to any understanding of religion and religious life. On the other hand, religion is frequently viewed by other scholars as reflecting a social phenomenon, with members exhibiting certain patterns of social interaction and membership within distinctive social networks. To emphasize religious beliefs as the source of unity among evangelicals is to suggest a some kind of cognitive uniformity characterizes evangelicals, whereas for social groups, it is not the uniformity of holding certain beliefs that define the group, but rather patterns of affiliation and interaction that, in turn, are associated with a greater tendency (but not uniformity) to think or act in particular ways.  

The second issue, somewhat intertwined with the first, relates to whether evangelicals constitute simply some categorical designation of individuals whose “unity” as a collectivity is a function of the stipulated criteria employed by the analyst—or whether evangelicals should be viewed instead as a social group that exhibits a certain level of social cohesion. For example, Bebbington (1989) is frequently cited for his definition of evangelicals in which he stipulates four major qualities that define evangelicals: biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism.  However, such a listing (1) suggests that all evangelicals hold these four qualities, (2) leaves unanswered whether those who may subscribe to most, but not all, of the four specified beliefs are nevertheless considered to be evangelicals, and (3) implies that evangelicals represent little more than a categorical group unified simply by the stipulated criteria employed.

Others, for example, have defined evangelicals in terms of their stance on the authority of scripture—suggesting that all evangelicals subscribe to the notion of biblical inerrancy, thereby excluding those who subscribe to the older, and broader, notion of biblical infallibility.  The point here is simply that, by demanding uniformity in religious beliefs for any definition of who evangelicals are, one suggest that evangelicals constitute simply a categorical, and not a social, group.    

Social groups are different from categorical groups in that social groups are linked together in a web-like fashion by interconnecting patterns of social interaction resulting in a certain level of social cohesion, despite the fact that all members of a social group do not hold identical beliefs. Categorical and social groups are different in nature—with the former exhibiting a certain level of unity based on the criteria proscribed by some analyst, while the other exhibits a certain level of social cohesion based, in part, on social relationships among members of the group.  Again, the analyst is forced to decide on the nature of the unity that defines those who fall within the umbrella of the label “evangelical”—whether is something more arbitrarily stipulated by the analyst or something more organic in nature. 

Let’s assume for the time being that evangelicals comprise something more than a categorical group and represent a social group of some type. Of course, holding that evangelicals constitute a social group does not specify the particular kind of social group it comprises. Thus, the third issue relates to whether evangelicals are better conceptualized to be individuals tied to a particular religious movement or individuals affiliated with a particular religious tradition.    

Should evangelicals be viewed basically as “members” of a particular religious movement? Social movements seek change, and religious movements seek change within religious life and institutions. Some religious movements operate within a particular religious tradition (e.g., the movement to return to the Latin mass within the Catholic Church), while other movements often cross denominational boundaries and occasionally even transcend religious traditions (e.g., the charismatic movement is found within both Protestantism and Catholicism). In seeking religious change, organizations may be created within the movement to accomplish certain ends, and over time, facets of the religious movement and its associated organizations may become institutionalized and perhaps even transformed into a religious tradition itself. After all, Protestantism today may be considered a religious tradition, though initially it represented simply an effort by various reformers who sought religious change within the Catholic Church. 

Some analysts view evangelicalism as a religious movement that transcends most, if not all, Protestant denominations and which possesses certain tendencies that may even find expression within the Catholic Church as well.  It is fairly commonplace to see evangelicals as being tied to a religious movement—this is particularly true among religious historians and theologians.

On the other hand, many social scientists treat evangelical Protestants as a religious tradition by virtue of being affiliated with a distinct set of religious denominations and congregations that are interrelated in some historical and organizational fashion and whose “members” exhibit relatively similar beliefs and behaviors (e.g. Steensland et al, 2000). Religious traditions have somewhat different tendencies than religious movements: movements seek change, while traditions try to protect and retain the established core principles and values that are historically part of the tradition. Typically, those who adopt the religious tradition approach view evangelical Protestantism as one of the major religious traditions present within American religious life today.

In the end, however, evangelicals can be viewed socially as those linked to a particular religious movement or as those who are affiliated with a particular religious tradition. However, while these two approaches are intertwined, each conceptualization emphasizes different tendencies and captures different segments of American society. If viewed in terms of those associated with a religious tradition, then evangelicals are found in certain denominations but not in others, whereas if viewed as those associated with a religious movement, then evangelicals are present within most, if not all, Protestant denominations and perhaps even within the Catholic Church itself.

While any of these three analytical approaches may be adopted in defining what evangelicalism is and who evangelicals (i.e., members of some categorical group, “members” of a religious movement, or “members” of a religious tradition), the analyst who seeks to be consistent in his or her analysis and discussion is forced to adopt one approach as opposed to the other two.

 

References

Bebbington, David W.  1989.  Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from 1730s to the 1980s. London: Unwin Hyman.

Hart, D.G. 2004. Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham. Grand Rapids. Mich.: Baker Book House.

Smidt, Corwin E. 2013. American Evangelicals Today.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefiled.

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Park, Mark Regnerus, W. Bradley Wilcox, and Robert Woodberry. 2000 “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of Art.” Social Forces 79: 291-318.

Hoping for the Best

/3 Comments/in /by

“Evangelical”, like the word “postmodern”, can mean both everything and nothing.  Depending upon the company one keeps, “Evangelical” can be code for something as simple as “Bible believing Christian” or as specific and pejorative as “anti-intellectual Republican fundamentalist” or a number of other labels.  The multiplicity of associations provides many with sufficient reason for choosing a label less susceptible to misunderstanding and unhelpful baggage. 

            Not me. While as a theology professor I would not call myself a typical anything, I am unapologetic about owning the label “Evangelical.” It is a label I can own because it does not have to bear the weight of the full history of Christianity.  Evangelicalism is a mostly Protestant expression of Christianity that has continuity with aspects of pre-Reformation Christianity but is clearly different in terms of areas of emphasis and cultural expression.  At its best, Evangelical Christianity in the United States has aimed to give great prominence to the authority of the Bible, deep personal experience of conversion to Jesus and a commitment to sharing the gospel with others.  Part of the strength of evangelicalism is the fact that it is a conservative Christian ecumenical movement that brings together a wide range of denominations while respecting (sometimes) differences in doctrinal emphasis and ecclesial practice.  Of course, this breadth has led some to regard evangelicals as people who are so broad that any significant depth of faith is sacrificed on the altar of this conservative ecumenism, but I am not convinced that this hazard is an insurmountable weakness.  

            I readily admit that one dimension of evangelical weakness stems from one of its strengths: fidelity to the Bible. Often the Reformation slogan sola Scriptura is morphed into a view that places the Bible in an exclusive domain set apart from any notion of the larger Christian tradition (for many, this may be due to equating “tradition” with “Roman Catholic”).  The Reformers did not dismiss tradition but wanted it to be subject to revision in light of the primacy of Scripture; many contemporary evangelicals essentially eliminate what they regard as tradition and strive to cross two millennia of history in their own personal encounters with the Bible in personal study and public reception of Bible proclamation.  But is this genuine weakness actually an essential part of what “Evangelical” means at its best?  Though I can understand why some might argue in the affirmative, I am not convinced this is the case.  Deep commitment to the Bible does not mandate a rejection of tradition (and it does not take that much effort to make people aware that they stand in the stream of some tradition, even if it is a tradition that minimizes the broader Christian tradition).  That said, it is true that what we could call an allergic response to tradition is reason to encourage, catalyze and facilitate a disposition of generosity toward the broader Christian tradition, especially when such generosity can help the evangelical populace recognize that there is much that could be learned from an encounter with some of the pre-Reformation Christian tradition, from the early church forward.  This encounter can be guided by fellow evangelicals already conversant with the traditions outside evangelicalism, or perhaps even better by engagements with generous Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians (ideally those less interested in drawing Protestants to their side).  A generous evangelicalism can encourage tours of our vast Christian heritage with the result that we understand our own particular tradition better along with gaining an appreciation for some of the unique emphases outside the confines of the evangelical world. 

            As an African-American evangelical, I want to dedicate the remainder of this post to the question: “Is the persistence of evangelicalism into the future a critical element of God’s work in the world?”  I know African-Americans who fit the label “evangelical” in some way or other who would not hesitate to answer “no”, but as I stated above, I am not one who is joining the chorus of those singing a version of Bob Marley’s “Exodus” tailored specifically for a march out of evangelicalism. There are very good reasons that many African-Americans feel compelled to move on to other shores, often because of the failure of White evangelicals to give sustained attention and effort to the deepest dimensions of the lingering problems related to race, particularly at the level of institutions.  Some time ago, I had a conversation with someone who strongly expressed the view that evangelical theology was simply not equipped to do what is necessary to address the deepest issues and concerns of minorities in general (and African-Americans in particular).  What this person suggested (and others as well) is that the social and cultural fabric of the evangelical world is not able to be changed in a way that would truly facilitate the emergence of an ethos that incorporates and promotes the lingering concerns that show up in books, articles, blog posts and other forms of social media.

            So why am I holding on to the label and more optimistic about a contribution from evangelicalism when so many have been frustrated and exasperated by their experience with institutions and individuals in the evangelical world?  It actually comes back to the same emphasis that caused the problem with tradition above: the evangelical commitment to the Bible.  If evangelicals are “people of the book” and have a posture of reception to God’s word in Scripture, then the possibility is always present that such openness to Scripture can lead to a revival (or perhaps even revolution) where those who lead, construct and steward evangelical institutions begin to usher in a transformation where African-Americans and other minorities see that there is no cost for being “evangelical” but only benefits of deeper and more robust faith pursued alongside those in the majority culture.  As I see it, if evangelicals are people of the book who are willing to listen to Scripture and be open to God’s leading by the Holy Spirit, then more changes could happen than many currently anticipate.  I realize this is a view based on a potential future, yet it is a potential future that always remains a possibility for evangelicalism at its best.  At their best, evangelicals are people willing to be subject to all that Scripture commands, which would include ways of obeying the second greatest commandment that lead to repentance and renewal in ways that would pleasantly surprise those who have decided to move on.  It is this hope for what is possible that compels me to see evangelicalism as an important tradition in the future of God’s mission in the world.  Just imagine what it might look like if the evangelical tradition lives up to its commitment to Scripture: such a state of affairs would probably stun us all.  We are not there yet, but I believe big changes can still happen in future.  So I’ll hold on to the label.

Evangelicalism – and the Renewal of Christianity

/3 Comments/in /by

            The question of What is evangelicalism? rages on. For me, David Bebbington’s by now classic “quadrilateral” definition – in which the defining features of Evangelicalism include its biblicism, crucicentrism, activism, and conversionism – remains an adequate starting point. However, so many other variables come into play, which lead to disputes, even among those who can agree on these four elements, about what else is requisite to an evangelical identity. I want to suggest what might be called a pentecostal or renewalist spin on these Bebbingtonian characteristics. (I use “pentecostal,” “charismatic,” and “renewalist” synonymously in what follows and in the rest of this blog series.) Such a twist, as will be clear, does not negate these central markers but is indicative of their evolving character.

            First, within a pentecostal key, the Bible certainly remains the word of God. Yet pentecostal biblicism can also be distinguished from evangelical biblicism in its apostolic, restorationist, and primitivist orientation. What this means is that the apostolic teaching includes not only the clearly didactic portions of scripture but each and every scriptural genre. More precisely, what is normative for present day Christian life includes narrative portions of scripture that tell of the drama of redemption. “What happened then” hence becomes a template of possibilities for “what can happen today.” Such a restorationist and primitivist hermeneutical sensibility thus is open to following in the footsteps not just of the apostles (although they retain a position of primacy) but of all biblical characters. I will return to clarify what is at stake in a later blog on the modern study of scripture.

            Second, the substitutionary atonement of Christ’s death remains central to renewal Christianity. However, renewalists do not stop with Golgotha. Rather, if in fact Christ suffered in our stead, then we do not have to. Further, if in fact our present lives are touched by suffering then these are only momentary; it might be Friday, but Sunday’s coming! This means, then, that the cruciform work of Christ cannot be understood apart from the resurrecting power of the Spirit, and that the achievements of the person of Christ are intertwined with those of the Holy Spirit. The crucified Christ was risen by the Spirit and exalted to the right hand of the Father from whence he has proceeded to pour out of the Spirit upon all flesh (Acts 2:33 and 2:17). Incarnation and Pentecost are thereby equally important for pentecostal spirituality.

            Third, evangelical activism and pentecostal mission are arguably two sides of the same coin. Classical pentecostal missions initiated in part through the Azusa Street revival from 1906-1908 has opened up into an avalanche of missionary energy and activity so that if the nineteenth was dubbed the “evangelical century,” the twentieth has now been understood as the “pentecostal century.” Pentecostal missionary praxis may accentuate the workings of the charismata, in particular healing and miracles, underplayed by evangelical missiology. As important is the role of testimony, the ability and expectation of each person who has been touched by the Spirit to bear witness to the wondrous works of God (Acts 2:11) in their lives so that others can be edified and expect similarly. If the Protestant Reformation urged the “priesthood of all believers,” the pentecostal revival has democratized their activism through the empowered speech of the Spirit so that the people of God are now constituted as a “Prophethood of believers.”

            Last but not least, evangelical conversionism understood along a pentecostal register means not only the once-for-all turning away from sin but also the ongoing renewal and transformation in the path of Christ-following and Christian discipleship. This is because the work of the Holy Spirit is dynamic, not just at a point in time. Christian conversion in this sense is a life-long journey so that believers “expect a miracle” daily. Some might think of this primarily in terms of personal enrichment but the more sober and mature understand that salvation is a path and that it “is nearer to us now than when we became believers” (Rom. 13:11b, NRSV). In that sense, then, there is an eschatological dimension to salvation to which believers are carried by the purifying and empowering work of the Spirit: “all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure” (1 John 3:3).

            I would suggest that the Evangelicalism of the twenty-first century will be increasingly pentecostalized and charismatized. This will reconfigure, not eliminate, the biblicism, crucicentrism, activism, and conversionism that has long featured in evangelical life. The embodied and affective pietism of renewal spirituality will become more predominant as the center of evangelical gravity continues to shift from the Euro- and Anglo-American West to the global South. The growth and expansion of Asian, African, and Latin American forms of evangelical faith will go hand-in-hand with the pentecostalization and charismatization of Christianity as a whole.

            There will also be trends in the other direction – one might say an evangelicalization of Pentecostalism and of charismatic renewal movements. This is already being seen especially among classical pentecostal churches which are emerging as denominations. Such institutionalizing processes inevitably involve a certain degree of social (not to mention ecclesial) upward mobility and these bring with them a tempering of the charismata and of charismatic sensitivities and priorities. However, the genius of renewal is that whenever things begin to stagnate, and new movements emerge to counter anti-charismatic trends. I would insist that not all evangelicalizing processes are to be understood in negative terms. Oftentimes, pentecostal tendencies involve excesses and the evangelical witness in these cases serve as important correctives.

            My point is to highlight the mutuality at work in the pentecostalization of Evangelicalism and the evangelization of Pentecostalism. This two-way exchange suggests to me that while distinctive in some respects, both are central to the Christian life. Neither is subservient to the other, although each left on its own can tend in unhealthy directions. Therefore, each needs the other in order that their gifts can be mutually complementary for a vigorous and revitalized Christianity for the twenty-first century. In that sense, an Evangelicalism without renewal ceases to be evangelical (i.e., a carrier of the good news) even as a robust evangelical identity always presumes pentecostal and charismatic renewal not as incidental but as essential to the Christian life.

 

Evangelical Identity and the Broader Christian Tradition

/16 Comments/in /by

Defining “Evangelicalism” in America is like trying to hit a moving target, particularly in recent years. It is very difficult nowadays to capture the essence of what Evangelicalism means, and my sense is that we often work off of impressions based on our own experiences. The results can often be reductionistic and unsatisfying.

I do not wish to contribute to the confusion, but I’d like to offer at least an observation with respect to Evangelicalism’s origin (limiting myself to American Evangelicalism) as an entryway to this month’s topic. Evangelicalism is a 20th century cultural/theological phenomenon that arose out of the modernist/fundamentalist controversies as a third way between the extremes of those controversies. Evangelicalism sought to be intellectually engaged though still holding to certain fundamentals of the faith, such as biblical inerrancy and the exclusivity of Christianity as understood within classical Protestant categories.

I think this is a sufficient, though admittedly incomplete, observation of Evangelicalism’s raison d’etre. In recent years, however, Evangelicalism has been going through a bit of an identity crisis. After marking off its territory early on, with membership being wholly voluntary, we have seen an increased willingness from within the ranks to engage deeply beyond Evangelicalism’s borders and re-engage issues thought long settled and indisputable.

Undoubtedly there are numerous complex and interconnected factors that help explain this shift in mood. One factor that I feel is important to note is the rapid access to information and the creation of global virtual “communities” afforded by the Internet. The result is that Evangelicalism has become acutely conscious of itself as a participant in a diverse global Christianity. 

Be that as it may, in my experience, more and more Evangelicals—perhaps especially younger ones—are restless. They are actively looking for ways to respect the cultural movement that gave them spiritual birth while also looking for alternate language and categories better suited to explain their world and their place in it. Still others have given up on the Evangelical experiment altogether as a hopelessly encultured relic of their parents’ faith. It is not uncommon to hear reports of the significantly dwindling numbers that cause genuine concern for Evangelicalism’s future viability, let alone retaining its status as a mover and shaker.

Speaking for myself, these changes—among others—tell me that Evangelicalism, as it has been understood traditionally, cannot be thought of as a permanent fixture in Christianity history, let alone Christianity come into its own. I see it, rather, as a relatively recent, culturally conditioned, expression of Christianity. This fact alone does not make it right or wrong, but this simple observation serves to highlight Evangelicalism’s relative place in the world and in history.

I do not think, therefore, that the Evangelical tradition as such should be the standard against which other traditions should be judged, as if it has retained the essence of pure Christianity over against other traditions. It is one movement within a long and varied history of the Christian faith—not to mention the tremendous diversity we see at any one time across the world, the country, and even in one city block. This is not so much a comment on Evangelical theology, but an acknowledgement that Evangelicalism is simply one attempt to express faithfulness to God within a particular American historical context.

I think, therefore, that priorities are misplaced when one frets over the future survival of Evangelicalism, as if at risk is the continuance of the gospel itself. I realize that few would actually equate the two when pressed, but in my experience their close alliance seems for some to be functionally an operating assumption.

Our shrinking cyber-world has already contributed to Evangelical mass reflection on the wisdom and vitality that other Christian traditions have to offer. Stories of Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Anglicanism, though not unique in recent years, seem to have become more common. Although each story is unique, there is a fundamental lesson to be learned here.

These sorts of spiritual journeys are not the by-product of sloppy thinking, trendiness, or a lack of courage to hold fast to the faith—though one hears these accusations too frequently. They reflect, rather, the fact that many have grown dissatisfied with Evangelicalism’s effectiveness to provide a coherent spiritual path. Carefully defined boarders of traditional Evangelicalism have already begun to be less clearly defined, not by outside forces pressing in but from inside forces pushing out. Many Evangelicals are already looking for help to provide things that their familiar system cannot. 

Now, such pilgrimages may be true of other traditions, too, but this would illustrate the very point I am aiming at—the isolation of traditions, whether we like it or not, is no longer viable. The question is not whether one ought to seek gospel-wisdom outside of Evangelicalism, but whether that process will happen intentionally or on the sly.

I am no prophet, but perhaps we are staring at a different expression of the Christian faith, one that is more global and less intellectually territorial than in the past. If I am correct here, the particular challenge of Evangelicalism is that its very existence is rooted not in inter-denominational (let alone inter-faith) dialogue and theological exploration, but in the defense of dogmatic concerns that has marked off—and continues to mark off for many—Evangelicalism from others. It was born to correct other traditions, not embark on a journey of theological discovery.

This raises the all-important question of whether Evangelicalism as it has been understood can genuinely enter into a broader dialogue and accept its role as one voice among many while also retaining its traditional Evangelical identity. In other words, is it within Evangelicalism’s constitution to assess its own identity in what seems like such a dramatic fashion? A choice I hear often and resonate with is whether Evangelicalism is to be reformed, or whether it has had its day, but now new times call for new measure. Either way, the status quo is in trouble.

What complicates the issue for the “reformers” is the very practical matter how those conversations would be able to take place. The Evangelical tradition has deep roots, and has provided a framework of faith and life that finds its intellectual support in clearly defined parameters, particularly concerning biblical interpretation. Evangelical ecclesiastical and academic structures have a vested interest in maintaining a traditional Evangelical model, and so do not easily tolerate calls for critical self-assessment and theological adjustment.

All this being said, my purpose here is not to denigrate Evangelicalism or predict its future. I do think, however, that the tensions within Evangelicalism today will generate further reflection from within about what Evangelicalism was, is, and what it’s future might be vis-à-vis the broader Christian tradition. I think that conversation, to be successful, would need to happen more deliberately than it has.

Topic #1: Evangelicalism and the Broader Christian Tradition

/9 Comments/in /by

Launch Date for the Conversation: May 1, 2013


Most definitions of American Evangelicalism highlight biblical authority, personal conversion, and an actively lived-out faith with a focus on evangelism. Some students of evangelicalism highlight its historical rise within the revivalist movements in 18th century America. It is often distinguished from Roman Catholicism and both Protestant liberalism and fundamentalism. Finally, it is also sometimes identified through association with particular Christian institutions and leaders understood to be evangelical. In light of these various views, some “leading questions” are:

  1. What are the pillars of evangelicalism? Are these changing?
  2. Is it important for groups and individuals to decide whether they are or are not evangelical?
  3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of evangelical forms of Christianity and non-evangelical forms of Christianity? Do these differing forms of expression need one another?
  4. What can evangelicals learn from the broader Christian tradition and vice-versa?
  5. Should full Christian fellowship be shared between evangelicals and non-evangelicals?
  6. Is evangelicalism best understood as a particular movement within the larger history of the church or as something more central?
  7. Is the persistence of evangelicalism into the future a critical element of God’s work in the world?