Recently I heard that author Anne Rice is “quitting Christianity.” According to reports I have heard and read, she believes the term “Christian” is too fraught with connotations of extreme right-wing politics. She prefers simply to be called a “Jesus-follower.”
I don’t have that problem with the label “Christian.” I don’t give up on good labels easily; I prefer to try to invest them with positive meaning rather than simply discard them because of misconceptions in the popular mind.
Many of my friends, students and acquaintances have already given up on “evangelical.” I can somewhat better understand that. What they have trouble understanding is why I don’t give up on it with them. They say it is simply too late to rescue the label from the popular associations with the Religious Right.
I can’t do it. I’ve been an evangelical all my life and I can’t think of any better label to describe my particular “brand” of Christianity. I do grieve, however, over the many misconceptions of it spread by the media. Occasionally I see a “spokesman” for evangelicals on a talk show like Larry King. Often the person does not speak for me at all.
Just to illustrate the problem: Some years ago I was listening to a broadcast on National Public Radio about two demonstrations taking place simultaneously in Washington, D.C. One was led by Jerry Falwell and the other by Jim Wallis of Sojourners. The reporter asked Falwell for a comment about Jim Wallis. Here’s what I recall Falwell saying (and I’m confident I remember it well because I felt he would say the same about me!): “Jim Wallis is to evangelicalism what Hitler was to Roman Catholicism.”
When I was growing up in the thick of the evangelical movement and even when I was in seminary in the 1970s Jerry Falwell was widely considered by most evangelicals a fundamentalist. At that time there was a huge rift between us who the fundamentalists called “neo-evangelicals” and them. Mainstream evangelicals did not consider Falwell or his like part of “us” even though, theologically (in terms of basic beliefs) we shared much common ground.
The issues, so I was taught in a mainstream evangelical seminary (point of trivia: James Montgomery Boice was one of my professors), were extreme biblical literalism (e.g., young earth creationism), extreme preoccuption with the “rapture” (to the point of believing those who did not agree were not evangelicals and possibly not even Christians!), and “biblical separation” (opposing even Billy Graham because he allowed Catholics and mainline Protestants to cooperate with his crusades). Associated with all that was a split between fundamentalists and mainstream evangelicals (who they called neo-evangelicals) over the status of doctrines. We thought they elevated secondary matters of belief such as premillennialism to the status of dogmas and they thought we were weak on doctrine because we didn’t insist that one be a premillennialist to be authentically evangelical.
The general attitude of most post-fundamentalist evangelicals throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and much of the 1980s was “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” (a motto touted by the National Association of Evangelicals).
Then something changed. I experienced it first hand. While I was in seminary Harold Lindsell’s horrible book The Battle for the Bible fell like a bombshell on American evangelicalism. The editor of Christianity Today declared quite unequivocally that a person could not be authentically evangelical while rejecting biblical inerrancy (as he defined it). He named names and implied that evangelical institutions should purge themselves of non-inerrantists.
My seminary never had a doctrinal statement that included inerracy. Neither did or does the National Association of Evangelicals. We were satisfied with “inspiration” and “authority.” But Lindsell scared the grassroots of evangelicals and opened the door to an influx of fundamentalists who now wanted to be called “evangelical.” (Sometime during the 1980s Jerry Falwell, among other self-proclaimed fundamentalists, began to call himself an evangelical and somehow managed to get the media to regard his as a leading spokesman for evangelicals.)
Gradually a heresy-hunting mentality grew within evangelical ranks. My seminary, under pressure from pastors, required all faculty to sign an inerrancy statement or leave. I saw professors who had openly criticized belief in biblical inerrancy meekly sign the statement. One courageous one did not and left.
Over the years since 1976 (the year The Battle for the Bible was published) I have seen my evangelical world rocked by controversy after controversy–often over relatively minor points of doctrine. Of course, the issue became “What is a relatively minor point of doctrine?” Gradually what would have been considered minor differences of opinion have become issues of division. Professors at evangelical schools have been fired for having opinions that would have caused raised eyebrows but not expulsion before 1976.
A rigid, dogmatic, intolerant attitude toward diversity of opinion and interpretation has set into many sectors of the evangelical movement. It is an attitude reminiscent of old-style fundamentalism. I have seen my evangelicalism gradually taken over by people who would have been considered fundamenatalists when I was in seminary.
This change came to a crisis for me when I was teaching at a well-known evangelical liberal arts college and seminary in the 1980s and 1990s. Certain constituents began to pressure the school to teach against women in ministry (a point about which that particular school and denomination had never taken a position) and against open theism (an admittedly unusual view of God’s foreknowledge but not ruled out by the statement of faith).
The turning point for me was a heresy trial (called by the administration a “Day of Theological Clarification”) over one of my colleagues who was open about his open theism. What especially troubled me was that all of the crucial theological arguments being used by constituent pastors against open theism would, if valid, work just as much against classical Arminianism. Nobody seemed to be noticing that except me. One pastor leading the charge against my colleague told me he would get me fired for not standing with him against my colleague.
It’s one thing to have a civil debate about a theological issue; I’m not against that. But, in my opinion, there was nothing civil about this crusade to purge the institution (and then all evangelicalism) of open theists. Many of those raising their voices against my colleague and against open theism knew little about it. And in some cases the tactics were ethically questionable.
(One pastor asked me to have lunch with him “just to find out what made me tick.” He assured me that it was not an inquisition. But the whole conversation revolved around open theism. At the end of our two hour conversation he said “Roger, what may I tell the pastors who know we had lunch today about your position on open theism.” It was clearly what is colloquially called an attempted “sucker punch.” This same pastor went around calling open theism “Socinianism” as if open theists denied the deity of Christ or the Trinity!)
These were attitudes and approaches to theological issues that resonated more with fundamentalism than with classical, mainstream evangelicalism. I saw my days numbered in that beloved school, not because I was an open theists (I was not and am not) but because I didn’t consider it a heresy and I didn’t “side with” the right people.
This was not just an isolated incident. Across the board among evangelicals a spirit of fear settled in: fear of heresy lurking behind every bush OR fear of heresy hunters who were out in the open seeking heresies where nobody had yet found them.
Most of those leading the charge against open theism were Calvinists and I detected in their rhetoric a decidedly anti-Arminian thrust. As one leading Calvinist opponent of open theism said publicly about Arminians “They are all headed there.” I came to believe it would soon no longer be safe to be publicly Arminian in that environment. (That school and the denomination that controls it has a history of allowing both Calvinists and Arminians without discrimination in its ranks.)
My heart has grieved over what has happened to the evangelical movement. On the one side one finds popularizers peddling a “gospel” of health and wealth through positive thinking. On the other side one finds fundamentalists trying to exclude as non-evangelical everyone who doesn’t think just like them. The middle (which I think of as the historical evangelical position of tolerance of differences of opinion within a general embrace of historic Christian orthodoxy) is hard to inhabit. People there get shot at from both sides.
It seems to me that PERHAPS what held the post-WW2, post-fundamentalist evangelical movement together were two powerful forces: the NAE (founded in 1942 to be inclusive of many different “styles” of being evangelical) and the huge organizational influence of Billy Graham (who was disliked by fundamentalists for his inclusiveness). Now, both are waning in influence. How many contemporary evangelicals listen to the NAE? Many know little about Billy Graham and his influence is minimal (although he is still considered an icon).
In the absence of any central, unifying force(s) evangelicalism is simply fragmenting. So, these days, when asked if I’m an evangelical my answer takes a long time. Most people aren’t willing to listen that long. My answer is “Yes, but….” When asked about my evangelical heroes I have to draw mainly on people of the past: in theology Bernard Ramm, in politics Mark Hatfield, in biblical studies George Eldon Ladd. It’s not that I haven’t kept up; I certainly try to. But where are the giants of evangelical life and thought like those men who, during their lifetimes, influenced two or three generations of evangelicals?
So, I can longer call myself simply “evangelical,” but neither can I give up on the term. So I have to say I’m a “postconservative evangelical” and beg people to listen for just a little while as I explain. I’ve published two entire books and many articles about what I mean. Later, here, I will post more about “postconservative evangelicalism.”
I remember when I read Marsden’s “Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism”. I was shocked when he referred to Fundamentalism as a kind of Evangelical, and even refers to Graham as a Fundamentalist. To me, Fundamentalism, though certainly evangelical in doctrine, has never seemed to me to be evangelical in spirit. To that, I understand that they are a branch of evangelicalism now, but I do see them as something other than myself, and I have always opposed Fundamentalism. It is equally frustrating to me that Fundamentalist beliefs now define “Evangelicalism” in many people’s minds.
Roger,
Thank you for reminding me of that motto, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” I remember when I heard that as a college student in the mid 1970′s, I was so heartened by its wisdom. I am one of those who no longer resides in the evangelical camp. I saw my own SBC taken over by zealots who new nothing of my father’s “soul freedom” Baptist life, nor of the liberty and charity espoused by the NAE. I moved to a liturgical expression of Christianity which I love, and I am sure would be seen as a hopeless liberal by my past associates. The sad thing is that I gave up any hope for professional ministry, but the wonderful thing is that no one can fire me because of what I believe!
“Evangelical,” I’m afraid, has gone the way of “born again”: just as it happened with latter term, now all sorts of people who have seldom darkened the doorway of a real Evangelical church, much less confess and live according to historic Evangelical doctrines and emphases, consider themselves to be “Evangelicals.” But I must agree with you that this is hardly a reason to give up the term, any less than the abuse of “born again” is a reason to abandon this biblical expression. As as they say, abusus non tollit usum.
What is irrecoverably lost, however, is the Evangelical movement as such. Not that it was much of a movement, anyway: the NAE failed to be anything more than a nice social club complete with dues and an unwritten code of who was “in” or “out,” and the maverick nature of the parachurch doesn’t exactly go hand in hand with larger organizational goals. ETS was perhaps a more successful, but it killed part of its soul when it forced Bob Gundry to resign, and will finish off the rest when it adopts what effectively amounts to an ecclesiastical confession of faith (and I’m certain that it will). In view of these developments, Evangelical churches and institutions are rethinking their alliances, some following their innate tendenz towards fundamentalistic separatism, and others engaging Christian (though not necessarily historically Evangelical) bodies and organizations at large. And this is as it should be, since, as you point out here, Evangelicalism has never been one, and any attempts to organize and homogenize it are doomed to fail.
clap clap clap….
I have experienced what it is like to be interrograted by fundies… grace is grace is grace.
St Peter was showing a new arrival around and as they were strolling through the big paddocks, the green fields, enjoying the sun and fellowship as many more greeted them…they came accross this big brick building in the middle of all this scenery… that went miles into the air. The new arrival said whats that…. Peter replied…shooosh..don’t speak so loud… this is for the fundies…they think they are the only ones up here!!
Excellent post!! Sounds a lot like where I find myself these days. Your mentors meant a lot to me also.
You raise point that I think is significant but not always appreciated, the shift in terminology that made Fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, Dallas Seminary) into “evangelicals.” I assume part of this was a desire to avoid an increasingly negative term for one with more positive connotations (and now, many are dropping “evangelical” for its negative connotations, including associations with people like Falwell). Many that would have chosen not to be part of the early neo-evangelical movement now define it.
I’ve also wondered about (and I’m interested in your take on this, if you think it has any significance) the shift of evangelicalism toward being a baptist movement (and baptist becoming increasingly synonymous with being evangelical). For many, Southern Baptist Seminary today is a defining part of evangelicalism (related to the first point above, since fundamentalist would probably be a more accurate term), yet in the 80s Glenn Hinson could deny that Southern Baptists were evangelicals at all. It’s interesting that the Evangelical Free Church, whose pietistic origins led them to put little emphasis on the timing of baptism and officially accepted both infant and believer baptism, has become universally credobaptist in practice as they (and their seminary) became more central to the evangelical movement (it’s interesting to contrast them to their denominational twin, the Evangelical Covenant Church). Ask an evangelical today to name major Reformed leaders and theologians, and in my experience they’ll name baptists like Piper, Driscoll, and MacArthur, while 20-30 years ago the answer would likely have been Packer, Stott, or Boice. I could go on with examples, but you get the idea – thoughts?
You’ve put into words what I’ve felt for the past decade or so about my fellow evangelicals and what I’ve tried (often unsuccessfully) to convey in my writings and teaching on the subject. I couldn’t agree more about the Open Theism debate, as I was in the thick of it during my studies at Gordon-Conwell in the early 00′s.
Thank you, Roger!
Thank you for having the courage to say this. I’ve considered myself to be an evangelical for most of my adult life, but I’ll admit I just about find myself cringing when I read the writing of people who feel they have the right to change the definition of the word so that people like myself are on the outside.
Great Post. Thanks!
Pingback: Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism « Theology Forum
Roger,
A quick reflection. When I was reading the biography of George Eldon Ladd a couple years ago (A Place at the Table, OUP), it occurred to me that some of our evangelical forebears of the 1950s and 60s would regard many contemporary evangelicals–including some on the right–as “too liberal.” Ladd was tied up in knots criticizing dispensationalism and desperately wanted Walvoord’s approval. But Walvoord regarded dispensationalism, with its pre-trib rapture, as an inoculation against liberalism. So even classic pre-mil wasn’t good enough, and the hermeneutic of the amillennialism was inherently liberal.
Admittedly the Westminster-Fuller-Dallas axis is not the whole picture of evangelicalism of that era, but apparently being in the middle was a troublesome spot then too. And it’s interesting to me that even being on the “right” side of the evangelical ledger today wouldn’t win the approval of some of the Fathers of the 50s. You might still have been called a liberal for your eschatology. It’s a complex and changing picture, and I wish that could be pointed out to those on the “right.”
I also wish we could clarify our general evangelical understanding of what liberalism truly is. Many evangelicals who are accused of being such in fact want to puke over the real thing. But with the fragmentation you identify, that clarification (and agreement on it) seems unlikely.
Pingback: A few good links | eChurch Christian Blog
Thanks for this; I was converted as a teen in 1972 and thus experienced much of this without knowing what was going on.
So now I say: what’s so important about the label? All this Phaisaism has made it a stumbling block to unbelievers. I go with “Jesus-follower.”
I tend to refer to myself as post-evangelical. I’m British and we don’t have quite the same issues as North American Christians although the disputes and divisions are just as unpleasant over here within the Church.
Billy Graham Crusades were part of my Evangelical youth and background. I’ve always had difficulties with BG’s cosy relationship with various US presidents and unquestioning support of some very dubious American foreign policty but generally I’ve retained respect for him. However, his son Franklin worries me considerably. Not only is Franklin strongly supportive of the Falwells and Liberty University, Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist millionaire “health, wealth and prosperity” types but he seems to be using the BGEA website to actively support Sarah Palin and denigrate President Obama. His public statements on other World Faiths are deliberately inflammatory. I can’t quite understand how he will be allowed to “inherit” his father’s ministry; seems like 3rd World nepotism to us Europeans.
This is such a helpful post.
Thank you,
Ed
Roger, it’s good to see you’re writing. Many of your colleagues at that evangelical institution you taught at in the 1980′s and 90′s would be delighted to see you return as some of the opposition fades away.
Rich
Dear Roger:
Thank you so much for being a voice of reason in all this mess. Your work is an inspiration.
We at that well-known liberal arts college in the north still miss the incredible wisdom and gentility you brought to our place, Roger.
I know that my mode of distinguishing fundamentalists from evangelicals isn’t exactly kosher, but it came to me as my wife were driving away from my initial employment interview at that school. “So, could you work at a Baptist school?” my wife, a recovering GARB Baptist, asked. “I actually think I could,” I answered. “These seem to be something other than the mean-spirited Baptists you and I have known.”
Having been the faculty moderator during the time of the Open Theism debate — and like our colleague the son of a then unbelieving father — I welcomed the answers that approach provided to some of those pernicious questions like Auschwitz or apostasy. It was interesting to see how “outside voices” –overwhelmingly reformed — suddenly became interested in everything that was written or spoken at the college. Looking back, I consider that two year drama to have been the most remarkable period of growth and learning in my time at that school — an anti-revival of sorts, as it involved a dialogue, not just an emotional monologue. Someone needs to write that book — someone who understands the theology and knows the key participants. Any suggestions?
Well, as the unnamed colleague who was the subject of the crusade against Open Theism in the 90′s that you wrote about, I must say, “RIGHT ON Roger!” Those were interesting times we shared together, weren’t they? Boy, the stories we could tell!
I don’t want to abandon the label “evangelical” either, but at some point you have to wonder how much time and energy a label is worth, don’t you? I still identify with the label in those rare contexts where I know the audience won’t associate it with something I’m utterly opposed to. But most of the time I simply tell people “I’m a follower of Jesus,” which is now pretty much how I think about myself.
Thanks for a clear statement of the dilemma Roger — always your gift! Greg
nice post. thanks.
Roger, I deeply appreciated both your historical and theological perspective on this timely and critical matter. In reading the book “unChristian” I thought a great deal about the “label” evangelical and what it seems to say to a new generation. Your post helped to clarify matters for me. I too want to join the chorus of those who voiced the fact that they miss you, your manner, and your excellent teaching.
Pingback: Roger Olsen on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Stephen) « Evangelical Futures