I see two opposite and equally dangerous trends pulling evangelicals apart and thereby weakening our witness to the world. One is, for lack of better terms, particularistic tribalism and the other is generic, plain label Christianity. Please allow me to explain.
I value Christian particularity. That is, I want Baptists to be Baptist, Pentecostals to be Pentecostal, Wesleyans to be Wesleyan, Presbyterians to be Presbyterian, etc. While it would be ideal for us all to get together and have one big, nice denomination, that’s not likely given human nature or the nature of a free society. Our theological and liturgical differences are likely to remain until Christ returns. (Then, I suspect, in the millennium, there will be only one Christian variety!) And I think we need many different voices singing different theological parts to balance and correct each other and to give the evangelical community a harmonious witness that covers all the major motifs of the gospel.
I view evangelicalism as like a choir. Presbyterian Calvinists are the bass part, Pentecostals and charismatics are the soprano part, Baptists and Free churches are the baritone part, Wesleyans are the alto part, etc. I see Billy Graham as the choir director who strove to make all the parts sing in harmony without silencing any of them. For a while (e.g., during my youth in organizations like Youth for Christ and the National Association of Evangelicals) it seemed to work. Evangelical Christians of many different denominations and theological orientations came together in cooperation and declined to drown each other out by, for example, proselytizing each other. There were enough unreached and unchurched people for all of us.
For example, I recall one Billy Graham associate evangelist who came to our city when I was in seminary. I was assigned by the church where I served to be its liaison with the advance team. The local committee was made up of evangelicals from many different denominations. There was also an evangelical ministrial fellowship that reflected the whole spectrum of evangelical churches. (Only liberals and fundamentalists refused to be part of it.) After the Billy Graham evangelistic crusade (led by an associate evangelist) closed the committee members got together and simply divided up the “inquirer cards” submitted by people at the evening services. There was no attempt by any church or tradition to dominate everything or steal sheep.
And yet, the evangelical churches knew who they were and valued and preserved their distinct and particular theological and liturgical identities. The Wesleyans preached entire sanctification. The Pentecostals preached the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial, physical evidence of speaking in tongues. The Baptists preached conversion and believer baptism and (usually) eternal security. The evangelical Presbyterians and Reformed preached unconditional election and irresistible grace. But these distinctives did not hinder broad and deep cooperation in all kinds of endeavors such as the local Union Gospel Mission, annual evangelistic crusades led by various evangelists, Thanksgiving and Easter services sponsored by the evangelical ministerium, etc.
During the past two decades I’ve noticed that unity-in-diversity breaking down among evangelicals. Some (many?) evangelical churches are sacrificing their heritage’s distinctives in favor of what I call “generic Christianity.” Here’s how that looks. If you blindfolded me and took me to four different churches of different evangelical traditions on four Sundays I might have trouble discerning which is which based on what I hear. If you took the blindfold off I might see something like the denomination’s initials printed in tiny letters beneath the church’s otherwise bland and generic name (e.g., Grace Family Fellowship). But chances are, the theology, preaching and worship would be the same in all four churches in spite of the fact that they belong to four very different traditions. (E.g., one might be Nazarene, another one Assembly of God, another one Baptist and another one Presbyterian.) I have attended Lutheran churches that were exactly like Pentecostal churches!
The other force is opposite–tribalistic particularism. Some evangelical denominations, churches and leaders have reacted to the genericizing of Christianity digging deeply into their own wells of theology and worship and have begun to imply, if not just outrightly say, that they are the only “real” evangelicals or that their flavor of evangelicalism is so much better that it justifies them trying to steal sheep from other evangelical churches.
I see this happening especially on evangelical campuses. Various evangelical student groups, led by workers paid by denominations, sometimes compete with each other for followers by putting down other evangelical groups and their traditions as somehow defective. I see this tribalistic particularism in books written about evangelical traditions by theologians. The “text behind the text” says “My version of this tradition is the only right one; all others are ‘revisionist’.” A plethora of books published in recent years more than imply this.
For example, right now I’m reading (to review) a new book on Reformed theology published by a major theological publisher. The author teaches at a very conservative Presbyterian-related seminary. It seems to me the author, like others I know, wants to narrow down the identity of “Reformed” to one particular strain of that broad tradition. Many denominations of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (recently merged with another group) would not make the cut (of being truly “Reformed”) if this author’s description became the norm. Other Reformed theologians have written and told me that ONLY monergists are truly evangelical so that Arminians are not authentically evangelical. (One Reformed theologian who has said this publicly also told me that Presbyterians aren’t truly Reformed!)
Call that the Balkanization of evangelicalism. I call it tribalism–taking historical and traditional particularity to an extreme–beyond pride in it to exclusivity about it.
Both opposite forces are wrong, in my opinion. Evangelical churches should rediscover their particular traditions and hold them up proudly as who they are and let them permeate their preaching and teaching and worshiping without building walls around themselves that keep them from encountering and learning from and even enjoying the particularities of other evangelical churches and denominations.
Last evening my wife and I attended a city-wide (really county-wide) “hymn sing.” There must have been three thousand people there. Many churches came together with their choirs and there were several notable recording artists present to lead singing and offer special performances. It was wonderful. But it was all Baptist. I’m glad the many Baptist churches in our county (about 150 of them!) can come together in that way, but wouldn’t it be better if all the evangelicals could come together like that?
Spot on analysis of our current situation.
I noticed in the History of Evangelicalism series edited by Knoll and Bebbington that a number of denominations in America started when a group of believers gathered together, tried to call themselves plain old “Christians,” and then ended up just forming yet another group. Do you think the generic groups will eventually create their own, albeit rootless, subgroups of generic evangelicalism?
That’s a good question. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Predicting the future is notoriously risky! (Who at the beginning of the 20th century could have predicted anything about it? But I wouldn’t be surprised if denominational churches that are deep into what I call generic Christianity (i.e., shedding their tradition’s distinctives in favor of a bland, lowest-common-denominator Christianity) leave their denominations and forge alliances with other churches based on size, music, average age, etc.–all things irrelevant to authenticity of Christianity. I already see that happening in the forging of new networks of churches around mega-churches.
The footprint of Christian unity is getting smaller and smaller. Thank you for good and honest post
Dr. Olson – I can’t agree more. Excellent post.
People like to state that denominations are “evil and divisive” that a “true Christian” doesn’t claim a denomination. I believe that denominations are good and actually create less divisiveness. For example, I wouldn’t attend a denomination that presented five point Calvinism as the best biblical system. I wouldn’t attend because I disagree and then I would have to speak up and then I would be creating division in that church. Hence, I tend to go to churches with which I agree theologically. I find that I have a better worship and learning experience and creates less division. For example, as a Nazarene, I know that pretty much, when I go to a Nazarene church there is going to be little cognitive dissonance because I agree with the Wesleyan-Arminian-Holiness tradition and believe it to be biblical.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t read other denominational or theological traditions. I can learn much from outside my denomination. I also join in ministry with people from other denominations when it comes to evangelism/witnessing. I strongly support those efforts.
What is evil is “denominationalism.” I define denominationalism as when a denomination or church believes that they are the best way and/or the only way to heaven, that all other denominations are wrong or at least viewed as being lesser.
Thanks for your post
Our community hymn sings are always a gathering of Baptist, Assembly of God, and Methodist, one of the advantages of small town rural America.
I don’t use the term “non-denominational” because inevitably those congregations hold to beliefs and practices that “divide” them from other congregations, whether they admit it or not. Even their supposed refusal to make a decision on some matters is something that is “divisive” from other churches. Those kinds of congregations are denominations of one. I call them independent churches whether they are fundamentalist or evangelical or whatever.
“but wouldn’t it be better if all the evangelicals could come together like that?”
Amen to that. Scotty, make it so.
Roger,
Thanks again for your blog – it continues to be a breath of fresh air!
Roger,
I think you are basically correct in your assessment of the current state of neo-evangelicalism, although I want to pose a couple of questions for your feedback.
1: Your example of Billy Graham as the lynchpin of neo-evangelicalism appears both ecclesiologically and historically problematic. Ecclesiologically, the BGEA was not a church and its success only reaffirmed the lurking problem of evangelicalism in the Trans-Atlantic – namely that evangelicals have thrived best when they commune in the parachurch. This is certainly true of the 1GA, the missionary societies of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the revival crusades of Finney, Sunday, McPherson, and Graham. It was especially relevant for college parachurch organizations such as Navigators, Campus Crusade, and InterVarsity as well as High School organizations such as Young Life. The minute that church membership is emphasized, evangelicalism falters.
Historically, I am not so sure that much “church ministry work” was accomplished in the Billy Graham crusades. First, of the holiness variety, only CMA, Nazarene, and some Assemblies churches worked with Graham prior to 1957. Afterwards, the holiness participation was spotty at best. This was not Graham’s fault, but I think some holiness churches balked at the lack of “spiritual emphases in the crusades.” Furthermore, BGEA documents reveal that while many people made professions and rededications, very little follow-up work was accomplished. This was one of the main problems that Dawson Trotman had with Graham (Trotman was Graham’s Follow-Up director and the one who created the “advance teams” and the process of training for the BGEA). Thus, while Graham did draw diverse evangelicals together, I am not convinced that this group accomplished anything other than agreeing that evangelism is important. As soon as discipleship and follow-up came into question, the groups divided over protocol, theology, and direction. This again, is also an ecclesiological issue.
Thus, I am not sure to what extent Graham can be described as “holding the evangelical’s together.” I think one could make the argument that Graham symbolized the apparent ideals of neo-Evangelicalism. However, I wonder if the lack of an ecclesiology doomed the group from the beginning, leading to today’s conflicts.
2: I agree absolutely with your assessment of the various groups. I want to make some observations about the “generic” Christianity. By “generic” Christianity, are you not simply describing the kind of piety that is the result of parachurch Christianity? Consider the atheist college student who gets saved through Campus Crusade for Christ and then graduates. What church is he going to attend? He has spent his entire Christian life being nourished from the parachurch? Is he not necessarily going to try to find a local church that “feels” like his parachurch experience?
This has been the case since the 70s and one of the admitted main challenges of CCC leadership. This is why several CCC groups have blossomed into a church (See Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus, Ohio). Additionally, isn’t generic church the best way to describe the theological method of the emergent church? The two forces (parachurch piety and generic Christianity) are not unrelated.
3: I think one additional group should be added into the mix. There are dogmatic tribalists, generic churches, but also a few “gracious yet unapologetic particularists” (GUP). These folks are unapologetically particular about their beliefs (satisfying the ecclesiological demands of scripture) and yet gracious in how they invite people into the community.
For example, consider a broadly evangelical, complementarian, charismatic, baptist church that might exist in Waco. Because this church is broadly evangelical, it pulls in a lot of people from various backgrounds. In fact, this church has been described as accidentally ecumenical. However, the church membership issue becomes a sticking point because several Lutherans, for example, come to realize that believer’s baptism is still a requirement. The sticking point comes in because this church will not allow small group participation for non-members (this is in an effort to ensure that small groups are places where the highest level of intimate community is practiced).
You can imagine that this practice causes much consternation. Those who believe women can be elders come to this church for the community and worship, but leave disgruntled because of the complimentarian position. Those who are Catholic come for the excellent Bible teaching in Sunday Schools, but leave because of issues of baptism and communion practice. Those who are Presbyterian come because of the excellent Elder leadership, but leave because of the Arminian soteriology. Those who are extreme charismatics come for the worship but leave because this church does not promote tongues as a sign gift of empowerment.
So what do you do as a church seeker when you find a church that is 9/10ths perfect? The folks at this church do one of two things. A: They attend worship only and find a parachurch in which to minister or serve (like Young Life, Jesus Said Love, or Cross Trail Outfitters. Or, B: They adjust their theology to be in agreement with what this church considers to be the essential theological points.
So my question to you is, would not the GUP be the preferred way to go, given your vision for the future of neo-evangelicalism? And if your answer to the first question is “Yes” then might your observation be a bit skewed to the academic/influencial side of evangelical life in America and not at all accounting for the practical/congregational side of evangelical life in America?
If you will give me the last question, then I would want to suggest that there has always been a break between the Academy and the Church in American Evangelicalism and that as much as Don Carson and John Piper want there to be more of an interplay between the two, the divide still exists (by the grace of God). And I suspect that whilst DAC may want to pigeon-hold theology, the church as a whole is not responding to that call.
I very much like the GUP model you describe. But I don’t find it on the ascendency in evangelical life. I see the other two models growing in numbers and influence. I visit a lot of churches around the country (and inspect web sites of other churches) and see a growing trend toward either dogmatic tribalism or generic Christianity. The latter is the model that I see swamping everything else. Most churches, in my experience, have gone full bore for user-friendly, generic, Jesus-and-me, soft core Christianity (if it is even Christian!). I want Lutherans to be Lutheran, Baptists to be Baptist, Presbyterians to be Presbyterian, etc. (As I said in my original post on this subject.) But I don’t see why they have to shun cooperation and even worship (e.g., in “union Thanksgiving” and “union Easter Sunrise” services). As for Billy Graham, well, our interpretations of post-WW2 evangelicalism are not that different except that I see the man Billy Graham as a kind of figure head that all evangelicals tended to look to for guidance. For example, Graham is still a powerful force (Chairman of the Board) in the vast Christianity Today, Inc. organization that is really the only publication of wide readership for all evangelicals everywhere. I think his waning influence has indirectly led to a gradual dissipation of evangelical unity. There is no one that all evangelicals respect. I remember a meeting of the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion where evangelical scholars (and some non-evangelical scholars) were discussing the meaning of “evangelical” in this post-WW2 sense. What unifies them? The panelists and audience were getting nowhere until a Lutheran theologian stood up at the back of the room and said “I think an evangelical is anyone who loves Billy Graham.” The room broke out in approving applause and that was the end of the meeting. The gathered group of scholars couldn’t come up with anything else that really unifies all evangelicals in cooperation sociologically, nor could they really identify any particular theological perspective that unifies them. As I said earlier, I was on several advance committees for Billy Graham associate evangelists’ meeting in the 1970s and my experience was a surprising unity and cooperation among the different evangelical churches during and after the crusades.