{"id":2083,"date":"2017-10-25T09:04:23","date_gmt":"2017-10-25T15:04:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/whatgodwantsforyourlife\/?p=2083"},"modified":"2017-10-25T10:11:46","modified_gmt":"2017-10-25T16:11:46","slug":"come-to-bury-evangelicalism-not-praise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/whatgodwantsforyourlife\/2017\/10\/come-to-bury-evangelicalism-not-praise\/","title":{"rendered":"I Come to Bury Evangelicalism, Not to Praise It"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"download-3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Coming from Scot McKnight, who is himself a leading evangelical voice, the summons to bury the movement this last week came as something of a theological earthquake. But in not very different terms from the title above, that was exactly what he suggested. You can read the article\u00a0<\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

I am not an Evangelical, but I do owe a good deal of my early education to teachers who would have described themselves as such. I also think it is important to take the time to analyze what is happening across Christian traditions, rather than gloat or pile on.<\/p>\n

The same, mean-spirited language that has become the lingua franca<\/em> of civic discourse characterizes far too much conversation among Christians. Now, more than ever, I think that the old poster \u2014 think meme, only on paper \u2014 from the late sixties might have traction: \u201cA modest proposal for peace: Let the Christians of the world agree that they will not kill each other.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m of two minds \u2014 maybe three or four \u2014 about McKnight\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n

I completely understand his frustration with the associations that have affixed themselves to Evangelicalism. As he notes, people who know nothing about the theological commitments that gave rise to the evangelical movement, now associate the word with \u201cRepublican=Conservative=populist=Trump.\u201d But what seems to be missing from the article is a clear affirmation that associating Evangelicalism with any <\/em>political party would threaten its wellbeing.<\/p>\n

It is true that at any point in civic discourse Christians might find themselves more sympathetic or more at odds with a political party\u2019s policy. But once Christians become thoroughly owned or co-opted by a party, they have lost the ability to speak with independence to the culture around them. And, more importantly, they have lost the ability to listen to what the Spirit has to say to the church.<\/p>\n

Everything that the church has to say \u2013 about how different the Kingdom of God is and should be \u2014 about our broken and distorted notions of human flourishing \u2013 about our capacity for self-deceit \u2013 and about our longing to be our own gods \u2013 makes it impossible to believe (or it should) that either political party can ever perfectly mirror the will of God. And, yet, among Evangelical and Progressive Christians alike, alignment with party politics has become automatic, parroting both values and the animosities of the party each chooses.<\/p>\n

It seems to me, then, that in some ways McKnight\u2019s appeal to bury Evangelicalism comes at a time when those who have not been co-opted by party politics should be more, not less rigorous in claiming the right to define the movement. Even though I am not one, I think it is fair to say that Evangelicals have a long and, in many ways, admirable tradition. And that tradition is not the hidebound and backward looking movement that so many people believe that it is.<\/p>\n

For example:<\/p>\n