Why I Don’t Call Myself An Evangelical (Part 2)
Ask yourself what comes to mind when someone uses the term fundamentalism. Nine times out of ten, I bet the word brings up several quite pejorative ideas, beliefs, types of “Christians,” possibly behaviors, etc. However, I will go a step further and declare that “evangelical” has a tendency to do the same thing. Let me illustrate, I was raised in an evangelical church (Southern Baptist), and educated at an evangelical seminary. In fact all my life I have spent my time with other evangelicals, or in evangelical churches of one kind or the other (i.e. from Baptist to Presbyterian). In this environment I was told that listening to certain styles of music was sinful, that drinking was sinful (of any kind), etc. While these are the more “cultural sins” on the list, the “theological sins” held the same tone and attitude; and all this was under the umbrella of “evangelical.” So, when I declared that I was an evangelical in the student room at Marquette University so many years ago, it does not surprise me that the others who were present responded the way they did. Moreover, in the arena of academia this merely highlights the difficulties and problems attached to the term, especially in light of current ecumenical changes.
So, if I choose not to “label” myself evangelical, what is the alternative? Avoiding the spill of “Oh, let’s just avoid labels” nonsense, is there a good alternative? I think so, and my answer would come from Thomas Oden. In his book The Rebirth of Orthodoxy he details how many young Christians (and I use the term young rather loosely, since I am middle aged) have moved away from their modernist and/or fundamentalist (i.e. evangelical) roots and shifted back to classical Christianity (the first seven centuries). The reason this is so appealing to me is the fact that that “stage” of Christianity, I believe, has the richest theology, and the most meaningful style of worship and livelihood, and was the most unified; so classical Christianity is what appeals most to me, “mere Christianity” if you will. A more inclusive Christianity that is not ready with their theological baseball bats to pound one for believing something “outside the box”, and I do not mean more inclusive at the expense of sound doctrine (and that remark was certainly geared to those who hold an “anti-Catholic” view with the notion that Catholic doctrine is wrong and should thus be rejected altogether).
The “evangelical box” of my upbringing simply frustrates and confounds me. So I decided to jump out of that box 4 or 5 years ago. To move away from the more “pharisaical Christianity” that frowns up questioning certain teachings or “doing” certain things (i.e. listening to certain styles of music, etc. - I do not mean the more obvious lifestyle sins) is my intent. And of course, this is much broader than I have made it seem here in these two small posts (i.e. there is here certainly more to unpack than I was able). Therefore, for these reasons (and a few others) I do not call myself an evangelical.
Lastly, I want to delineate, as briefly as I possibly can, what I do not mean by these posts. I am not declaring that those who call themselves evangelicals are necessarily fundamentalists. Moreover, I am not declaring that those who are evangelical and fundamentalists are, ipso facto, not Christian. As I declared earlier, evangelicalism covers a lot of ground, especially around the world. There are many brothers and sisters in Christ who are in fact evangelical, and have no qualms about calling themselves evangelical. This is great! I applaud them in their work for Christ and in their claim of being evangelical. I simply see more problems in the unpacking of the term here in the U.S. and thus choose to avoid it. These two posts are merely a very simple explanation of my plight.
7 Comments:
Hey Gage,
You declare,
"On another note- is it necessarily a bad thing to be thought of as a fundamentalist? I'm sure most Roman Catholics would call me a fundamentalist. In that, I would not be ashamed, or concerned."
I understand why you could make such a comment given your current opinion about the Roman Catholic Church (I base this response on our previous conversations regarding Roman Catholicism).
I don't think, as I stated, that it is necessarily a "bad thing" to be called a fundamentalist or evangelical for that matter, granting certain explanations/qualifications. Being "called" fundamentalist or evangelical is, in all reality, irrelevant, what is attached to one's definition of the term is the issue at stake.
Gage said: "I'm sure you are aware, that the Roman Catholic Church also has a current opinion of evangelicals. The Roman Church has officially commented on evangelicals who hold to justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone."
To a certain extent the above comment is correct - however, Vatican II certainly dealt with many of these same issues and re-established a different frame of mind from the Roman Catholic view regarding evangelicals (or other Christians from various backgrounds).
David,
I'm not so keen on your idea of "denominational affiliation," it seems to invoke the same type of baggage as the term "evangelical." I would have to contemplate on that suggestion a little further.
A very good friend of mine says he calls himself a minimalist -meaning he holds to the essentials that make him Christian and all else is subject to research/investigation.
Gage,
While I certainly do not agree with everything you posted in the above comment - I think it is a bit too simplistic, bordering on beig a cariacature - Trent is subject to interpretation (Trent was written within an historical context) - every Catholic I have ever read or spoken with agrees to this - however, what does all this have to do with the article it's attached too - calling myself "evangelical?"
Is this in relation to my remark in the article about the anti-catholic mentality?
Well Gage,
You are actually touching on some of the points that keeps me Protestant, so I will not defend the Catholic Church at this point since I tend to agree with some of what you are declaring in these comments.
However, if you are interested, here are some links to posts by a good friend of mine who was raised Protestant, graduated from SES after I did (that is where we met) and then he and his family converted to Catholicism. He has posted in these links the issues occurring between Trent and Vatican II - if you are interested here are the links:
Light of the Nations: From Heretics to Separated Brethren: Reconciling the Church's View of Protestants from Trent to Vatican II (Part I)
Light of the Nations: From Heretics to Separated Brethren (Part II)
These will give a Catholic view point on the issues we have been commenting about here. Food for thought for you.
I've felt the same discomfort with the handle, "evangelical." Not as if it's a bad word, but precisely because, as David W. pointed out, it has become associated with right-wing politics, sectarianism, and often anti-intellectualism.
Whatever you do though, please - PLEASE - do not call yourself "post"-anything! Not postmodern; not post-protestant. And for the love of God, not post-evangelical. Something can truly only be "post-something" once history has moved far enough along past the "something" and the thing that replaced it, in order to allow a long view of the transition from one to another.
In the meantime, I think to use the term (especially "post-evangelical") is arrogant and self-congratulatory. It's saying to the "something" to which you presume to be "post": "you're time is over, and ours has come; you'd better just get used to it." Unkind, but also presumptuous, considering the unexpected turns of history. Also, it's as if the person who identifies herself as "post"-something is saying to outsiders: "Please don't look down on me like you do with those stupid, hick right-winger Christians who embarrass me too."
Let's be honest with each other about where we disagree with one another, and why. Let's be forthright with outsiders, too, about how we differ with others who claim Christian identity. Let's even seek to employ more useful labels. But may we all avoid the temptation to throw our "evangelical" or "fundamentalist" brethren (some of them) under the bus with our un-Christian friends simply to win credibility in their eyes.
T.B.,
I really wanted to talk about this but then I started writing and realized that I would have to tell a story several decades long ... and I just wasn't up to it. So I went back to posting photos.
Clay
Clay,
aaahhhh! I would have wanted to hear the story - can you condense it a bit and post it here?
Post a Comment
<< Home