Conversations about evangelicalism –its definition, its essence, its variety, its center and circumference, its history, its self-contradictions and periodic self-reinventions– are things I generally try to avoid. The noise to signal ratio is too high, and the likelihood of talking past each other is enormous. For example, I’m happy in a local church, and (perhaps in my rich fantasy life) I think of evangelicalism as a coalition of other folks who are likewise happy in theirs, and we come out into the evangelical hallway and have common goals. But sometimes you get a long way into what you think is a clear discussion of evangelicalism, and suddenly realize that the person doing the talking is getting increasingly shrill about how the hallway needs to have more room for seats in it, and wants to know where we’re going to put the worship band or the choir, and where the weddings take place. That’s when I realize I have nothing to say and little to learn from somebody who thinks of evangelicalism as a church you can join, a megadenomination that comes in different flavors. And why, when I hear the word ecclesiology (as in, “We have no ecclesiology, we are so lame!”) in that context, I may not reach for my revolver but I do head for the door. Why would a movement have an ecclesiology? It ought to have a movementology, if it has anything. But as for me, “get me to the church on time,” as they say.
The discussion about evangelicalism here at this blog for the last few days has been interesting, though I admit to skim-reading many of the posts as I succumbed to that Eyes Glazing Over feeling that I get whenever the essence of evangelicalism is discussed.
Because when I do decide to listen or take part in a discussion about what evangelicalism is, I’ve got a goal in mind: I want to keep from drifting. As David Gibson said in a classic essay, Assumed Evangelicalism: Some Reflections en route to Denying the Gospel, movements begin by proclaiming the gospel, pass through a phase of assuming it but not making it central, and end by rejecting and denying it. All Gibson is really saying is that draft happens, especially generational drift. But he’s such a great worrier that he says it very well:
Assumed evangelicalism believes and signs up to the gospel. It certainly does not deny the gospel. But in terms of priorities, focus, and direction, assumed evangelicalism begins to give gradually increasing energy to concerns other than the gospel and key evangelical distinctives, to gradually elevate secondary issues to a primary level, to be increasingly worried about how it is perceived by others and to allow itself to be increasingly influenced both in content and method by the prevailing culture of the day.
There are lots of important, local-church-centered ways of resisting the onset of assumed evangelicalism. But for those of us who also have significant investments in interdenominational ventures and institutions, one way to keep from assuming evangelicalism is to keep talking about it. Not too much, and not all the time. But some.
Related posts:
October 21st, 2009 | 6:02 pm | #1
Fred,
Your desire to restrict evangelicalism to a ‘movement’ is exactly what Mark Galli argued recently at Mere-O: http://mereorthodoxy.com/?p=2018
I’m not yet convinced, but I’m feeling appropriately chastised.
That said, if defined as a movement, does the emphasis then fall on sociological factors, rather than theological? That doesn’t seem to line up with, say, Bebbington’s quadrilateral. However, if it is a theological movement, then doesn’t that open it up to the critique that it has (generally) neglected ecclesiology?
Matt
October 21st, 2009 | 7:25 pm | #2
Hi Matt,
If I had already read the Galli response at Mere-O, I could have skipped writing my post. Although he lost me for a minute there when he started channeling Karl Barth. (“The vertical IS the horizontal! It is first, last, and later on the very horizontal which in, with, and under the divine horizon is precisely already the vertex of all horizontals! (Gal. 2:14)”
You’re right that there’s a lot more to be said about evangelicalism as a movement, including a lot about its theological characteristics. The most important thing to say is that it’s Protestant, and then there are finer distinctions within that. That could keep us from the kind of vertigo DG Hart induces makes when he deconstructs evangelicalism: That there’s no such thing as evangelicalism, and it’s destroying the church.
While there are many more things to say about evangelicalism, I just don’t think that one of those things is “It is a church.”
Your questions are good and I need to think about this more.
Fred
October 21st, 2009 | 10:57 pm | #3
[...] Fred Sanders makes an important point about the dangers of assumed evangelicalism and the drift we all have to guard against, not only in movements but in our own life. We do have to keep the gospel central in order to guard against this, and although I am glad for the current emphasis upon a “Gospel-Centered” life (and everything else) that is taking place in evangelicalism, I am also worried. There is an important distinction that must be made and maintained between the gospel, the good news regarding the life and death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, the historical event never to be repeated, and the “work” of the Christian life that flows out of it. When everything becomes the gospel (gospel life, gospel work, gospel parenting, gospel speech, gospel this and that, etc…..), then at some point, nothing is the gospel. Comments (0) [...]
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:56 am | #4
Having, in my 20 years of being an evangelical, gone from a Calvary Church, to a Wanna-be-Bill-Hybels-Seeker-Sensitive Church, to a red-meat-eating Reformed Confessional Church, to a local non-denominational church, I can say that the aversion to discussions of ecclesiology among evangelicals is unfortunate. Where there is a church, there too is an ecclesiology, non-denoms just aren’t aware of theirs and suffer from this lack of awareness. I think the whole evangelical community would benefit by reflecting on ecclesiology more seriously.
October 22nd, 2009 | 11:45 pm | #5
[...] who say such things sure they aren’t guilty of the “assumed evangelicalism” that Fred Sanders speaks about, and 2) you can tell whether the bible or the outcome is more important by how upset you get when [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact