catapult magazine

This is from a post that Janel and I made on our website, which isn’t as good of a place for discussion as this site. (I thought I’d take a suggestion from Rob’s blog on technological sphere sovereignty and post the discussion here.)

I’ll provide the outline below, and the entire post is here: An emerging cure for the common evangelical.

The other day over brunch, we sat down with some friends to discuss our status as “angsty evangelicals.” Given the cultural baggage associated with the term “evangelical,” we debated whether we wanted to claim the label for ourselves or to create something new. Here are some of the points we touched on.

1. Are we evangelicals?

2. Is there value in trying to redeem the term “evangelical” or do we need to form a new term because of the baggage that has become associated with it?

3. What are some problems with stereotypical evangelicalism, and what other positive aspects are missing from it?

4. What now?

From the comments below the article:

Perhaps there is hope for the evangelicals after-all… I commend you all on being uncomfortable with evangelicalism as it is currently defined and being uncomfortable with it as it was formerly experienced. The idea of an emerging evanglelicalism probably cuts too close to identifying absolutely with the emerging church, but makes an effort at an important idea. That is, whatever evangelicalism will become it must be accessible for the emerging generation.

I think that an inclusive definition of evangelicalism would be an experiential American protestantism that looks to the scriptures as a source for daily living. In this way there are many forms. There is no such thing as “the evangelical church.” It is a spirituality, not an established movement, not an institution, not a politic, nor an eschatology. It is not primarily about what you believe about the scriptures. It is about knowing a person and depending on that One through authoritative revelation for guidance.

19th century evangelicals were mostly post-millenialists, which meant that they believed that establishing justice here on earth would precede the second coming. To conclude that they did not authentically care about people denies the freindships and heartfelt sacrifices people from Oberlin, OH to Syracuse New York made on behalf of slaves that were like them, touched by the stain of sin. It denies the motivation for women to work for temperance because they saw first hand the consequences of drunkeness in their own households. It denies Sabbatarian laws that were established to protect worker exploitation. It also denies that the same evangelical spirit is alive in many contemporary evangelicals, who engage the social arena, in spite of their premillenial dispensationalism (ala The Left Behind Series). While it is true that eschatology gave them some motives, their faith in a loving God enabled 19th century evangelicals to build inter-racial schools and have inter-racial congregations.

Entirely missed in the discussion is the fact that not all evangelicals were “white.” Persons like Samuel Ringgold Ward and Jermain Wesley Loguen, black abolitionists, had very close friendships with white evangelical abolitionists and would be counted among evangelicals themselves. Today, black evangelicals exist in the likes of Cheryl Sanders of Third Street Church of God (and me). African-Americans don’t usually call themselves evangelicals because of the political connotations, but African-american Christianity is the result of the evangelical piety of the Methodists and Baptists, hence AME, AMEZ, NBC, ABC and eventually COGIC along with other pentecostal denominations.

We need to hold on to the name evangelical for three reasons:

1. Personal Faith- Evangelicalism is a form of heart felt Christianity that I call experiential protestantism. It is not as important that you can name a date and time of conversion as it is that you can talk about the experience of God in your life today. It is this experience that transcends denominational and theological barriers. It is a Spirit that invites evangelicals to consider racial-reconciliation and anti-racism.

2. Evangelical Heritage- draws us into fellowship with Whitefield, Edwards, Asbury, Hosier, Ward, Jarena Lee, Beecher Stowe, Finney, Moody, (Fosdick and Raushenbusch?), Sheldon, Graham, Sider, Wallis and a host of others black, white, women, men, Wesleyan, Reformed, Anabaptist and Pentecostal.

3. Witness- The combination of an encounter with the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit and the rich heritage of evangelical history engenders a passion to share this experience with others. As DT Niles said, “evangelism is just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.”

Like I said before, I wish I could have been there. I enjoy the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and the possibility that evangelicalism will live on in the 21st century. At the risk of sounding too liberal, I am led to repeat a question asked by Harry Emerson Fosdick as the tide of American Christianity seemed to hang in the balance, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” If this humble, servanthood, peacemaking faith is to survive we cannot allow for power pursuing, success oriented, violent Christians to be the only ones sharing their faith. It is time for those of us afraid to offend, ashamed of our imperialism, paralyzed by our privilege to tell someone where we found bread.

Your Brother,
David Evans