Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Dear Thomas Kidd: Bite me.

Dear Thomas Kidd: Bite me.

Last updated on: July 14, 2014 at 12:23 pm by Fred Clark

Dear Thomas Kidd: Bite me. 2014-07-14T12:23:05-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Oh my. I can hear the pearls being clutched from here. That’s not very “civil” is it?

OK, let’s try this: Dear Thomas Kidd, With all due respect in re: your pronouncements regarding “The ‘Evangelicals’ Who Are Not Evangelicals,” You Are Henceforth Cordially Invited to Bite Me.

Let’s not play games. There is nothing “civil” about the gatekeeper power games Kidd is playing. From the scare-quotes of his title on through, this is a nasty piece of work and anyone who wants to defend that nastiness by tone-policing the civility of anyone who dares to respond in kind is, likewise, invited to bite me.*

I’m beyond tired of the charade that pretends it’s “civil” for people like Kidd to make sweeping pronouncements about other people’s faith — relegating their devotion, sincerity and identity to scare quotes — while at the same time glibly accepting, say, Al Mohler’s purging of Southern Seminary as an expression of pious civility. You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to carry water for tribal gatekeepers while pretending your hands are clean of their power politics. You don’t get to kick people out and squash all dissent from your preferred party line and at the same time pretend that everyone you’ve evicted left voluntarily.

So then, as you’ve probably guessed by now, this is a bit of an angry post. It’s a bit of an angry post because people like Thomas Kidd are still writing crap like the following while pretending they’re just being “objective” and civil:

There are at least four types of Christians who often get cast as evangelicals who really are not evangelicals, if that term has any meaning.

The first and most obvious are theological liberals who, because of their background in evangelical churches or seminaries, still get lumped in with evangelicals. A substantial evangelicalism must embrace basic orthodoxy, in accord with historic Christianity and the great creeds. So, for example, when Rob Bell declared himself a universalist, he put himself beyond the evangelical pale (implicitly denying the need for conversion, among other problems). Yet some in the media will still refer to him as an evangelical. The media has a particular interest in calling such folks evangelicals, because it allows for the ever-popular narrative of the liberal evangelical dissenter (“evangelical pastor denies hell,” “evangelical pastor conducts gay wedding,” etc.).

Oh, Mr. Kidd, your circular argument circles back to this: Bite me. And go “farewell” yourself while you’re at it.

Let’s all take a spin on Kidd’s merry-go-round, shall we? There’s no such thing as an evangelical universalist, Kidd says, because every universalist is henceforth decreed to no longer be a real, true evangelical. QED.

And also, apparently, there’s no such thing as an evangelical who denies Hell (farewell, John Stott) or as an evangelical who would conduct a gay wedding (farewell Steve Chalke), because anyone who does either of those is henceforth decreed to no longer be a real, true evangelical.

Allow me to henceforth decree that Thomas Kidd may, henceforth, bite me.

Kidd pretends that this ouroboros logic involves nothing more than the objective recognition of some pre-existing objective criteria rather than the ever-shifting priorities and caprices of tribal gatekeepers. That’s pretty shoddy coming from a historian, but you don’t need to study history to be aware of this constant shifting of tribal boundaries. All you need to do is remember.

I remember. I remember when I was henceforth decreed to no longer be a real, true evangelical — to be an “‘evangelical’ who is not an evangelical,” or a “post-evangelical,” or whatever tribal terminology is currently in vogue. That was in 2000. I didn’t declare myself a universalist or conduct a gay wedding. I just voted for Al Gore.

And that, according to the ironclad ouroboros logic of Kidd’s argument, meant I should no longer be “lumped in with evangelicals” just because of my “background in evangelical churches [and] seminaries.” That, somehow, meant I should be henceforth redefined as a “theological liberal” — just like all those uppity, “evangelical” women Al Mohler purged from Southern Seminary.

The experience was surreal. I was informed by the Real, True Evangelical Powers That Be that I no longer loved Jesus and that I hated the Bible. I was fairly sure that both of those things weren’t true, and that I was in a better position to know that than they were. “I love Jesus,” I said. “And I love the Bible. I read it every day.”

“No you don’t.” They told me. “You can’t — that’s something evangelicals do and you’re no longer an evangelical. You read John Shelby Spong.”

I’m afraid I still haven’t gotten around to reading anything by John Shelby Spong (neither have the gatekeepers, for that matter). And I still read the Bible every day. “No you don’t, no you can’t,” they still say.

And sometimes I’m thus left with the only response their insistence will allow: Bite me.

Now, before he allowed himself to get distracted as an over-eager toady for the tribal gatekeepers, Kidd’s topic was an interesting one. The attempt to define the sprawling, elastic term “evangelical” has long frustrated historians and anyone else who studies Protestant Christianity. It’s tricky enough coming up with a theological framework that can include both Jonathan Edwards and Charles Finney, let alone one that can accommodate both Edwards and Aimee Semple McPherson.

So Kidd proposes a Procrustean solution — lopping off anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into his preferred definition. The folks at Christianity Today make the cut (at least some of them, for now), but the folks at Charisma are cast out into the outer darkness with Rob Bell, Bishop Spong, and the rest of the tree-hugging, love-making, pro choicing, gay wedding, bare-footing hippies like me.

Pentecostal piety will prevent them from saying “Bite me,” but I’m sure they’re thinking it.

Kidd’s definition also rules out some “Reformed/confessionalist Christians,” noting that “This is the easiest category of the four, because many of these Christians would tell you that they are not evangelicals, even if the media would regard them as such.” Yes. But Kidd doesn’t seem to notice that what he describes there as “easy” is a difference in kind. Excluding people who do not claim the term for themselves is a very different thing from excluding those who do.

I remember a conversation years ago with a Dutch Reformed theologian who objected to the label evangelical. Unlike Kidd, he did not argue that this was because “the doctrines and confessions of Reformed Christianity are the center of their faith,” but rather because, “You people want to take away our beer.”

My vanderFriend had a better understanding of white evangelicalism than Thomas Kidd seems to have. He understood that the boundaries of evangelicalism have always been cultural, and that those cultural factors will always trump doctrinal or theological claims.

So allow me to offer a more civil note, proposing a more truthful and accurate definition that might better serve Thomas Kidd’s aims. An evangelical is a Protestant Christian who submits to the authority of the tribal gatekeepers of evangelicalism.

That definition, you’ll note, will serve to exclude most of the people Kidd wants to exclude — the Clark Pinnocks and the Steve Chalkes and the uppity women and the gays and even all the Gore-voters (while offering at least the illusion of a non-partisan fig-leaf for doing so). It won’t, alas, provide any help in adjudicating between the warring fiefdoms of competing gatekeepers, and thus can’t settle the question of whether, say, Al Mohler’s Southern Baptist Rome or Stephen Strang’s Pentecostal Avignon wields the more legitimate authority.

But the main virtue of this definition is that it cuts to the chase. It arrives at the preferred exclusionary effect without involving all the semantic games and the smarmy gatekeeping euphemisms and the snot-nosed condescension of scare quotes.

This clarifying definition also has the added bonus of keeping the exclusive club exclusive without demeaning others’ faith by telling them they’re insincere and that they don’t love Jesus or the Bible. That’s an ugly accusation that needs to stop. It’s hurtful and hateful and dishonest. It’s bad history and bad behavior. It’s flagrantly uncivil.

And while most of the people Kidd et. al. seek to dismiss as scare-quoted “evangelicals” and supposed traitors to “their background in evangelical churches or seminaries” are too nice to respond appropriately, I’m not.

Which is to say, once more with feeling: Bite me.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* You want to play tone police? Fine. Tone police this.

Oh, right, this is the Internet and you can’t see where I’m pointing. Well, can you guess where I’m pointing?

evangelicals

religious right

tribalism

Previous Post

July 14, 2014

If 'evangelical morality' harms others and can't justify itself, is it 'unfair' to mention that it's losing the argument?

Next Post

July 15, 2014 I see the skull beneath the skin

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who wrote two letters known for emphasizing "truth" and "love"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James John Peter Paul