Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 4

Last updated on: February 6, 2012 at 11:22 am by Zack Hunt

Abandoning Evangelicalism – Part 4 2012-02-06T11:22:51-06:00 Zack Hunt

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.

The following is the fourth installment in a series of posts on why I believe the church must abandon evangelicalism. You can find part 1 here, part 2 here, and part 3 here.

I love theology.

I think it’s a profoundly important and inescapable component of the church.

Theology shapes our identity. It tells who we are, or a least who we should be. It also reminds us about who we should not be.

So, when I say that I think evangelicalism has problem with dogmatism, I am not suggesting that the church (something separate from evangelicalism) should abandoning theological claims.

Dogma is not always a terrible thing.

The church began with a particular and absolute claim “Jesus is Lord”. With this declaration the church drew a line in the sand. There is no Lord other than Jesus.

While it might be easy to suggest that the church should somehow revert to the simplicity of this claim (if that simplicity ever really existed), I’m not sure that’s either possible or desirable. There are countless questions and issues that stem from this seemingly simple claim. To abandon the answers that have been offered to those question by ancient creeds and historical confessions would be, I think, both an arrogant and profoundly naive move to make.

That we may not always like the historical theology of the church, does not render it invalid. Likewise, to think that we could “reverse course”, simplify things, and believe they would always stay that way is, frankly, absurd. The world is becoming more complex, not less so. The church should lean on her vast theological resources to address the questions and issues that arise from that complexity, not toss them aside and unnecessarily attempt to reinvent the wheel.

However, this is not a call to theological retrenchment.

I believe the church should abandon the dogmatism of evangelicalism. But I do not believe that it is an “either/or” proposition between retrenchment and theological relativism. I believe that the church can and should find a way to maintain her historical, orthodox faith while finding ways to engage an incredibly diverse global society. This can be done because for the church has been doing it, although not always perfectly, for 2,000 years.

If the church is to chart that path forward, then I believe there are 2 remnants of evangelical dogmatism that she must abandon.

The first is evangelicalism’s love affair with the dogmatic litmus test. Visit an evangelical church long enough, read enough Christian literature, or simply listen to a few celebrity preachers and you will very quickly learn that there is a theological litmus test that you must pass in order to be a “real Christian.” To be fair, the notion that there are demarcation lines in the faith that separate Christianity from, say, Buddhism are not a terrible thing. The church needs guidelines, direction, and sometimes even lines in the sand to say “this far you may go and no further.”

However, the current obsession with the dogmatic litmus test is problematic for several reasons. To begin, many of the people administering the test often have no authority to due so. Take for example, our friend Mark Driscoll. By his own confession he ordained himself. Which means, regardless of what he may want to say otherwise, his ultimate authority, like so many of his other autonomous clergy friends, is himself. This frees them all to make definitive theological claims with no regard to any historical church tradition. They are free to pick and choose at their leisure what is “essential” for the faith, or rather, what the dogmatic litmus test is. As a result, any self-ordained prophet can decided for his (rarely her) church what they “must believe” and then label those who dissent as “wolves among the sheep.”

What we see then are theological tenets that have never been the markers of orthodoxy, turned into the heart of Christianity. For example, for many evangelicals today the dogmatic litmus test requires a person to reject evolution, affirm Biblical inerrency, never allow a woman in a position of leadership, and subscribe to a particular view of the atonement (usually penal substitution). However, there is no historical creed or church council (at least when there was such a thing as “one church”) that affirmed these things as the demarcation lines for orthodoxy. They are simply theological gut feelings and personal Biblical interpretation.

And I think that’s what the church must remember. Just because we believe something in our heart or are convinced that the “Bible plainly says so” does not mean it is true, particularly when our truth claims have never been affirmed by the church. We may think they have, but that is only because our perspective of what is or is not Christianity only goes back, at best, one or two hundred years.

American evangelicalism is profoundly, and tragically, influenced by the rise of Christian fundamentalism. These religious zealots have so infiltrated the church that it is hard for many of us to know what really does define the faith. These are not always the fiery tent preachers of yesteryear. Often times, they dress the part of hipster, play the latest worship music, and occupy the trendiest of spaces, but their message is the same: conform or leave; turn or burn.

The result of this infiltration is, what I think is the other great reason for the church to abandon evangelicalism: There is no beauty or imagination in fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism, to which I think evangelicalism is inextricably tied, is not interested in understanding the world. It simply wants to reshape the world in its own dogmatic image and burn anything that gets in its way. The goal is a monochromatic faith in which everyone blindly follows the leader and any opposition is quickly and harshly dealt with.

When fundamentalism is allowed to reign, the Christian faith is reduced to a crude caricature. In fundamentalism, there is no room for beauty and diversity, only conformity. If other Christians don’t look, act, speak, think, vote, and dress exactly like me, then they must not be true Christians. In fundamentalism, there is no space for imagination and artistic expression, only secular rejection and mimicry. Any art that is not particularly religious in nature and conforming to a particular sense of taste is tossed aside or condemned. When art is produced, so much of it is lacking in originality, nothing more than a cheap parody of something that was successful in the “secular world.”

The church must rediscover her capacity for diversity, beauty, and imagination.

To achieve this, I think the church must relearn her ability to allow for diversity on non-essentials. To do this, however, we will need to gain a bit of perspective and realize that many of the things evangelicalism tends to cling so tightly to were not held by other Christians for most of the church’s history. This is true particularly those of us in American Protestantism. We must find a way to understand that Christianity is not a white, middle-class, American faith. It is a faith which has been incarnated across countless generations, cultures, and languages. If anything, Christianity has very little to do with white, middle-class, America. That is not to say that our particular demographic has nothing to contribute. Rather, we should know our place in the history of the church and it is a profoundly small one.

Despite the seemingly infinite diversity of expressions of Christianity over 2,000 years she has managed to not only survive, but thrive, all the while maintaining at least the semblance of orthodoxy. I think the church should learn from this and abandon the fear mongering of fundamentalist, dogmatic evangelicalism. Jesus has continued to be known over the centuries and the gospel has continued to be preached no matter what pressures of time or culture it has faced. Simply put, God doesn’t need us to defend God. God is not afraid of questions or doubts and God is certainly not afraid of diversity. To say that God is Triune is to affirm that fundamentally God is in a diverse relationship.

If we are truly people made in the image of that God, then we must learn to embrace the beauty of that diversity. In doing so, the church can boldly face the future knowing that the diversity and complexity she will encounter will only make her stronger. And in turn it will give her the imagination she needs to proclaim the gospel in unforeseen ways for generations to come.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 3, 2012

Abandoning Evangelicalism - Part 3

Next Post

February 6, 2012 Review: 'Evangelism In The Inventive Age' by Doug Pagitt

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Review Classifieds Commentary Fundie Friday Funny Pictures Music Video News Prophecy Technology Televangelist Throwback Thursday Tract Tuesday Tracts Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 June 2018 May 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 September 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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz