Evangelical Thomas Kidd, a well-known biographer and American church historian, made a comment recently that could have provoked a genuine conversation about how best to write the history of evangelicalism.
This is the quote from Kidd that jumped out at me.
“But from Paul’s witness at Mars Hill through today, there have always been Christian voices defending gospel truths in the groves of academe. “
Is what Paul was doing on Mars Hill best described as “defense?” Seems to me it’s more accurately characterized as “proclamation.” “Defense” is what you do of something you own, control, have responsibility for. “Proclamation” is the announcement of Good News - of reality.
“Defense” is the attitude of injury that comes from feeling like arenas you used to control have been wrested from you and you need to try to get them back or at least maintain a foothold for future offense. “Proclamation” is simply obeying the Great Commission, and not being surprised or offended by the persecution and rejection that comes with it. Rejoicing when the Good News is embraced and moving on and through toward the next proclamation opportunity.
Maybe evangelicals would do well to have less of an embattled vision of themselves and their calling in academia and culture generally, and more of a sense of already victorious conquerors who don’t need the approval or acceptance of the various transitory cultural structures in which they move and proclaim.
Anyone out there in to needle point or cross stitch? I move that “Evangelical hagiography is a cottage industry worth burning to the ground” is a quote worthy of displaying on throw pillows across the land, or framing and hanging on walls for all to see. I might just go to our local t-shirt printing shop with that one 🙂
Thank you! Spot on, Scot. Let's call it like it is because at the end of the day, we are people of truth. Anything less, and we're just doin' a dance. My remarks on Du Mez's book stand. For me, reading through Jesus and John Wayne was an arduous task. Reviewing the perspectives, mindsets, and ideologies integral to the ongoing conflation of religion with politics in the name of Christianity in America was not easy. In so many ways this book was personal. Practically every page confronted me with the kind of Christianity I was exposed to the first few decades of my Christian life.
Having lived less than 2 miles from Focus on the Family campus headquarters, New Life Church (featuring the utter hypocrisy and massive moral failings of Ted Haggard), and having spent 18 of my 20 years stationed at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, there are not a few touch points that caused not a little grief as I look back (see especially her book, pp 205-218). Still, I believe it’s important to understand what Du Mez reveals about an “evangelical, white, male faith” and the stronghold it has on the cultural it spawned.
Your notes on Du Mez resonated here. I grew up in this pervasive atmosphere as well (though in California) and I had to slow down and take breaks from reading as the a-ha moments piled up. I’m grateful for her courage and righteous anger in her book. It actually brought me closer to my classmates, esp one who had been abused by one of our teachers and then blamed for it. I doubt it will be in his obituary, but these stories need to be told.
What is interesting is that out of New Life appears to be a leadership there that learned from the past and taking it in new directions. In fact, their "Essential Church Podcast" does a pretty good job (in fact they recently had Scot and Laura on to discuss "A Church Called Tov").
This brings to mind Galli's post last month, claiming that many "elite" evangelicals enjoy accommodation with the elite secular culture. Such claims seem to be an attempt to disregard the actual work of those elite evangelicals.
Even before reading this a lament has long been on my mind: truth tellers are often called trouble makers. How much potential for renewal is forfeited when we defensively ask "Are we also blind?" (Jn 9:40)
I have read several books on evangelicalism by Balmer, Marsden, Noll, and Wells. Along with the problem of anti-intellectualism, some touch on the problem of hyperindividualism, but it seems that the docetic impulse (rather than embodied Christianity) is also a big problem, yet one that largely travels under the radar. Along with thinking the right things and doing the right things we must recover the role of the body.
Scot this is a well deserved takedown. When I teach memoir, one of the truisms when it comes to writing about abuse or ill doing of all kinds is, “If they didn’t want it written about, they should not have done it.” I would apply the same here. Exposure is painful, even generations later. But as the Bible itself shows us with its own stories of people and institutions gone awry, it’s important to shine a light into the darkness. There’s a reason powerful people dislike the free press, and, as you point out here, historians with integrity, as well.
As I was reading your post, I kept thinking about the testimony of Scripture. We see the good & the bad in just about every character; their warts & flaws aren't swept under the rug, but dealt with openly & honestly. Yes, it's embarrassing at times; but it also opens the door to real hope - not the superficial hope of a neat & tidy picture that the evangelical Church would often prefer to present outwardly.
I'm grateful for those historians (like Kobes Du Mez) and writers (like yourself) who are will to dive into the weeds - not to wallow in the ugliness of our history, but to find the hope of Jesus' kingdom in our broken Church.
Grateful to you, Scot, for your continued insight. As per your response to Chaplain Mike, there is beauty and ugliness in people, even Christians, and in every group of Christians, because the line between good and evil runs through every human heart... To tell oneself otherwise is to live in delusion. I think part of the reaction against Evangelicalism in the last number of years is that there has been such avoidance of truth-telling, before the recent books and continuing since they have come out. For a lot of sincere people, the discussion of the past few decades - even the flurry among Emerging Church folks - has been too little too late.
One of the things that attracted me to Orthodoxy was that there were plenty of people saying, "Yeah, we're a mess.... " I saw at least some of them lamenting, and I saw many seeking to be faithful in repentance (as well as everything else it means to be a Christian) - and had actual theology for the lament, repentance and faithfulness, and a history of all of it - though sometimes obscured by the dark difficulties of times and personages, too. This really impressed me.
"there were plenty of people saying, "Yeah, we're a mess.... " The Reformed stream does this as well, to a fault in my opinion. There is such a constant drumbeat of total depravity, that it seems to deflate any attempt at 1) recognizing the Imago Dei in each of us, and 2) any attempt at growth.
Rick, the whole flavor of the Orthodox "we're a mess" commentary is so different from the Calvinism/Reformed thing - it has a lot more honesty and humility. Orthodoxy 1) does not believe in total depravity at all, 2) recognizes the Imago Dei more than any other expression of Christianity (because we were created in the image of Christ himself) and 3) says that our ultimate call is union with God, partaking of the Divine Nature (see Peter's epistle), so yeah, anybody with a heart open to God will experiences growth, although we usually don't use that term the same way Protestants do. The "constant drumbeat" of Orthodox prayer is "...for You are good and love mankind...".
Sound like Kidd is denying a basic reality. The reason "loathing has often replaced empathy in the study of American evangelicals, even among some Christian historians," is because loathing is appropriate. Perhaps the "underbelly" of evangelicalism is not its underbelly after all, but its true essence. Perhaps it deserves "anti-evangelical activism" that pushes it to the margins of acceptability. Perhaps it has never played well with others or shown respect for actual scholarship and historiography. Perhaps it has always looked at every critique as an attack and burned all its bridges between itself and the worlds of science, history, and social studies. And now, we're supposed to treat the movement with empathy? Please.
This is too much the other way. Not all of evangelicalism, not all of mainline, not all of Catholicism, not all of Orthodoxy fit any critique or affirmation. Beauty and ugly, all of them, all the time.
I agree Scot, but I'm talking about those who have led and shaped the movement into the visible manifestation it has become. The culture of evangelicalism that has been created is bankrupt, as far as I'm concerned. Of course there has been good within that world. The problem is that this is what was created -- an entire, self-contained world, separated from the world at large, standing in judgment on the world at large, and thinking itself immune from criticism from that larger world. In fact, pretty much ignoring that larger world or taking a stance of "culture war" against it. I speak out of my own experience, now reflected upon, in the light of many of these recent critiques. How can one read Randy Balmer's latest book and not see a movement deeply rooted in racism with a lust for political power? How can one not cringe at the ongoing support of Trumpism that still characterizes the movement's face? How can one read a book like Kurt Andersen's Fantasyland (and yes, he is a religious skeptic), and not realize that the whole evangelical project, from the frontier to the halls of power, has been marked by magical thinking and an aversion to reason, common sense, and the willingness to participate as full neighbors with others in the human project?
The question I have had to face is whether or not I want to be identified any longer with the public culture of evangelicalism. My journey of moving away from it is about 17 years long now, and when DT was elected, my walk turned into a sprint. The pandemic and the response of evangelicals I know has even quickened that pace. Yes, there are good and loving pastors and people, but, in general, the movement's theology, overall perspective on life, insularity, and magical thinking is no longer tolerable to me. Hospice chaplaincy and other things have led me to embrace Bonhoeffer's observation that he became more and more "drawn to the religionless" in brotherhood because Christians can't seem to have any trust in human life and goodness.
"the movement's theology, overall perspective on life, insularity". I agree on the insularity issue, but please specify on the "theology" and "perspective" issues, because there seems to be a range from wide-open Charismatics and Pentecostals, to name it-claim it Osteen followers, to John MacAurthur fundamentalists. I am not saying you are wrong, but just looking for clarification on what you are referring to.
This is the quote from Kidd that jumped out at me.
“But from Paul’s witness at Mars Hill through today, there have always been Christian voices defending gospel truths in the groves of academe. “
Is what Paul was doing on Mars Hill best described as “defense?” Seems to me it’s more accurately characterized as “proclamation.” “Defense” is what you do of something you own, control, have responsibility for. “Proclamation” is the announcement of Good News - of reality.
“Defense” is the attitude of injury that comes from feeling like arenas you used to control have been wrested from you and you need to try to get them back or at least maintain a foothold for future offense. “Proclamation” is simply obeying the Great Commission, and not being surprised or offended by the persecution and rejection that comes with it. Rejoicing when the Good News is embraced and moving on and through toward the next proclamation opportunity.
Maybe evangelicals would do well to have less of an embattled vision of themselves and their calling in academia and culture generally, and more of a sense of already victorious conquerors who don’t need the approval or acceptance of the various transitory cultural structures in which they move and proclaim.
Anyone out there in to needle point or cross stitch? I move that “Evangelical hagiography is a cottage industry worth burning to the ground” is a quote worthy of displaying on throw pillows across the land, or framing and hanging on walls for all to see. I might just go to our local t-shirt printing shop with that one 🙂
Thank you! Spot on, Scot. Let's call it like it is because at the end of the day, we are people of truth. Anything less, and we're just doin' a dance. My remarks on Du Mez's book stand. For me, reading through Jesus and John Wayne was an arduous task. Reviewing the perspectives, mindsets, and ideologies integral to the ongoing conflation of religion with politics in the name of Christianity in America was not easy. In so many ways this book was personal. Practically every page confronted me with the kind of Christianity I was exposed to the first few decades of my Christian life.
Having lived less than 2 miles from Focus on the Family campus headquarters, New Life Church (featuring the utter hypocrisy and massive moral failings of Ted Haggard), and having spent 18 of my 20 years stationed at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, there are not a few touch points that caused not a little grief as I look back (see especially her book, pp 205-218). Still, I believe it’s important to understand what Du Mez reveals about an “evangelical, white, male faith” and the stronghold it has on the cultural it spawned.
Your notes on Du Mez resonated here. I grew up in this pervasive atmosphere as well (though in California) and I had to slow down and take breaks from reading as the a-ha moments piled up. I’m grateful for her courage and righteous anger in her book. It actually brought me closer to my classmates, esp one who had been abused by one of our teachers and then blamed for it. I doubt it will be in his obituary, but these stories need to be told.
What is interesting is that out of New Life appears to be a leadership there that learned from the past and taking it in new directions. In fact, their "Essential Church Podcast" does a pretty good job (in fact they recently had Scot and Laura on to discuss "A Church Called Tov").
This brings to mind Galli's post last month, claiming that many "elite" evangelicals enjoy accommodation with the elite secular culture. Such claims seem to be an attempt to disregard the actual work of those elite evangelicals.
Even before reading this a lament has long been on my mind: truth tellers are often called trouble makers. How much potential for renewal is forfeited when we defensively ask "Are we also blind?" (Jn 9:40)
I have read several books on evangelicalism by Balmer, Marsden, Noll, and Wells. Along with the problem of anti-intellectualism, some touch on the problem of hyperindividualism, but it seems that the docetic impulse (rather than embodied Christianity) is also a big problem, yet one that largely travels under the radar. Along with thinking the right things and doing the right things we must recover the role of the body.
You are a brave and needed voice for the truth. Holding onto false or flawed narratives is not walking in the truth.
Scot this is a well deserved takedown. When I teach memoir, one of the truisms when it comes to writing about abuse or ill doing of all kinds is, “If they didn’t want it written about, they should not have done it.” I would apply the same here. Exposure is painful, even generations later. But as the Bible itself shows us with its own stories of people and institutions gone awry, it’s important to shine a light into the darkness. There’s a reason powerful people dislike the free press, and, as you point out here, historians with integrity, as well.
As I was reading your post, I kept thinking about the testimony of Scripture. We see the good & the bad in just about every character; their warts & flaws aren't swept under the rug, but dealt with openly & honestly. Yes, it's embarrassing at times; but it also opens the door to real hope - not the superficial hope of a neat & tidy picture that the evangelical Church would often prefer to present outwardly.
I'm grateful for those historians (like Kobes Du Mez) and writers (like yourself) who are will to dive into the weeds - not to wallow in the ugliness of our history, but to find the hope of Jesus' kingdom in our broken Church.
Grateful to you, Scot, for your continued insight. As per your response to Chaplain Mike, there is beauty and ugliness in people, even Christians, and in every group of Christians, because the line between good and evil runs through every human heart... To tell oneself otherwise is to live in delusion. I think part of the reaction against Evangelicalism in the last number of years is that there has been such avoidance of truth-telling, before the recent books and continuing since they have come out. For a lot of sincere people, the discussion of the past few decades - even the flurry among Emerging Church folks - has been too little too late.
One of the things that attracted me to Orthodoxy was that there were plenty of people saying, "Yeah, we're a mess.... " I saw at least some of them lamenting, and I saw many seeking to be faithful in repentance (as well as everything else it means to be a Christian) - and had actual theology for the lament, repentance and faithfulness, and a history of all of it - though sometimes obscured by the dark difficulties of times and personages, too. This really impressed me.
Dana
"there were plenty of people saying, "Yeah, we're a mess.... " The Reformed stream does this as well, to a fault in my opinion. There is such a constant drumbeat of total depravity, that it seems to deflate any attempt at 1) recognizing the Imago Dei in each of us, and 2) any attempt at growth.
Rick, the whole flavor of the Orthodox "we're a mess" commentary is so different from the Calvinism/Reformed thing - it has a lot more honesty and humility. Orthodoxy 1) does not believe in total depravity at all, 2) recognizes the Imago Dei more than any other expression of Christianity (because we were created in the image of Christ himself) and 3) says that our ultimate call is union with God, partaking of the Divine Nature (see Peter's epistle), so yeah, anybody with a heart open to God will experiences growth, although we usually don't use that term the same way Protestants do. The "constant drumbeat" of Orthodox prayer is "...for You are good and love mankind...".
Dana
Sound like Kidd is denying a basic reality. The reason "loathing has often replaced empathy in the study of American evangelicals, even among some Christian historians," is because loathing is appropriate. Perhaps the "underbelly" of evangelicalism is not its underbelly after all, but its true essence. Perhaps it deserves "anti-evangelical activism" that pushes it to the margins of acceptability. Perhaps it has never played well with others or shown respect for actual scholarship and historiography. Perhaps it has always looked at every critique as an attack and burned all its bridges between itself and the worlds of science, history, and social studies. And now, we're supposed to treat the movement with empathy? Please.
This is too much the other way. Not all of evangelicalism, not all of mainline, not all of Catholicism, not all of Orthodoxy fit any critique or affirmation. Beauty and ugly, all of them, all the time.
I agree Scot, but I'm talking about those who have led and shaped the movement into the visible manifestation it has become. The culture of evangelicalism that has been created is bankrupt, as far as I'm concerned. Of course there has been good within that world. The problem is that this is what was created -- an entire, self-contained world, separated from the world at large, standing in judgment on the world at large, and thinking itself immune from criticism from that larger world. In fact, pretty much ignoring that larger world or taking a stance of "culture war" against it. I speak out of my own experience, now reflected upon, in the light of many of these recent critiques. How can one read Randy Balmer's latest book and not see a movement deeply rooted in racism with a lust for political power? How can one not cringe at the ongoing support of Trumpism that still characterizes the movement's face? How can one read a book like Kurt Andersen's Fantasyland (and yes, he is a religious skeptic), and not realize that the whole evangelical project, from the frontier to the halls of power, has been marked by magical thinking and an aversion to reason, common sense, and the willingness to participate as full neighbors with others in the human project?
But I know too many tov pastors with tov churches and lots of tov people in those churches. It’s not all one thing, that’s my only point.
The question I have had to face is whether or not I want to be identified any longer with the public culture of evangelicalism. My journey of moving away from it is about 17 years long now, and when DT was elected, my walk turned into a sprint. The pandemic and the response of evangelicals I know has even quickened that pace. Yes, there are good and loving pastors and people, but, in general, the movement's theology, overall perspective on life, insularity, and magical thinking is no longer tolerable to me. Hospice chaplaincy and other things have led me to embrace Bonhoeffer's observation that he became more and more "drawn to the religionless" in brotherhood because Christians can't seem to have any trust in human life and goodness.
"the movement's theology, overall perspective on life, insularity". I agree on the insularity issue, but please specify on the "theology" and "perspective" issues, because there seems to be a range from wide-open Charismatics and Pentecostals, to name it-claim it Osteen followers, to John MacAurthur fundamentalists. I am not saying you are wrong, but just looking for clarification on what you are referring to.
(By the way, I miss your IMonk writings).
Rick, email me at chaplainmike333@gmail.com and I'll be happy to discuss this. I don't want to hijack Scot's post any further.