Evangelicalism - responding to romantic and global notions
I appreciate the movement of well-known and intelligent evangelicals giving voice to the global evangelical church. I appreciate that they speak to their our own conservative and western/white audiences and invite them to consider a broader definition and practice of evangelicalism.
This said, as a non-minority, American male, I also want to be hesitant with how far I go into global definitions at the expense of dealing with the socially embodied definitions of my own "tribe."
First, global evangelicalism can too often become one thing. I am not sure we want to do this - Anglican Africans are included in evangelicalism as are Pentecostal Asians and underground house churches. What about Latin American base communities of the Roman Catholic Church? By using the label global evangelicalism I wonder if it is too often a romanticized view that undercuts and further limits the actual voice of the world-wide churches?
Second, the word global evangelicalism is often romanticized as a spirit-moving faith that is outside cultural trappings. Evangelicalism in the US white world is entrapped to conservatism, male hegemony, entertainment-culture, consumerism, scientific rationalism and individualism, etc. Global evangelicalism is often entrapped within cultural particularities. I will not speak to these, but no one, not one, is free from the complexities of external environments (often called culture). I would like to romanticize the global church as a critique of my own, but this is too comparative in nature. I believe theology that is exposed by comparison will be less likely to experience a redemption of the tradition. Church, ekklesia, is a cultural articulation, and broad sweeping generalizations, even geographical, seem to lead to the same problem of evangelicalism in the US - misunderstanding.
Third, evangelicalism, even if labeled as global, is continually heard in anglo-US communities with the trappings and gifts and difficulties (most often with the latter). We write about it as the best of the US trappings, but I am not sure this is fair to the brother and sister churches. This entraps them to our definitions. It is true that the non-western church is growing and will affect (is affecting) the American church. Why don't we talk about the global mainline church, but much of global evangelicalism is also part of liberal American denominations.
Moving back to the neighborhood of Anglo-US evangelicalism:
I was teaching at Seattle University last week. Seattle U is a progressive Roman Catholic school of Jesuit persuasion. The students in the course were largely ecumenical - from mainline denominations. I identified myself as evangelical early on and proceeded to unpack what this means throughout the course. It is clear that the term is misunderstood - often equated with fundamentalism, anti-intellectual, republicanism..... which holds up under substantial sociological evidence.
On the third day, the students had hinted at a desire to "know" what evangelicalism is, according to the professor. one student mentioned, "is there a difference between "eVan-gelical" and "Evangelical"? I was unsure what she was asking, but she heard a subtle difference in the way I "said" the word. This started the students on a series of self-understandings of the word. Most wanted something within evangelical (regardless of the syllabic emphasis) but were also cautious to appropriate it. My sense is that what we are trying to say about "global evangelicalism" is what these students want to appropriate.
I attempted to offer them the frameworks for how I define the word. I offered the definition I borrow from my own denomination - The Evangelical Covenant Church. (Sidenote: depending on what local church or region of participation, Evangelical is understood in one of two ways: 1) a connection to the European "evangelical" of good news; 2) an American identity connected to the Great Awakenings. In fairness, I think all of us should ascribe both aspects to our self-understanding).
In the Covenant, we define evangelical as somewhere in the space between poles:
This said, as a non-minority, American male, I also want to be hesitant with how far I go into global definitions at the expense of dealing with the socially embodied definitions of my own "tribe."
First, global evangelicalism can too often become one thing. I am not sure we want to do this - Anglican Africans are included in evangelicalism as are Pentecostal Asians and underground house churches. What about Latin American base communities of the Roman Catholic Church? By using the label global evangelicalism I wonder if it is too often a romanticized view that undercuts and further limits the actual voice of the world-wide churches?
Second, the word global evangelicalism is often romanticized as a spirit-moving faith that is outside cultural trappings. Evangelicalism in the US white world is entrapped to conservatism, male hegemony, entertainment-culture, consumerism, scientific rationalism and individualism, etc. Global evangelicalism is often entrapped within cultural particularities. I will not speak to these, but no one, not one, is free from the complexities of external environments (often called culture). I would like to romanticize the global church as a critique of my own, but this is too comparative in nature. I believe theology that is exposed by comparison will be less likely to experience a redemption of the tradition. Church, ekklesia, is a cultural articulation, and broad sweeping generalizations, even geographical, seem to lead to the same problem of evangelicalism in the US - misunderstanding.
Third, evangelicalism, even if labeled as global, is continually heard in anglo-US communities with the trappings and gifts and difficulties (most often with the latter). We write about it as the best of the US trappings, but I am not sure this is fair to the brother and sister churches. This entraps them to our definitions. It is true that the non-western church is growing and will affect (is affecting) the American church. Why don't we talk about the global mainline church, but much of global evangelicalism is also part of liberal American denominations.
Moving back to the neighborhood of Anglo-US evangelicalism:
I was teaching at Seattle University last week. Seattle U is a progressive Roman Catholic school of Jesuit persuasion. The students in the course were largely ecumenical - from mainline denominations. I identified myself as evangelical early on and proceeded to unpack what this means throughout the course. It is clear that the term is misunderstood - often equated with fundamentalism, anti-intellectual, republicanism..... which holds up under substantial sociological evidence.
On the third day, the students had hinted at a desire to "know" what evangelicalism is, according to the professor. one student mentioned, "is there a difference between "eVan-gelical" and "Evangelical"? I was unsure what she was asking, but she heard a subtle difference in the way I "said" the word. This started the students on a series of self-understandings of the word. Most wanted something within evangelical (regardless of the syllabic emphasis) but were also cautious to appropriate it. My sense is that what we are trying to say about "global evangelicalism" is what these students want to appropriate.
I attempted to offer them the frameworks for how I define the word. I offered the definition I borrow from my own denomination - The Evangelical Covenant Church. (Sidenote: depending on what local church or region of participation, Evangelical is understood in one of two ways: 1) a connection to the European "evangelical" of good news; 2) an American identity connected to the Great Awakenings. In fairness, I think all of us should ascribe both aspects to our self-understanding).
In the Covenant, we define evangelical as somewhere in the space between poles:
- Evangelical, but not exclusive
- Biblical, but not doctrinaire
- Traditional, but not rigid
- Congregational, but not independent
It seems to me that most evangelical traditions live in this space. Those who lean toward the right side of the pole would be traditions of post-fundamentalism, which still includes them in the Christian faith and partners in the ministry of the gospel:
We operationalize these bipolar sentiments in six affirmations. It is my understanding, as I told the class, that five of the six are applicable to historical rise of evangelicalism. The sixth and final is a particularity of the Covenant that would be problematic for most centrist evangelicals.
- We affirm the centrality of the word of God.
- We affirm the necessity of the new birth.
- We affirm a commitment to the whole mission of the Church.
- We affirm the Church as a fellowship of believers.
- We affirm a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.
- We affirm the reality of freedom in Christ. (Note: this is complicated in practice, but nevertheless binds the Covenant in a theologically rich and particular way. I often think it is the most attractive aspect of the church, yet also the most demanding.)
There are additional assumptions within each of these that deserves unpacking, but for now, this is one definition of evangelical that takes the conversation out of the socio-political or doctrinal positions that so often limit the conversation.
The students received this and believed that this is one American way to define a movement that is complicated by politics and economics. This welcomes me to appreciate my ecclesial community, while also engaging it with a prophetic word to greater grace, deeper service, and thicker salvation in Jesus Christ through the Spirit.
What other definitional spaces on evangelicalism draw us into a trustworthy understanding that critiques and invites our US eccleisa to faith in Jesus by the power of the Spirit?
Comments
Post a Comment