The Overton Salon

by Laurie Overton

I am compelled to post on the titillating topic of evangelicalism vs non-evangelicalism.  In interest of full disclosure I will say that I am an ambivalent evangelical.  Like other posters, I have subjected myself to the joy (and torture) of formal, didactic training in the Bible, though I am no scholar. I have also voluntarily endured a year’s worth of church 6 times per week (called Bible School), complete with restrictive rules about dress and conduct that can only be rivaled by Bob Jones University in fanaticism.  To boot, though I am probably very non-traditional in my interpretations, I easily fall in Wikipedia’s definition of what an evangelical believes:

1. the need for a personal conversion,
2. a high regard for biblical authority,
3. a strong belief in and emphasis on the power of Christ’s life and death,
4. the endorsement of the expression of faith in the gospel through actions.

At first glance, I might sound a little like your Bible-thumping, crazy woman who at one time or another has willingly participated in (and benefited from) the “emotionalism” of fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity–appreciating the depth of experience in the presence of God during a contemporary worship service; shamelessly attempting to proselytize those around me; and throwing out all my “secular” music at regular intervals.  Throw in a healthy dose of guilt (after all, the only group to compete with a Catholic’s guilt is an evangelical), and you might call me a “a good Christian”.  On the other hand I have had my fair share of criticisms for “Godly” evangelical living.

To be fair to both sides, I have to be honest and say that I cringe in the presence of “happy families with nicely manicured bushes” (Ani DiFranco).  I believe that imperfection is a necessary part of being in God’s will; I am a feminist in most senses of the word; and I do not disagree with homosexuality.  Simply put, I believe strongly in the “love of my neighbor” because of my belief that the love of my neighbor is a direct response to the love of my God.

Now on to my responses to Austin‘s and Drew‘s thoughts on evangelicalism.

1.  Though I agree with Austin when he says,

Evangelicals and “fundamentalists” are absolutely not the same

I have to admit that the evangelicals that make the most noise are generally fundamentals.  But this is the case with fundamentalism in any sphere.  Also, once you’ve been a fundamental evangelical it can be difficult to imagine evangelicalism without fundamentalism.

2.  In response to Drew’s post, I will start by saying that I’m not sure the words “evangelical” or “evangelicalism” are useless.  I agree that the term is broad in its use between denominations, but I think it’s important to point out that evangelicalism is unique in that it is not a denomination, but a tradition. This (young) tradition places a greater focus on the exclusivity of the personal transformative power of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

3.  I also have to disagree with the idea that the word “evangelical” advocates a misguided theological perspective.  Basic rules of nomenclature encourage naming things according to what is unique to them.  An older movement to do the same thing was the Baptists.  Baptism, like evangelism, is important in every denomination.  I don’t think it’s to say that anyone has a corner on baptism, but just saying that maybe they do have a unique perspective on it, and that unique perspective is central to their faith.

I do agree with Drew’s criticism of the fundamentalist evangelicals who disengage themselves from contemporary culture (generally to remain pure, or to be “set apart”).  This is a part of evangelicalism that I find hard to swallow, but I’d like to suggest that this may not be unique to evangelicalism, but more to extremism of any religious affiliation.

Another thing I do not see as a compulsory connection to evangelical theology is the presence of “seeker” churches whose measure of success is new membership.  It seems to me that this type of “ministry” was fostered by prosperity theology (1990′s) and the subsequent efforts of the church to emulate something more like a business model.  The music was sensationalized and much of everything was a production.  In many places there was little room for honesty and even less room for humility.

Another thing that I think facilitated this was the simple fact that evangelicals (like everyone else) accept some aspects of society (desire for nice things, etc) and this can be compounded by the paradoxical separatism that is encouraged under the guise of a search for purity.  Honestly, I connect this with basic sinfulness, and I see this as a risk in any denomination or tradition.  Looking for status, holding on to pride, and forgetting about loving your neighbor are all outcomes of this…but this is something that we all have to worry about.

In short, being a person who has suffered at the hands of her fellow evangelical Christians, and who is still an evangelical Christian (though maybe a little quieter about it), I like to think that there are some amazing things that the evangelical tradition has to offer.  Among them would be the palpable ability to perceive the closeness of God in a community of believers as you worship together; and a passion to serve God in whatever capacity He has called you to.  As far as a criticism of evangelicals (which I do have many), I think it mostly boils down to the basic sins that everyone struggles with despite their denomination… and there is no “right answer”, “right denomination”, or “right tradition” that can save you from that.  It is only the grace of God.  The beauty of this is that our basic sinfulness serves as a daily reminder to us of how much we truly need God (and His grace) in our lives.