Will the Real Evangelicals Please Stand Up, or Why You Ought not do Analysis out the Front Window

Any author who uses Pat Robertson and James Dobson as spokespersons for evangelicals clearly fails to understand how diverse evangelical culture is. Those two were more likely to be spokespersons for fundamentalists, and in Robertson's case, the fringy charismatic variety of fundamentalist. This is a cardinal error in Carol Howard Merritt's HuffPost essay Why Evangelicalism is Failing a New Generation. It's only the first, but it's a big one.

This has to do with a cultural inability to define the damn word. Evangelical, depending upon whom you're speaking with, can mean anything from Pat Robertson to Jim Wallis, and from Billy Graham to Benny Hinn. The term means virtually nothing, but it's not helped by affixing it to two men who built ministries on divisiveness. Why not apply it to Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren? How about George W. Bush? Toss in Joyce Meyer while you're at it. Joel Osteen? You get the point. It's such a broad term that it has lost any denotative definition, and has instead become synonymous with "conservative Christian," but that is the fault of sloppy reporting, not evangelicals themselves. 

Merritt wants to discuss the three factors she believes are driving young people from evangelical churches. Clearly, she hasn't been to Lifechurch.tv lately, but I suspect there is a dearth of megachurches in D.C. However, National Community Church in her own backyard seems to be doing quite well. Wonder what the average age is there. Anyway, much like Rachel Held Evans insisting the evolution/creation debate is driving scores of young people from the churches (again, likely fundamentalist, not evangelical), Merritt is guilty of projecting her own core issues onto the motives of others. I don't disagree with her assessment, mind you, but I would like to avoid false cause errors wherever possible. Her three issues:

1. pernicious sexism
2. religious intolerance
3. conservative politics

Um, this probably sounds fucking awesome in HuffPost (and I love HuffPost), but it's clearly a failure to look beyond the street outside your D.C. townhouse to evaluate evangelicalism nationwide. Who the hell is she talking about when she says evangelical? I've met a few of these folks, but they don't self-identify as evangelical. More likely emergent, liberal, or mainline. But she says she's talking about herself, and I'm fine that Merritt considered herself an evangelical at one point. That she pastors Western Presbyterian Church in the nation's capital makes it very unlikely that her definition of evangelical would fly all that well down here where evangelicals make up more than 50% of the population. They are about 15% or less in D.C., and I say less because the Pew Forum map reports that number for Maryland/D.C.

That evangelicalism takes on the characteristics of the culture in which it's embedded seems beyond contradiction, and the stronghold of evangelicalism is Dixie. This is important because these people see things far differently than a female Presbyterian pastor in D.C. Hell, they'd call her a liberal never having met her. Female, Presbyterian, East Coast, Pastor. Shit, they'd bet a thousand dollars to make five bucks that she performs same sex unions.

Again, I agree with her assessment of some of evangelicalism's demons, but these aren't the reasons young people are leaving in droves. (I should remind everyone at this point that young people have always left churches in droves, especially between 18-21. The test was whether they came back, and in many cases, especially first child, they do.) It's a difference of definitions again. She sees submission as sexism, and while I don't disagree, you don't get to tell people how to read their sacred texts. The interpretation chosen by complementarian evangelicals is consistent with the text. Sorry, it just is. This nearly always comes down to an issue of authority, not what the text actually says. If God truly did order wives to submit, it's not sexism; it's the law of God. If you don't like it, parse the Bible like most sane people do, or get out, like other sane people do, but don't insist that the text doesn't say what it says. You just sound deluded.

It's not religious intolerance to be exclusivist. She conflates exclusivism with intolerance. Many evangelicals I know love their neighbors of various faiths, and they believe those neighbors might be in danger of hell. That is not intolerance, folks. I expect evangelicals to act like evangelicals here in Oklahoma, not like...well...like East Coast PCUSA feminists. Kids here aren't leaving their churches for these reasons, not in large numbers.

I'll give her the nod on conservative politics, but seriously, colleges aren't suffering from want of members to join young Republican clubs. Many young evangelicals I know are content conservatives. They aren't wringing their hands about supporting the military, opposing abortion, and clamoring for smaller government. Again, to whom is she speaking? About whom is she speaking? Who does she think is leaving? I think she's talking about Sojourners kids, but as a former staffer told me a while back, a majority of the D.C. staffers are Republicans, kinder, gentler Republicans, kids who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate, but still Republicans. They still self-identify as evangelical.

Her last paragraph is worth quoting at length, because in it, she reveals the wishful thinking that animates her wistful analysis:

Where are all of the young Evangelicals going? That's hard to say. I found a home in the Presbyterian Church, but most of them probably aren't going anywhere for now. Nevertheless, this is an important moment for progressive Christians. There is a generation of people wandering, and many of them are hoping that their faith is made of something deeper than what they hear from the Evangelical talking heads.

It's fair to say that if you found a home in the Presbyterian Church, your evangelical bona fides were shaky to begin with. And if you believe progressive (whatever the fuck that means) churches will appeal to committed evangelicals, you're clearly deluded. I'm so weary of the hipster terms and nebulous labels. What is a progressive church? Please just call yourself liberal or post-liberal and get it over with. The inference is that you are progressive and those other folks are regressive. It's shitty theology and shitty ecclesiology, oh, and it's not very Christian.

Young people are leaving the church, but they are leaving all churches, not just evangelical churches. They are leaving because American Christianity offers nothing they can't get outside of church. That she believes "progressive" churches are better at offering something (other than intellectual stimulation) that evangelical churches can't provide, as if they aren't equally guilty of pandering (just pick the parts that "make sense"), shows that she truly misunderstands the actual problem. Her diagnosis plays well to a readership who already think with a leftward slant, but it's worthless in terms of diagnosing actual problems. Until she figures out that it is American Christianity in all its materialistic, individualistic, consumerist glory that is the problem, she'll keep thinking the PCUSA, sorry, progressive churches, have it figured out.

Comments

[Kevin Powell]

I think she's right when she uses the term "sexist" to describe some evangelical attitudes toward women and marriage, mainly because many evangelicals give authority to that passage than to other texts that would place women on a more equal footing. I think they misread Eph 5.22, which (I think) is about mutual submission rather than about dominating power.

Same goes with the religious intolerance charge. Evangelicals choose some texts as being authoritative over others to put themselves at the head of God's table. For example, Matt 28 always seems to trump Matt 25 in that conversion is seen as greater than service.

But you're right about her failing to identify a general decline in all churches. Megachurches aside (who typically "grow" through transfer growth rather than conversion growth, and have a high turnover rate) all churches are on the same sinking ship.

I heard Diana Butler Bass speak a few months ago and she identified the SBC and LCMS as among the fastest declining churches in the US.

Churches are declining for a vast array of socio-cultural, economic, and political reasons. It would have been nice for her article to go deeper and offer some actual data.

kgp

[cheek]

I think it's a lot harder to separate exclusivism from intolerance than you make it out to be. It's true that plenty of exclusivist Christians are kind to non-believers. A very few are even willing to admit that they should get to build their houses of worship wherever they choose and not be forced to use references to the birth of Christ in discussing historical dates. (I had a long discussion with a very conservative sunday school teacher in college who was horrified regarding the switch in academic writing from B.C. to B.C.E. Finally, bereft of argument, she admitted that she just liked having her god referenced in the calendar. Not sure if that was enough to convince her that the switch was a good idea, though.) However, what they are not willing to do, almost universally, is actually give careful consideration to the non-believers reasons for non-belief. This fact is evident just from looking at the vocabulary. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists are all 'non-believers' not 'other-believers' or just 'Muslims', 'Hindus', 'Buddhists'. What someone believes and why she believes it is unimportant if she does not believe what I believe. That failure to treat others as rational beings on a par with oneself is, I think, fairly categorized as intolerant. (Worse than intolerant, really, but given that it's also a nearly universal failure of human psychology, I'll not get too judgmental on the subject.)

[Leighton]

On the other hand, from a tactical perspective, there's a big difference between working in a conceptual framework that isn't optimal for communication, and actively participating in shenanigans like this. It's possible to believe really goofball things, even dangerous things, and not actively ruin other people's lives over it.

I get that it's not always helpful to make a hard distinction between enablers and perpetrators, and it may depend on how broadly you want to define "intolerance." I also get that someone who doesn't share your core priorities is not likely to be a political ally on many issues. I just think "Those who are not for us are against us" was silly when Jesus said it, and it's silly now. Actual political landscapes are more complicated than that.

Edit: testing the comment edit feature to see if there are any flags made to the comment.

Edit 2: No mention in the page that the post was edited. Hmm...the possibilities...

[dr dobson]

Sorry, but I'm still laughing at the notion, much less the outright printing of her three points of contention and the words, "Presbyterian Church" in the same article. By my experience, which is somewhat profound and directly with east coast Prebyterian churches of both ilks (PCA and PCUSA), the Prebyterians (denominationally-speaking, not theologically-speaking) are completely sexist, completely intolerant (in any and every sense of that word) and the reddest of red on the subject of politics (do any of us remember James Kennedy?).

I suppose if I were a member of that denomination, I would remain eternally grateful that I was born with a penis instead of a vagina; but if I did wear a vagina, I should also be thankful that the likes of Pastor Carol are in the midst of that den of male-dominated conservatism otherwise disguised as the Prebyterian Church. Kudos to her, I suppose. I would be intrigued to find out if she has any deacons or elders in her church who don't stand up to pee.

In sum, the PCA and the PCUSA are simply the Church of Christ with two different, albeit required, kinds of organs.

[Trevor Palen]

Cheek,

"That failure to treat others as rational beings on a par with oneself is, I think, fairly categorized as intolerant."

I don't know that the typical EV conflates belief with rationality. "Believer" is synonymous with "Christian" in EV circles.

I question whether any person(A) can share in cordial debate with a person(B) of differing opinion on any subject and, if at the end of the conversation disagreement is not resolved, walk away not thinking to some degree "They just don't get it." Obviously, this is in a context where Person A genuinely and strongly thinks they are correct. I would think it's instinctual human reaction, not so much intolerance.

[Trevor Palen]

Oh, and Greg, I caught the Eminem reference this time...(It helps I just listened to that album front to back earlier this week)

[Greg Horton]

Cheek, as rare as this is, I'm going with Trevor here contra you. I don't like the idea of defining disagreement with intolerance, even disagreement of the irreconcilable kind. When Todd and I sit down for lunch, we agree on a very few things: we love our daughters and wives, love our jobs and lives, so the commonality is primarily one of similar places in life, and only secondarily one of a previously shared metaphysic and career. When we leave, he still thinks I'm wrong, and I'm still thinking he's probably wrong. What we do is talk around the subject in ways that are beneficial to each other, approaching the metaphysical elephant in the room obliquely, rather than directly. I am not intolerant of him, nor is he intolerant of me; we simply think the other is wrong about a very crucial issue. Granted, we are both better at this sort of parsing than many evangelicals, but that I think you're at least partly deluded about a metaphysical assumption does not mean I don't tolerate you or your beliefs. I'm not treating him as irrational because I think he's wrong; I understand why he believes he's right, and I suspect many evangelicals understand why I think I'm right. They think I'm wrong, but they can usually tolerate my unbelief even while they are befuddled that I don't get it. It's a choice to compartmentalize conversations, cordoning some topics off as impossible to resolve.

[cheek]

So perhaps I'm assuming a working definition of 'exclusivist' here that is stronger than what you have in mind: something like "a member of a specific religion who takes his own religion to be the exclusive path to the divine (I admit it's a bit cheap to use tired metaphors in a technical definition, but I'm too lazy to be more precise at the moment. Perhaps I will be if it comes up later on.) with the strong implication that anyone who fails to follow the specific path laid out by his religion (whether it be through the right kind of works, beliefs, sacraments, etc.) is to be finally cut off from the divine (damned, annihilated, re-born as a fruit fly, expunged from the mind of g-d, etc.). Furthermore, the typical Christian exclusivist* (from my experience) believes that everyone who confronts the Truth of the Gospel is capable for recognizing that Truth and therefore fails as a rational spiritual agent, fails in fact in the primary task for which her rational agency was created, should she fail to accept the Truth as such.

*This obviously does not include most reformed Christians. However, since special revelation seems a paradigm case of intellectual intolerance, I don't think this poses a problem for my position.

Given that understanding of exclusivism, disagreement over fundamentals is not just simple disagreement but a special case of disagreement in which the mind of the other is so corrupt (or some analogue to corruption depending on the particular theology) as to be incapable of seeing the truth. This is not two people sharing evidence but coming away with different conclusions. This is one person saying I know you're wrong about this, so wrong in fact that I don't even need to examine your evidence. Granted it is a much weaker variety of intolerance than one that goes on to insist that the other should therefore not be allowed to practice his chosen religion or lifestyle, but it is a pretty short step from the one to the other. For evidence take a look at how few people care much about recent attempts to perpetrate the latter injustice against Muslims in this supposed land of the free.

[cheek]

Annie was using my computer sometime recently, and so my post accidently links to her blog. She's not me, though I wouldn't be embarrassed to be taken for her.

[Greg Horton]

Cheek, the definition is fine as it goes, but even when I was an exclusivist, I learned to talk about non-believers who were "good" with that loophole from Romans wherein Paul discusses the Gentiles. I believed Jesus was the exclusive means to salvation, but I didn't eliminate the possibility that grace extended to other methods.

[cheek]

Yeah, looking back at that, I don't think I really like the argument I presented above. I suppose what it boils down to for me is the bizarre self-privileging that is necessary to be an exclusivist about religious claims. Given that all religious beliefs are unverifiable or at the least disputable, it is quite strange to encounter a person with beliefs of the same kind as one's own but with very different content, hear that person's story and find out that his belief acquisition made a process largely similar to one's own, be unable to refute that person's beliefs, and then hold firmly to the conviction that that person's beliefs must be false simply because they conflict with one's own. In any domain other than religious belief, we'd expect an epistemic agent presented with such a conflict to at least downgrade his credence in the proper functioning of his own reason on the point if not to completely suspend belief. In the religious case, it seems the only reason in favor of holding firm to exclusivism is a privileging of one's own epistemic processes and attitudes that is unjustified unless the rationality of the other is downgraded. Intolerance may not be an ideal descriptor, but if it is tolerance, then it seems to be a condescending tolerance, similar, say, to imperialist attitudes towards native cultures.