Will the Real Evangelicals Please Stand Up, Part II, or Lexical Peek-a-Boo

I begin nearly every religion course by asking a simple question: Should we allow people to self-identify as members of a particular faith community? Seems simple, right? If you say you're a Christian, you're a Christian. The American impulse toward individualism cringes at the idea of not allowing this simple exercise in self-determination, as if self-determination somehow trumps collective identity.

The question really arose from my journalism experience, because editors will occasionally ask questions about what the other perspective on a religion story is. Having read some inflammatory comments from a splinter group, one will ask, "What about this group of female Catholic priests?" I will patiently explain that there is no such thing as a female Catholic priest, and any group that claims to be ordaining women to the priesthood has placed itself outside the parameters of what is considered Catholicism. This is an easier taxonomic decision than broader terms like Christian and Muslim provide. Things get even more difficult when non-theological terms are used in the context of taxonomies in middle-tier Christian classification: progressive, liberal, conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist. I'll happily admit the latter two are, in order, sort of theological but really sociological, and theological as long as we're talking about the early 20th century Christian movement and its offspring. This confusion came to a head on Tripp Fuller's Homebrewed Christianity recently.

Tripp, long a friend of the parish, has a guest post entry that, although possibly not directly in response to a comment I left on his site, certainly refers to one of my positions, at least obliquely. The whole kerfuffle started because I took issue with evangelicals (yet undefined) attempting to co-opt C.S. Lewis yet again as a mascot in the "who's the best damn evangelical" game. Lewis, an Anglican, and in those days that actually meant Anglo-Catholic, at least theologically, was clearly not an evangelical by any definition I can think of, unless you choose to be so reductionistic in classification that JP II would also make the cut. Anyway, Deacon Bo (the author) and I exchanged friendly barbs, but I actually got too busy to get back to the conversation. One of the issues we had was over my weariness at the use of obscure terms like "progressive" and "missional." The former is a theological term according to Bo. As he defines it, it surely is, but he's one of about seven people who accept that definition. I tend to hear it used as a kinder, gentler euphemism for liberal, a position that Bo believes is a "flippant dismissal." He brings John Cobb into the fray for the sake of denotative definitions of the two terms.

Liberal simply means that one recognizes human experience as a valid location for the theological process. Progressive means that one takes seriously the critique provided by feminist, liberation, and post-colonial criticisms.

First things first. Why a process theologian gets to enter the fray over definitions discussed in the evangelical community is curious. I'll toss out a challenge that process is not equal to evangelical, not if you mean for the latter to actually have a definition that Bo believes is historically grounded. If we're letting Anglo-Catholics and Process theologians into the camp, your tent pegs might be a tad wide to maintain coherent definitions. This seems to be yet another case of evangelicals letting anyone in from whom they can borrow credibility, especially academic or theological credibility.

Second, I actually like Cobb's definitions. Too bad no one I know who uses the term Progressive means it like that. I suppose if you're smart enough to go to the American Academy of Religion's national meeting and actually understand what's being said, you might mean what Cobb says the word means. The funny thing about definitions though is that they aren't determined by some sort of authoritative book (dictionary) or person (theologian); they are determined by usage. In that sense, my comment remains intact. Since progressive is now largely within the domain of politics, and since it is typically used as a euphemism for liberal, you can't borrow the term without borrowing the grammar. Bo and Process friends can fight for the definition Cobb offers, and I happily predict they will be as successful as moderates who now fight for the term Evangelical. It's rare that I agree with Tony Jones, but in this case I do; the naming rights and definitional parameters of "evangelical" have been won by theological conservatives, and the rest of you might just as well move along. Find a new word.

Third, the definitions offered by Cobb seem to make more sense when Progressive is understood as a subset of Liberal. It seems clear to me that to take seriously the "critique provided by feminist, liberation, and post-colonial criticisms" at least means that you must take seriously the idea that human experience is "a valid location for the theological process." How else did theologians develop these criticisms if not within the domain of human experience? The definitions seem to be verging on a tautology, but there is enough nuance between them to prevent that, yet they are clearly a difference of degree, not kind.

I'm sympathetic to the Tripps and Bos and other friends I have who seek to be faithful to the Gospel while eschewing labels and associations that call into question their mission in the world. I'm pretty sure nothing is helped by the redefining of political terms, nor is the appropriation of nebulous labels (missional) all that helpful either. The obsession with naming has grown wearying in the past two decades, and terms like missional and emergent best illustrate the inability of what used to be centrist to left evangelicals to name themselves something that will help the rest of us, including journalists, know exactly who the hell they are and what the hell they believe. Their cause is not helped by marketing and fame whores who destroy the usefulness of the labels, and no one is more guilty of this than the Emergent leaders (notice the big E) and the publishers who sought to make money from the movement or to advance their voice/profile/name within the movement. Moneychangers, anyone?

Comments

[tripp fuller]

i do have an inappropriate love for john cobb. i wonder if the labels are worth engaging because of the people in many pews, in schools, at camps, in book stores, etc that the labels represent. working a label seems dirty and brandish but there seems to be some pluses to working a label if it expands the platform of non-shitty christianity.

[tripp fuller]

ohhh lexical peek-a-boo is one sweet title!

[cheek]

Curiously enough, this is a lesson in definition that happens at some point in almost every Intro to Philosophy class. Instructor has students attempt to define 'chair' or 'table' or some other seemingly simple term, lets them fail miserably, and then glosses over his own inability to give an adequate set of necessary and sufficient conditions before moving on to some other topic of the Euthyphro. The real lesson of that lesson is not that we don't know what tables are since we have pretty good evidence of our ability both to identify and properly use tables. Rather, it is that precise academic definitions are pretty much good only for precise academic discussions. When discussing real people and problems, such definitions are not much use, and when the terms have been co-opted by competing or even parallel groups for different purposes, using such terms can be seen as naively unhelpful at best or cynically dissembling at worst. My general practice is to assume something closer to the former in discussions like these and try to do away with the terms completely except as placeholders for groups to be better-defined later in the discussion should the need arise. Unfortunately such charitable assumptions would be completely unwarranted when the terms are used by political or economic agents in public arenas as diverse as politics, business, and ecclesiology (as in the business of). In such cases, the thing to do is save your breath for someone interested in anything other than her own agenda.

[Greg Horton]

Tripp, I've always believed that, and that's why my initial disgruntlement with Emergent had to do with them ass-fucking the lovely label emergent. They are whores who should be publicly flogged. Mr. Cheek, I wish I had your brain. Really, I do. I just don't want to be as nice as you.

[Leighton]

Like Cheek, I don't like wasting much time on these definition games. This is mostly because I refuse to donate free labor to the marketing departments of organizations I don't actually belong to, and for the life of me I can't see any other purpose to these kinds of discussions. If evangelicals or Emergent or whoever wants to help house the poor and make sure elderly people don't lack for meals and work with international organizations to help broker lasting peace in conflicted regions, I'll gladly work alongside them. But these redefinition games help precious few people, apart from accountants.