#ItsNotUs: Being Evangelical Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry

[Vonsalza]

Here’s the article from USC’s “Religion Dispatches”;

https://religiondispatches.org/itsnotus-being-evangelical-means-never-having-to-say-youre-sorry/

Minor details aside, I think it’s an excellent reveal on how Evangelicalism, by and large, tries to maintain its reputation through denial.

If you have 5 minutes, give it a read.

 

[Wannano]

Here’s the article from USC’s “Religion Dispatches”;

#ItsNotUs: Being Evangelical Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry | Religion Dispatches

Minor details aside, I think it’s an excellent reveal on how Evangelicalism, by and large, tries to maintain its reputation through denial.

If you have 5 minutes, give it a read.

No, you have it wrong…it’s not us!

 

[ATraveller]

So is Evangelicalism a loose grouping or is it a clearly defined group?
And this is more about American White Evangelicalism, whatever that is. More of an attack on them to be precise. The smugness from the Mainline Protestant elite is interesting. For all of the pontificating on race, they remain, using part of a famous phrase, pale and stale. ‘Evangelicals’ are significantly more diverse in terms of race.

it’s based on self-identification. They are evangelicals in name only; it’s not us.

That’s not an example of #itsnotus. It has analytical value. Consistently, in sociological research, dividing the nominal from the practising give stark differences in results. Not in politics though.

This is how former megachurch pastor Rob Bell and popular author Rachel Held Evans ceased to be evangelical: not because they quit the Bible, but because they came up with “wrong,” (thus “unbiblical”) answers about hell and being gay. “Biblicism” is evangelical gerrymandering.

They pretty much did quit the Bible. Spurgeon, Edwards, Calvin, Luther, Newton and the Wesley brothers would likely agree with that. The ‘gerrymandering’ claim is interesting considering that is exactly what the Mainline elite have done consistently. Think, ‘that’s not really sin’, ‘Jesus didn’t mention it so it’s not a sin’ every time a militant ‘secularist’ or moralistic therapeutic deist decides on a new social trend and the Mainline leaders capitulate to appease people instead of God.

Using the author’s logic, the Nicene Creed practically would be 'a prospectus for a theological agenda’. Read the Statement of Faith the author attacked: Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose - Wheaton College, IL Nothing out of line with even Catholics.

It seems odd that the author has left out the fact many ‘evangelicals’ are forming networks and more convergence in beliefs is occurring. Calvinism and its variants in particular are ‘benefiting’.

Mind you there are many criticisms of ‘Evangelicalism’ I have being one myself but this piece is more interested in attacking Evangelicals, who are all white and dumb in their imaginations, to make some feel better about their diminishing role in America’s religious landscape. A diminishing role that is without a doubt mostly due to their failure to preach the whole Gospel, which makes their beliefs practically indistinguishable from atheism and/or moralistic therapeutic deism.

This might be an interesting read for some:

Fundamentalist–modernist controversy - Wikipedia

 

[ATraveller]

To the denial issue:
All groups do that. Just read the stories on Catholics and sex abuse, Islam and terrorism and Atheism and mass killings and the responses. E.g. ‘You ain’t no Muslim bruv’, ‘Pol Pot wasn’t a real atheist’. And we probably should add Buddhism and the situation in Myanmar. Is that denial justified? That’s up for debate and we all have our personal views.
It would be nice if the author would write on that in the future and/or the publication would publish something of that sort, otherwise, it comes off as a hit piece. The author seems to support guilt by association. One would hope that would be applied equally to everyone else who’s not ‘evangelical’.

In a recent Vox editorial, historian Thomas Kidd, a never-Trump evangelical, continues the refrain.

And plenty weren’t denying. They were disappointed with the either/or game or sympathised with why many ended up voting for Trump or Roy Moore.

Meanwhile, evangelical Trump voters declare that by withholding support, never-Trump evangelicals have demonstrated their faithlessness.

Notice ‘Trump voters’. Are they the one’s who define who’s a Christian and who’s not? By that logic, I guess one should visit CAF. ‘Voted for Trump, you’re not a Catholic’. ‘Didn’t vote for Trump, you’re not a Catholic’. It’s persuading people to vote through guilt. All groups do it all the time unfortunately. They do it because politics is an idol.

To be evangelical, we are told, is to believe in “conversion.” But is conversion a uniquely evangelical idea? It’s not even uniquely Christian; Muslims convert too. Rather, they are appealing to a particular experience of conversion. And how is an evangelical conversion measured? That’s the rub.

I see a bit of a strawman. Conversion involves an expectation of the person living a Christian life and consciously doing that. A continual life of repentance, as Martin Luther wrote in the first of 95 theses. This is precisely why infant baptism is dissuaded if not strongly rejected by most evangelicals. Who is denying Islam doesn’t involve conversions?

The piece is more interested in the politics than the theological. Evangelicalism is more than national politics but I’m sure a historian like the author would know that.

 

[po18guy]

The problem is that 100% of non-Catholic/non-Apostolic Christianity is not pure, true, Christianty. It is a departure, a rejection, based on the disobedience of obedience to the ego. How is that supposed to be satisfying? How’d that work out for Adam and Eve?

Something is lacking in each and every(non)denomination. They are like a balloon with a pin-hole: they must constantly be puffed up with more air. What to do when you tire of puffing?

There is much talk of migrants and refugees these days. There are tens of millions right here in the US! Who? Those who are hopping from church to church in search of…

…and not finding it until they find home - a home they have never visited. And, once home, they find the peace which surpasses all understanding.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t have time to read the article but I would love to get a bumpersticker that said this.

 

[Vonsalza]

So is Evangelicalism a loose grouping or is it a clearly defined group?..

…They pretty much did quit the Bible. Spurgeon, Edwards, Calvin, Luther, Newton and the Wesley brothers would likely agree with that…

I think that’s rather the author’s point that you’ve seemed to make in a back-handed way. The concept of “evangelical” (and this is coming from a former evangelical) is so nebulous that plausible deniability accompanies absolutely any member.

When it’s all good and well - “Yay! Evangelical brotherhood!”

When the pastor gets caught with the secretary and stealing funds - “He was never a REAL believer”.

Using the author’s logic…

We can insert words in their mouth?

…but this piece is more interested in attacking Evangelicals, who are all white and dumb in their imaginations…

Interesting. I didn’t detect what you feel are obvious racial overtones in the article.

Thanks for the perspective!

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t have time to read the article but I would love to get a bumpersticker that said this.

*High Five

Me too.

 

[ATraveller]

The concept of “evangelical” (and this is coming from a former evangelical) is so nebulous that plausible deniability accompanies absolutely any member.

Decentralised I agree. On absolutely anyone could be evangelical I don’t. I focused on Biblicism and Conversion for why it can’t be anyone.

We can insert words in their mouth?

How? That is the logical outcome. What was so appalling about that Statement of Faith?

I didn’t detect what you feel are obvious racial overtones in the article.

The piece had a lot on politics. We know most black evangelicals didn’t vote for Trump and Moore. Throughout, it was a description of what most would categorise as White Evangelicals.

When it’s all good and well - “Yay! Evangelical brotherhood!”

When the pastor gets caught with the secretary and stealing funds - “He was never a REAL believer”.

That attitude does exist but to say that it’s the only response is wrong. Equally as common are, ‘he messed up’, ‘we still sin’, ‘he needs to cling to the Lord more’.
That attitude exists because it’s most likely TULIP is involved to some extent and a misunderstanding of it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The concept of “evangelical” (and this is coming from a former evangelical) is so nebulous that plausible deniability accompanies absolutely any member.

Decentralised I agree. On absolutely anyone could be evangelical I don’t. I focused on Biblicism and Conversion for why it can’t be anyone.

Oh of course. It’s by those perceived standards that the newly infamous are decried as such.

Vonsalza:

We can insert words in their mouth?

How? That is the logical outcome. What was so appalling about that Statement of Faith?

I try to reserve the right to let pundits make their arguments for themselves. Who knows? For a different point they might do something crazy like use a different argument.

Vonsalza:

I didn’t detect what you feel are obvious racial overtones in the article.

The piece had a lot on politics. We know most black evangelicals didn’t vote for Trump and Moore. Throughout, it was a description of what most would categorise as White Evangelicals.

As Pew gives Evangelicals as being 76% White, 11% Latino, 6% Black, 2% Asian and the balance as “Other”, “White Evangelicals” seem to represent the vast majority of Evangelicals as a category. And as your racial speculations are fairly off-the-cuff, I’d probably refrain. But to each their own.

Vonsalza:

When it’s all good and well - “Yay! Evangelical brotherhood!”

When the pastor gets caught with the secretary and stealing funds - “He was never a REAL believer”.

That attitude does exist but to say that it’s the only response is wrong. Equally as common are, ‘he messed up’, ‘we still sin’, ‘he needs to cling to the Lord more’.

Well, I wouldn’t say “equally as common”. More like “fairly rare”. In practically all of situations I’M aware of where an Evangelical Pastor is caught in some form of impropriety, the result is termination or resignation. Their legacy is usually not remembered fondly. But I’ll admit my experiences are anecdotal.

exists because it’s most likely TULIP is involved to some extent and a misunderstanding of it.

Oh no way. There are many reformed “evangelical” congregations, but the vast, vast majority are not. Unambiguously.

 

[ATraveller]

Oh of course. It’s by those perceived standards that the newly infamous are decried as such.

How is same-sex ‘marriage’ biblical? Simple answer, it’s not.
As for conversion, what’s expected in a Christian life is practically not that different from Catholics or even in Protestants a few centuries back.

As Pew gives Evangelicals as being 76% White, 11% Latino, 6% Black, 2% Asian and the balance as “Other”, “White Evangelicals” seem to represent the vast majority of Evangelicals as a category.

Pew has a third Protestant category: Black Protestant, which is simply based on historical issues. Those identifying and those attending those churches are not exclusively African-American.
Also, I mentioned American White Evangelicalism because it’s so American-centric when around 50% or more Evangelicals live outside of the US.

Well, I wouldn’t say “equally as common”. More like “fairly rare”. In practically all of situations I’M aware of where an Evangelical Pastor is caught in some form of impropriety, the result is termination or resignation. Their legacy is usually not remembered fondly. But I’ll admit my experiences are anecdotal.

That’s the problem with anecdotes. We would need quasi-quantitative data, which is the best one can get.
Why are those pastors fired? Because they fell short. 1 Timothy, if I recall correctly, call on pastors to meet certain standards. Would not the same be said for any other denomination or religion.

Oh no way. There are many reformed “evangelical” congregations, but the vast, vast majority are not. Unambiguously.

It is based on a theological misunderstanding of some sort. They do look Calvinistic. The idea that this is some how a deliberate attempt to keep things vague is not supported by evidence.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Oh of course. It’s by those perceived standards that the newly infamous are decried as such.

How is same-sex ‘marriage’ biblical? Simple answer, it’s not.

That’s not what we’re talking about here. The plausible deniability that accompanies any evangelical is.

One specific example out of an article with more than one doesn’t offset this reality that you, yourself, admit to existing.

Vonsalza:

As Pew gives Evangelicals as being 76% White, 11% Latino, 6% Black, 2% Asian and the balance as “Other”, “White Evangelicals” seem to represent the vast majority of Evangelicals as a category.

Pew has a third Protestant category: Black Protestant, which is simply based on historical issues. Those identifying and those attending those churches are not exclusively African-American.
Also, I mentioned American White Evangelicalism because it’s so American-centric when around 50% or more Evangelicals live outside of the US.

You’re totally right and I missed that. But that category as a whole is only 1/4 as large as evangelicalism. If you combine the categories, it’s still 62% or so white and 23% black. I’d still avoid making questionable racial assertions.

Vonsalza:

Well, I wouldn’t say “equally as common”. More like “fairly rare”. In practically all of situations I’M aware of where an Evangelical Pastor is caught in some form of impropriety, the result is termination or resignation. Their legacy is usually not remembered fondly. But I’ll admit my experiences are anecdotal.

That’s the problem with anecdotes. We would need quasi-quantitative data, which is the best one can get.
Why are those pastors fired? Because they fell short. 1 Timothy, if I recall correctly, call of pastors to meet certain standards. Would not the same be said for any other denomination or religion.

The other problem with admitting anecdotes is that I’ve already given you your “out”.

Nonetheless, I’ll stick to the idea that when an evangelical pastor is caught in financial or sexual impropriety, the majority of the time they’re out and their legacy is impaired in a lasting way.

Your disagreement is noted.

Vonsalza:

Oh no way. There are many reformed “evangelical” congregations, but the vast, vast majority are not. Unambiguously.

It is based on a theological misunderstanding of some sort. They do look Calvinistic. The idea that this is some how a deliberate attempt to keep things vague is not supported by evidence.

I’ll double-down here. If you try to preach TULIP at the great majority of evangelical congregations, you’ll be politely asked to leave. As such, your point, at least to me, isn’t comprehensible here…

 

[ATraveller]

That’s not what we’re talking about here. The plausible deniability that accompanies any evangelical is.

One specific example out of an article with more than one doesn’t offset this reality that you, yourself, admit to existing.

I pointed out those are not examples of why Evangelicalism is decentralised in my earlier replies. Honestly, there are better ones but instead the non-Biblical one is chosen.

But that category as a whole is only 1/4 as large as evangelicalism. If you combine the categories, it’s still 62% or so white and 23% black. I’d still avoid making questionable racial assertions.

Well, not all Black Protestant would even go into Evangelicalism when re-categorizing.
I will argue the racial aspect is relevant because the piece focuses solely on that part of Evangelicalism because it’s US-centric and perpetuates that stereotype.

I’ll double-down here. If you try to preach TULIP at the great majority of evangelical congregations, you’ll be politely asked to leave. As such, your point, at least to me, isn’t comprehensible here…

I’ll clarify by saying it’s the P in TULIP. U, L and I are not the focus.