A Response to an Evangleical's Loving Engagement with A Post-Evangelical Manifesto
The Post-Evangelical Manifesto seems to be reaching a few ears and making some waves. Thank God for that. Thank you especially to the people behind Nuance and Conservative Reformed Mafia for helping spread the word, as well as countless comments on the issue in various posts in the blogosphere.
But one blogger was especially engaging, and I sensed in his word a genuine yearning to understand where all this is coming from. Tim Wilson at Christ-Centered Blogging challenged me with some very tough and insightful questions. I have no doubt that Tim vociferously disagrees with my overall position, but I am as fully convinced that his questions were posed is love and in the true spirit of Christian engagement. As such, they deserve a response in that same spirit. So I will try to give one here.
Tim's Question (On the Title "Post-Evangelical"): My first question is, if evangelical means “Gospel person” why would you want to be post-evangelical? You may want to reform the way Gospel people behave but surely you don’t want to be post people having the Gospel at the centre?
My Response: I would never want to be post-evangelical, but I am post-Evangelical, if you see the difference. The self-imposed titles of movements usually pick the most flaterring terms, usually to deflect criticism. For example, how can anyone be opposed to choice? Ergo, "Pro-Choice." Or to democracy? Ergo, "Democrat." I think it's still possible to critique these movements, despite their untouchable titles.
Tim's Question (On Not Unpacking Truths): No Evangelical I know recites their doctrinal basis never unpacking those statements in full. Most evangelical churches preach through the Bible, preaching each passage (Old Testament or New) in light of Jesus’ great work and then applying it to the congregation. Here is the metanarrative set out as God has ordained. In light of this I’m very interested to know what you think Evangelicals have missed out in their unpacking of these brief doctrinal statements.
My Response: In breif, I think what Evangelicals have missed out in their unpacking are (1) the frequency with which they do it, especially outside the doors of "most evangelical churches," and (2) I really do see, on the wide screen, if you will, an implicit equating of the doctrinal statements to the gospel itself, i.e., what must be believed in order to attain salvation. A few hours ago, a read a comment at Jesus Creed on the issue of "God's Wrath." The commentor, clearly coming from an Evangelical perspective, disagreed with someone who was trying to unpack the doctrinal statements regarding God's wrath and remarked: "I guess one of us is not a Christian," or something to that effect. Sadly, that is not an uncommon position (if not often overtly uttered) within Evangelicalism, not usually pertaining to God's wrath, but more often for suitcases labeled "Justification by Faith," "Penal Substitution," etc. As a Post-Evangelical, I really want to see us move past that. Salvation is attained by faith in Jesus Christ, not in any doctrinal statement about Him.
Tim's Question (On "Fighting Yesterday's Battles"): In some ways I would say Evangelicalism is too obsessed with the “big issues” of the day. We spend more time talking about homosexuality and women preachers than we do talking about the things that actually matter to average Joe. Which big issues do you think we miss?
My Response: On fighting yesterday’s battles, I meant that more in the context of theological battles than polical/cultural ones. But more on that anon.
Tim's Question (On a Political Christianity): I heard someone once say “In the Koran I find no guidance for Muslims in the minority. In the Bible I find no guidance for Christians in the majority”. The Bible assumes we will be despised for the Gospel (2 Tim 3:12). The nearest we get to politics is Paul saying we should pray we might be able to live a quiet life (1 Tim 2:1-2). That’s hardly a call to arms! Whilst obviously Christians in politics must act in a Christian way, I am unsure that we are called to act firstly on politics.
My Response: I think this question encapsulates the entire issue. We can isolate texts like 2 Tim 3:12 to support our quietist tradition. Or we can read the whole Bible, cover to cover, and be convicted of that position. Much of the problem arises by the separation of theology and politics, a very recent phenomenon in human history. And that phenomenon was not innocent of a very political agenda. If we privatize Christianity, then we can run this world, the real, public world, and we can delegate God in Christ to limited, personal, spiritual sphere, where never the two should meet. I have come to see Evangelicalism as colluding with that agenda, and I find it to be, in no uncertain terms, a gargantuous "missing the point" of the entire biblical narrative.
For more on this, please see this article by N.T. Wright.
Tim's Question (On Postmodernism): You say that post evangelicalism is “shaped by the postmodern critique”. It scares me you are shaped by anything of the world. When the church has associated with the world it has always turned out bad:
When associated with Modernism the authority of Scripture was undermined by Liberalism.
When associated with Gnostic thought “secret knowledge” and an opposition to God the Son made flesh developed.
When too close to Judaism the Gospel to the Gentiles was hindered (Gal 2:11-14).
Christians should engage with and evangelise our postmodern culture with Scripture, but I would never say we should be informed by postmodernism.
My Response: I was using that term as a hermeneutical principal rather than a worldview. Each and every Christian uses a particular hermeneutic (or a combination of many) every time she or he engages with Scripture. No one comes to Scripture as an unblemished blank slate. And I trust you appreciated the point about hearing the postmodern critique but not getting bogged down within it. Postmodernism made its point, as did Evangelicalism.
It is now time to move forward, incorporating the strengths but honestly assessing the weaknesses.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
But one blogger was especially engaging, and I sensed in his word a genuine yearning to understand where all this is coming from. Tim Wilson at Christ-Centered Blogging challenged me with some very tough and insightful questions. I have no doubt that Tim vociferously disagrees with my overall position, but I am as fully convinced that his questions were posed is love and in the true spirit of Christian engagement. As such, they deserve a response in that same spirit. So I will try to give one here.
Tim's Question (On the Title "Post-Evangelical"): My first question is, if evangelical means “Gospel person” why would you want to be post-evangelical? You may want to reform the way Gospel people behave but surely you don’t want to be post people having the Gospel at the centre?
My Response: I would never want to be post-evangelical, but I am post-Evangelical, if you see the difference. The self-imposed titles of movements usually pick the most flaterring terms, usually to deflect criticism. For example, how can anyone be opposed to choice? Ergo, "Pro-Choice." Or to democracy? Ergo, "Democrat." I think it's still possible to critique these movements, despite their untouchable titles.
Tim's Question (On Not Unpacking Truths): No Evangelical I know recites their doctrinal basis never unpacking those statements in full. Most evangelical churches preach through the Bible, preaching each passage (Old Testament or New) in light of Jesus’ great work and then applying it to the congregation. Here is the metanarrative set out as God has ordained. In light of this I’m very interested to know what you think Evangelicals have missed out in their unpacking of these brief doctrinal statements.
My Response: In breif, I think what Evangelicals have missed out in their unpacking are (1) the frequency with which they do it, especially outside the doors of "most evangelical churches," and (2) I really do see, on the wide screen, if you will, an implicit equating of the doctrinal statements to the gospel itself, i.e., what must be believed in order to attain salvation. A few hours ago, a read a comment at Jesus Creed on the issue of "God's Wrath." The commentor, clearly coming from an Evangelical perspective, disagreed with someone who was trying to unpack the doctrinal statements regarding God's wrath and remarked: "I guess one of us is not a Christian," or something to that effect. Sadly, that is not an uncommon position (if not often overtly uttered) within Evangelicalism, not usually pertaining to God's wrath, but more often for suitcases labeled "Justification by Faith," "Penal Substitution," etc. As a Post-Evangelical, I really want to see us move past that. Salvation is attained by faith in Jesus Christ, not in any doctrinal statement about Him.
Tim's Question (On "Fighting Yesterday's Battles"): In some ways I would say Evangelicalism is too obsessed with the “big issues” of the day. We spend more time talking about homosexuality and women preachers than we do talking about the things that actually matter to average Joe. Which big issues do you think we miss?
My Response: On fighting yesterday’s battles, I meant that more in the context of theological battles than polical/cultural ones. But more on that anon.
Tim's Question (On a Political Christianity): I heard someone once say “In the Koran I find no guidance for Muslims in the minority. In the Bible I find no guidance for Christians in the majority”. The Bible assumes we will be despised for the Gospel (2 Tim 3:12). The nearest we get to politics is Paul saying we should pray we might be able to live a quiet life (1 Tim 2:1-2). That’s hardly a call to arms! Whilst obviously Christians in politics must act in a Christian way, I am unsure that we are called to act firstly on politics.
My Response: I think this question encapsulates the entire issue. We can isolate texts like 2 Tim 3:12 to support our quietist tradition. Or we can read the whole Bible, cover to cover, and be convicted of that position. Much of the problem arises by the separation of theology and politics, a very recent phenomenon in human history. And that phenomenon was not innocent of a very political agenda. If we privatize Christianity, then we can run this world, the real, public world, and we can delegate God in Christ to limited, personal, spiritual sphere, where never the two should meet. I have come to see Evangelicalism as colluding with that agenda, and I find it to be, in no uncertain terms, a gargantuous "missing the point" of the entire biblical narrative.
For more on this, please see this article by N.T. Wright.
Tim's Question (On Postmodernism): You say that post evangelicalism is “shaped by the postmodern critique”. It scares me you are shaped by anything of the world. When the church has associated with the world it has always turned out bad:
When associated with Modernism the authority of Scripture was undermined by Liberalism.
When associated with Gnostic thought “secret knowledge” and an opposition to God the Son made flesh developed.
When too close to Judaism the Gospel to the Gentiles was hindered (Gal 2:11-14).
Christians should engage with and evangelise our postmodern culture with Scripture, but I would never say we should be informed by postmodernism.
My Response: I was using that term as a hermeneutical principal rather than a worldview. Each and every Christian uses a particular hermeneutic (or a combination of many) every time she or he engages with Scripture. No one comes to Scripture as an unblemished blank slate. And I trust you appreciated the point about hearing the postmodern critique but not getting bogged down within it. Postmodernism made its point, as did Evangelicalism.
It is now time to move forward, incorporating the strengths but honestly assessing the weaknesses.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi, no problem on the link. Hope it got you a few hits. One thing, we're the Conservative Reformed Mafia, man! No sweat. ;)
Dear Raffi,
Thanks once more for your clear and concise answers in a Godly spirit. I look forward to discussing these and other things with you in the future.
Grace and Peace
Tim