Redefining evangelicalism?

I have always identified myself with the the stream of Christendom called "evangelicalism." This word is often thought to refer to those who evangelize. While that is certainly an aspect of evangelicalism, the term itself was coined by conservative Christians in the 1940s to describe those that were distancing themselves from what was called "fundamentalism." Earlier in the century conservatives had taken the moniker "fundamentalists" when a group of pamphlets called The Fundamentals defined their version of orthodoxy. In doing so, they not only "purified" their doctrine but pulled away from social action to differentiate themselves from the liberals who were doing solid work with the urban poor. The new evangelicals rose to prominence to make firm statements about Jesus' heart for social concern and to stand on solid biblical scholarship. Carl Henry's book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) was a manifesto calling for conservatives to develop a truly biblical worldview that embraced a call to serve the world. Other notable figures such as Billy Graham, whose evangelistic crusade in Los Angeles catapulted him to national attention in 1949, and Harold John Ockenga who started Gordon and Fuller seminaries, brought the movement into prominence. Since that time evangelicals have stood on the firm foundation of an authoritative Bible and a born again relationship with God through Jesus Christ. They have also affirmed the use of the mind as well as the engagement of the heart. Some of us have even embraced the present day movement of the Holy Spirit who manifests himself in the form of spiritual gifts such as prophecy and healing, activities heretofore experienced only by pentecostals. Evangelicalism in our day, however, is seeing a titanic shift, not to narrowness, as was the case with Fundamentalism, but to tolerance. Tolerance is the spirit of the age. Along with the rejection of the idea of an overarching metanarrative over all of human history, tolerance is postmodernism's highest value. Tired of the failed experiment called "modernism" and its arrogance, tired of a century of wars and violence, many Americans want world peace at any price. We are especially tired of religious wars and racist and culturally suffocating name calling. As is often the case, however, history can belie a record of attempting to overemphasize something that has been previously ignored, thus propelling us into what I can "pendulum-itis." We swing back and forth to extremes at the expense of finding the radical middle in which the tensions of life are maintained. This desire for tolerance is a solid biblical value when it is defined correctly as giving someone the empathy, warmth and respect due every human being created in the image of God. The rule of love stands for Christians as well as atheists when it comes for how someone is treated. But, and this is a big "but," if we define tolerance as accepting other views that are diametrically opposed to one another then this is non-rational. Japanese Shintoism doesn't even believe there is a god so how can it be as true as a religion that affirms a creator? If we define truth as whatever suits the people in power, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. To the postmodern mind 1 plus 1 doesn't always have add up to 2. Apparently it can factor to whatever you want. Don't like 2? Wouldn't want you to feel bad about yourself so why don't you let it be 3 (although it sure would be tough to build something if you felt the number on your tape measure should read something other than it really does!). Rampant relativism leads nowhere. Subjectivism leads to anarchy where, to use the phrase from the book of Judges, everyone does what is right in their own eyes. In giving people permission to define truth for themselves, postmodernism has promised us that we can all be little gods and that if we don't like something in our sacred book, whichever one we choose, we can change it, or ignore it or outright reject it. We are back to the pluralism of paganism. A recent survey conducted by the organization known as Pew Forum on Religion on a sample of 35,000 Americans showed that 57% of evangelicals believed that people in other faiths can go to heaven. It is easy to see what is happening here. Historically it has been very difficult for the views of the church in a given era of history to not be influenced by the current philosophies of the day. During Hegel's era church history was written from a thesis, antithesis, synthesis perspective. With the advent of Darwinism the history of religions school began to view religion as "evolving." During the period of Heidegger's existentialism Christians began to "self actualize" to give meaning to their individual lives. And on it goes. Today it is tolerance. In every case we are opting to interpret the Scriptures from the lenses our culture gives us. No one is exempt--you, me, not even the most erudite professor. We all have to face our biases and realize that when we come to the text, what we are looking for tends to greatly affect what we see (hello quantum physics and postmodern hermeneutics). But, and again this is a big "but," that does not mean that the author's intent in the text is to be ignored. Indeed, when I sit down with Paul for a Starbucks at the end of the age, in my highly relational (postmodern) concern to be "tolerant" of Paul, I would not want to find out that I had violated his intent. Here's where I'm going with all this. Caught up in the spirit of the age, evangelicals are moving away from the authority of the Bible because the culture is wooing us to be tolerant at the expense of truth. No longer do we live under the Word of God but over it, calling it into question where it doesn't suit our fancy. The first sin recorded in the biblical narrative had to do with whether Eve would stand solidly on the Word of God or not. The devil provided a substitute "word" to entice her to get her legitimate needs met in an illegitimate way. Eve adds to God's word, alleging that God had said that she must not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God had never said she couldn't touch it; she added that. People seem to always take the liberty to either add to, subtract from, or reject altogether their sacred book. It is not just evangelicals that are doing it either. Jews and Muslims and other groups are caught up in the same spirit of the age. If you don't like your group's truth, make up your own. There you go. You're now (a) god. What this all means is that what has historically defined evangelicalism can no longer be true of many of us now. To use the term when we don't stand for what it has always stood for means that the symbol has lost its substance. Those who are now rejecting the authority of the Bible and want to live over the text should now find a new term for themselves. True evangelicals are, to use the term used in the '40s, "Anchored to the rock, geared to the times" i.e., applying the words of the authoritative Word of God in culturally relevant ways. What is most scary is that evangelicals don't really know their own book anymore, let alone submit to its authority. As recounted in The Myth of a Christian Nation, when Gregory Boyd preached a series at his church attempting to show that what is hailed as evangelical praxis is actually laced with a number of prominent myths about the destiny of the American nation that had no biblical bearing whatsoever, he lost a third of his church. Many who identify themselves within evangelicalism don't really want to know the truth and no longer affirm our biblical foundations. We have been duped into the heady notion that we have the right to define truth for ourselves. Underneath it all is the notion that we want to be God. Hmm, that has a familiar ring to it, does it not? Sound like someone else who long ago wanted to become God? Sound like another group of people who long ago wanted to build a tower in their arrogance reaching the heavens? In the eighteen years that I have been traveling throughout the United States teaching the storyline of the Bible, two things have become clear to me. One is that evangelicals know lots of stories but not the Story. This is why I keep doing this and why I've started this blog. It is a huge hole in the church that very few are addressing. Do you know anyone who is teaching in one weekend how the Story works? If you do, tell me about them so I can contact them! We need an army of people doing this. The second thing I've noticed is that people have a very low felt need for this kind of thing because they no longer consider the Bible authoritative. It's like offering vegetables to kids who are used to sugar. They don't know what they need. All this to say that evangelicalism is in trouble because the term now has very little meaning.