In Search of Ancient Roots by Kenneth J. Stewart

Source of book: A gift from a friend from law school

Like my friend, this book is erudite, thoughtful, and well researched. The author, likewise, seems like a good guy who would be fascinating to have over for dinner and discussion. While he doesn’t say so, I am guessing he is a Calvinist (based on this book he wrote), which would make him, along with my cousin-in-law Todd, one of the very few Calvinists that I actually respect. Despite the fact that he writes for the Gospel Coalition, which I find one of the more loathsome Evangelical organizations. (Both because of their patriarchy and particularly because they continue to pal around with notorious White Supremacist and general asshat Doug Wilson.)

I would also go so far as to say that, had I read this book ten, or even five years ago, I would have agreed with virtually all of it.

After the experience of the last five years, however, I am afraid that, while I still agree with much of what is in this book, I also think the author has completely missed - or ignored - the giant elephant in the room of the discussion. As an exvangelical myself, while I cannot speak for all who have left, I think I have a bit better handle on our reasons than he does.

Before I get into all of that, let me start with what the book is about. 

I believe the book is largely a response to an exodus of a number of equally erudite (and obscure) theologians who left Evangelicalism and joined either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. More broadly, I think he intends to address a perceived exodus of younger Christians from the Evangelical movement to these older traditions. The goal of the book, therefore, is to argue that Evangelicalism has roots that are every bit as ancient as those of the churches of Rome or Byzantium. In this, he mostly succeeds - in a very specific and narrow way.

If you think of religion as a primarily theological and intellectual exercise, then I think Stewart is very much right. In particular, his argument that both Protestantism as a whole, and the 18th and 19th Century Evangelical movements as well, were a quest to “restore” Christianity to its ancient roots - to find a more pure, less corrupted form of faith. One more like the apostles and the early, persecuted church, and less like the later church which whored itself out to Empire and worldly power. I don’t think Stewart is wrong about this, although, again, this is about the intellectual and theological roots of 18th/19th Century Evangelicalism - and the more intellectual strains that are disappearingly rare these days.

In identifying the causes why people are leaving, I think Stewart does touch on at least a few truths. First is the problem of “provincialism,” as he puts it. Certain strains of Evangelicalism lack the overall worldwide vision of Catholicism, for example. I think Stewart does underestimate how widespread the problem is. I would, myself, say that the overwhelming majority of American white Evangelicals suffer from this provincialism, which is why there is little if any practical or political difference between their “faith” and Americanism and White Nationalism.

Stewart also correctly identifies sectarian expressions of the Evangelical tradition as problematic. Which is true. He names “emotional outbursts, speculation about end times, [and] legalistic tendencies” as problems, while denying that these were ever “universal Evangelical traits.” Universal, perhaps not. Widespread, endemic, and practically inescapable, are the words I would use to describe them, however. They are not a minor bug - they are the defining features.

The final issue that Stewart correctly identifies is the problem of the Fundamentalist takeover of American Evangelicalism, which began over 100 years ago, and continues to this day. Again, Stewart is correct that this is a problem, but he again minimizes the problem. At a couple of points in the book, he mentions Mark Noll and The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - one of the best books on religion I have read in the last decade. However, he manages to miss Noll’s point about the “catastrophe of Fundamentalism” - that anti-intellectualism has crowded out most chances for rational thought or exploration. Again, most of what Stewart is saying is actually pretty good as applied to the very best of the Evangelical and Protestant - and Catholic traditions. In this idealized, rarified world of pure theology, he makes some great points - ones I generally agree with on that level.

Also really good is his point that ALL Christian traditions change. Ideally, religion should evolve toward greater goodness, greater love, and greater holiness. Stewart quotes the Swiss writer Philip Schaff, in 1845:

“The Church, not less than every one of its members, has its periods of infancy, youth, manhood, and old age. This involves no contradiction to the absolute character of Christianity; for the progress of the Church, outward or inward, is never in the strict sense creative, but in the way only of reception, organic assimilation and expansion. In other words, all historical development in the Church, theoretical and practical, consists in an apprehension always more and more profound of the life and doctrine of Christ and his apostles, an appropriation more full and transforming always of their distinctive spirit, both as to contents and its form.”

There is a lot to like about this idea. Certainly the point of the Christian faith should be to become better and better at imitating Christ. And I love the idea that there is the allowance for change. Certainly around the time this was written, some Christians (though by no means all) were working to eliminate slavery - and expressly said that it was because slavery was incompatible with the teachings of Christ. (I agree with this!) Growth requires change - and sometimes that change isn’t just as to form - but as to content as well.

Stewart fleshes this out more in a later chapter, where he notes that ALL forms of Christianity have made significant changes in “externals.” After all, one of the criticisms of Evangelicalism is that it tends to chase cultural trends - including in worship. There is truth here. However, the problem isn’t that religion adapts to culture - it’s what ways does it adapt. Now, some, as Stewart notes, have found a spiritual connection in what they perceive as ancient styles of worship. I myself have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I play music in ancient styles - and I have a strong emotional and spiritual connection to the liturgy in my own way. (See my post about the Requiem service, for example.) On the other hand, I was raised with “contemporary” worship, both the 19th Century Evangelical hymns and CCM style worship. Back when I was a churchgoer, I was fluent in all of these, on multiple instruments. I have seen the “worship wars” from all sides, in that sense. And honestly, the traditionalists are so full of it on this one. A quick survey of musical style shows that church music - like all music - has changed over time, and the traditionalists and modernists have always been at war. And yesterday’s modernist becomes tomorrow’s traditionalist. Thus it has been since at least the days of Aristotle. It’s hard to find, but I highly recommend A Social History of Music, by Henry Raynor for a history of musical style, and the worship wars of the late Middle Ages. Also excellent on this topic is a much shorter blog post by Eric Pazdziora - one of the best I have ever read on the silliness of the Worship Wars.

I give Stewart major kudos for also noting that doctrine itself evolves, grows, and changes. This applies to all of the traditions - not just Evangelicalism. It shouldn’t be controversial to note that the Reformation eventually led to significant reforms in Catholicism - many of them for the better.

On a related note, I like that Stewart notes that the early church had far more diversity of teaching than either the Catholic or the Evangelical traditions tend to admit. For many of us, whether we left Evangelicalism or not, it was a revelation to read beyond the “safe” early theologians (such as certain parts of St. Augustine - but not others) - we realized that many “core” doctrines that we were taught were hardly universal beliefs. Just to name a few: Augustine’s views on creation would be heretical to most American Evangelicals, his views on poverty and wealth directly contradict current Evangelical positions on social justice, and the view of hell and damnation were far from universal. If I were to list one of the great Evangelical lies of my lifetime, it would have to be “all the true Christians back to Christ believed exactly as we do.” This is total bullshit. It was bullshit when the Catholic Church claimed their dogma and authority came straight from Christ via St. Peter. It is bullshit when Evangelicals claim that their pet dogmas (whether on the age of the universe or abortion) were universal - or even majority - beliefs. Stewart is strong in his argument that there is nothing unique about any of the traditions either in rigid continuity of beliefs or in their adaptation to new information.

I also decidedly agree with Stewart’s point that we tend to imagine some glorious past. Those who turn to Catholicism or Orthodoxy out of some idea that they are an untainted faith, linked to the golden past without tarnish are delusional just as much as those who think the 1950s were a halcyon utopia. In my view, there was never a truly “pure” faith, or practice of our religion. Since its founding, the true followers have been trying to honestly and faithfully follow Christ, but there is no magic to the past or to the present. I believe there is, so to speak, a Platonic “form” that represents ideal Christianity - but it consists in a heart yearning to follow Christ, not in the specifics of ritual, doctrine, or culture.

This theme recurred in the chapter on the myth of a unified historical Catholic Church. I was familiar enough with the competing popes - and the lurid history of the papacy - to have no illusions that the “unbroken succession” was anything more than a convenient falsehood. But Stewart also notes the fairly radical changes - including in doctrine - that resulted from the Catholic Church trying to recover from the loss of its political power and adapt to a radically changing world wherein Enlightenment ideas of government gained the ascendency.

Also in this chapter is a mention of the center of Christian thought in the early centuries after Christ being, not at Rome, but in North Africa. This is kind of a raspberry to the White Nationalists dominating modern Evangelicalism who claim that Africa was somehow dark and non-Christian despite the evidence to the contrary.

A few other miscellaneous mentions were fun: James Ussher comes in for something other than completely f-ing up the Evangelical doctrine regarding the age of the universe (and failing to heed St. Augustine’s warning on that account.) On the more positive side, he was one of the early moderns to discover and popularize the early writings of the church.

I also found the chapter on the Apocrypha to be quite interesting. I was raised with the belief that the Apocrypha was devilish Catholic hocum, and had no place in the Bible. Of course, later, I discovered that for most of Christian history, it was accepted - and that it was a dispute of Jewish tradition that was at the heart of the issue.

While I haven’t actually read much of the Apocrypha - with the exception of Judith, because of a friend’s blog about it - I have found the fact that it is cited in the New Testament to be at least interesting.

But perhaps most interesting on this score is that Protestants have generally objected to the Apocrypha on the grounds that some is pretty clearly “fantasy” and otherwise not historically accurate. With our 21st Century (or even 19th Century) eyes, we can see how, um, ironic this is. Much of the OT has historical accuracy issues - and some of the NT has likely false authorship claims. So we have issues with all of scripture if we are expecting it to be literally dictated by God and free from any error or falsehood. Stewart kind of dances around this issue, not really addressing it. This is too bad, because of all the “Fundamentals” of Fundamentalism, it is the view of an inerrant, literally dictated scripture that has been the one doctrinal issue that has driven many of us from Evangelicalism. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss exactly how inerrancy, literalism, and theonomy have combined to make for unnecessarily cruel and vicious theology, but I might try to write about that more in the future.

One last mention before I get into the Giant Elephant issue is that of Christian Humanism.

If anything was impressed on me by the Evangelical Industrial Complex and the Homeschool Paranoia Complex during the last 40 years, it was that the great evil of our time was “Secular Humanism™.” This was responsible for everything from Hitler to Stalin to [fill in the blank of whatever evil you wish.] As time went on, however, I realized - from strong evidence from their actions - that what the persons who pushed this narrative really were worried about. It wasn’t just (or even primarily) the “secular” part - it was the “humanism.” Because Humanism is about human rights, human dignity, and the common good. Which was directly opposed to the White Supremacy, Patriarchy, and Theocracy that these persons - and groups - really wanted.

I hope to write about this in the future, but I am most definitely a Christian Humanist. If I were to pick one label to define myself, that would probably be it.

Stewart himself embraces that label, and mentions such luminaries as Erasmus. One could go further back and name Origen, Justin Martyr, Aquinas - and even in his own way, John Calvin. More modern names include C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn. Sadly, modern American [white] Evangelicalism is pretty much the polar opposite of Christian Humanism in practice.

Which leads me to my argument with this book.

This book was published in 2017.

What might possibly have happened in the year before this book came out that would be relevant to people leaving Evangelicalism? For that matter, what might have happened in the, say, eight years or so before that? Or the 40 years before that?

Let me start with this:

Religion isn’t merely an intellectual or theological exercise. Even more than that, it is emotional, cultural, and political.

Let me start with an intellectual exercise: imagine someone were to write about the theology of the Irish conflict over the last few centuries. Imagine they wrote that history and included a wealth of information about the history of theological differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. They may even have included the nuances of English and Scottish Protestant traditions, and the millennia-old Irish Catholic tradition.

But imagine that this book said nothing about the English conquest and longstanding oppression of the Irish. Imagine it said nothing about the question of Home Rule or “A Modest Proposal.” Imagine it didn’t even mention the IRA or Bloody Sunday.

Couldn’t we agree that the book completely missed the point of the Catholic versus Protestant wars in Ireland?

Come on. Let’s be honest. Does anyone really think that there has been violent conflict in Ireland for centuries because people give that much of a fuck over Transubstantiation? REALLY? That’s ludicrous on its face. Rather, religion is inseparable from and intimately connected with a political conflict. It is a proxy for racial identity, oppression, and hatred. The problem isn’t really a theological one - it’s much more than that.

Likewise, to understand why people like me have left Evangelicalism - and why all the money in the world couldn’t convince us to ever darken the door of an Evangelical church again, you have to look at the political meaning of the change.

I would guess it is really rare for anyone to decide to change religions based on some intellectual decision about a detail of theology. We don’t just wake up one morning and decide that the difference between, say, one view of the Eucharist/Communion, or the preference of reciting the Apostle’s Creed or singing “In Christ Alone” is so huge that we have to uproot our lives from one denomination to another. (BTW, I love both of these.)

Decisions like these are made at a different level. We leave because we feel we don’t belong. We leave because we feel the politics are toxic. We leave because we can’t support the Culture Wars™.  

And that leads me to:

The Giant Elephant in the Room™:

Donald Trump.

And, to be clear, Trump is a symbol of a deeper issue, which is the co-option of American Evangelicalism by White Nationalism, Social Darwinism, and Republicanity. This predates Trump by a good bit. I could go back to the founding of the Religious Right on a pro-segregation platform. I could go back to the founding of Fox News. I could go back to the racist anger at President Obama for “Governing While Black.” I could mention the various para-church cults and hate groups from Bill Gothard (which I survived - and had a strong racist edge to it) to the American Family Association, which is the single biggest reason we left our last church. (And I mean last in both senses - it was our most recent, and will probably be the last one we ever attend.) I could mention the series of “Statements” aimed at purging any commitment to social justice, the common good, or human rights from Evangelicalism. The list goes on.

Stewart, who is a transplanted Canadian, and thus might not quite grasp the significance of the moment he is in, fails to even mention the political component of modern American Evangelicalism.

In my opinion, the Evangelicalism he talks about in this book is a kind of “reverse strawman.” It doesn’t actually exist. To be clear: I love the “Evangelicalism” he talks about for the most part. There is a tradition of intellectual, Christian Humanist, Feminist, Abolitionist Evangelicalism! But it hasn’t really existed during my lifetime - or his either. It disappeared as a result of the Fundamentalist Catastrophe in the 1910s, the resurgence of anti-intellectualism in the 1960s, the racist Religious Right movement of the 1970s through today, and the Cultural Wars™ of my formative years.

People leave Evangelicalism for “older” traditions, not because they are reacting to the externals of the practice.

They are leaving because they want to find a tradition that pre-dates the vicious racism, misogyny, and colonialism that American Evangelicalism represents.

Stewart almost figures this out near the end, when he notes that this move from Evangelicalism to other traditions is a “North American” phenomenon. (And, although he doesn’t say it, it is really an American issue.)

Gee, I wonder why it has that geographical connection? Might it have something to do with United States racial and cultural politics?

Let me mention again that Trump isn’t a cause: He is a symptom of a deeper disease.

That Trump campaigned on the Ku Klux Klan platform and garnered 81% of the white Evangelical vote is a fact. That Trump has governed on the same platform, causing great hardship to people of color is also a fact. That Trump retains a 75% approval rating among white Evangelicals despite...I mean because of that...is the most damning fact of all. That white Evangelicals continue to defend his racist policies is merely confirmation of the fact that American Evangelicalism isn’t really about the nuances of theology.

It is all about politics - and about the politics of racism and hate.

For those of us who left, what we are looking to do is avoid the theology that led to the toxic politics of white Evangelicalism.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy represent an ancient (and geographically diverse) tradition in a way, yes. But that is attractive because it promises a faith that is more than just Slaveholder Religion. A faith that is more than Republicanity. Something that pre-dates the stupid war against modern human rights that American Evangelicalism seems intent on fighting to the bitter end.

Stewart makes the mistake of thinking this is all about theology. Theology is important - which is why some of us are trying to process exactly WHICH part of American white Evangelical theology is so unspeakably evil as to be essentially anti-Christ. But ultimately, it isn’t theology which drives this. The political and cultural movements for which theology serves as a convenient figurehead are the real story. Those of us who are Christian Humanists have been driven from American Evangelicalism.

Because as a political and cultural movement, American [white] Evangelicalism stands fully with Donald Trump: an obscene gesture against human rights, racial equality and reconciliation, gender equality, and the Modern Age in general.

Even those of us who, by our background and our personal preferences lean toward classical Evangelicalism know we are thoroughly unwelcome and have no future in American Evangelicalism.

So, we have the choice. Many I know have gone to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Others have joined mainline denominations. But many, like me, have left altogether. Some of us retain our faith in Christ although we have no connection to organized religion. But probably, more will simply leave the faith altogether. Stewart kind of, sort of, acknowledges this in the last chapter. He notes that people are also switching from Catholicism or Orthodoxy to Evangelicalism. Fair point. But the overwhelming exodus is from any sort of Christian affiliation to no religious connection whatsoever.

Again, to be clear, I actually liked Stewart’s writing. On an intellectual level, his book is spot on. I think he is likely one of the few non-toxic Evangelicals and Calvinists left. If every Evangelical luminary was like him, I would probably still be a proud Evangelical.  I see no reason I wouldn’t like to have him for dinner and a discussion. But I think he is living in an unrealistic bubble. The Evangelicalism he believes is the norm is, at best, a fringe movement of the few morally consistent Humanist intellectuals who haven’t been purged in the name of political purity.

Stewart seems to think that the Evangelical identity crisis stems from an ignorance of theological ancient roots. I think the real problem is about a different kind of ancient roots: 21st Century American [white] Evangelicalism has pretty much nothing to do with Christianity itself. The true representation of the values (theological and otherwise) of American Evangelicalism isn’t Jesus Christ at all: it’s Donald f-ing Trump. And an increasing number of us have no intention of kissing the fat ass of that idol.

***

I have to include some music here. I have been a fan of Chris Thile ever since his Nickel Creek days. Because certain parts of the Southern California homeschool community are pretty close knit, I know people who knew him as a kid. Anyway, he is in some ways representative of those of us who were expressly intended to “change the world” in what turned out to be a rather theocratic, retrograde-conservative way. And I think that is why he has expressed so well the way many of us late-gen-xers and Millennials feel about the Trump era. Three of the kids and I went down to see Punch Brothers in LA last month, and it was magnificent. Fine musicianship, of course. The very best. But also, a solidarity with The Resistance - those of us who stand against the hate and racism and troglodytic worship of the injustices of the past that Trump and American Evangelicalism represent.

So, I present, off of the fantastic album, Thanks For Listening, a song the speaks to the experience of many of us these days - and exactly what Stewart missed in his otherwise well-written book. 

***

Update September 19, 2018:

Kenneth Stewart sent me a gracious e-mail after reading this post, and we have been having an enjoyable conversation about the topics addressed in this book and in my post. It's always thrilling to make an unexpected connection like this.