The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll

Source of book: I own this

I have been wanting to read this one for a while, and my wife got it for me for Christmas this year. It seems particularly timely, given the greatest disaster within American Christianity of my lifetime: the overwhelming support of a political figure who ran on explicit racism and xenophobia and personally exemplified everything contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ - and of a party platform which deliberately targets the poor, ill, and vulnerable. That this has shaken me to the core is an understatement. It is a significant reason why I have divorced myself from Evangelicalism, and have no intention of ever going back.

Mark Noll wrote this book in 1994 - over two decades ago. As I read it now, I am amazed at how prophetic it was. Noll’s reasons for optimism did not come to pass, and all of his concerns for the future of Evangelicalism have turned out to be true. I believe that this election and its aftermath have and are continuing to be a purge of the last vestige of intellectual honesty and commitment to the life of the mind that was left in Evangelicalism. Those who speak out against the racism, the social darwinism, and the devotion to a certain political party will no longer be welcomed. 

It is a bit overwhelming to attempt to summarize this book. Noll, as he did in the excellent The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, offers a wealth of historical information (extensively footnoted and supported by solid primary and secondary sources) in support of his thesis. To attempt to cover the scope of the history would be to quote the entire book. However, I will try to hit some highlights.

First, Noll makes a strong argument that Evangelicalism in America is unique, developing as it did under historically unique circumstances. Many of the factors which shaped it were good, on balance, but combined led to the abandonment by Evangelicals of the life of the mind and engagement with intellectual pursuits. In Noll’s view, the last flowering of Evangelical intellectual life took place with Jonathan Edwards, who is remembered for an uncharacteristic sermon (“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) which reflects the American Evangelical ethos, rather than the breadth and depth of Edwards’ ideas. From that time on, revivalism shaped Evangelicalism, and the emphasis has been on winning the marketplace of converts, not on engaging the mind.

As one who has had to leave Evangelicalism myself, I found the preface to the book to be poignant:

This book is an epistle from a wounded lover. As one who is in love with the life of the mind but who has also been drawn to faith in Christ through the love of evangelical Protestants, I find myself in a situation where wounding is commonplace. Although the thought has occurred to me regularly over the past two decades that, at least in the United States, it is simply impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual, this epistle is not a letter of resignation from the evangelical movement. It intends rather to be a cri du coeur on behalf of the intellectual life by one who, for very personal reasons, still embraces the Christian faith in an evangelical form.

I am there with Noll - except that the events of the last two decades - and particularly of the last year - have made it clear that, despite my wish to stay, I cannot in good conscience raise my family in Evangelicalism any longer.

In the opening chapter, Noll hits on one reason why. As of 1994, Noll could still claim with a straight face that Evangelicals had “open hearted generosity to the needy, heroic exertion on behalf of troubled individuals.” While plenty of individual Evangelicals still exhibit these traits, as a movement, this is most assuredly no longer true. Even in just the last decade, the embrace of the teachings of Ayn Rand (on economics) and outright xenophobia (on immigration to pick one issue) has been a complete turnaround from when I was a child. It is also completely out of step with the historical teachings of Christianity. (And the teachings of Jesus Christ.)

One of the most interesting claims Noll makes - and he is absolutely correct - is that American Evangelicalism is an historical anomaly. There is a rich tradition of Christian thought throughout the ages, and other branches of Christianity continue to engage with the life of the mind. But there is a huge vacuum that has arisen. Outside of a few areas of personal conduct (mostly sex), Evangelicals do not think in a recognizably Christian way. This is why atheistic and darwinistic ideals dominate Evangelical economics, why opinions on immigration resemble those of David Duke more than they resemble the teachings of Christ, why Evangelicals are hostile to and in denial about science, why conservation (stewardship of the earth) is now considered a left-wing conspiracy. The life of the mind has been abandoned.

Noll notes that in our modern world, we really need to have a truly Christian approach to many issues. “To mention only one of several possible examples, the related problems of medical ethics and equitable provision of health care are immensely complex issues. They also bear, directly or indirectly, on Christian values at every point” Noll also points out foreign relations, job programs, and racism - issues that threaten our civilization. Yet instead of bringing a Christian ethic to bear, the worst of human instincts - tribalism, apocalyptic eschatology, and disdain for the poor have become the de facto positions of Evangelicalism. (I won’t quote more, but Noll deals at length with the historical issues of slavery, racism, and immigration - and the way Evangelicals have in recent decades ignored these issues, preferring denial to actually thinking in a Christian way about them. Likewise, there is a good section about the relation of capital and labor, and the perplexing issues in the wake of the industrial revolution - Christian thought was needed, and it was largely absent. Evangelicalism was essentially blindsided by the industrial revolution and these crucial issues that arose, because it was not in the habit of thinking and observing.)

More recently, as Noll notes (although it dates back earlier in truth), there is the belief that there is a “clear truth” about politics. Today, this takes the form of “of course all True Christians™ vote Republican, no matter what. Because abortion and gays (without any nuance of the causes or effects, of course) are the only issues that matter. As Noll puts it, “If the Christian truth about politics was so clear, there was no need to think about politics at all.” And lo, it has come to pass. All a Christian apparently needs to know is to vote Republican - and adopt whatever the current Republican position is on issues.

One of the other factors Noll highlights is a long-term anti-intellectual trend in Evangelicalism. This dates back at least 200 years, and is again an American tendency in general. I found particularly interesting this quote from Ronald Knox, who contrasted traditional Roman Catholic thought with that of evangelical “enthusiasts”: “That God speaks to us through the intellect is a notion which he may accept on paper, but fears, in practice, to apply.”

Yes indeed. I have had pounded into me for much of my life that reason (and empathy, for that matter) are the enemies of truth, because they lead to questioning of certain theological or political positions. And, as N. K. Clifford is quoted as saying, “The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed, its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection.”

I have been thinking along the same lines for a while. However, one thing I did not really realize before reading this book was the poisonous effect of a number of theological positions. First is Manichaeism - the division of the world into good and evil. And only those with the right theological beliefs are good, everyone else is actively evil. I kind of hit on this in my post on Presuppositionalism - but I didn’t really know the term that applied. The effects of this on politics has been devastating, as genuine evil and malice toward others has been embraced, because the “us” know the truth, while the “them” are evil. And thus, because the GOP is against abortion, we embrace the racism and contempt for the poor that goes along with it as if it were God’s truth. Second is Biblicism, the use of proof texts and a view of the Bible as a textbook with answers to everything, rather than what it is: a record of humans wrestling with the great questions while inspired by the divine.

Noll points out that many of these theological problems stem from a problematic approach to the Bible, which is neither historically informed, nor helpful. He traces it (and makes a good case for it) to the 1700s and the attempt to read the Bible “scientifically,” in the way that Bacon approached science: reasoning from pieces of evidence to broad principles. (Science itself moved on to a more nuanced approach as it developed, but biblical interpretation did not.) The section on this is fascinating, with numerous theologians of the period comparing the Bible to a scientific study, seeking out little pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to fit together into a comprehensive theological (and political) whole. Noll points out that this approach was genuinely new, and deliberately in contrast to historical interpretive methods. It was not informed by historical context, and it ignored centuries of Christian thought. In modern times, however, it has become even more anomalous, because it is out of touch with contemporary realities. If I were to summarize it, it would be the preservation of an anachronistic 19th Century approach to theology and the world.

The worst of the theological problems, however, was that of Dispensationalism. One of my favorite bloggers, who himself came out of a Fundamentalist background, had talked about this both on the blog (and in conversations we had via e-mail), but I hadn’t really understood the impact until reading Noll’s extended chapter on this.

Simply put: the intellectual effort that could have gone into actually understanding the world we live in went instead into attempting to cram that world into a template created by a particular view of the end of the world. John Nelson Darby’s ideas were completely in contradiction to the historical views of the church, and were based on an unsound hermeneutic. (As one of the sources Noll cites notes, no responsible Christian teacher had ever espoused this idea.) Within my own lifetime, the books of Hal Lindsey pretty expressly considered the Bible to be a crystal ball for geopolitical issues, which has not served us well.

You can certainly see this poison in action in a number of ways. The unquestioning support of whatever Israel does is one - after all, prophecy must be fulfilled. (My wife pointed out an example in her facebook feed today.) Or the idea that preserving our earth or helping the poor are worthless, because the world will end soon, so we should just try to convert as many as possible before it does.

Perhaps the best chapter in the book is the one entitled “The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism.” I wrote about cultural fundamentalism previously, but hadn’t delved much into doctrinal fundamentalism. Noll lays the history out there, and it is pretty clear that whatever remained of Evangelical intellectualism after the 19th Century was pretty well crushed by the fundamentalist movement. Even within my lifetime, there has been a strong movement within greater Evangelicalism toward Fundamentalism, both in the theological sense and in the cultural sense. In both cases, it is a belief that we have absolute certainty that we are right. That we know exactly what God’s view is on all subjects.That we know it all, that all moral and ethical issues have been resolved, that any new knowledge that comes to light is of the Devil if it casts doubt on Nineteenth Century dogma. Noll notes the result:

If intellectual life involves a certain amount of self-awareness about alternative interpretations or a certain amount of tentativeness in exploring the connection between evidence and conclusions, it was hard to find any encouragement for the intellectual life in the self-assured dogmatism of fundamentalism.

This dogmatism meant that there was no perceived need to actually study the world. All that was needed was the right theology, and you could understand everything. This is in radical contrast to the historical Christian belief that we had two books: scripture, and nature, and that a study of both was both necessary and holy. That the book of nature was as divine as the written book. (And indeed, since scripture was mediated by human authors - something fundamentalists deny in spite of overwhelming evidence - its meaning cannot be fathomed without understanding of the cultural limitations and prejudices of its authors. To quote Noll again: “This belief had the practical effect of rendering the experience of the biblical writers nearly meaningless. It was the Word of God pure and simple, not the Word of God as mediated through the life experiences and cultural settings of the biblical authors, that was important.”)

Specifically in the context of Dispensationalism (but also as to Fundamentalism in general), Noll states:

The supernaturalism of dispensationalism, especially in the extreme forms that were easiest to promote among the populace at large, lacked a sufficient place for the natural realm and tended toward a kind of gnosticism in its communication of truth. Adherents were instructed about nature, world events, ethics, and other dimensions of human existence, but almost always without studying these matters head-on. Bible verses were quoted to explain conditions and events in the world, but with very little systematic analysis of the events and conditions themselves.

This is why, to pick one example, so many of my acquaintance were focused on figuring out exactly where President Obama fit into their view of Armageddon (was he the Antichrist?) rather than applying Christian ethics to treatment of refugees, or learning the true history of the Middle East in the aftermath of two world wars. (Which would likely have made a huge difference in how subsequent events would be viewed…) In this, as in everything, the actual facts were irrelevant.

In each case fundamentalists denied that historical processes - networks of cause and effect open to public analysis by all and sundry - had anything significant to contribute.

And, this again was tied up in the Manichaean view of the world: everything is pure good or pure evil. As Noll puts it,

[I]t shows an evangelical community unwilling to sift the wheat from the chaff in the wisdom of the world, unprepared to countenance the complexity of mixed motives in human action, and uniterested in focusing seriously on the natural forces that influence human behavior.

I won’t go into the detail that Noll does, but he draws a solid line from this kind of thinking divorced from reality to the belief in conspiracy theories and “alternative facts.” Both involve deliberate disregard for evidence from the world we live in.

Noll also points out an interesting historical phenomenon: the way that fundamentalism (and evangelicalism in recent decades) has responded to stress and crisis.

In general responses to crises, evangelicals in the late twentieth century still follow a pathway defined at the start of the twentieth century. When faced with a crisis situation, we evangelicals usually do one of two things. We either mount a public crusade, or we retreat into an inner pious sanctum. That is, we are filled with righteous anger and attempt to recoup our public losses through political confrontation, or we eschew the world of mere material appearances and seek the timeless consolations of the Spirit.

Sigh. You can see both of these at work still. On the one hand are the Franklin Graham/Jerry Falwell Jr./Bryan Fischer types, who celebrate Le Toupee as the “dream president for Christians.” Hey, now that we have one of “our” people, we can go kick some infidel butt! On the other is The Benedict Option, a withdrawal from the icky world and disengagement from the issues of the day. You can also see this second idea in the appeal of Bill Gothard. Yep, I believe our involvement with that shyster was driven by this instinct. What neither of these responses demonstrate, however, is a commitment to loving our neighbor.

Also, while Noll doesn’t get into it in this book (he does a bit more in The Civil War as a Theological Crisis) is that the “crisis” here isn’t purely religious. It is racial. And what both the Benedict fantasy and the Trump presidency have in common is a desire to return to a whiter past. I find this article in The Federalist (not usually one of my sources…) on the book to be interesting because it quotes a passage in which being “Men and women of the West” is seen as largely synonymous with Christianity. And I have already discussed the Trump platform (virtually indistinguishable from the 1920s KKK) and its express racist appeal.

In both the racial and theological sense, both of these toxic responses might have been prevented by a robust intellectual engagement with both doctrine and the reality of the world. Such an approach might instead lead to a renewed effort to love our neighbor rather than harm him, and a rejection of tribalist rhetoric.

Noll doesn’t offer specific political prescriptions - that isn’t within the scope of the book - but he does lament that evangelical politics have rarely been recognizably Christian in the sense of reflecting Christian values rather than secular ones associate with a particular party.

Where Noll believes the damage has been the greatest, however, is in the realm of science. As Noll (quoting Ronald Numbers) asserts, “a fatally flawed interpretive scheme of the sort that no responsible Christian teacher in the history of the church ever endorsed before the 19th Century came to dominate the minds of American Evangelicals on scientific questions.” The fatal combination of Biblicism (and dogmatic literalism) and a refusal to accept evidence from the world itself led to increasingly untenable dogmas about science that were ever more stridently asserted as the only possible Christian belief.

As usual, Noll knows his history, and points to the origin of the discussion in the 1800s. In 1812, Archibald Alexander noted that the sciences are often of great service in assisting the interpretation and understanding of scripture. Later, Charles Hodge (who was fairly conservative theologically) went even further by asserting that in areas in which science speaks, “the Bible must be interpreted by science.”

Nature is truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.

Hodge goes on to note that we interpret phrases like “the pillars of the earth” in light of our knowledge of earth’s position in space, and argues that other interpretations must likewise be informed by actual scientific knowledge - that is, the reading of God’s other book.

Likewise, interpretation must be informed by an understanding of the culture in which the Bible was written. The limited scientific understanding of its authors, for example, or the cultural beliefs about gender and sexuality, as another. Revelation has a context, and failure to take that into account - and instead read scripture in the Baconian way, as an instruction book, is to guarantee grave and harmful error.

Noll concludes that the damage done by Young Earth Creationism goes far beyond the surface.

Creation science has damaged evangelicalism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological and biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look.

This has been true across a wide range of issues, from the Evangelical rejection of Conservationism (which I believe they hate because it is perceived as “liberal,” not because they have thought about it in either a biblical or a scientific manner…), to gender identity and intersexuality. In fact, it occurs to me that the same approach to the age of the earth is in play when it comes to sexuality in general. In neither case has evangelicalism been willing to depart from their Biblicist and hyper-literalist approach or to accept evidence from the natural world to inform their interpretation of scripture. Likewise, because of the Manichaean view of the world, both mainstream geological, astronomical, and biological science and LGBTQ people become demonic conspiracies. As Peter Enns (who has been a tremendous help in my faith journey over the last few years) put it, perceived theological needs do not determine reality.

I love that Noll also points out (yet again!) that this approach is simply NOT in line with historical Christianity. He quotes Augustine at length on the issue of origins (something I never heard until the last few years - it’s well hidden in Evangelical circles) and how Christians need to be very careful about asserting dogma that is clearly contradicted by the real world. He particularly condemns the quoting of scripture to non-Christians as if it trumped reality.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will then try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof, and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make the assertion.

If I could fix one thing about Evangelicalism, it would be this: Just shut the %*#@ up about things you have not actually researched and understood. Stop making up alternative history. Stop asserting alternative facts. Stop insisting that you understand the realities of other people without actually listening and understanding what those realities actually are. And for God’s sake, stop saying things that are “utterly foolish and obviously untrue.” Such as, say, denying that intersexuals exist, claiming that the poor are lazy, or expecting credit for ending slavery when your theological tradition actually defended slavery and fought against civil rights.

Ironically, Francis Bacon himself (who Noll points out ended up inadvertently influencing Evangelicalism for the worse in their approach to the bible) near the end of his life wrote a poignant call for humility and above all charity in our approach to life.

Wherefore, if there be any humility towards the Creator; if there be any reverence and praise for His works; if there be any charity towards men, and zeal to lessen human wants and human sufferings; if there be any love of truth in natural things, any hatred of darkness, any desire to purify the understanding; men are to be entreated again and again that they should dismiss for a while or at least put aside those inconstant and preposterous philosophies which prefer theses to hypotheses, have led experience captive, and triumphed over the works of God; that they should humbly and with a certain reverence draw near to the book of Creation…

To put it bluntly: don’t be so damn sure that you know truth, but humbly and reverently actually study the world and humans as they actually exist, not how your theological or philosophical system says they should be.

I want to end with some of Noll’s thoughts on a positive way forward combined with his fears (which have very much come to pass) that things would get worse.

First, Noll has an interesting and (I believe) helpful way of looking at scripture. Noll believes (as I do) that theological convictions have intellectual consequences. (Which is why in the aftermath of the last election, I have been pondering exactly which facets of Evangelical theology are responsible for the evil fruit it has borne.) The first quote from Noll that I found fascinating is this:

Thus, for example, any theology that encourages Bible reading as puzzle solving, instead of Bible reading as an occasion for the reader to examine his or her own soul, or that encourages Bible reading primarily to understand a “world out there,” instead of “the world for me,” is not only bad theology but a theology prejudicial to the intellectual life. The prejudice is the barrier set up by such Bible reading to the entrance of scriptural reality into the deeper parts of the personality, engagement of which is most urgently required for an intellectual life that would honor both God and the world in which he has placed us.

Gothardism in particular encouraged the poisonous method of reading, but it is rife throughout the Evangelical approach. Thus, we read to determine (once and for all) what other people should do with their genitals and how the law should treat them (or persecute them), and yet we do not look at how our own bedroom behavior reflects gender hierarchy rather than the love of neighbor. (Yep, that is something I myself have had to face as I have taken scripture more seriously…) Ultimately, if we seek to control others, rather than look inside ourselves at the darkness that is mixed with what light we have, we make our faith into poison, into hate, and into a lust for power. As this election has amply demonstrated.

The second point that Noll makes is that the intellectual activity within the Christian tradition has been largely occurring outside of Evangelicalism - particularly the American version. Noll notes what I have found to be darkly amusing: C.S. Lewis is positively venerated in Evangelical circles, despite the fact that his theology is far from Evangelical. In fact, Lewis took special care to repudiate the Evangelical facets of his upbringing, and he was only able to return to faith because of his rejection of the anti-intellectual beliefs of Evangelicalism. (And this was the British version, which was far less fundamentalist than the American version…)

Noll notes that Evangelical thought has generally improved when it permitted ideas from outside of the bubble to enter. And more than that, “Where evangelicals leave behind the specific shape of fundamentalist theology and fundamentalist spirituality, thought advances.”

So too, Noll calls upon Evangelicals to put aside the instinct to jump to snap conclusions, and actually learn their subject matter before speaking.

Finally, if evangelicals are ever to cultivate the mind, habits of intuitionism - or the rapid movement from first impressions to final conclusions - must be changed.

Along with Noll’s hope for the future, though, comes a note of warning. Many attempts to create a intellectual Evangelicalism have been thwarted by populist pressure. I previously discussed some of the reasons that one gets “farewelled” from Evangelicalism: basically, dismissed from the tribe as a heretic. Noll also points out a few other issues: calling into question the “all or nothing” approach to abortion, and C. Everett Coop’s advocacy for AIDS research and treatment. Unfortunately, this trend hasn’t abated. Those of us who call into question the unholy marriage of Evangelicalism and right wing politics - particularly as those politics have become increasingly white supremacist, social darwinist, and materialistic - are increasingly unwelcome in Evangelicalism. And many of us have had to leave for the sake of our conscience.

I think two other voices should be heard in this regard.

The first is Peter Enns, who noted that the real scandal of the Evangelical mind is this:

We are not allowed to use it.

The only acceptable use of our minds is to confirm pre-determined conclusions. We can think - as long as our thoughts lead us to the exact same conclusions that fundamentalists reached in the 1800s. And that is it.

Perceived theological needs determine reality, and any time reality contradicts dogma, we have to turn our brains off.

The second, though, is even more serious, and I find it fascinating that it is a woman who pointed it out.

The worse scandal is that of the Evangelical HEART.

Like Rachel Held Evans, my struggles with my faith have not been primarily intellectual. (After all, I was raised by a father that accepted an old earth and wasn’t wedded to fundamentalist dogma - despite our foray into Gothardism. I have long understood the various approaches to intellectual questions.) No, my struggles have been moral. Questions of empathy and conscience - and indeed basic human decency. And it is there that I have found the most profound deficit within Evangelicalism, which seems to have embraced white nationalism and (I kid not) outright social darwinism as if it were gospel truth.

As Richard Beck puts it, when we divorce our theology from empathy and emotion, we end up with something dysfunctional - and even monstrous. We end up with sociopathy in the name of God.

And ultimately, this is why I have divorced Evangelicalism. I feel it has been increasingly demanded of me that I check not just my brain, but indeed my conscience at the door. I must not just ignore the reality I know to be true - historical, scientific, economic, and in my own experience - but I must ignore the pangs of my own conscience. I must tolerate without protest the ill will toward my fellow man in the name of political expediency. I must tolerate open racism and xenophobia without calling it what it is: evil. I must keep my mouth shut about open misogyny and pride in sexual assault. I must put aside my aversion to hate groups and allow my children to be exposed to their poison - because said groups claim the name of Christ. This I could not do, and so, I am an Evangelical ex-pat, along with many others. A friend has dubbed us “The Dispossessed.” Not sure whether this is a reference to Ursula Le Guin, but it seems to fit.

Noll’s book is, like all of his books, thoroughly researched, historically informed, and academically oriented. Don’t expect page-turning writing. But do expect extensive footnotes and citations, verifiable reference to primary and well-respected secondary sources. Noll isn’t merely expressing an opinion - he is bringing to light inconvenient truths about history. Most compelling of all, Noll demonstrates that the peculiarities of American Evangelicalism are not merely out of touch with modern reality: they are an anomaly in history itself, out of touch with traditional Christian thinking about the life of the mind, science, and the book of Creation. And thus, the way forward is also a way backward. It is an embrace of modern reality, modern knowledge, and ongoing discovery. But it is also a return to the traditional view of the Book of Nature, a return to an historically and culturally informed view of the Bible, a return to the view that human reason and scientific knowledge aid us in interpreting scripture, and a return to the idea that God himself gave us both nature and our own brains and empathy - and that these are our friends, not our enemies. Noll also invites us to consider looking outside of our own theological and cultural bubble and embracing truth regardless of its source. To quote Milton: “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

I strongly believe that my Evangelical friends need to read Mark Noll. Both this book and his one on the Civil War. History may indeed be an inconvenient truth, but it is one we need to face, and in facing it, come to a better understanding of our past and present, and make better decisions for our future.

***

I know it has been a while since I posted a review. One reason for this is that we have a new addition to the family. My youngest, six year old daughter, Lillian, has been begging for a kitten for some time. We finally got one. (Special thanks to my mom for taking her to the pound to select one.)

The problem is, I am a hopeless cat person. Although little Chocolate Chip (aka Kit Kit) is officially Lillian’s kitten, cats have their own opinions, and they just know. She thinks that the time after the kids go to bed is the time that she gets to curl up on me and get snuggled. And I am such a softie that I cannot possibly say no. Cat snuggling, alas, tends to make it more difficult to look up quotes, to say nothing of typing. Oh well. She is warm and she purrs and she is such a sweetheart even while she is a total punk who wants to climb up my legs. Hey, here she is purring on my chest again…

What will and will not get you "farewelled" from Evangelicalism - A Primer

My title and post are a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it was inspired by a rather heated conversation online I was involved in about a month ago. Christian writer and blogger Rachel Held Evans wrote a piece on why she would not sacrifice her child as Abraham (but for Divine intervention) did. 

This caused a great bit of uproar around the Evangelical world, and led to some highly critical posts about her. I personally found a lot to identify with in her post - particularly her honesty about the fact that, throughout recorded history, Christians have always brought baggage to our interpretation of Scripture. As she put it:

“It is intellectually dishonest to say Christians make moral judgment calls based on Scripture alone. Conscience, instinct, experience, culture, relationships—all of these things (and more) play important roles in how we assess right from wrong.”

It doesn’t take much study of Church history to see that things do and have changed as our understanding of the world and of ethics change. Still, this was an unforgivable error to many within Evangelicalism.

In any case, one blogger, who I had never heard of previously, wrote a post entitled “Farewell, Rachel Held Evans.” (The post was later removed, and the author apologised for its tone, particular the use of “girl” to describe RHE.) A friend of mine posted the “farewell,” and a rather heated discussion ensued. In fact, some people said some things that weren’t exactly civil, and some friendships were terminated as a result.

This is obviously serious business in my tribe, and one that - to be blunt - has a significant generational divide. (At least in this discussion.)

What’s up with this “farewell” business? What does it mean? And what gets you “farewelled”?

Here is a bit of background:

John Piper and “Farewell”

Unless one has been inside the Evangelical “compound,” it is a bit hard to explain the nuances of a “farewell.”

The term was popularized by Calvinist luminary John Piper, and seems to have been picked up by others within the neo-Calvinist movement. (Not knocking all Calvinists. Most Calvinist laymen are decent people. My relative-by-marriage Todd Billings is a professor and Calvinist theologian. He also lacks the arrogance and empathy deficit that seem endemic to the most visible neo-Calvinists. You can read some of his stuff in Christianity Today - or buy one of his books. If more Calvinist luminaries were like him, the world would be a better place.)

Although Calvinists seem the most fond of “farewelling,” it seems to be something picked up by many in the conservative wing of Evangelicalism.

So, what is it? The best definition I found is on The Dictionary of Christianese, which is a useful site for understanding the Evangelical lexicon.

“To publicly declare that someone no longer adheres to orthodox Christian doctrine; to publicly declare that someone is no longer part of the church or is no longer part of the evangelical community.”

So, basically, it is - whatever people may claim when they defend it - is a declaration that a person is a heretic (in the loose sense) and that their salvation is in great doubt. Do not believe someone when they try to sugarcoat it. This isn’t a statement of disagreement, but as close as one can get in Protestantism to an ex-communication. Or perhaps, it is the christianese way of saying "go to hell." Literally. (Hey, it rhymes...)

To “farewell” is to indicate that the person is no longer in the faith.

John Piper - more about him later - got it started, but it has now become fashionable to use the term. I would submit that the blogger “farewelling” RHE very clearly intended to imitate Piper. And also that he clearly intended to dismiss her from the faith.

“Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Authority of the Scriptures”

This is the corollary. These exact words were used by one of the defenders of the “farewell” blogger’s position in our heated facebook discussion.

A person like RHE is accused of denying the “inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures” for taking certain theological positions.

The issue isn’t - for the farewellers - a matter of interpretation. The other person hasn’t gotten a disputed issue wrong. Rather, in the fareweller’s view, the Bible is crystal clear about whatever it is, and the other person just wants to disobey God and thus is rejecting the plain teaching of the scripture.

One would think, therefore, that “farewells” would involve undisputed, core doctrines of the faith, such as the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or one of the other doctrines contained in our oldest creeds. One would particularly expect that a “farewell” wouldn’t be used on a secondary issue, about which Christians have historically disagreed. But not so much. 

Therefore, here is my Primer on what will and will not get you “farewelled.”

Throughout, I am focusing on the statements of leadership, not the rank and file, and I have cherry picked the best examples (in my opinion) on each side.

What WILL Get You Farewelled

1. Be open to postmortem repentance (Rob Bell)

This was the original, the granddaddy of them all. Rob Bell wrote a book (disclosure: I haven’t read it) entitled Love Wins, wherein he expressed a belief different from the Fundamentalist view of eternal damnation. Among other things, he opined that one may have the opportunity to repent after death, and flirted with a universalist view of eternity.

Now, I know this is a serious disagreement with traditional Evangelical doctrine - particularly with Fundamentalist doctrine - which isn’t quite the same thing. However, it is disingenuous to claim that it is out of line with the mainstream of Christian thought throughout the last two millennia.

At minimum, one might mention the history of Christianity before the Protestant Reformation, and the doctrine of purgatory. I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t share this belief, but it bears mentioning. I would also note that it has been a significant area of dispute throughout church history, and that our conception of it draws not so much from the limited mentions in scripture, but from the Greek myths and Dante’s great work. [insert link]. An analysis of this is beyond the scope of this post, but I would highly recommend researching the different views and the history of the belief. At minimum, it reveals that this isn’t one of the core, undisputed, fundamentals of the faith.

However, there is perhaps an even better example. C. S. Lewis is generally beloved by Evangelicals (and others), and most people I know would never consider him a heretic. And yet, he was a borderline universalist. I read The Great Divorce in my teens, and it shaped some of my own thinking. Even before that, though, the great questions had been discussed in my family. What happens to babies who die before they can convert? What about a person who has never heard of Christ? What about the person whose only experience of Christianity was an abuser?

I’m not a Rob Bell fan, and I’m not making an argument that the Doctrine of Hell as taught in Evangelicalism is necessarily wrong, but that other views are neither unusual nor out of the pell of Christian orthodoxy.

2. Believe in “open theism.” (Greg Boyd)

This is another one that almost requires a whole post. In a greatly oversimplified version, Open Theism believes in a significant degree of free will such that human action can determine the future. This is a huge disagreement with hard-core Calvinists, who believe that even evil is caused by the will of God. (Again, an oversimplification, but it is indisputably in Calvin’s Institutes.)

Disclosure: I’m an Arminian, although that belief is out of style these days in Evangelicalism. So I lean this direction anyway. However, I wasn’t all that familiar with Open Theism until Piper decided to “farewell” Greg Boyd for this belief. 

I should point out that C. S. Lewis would be considered an Open Theist.

Again, I am not trying to argue in favor of Open Theism, but merely point out that it is, at most, a secondary issue of the faith, and one over which there is much historical disagreement - as well as denominational disagreement.  

I also want to point out that the particular view of the sovereignty of God at issue is a huge deal for Calvinists. This leads to one of my observations. In general, I have not found Arminians or Molinists like my own pastor to believe that Calvinists are heretics or otherwise to be dismissed from the faith. The reverse is not true. There are many Calvinists - including visible leaders - who are all too eager to proclaim that Arminianism is a heresy, and that Calvinists are the only “true” Christians. I believe that is a contributing factor to Piper choosing (or was he predestined?) to “farewell” Greg Boyd.

In this case, I believe this is a symptom of confusing Calvinism with Christianity - essentially coming out as a believer that non-Calvinists aren’t really Christians at all.

3. Believe in an old earth rather than a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago (Gungor)

The Christian Band Gungor created some serious controversy recently when they indicated that they did not believe in Young Earth Creationism

Evangelical news magazine World (behind a paywall, or I would link it) gave their own version of a “farewell” to Gungor, stating in an article that they had drifted from the orthodox faith.

Although I have respect for World as being devoted to actual journalism and research, and being willing to take on the sacred cows of Evangelicalism from time to time, I believe they really dropped the ball on this one.

In truth, historical Christianity has been less than wedded to a literalist view of Genesis. As I pointed out in my extended blog post on the subject, none other than St. Augustine castigated those who ignored scientific evidence in favor of a blind literalism. Unless we are willing to dismiss Augustine and many of the other church fathers from the faith, perhaps we need to admit that this is not an issue of Christian orthodoxy.

4. Deal with homosexuals in any way except confront, then excommunicate. (Hillsong)

I’ve discussed this a bit at length in two posts. (Part 1, Part 2)

The Evangelical approach has been one where homosexuals are first confronted, then excommunicated if they choose any path but celibacy. (See John MacArthur’s recent video advocating cutting off all contact with gay children.)

 

Hillsong’s Brian Houston made waves with a statement on this matter. While (as he clarified later) adhering to an opposition to Gay Marriage and a traditional view of homosexuality, he opined that the Evangelical Church’s approach has been harmful and alienating, to the point where gay teens know they will be rejected by church and family. This, as he notes, has been a contributing factor to a troublingly high suicide rate among gay teens.

And, as was predictable, the “farewells” came fast and thick. I saw a bit of a Facebook discussion (which I stayed out of) on an article about it, and noted the usual “Christianese” statement. “God is winnowing his church on this issue.” Yup, God is making it clear who the “real” Christians are. Those who confront, then excommunicate - and who do their best to starve and marginalize homosexuals politically - are the “real” Christians. Those who do anything less - and I mean anything - aren’t “true” Christians, but heretics.

I’m not going to go any further with the issue at this time, but I do feel I need to make the following statement:

I firmly believe that most, although not all, of the controversy and accusations over biblical “inspiration, infallibility, and authority” are a proxy for the fight over homosexuality.

The reason that RHE’s analysis of the Abraham and Isaac story is controversial is that she refuses to condemn homosexual relationships. That is the bottom line.

5. Believe that the gift of tongues is active today (John MacArthur)

This is a long-standing dispute. I remember it from my childhood. Let me share a bit of my own history in a nutshell.

From the first memories of church I have until around age 11 or so, my family attended John MacArthur’s church in the Los Angeles area. After that, we spent a couple of years at a smaller church in the area with essentially identical doctrinal views.

At age 13 or so, my parents began to explore the Charismatic movement, starting with a Catholic small group, and eventually leading us to spend the next decade in Charismatic churches. I have particularly fond memories of our time at Osborne Neighborhood Church, and would list the late Pastor Jack Stiles as one of my most significant influences. (I interviewed him as part of a school project, and will never forget how open and real he was with me.)

I have been involved with Church worship music since my elementary school years, back when I was an alto. Music has always been important to me, and a significant part of my religious experience. Sometime in my late teens, I had the opportunity to attend a conference at the Vineyard Church in Anaheim along with my mother and paternal grandfather. There, in addition to gathering many musical ideas that I still utilize today - and meeting Andy Park - my inspiration for life as an introverted, nerdy worship musician; I got to hear the late John Wimber, the founder of the Vineyard church.

All that to say that I have some experience with both principals in this dispute.

MacArthur was and is rabidly anti-Charismatic. Back in the day, he wrote a whole book about the issue, calling out Wimber by name, and making some accusations which weren’t really supported about his teachings. (A bit of the strawman, shall we say.) More recently, MacArthur hosted the “Strange Fire” conference, wherein pretty much all of the Charismatic movement was condemned.

Now, I agree with plenty of what MacArthur says about the abuses of the Charismatic movement. I am adamantly opposed to the “word faith” and “prosperity gospel” movements for reasons theological and logical.

The problem is that MacArthur, and other cessationists, have decided that the gifts such as the gift of tongues have ceased - and that this is a cardinal doctrine of the faith.

Now, I understand the position. It has some evidence and logic behind it, but one thing it is not is a failure to take the “inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the scripture” seriously. If anything, belief in the gift of tongues comes from a very literalist approach to the New Testament.

I would note, although it is at best anecdotal evidence, that my experience of MacArthur and Wimber reflects the divide. MacArthur is absolutely, unshakably certain that he is right. About everything. And that everyone who disagrees is wrong, and may well not be in the faith. Hence the proto- “farewell” to Wimber in the 1980s. Wimber, on the other hand, seemed humble and unassuming. (Not that this is the norm in either Word Faith or Charismatic circles - plenty of showmen and megalomaniacs there too…)

The point is that an issue on which the scripture - if anything - leans in the other direction became an occasion for dismissal of others from the faith.

What Will NOT Get You Farewelled

For me, every bit as important as what will get you farewelled is what will not get you farewelled. Because I believe that what is tolerated shows one’s ethics as much as what isn’t.

Again, keep in mind that this is - for the farewellers - about the “inspiration, inerrancy, and authority” of the scriptures. So, if you follow the logic, these are the teachings that the farewellers do NOT believe misuse scripture.

1. Teach that women need to endure domestic violence (John Piper)

What? 

 I dealt with this at extended length in this post, so I will simply summarize that the granddaddy of “farewelling” along with many others within his theological circle have taught and continue to teach that women should endure domestic violence (to say nothing of emotional abuse) because they are called to be “submissive” to men.

The public teaching that woman should allow themselves to be beaten in the name of Christ rather than get out and seek protection from the law DID NOT result in anyone being “farewelled” from the faith.

I am not saying that nobody within Evangelicalism disagreed with Piper. Plenty of the rank and file did, as did a good number of (less prominent) pastors.

However, I cannot find ONE instance in which a prominent leader “farewelled” Piper for teaching this.

Because apparently, this teaching isn’t considered a serious abuse of scripture. It doesn’t offend the “inspiration, infallibility, and authority.”

2. Write a (plagiarized) pamphlet and book defending the institution of slavery (Doug Wilson)

I covered this one extensively in my post on the link between Christian Patriarchy, Reconstructionism, and the White Supremacist movement. 

Wilson wrote two works, Slavery as It Was, a plagiarized pamphlet written with notorious White Supremacist Steve Wilkins; and a later full length book, Black and Tan defending the institution of Confederate Slavery.

I’ve noted a few of Wilson’s other crazy - and downright dangerous - teachings, from his belief that marital sex must be about dominance and submission to his AIDS denialism to his obsession with the strawman of “feminism.” Whatever the case, his teachings certainly seem to support the rights of perpetrators over victims and the strong over the weak.

While Wilson isn’t the only person to advocate for these racist ideas, I cite him because he remains close to John Piper. In fact, the two of them appear to be great buddies. Piper is a repeat speaker at Wilson’s conferences (one of very few non-family-members to speak at these), and continues to speak highly of Wilson, and invite him to speak at his own conferences.

Put bluntly, the granddaddy of “farewellers” cannot abide Rachel Held Evans, Rob Bell, or Greg Boyd.

But he sure as hell (to Piper) is fine with a man who advocates for the Confederacy. Really?

Let’s summarize:

Reject Calvinist teaching, question the meaning of the story of Abraham, and question the doctrine of hell = “you’re out of the faith!”

Excuse the enslavement of one race by another = “you can be my buddy.”

Something is wrong here.

3. Cover up child abuse (C. J. Mahaney)

I’ll just summarize this one. You can read in excruciating detail on thewartburgwatch.com. 

A youth leader sort at one of Mahaney’s churches got caught sexually abusing young boys. Rather than report the crimes to the police, the church encouraged victims to remain silent, and quietly send the offender on his way, allowing him to abuse others in future church positions.

Rather a mirror of the Catholic sex scandals.

In a later lawsuit, one of Mahaney’s own close friends and fellow pastor at his church admitted under oath that Mahaney and others in leadership were fully aware of the abuse and chose not to report it or advise the victims to report it.

Mahaney remains in good standing with the Evangelical world, and has attended and spoken at conferences with no repercussions.

Even worse, a man who tried to leave an affiliated church in protest over the issue found himself subject to church discipline (that is, excommunication) as a result.

Need I point out that failing to protect victims but rather protecting the perpetrators does NOT get one “farewelled”?

4. Threaten to excommunicate stay-at-home dads (Mark Driscoll) (honorable mention to Owen Strachan and “man fails.”)

I hope to write a future post on the Mark Driscoll fiasco and how yet again we were taken in by an abusive narcissist who said the things we wished to hear. However, let me merely note one early warning sign that made it abundantly clear to me that Driscoll was a jerk.

Driscoll actually said that he would use church discipline (that is, threat of excommunication) on a dad who stayed at home with the kids while the wife worked.

I am NOT kidding. Watch the video. I may in the future discuss this in more detail, but he and others have mistaken gender essentialism for the central message of Christianity. They are quick to condemn couples who - at risk of condemnation from the greater culture - have made choices they believe are best for the family.

Again, the scriptural and cultural issues with this are beyond the point of this post. Suffice it to say that a prominent Evangelical leader threatened to throw a man out of the faith for failure to observe cultural gender roles.

And this was, somehow, NOT considered a misuse of scripture. He didn’t get “farewelled” from the faith for taking a verse out of historical and grammatical context to threaten to excommunicate someone.

I’ll note as well Owen Strachan, a member in good standing with The Gospel Coalition and one of the bigwigs in The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (I think it would be more accurately entitled The Council for Victorian Gender Roles, but whatever. It is considered fairly mainstream within Evangelicalism.) Despite his assertion that a stay at home dad was a “man fail,” and out of God’s will, he remains in good standing.

5. Teach that women shouldn’t go to college, but should throughout their lifetimes be under the authority of a man. (Doug Phillips) (Also Kevin Swanson - who is still in World ads)

I hesitated about including this one, but decided to for one reason:

Even though I believe Phillips and Swanson were and are outside of the Evangelical mainstream, they have been permitted (and in the case of Swanson) are still permitted to run ads for their conferences in Evangelical publications such as World. In other words, the readers are allowed to assume that they are within the orthodox faith.

Phillips (now out of ministry for sexually abusing a teen girl) and Swanson (still in good standing despite a, shall we say, “creative” view of actual reality) have unequivocally taught that to send a female to college is to disobey God. (More information about Swanson and his lunacy can be found in this post.)

Not just an “inferior choice,” but actual sin.

The point of this, within the context of this post, is that making a claim like that, which is damaging to the futures of women, is apparently NOT a reason to “farewell” a leader.

Again, these things are NOT considered to be a misuse of Scripture to the extent of denying “inspiration, inerrancy, and authority.”

This is a Heart Issue

In thinking this through for myself, I have been unable to escape a conclusion:

For many within the Evangelical/Calvinist movements, the important thing is believing the right stuff. Adhering completely to the detailed theological beliefs - including Calvinism - is the thing.

Not avoiding harming others. Not being intellectually honest. Not being open to the slightest possibility that we don’t know or understand everything.

Unquestioning adherence to a detailed system of belief.

The reason I feel that this has become a generational issue is that my generation and the succeeding ones have looked at our own experiences and at the practical results of these beliefs, and have concluded that Evangelicalism has kept its orthodoxy, but has lost its heart.

Sure, we have our faith. We have our detailed faith. And our belief that WE and WE ALONE understand the meaning of scripture.

But we no longer notice or care about the damage caused to others in the real world.

When a belief in a literal 6 day creation becomes more important than stopping child abuse, we have a problem.

When we are not repulsed and offended by those who defend the enslavement of one race by another, we have a problem.

When we excuse the abuse of women and children because we are unwilling to question our gender essentialism, we have a problem.

When Rachel Held Evans’ book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood is rejected by Lifeway Christian Bookstores, while they continue to list 23 titles by Douglas Wilson, we have a problem.

When questioning the meaning of the sacrifice of Isaac is a huge controversy, leading many to conclude that RHE has departed from the faith, and yet casually asserting that women shouldn’t go to college, but should stay at home until they are married doesn’t warrant the same attention or consequences, we have a problem.

Is Faith Primarily About Believing the Right Set of Doctrines?

This is where I personally am struggling.

It seems to me that Saint James put it well when he said,

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. (NIV)

If our faith does not express itself in standing up for the oppressed, seeking justice for the damaged, and mercy for the helpless, do we really even have a faith?

Or are we just about moralism? (Don’t answer that question.)

As I read the scriptures, there is a LOT about issues of justice and oppression. As I read it, there is the radical idea that in Christ, there IS no class, race, or gender. That all of us are equal before God, and that the Kingdom will dispense with our man-made distinctions.

I read that the key issue isn’t whether we have the “correct” belief about all issues from gender to sexuality to creation to spiritual gifts. It isn’t whether we fathom the question of free will versus sovereignty. It isn’t whether we believe right or not. It’s about how our beliefs lead us to act. Do we in fact act out of a love for God and our neighbor? Do we do unto others as we would have them do to us?

Are we quick to exclude others from the faith because they do not agree with us? Or are we concerned with whether those who name the name of Christ are, as Isaiah put it, concerned with loosing the chains of injustice, setting the oppressed free, sharing with the hungry, and avoiding wasting our religion on strife and argument over secondary issues.

When I (and others my age and younger) see that our leadership cannot tolerate the questioning of certain teachings, and yet excuses permissiveness toward the abuse of women, children, and African Americans as somehow less serious than disagreements about hell and creation, we are greatly troubled. 

***

This post is already long enough, but I do intend to address the story of Abraham and Isaac and explain why I am troubled by the lesson that is usually drawn from the story.