As we now come to my third post in this short series on Evangelicalism, and why it seems routine to find Evangelicals declaring how horrible Evangelicalism is, I find myself loathing to finish this short series. It has been a topic I have been around most of my life, and it has gotten even more intense in the past few years—and I am just tired of it. It is psychologically draining to discuss it. Nevertheless, I’m going to push through and finish what I started.
In this post, I am simply going to go through as many chapters as I can in Constantine Campbell’s book, Jesus v. Evangelicals, both providing a brief overview of each chapter and commenting on what I feel are the more important points and issues. Here we go…
Chapter 3: Bad Judgment
In this chapter, Campbell focuses on Evangelicalism’s reputation for being judgmental, to both unbelievers and to nonconforming believers. The heart of the issue for Campbell is one of self-righteousness and lack of humility. Pretty much everything he says in this chapter is spot on. Evangelicals do have a reputation of being self-righteous and judgmental, and much of the time that reputation is warranted.
Chapter 4: Tribalism
In this chapter, Campbell discusses the “us vs. them” mentality throughout Evangelicalism, with fault lines often coming in the form of racial divisions, political party divisions, and the tendency of churches coalescing around dynamic personas or celebrity preachers. The end result being that whereas originally, Evangelicalism was largely defined as emphasizing conversion (having a conversion experience), activism (living out the gospel message in practical ways), biblicism (holding the Bible up as the highest authority), and crucicentrism (focusing on the atoning death of Christ on the cross), nowadays, Evangelicals are largely identified as a voting block for the GOP. Campbell says “Evangelical” is now understood to be “white Christian nationalist,” but I think that is going too far. I believe those original four defining characteristics still hold true for most Evangelicals, but it is true that too often Evangelicalism is seen as little more than a GOP voting block.
What I found interesting in this chapter is that many of the more theological critiques Campbell has of Evangelicalism are rather Orthodox in nature: the failure of Evangelicalism to really contemplate the theological significance of Christ’s resurrection; the rather “flat interpretation” most Evangelicals have when it comes to the Bible; the rather “flat” and limited understanding of the significance of the crucifixion by focusing solely on penal substitution; as well as the rather unique American hyper-individualism that characterizes many Evangelical churches. Still, I think Campbell slips into a bit of political partisanship when he laments that Evangelicals aren’t concerned about social issues, but then highlights only the ones that, you guessed it, are Democrat talking points. Evangelical churches still do plenty of things—I question accusing them of having “disdain for social action” is really valid.
In any case, Campbell ends the chapter by saying that all churches, not just Evangelical churches, need to strive for unity and to be one in Christ. The way he says to do that is by getting a fuller, more robust understanding of the Bible. Now, as someone who loves Biblical Studies and who has devoted my life to it, I obviously think that is a good thing to do. Still, as an Orthodox Christian, I’ve come to see the importance of Church Tradition—and that is something the Evangelical churches, as well as virtually every Protestant church tends to lack. Focusing on Church Tradition and making a concentrated effort to preserve and proclaim the teachings that Christ handed down to his disciples is a great way to stay focused on what is, and what is not, important. Churches, as churches, should focus on that, and that alone. Let individual Christians wrestle with political and social issues, and let individual Christians be politically active as they see fit, but it isn’t the Church’s mission to be politically active as churches.
Chapter 5: Acceptable Sins
In this chapter, Campbell discusses how Evangelical churches tend to emphasize some sins over others. He writes, “Adultery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, gender dysphoria, drug and alcohol addiction—these are a few of Evangelicalism’s unacceptable sins” (105). But what about the pride and hubris and abusive behavior that some pastors have been guilty of? Not so much…at least that is what Campbell says. I think, generally speaking, Evangelicalism does focus on certain sins more than others, and generally speaking, there are plenty of rather big-headed, self-righteous pastors—but I think Campbell’s depiction is a bit too simplistic.
He also slips into Democrat talking points again when he writes, “Evangelicals rail against abortion, but they bemoan Black Lives Matter. They rail against the erosion of religious liberty, but they don’t seem to be too bothered by misogyny. They fight for the Second Amendment, but they don’t fight for asylum seekers” (108). Sorry, but BLM has proven to be quite corrupt; it is also an over-generalized statement that Evangelicals en masse aren’t bothered by misogyny; and the border issue isn’t about being against legitimate asylum seekers fleeing persecution—it is about an irresponsible open border policy that is allowing millions of people to flood into the country without going through the legal process. Now, things like racism, women’s rights, and immigration, are all vital issues that need to be discussed and worked through, but the propagation of vastly over-generalized caricatures fueled by a particular political party isn’t a helpful thing.
Campbell also touches upon the topic of doubt: “Most pastors will also not admit publicly to wrestling with doubt. Doubt is a secret unacceptable sin in many Evangelical churches…” (109). This is a topic that, I admit, makes me wonder just how much a part of Evangelicalism I really was. I never was afraid of asking hard questions and expressing doubt. That’s how you learn and grow—taking on and wrestling with doubt. Some of the most impactful quotes in my life are about doubt. This about this one from John Irving’s book, A Prayer for Owen Meany: “Without somehow destroying me in the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave no room for doubt? If there was no room for doubt, there would be no room for me.”
Chapter 6: Till Death Do Us Part
In this chapter, Campbell talks about the pain he went through with his church when he and his wife got divorced. He writes, “Divorce is always a scandal within an Evangelical community, especially if it involves someone in professional church ministry” (125). His own experience led him to conclude that, when it comes to the issue of divorce, that the Evangelical culture was “merciless, combative, and self-righteous” (128). In addition, Campbell also touches upon the reasons for divorce and the issue of Christians getting remarried.
Now, being divorced myself, this is another chapter that, just to be honest, somewhat mystifies me. I know that Evangelicals can be judgmental about divorce, but my experience was nothing like that of Campbell’s. When I went through my divorce, I was still teaching at a small, conservative Evangelical school in Alabama, nonetheless. I’ll just say it—I had nothing but support, understanding, and encouragement from the entire faculty. On top of that, I was attending a Baptist church at the time—and again, nothing but support and understanding.
Were there a few people who were judging me and disparaging me behind my back? Maybe. But I never was made aware of it. Of course, I know my own personality. If anyone tried to openly judge me over it, I’d tell them to screw off and I wouldn’t let their ignorant judgmentalism bother me. If you have gotten divorced, and you know you did everything you could to save the marriage, and you know you did everything you could do to end it amicably, then your attitude toward anyone who tries to self-righteously judge you should be, “Screw you. You’re not worth my time.” In any case, my experience with Evangelicals while going through a very painful divorce was the exact opposite of what Campbell describes. That leads me to conclude, once again, that although it is true that many Evangelicals can be judgmental, the truth is that isn’t the case across the board. …and that’s a good thing.
Chapter 7: Megachurch Pastors
In this chapter, Campbell discusses megachurch pastors and churches. Campbell gives three key elements that characterize most megachurches: (1) They are often theologically light and relationally superficial; (2) They often have multisite platforms and employs video preaching; and (3) Megachurch pastors are often charismatic individuals who shape their church around their own personalities. He also says megachurches have a “consumer mindset”—I’ll add that most megachurches reduce Christianity to an ad-campaign.
All this is pretty true. On a personal note, I grew up in a large church of about 5,000 people, and in my late-teens and early-twenties I attended the megachurch Willowcreek Community Church. At the time, it was what I needed. That being said, I never got to know anyone there, and eventually, I felt it became quite thin and shallow. And that gets to the heart of the problem with megachurches. It’s not that all of them are corrupt, but there certainly is a theological shallowness.
Chapter 8: The Lunatic Fringe
In this chapter, Campbell discusses (there’s no other way to say it) the complete whack-jobs within the Evangelical world, namely Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, and Joel Osteen. I remember when I was a kid, you had Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. The fact is, Evangelicalism has always had a lunatic fringe. Again, though, even when I was growing up, I never viewed the likes of the Bakkers (and others) as representing Evangelicalism. They were the lunatic fringe–and to be fringe, that, by definition, means not to represent the majority.
In particular, let me say one thing about probably the most famous megachurch pastors in America—Joel Osteen. Although I wouldn’t consider him “lunatic fringe” in the same sense as someone like Kenneth Copeland or Paula White, he typifies what is wrong with megachurches in general. He’s not so much a pastor as he is a cotton candy self-help motivational speaker. “Shallow” and “theologically thin” are understatements when it comes to Osteen. I remember about three years ago, when Kanye West came out with his album “Jesus is King” and—sure enough, Joel Osteen brought him on stage at his church. And what did Kanye say to Osteen’s “congregation”? He called himself “the greatest artist that God ever created.” The funniest thing is that if you watch the entire segment, the other stuff that Kanye said was probably had more theological depth than Joel Osteen’s typical sermon! When Kanye West’s ramblings are more theologically sound that the pastor’s sermons—that’s saying something about how anemic that pastor’s teaching is.
Chapter 9: Saving Faith
Campbell ends his book by (A) summarizing his main points in his book, and (B) giving some suggestions how to “save the faith.” I will end this post by simply bullet-pointing his summarized main points. Then, in my final post, I’ll discuss his prescription for “saving the faith” and share my own thoughts about Evangelicalism today.
- American Evangelicalism has become politicized to the extent that its spiritual nature has been distorted.
- Evangelicals often uphold an “us versus them” mentality toward outsiders.
- Evangelicalism frequently suffers from the perception and reality of judgmentalism.
- Evangelicals can be highly divisive, and this leads to tribalism.
- Evangelicals have an understood code of acceptable and unacceptable sins.
- Evangelicals tend to shoot their wounded by the way they treat marriage failure, divorce, and remarriage.
- Evangelicals celebrate an unhealthy church model—the megachurch.
- The popular face of Evangelicalism has been overrun by fringe personalities peddling false gospels aimed at manipulation of their followers to forge their own fortunes.
A lot of this points are valid, but I think there is something deeper to it. I’ll try to explain what I mean in my final post.
In an interview, Russell Moore calls out the distinction between historical, theological evangelicalism and “exit poll evangelicals.” The latter do not have the personal theological understanding of what went into the definition of evangelical as opposed to protestant decades ago as separate categories. And then the pollsters themselves have no clue. Moore has also given me a new self-descriptor in these days – dissenting evangelical. He also has some words that might interest you about the impact of those attempting to speak prophetically into the political arena during the past two presidential elections in denominations that expect the prophetic.
Politics is about choices and priorities. In the US, for the federal gov’t, we have elections to decide collectively what the choices and priorities of the US is going to be. We have 2 main parties, every third party attempt ends up hurting one of the candidates of the 2 main parties more than the other. Any discussion of candidates should be done in the plural, not the singular. Pointing out how horrible one candidate is does not mean much if the other major candidate is seen as being even worse.
I will bet that evangelicals struggle with doubt more than any other group/denomination of Christians. If your eternal salvation is based entirely on your decision to believe and repent, whenever you don‘t feel with sufficient intensity the presence of Christ, you are asking yourself: Did I sincerely believe? Did I completely repent of ALL sins? This issue drove me nuts as an evangelical. It is why I eventually became a Lutheran. Lutherans, Catholics, and Orthodox can point to their baptism for assurance of salvation, not the sincerity of a decision.