More on Not Being an Evangelical (Second in a Set of Occasional Updates)

Comments on three items relevant to what you can read below the folds.

First, you can go here to read a piece by Alan Jacobs, a colleague of historian Thomas Kidd at Baylor University. Jacobs riffs on a conversation with Kidd and his new book, Who Is An Evangelical? The History of a Movement in Crisis. Quoting Jacobs's personal observations on evangelicalism and politics:

It seems to me that of all the traits that attracted evangelicals to Reagan, perhaps the most important was his sunny and fervent patriotism. ... But as ...  American church leaders in almost all denominations became less interested in traditional Christian doctrines and more interested in what some scholars have come to call moralistic therapeutic deism, a larger and larger proportion of white evangelicals became what Pew Research calls “God-and-Country Believers.” These folks, almost all of whom are white, may not attend church often or at all, and they may not be interested in, or even aware of, the beliefs that have typically characterized evangelical Christians, but they know this much: They believe in God, and they believe in America, and they love Donald Trump because he speaks blunt Truth to culturally elite Power, and when asked by pollsters whether they are evangelicals, they say yes.

Then there's this post by Thomas Kidd himself who raises and answers the question, what part of speech is evangelical? As Kidd explains, "The term historically is that until the 1800s, 'evangelical' was almost always used as an adjective, not a noun, as in 'evangelical sermon' or 'evangelical book.'" And since the 1800s? "By 1950, the use of the word had changed dramatically, especially because of the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942. 'Evangelical' was coming to denote conversionist Protestants who were not fundamentalists." And later yet, what Jacobs wrote.

What has any of this have to do with my non-identification as an Evangelical? Together, Jacobs and Kidd confirm that in contemporary American culture the word evangelical denotes little but connotes much. The understanding of the historic Christian faith by many who describe themselves as evangelical is less than an inch deep. On the other hand, that same self-identification for them entails support for a particular party and the incumbent president.

Of course, one may have both a deep commitment to the doctrines of Christianity and support a political party and its candidates and office holders. (Read an excellent piece on this by friend Louis Hensler here.) But such support is not entailed by that faith, and certainly should not cause the others to presume such an identification as a matter of course.
_________________________________________________________________________

I wrote what's posted below the fold in 2017. You can go here to read a piece by Michael Gryboski reporting on a conference of historians that clearly elaborates on the irremediable confusion surrounding the meaning of the term "Evangelical". While I may not fully comprehend what historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez means by "imagined communities," describing Evangelicalisms with that turn of phrase seems to make sense. In any event, I remain satisfied with my decision to opt out of describing myself as an Evangelical.
_________________________________________________________________________

I've previously opined that the term "Evangelical" serves no useful purpose. As I wrote earlier this year here, "Evangelicalism in America is little more than a watered-down version of Protestant Christianity adapted to and subsisting in the market economy." (I take no position on the use of Evangelical in other cultures; it’s “Evangelical” in the good, ol' U.S. of A. that I’m writing about.)

One might think me merely a crank but Thomas Kidd, a serious historian and committed Baptist, seems to have come around to my way of thinking. (For my review of his co-authored “Baptists in America” go here.) You can read his entire post (and watch the embedded interview) here but I'll quote some of what I take as his most salient points.

Whatever its historic value, the word “evangelical” in America has become inextricably tied to Republican politics. This is because the dominant media is far more interested in the political expressions of religion than in religion itself.

But it is also because strong majorities of white evangelicals support Republican candidates, including Donald Trump. Because it has become inextricably politicized, “evangelical” has become an essentially divisive term among Bible-believing Christians, as many African Americans, Hispanics, and others cannot identify with the political ramifications of being an “evangelical,” especially after the election of President Trump.

Kidd’s specific concerns about "Evangelical" are primarily political. Or perhaps "anti-political." Mine, as I posted here, had to do with its collapse into the American culture of business success and therapeutic pragmatism:

Also characterizing the "nice" God of American Evangelicals--and perhaps an effect of it--felt the need to "market" Christianity in the most inoffensive, undemanding way possible. Churches become little more than places where some nice people hang out to experience their nice God. And when pure niceness fails, modern business marketing is called on to increase attendance.

Kidd goes on to ask a follow-on question: If not Evangelical, what?

What else will we call ourselves? That may be the biggest problem with not using “evangelical.” … Just identify with your denomination. (For me, that means Baptist.) Or you can tell people you are a follower of Jesus Christ, or a gospel Christian.

Or, as I prefer, confessional Protestant. In any event, retaining “Evangelical” seems unwise from whatever direction we approach the issue. Sometimes a tent becomes so big it serves no purpose and collapses of its own weight. And that time has come for Evangelical.