THE POST-EVANGELICAL MANIFESTO is now up and awaiting comment, criticism, or, more probably, to be blown out of the water.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
Parables of a Prodigal World

I’ve had a strange relationship with the term Evangelical. I used to accept it wholeheartedly in my much more Christian Right upbringing, but as I moved away from some of the political stances and theological views (e.g., conversion largely meaning going to Heaven when a person dies), I used the term to describe myself less and less. When I came to Fuller, however, I saw people using the term in ways that resonated deeply with me. The professors there defined and espoused an Evangelicalism I could agree with easily. It wasn’t a theology wedded to America in particular or the state in general, and I believe this version of Evangelicalism corrected some of the foundationalist presuppositions of Scripture that you’ve rightly criticized. Scripture still holds authority, but tradition also plays a large part. Just to locate myself, I have found a home in the Evangelical Covenant Church, so obviously my issues with the term Evangelical aren’t deal-breakers for me.

I find Alister McGrath’s four characteristics of Evangelicalism helpful and they give a lot of room to play. Clearly these markers are less confessional than other traditions, as McKnight points out, and they focus broadly on larger matters. In trying to be ecumenical, specifics have been left undefined. I’m actually comforted that there is much diversity within the tradition. As we’ve said, I think Evangelical works better as an adjective than as a noun. Perhaps we could call Evangelicalism as a tradition within traditions. That is, I don’t see why the four markers of Evangelicalism should supersede the theology found in our faith communities and traditions. In fact, I find that Evangelicalism’s markers bolsters various confessions and practices with a renewed focus.

I would like to see more ecclesiology discussed so that just as some Evangelicals have developed a more robust view of Scripture, Evangelicals could also develop a more exciting view of traditions and the Church.

Evangelicalism may have its roots in America, but it is certainly bigger than that now. I doubt McGrath, Miroslav Volf, or Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen — non-Americans who label themselves Evangelicals — would view their faith as tied up with the American establishment.

I agree with McKnight that those three groups (Religious Right, Neo-Reformed, and Political Progressives) affect Evangelicalism in dangerous ways. These groups are trying to box in Evangelicalism as a tradition that does not span denominations. This move is not faithful to the broader ecumenism built into Evangelicalism.

http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=3811

You’re right Evangelicalism is much better to be thought of as an adjective, I completely agree, and I think that since it is so pluralistic now (so many different people, groups, theology, etc) that it may no longer be all that helpful. The (specialized use of the) term originated in the late 18th century, if I recall, and as Noll points out in “America’s God,” it has always been tied up with the very structure of American(ism) and politics. It was “small r republicanism” back then, and now it is largely “capital R Republicanism.” Of course this is a huge generality, given Wallis, McLaren and others now, at least from time to time, call themselves Evangelical, but it is nonetheless one of the the points of Noll’s book. In either case, it is an old term, tied up with American establishment, and may no longer be helpful.

I also do wonder if it the term itself, or those who fall under it, can have any legitimate critique of American politics, culture, and society because it is such an integrated part of it – is it capable of distancing itself or is it structurally bound to operating within and alongside American Establishment (as Jamie Smith points out there is no critique of capitalism, or any of the other ills in our contemporary American culture).

Another part of my criticism comes from being a part of a Radical Reformation tradition (as does the first one against establishment). McKnight in his post discusses how Evangelicalism is ecumenical (which I is why I was critical of the manifesto excluding certain people) and makes this point:

“Evangelicalism has always dropped theological distinctives (confessional level statements of faith) for the sake of the gospel.”

This is true enough and is part of my beef with Evangelicalism. I see it as a modern attempt to break away from tradition, place complete authority within a foundationalist reading of the Scriptures, and lose all distinctives in the name of the Gospel (all the while following the universalizing tendencies of Enlightenment reasoning). That said, my own personal problem with Evangelicalism comes in the fact that it has, in my opinion, greatly (and ironically) diminished the Christian voice within the Friends tradition. At the cost of distinctives, pacifism, plainness, truth-telling, open worship, social activism etc – a good portion of the Friends church has become Evangelical (of course, please be aware, I’m using big generalities again). I see Evangelicalism as being the thing some Quakers got really committed to over and above the things that made the Friends Church has such a rich tradition – whipping those things clean in the name of the Gospel – which in turn looks a lot like conservative, and yes, sometimes even Right Wing Fundamentalist, Christianity.

In my reading of Quaker history, there were a lot of splits taking place during the 19th century within our church; it was Enlightenment philosophy in all instances but sometimes in the form of Liberalism and sometimes in the form of Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) that disturbed the relative unity within the church. This is why I’m not only critical of both sides, but am also trying to positively name something else. This is why I don’t think hanging onto ‘Evangelical’ as an adjective is all that helpful. Not only did it do this among Friends, it’s played this leveling role within most traditions.

So, for what that’s worth, that’s some of the context behind my own feelings about it. Given that, Scot McKnight’s post is helpful and far more charitable. I’ll give some more consideration to some of the points he’s made.