In my last post, I characterized post-evangelicals as those whose evangelical heritage has become questionable and problematic.  In this post, I discuss some of the particular questions we post-evangelicals discuss when we gather for a drink or a smoke.

Historian David Bebbington characterized evangelicalism in terms of four main emphases (the so-called Bebbington quadrilateral): Biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, and activism. Each of these four areas has become problematic for post-evangelicals, so that we can speak of four characteristic post-evangelical questions: authority, evil, individual choice, and ethics & politics.  Let’s look at this “post-evangelical quadrilateral” more closely.

After Biblicism

As evangelicals we learned to read the Bible and submit to its authority.  But now we have serious reservations about this, as I have written about before.  We are aware of ambiguities, contradictions, or “texts of terror” in the Bible that our pastors downplayed.  We wonder how the Bible’s sole authority can be reconciled with the messy and drawn out process of canonization in which the institution of the church played a central role.  We see the humanity of the Bible in its historical and cultural conditioning, its literary and poetic features. We bristle at the arbitrary use of Scripture by evangelical leaders.

So post-evangelicals ask the question of who or what has legitimate religious authority. Many of us have become convinced that the Bible’s meaning is not obvious, but that it requires reading in a community in light of tradition.  Some of us try to rehabilitate sola scriptura with a more sophisticated account of the Bible’s inspiration.  For others, the problem of authority takes them beyond a focus on the Bible.  Some submit to the authority of one of the historic institutional churches (esp. Catholic or Orthodox).  Some think people should choose whatever theology fits their own personal experiences.  Many of us think theology needs to incorporate the insights of philosophy and the natural or social sciences.

After Crucicentrism

As evangelicals we were taught that individuals must seek salvation through the cross of Christ. But this too has become problematic. We find frameworks like the Romans Road or the Four Spiritual Laws trite and artificial. We are disturbed that a loving God would demand the torture of His Son before he can forgive us. We feel deeply the need for social justice and find this difficult to reconcile with the notions of heaven and hell.  We are highly conscious of evil, suffering, and death, and we suspect that the evangelical “gospel” ignores or distorts these phenomena. We wonder why God doesn’t act in the world.

In short, post-evangelicals wonder how the gospel responds to the reality of evil. Some of us have tried to deal with this question theologically by challenging the existence or the eternity of hell and by emphasizing the social and cosmic scope of the gospel.  Some of us have been drawn to liberation theologies.  Some of us want to preserve the traditional doctrines but articulate them in a more generous framework.  Many of us find the question of evil deeply troubling, a source of persistent doubts about God.  Most of us believe the reality of evil should spur us to realize the Kingdom of God with good works.

After Conversionism

As evangelicals we were taught that each person has to choose her faith for herself.  But we wondered about the fate of our non-Christian friends and family or about those who never heard about Jesus. We have become suspicious about the power of an individual to choose her own destiny and aware of the importance of tradition. One sign of this is the odd embarrassment of the cliche testimonial: “I grew up in a Christian family, but my faith was never my own . . .”  Many of us “prayed the prayer” as three or four year olds, or during emotional camp highs, but we now find it absurd that our eternal salvation could depend on this single questionable act.

So post-evangelicals wrestle with the difficult question of the significance of individual choice, given the fact that we are socialized into particular traditions and communities.  Many of us respond by shifting the theological emphasis away from individual choice, joining churches that baptize infants and worship liturgically. Others are more inclined towards religious pluralism and universalism. But the very fact that post-evangelicals reject the faith we have inherited and choose a new path suggests that we continue to view religion as a momentous choice that we have to make for ourselves. We are inclined, however, to see this choice as one repeated every day over the journey of a whole life, rather than occurring once and for all at a moment of conversion.

After Activism

As evangelicals we learned that religion is not a private matter: one must actively share one’s faith with others and live it out in the world. But we became disillusioned with the narrow ethical and political horizon of the “culture wars.”  While some post-evangelicals remain pro-life and have questions about homosexuality, most of us doubt that support of the NRA, torture, or a militaristic foreign policy is consistent with the eirenic teachings of Jesus. We are drawn to Jesus’ compassion for the poor and his frequent hard words about money and possessions. We are suspicious about the manipulation of religion by political leaders.  We hate seeing Muslims vilified in the name of Jesus.

So post-evangelicals are rethinking the ethical and political expression of Christianity. While a few disillusioned post-evangelicals probably reject activism altogether, most of us retain an activist impulse.  But most of us have not become missionaries or Republican party organizers.  Instead, many of us work for non-profit organizations, teach in poor neighborhoods, foster children, or join intentional communities.  We probably see ourselves as Democrats or moderate Republicans, although some of us do not find ourselves entirely at home in either party. In 2008 many of us were passionate about Obama and are likely to vote for him again in 2012.

A concluding word, echoing a thoughtful comment Jared Hilary Ruark made on my last post: “I’m encouraged by the trend of post-Evangelicalism because I think that it has potential to create bridges between estranged Christianities.”

Yes, this is an exceptional opportunity: post-evangelicals who share a history, a set of important questions, and a bit of evangelical earnestness, are scattering themselves through nearly every Christian (and many non-Christian) institution and denomination in the West.  May we not take up the old divisive battles.  May we be a people who make peace, wherever we settle.