Evangelicals Shouldn’t Criticize Evangelicalism (Unless the Evangel Really Matters)
“The gospel doesn’t come with a gag order. It calls us to name and repent of idolatries and hypocrisies—especially our own.” - Russel Moore
- 278 views
...that evangelicals ought not criticize their own would strike people in Bible times as odd, given that a number of great heroes have their criticism (e.g. Nathan of David, Paul of Peter, etc..) recorded in Scripture. A medical picture comes to mind, that you don't get healed by refusing to let the doctor see your injuries.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Seems like a lot of the defensiveness arises from the amped up polarization/tribalism of our times. I get the impression some have absorbed it so deeply they’re not aware of how much of those attitudes they’re bringing along as assumptions pretty much all the time. One of them is the attitude that every person, group and idea has to be identified as Friend or Foe first, before anything else—like evaluating the idea/claim on its merits, etc.
If somebody feels that Identification Friend or Foe is priority 1, followed by commencing to fight, they don’t have any patience with the idea of self-criticism and getting your own house in order.
I recall that Jesus said somewhere ‘whoever is not for me is against me,’ etc. It’s fair to say He was “polarizing.” But to Him that didn’t mean everybody was 100% right or 100% wrong 100% of the time. At one point, even in the middle of publicly rebuking the Pharisees, He says of their tithing “these you ought to have done without neglecting the other.” He was acknowledging they were doing something right.
And He didn’t hesitate to rebuke His own disciples… even so far as “Get behind me, Satan!” to their leader.
So recognizing that the truth, and Christ Himself, are polarizing is one thing. Locking into “IFF+commence fighting” mode is something else.
Maybe a better way to say it is that our “foe” is not really flesh and blood, so we always have “foe” within and among ourselves also. So “IFF+fight” is actually great if we point the radar in all directions, including our own camp and our own hearts.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thinks Moore and others’ criticism of evangelicals is too harsh…
Evangelical Self-Reflection and the Danger of Contempt
I can’t really say I’ve read enough of the ‘evangelicals criticizing evangelicals’ genre to know what he’s talking about. What I’ve seen doesn’t seem overly harsh. I suppose ‘harshness’ is informed in part by how seriously one takes the problems being confronted.
Was Paul “too harsh” with Peter in Galatians (Gal 2:11ff)? So I think we have to acknowledge that “harshness level” is pretty close to being nothing more than an angle on “how seriously we view the problems at issue.” So it would be better to focus the debate there.
I don’t read David French much anymore, because I don’t have a NYTimes subscription. But his name seems to come up. I do know that he sees the ethical problems in the evangelical interface with politics as a very serious assault on gospel witness. As does Russell Moore.
Agree or disagree w/their take on the ethics, it ought to be possible to disagree with them while acknowledging that their passion for faithfulness to the gospel is worthy of respect—and if they’re “too harsh,” that ought to also be at least understandable, since they see these issues as directly damaging Christian authenticity and witness.
(And I tend to agree with them on that point, I should disclose… as most SI readers already know.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion