Modern Evangelicalism Denies Anabaptism
In recent years the Brethren in Christ (an Anabaptist denomination) has referred to itself as having four historical streams of influence. Not officially, of course. Not in any of the annals of its nearly 250 year history. The reference, however, is there on the website, in courses offered within the denomination and in conversation. The Brethren in Christ has called itself “a ______ with a difference.” Wesleyan with a difference; Anabaptist with a difference; etc. I’ve been reflecting on the Evangelical stream of influence and the idea of being an “evangelical with a difference.”
Until the 1950’s Evangelicalism’s impact on the Brethren in Christ was a secondary or tertiary impact. That is, some of the historical waves of Evangelicalism had impact upon ministers such as John and Charles Wesley and those ministers (the Wesley’s) had an impact on the historical Brethren in Christ. As Evangelicalism began to redefine itself in the 20th century it became more and more common to define it by what it wasn’t. Or to define itself against another movement that it wasn’t – such as fundamentalism.
On one hand the Evangelical movement sought unity between believers by avoiding many of the contentious issue that had caused much of Christianity to become characterized as narrow. The Evangelicals became a sort of middle ground between fundamentalism and modernism. It had a best of both worlds approach, an almost safe place to land in a theological sense since, at its core, Evangelicalism desired to be invitational, grow as a movement and engage in social concerns. On cursory review Evangelicalism seemed to hold onto some core fundamentalist ideologies without denying some of the new and more scholarly approach of the modernist.
On the other hand, the Evangelical movement began to try to create a subculture that would permeate mainstream culture by providing religious alternatives to mainstream activities. Bob Jones founded Bob Jones University as a place free from modernism and evolution. Fuller Seminary was founded in response to the fundamentalist teaching at Bob Jones University. Christianity Today became an Evangelical household publication to combat the The Christian Century. The Scopes Monkey Trial may have been won by William Jennings Bryan but it was conservative Christianity that was resoundingly rebuffed by society at large. Conservative Christianity would need a spokesperson and it couldn’t be Bryan.
Billy Graham would become that spokesperson and easily is remembered as the figure most associated with Evangelicalism. Graham came into the spotlight in a very sudden and charismatic way. He attended the seminary founded by the National Association of Evangelical’s (Fuller Seminary), after a very short stint at Bob Jones University, and almost immediately upon graduation he became a nationally renown speaker with Youth for Christ and then as an Evangelist for a wider audience. How did Graham go from seminary graduate to renown status so quickly without climbing the proverbial ministry ladder? News coverage from William Randolph Hearst and Time Magazine. And why were these non-religious publications drawn to Graham? Charisma? Yes. Anything else? His political views. Which lays an important block in the foundation of Evangelicalism that will later prove to be more of a cornerstone than even Jesus.
In 1966 Billy Graham was declared a heretic by Bob Jones Jr. Less than 10 years later they would end up in the same camp. Why? How? Though much of the North American Evangelical world would like to think that its political foundation was laid upon the good Christian fight of being pro-life the truth is a bit less obvious than that. Certainly, there was some gathering of people around this ideology but in truth the lines between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism would become blurred because of race. Which, of course, Evangelicalism has spent much of its history not wanting to talk about. In 1974 the U.S. Government threatened to sue all universities that remained segregated after revoking the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University. Fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell, who had his own segregated university, began to gather people bent on a conservative political view. In 1976 Jimmy Carter, a self-proclaimed “born again believer” won the United States Presidential Election and suddenly we needed a name for this growing conservative voting bloc – Evangelical.
Which gets a little confusing, right? Bob Jones University and Wheaton College were at odds. Billy Graham and Bob Jones Jr were at odds. Billy Graham was against segregation and Jerry Falwell was for segregation, right? I thought the NAE was founded to counter the FCC. Christianity Today was created to combat the modernist teachings of The Christian Century, I was told. Now they’re all Evangelical? Not because of the life changing work of Jesus Christ? Not because they peaceably sat around a table and worked out their theological differences? Because combining the two diametrically opposed camps gained political leaders a larger voting bloc of conservative voters?
Tell me that doesn’t sound like the villainous plot twist in the latest movie where two parties are at odds with one another over moral issues but are eventually unified under a third party who doesn’t actually care for the moral issues but simply desires the power of the other two? Is this a Marvel movie? Is this a Bond movie? Unfortunately, we don’t see this plot quite so clearly.
At this point – what does Evangelical really mean? Because it doesn’t mean what Wheaton College and Billy Graham stood for. That has been diluted with Bob Jones University, Jerry Falwell, racism and conservative politics. Whatever Evangelicalism once stood for it has become clear, especially in the last ten years, that it is no longer a group rejecting fundamentalism while proclaiming the Bible as the inspired word of God and the importance of being “born again.” No, theology has been replaced with political theory in this group; christocentricity with nation-centricity.
Now, I want to give the Evangelical impact on the Brethren in Christ a fair shake. Historically, I can see the positive contribution of the American Evangelical stream that encouraged us to move our “separateness” from society away from distinctions in plain dress, movie attendance and card games and into something that was more directly an overall distinction in lifestyle. This opened us up to a larger and more missional call towards the evangelism of our neighbors rather than separation from them. Personally, I see this as a very positive contribution that may not have come to the Brethren in Christ without the Evangelical movement and the call of teachers like Billy Graham.
Indeed, this is the very thing that the Brethren in Christ website promotes as the contribution of the Evangelical movement of the 1950s to the theology of the Brethren in Christ. I would be willing to split hairs and say that the only purely Evangelical contribution was the embrace of culture rather than the separation from it but the denominational website seems to believe that a desire to engage others with the transformative message of the gospel is also a contribution. I think the argument can be made that the Brethren in Christ already did this to an extent and would have more fully embraced this mentality over time as some of their other theological roots did as well. Regardless – the Brethren in Christ denomination recognizes the positive contribution of Evangelicalism to its theological roots.
The problem is that I, as a current Pastor, parent, husband, community volunteer, business owner, avid reader, seminary grad, informed individual, am struggling to see positive contributions beyond this singular one by the American Evangelical stream of influence. So much so that I’m struggled not to put stream of influence in quotations as a way to illicit to the reader the very depth of my struggle.
It would seem to me that many current American Evangelical values are in direct contradiction to our other streams of influence.
In 2015 Jerry Falwell Jr, who had taken over the reins of one of those southern segregationist schools (Lynchburg Christian Academy) from his father Jerry Falwell Sr, now president of Liberty University said, “I’ve always thought if more good people had concealed-carry permits we could end those Muslims before they walk in and kill…” Granted, Liberty University is a private institution but the Falwell name has come to mean a great deal to the Evangelical world and Liberty University has become, arguably, the largest Christian university in the world and the most influential Evangelical university in the country. I’ll also grant that in 2020 Falwell Jr resigned from Liberty in the midst of multiple scandal, but it does not change the assistance Falwell Jr provided in helping to build the current structure we know as Evangelicalism nor the politicizing of it. It should go without saying that Falwell’s violence pandering commentary from 2015 has more in common with the Münster Rebellion than with any Anabaptist peace position or the historical Anabaptist call for young men to choose a form of voluntary service over military service. This is to say nothing of the clearly racially insensitive portion of Falwell’s 2015 commentary that flies in the face of any Brethren in Christ missions work done in portions of the world where Muslim persons are engaged with respect to them, their culture and their religion.
As we previously mentioned the diametrically opposed portions of Protestant American Christianity were combined, not because of sudden theological agreement but because powerful men saw the opportunity to gain even more power through the establishment of a massive Evangelical voting bloc. Evangelical leaders, Evangelical media, conservative media, Evangelical Churches have all continued to attempt to convince the public that there are simply two methods at looking at any one political problem in an effort to continue to draw people to their ever-enlarging political base. By convincing the evangelical voting bloc that “if you aren’t with us than you are against God” regarding abortion, gun control, military spending, government oversight, financial accountability, socialism and more they all but guarantee voters to fall into the false lines they create. The problem with this isn’t necessarily the creation of the base itself – it is the false pretense with which it is created. First, I’m going to purposefully ignore the historical Anabaptist position of staying out of politics and instead point out one of the terms buried deep within the Anabaptist DNA: third-way. It represents the Anabaptist’s desire to find a new or different option when presented with a dualistic way of thinking that doesn’t strike the believer with a viable option in following Jesus. A situation that many politically minded believers find themselves in. Unlike an Anabaptist approach and rather than embracing the use of our God-given mind, as some of the branches of Protestant American Christianity have done in the past, we’ve lobotomized the believer by turning situations into predictable dualistic outcomes rather than training the believer to embrace the praiseworthy actions of the citizens of Issachar who understood the times and knew what to do.
We continue to hear about Evangelical churches, pastors and leaders who espouse personal armament, cries for state secession following the 2020 election results or most recently when a video from Cornerstone Church, a San Antonio based Evangelical Church led by Pastor John Hagee, went viral depicting the people in the sanctuary chanting “Let’s go, Brandon.” While you may be aware of the popularized chant because of the t-shirts and yard signs around you may not be aware that the chant is actually a euphemism that means : “F-you, Biden.” Which might be surprising since you’ve seen politicians who ran on a conservative Christian platform saying this at political rallies and events. Or, perhaps, that doesn’t surprise you. Does it surprise you to see your conservative Christian neighbors purporting this saying with their yard signs and t-shirts? Regardless of your answer, what should surprise us all and more than that, disappoint and concern us is when a video goes viral of an event at an influential, 22,000 member Evangelical Christian Church where participants begins to chant it. It doesn’t even matter that, days later, Pastor Matt Hagee offered an apology because while the apology went largely unnoticed various articles titled “Texas mega-church breaks out into chants of ‘Let’s Go Brandon’” went viral. I don’t think I have to try to place the antithesis of this action within one of the historical streams of influence of the Brethren in Christ Church to point out to you, the reader, that this event and these actions simply stand in opposition to the way Christ would have talked to or treated anyone, including the religious elite of His day.
On January 6, 2021 a political rally led by former President Donald Trump turned into an insurrection aimed at overthrowing the government but settled for the vandalism of the capitol and to threaten the life of law makers and other capitol personnel. In the midst of the violence of that day we saw the prominence of Christian symbols and messages. It was confusing. It was not subtle. Although many have fought against the rise of Christian nationalism for numerous years some denied its very existence by calling it patriotism. It wasn’t until January 6, in a grossly unpatriotic display that many realized how serious the issue of Christian nationalism had become. The belief that America is blessed beyond other nations is a theological statement proposed by many Evangelical Pastors over the years and is punctuated by the overtly nationalistic displays in sanctuaries across the country that tout red, white and blue bunting and American flags while congregants sing “God Bless America.” And while you might ask what’s wrong with patriotism, I must tell you that Christian nationalism is not patriotism. Christian nationalism, patriotism and Evangelicalism are terms that go hand in hand with regularity and ease. The issue is that Brethren in Christ should not easily slip from the tongue and into that list but more and more often I find it less and less clear that those very things are distinct. The pedestalling of the American flag in Evangelical congregations, including those that are Brethren in Christ, shows a myopic focus rather than the global focus of the Great Commission of Christ or the adopted values of Brethren in Christ World Missions.
What might be most concerning is that it feels to me that we, the Brethren in Christ, do not have anything close to a balanced ship between these historical streams of influence. Our ship of values seems to be listing towards American Evangelicalism in a way that not only favors it but allows our other streams of influence to often go voiceless.
And I do not mean on paper. I mean in our praxis.
Unlike our other streams of influence the current positive contributions of the American Evangelical stream seems far outweighed by its negative cost and ongoing conflict with the values of our other streams. Which has made me wonder if this particular stream has outlived its usefulness as anything more than a historical influence. Anabaptism, Pietism and Wesleyanism contribute to who we are in a positive, ongoing and most importantly a collaborative manner. American Evangelicalism was the influential catalyst that freed us up to share the particular values of the Brethren in Christ with the world around us. If American Evangelicalism had truly remained the movement that it was prior to the creation of the Evangelical voting bloc by collapsing opposing theological camps into a singular stream I believe it would be possible to retain it as a stream of influence. However, I believe that the current expression of American Evangelicalism has given up its place in influencing the Brethren in Christ Church because it cannot do so in a collaborative manner with the other streams. Moreover, I believe the current expression of American Evangelicalism has very little to do with following Jesus and is almost solely aimed at influencing the American church in an agenda that shares very little with a Christocentric hermeneutic or Christocentric orthopraxy.
In summation I posit to you that the American Evangelical stream would better fit our Anabaptist identity, specifically the Brethren in Christ Church, as a historical catalyst rather than a current stream of influence on the same level of guidance as the Anabaptist, Pietistic or Wesleyan streams of Christianity.