Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Rise of the Neo-Evangelical: thoughts on Nancy Ammerman’s Telling the Old, Old Story

One of my interests is the psychology of religion. I was browsing through a few websites recently when a link to an essay on evangelicals (with whom I formerly identified) caught my eye. The link brought me here, to an essay by Nancy Ammerman that sought to identify what she called the “distinct evangelical ‘public narrative’” by which one could define the movement. Her thesis is that evangelicals may be going through a shift in their public identity and that this identity cannot be understood by simply looking at political persuasions, but by examining “all the explicit and implicit plots that coordinate [their] actions and expectations…”

The author maintains, based on the ideas of Margaret Somers, that all cultures and institutions develop a narrative out of their shared experiences. Ammerman writes that certain common stories emerge out of these collective experiences that animate the lives of those who are within the said subculture. These narratives are not static by any means nor are they singular in theme. On the contrary, they are “multilayered and subject to twists of plot” as are the narratives of characters in our favorite stories. These twists of plot are elaborated on and applied to evangelicalism toward the end of her essay.

Ammerman posits that in order to understand evangelicals, one must familiarize himself with the particular narrative they are developing. This process occurs through examining the actors in the script who express themselves as various symbols such as songs or sayings (which I like to call “Christianese”) which, when used by someone publicly, point out to those evangelicals watching that he or she is part of the group. These symbols also reflect deeper beliefs of the community at large and, when implemented, they allow one to immediately feel connected to the person using them in some sort of intimate way. She provides an eminent example in noting the way evangelicals assumed President George W. Bush was “one of them” in the fight against gay marriage and sundry other “evils” that threatened our nation during the most recent presidential campaign.

What themes form the narrative of modern day evangelicalism? I was able to count five, but I may have divided up a couple of hers (or simply interpreted them differently since I have intimate inside knowledge of this group). The first was what she calls the “metanarrative,” the one that summarizes and encapsulates the others and that is the idea of sin and redemption. She says of these believers,

They are unsurprised to find the world a flawed place, and they expect that lives can be transformed when people accept the Jesus story as their own. There is a fundamental fatalism and boundless hope in how they talk about life.

Evangelicals differ from more liberal Christians in that they assert a “singular path – belief in the saving blood of Jesus – away from…sin.” This is the second distinction of evangelicalism.* This premise leads into the third which is that modern evangelicals prefer a more “user-friendly” (my words) approach to sharing that faith. They share their faith by the way they live instead of preaching to people like the saints of yesteryear. This generation’s rallying cry is the fourth distinctive – the defense of “biblical truth” in a society that has gone astray from its Christian roots. This creates, in effect, what she terms an “’embattlement remnant’ story” where they believe themselves to be last bastion of light that believes in what is true or “biblical.”

The final portion of the essay returns to the idea of narratives and how they become disrupted and fractured. Having carefully appraised modern evangelicalism, the author puts forth the idea that just as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson led the charge of modern evangelicalism out of the ‘60s and ‘70s (a period in which time-honored beliefs were tested and some were found wanting) to forge the aforementioned public identity, so now that which has been commonsense assumption of active members of the religious right, and went hand in hand with their religion (namely that the Republican party is God’s party), is being challenged by a younger group that is encountering the most recent perturbations against the community narrative. While she concludes that this younger cohort is only at a grass-roots level at the present time, she adeptly notes that the door is open for another charismatic leader to come forward and, within the same tradition of redemption, reshape the “strands of the story for a new generation.”

My opinion of Miss Ammerman’s essay is that she does not realize how right she is and that this younger generation may be far more advanced in its evolution than she surmises! The fact of the matter is this: younger evangelicals are more environmentally sensitive (which she did mention), conscious of social justice issues, and far more tolerant of gay people than their parents are. Many young people have been turned off to what I will label the “hyper-patriotic Christianity of the Religious Right.” The statement implies the obvious: that these young people are tired of having what is “Christian” being associated with a particular political party or the definition of a good American and vice-versa.

(This is a welcome change for those of us who eschew the mixing of church and state that is done on the political and religious right in their quest to establish an American Theocracy. I’m also convinced that much of this sensitivity to issues that are more traditionally “Democratic” in political identification is rooted in the frustrating legalism with which many of these young people grew up and have now grown to resent – but that’s a post for another day).

Miss Ammerman has given an insightful and accurate critique of the evangelical tradition and has highlighted in her observation of the youth movement occurring within that community what is being termed “Neo-evangelicalism.” It is, as its name implies, a new form of evangelicalism which embraces many more traditionally liberal causes and, I would argue, may have a figurehead (at least) in Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church in southern California. Mr. Warren has been a pioneer by championing numerous initiatives to fight hunger, AIDS, and to correct the social injustices of today’s society – things conservatives often give lip service to. These sorts of concerns are also a driving force behind the emergent church movement which contains many neo-evangelicals. Generation X and Generation Y are looking for something more than high hairdos and the number of conversions they can bring about to hang their collective ecclesiastical hats on.

The only weakness I was able to glean from the essay is that the author failed to draw a sharp enough distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists. This is important as I shall show. Fundamentalism is the reactionary movement that came out of the infamous Scopes trial of 1926 where the battle of “Evolution vs. Creation” gained its mythic lore (even though the battle lines had been drawn for decades). Fundamentalism, though its numbers are greatly decreased, is the hyper-literalistic hermeneutical playground that not even J.N. Darby would have let his kids play in. They are vehemently “Bible-only” in their approach to life and are against many modern scientific understandings of the world, especially if they intrude into areas which they, in their rigid interpretation of Scripture, believe that the Bible speaks definitively on (unless they have to go to the doctor, who they hope will bring healing to their bodies on the basis of microevolutionary biology – again, another post for another day). They are the right wing extreme of Christianity, many of them believing the King James Version of the Bible to be God’s inspired translation and that to use modern day translations is the height of apostasy. Of course, to be fair, these things exist on a spectrum, these examples being the most extreme. However, it is important to note these difference because though evangelicals and fundamentalists believe many of the same things theologically (such as the verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture), they differ in that evangelicals are far more open to integrating their faith with scientific understandings of the world which bring about “wicked evils” such as psychology (one of the favorite targets) that fundamentalists often decry as originating in the pits of Hell itself. It is these evangelicals that Ammerman is describing in her essay. I wanted to point out the difference because oftentimes the two are mistakenly lumped together, since it was out of fundamentalism that the other originated (via Falwell and Robertson as she noted). And, when they are identified as being the same, evangelicals unfairly get dismissed as just another varying brand of wacko fundamentalists, which is not the case.

The second reason this distinction is important is that neo-evangelicalism is growing out of the more left-leaning side of traditional evangelicalism. If you can imagine a spectrum, you would see fundamentalists on the far right, evangelicals to the right-of-center, neo-evangelicals in the center to left-of-center, and the liberal churches to the far left. What Miss Ammerman is documenting in the latter half of her essay in support of her thesis is the rise of neo-evangelicalism and it is my belief, and the belief of others, that this “new narrative,” to use her language, may not be a simple reformation (if I can use that word) of modern evangelicalism, but has been, and is now, the emergence of a new Christian position within Protestantism. It’s one that is not as dogmatic as its predecessor on theological issues, more ecumenical, more socially minded, and is more open to dialogue with liberal Christians than even traditional evangelicals are. This group accepts and, in many instances, partners with or takes up the cause altogether of, those who have been left behind by the more traditional evangelical communities. If traditional evangelicals can be termed “modern evangelicals,” then this group may appropriately be termed “post-modern evangelicals.”

I highly recommend reading Nancy Ammerman’s essay in its entirety. Some will welcome (as I do) a new addition to the spectrum of Protestantism that is more inclusive; others will decry it as a post-modern compromise of “biblical truth.” Either way, you will be indebted to the author who offers an astute assessment of the ongoing evolution of modern day evangelical protestant thought.

__________________________________________

*While this is true in some cases, it would be a bit unfair to label all liberals as believing this. Many liberals simply have a different idea of what exclusivity means (and differing ideas as to how it relates to sharing that message with other people).

44 comments:

MICHAEL PATRICK DAVID said...

1TIMOTHY 1 : 6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.

7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

19 holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.

4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

2PETER 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error.

19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

Peace Be With You
Michael Patrick David.
.

The Phlegmatic Thinker said...

Mr. David, I am a bit confused as to the purpose of piecemealing random passages of Scripture as a response to the essay, but I will assume that they are meant to be a rebuttal. Like I said in my original post, Bible thumping is not allowed on this website. If you wish to quote the Bible and make informed exegetical remarks pertaining to the verses you are citing, please feel free. However, do not just post Bible verses and then leave as if there was no need for interpretation, application, or correlation. I do thank you for reading the blog.

MICHAEL PATRICK DAVID said...

The Phlegmatic Thinker said...
Mr. David, I am a bit confused...


Dear Andrew,
Bible Verses That Help You With Confusion

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you and watch over you.
Psalm 32:8

I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them.
Isaiah 42:16

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
John 8:12

...Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid..."
John 14:27

The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement: "For who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct him?"
1 Corinthians 2:15-16

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
James 1:5


Peace Be With You
Michael Patrick David

Aimee said...

Just thought I'd note that "Miss Ammerman" is a well-respected scholar of Sociology and Sociology of Religion and ought be referred to as Dr. Ammerman. I thought your post, and her article last fall, were interesting. Thanks for highlighting it.

元旦 said...

寫真集辣妹85cc免費影城愛情聊天美眉視訊聊天室173liveshow視訊美女網路美女85cc免費影城AVLOVE聊天室視訊聊天室正妹聊天視訊聊天室美女視訊ut聊天室85cc成人片豆豆聊天室sex520sex520影片sexsex520影片520影片

性感的我 said...

Cheek brings success..........................

簡單 said...

你不能和一個握緊的拳頭握手........................................

佳慧 said...

路過看看哦,請加油 ........................................

于名于倫 said...

幸福沒有鑰匙,只有梯子。..................................................

GeraldF_Rotter雅慧 said...

向小善致敬,它使人生旅程較為平順。......................................................

RexTemples20144 said...

激情成人聊天室情色成人辣妹胸部辣妹視訊露奶辣妹自拍三點全露內衣秀台灣成人貼圖成人電影院三點全裸免費視訊辣妹av圖裸體自拍色情聊天美女視訊g點色情訊息淫女火辣av辣妹圖片免費視訊聊天室情色天空調情上床圖片裸體自拍走光照片走光視訊情色成人18成人區火辣美女成人vcd成人影片下載本土av性愛情慾淫妹美女聊天性愛聊天室女生自慰影片免費看a圖淫婦巨乳辣妹視訊成人女生自慰方法免費情色限制級a片穿幫情色下載情色網站

志文 said...

當身處逆境時,要能忍一時之氣,吃一時之苦,並及早確立自己的目標,總有一天,你會嘗到那甘美的果實。........................................

文君 said...

今天是個好天氣~祝你愉快~^^~~..............................

伯函 said...

處順境須謹慎,處逆境要忍耐。.............................................

韋于倫成 said...

仇恨是一把雙刃劍,傷了別人,也傷了自己..................................................

天光天光 said...

Many a little makes a mickle...................................................

9d5h41dV2h1f2_dgd45 said...

far from eye, far from heart. ....................................................

Michael Gormley said...

What is required in order to have Jesus ABIDE in us and we in Him?
Can we do it:
1. By accepting Him as our our own personal Lord and Savior ?
No. Where does the Bible say that?

2. By the grace of GOD only? Sola Gracias?
No. Where does the Bible say that?

3. By faith in GOD alone? Sola Fides?
No. Where does the Bible say that?

It is simple common sense that since He commanded that we must do something, then doesn't it stand to reason that He would also tell us how to do it?

Jesus was very clear in what we must do in order to have Him ABIDE in us and we in Him.

Jesus left this command for us in John 6:53-57:

53 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (the taken away branch);

54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD ABIDES IN ME, AND I IN HIM.

57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

子帆 said...

生活盡可低,志氣當高潔..............................

chrry said...

Today is the first day of the rest of your life. ............................................................

王周宏儒 said...

Two heads are better than one. ............................................................

誠紋 said...

失去金錢的人,失去很多;失去朋友的人,失去更多;失去信心的人,失去所有。.................................................................

戴昀德 said...

看看blog放鬆一下,工作累死了.................................................................

陳淳 said...

Poverty tries friends.................................................................

江婷 said...

Pen and ink is wits plough.................................................................

于庭 said...

成熟,就是有能力適應生活中的模糊。.................................................................

李豪湖仁陳堅豪 said...

向著星球長驅直進的人,反比踟躕在峽路上的人,更容易達到目的。............................................................

竹青 said...

好看耶~一定每天有空給你支持..................................................................

曹依潔曹依潔 said...

everyday real you~!............................................................

SarahD_Mon淑盛 said...

很棒的分享~希望不會打擾您............................................................

香昱信張君林 said...

來替你打氣,加油A_A.................................[/url]...............

黃威宇 said...

Prevention is better than cure...................................................

dawsonfelicia張君dawsonfelicia均 said...

好東西要和好朋友分享--感謝您..................................................................

柯凡沈俊銘豐 said...

找一個懂妳的人也期許自己做一個人懂別人的人~.........................................

黃信梅 said...

一個人的際遇在第一次總是最深刻的,有時候甚至會讓人的心變成永遠的絕緣。............................................................

仁南貞宣 said...

這個部落格好好好~棒棒棒~~~..................................................................

少明秋菁 said...

在莫非定律中有項笨蛋定律:「一個組織中的笨蛋,恆大於等於三分之二。」. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

張鴻黃淑娟水 said...

Learning makes a good man better and ill man worse.............................................................

468ds said...

肯定與支持你!!!加油囉~..................................................

家則治則治則治瑋 said...

生存乃是不斷地在內心與靈魂交戰;寫作是坐著審判自己。............................................................

8468 said...

成熟,就是有能力適應生活中的模糊。.. ... ............................................................

幸平平平平杰 said...

我們必須先有哭泣,才有歡笑;也必須先感到人生的悲哀,然後才感到人生的快樂。................................................................

蕾蕾 said...

你快d upday個blog啦~我等左好耐啦/_愛死呀ling之fans上 ............................................................

瑞蕾 said...

如此動感的blog!!!............................................................