Each
week In Christian Thought and Culture we do some readings, summarize, and
reflect on a question. This week, I will share with you some thoughts that have
stuck with me from one of these assignments.
This
segment from Mark Noll’s “The Rise of Evangelicalism” stood out:
“The
historian Richard Bushman provided one of the most interesting psychological explanations
for the events of the Great Awakening in New England. In his view, “two
conditions prepared men for conversion: an increased desire for material wealth
that ministers called worldly pride or covetousness, and the growing frequency
of clashes with authority entailed in the pursuit of wealth.” As Bushman
describes the situation, the expanding commercial possibilities of the British
Empire in the 1720s and the 1730s were grating against the moral restraints of
New England’s Puritan pas. Awakening preaching was the new element that
released the psychological tension: “In the converts’ minds the escape from
guilt was possible because of God’s grace. The idea that the law could not
condemn if God justified contained the deepest meaning of the Awakening.””
Our discussion
question to respond to was: "How does your current
experience of Evangelicalism compare to the Evangelicalism presented in the
readings?"
I noted many similarities between
current Evangelicalism and Evangelicalism as presented in the readings. The
focus on sharing one’s faith with one’s peers is still a defining
characteristic of Evangelical faith. Direct political involvement is also
similar (more so in the USA than Canada), as Evangelical’s continue to attempt
to influence the political process through lobbying (religious-right) or direct
personal involvement. I also see the psychological critique leveled by
Bushman, in the Noll piece, as functioning within Evangelicalism today.
Evangelicalism, from my point of view, has provided a “release” for the psychological tension created between Puritan (or
possibly Biblical) moral expectations and the pursuit of wealth, and commercial
opportunities, practiced by those in the global west. In this way, I see
Evangelical faith, in its offer of divine grace, to be in a continual attempt
to domesticate/contextualize Christian truth to capitalist endeavours, which
sadly has had/continues to have the ramification of exploitation and
maintenance of the status quo. It also highlighted, for me, how deeply the
moral schizophrenia is ingrained into the Evangelical tradition; social concern
is spoken of and acted upon at one level, while other doctrines and their
application continue to relieve and placate the conscience.
A difference between
Evangelicalism of the past and the present was the focus on the care for the
oppressed. In my understanding, this has been an ever-fluctuating part of the
Evangelical identity. Lewis notes how this characterized Wilberforce’s faith in
the abolition of slavery, or similarly Shaftesbury’s care for his younger
siblings. In my life, I have perceived this to be a struggling
component of the Evangelical identity. Though it was a part of my home church
and denomination, it was notably absent from the larger Evangelical
conversation while I was growing up. More recently, this trait of societal care
has become more prevalent in the larger Evangelical identity, yet I would still
hesitate to say it defines Evangelicalism on the North American scale. This may
be due to the similarity of the amorphous nature of Evangelicalism in the past
and the present, which makes a uniformed identity and stability of identity
difficult to maintain.
That was my response. Unfortunately/fortunately,
this idea of Evangelicalism colluding with Capitalism, from its very outset,
continues to disturb me. What do I do when it disturbs me? Share it with you on
the internet, and write a paper on it (which may be posted in March depending
on how it turns out).
