Psychological Awakening/Appeasing

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).