I didn’t grow up evangelical. In saying that I didn’t grow up "evangelical," it's necessary to offer some broad idea about what “evangelical” actually means. When speaking of "evangelical," I am thinking of the following:
A broad historical movement decoupled from specific denominations that is: a) rooted in the Protestant Reformation’s “solas” (i.e., sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christus, soli Deo Gloria), b) emphasizes the importance of a personal relationship with God, c) constituted by a number of formally separate but networked institutions, and d) prone to take on cultural and political identity at the expense of its theologically distinct testimony.
Being "evangelical" in this sense wasn’t on my radar as a kid. My family attended a Missouri Synod Lutheran church, where I was confirmed in my teens. Aside from one kid who wore Petra and DC Talk t-shirts in high school, I wasn’t really exposed to evangelicalism until I began attending Campus Crusade (now Cru) events during my sophomore year of college. Cru emphasized evangelism, a personal relationship with Christ, and disciplines for spiritual growth, but I wouldn’t begin to experience some of the challenges associated with evangelicalism until I started attending seminary.
During my time at seminary, I began to catch glimpses of the darker and messier side of evangelical culture. For instance, one professor suggested that wives should never earn more than their husbands. Given that most of us were planning to go into pastoral ministry, following this professor’s advice would have required a de facto vow of poverty. While this sort of comment was the exception rather than the norm, it wasn’t viewed as particularly outlandish or problematic in context. Whatever views one holds on the role of women in the church or in the home, this sort of extrabiblical instruction, in my estimation, should have created more friction than it did.
I was further "enlightened" on the finer points of evangelical culture when I began working as an assistant dean. While it has become rather fashionable to report on fiscal and sexual scandals of ministry leaders, I would humbly suggest that such reporting is seldom helpful or redemptive. I say this because, in my experience as an assistant dean, I had the (dis)pleasure of interacting with some "big names" in the evangelical space. One megachurch pastor was frustrated that his child had failed a course. When he called, I informed him that I couldn’t share any information with him due to privacy regulations (his child had not authorized the school to speak to him). He responded by yelling at me on the phone and then calling the president, who authorized a free re-take and some tutoring. While I let those involved with the situation (including the president) know about his inappropriate behavior, it went unaddressed. Allowing that sort of behavior to go unchecked may seem trivial, but in my experience, the way you do anything is the way you do everything. I found that evangelical culture tended to allow bad behavior as long as it wasn’t too bad.
The examples noted above may seem rather minor. In part, that’s because discussing some of my "juicier" experiences would require more space than this relatively brief article allows. Also, while evangelicalism has its peccadillos, I have no interest in demonizing it. The examples above are sufficient to gesture toward a simple truth: evangelicalism functions like most other communities or networks. We need to recognize that many of the besetting sins of evangelical culture are, despite certain differences, relatively common. Should we expect more from groups of people dedicated to following the Lord Jesus Christ? Probably. Should such actions prompt us to characterize evangelicalism as evil and unredeemable? I don’t believe so. Yet, there are some who would disagree. Enter the exvangelicals.
.
Exvangelicals? Understanding the Movement
Exvangelicals are a loose network of people who have rejected evangelical Christianity due to some disagreement (e.g., doctrinal, cultural, political). Over the last several years, the movement has gained visibility via social media and is often associated with the "deconstruction of the faith." According to Blake Chastain, known as the "founder" of the exvangelical movement, exvangelicalism "affirms what evangelicalism condemns." As such, exvangelicalism is a reactionary movement that has arisen due to deep disagreements and negative experiences with evangelicalism.
While there are a number of specific disagreements between exvangelicals and evangelicals (e.g., affirmation of LGBTQ identities, political support, etc.), exvangelicals also observe broader dynamics within evangelicalism that they identify as problematic. For instance, Chastain characterizes evangelicalism as "a dense network of churches, colleges, radio stations, publishing houses, music labels, movie studios, lobbying groups, and other institutions that work in concert to assert theological, social, and cultural norms at all levels of life." He goes on to note that evangelical influencers "do their best to frame evangelicalism as a scattered, amorphous, and ultimately unaccountable entity." Based on my experience, it is difficult to disagree entirely with this or other characterizations of evangelicals by exvangelicals (e.g., see the book by Sarah McCammon), let alone criticisms leveled by evangelicals (e.g., Karl Trueman’s The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind).
While I resonate, to some degree, with Chastain’s characterization, I find the exvangelical willingness to trade orthodoxy for "moral and religious autonomy" wrongheaded. It’s wrongheaded because exvangelicals make mistakes similar to the ones made by the evangelicals they reject. For instance:
- If evangelicals may be characterized as a loose movement lacking accountability, couldn’t exvangelicalism be similarly described? While exvangelicals don’t have the institutional heft of evangelicalism, they have a relatively ambiguous and fluid public presence that would seem just as capable of wriggling away from accountability. Whereas Chastain argues that evangelicals pretend not to be coordinated to avoid accountability, one could argue that exvangelicals avoid formal association for the same effect.
- If evangelicals justify certain bad behavior by pressing the Bible into the service of their own interests, don’t exvangelicals simply eliminate the need for such justifications? Using the Bible to justify bad behavior is, on a fundamental level, hardly different from rejecting its authority altogether. In this sense, evangelicals who misuse the biblical text are not that different from exvangelicals who dismiss God’s word altogether. When I say "misuse," I’m not talking about mistaken interpretation. Biblical interpreters can and do get things wrong. Instead, I’m talking about the manipulation of the text through either intentional or careless readings.
- If evangelicals have, at times, defined themselves culturally and politically at the expense of their theological testimony, haven’t exvangelicals, to some degree, amplified and embraced a cultural and political identity by jettisoning specific theological convictions? Again, we shouldn’t let evangelicals off the hook. Evangelical political thought, at least on a popular level, has often been more conservative than Christian. Still, that problem won’t be solved by opting into another political identity but by sustained theological critique. In responding to evangelicals, exvangelicals have largely left behind the theological resources necessary to correct the troubles of evangelicalism.
In my estimation, exvangelicals have rightly identified some of the challenges with evangelicalism; however, in rejecting a theological core, the exvangelical
movement is only capable of critique, not restoration.
Responding to Exvangelicals
Whatever argument we might wish to advance about the exvangelicals, it seems to me that any response must begin with reform. That reform has nothing to do with accepting the claims of a changing culture or compromising our theological convictions. It has everything to do with arranging ourselves so that we increasingly conform to the image of Christ by obeying God’s word. We need to be reformed according to the word of God so that we love the world on God’s terms rather than our own. Evangelicals have nothing particularly profound to offer the world when we set aside God’s word to promote our own wisdom. Our strategies and ideas are as fragile as those of any other group.
In considering exvangelical claims, evangelicals must also be discerning. We need to distinguish when we are being hated, for Christ’s sake, and when we are being hated because we have acted foolishly. We cannot compromise on the truth to pacify detractors. However, we can stand in the light of the truth and acknowledge our need for repentance.
Finally, exvangelicals are lost. Life’s difficulties have made it so that God’s word does not take root and bear fruit in their lives. To the extent that evangelicals or evangelicalism have presented or promoted a false perspective on the world, we must seek reform; however, we must also be gracious in our engagement with exvangelicals because the goal is not to silence them but to welcome them into the fellowship of the saints.
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/RossHelen
