D.G. Hart on Evalgelicalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Has anyone read D.G. Hart's books on evangelicalism? I am presently reading Deconstructing Evangelicalism and find it insightful. The parts most interesting to me concern evangelicalism's history and organization (largely parachurch), which explains the low view of the institutional church that is so common. Here is a sort of "review" I found on the web, although it is largely a string of quotes.

I would be interested in others' thoughts on his analysis.

[quote:0829d1b99b]"[E]vangelicalism as a religious identity is at best vague and at worst hollow" (p. 188). This is the conclusion of D. G. Hart's analysis of the branch of conservative Protestantism which goes by the name "evangelical." He advocates abandoning the term altogether. Coined in the 1940s, "evangelicalism" was used to describe a mediating position between separatistic Fundamentalism and mainline Protestantism. A group of conservative Protestants hoped to offer "an improvement on both liberalism and fundamentalism... [by] combin[ing] the best of both, the social involvement and activism of the former with the theology and evangelistic zeal of the latter" (p. 25). As the heirs of German pietism and American revivalism, evangelicals "looked more to the experience and actions of the individual believer for evidence of authentic faith than to the forms and order of the institutional church and her clergy. In fact, one of pietism's legacies... was to regard ecclesial expressions of Protestantism as synonymous with nominal Christianity" (p. 117). Unlike historic Protestants, evangelicals have always been suspicious of identifying themselves primarily through their church association, resulting in a stunted (and sometimes, nonexistent) ecclesiology. Individual experience, not church life and dogma, are at the heart of evangelicalism. Therefore, evangelicalism has difficulty in forming communities of theological depth and substance who have a great sense of connectedness with a historic past. Instead, evangelicalism usually unites people by reducing unity to the lowest common denominator through the complete rejection of historic tradition. In short, evangelicalism attempts to be the conservative Protestant movement, standing up for historic orthodoxy, while at the same time diminishing the importance of historic orthodoxy, trading it for doctrinal fads and evangelical celebrities. Evangelicalism's greatest strength is its organizational might. It creates broad coalitions. Yet, the very attempt to unite people outside the context of shared church polity, practices, and historic creeds has done the very opposite of what was intended by undermining doctrinal faithfulness and ecclesiastical identity. In the end, evangelical attempts to preserve "historic orthodoxy" fail to resemble what earlier generations understood orthodoxy to be. Though evangelicalism finds its origin in revivalism and pietism (both of which were hostile to tradition), evangelicalism has now become its own tradition that has one common thread that holds it together -- the utter denial of the authority of traditions (pp. 82, 120). Because tradition is devalued, Christian celebrities (usually entrepreneurial innovators) are celebrated, becoming the glue that holds the movement together. Indeed, one could argue that evangelicalism centers more on the likes of Billy Graham (or even James Dobson or Tim LaHaye) than it does on any doctrinal core that resembles the richness of historic orthodox tradition. Evangelicalism as lowest-common-denominator, "old-time religion" has "severed most ties to the ways and beliefs of Christians living in previous eras" (p. 19). The intellectual shallowness of evangelicalism is demonstrated in its faddishness. In order "for an evangelical mind to exist it needs to drink from Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox streams" (p. 186). As a movement mobilizing masses of people, evangelicalism has been a success. "But as a shaper of a tradition, evangelicalism has been an utter failure. Its breadth has come with the price of shallowness, while its mass appeal has generated slogans more than careful reflection" (p. 187). One does not have to concur with Hart's conclusion to abandon the label "evangelical" in order to benefit from his provocative and insightful analysis of evangelicalism. Indeed, it is evangelicals who need to listen most carefully to his criticisms in order to broaden and deepen the tradition![/quote:0829d1b99b]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top