​Ecotheology and Ecological Civilizations: An Overview of Ideas and Practices

From a process perspective...

If I use the process perspective of ecotheology to think expansively of the universe as the "language of all being" than essentially this language can be broadly defined as "spiritual" thus creating a personal or inclusive experience to all living or non-living things participating within its complex. The experience is the same whether for atheists, theists, agnostics, animals, trees, rocks, or atoms. It is simply its language of being which provides to it existence, substance, provision, relationship, event, context and a host of other interwoven ingredients making for the language of life we call the cosmos. For the Christian, it is simply the language of God which He endowed His creation with - essential Himself, or His divine Being - and with all that this can mean as we as humans continue to try to grasp and explain His inhabiting grace and spirituality.

It seems then this experience was the divine spiritual essence with which the founding fathers of ecology tapped into, became caught up in its web, and sought to share with their fellow communities of beings. John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and Henry David Thoreau each separately reveled in their preliminary revelations of "nature's spirituality" attempting to describe to the twentieth century's industrial revolution the substantively transformative affects these insights could have on developing eco-civilizations. Simply, they began to envision early eco-communities in spiritual harmony with very nature itself (and for the theist expansively, with the very fellowship of God Himself). Hence, regardless of religious affection, these founding fathers each had a love and care for nature we might describe as "spiritual."

It is thus within this broader, inclusive ontological language of "spirituality" we might ascribe to the cosmos life experiences beyond the assumed spiritual convocations of the church, temple or religious settings. That all things inhabit a kind of spirituality from the Divine which, having created the cosmos, might bring it to bear to fruition unto all things so that it shouldn't be surprising to find a kind of spirituality residing within mere secular structures, pagan occasions, or very nature itself. Fundamentally, the very nature of the universe is in itself essentially-and-always "spiritual."

This is what underlies process thought - with its adjoining branch of process theology - each deigning to consider the entanglement of the universe with itself from its rudimentary forms of relational space-time elements to its relational real-time actualities spawning what can be described in Whiteheadian terms as infinitely acceding "concresencing events" holding each relational moment eternally open-ended with possibility, novelty, and opportunity spawning an ever-evolving, ever-expanding, creational communion between God, the cosmos, and man. As an aside, *concresence is the coalescence, or growing together, of parts originally separated by an event. In the Christian sense, this event may be broadly described as "sin" entering creation to separate it from itself. But because of the divine inhabiting creation's essence, the spirituality of the cosmos moves forward coalescing, or growing together, towards a kind of wholeness in process with its very nature. Thus process thought and process theology together seek to capture this cosmic spiritual essence by bringing it forward into humanity's thoughts, structures, beliefs, and activities.

Lastly, when we delimit this ontological symmetry-and-balance of evolving spiritual process with our own unspiritualized lives we then create endless ripples of possibilities of life-devolving forms rather than life-evolving forms. We miss the spiritual for the mere natural without fully realizing how we tread through the spiritualized entanglement of cosmic relational processes in time and space clod-footed and dim of thought. Like too many things broken by sin we miss the spiritual for the secular and seek the present for the eternal. And yet, despite our ponderous influences and devastating affects within this life the very nature of the cosmos stands against us like mere sand castles to the ocean's tides. We live in an ocean of grace and substance, goodness and creative happening. We need to listen to the spiritual overtones God and His cosmos are constructing everywhere about and within to find, in our own lives, the symmetry and balance of spirituality that might inter-play a chord or two across the broad symphony of God's creational bounty we cannot hear unless we learn to stop, listen, and hum a few bars.

R.E. Slater

February 18, 2018

re-edited February 19, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

​Ecotheology and Ecological Civilizations

An Overview of Ideas and Practices

​Open House Link

​Ecotheology is an outlook on life that sees something sacred

in people, animals, and the earth and in human efforts to

help build Ecological Civilizations, with no one left behind.

It is available to people with many different religious affiliations,

and also to people without any religious affiliation. It can include,

but does not require, belief in God. What is sacred is life itself.

An Ecological Civilization is a society in which people live with respect

and care for the community of life, with special care for the vulnerable.

They know that they are small but included in a larger web of life that includes

hills and rivers, trees and stars, and that this web is their extended family.

For them the universe is a communion of subjects and not just a collection of objects.

This means that there is something like aliveness -- or subjectivity -- everywhere.

The fundamental units of Ecological Civilizations are local communities,

in rural and urban settings, that are creative, compassionate, participatory.

Egalitarian, culturally diverse, multi-religious, humane in their treatment of animals,

ecologically wise, playful, imaginative, and spiritually satisfying.

*Below we at Open Horizons offer some general comment on ecotheology, and some short video examples of local action aimed at helping build Ecological Civilizations. We hope this page will be useful to all who are interested in helping build a greener, kinder, and more joyful world.

see also:

The Radical Vision of Ecological Civilization: Wm. Andrew Schwartz

A Mentor: Jane Goodall and the Ecotheological Spirit

Ecotheology: General Observations

Ecotheology. Ecotheology does not belong to a single culture or religion. It is a social and spiritual movement emerging in the 20th and 21st centuries among people of many different cultures, and from many walks of life, all over the world. They share the idea that the well-being of life on earth, not ever increasing economic growth, is the best ideal for societies to follow; and that we humans become whole, not when we amass large amounts of material goods, but when when live kindly with one another, gently with animals, and lightly on the earth. Along with Gandhi, they believe that there is enough on earth to satisfy everyone's need, but not everyone's greed.

Some Mentors for Ecotheology: Lao Tzu, Black Elk, Gandhi, Tagore, Rachel Carson, Howard Thurman, John Muir, Thomas Berry, Jane Goodall, Rachel Carson, and Pope Francis.
​
Examples of Ecotheology. Pope Francis' Laudato Si. The building of a community garden. Earth jazz. Victor Wooten's organization of a Center for Music and Nature outside Nashville, Tennessee. Jane Goodall's video above.

A sample of Ecotheological Ideas. The environment is not an issue among issues but rather a context for all issues, because it is the web of life on earth. The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects; there is no 'dead' matter. God is not a tyrant in the sky but rather the deep Listening in whom the universe lives and moves and has its being. Our calling in life is not to ask how much we can get from life but rather what does the world need from us. It is to help build eco-communities.

Eco-communities. Neighborhoods, villages, towns, cities, states, and nations that are creative, compassionate, participatory, diverse, ecologically wise, and spiritually satisfying, with no one left behind. They can also be called just and sustainable communities.

The theological side of Ecotheology. Ecotheologians emphasize that there are three dimensions of a well-lived life: spirituality, understanding, and action. The theological side of ecotheology is its spirituality. It may or may not involve belief in God, understood as a personal presence active in the world or a deep listener affected by all that happens. It always involves respect and care for the community of life. a sense of being small but included in a larger whole, delight in multiplicity, and gratitude for beauty.

So non-theists can be Ecotheologians? Yes. The heart of Ecotheology is respect and care for the community of life. Belief in God is a viable way of embodying this respect but not the only way, but it is not necessary. People can appreciate the sacredness of felt connections with other people, animals, and the Earth without believing in God. Thy believe in the horizontal sacred.

What about people who believe in God? Can they be ecotheologians? Yes, of course. There are many ways of understanding God. Many ecotheologians (process theologians, for example) understand God panentheistically, which means everything-in-God. The general idea is that God the universe is inside God, not unlike the way in which clouds are in the sky or a womb is in an embryo, but that God is also more than everything added together, continuously influential in the world as a non-coercive lure toward wisdom, compassion, and creativity in human life, a lure to live with satisfaction in other animals, and a lure toward novelty in the cosmos as a whole.

Can people who are "spiritual but not religious" be ecotheologians? Yes. Many ecotheologians are not affiliated with the world religions and identify themselves as naturalists. But many ecotheologians are religiously affiliated, too; and the world's religions offer many resources for a healthy ecotheology. If you are curious about how the world's religions can help people live lightly on the earth and gently with one another, see the Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

What about science? Many ecotheologians are also scientists, and almost all ecotheologians (scientists or otherwise) are grateful for, and indebted to, modern science. Some version of evolutionary thinking is presumed not questioned. Pope Francis and Jane Goodall are good examples. Ecotheologians oppose making a god of science (scientism) but not science itself.

Integral Ecology. Pope Francis' name for a state of affairs in which care for people, care for animals, and care for the earth is integrated. Integral ecology is a good name for what eco-communities embody and aspire to embody.

Eco-Justice. The human side of integral ecology. A state of affairs in which human beings freely participate in the decisions that affect their lives; with ample opportunities for life, liberty, education, health care, and happiness. They are free from fear and free to enjoy rich relations with other people and the more-than-human world.

Two Sides: The Political and the Personal. One of the aims of the ecotheologian is to empower people to build eco-communities. This is the political side of Ecotheology. Another is to provide them with opportunities for personal fulfillment and satisfaction. This is the personal side of Ecotheology. Often these two -- the political and personal -- go hand in hand. Both are important.

Language of Ecotheology. Ecotheology can speak through words, images, movements, and sounds. All can function as lures for feeling and understanding. Landscapes and soundscapes can also function as lures for feeling. Lures for feeling can be humanly made or they can be made by the more than human world: geological activity, for example. There is no need to impute conscious intention to the creation of the lures in either the human or more-than-human realm.
​
Beauty and Ecotheology. Beauty is harmony and intensity in objects perceived and, still more deeply, in the depth of relationships. It as at the heart of the spiritual side of Ecotheology. Beauty is felt in the natural world, in the poignancy of human relationships, and in music and the arts. It is what sustains the action and part of what informs the understanding.

Spiritual practices and Ecotheology. Spiritual practices are activities that help people plant or replant themselves in beauty. They can include prayer, meditation, gardening, running, and, as Victor Wooten makes clear, learning to play a musical instrument.

Cultural Obstacles to Ecotheology. Consumerism, anthropocentrism, patriarchy, hyper-individualism, dualisms that draw sharp distinctions between humanity and the web of life, and mechanistic worldviews that reduce the whole of reality to a machine for human use.

Social Context of Ecotheology Today. Global climate change, social injustices, war and threat of nuclear war, economic inequality, political repression, and cultural despair; and the existential need on the part of human beings to enjoy rich connections with the more-than-human world, as intensified by urbanization and alienation from the world.

Eco-spirituality. Respect and care for the community of life, a sense of being small but included in a larger whole, sensitivity to individual human beings and other animals as subjects of their own lives (not simply objects for others), delight in multiplicity, and gratitude for beauty.

Video Examples of Practicing Ecotheology in Local Settings

1 - 

2 - 

3 - 

4 - 

5 - 

6 - 

7 - 

8 - 

9 - 

10 - 

11 - 

12 - 

13 - 

14 - 

15 - 

16 - 

17 - 

18 - 

19 - 

20 - 

21 - 

22 - 

23 - 

24 - 

25 - 

26 - 

27 - 

28 - 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum:

A New Economic Model & Way of Living for America

What Evangelicalism Is and What It Isn't and Why It's Meaning is Being Mangled

By way of introduction, if I were asked whether I was "evangelical" or not I would need to consider the social context of the one asking this question. Historically I am, and always have been evangelical. However, with the rise of Trumpian Christianity my distance continues to grow rapidly apace from this secular form of religious expression. In my experience, those churches and brethren involved have been caught up in a movement that is very un-Christlike substituting statism and nationalism for Christ. This I cannot, and will not, submit too. It was one of the main reasons I began writing this blog ten years ago even before the idea of Trumpian Christianity was around. It's telltale signs and evidences lay everywhere around the churches I participated in, and identified with, before it all came to a head since the years of 2015-2016 requiring my departure from such unkind fellowships claiming the name of Christ I worship and honor.

So am I an "evangelical"? Yes! I say this with affirmation and definitiveness that I am an evangelical in the historic sense of the word. But do I claim such today in the social circles I interact? Especially when they leave no room for explanation? Nor wish to even try to understand that explanation? Then "no," I am not an evangelical unless I am allowed to tell the difference between being an evangelical Christ-follower versus an evangelical politicist more willing to decry nationalism in Christ's name than His love, mercy, and justice.

As example, I consider abhorrent the very actions of the US government under the auspices of ICE for making a crime of crossing the US borders, separating families, and jailing children. This is wickedness in the very meaning of the term. If the US policy must require such action than I cannot abide with it's policy and wish to remove its draconian laws from the lives of those suffering its insidious affects. I chose Christ over the my brethren's political obsessions of fear, security, and protectionism. Christianity sees the alien and refuge as those requiring great help - not greater persecution. And if my Trumpian Christian friends cannot distinguish this than I fault their understanding of Christ and for choosing the State over their Lord. My prayer for America and the American church is that it repent of its hard heart and work to create a US policy respecting grace, mercy and justice over fear and protectionism.

Below I have listed three articles by Roger Olson detailing the distinction between evangelicalism as an ethos (my kind of Christianity) versus evangelicalism as a movement (which favors either a heighten or lower Christian message to the world of Jesus as Lord). Moreover, today's Christianity must now require those of us choosing to follow Jesus to re-describe ourselves both to our brethren and to the world as Jesus followers over any other apostate gospel purporting to be from Christ but is not. And if we must reclaim the gospel of Christ under some other banner than "evangelicalism" than let us do  so at once because the usage of the older banner name has become apostate in every sense of the Trumpian word. Mr. Olson, to his credit, hopes to reclaim the original definition back to itself, but alas, I fear it is too late and thus have I spent so many recent years delineating why-and-what Jesus-based-Christianity is-and-isn't, and why it must reach beyond its past yesteryears to the years ahead of us that it might become meaningfully relevant again to the masses yearning for spiritual release and freedom from sin's spiritual and humanitarian bondage. So let the elders of the church say with us, Amen and amen, thus shall we do!

R.E. Slater

February 13, 2019

Evangelicalism Again:

Why Are They Not Using My Distinction

between “Movement” and “Ethos?”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2019/02/evangelicalism-again-why-are-they-not-using-my-distinction-between-movement-and-ethos/

by Roger Olson

February 8, 2019

This is my response to the following Religion News article:

https://religionnews.com/2019/02/06/there-are-no-real-evangelicals-only-imagined-ones/

I read it with real interest and was very disappointed. The subject is one I have discussed here and in some of my articles, book chapters, and books frequently. I expended great energy in trying to enlighten people about the difference between “evangelical movements” (which come and go) and the “evangelical ethos” which is world-wide and not tied to any one particular evangelical movement.

The article mentions my colleague David Bebbington’s “evangelical quadrilateral” which describes what I call the evangelical spiritual-theological ethos which transcends any denomination or movement. It can be found in individuals and congregations in almost every Christian denomination.

But the article slides back and forth between treating evangelicalism as a “white movement” and evangelicalism as something other than that. But the distinction between “movement” and “ethos” is not clearly grasped or articulated. I believe it would solve this whole ongoing debate.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

Are many African-American Christians truly evangelical? Yes—in the ethos sense. Not many call themselves “evangelicals” because they are thinking of the mostly white post-WW2 American movement and the current media-driven political evangelicalism.

In the article one well-known religion writer objects to one of my colleagues categorizing a 19th century African-American woman as “evangelical.” I respect that well-known religion writer, but I am bewildered by his seeming ignorance of the difference between a particular evangelical movement and the evangelical spiritual-theological ethos!

What all the people referenced in this Religion News article seem to miss is that evangelicalism as an ethos (spiritual-theological) is world-wide! The vast majority of evangelical live outside of the United States! How in the world can “evangelicalism” be defined as “white” and “American” unless the people doing so are brainwashed by the media who love to identify being evangelical with being pro-Trump and probably racist?

I am almost certain that Ed Stetzer, Russell Moore, Anthea Butler and others referenced in this article (and especially David Bebbington) know the difference between being evangelical ethos-wise and being evangelical by self-identification to pollsters (or even being evangelical by belonging to a group that calls itself “evangelical”).

Neither the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) nor the Gospel Coalition nor any organization owns the label “evangelical.” Any church historian knows this. So why do we continually run up against this confusion (viz., of “evangelical” with being “white” and “American nationalist” and “pro-Trump” or even of just having some connection with the (mostly white) post-WW2 American evangelical movement? Many evangelicals never joined that. According to historian of evangelicalism George Marsden that movement disintegrated around 1970 anyway!

A huge, huge problem lurking in the background of all this confusion is that “being evangelical” has both advantages and disadvantages. In some contexts it has advantages such as in getting hired in many Christian institutions. In other contexts it has disadvantages such as not getting hired in many Christian institutions! I don’t know any way to solve that problem except to get everyone to recognize the difference between “movement evangelicalism” and “ethos evangelicalism”—a difference I have talked about here many times.

Let me end with an open comment to all the people quoted in the article: Please embrace and use my distinction between ethos evangelicalism and movement evangelicalism. Let it solve these confusing conversations, debates, even conflicts over the meaning of “evangelical.”

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Roger Olson, Board of Contributors:

Evangelicalism simply not a political movement

https://www.wacotrib.com/opinion/columns/board_of_contributors/roger-olson-board-of-contributors-evangelicalism-simply-not-a-political/article_785fecf2-8f8b-5a4a-9110-aff54d94d365.html

by Roger Olson, Board of Contributors 

November 22, 2017

Once again, in a column published here, a political pundit predicted something about “evangelicals” that treats all of us as political conservatives. According to Philip Bump [“Religion, politics awkward mix,” Nov. 12] “evangelicals” will rally to support arch-conservative Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore in spite of accusations of sexual misconduct.

Repeatedly in recent years sociologists, political commentators and pollsters have treated American evangelicals as the Republican Party at prayer. While it is true that many Americans who identify as evangelical support politically conservative policies, platforms and politicians, it is most certainly not true that “evangelical Christianity” is itself tied to any particular ideology.

I recently contributed to a book and then participated on a panel about “The Future of Evangelicalism in America” (Columbia University Press, 2017). During the panel and following discussion at the annual meeting of the Society of Church Historians (Denver, January 2017) I discovered many American sociologists and those influenced by them (journalists, commentators and poll-takers) automatically exclude African Americans from being evangelicals.

As a theologian and church historian I consider this a travesty. “Evangelical” is a spiritual-theological category, not a political one. By excluding African Americans and by tying it inextricably to a passing political fad sociologists and the media have distorted it.

David Bebbington, distinguished visiting professor of history at Baylor University, is nearly universally recognized as a world class historian of the evangelical movement — going back to the Great Awakenings of the early 17th century. Bebbington’s “quadrilateral” of evangelical hallmarks is widely recognized and frequently used by scholars to identify the evangelical ethos.

According to Bebbington, the evangelical brand of Christianity crosses denominational boundaries and is marked by biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism:

• The Bible is considered by all evangelical Christians to be God’s inspired Word written.

• All evangelicals have always believed authentic Christian existence necessarily includes a personal decision of faith called conversion.

• The cross of Jesus Christ is believed by evangelicals to be humanity’s only basis and hope for salvation.

• And, all evangelicals support evangelism, world missions and social action to change the world for the better.

Throughout evangelicalism’s history, however, evangelical Christians have never all adopted a particular social, political or economic ideology.

And evangelicalism is a global movement, with the vast majority of evangelicals living and worshiping outside the United States. Most have no connection with U.S. political ideologies or parties.

African-American Protestant Christians have often shied away from using the label “evangelical” because “evangelicalism” has been considered a white spiritual movement. Recently, well-known, influential African-American rap artist Lecrae “resigned” from “white evangelicalism” because of the pushback he received from white conservative evangelical leaders (whom I would probably consider more fundamentalist than truly evangelical) after he sided with the protests of the Black Lives Matter movement against police shootings of unarmed African Americans.

A few years ago I was asked by an African-American seminary professor (at a mostly white Baptist seminary) if I considered black American Protestants “evangelicals.” I said yes, I do, and I still stand by that. Spiritually and theologically most African-American Protestants believe, worship and live as disciples of Jesus Christ in complete accord with the historical evangelical ethos. While they may not use the label “evangelical” for themselves, once I explain its true meaning as a spiritual and theological ethos, most African-American Protestant students and ministers respond affirmatively — that they fit that mold.

My most recent research project involved revising the Handbook of Denominations in the United States for its 14th edition. (The Handbook is a widely used and respected reference book published by the United Methodist Publishing House/Abingdon Press.) I scrutinized the web sites of all major and many newer, smaller, predominantly African-American denominations and found their statements of beliefs and practices to be perfectly in line with historic evangelicalism even if not with the current American “religious right.”

I am calling out sociologists, journalists, and commentators who exclude African-American Christians, most of whom claim to have a “born again experience” (the main test often used for determining whether someone is evangelical), from being considered evangelical. Evangelical Christianity, properly understood, is not exclusively white, American or politically conservative, even if some individuals and churches are.

*Roger Olson is Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology and Ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Seminary. His recent books include “The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform” and “Who Needs Theology?”

The Weakness of the Evangelical Ethos in its Present Day Form

Without openness to curiosity, imagination, or theological exploration the Christian faith harms itself. It cannot both be highly suspicious of critical thought in theology, biblical studies, philosophy, etc, and yet pretend to keep its currency in contemporary dialog. The one requires the other else withdraws into its own cloistered communities of the "ins" and the "outs". Evangelical Christianity has become this latter thing which now harms its very foundations.

R.E. Slater

February 13, 2019

The Dark Side of Evangelicalism

Patheon link here

by Roger Olson

February 12, 2019

"Suffice it to say that evangelical intellectuals have always found themselves somewhat on the defensive and rarely applauded. By “intellectual” I mean a person given to critical inquiry even about his or her own religious (or other) commitments." - RO

Here, in this essay, by “evangelicalism” I do not mean any particular evangelical movement but what I have described as the “evangelical ethos”—a broad and inclusive spiritual-theological form of Christianity defined by the so-called “Bebbington quadrilateral”: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. I have expounded these here much in the past, so I will refrain from doing so again. Anyone interested can simply look up the “Bebbington quadrilateral” and read about evangelical Christianity—not as a particular movement (the ethos is shared by many movements) but as the spiritual-theological ethos that grew especially out of the Pietist movement in Germany and Scandinavia as well as Great Britain and spread throughout the world.

The ethos of which I speak always existed in Christianity but came especially to the fore in and with a series of “awakenings” among (mostly) Protestant Christians beginning in the early 18th century. However, once it was recognized as a distinct form of Christian life people recognized its precursors in the radical Reformation (e.g., the Swiss Brethren) and among some Puritans.

I have described and promoted this evangelical spiritual-theological Christian ethos in my books, articles, and here. For the most part I have attempted to clear up misconceptions about it, especially the one that regards it as political which it is not and never has been. (Although, of course, as with any movement many both inside and outside the movements marked by the ethos have attempted to hijack it for their political causes.)

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.* - RO

I am unapologetically evangelical—so long as I can explain what I mean by that. I do not regard myself as part of any particular evangelical movement as I once did. For many years I identified myself with the American post-World War 2 post-fundamentalist, “neo-evangelical” movement associated especially with the National Association of Evangelicals and the Billy Graham ministries and related organizations. (For more about this particular evangelical movement read Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism by historian Joel A. Carpenter (Oxford University Press, 1997). However, I think that evangelical movement is dead. Remnants and relics of it exist, but as a relatively cohesive movement it is gone.

In case I need to say this—in my opinion (and that of most scholars of evangelicalism—the evangelical spiritual-theological ethos is not tied to any denomination or organization.

As a church historian-historical theologian, what do I regard as the weaknesses of the evangelical ethos? Of course, as a kind of Platonic essence, in its purity, I don’t think it has any weaknesses except certain tendencies it seems to carry along with it that have to be resisted because they automatically “pop up” among people who “catch” the ethos of evangelical Christianity (or are raised in it).

The first weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to lean toward anti-intellectualism. Evangelical historian Mark Noll examined and critiqued this so well in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1999) that I don’t feel the need to repeat that. Suffice it to say that evangelical intellectuals have always found themselves somewhat on the defensive and rarely applauded. By “intellectual” I mean a person given to critical inquiry even about his or her own religious (or other) commitments.

The second weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to succumb to hero-worship. By this I mean a tendency to identify men and women among themselves—past or present—who are placed on a pedestal as “especially spiritual” and expected to be immune to the vagaries of fallenness and given spiritual authority beyond that which any human (other than Jesus Christ) deserves.

The third weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to eschew organized efforts at social reconstruction to eliminate poverty, hunger and oppression. Oppression is a concept almost totally lacking among evangelicals—except the spiritual oppressions of Satan, sin and “the world.” Many evangelicals have been active in charitable work, community development, etc., but few have been actively involved in anti-poverty and anti-oppression programs of a political nature. Liberation theologies, for example, have been largely rejected by evangelicals as allegedly replacing “spiritual salvation” with “social salvation.”

The fourth weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to follow a “Christ against culture” approach (H. Richard Niebuhr) to the arts. By and large, with some exceptions, evangelicals have neglected the arts. Many are highly suspicious of the arts, as they are of critical thought (in theology, biblical studies, philosophy, etc.). This has been a notable tendency among evangelicals historically. There are exceptions, of course. I have written here before also about a seeming aversion to writing literary fiction from an evangelical perspective.

The fifth and final weakness (for now) is a tendency I find among evangelicals toward spiritual elitism—to the point of often believing that non-evangelical Christians are not authentically Christian or even saved. Especially in the past, but still to a very large extent, evangelical Christians have been conditioned to regard Catholics (to say nothing of Eastern Orthodox about which they tend to be ignorant) and “mainline Protestants” as false Christians and unsaved. The language of evangelicals has been that we/they are “Christians” and others are something else. This has hindered ecumenical understanding between evangelicals and other Christians.

Evangelical pastors, organizational leaders, institutional administrators, need to work to correct these tendencies and many do. However, what I have observed is that when they do they get “push back” from the evangelical grassroots. Many among the grassroots of evangelical Christianity have fundamentalist leanings that cause them still, in spite of not being fully fundamentalist, to label all such attempts by pastors, denominational leaders, college and university administrators as “on a liberal trajectory.”

These tendencies seem to be endemic to evangelical Christianity—with many outstanding exceptions. Unfortunately, the exceptions struggle to maintain an evangelical identity among evangelicals. They are often viewed with suspicion.

I struggle with the question of whether these weaknesses are actual endemic to evangelical Christianity or whether they could be overcome with success. I have seen them overcome with success in places, but often those “places” are marginalized by the evangelical constituents.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined). - RO

* * * * * * * * * * *

What is an Evangelical?

https://www.nae.net/what-is-an-evangelical/

Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.

Evangelicals are a vibrant and diverse group, including believers found in many churches, denominations and nations. Our community brings together Reformed, Holiness, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other traditions. As noted in the statement “Evangelicals — Shared Faith in Broad Diversity,” our core theological convictions provide unity in the midst of our diversity. 

The NAE Statement of Faith offers a standard for these evangelical convictions.

Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus

• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts

• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority

• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

These distinctives and theological convictions define us — not political, social or cultural trends. In fact, many evangelicals rarely use the term “evangelical” to describe themselves, focusing simply on the core convictions of the triune God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism and discipleship.

Defining Evangelicals in Research

Evangelicals are a common subject of research, but often the outcomes of that research vary due to differences in the methods used to identify evangelicals. In response to that challenge the NAE and LifeWay Research developed a tool to provide a consistent standard for identification of evangelical belief.

The NAE/LifeWay Research method includes four statements to which respondents must strongly agree to be categorized as evangelical:

• The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.

• It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.

• Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.

• Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

Researchers are encouraged to use the method, with proper citation to NAE/LifeWay Research.

Methodology for NAE/LifeWay Research Evangelical Beliefs Research Definition

For Further Study

An Evangelical Manifesto

Charles J. Scalise, “What Does Fuller Mean by ‘Evangelical’?,” Fuller Theological Seminary, February 1, 2015.

David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1930s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989).

“Evangelical: What’s in a Name?,” Evangelicals Magazine, National Association of Evangelicals, Winter 2017/18.

“Evangelicals — Shared Faith in Broad Diversity,” National Association of Evangelicals, May 22, 2018.

Leith Anderson and Ed Stetzer, “Defining Evangelicals in an Election Year,” Christianity Today, March 2, 2016.

Leith Anderson and Ed Stetzer, “Who are Evangelicals & Where are They Headed?,” Today’s Conversation podcast, January 15, 2016.

Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003).

Wheaton College Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals

* * * * * * * * * * *

What Is an “Evangelical?”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/06/what-is-an-evangelical/

by Roger Olson

June 21, 2016

To learn quickly and simply what an “evangelical Christian” is you can do no better than peruse the web site of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) at www.nae.net. There, on the web site’s “front page” you will find links to such defining tools as the NAE Statement of Faith and answer to “What Is an Evangelical?”

The NAE does not claim to speak for all evangelical Christians, but it is far and away the most important and historically influential organization for uniting evangelical Christians in the U.S.A. for purposes of cooperation.

The reason I am posting this essay here is that my blog contains the word “evangelical” as part of my own self-definition. Due to the secular media’s ongoing misguided and misleading effort to define “evangelical” as a political posture people are naturally confused when they discover that I am a lifelong, “card carrying” evangelical and politically progressive—especially with regard to economic issues. I strongly believe in government redistribution of wealth such that many people would regard my political-economic posture as “socialism”—in the Northern European sense of the term. (My Scandinavian genes perhaps incline me that way, but I believe faith in Jesus Christ is the real reason for my belief in redistribution of wealth.)

The NAE adamantly rejects any identification of “evangelical” with a particular political ideology or even posture. Historically and theologically that is correct—even if most people in the United States who identify themselves to pollsters as “evangelical” also identify as conservative Republicans. Here is an analogy. Probably most people in the United States who identify themselves as “Unitarian” also would identify themselves to pollsters, if asked, as liberal Democrats. Historically-theologically, however, there is no necessary link between the two (viz., being Unitarian and being politically liberal).

My point is that if you consider the NAE as the major “voice” of evangelicals in the United States, as it was throughout the 1950s and beyond and still probably is (except for the secular media which has no “credentials” for defining “evangelical” historically-theologically), then there is no necessary connection between being evangelical and being conservative in the sense of supporting the goals and aims of the current Republican Party.

Again, the NAE does not pretend to speak for all evangelicals in the United States or elsewhere, but since its founding in 1942 it has served as the single most important “voice” for evangelicalism in the United States. Nobody in the NAE leadership would claim that a person or organization must belong to it or even agree with every single word or sentence in its Statement of Faith to be authentically evangelical. However, its Statement of Faith was carefully and cautiously crafted by the founders to be as inclusive as possible without being compatible with anything and everything. Denominations as diverse as the Christian Reformed Church and the Church of the Nazarene have been members. (Some evangelical denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention have never officially joined the NAE but have participated in its programs at a non-member level and sent non-voting “observers” to its board meetings.)

One of the NAE’s most important programs is its World Relief Commission that raises funds for suffering people around the world.

The NAE has had its “ups and downs” in recent years. Some of what has happened in it has saddened and even upset me. One president was ousted due to his strong suggestion that the NAE drop its policy that member denominations cannot also belong to the National Council of Churches. Another president was discovered to be secretly living a lifestyle incompatible with evangelical Christian morality (viz., paying a prostitute for sex). Every organization has problems from time to time, but I think the main reason for what many of us perceive as a decline in the influence of the NAE is the media’s constant identification of the concept “evangelical” with relatively extreme political, social and economic conservatism. This has caused many evangelicals in the U.S. to shy away from the very word “evangelical.”

I consider myself “evangelical” in the general sense of the word as defined by the NAE which shaped my early spiritual and theological formation. My uncle, with whom I was very close (and still am), was a member of the national board of the NAE for many years. When I was struggling to settle on a religious self-definition in my late teens and early twenties he and I had numerous conversations. I came to agree and identify with the broad evangelicalism of the NAE. Eventually I studied the history of the NAE. It was founded in 1942* to provide a cooperative “umbrella” for non-fundamentalist, non-liberal, gospel-centered Protestants in the United States. At its founding it included a diverse group of relatively conservative Protestants in the U.S.—ranging from the Presbyterians to Pentecostals. (*I have chosen 1942 for the NAE’s founding because that year falls between its initial exploratory meeting in 1941 and its first official convention in 1943. I believe the actual “birth” of the NAE can best be pegged to 1942.)

Over the years at least 50 distinct denominations have joined the NAE which also includes numerous individual churches and trans-denominational organizations. The current president is highly respected evangelical pastor Leith Anderson, by all descriptions a moderate theologically. (I have met him and heard him speak and we belonged to the same Baptist denomination for some years. He also served on the governing board of the college and seminary where I taught from 1984 to 1999. While I do not agree with everything he has done or said I consider him a good representative spokesperson for contemporary American evangelical Christianity. I wish more media people would turn to him instead of to certain neo-fundamentalists when they seek a resource to explain American evangelicalism.)

There is no single person or organization that speaks for all American evangelicals. In some sense evangelist Billy Graham was viewed by most American evangelicals as the main spokesman for them, even though he was never an “evangelical pope.” With Graham’s retirement many individuals calling themselves “evangelical” have attempted to replace him as the recognized spokesperson for American evangelicalism, but to date no one has achieved that recognition. Most of those wishing to be recognized as the spokesperson for American evangelicalism work out of theological orientations that would have been considered “fundamentalist” by the NAE’s founders.

I will end this blog post by coming around to where it began and its main purpose. If you want to know what “evangelical” means you can do no better than look at and examine the web site of the National Association of Evangelicals at www.nae.net. While I do not commit myself to agreeing to everything you find there, I still consider myself “evangelical” in that broad sense and I do not allow the popular media to define “evangelical” for me.

"The Uncontrolling Love of God" & "God Can't" Videos

Who is God and What may I Expect of Him?

Amazon Link

A God of Love gave to us absolute freedom - freedom to love or to harm, to do good or not do good, to heal, help, fix, build, prevent, bring peace. Creation has also been endowed by God's love and is always motivated to thrive where it can. But once placed in process divine love cannot control outcome - control is the opposite of love. Love does not determine but plans in cooperation with man and creation. Cooperation... it is a very key element in God's love. But the idea of control demands outcome and if disobeyed brings judgment. Divine love is not controlling, determining, or judgmental. It always seeks for us to grow in God's loving plan, assisting as we can our outreach to the divine. Men, like nature, are designed to love in all that it means - to cooperate, to assist, to reach out, to heal, build, create, undo, unburden, bring peace, rest, nourishment. God's love is like that. It is not evil. It is not controlling. It allows, it waits, it promotes, it nurtures man and creation back to the God we have left. It is the old concept of the "Divine-Human Cooperative" revived from under the burden of Calvinism's tenets of control and judgment. It is the new concept of open and relational theology built upon Wesleyan concept of Armininianism. Open because our future is always open based on God's love. Undetermined. Open-ended. It can be whatever we make it to be. Relational, because all of life is relational - including time. Because God Himself is relational so is His love - and so is His creation. It cannot be otherwise. Open and Relational Theology says God loves and we should too - as we can, as we are enabled by God's Spirit in a world of unlove, unrest and despoil. We are to love because our Father God Creator loves with an unceasing love that holds eternity in His hand forever and always.

R.E. Slater

February 10, 2019

Amazon Link