QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Post-Evangelical Friends?

I am beginning a discussion as a member of Northwest Yearly Meeting. This is a meeting that began in the 19th-century as a meeting heavily influenced by Wesleyan/Holiness revivalism. As time went by, that influence waned. When talking with senior members of NWYM, Wesleyan/Holiness revivalism probably stayed on too long.

I am sensing that, just as Wesleyan/Holiness remained too long, Evangelicalism is probably outstaying its usefulness. When I use the term "Evangelical", I mean the post-WWII, Billy Graham-ian, Wheaton/Fuller, response to modernity and fundamentalism.

In particular, I see Evangelicalism, as bringing in with it, a whole slew of baggage that is not particularly amenable with Quakerism. Graham came from North Carolinian Presbyterianism, and, naturally, his movement became top-heavy with figures from the Reformed side of Christianity. The only Arminian-minded figure that I can think of that was included within the Evangelical leadership was Dennis Kinlaw.

As Evangelicals engaged with modernism, they portrayed, very successfully, their doctrine as unquestionably biblical and orthodox. Anything which stood out as different or distinct from Evangelicalism became suspect. For Quakers influenced by Evangelicalism, the question became, "Which rightly speaks about authentic Christianity? Is it George Fox, William Penn, etc., or is it Chuck Swindoll, James Dobson, etc.,? Because Evangelicals were so successful at presenting themselves as orthodox, any Friend with an appreciation of orthodoxy would naturally focus on Evangelicals and not on Fox or Robert Barclay.

I see two problems with this. One is that Evangelicalism, with its Reformed roots, has a lower understanding of perfection or holy living than does Quakerism. As Evangelical Friends lost their connection with their own historical doctrine of holiness and adopted the one offered by Evangelicalism, it led to a much shallower sense and practice of sanctification.

A second problem has to do with our culture's movement from modernism to post-modernism. This is causing a great deal of consternation among Evangelicals because their whole raison d'etre has to do with engagement with modernism. If modernism is passing away, what will Evangelicals do? Their only option seems to be to perpetuate the modernist-fundamentalist-Evangelical debate.

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pat Pope on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 2:12pm

I have often felt that Evangelicalism, particularly that which represents conservative, middle-class, American values, has watered down the Quaker movement. But it's hard, because I find that Quakers often don't know to engage modernism in meaningful ways.

Permalink Reply by Gilbert George on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 3:18pm

I think a lot of us are thinking and feeling the way you describe. I would love to see us recover a holiness that is not focused on legalisms, but is instead focused on attitudes of the heart, a holiness that doesn't depend on my ability to be perfect, but on my willingness to be perfected.

Permalink Reply by Michael Jay on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 3:29pm

http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

I sometimes feel the need to distance myself from Evangelical ideas -- because I find the idea that 20th century English speakers have the right to establish Christian Orthodoxy offensive. I link to this, specifically, because it calls denying something within the Nicene Creed "Orthodox" -- this redefining of words bothers me.

Perhaps one day Evangelical friends will need to leave the National Association of Evangelicals in order to establish our connection with traditional Christianity.

Permalink Reply by Rodney Guy Pharris on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 5:55pm

Why do you think this is?

Permalink Reply by Frederick Martin on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 6:13pm

Thanks for posting this discussion. Speaking as a liberal Friend in a Christian seminary (Andover-Newton), your explanation of the history was understandable and intriguing. I actually wrote a paper last term on the responses of some Evangelical theologians to post-modernism... Roger Olson, Clark Pinnock, Walter Truitt Anderson, and others; they liked it that modernism was passing away because (simplistically put) Christians wouldn't have to defend the truth of the Bible from modernism's rationalistic epistemology any more. They said that post-modernism was about communities defined and sustained by their stories, and that that understanding of truth fit well with the Bible, since the gospel is often proclaimed through stories. At least, that's what this beginning student got out of their articles. Wess Daniels, at Camas Friends Church in NorthWest, is also interested in postmodernism and a lot more knowledgeable about the Evangelical side.

But I'm curious whether you've seen Carole Spencer's book about the holiness tradition in Quakerism -- does her description of Friend's doctrine of holiness fit with your sense of it?

Permalink Reply by Rodney Guy Pharris on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 6:36pm

I've only read the first half of Spencer's book. I should say that I was a teaching assistant for Carole years ago.

Carole's book is extremely thorough and very good at identifying all the little tweeks that Quakers have put within their understandings of holiness. Because there have been so many "tweeks", it is kind of hard to nail down a definitive Friends doctrine of holiness. I have a very soft spot for Arthur O. Robert's presentation of "through flaming sword", as a purifying baptism. I think Spencer and Roberts disagree a bit about that, though.

Permalink Reply by Gilbert George on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 6:46pm

I took History and Polity of the Friends from Carole last summer and read her book. Her description of the morphing of Friend's Holiness from process-centered to event-centered raises some important questions.

Permalink Reply by Rodney Guy Pharris on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 7:06pm

When I talk with older folks in NWYM, the "event-centered", or crisis, or revivalistic emphasis on Holiness is the source of these folks' bad taste for sancitification.

Permalink Reply by Pat Pope on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 7:27pm

Rodney, I'm not sure I know the reason other than we seem not to have done well in blending these two streams together. To me, Evangelicalism and Quakerism do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think they can inform each other well, but people tend toward one or the other. In my church, I don't think we do a good job of explaining who were are historically. We appear to be just another evangelical church (not that that's bad), but I feel like we don't do a good job educating people on our distinctives. Thus, when we hit bumps in the road, the response tends to be more evangelical than Quaker. Also, I think the Quakers' historical penchant for not drawing attention to themselves works against them in the sense that we miss an opportunity to educate people and to provide answers to modern problems.

Permalink Reply by Jeffery Agnew on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 7:55pm

I think I'm thinking along the same lines as Friend Gilbert, and I'll be adding the book to my reading list. While I remember some who claimed to have been entirely sanctified at some moment who's list of sins was blind to racism, sexism etc; I'm wondering is this the sort of thing your talking about? The whole doctrine always seemed rather presumptive to me for being wholly dependent upon grace. Being process oriented calls to mind Bonhoeffer's chapter on hearing the call to "Follow Me" in the 'Cost of Discipleship', and that has always resonated well with this Friend -again is this what you meant? Thanks, Jeff

Permalink Reply by Paul A. Smith on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 9:52pm

I find myself facinated with this discussion. I became a convinced Friend some 30 years ago primarily because it is more important for me to listen to (and for) God than to talk with (or at) God. I am also unalterably egalitarian, and found the Quaker approach to action and interaction to be sensitive to issues of equality.

I have not however, been able to embrace the post-modernist approach to worship. I have no argument with the approach, but I fail to achieve contact with the One who 'speaks to my condition' when I try to worship among post-moderns. Then again ... I never quite made it to modern.

I am attracted to the dialectical approach used by post-modern seekers. I also admire the tolerance of diversity that I see among the post-moderns. But I seem unable to worship without the old hymns and structured studies that I grew up with.

I find the holier-than-thou certainty of some of my fellow 'evangelicals' at odds with the teachings of Jesus. But I do not find comfort or hope in the moral relativism that seems pervasive among the few post-moderns I am familiar with.

Will evangelicals and moderns be replaced by post-modernism? Run the numbers. I think you will find that attendance in churches that are strongly evangelical or clearly modernist is declining. A paucity of spiritual seekers is developing.

I do not characterize the decline in church attendance as disinterest. Rather, I see young people who find no satisfactory spiritual support, guidance or fulfillment in the spiritual practices of their elders. These future leaders still need spiritual support and guidance, whether they have recognized that or not. Unfortunately, they have rejected what exists without having an effective or edifying alternative.

Truly post-modernist gatherings are still developing a coherent ethos that worshippers can either embrace or reject. But attendance at post-modernist gatherings seems to be growing. My guess is that our currently disconnected progeny will respond to whatever promptings the Spirit provides to their generation. I see the developing post-modernist church as a hopeful harbinger of a generation that is responding to those promptings.

What does that mean for old folks like me? We will probably continue to find edifying fellowship within gatherings of like-minded worshippers -- until our numbers decline to some tipping point that forces the remnant to seek spiritual strength elsewhere. Then, whatever that future church looks like, it will become the accepted standard and dissenters will arise anew.

In the meantime, I have come to terms with the idea that an age of worship practices that I prefer is passing. I hope that those of us approaching our 'grey havens to sail for the undying shores' will provide whatever encouragement and support our successor stewards need so they can worship in accord with the spiritual guidance they are given.

Permalink Reply by Gilbert George on 1st mo. 14, 2011 at 10:07pm

Do you think that this might be because we haven't changed the language we use to talk about the process? While we can work to redeem words, sometimes we need to use different words around those who have had negative/abusive experiences. So maybe we need to use some words like "becoming more Christlike" or "living into the calling of the Spirit."

‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.