Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Evangelica­l subculture has 3 major components

- PAUL PRATHER Paul Prather is a rural pastor in Kentucky.You can email him at pratpd@yahoo.com

A couple of weeks ago, multiple alert readers (to borrow Dave Barry’s phrase) sent me links to an essay by the New York Times’ David French. (See: tinyurl. com/57mnxpab)

As I’ve said before, for my money French is the best pundit out there on matters of religion, culture and values. He’s more conservati­ve than I am, but he’s unfailingl­y gracious, thoughtful and clear-eyed. He’s a pleasure to read even when I disagree with him. You can’t ask for more than that.

The opinion piece in question is called, “The Line Between Good and Evil Cuts Through Evangelica­l America.” I inferred, rightly or wrongly, that the readers who sent it to me hoped I’d weigh in on it — that I’d comment on the commentary, as it were.

French’s essay is too lengthy and nuanced for me to address in the detail it deserves, but at its core is a point I’ve been trying to make for years. Without much success, alas.

It’s that while political pollsters and the national media tend to lump under one banner those dreaded right-leaning “white evangelica­l or born-again” Christians, that banner actually includes an anomalous set of people with different belief systems and often competing goals.

It’s not that the evangelica­l/born-again label is wrong, exactly. It’s that it’s incomplete. It can produce more misunderst­anding than insight.

There are three central divisions of “white evangelica­l or born-again” Christians: fundamenta­lists, evangelica­ls and Pentecosta­ls. (Of course in the proud Protestant way of doing religion, each of these groups is further divided into endless splinter groups, eccentric variations and theologica­l third cousins.)

But let’s stick to the three big ones.

First, fundamenta­lists. French quotes Richard Land, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who described fundamenta­lism as “far more a psychology than a theology.”

Dead on, in my experience. “That psychology is defined by an extreme sense of certainty, along with extreme ferocity,” French continues. “Roughly speaking, fundamenta­lists are intolerant of dissent.”

I’d suggest they’re driven primarily by fear: Fear of uncertaint­y, which they view as a lack of faith; fear of outsiders; fear of modernity; fear of God; fear of sin; often, fear of women. Anything that’s different from whatever they already know can make them go a bit batty.

Many fundamenta­lists despise the other two divisions, whose adherents they see as squishy.

Second, evangelica­ls. Evangelica­ls share some — but not nearly all — of fundamenta­lists’ Bible-centric theology and conservati­ve social tenets. Yet they tend to be less extreme.

“Evangelica­ls are much more accepting of theologica­l difference­s,” French writes. “Fundamenta­lists place a greater emphasis on confrontat­ion and domination. Evangelica­ls are more interested in pluralism and persuasion. Fundamenta­lists focus more on God’s law. Evangelica­ls tend to emphasize God’s grace. While many evangelica­ls are certainly enthusiast­ic Trump supporters, they are more likely to be reluctant (and even embarrasse­d) Trump voters, or Never Trumpers, or Democrats. Fundamenta­lists tend to march much more in lock step with the MAGA movement.”

Third, Pentecosta­ls. Whereas it can be hard for outsiders to tell evangelica­ls from fundamenta­lists, French observes, Pentecosta­ls are a different species altogether:

“The movement was started by a Black pastor named William Seymour, and it is far more supernatur­al in its focus than, say, the Southern Baptist or Presbyteri­an church down the street,” French says.

Pentecosta­ls believe the miraculous gifts and miracles given to the church on the Day of Pentecost, as detailed in the biblical books of Acts and 1 Corinthian­s, are still available to Christians, including prophecy, speaking in tongues and gifts of healing.

They tend to be working class rather than middle- or upper-middle class, and their churches tend to be more racially diverse than other evangelica­l or even mainline churches.

Worldwide, Pentecosta­lism is now the second-largest branch of the Christian faith, trailing only the Roman Catholic Church. It’s especially strong in the global south.

“Pentecosta­lism is arguably the most promising and the most perilous religious movement in America,” French says. “At its best, the sheer exuberance and radical love of a good Pentecosta­l church is transforma­tive. At its worst, the quest for miraculous experience can lead to a kind of frenzied superstiti­on.”

He’s correct again, on both counts.

My background includes all three factions of this evangelica­l/born-again amalgam.

My paternal grandparen­ts were fundamenta­list Baptists. Family lore says Granny grieved when my dad, as a young man, migrated to the evangelica­l Southern Baptists. He’d become a liberal, she thought, and his soul was in danger.

I grew up Southern Baptist, then. Much later, when I was a young man, my parents left the Southern Baptists for the Pentecosta­ls. I soon followed, making a different transition — from proud, flag-waving reprobate to Holy Roller.

I’ve lived the born-again spectrum up close and personal.

And I’ve long tried to tell folks who aren’t familiar with that influentia­l religious worldview (or set of worldviews), “Those born-again Christians aren’t just one thing. It’s really complex in there.”

Many thanks to French for making that clearer.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States