Evangelicalism, Post-Protestants, and Scripture

The term Evangelical as a description can be traced back to the time of the Protestant Reformation and can be found in writings of men such as William Tyndale and Martin Luther as a way to distinguish Protestants from Catholics. As time passed, the Protestant movement split into many, distinct denominations which divided over doctrines such as infant baptism, free will vs. determinism, the importance of the free offer of the Gospel, the role of works in the Christian life, and so on. After the Evangelical departure from Rome, the Protestants functioned in a much more unified manner than we see today. There were councils, creeds, and confessions which Christians united around.

As we move further away from the Reformation, however, the Evangelical Protestants became more divided. There were serious doctrinal battles over when and how baptism should be instituted (Westminster Assembly vs. London Baptists), the role of man in the order or salvation (The Synod of Dort), the Marrowmen vs. the Moderates, and so on. Eventually, we arrive at the Great Awakening (mid 1700’s), where we see conversionism take its dominate place in the Evangelical model. By the end of the century, the so-called Second Great Awakening solidified the Evangelical practice of conversionism as a feature of the Protestant tradition. Conversionism describes the sudden and often emotional experience of hearing the word of God preached and converting immediately to Evangelical faith.

In the Second Great Awakening, we saw the use of the “anxious bench,” which I suppose could be called the proto-altar call. Now, it is commonplace for Evangelical sermons to end with an offer to raise a hand or to come to the front of the church to be converted to Christianity. This is a totally different model of evangelism from the standard confessionalism of the past. Historically, the Evangelical Protestants, especially the Puritans, would test the faith of a new convert against a theological confession. In other words, there would be a catechetical process prior to somebody’s faith being recognized as genuine. Fathers would be expected to conduct daily family worship, which included doctrinal teaching, singing, and Scripture reading. The historical Protestant model of evangelism was conducted through the ordinary means of family discipleship. The children of Christians were considered Christians.

It can be argued that the conversionism model rose out of necessity, and that’s probably true. Fathers had abrogated their responsibility to their children by neglecting family discipleship. This has not only amplified in the last century, but has become Evangelical dogma. Children are expected to have their own, personal, emotional, religious experience wherein they accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. This has become so severe, that many Evangelicals do not catechize their children and take a severely libertarian approach to the religious beliefs of their children. We see this model dogmatized in the “Vipers in diapers” mindset propagated by men like Voddie Baucham. This idea essentially says that children are not Christian, and in fact are something akin to devils, until they have their own personal religious experience. This is a massive departure from historical Evangelical Protestantism, where children are essentially guilty until proven innocent. Protestants had widely adopted conversionism as the standard practice of evangelicalism, even in conservative circles.

This is the key feature of what I call “post-Protestantism.” The ordinary evangelical practice of family worship and church attendance has been replaced by various forms of the altar call. Now, many conservative denominations and independent congregations reject the altar call in practice, objecting to the hand raising model, while still believing in it at a fundamental level. Even churches that reject the altar call will require new members to read their testimony of salvation, which is a recording of the exact moment the person had their religious experience. Simply stated, one requirement for church membership is to recollect one’s “altar call moment.” Now, I am not saying that religious conversion does not occur in a moment, nor am I downplaying the importance of the religious experience where one comes to faith, I am simply pointing out that the model for evangelicalism has shifted from a catechetical model to a conversionist model in nearly every single modern church. It is a shift from the idea that one can say, “I have been a Christian my whole life” to “This is the exact moment I became a Christian.”

Now, I am not saying that people do not have emotional, religious, conversion experiences. That is in fact how I was converted. What I am saying is that the new post-Protestant Evangelicalism has changed its model to this as an ordinary practice, even for the children of believers. When my wife and I were married, and joined our first church together, we were required to present written testimonies of our conversion experience as a part of the membership process. My wife struggled with this, as she had not known a time where she was not a Christian. I had no problem producing this document, as I was not raised in a Christian home. Her conversion was that of the ordinary means of family discipleship, whereas mine was that of extra-ordinary evangelical experience. The conversionist practice of post-Protestant Evangelicalism can likely be explained as an adaptive response to a more secular country. Nonetheless, it is a departure in methodology from the historical Protestant Evangelicals.

You’re probably wondering what this has to do with Scripture and the modern day battle for the Bible. I will posit that this has to do with the classical liberal instinct that the west has towards individualism. At a societal level, this ethos says that the individual has no responsibility to his neighbor. In the religious context, the Christian has no responsibility to the church. One’s faith is between him and God. This is encapsulated in the “only God can judge me” mentality of modern evangelical Christians. Historical Protestantism took place in the context of the church body. Post-Protestantism takes place in the confines of one’s heart and mind. Religious conversion is a deeply personal experience, who are you to judge it?

This is the framework upon which modern bibliology rests. Notice that according to modern bibliology, the only purpose of Scripture is to lead one to salvation. Despite 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly stating that the Bible’s purpose is not only to convert, but to instruct converts on religious faith and practice. The latter purpose of Scripture is completely ignored by modern bibliological doctrine. This is exemplified when James White, or Dirk Jongkind, or Richard Brash detail that there is no impact to the core gospel message across all translations. This is the outworking of post-Protestantism, where the purpose is an individualistic transformative religious experience which results in salvation. Post-Protestant Christianity is a religion of the individual.

Now, I am not saying that conversion is bad, or unnecessary. I am simply saying that the Protestants viewed it as a function of the church body, not a function of the individual. The Puritans wrote volumes upon volumes regarding personal religious experience. The key difference here is that post-Protestants remove the context of the church body from this religious experience. The effect of this is that all matters of doctrine, faith, and practice are now divorced from the historical and religious Protestant tradition, which is why I believe I am right in identifying modern evangelicals as “post-Protestant.” As modern evangelicals stray further from the guard rails of their theological forefathers, they lose more and more of what make them Protestant in the first place. There is no unified faith and message, there is no unified translation – there is only the individual with his personal religious experience.

This is further demonstrated by how modern evangelicals teach their congregations to study the Scriptures. Some go as far as to say that one must consult Greek and Hebrew lexicons to ascertain the “true meaning of the text.” More common is that Christians are told to study the Bible with several different translations and a study bible and commentary. Every modern evangelical has been tasked with becoming a lone theologian, discerning what the text says and means. This is why D.C. Parker says that there are an infinite number of bibles, because every time a person returns to the original language texts and opts for a different reading, he in effect creates a new bible. So not only is faith an individual ritual, so is one’s bible. This is a feature of post-Protestantism.

So, what is my purpose in creating this new category of “post-Protestant?” The reason I think it is important is because modern evangelicalism has departed so severely from historical Evangelicalism that it is an entirely different religious movement. It explains the ethos of modern Christianity as an individualistic religion, and exposes the presuppositions which have led to an “every-man-for-himself” religion in the west. Every man has his own Christianity, and every man has his own Bible. This is distinct from historical Protestantism, which acknowledges the role of the church in Christian faith and practice. This is a thought I have been developing for some time now, I’d love to see what my reader thinks of my concept of post-Protestantism.