Preservings $20 No. 25, December, 2005 - Home at Plett Foundation

“In fact, Scofield devised a clever
scheme to circumvent such a
teaching, by dispensing entirely
with the Gospels....”
ethos or standard of behaviour. (According to
some historians this may reflect the influence of
Renaissance thinkers such as Erasmus).
To say that Mennonites and Evangelicals
differ in terms of their understanding of history
would be an under statement, they are at
opposite ends of the spectrum. Mennonites
see history “as the study of God” while Evangelicals
are inherently uncomfortable with the
idea of history which they find inconsistent
with their concept of God’s revelation for man
being more fully revealed in each succeeding
generation.
Allow me to explain: each new generation
of Revivalists, Fundamentalists and Evangelicals
believe they possess not only the fullest
revelation of Christian truth, but, indeed, the
only valid revelation. Each succeeding generation
seems to add another layer of legalistic
requirements to that of its precursor. I think
some Pentecostals are already up to the third
and fourth baptism, and, no doubt there’s
more coming. What this means, though, is
that each new generation looks down at the
old--or better said, tries to avoid looking back
at the old--sadly recognizing that their parents
and/or antecedents in faith did not have the full
truth, given that all the previous millennialist
scenarios had in the meantime turned out false,
Deuteronomy 18:22.
The emotional internalized paradigm of
Fundamentalist religious culture was well suited
to dovetail precisely with the lowest common
denominator in the spiritual expectations
of the North American religious consumer. This
also resulted in a lower literacy and intellectual
level compared to other confessions.
To be Evangelical and Mennonite at the
same time is an oxymoron, a logical impossibility.
The two religious cultures are fundamentally
and inherently incompatible and in
conflict with each other. They are diametrically
opposed to each other in terms of their very
concept of what it means to be Christian.
To be a Mennonite, to be a Christian, is to
accept the centrality of Christ and the Gospels
within scripture, the idea of discipleship.
By comparison, Fundamentalists and later
Evangelicals, went to great lengths to avoid the
teachings of Christ. In fact, Scofield devised
a scheme to circumvent such a teaching, by
dispensing entirely with the Gospels through
dispensational hermeneutics whereby the
teaching and work of Christ was postponed to
a future age! In short, to the Evangelical, to
be a Christian was to meet and come within
the parameters of certain prescribed threshold
criteria, such as “conversion experience”, “assurance
of salvation”, “a certain form of immersion
baptism”, etc. Successful Christianity
was measured by the achievement of a certain
“One of the hallmarks of Revivalist,
Fundamentalist and Evangelical
religious culture has been
extreme intolerance.”
feeling of inward euphoria. By this logic the
more you jumped and shouted, the more saved
you were. By the same reasoning, people suffering
from depression evidently would be
under a horrible curse!
The “isms” of the 20th century--fascism,
communism, nationalism, maoism, fundamentalism--all
shared the desire to eradicate
traditional cultures which they viewed as
inherently in conflict with their demands of
undivided loyalty and absolute commitment.
The 20th century could also be called the century
of euphemisms, where a word was used
to describe a social movement but meaning the
opposite of its common usage. For example,
Communists claimed to represent the will of
the people, to hold all things in common, but
inflicted the tyranny of a cynical elite upon a
terror-stricken population.
Fundamentalists claimed to be evangelical,
but specifically took the Gospels out of
the Bible, out of their faith. In this sense they
(the proto-Evangelicals of the 1920s and 30s)
were not evangelical at all, and could only be
considered Christians in the most general sense
of the word. Since Scofield taught it was a sin
to follow the teachings of Christ, how could his
adherents be considered Christians?
The sad reality is that if so-called Evangelicals
should ever be successful (and may God
forbid) in their enunciated program for world
domination and conquest, the level of piety
and good works in the world would likely not
change by one wit, the number of wars would
not lessen by one iota, and there would still be
just as many people starving in Africa.
Admittedly Evangelicalism has revitalized
many lives with its message of hope and
personal renewal. But the same can be said for
practically every social and religious movement
of the 20th century, including Farrakhan’s
Moslem pride movement.
Evangelicals have done compassionate
acts of charity for others in need and for this
all should be grateful. But what segregates
Evangelicals from other Christians, Christians
of the Mother Theresa variety, is that these acts
of charity are invariably preformed as part of an
agenda--if you (poor slob in Africa) come to my
denomination, I will accept you as a brother/
sister--or, if you (destitute person in Russia)
accept my religious culture, I will accept you
as “saved”. A real Christian, in my estimation,
sees a need and fills it. If the life and conduct
of the giver is such that the recipient is moved
to change his or her lifestyle or faith, so be it.
True charity—Christ-imaged charity--does not
come with an agenda.
I make the forgoing statements with all
due respect to many friends who are good
Christians notwithstanding they subscribe
to Evangelical dogma, and its language and
culture. Those who bomb abortion clinics and
spread virulent hate literature against gays and
lesbians are certainly only a small minority.
Not nearly all Evangelicals are viper-baiting
Neanderthals who refuse medical treatment for
their children: “Faith or Healing?” Time, Aug
31, 1998, Vol. 152, No. 9, pages 48-49.
One of the hallmarks of Revivalist, Fundamentalist
and Evangelical religious culture has
been extreme intolerance. John Calvin, the 16th
century Reformer who was the direct spiritual
antecedent of modern-day Evangelicals, simply
executed and exterminated those who disagreed
with him. It was a good thing for Evangelicals
that Di Brandt and Pat Friesen were not born
Pentecostals or Baptists, as they would have
been REALLY upset at a religious culture that
treated its non-conformists so mean.
In decades past many American Fundamentalists
followed the spirit of the Salem
witch trials and exercised discipline and
shunning so fiercely and tyrannically as to
make traditional Mennonites look pathetic
by comparison. Similar practices evidently
were adopted by Mennonite denominations
articulated by Separatist-Pietist and American
Revivalist teachings, as seen in the book “Peace
Shall Destroy Many” by Rudy Wiebe. For
traditional Mennonite communities, discipline
was a carefully measured response to admitted
and confessed offences, such as wife abuse, or
dereliction of moral obligations to neighbours
in socio-economic matters implemented only
after due process and democratic debate before
the membership. This was a procedure that had
nothing in common with the psychological terror
used by many Fundamentalists and some
Evangelicals to establish total mind control
over adherents.
Such a divergence in interpretation was
to be expected since Calvinist triumphalism
focused on the Pauline Epistles, whereas
Mennonite theology was focused in the life
and work of Christ as set forth in the Gospels.
Shunning, hatred of gays and subjugation of
women, for example, are ideas derived from
the teachings of Paul and not Jesus.
This points to the real problem that Calvinist
reformers never fully completed “their”
Reformation. They never found their way back
to Christ and the Apostolic church, choosing
instead the more tempting option of consolidating
patriarchal power within a theocracy.
For this reason they also required a multitude
of add-on doctrines to assure themselves, that
“yes”, they really were “saved”. Had Calvin
completed the Reformation according to Biblical
authority all these fancy teachings wouldn’t
be necessary, would they?
Certainly there are millions of Evangelicals
who don’t run around with psychotic attitudes
disparaging all others. There has been considerable
moderation in the legalism, intolerance
and egocentric arrogance within the Evangelical
movement in the past several decades.
Perhaps, in time, so-called Evangelicals may
surpass their Calvinist roots and embrace other
Christian cultures and treat them as brothers
14 - Preservings No. 25, December 2005