Imagined Evangelicalism
We are all drawn to community. And ironically is it exclusivity which helps build community. at least, for those that are within. Consider how fast our LGP8 cohort made a distinction between ourselves and the other groups by labeling ourselves the great eight. No one made the different cohorts be competitive and tease each other about who was the best. We just did what was natural for us. We drew some lines of limitation in our group so that our group could be drawn closer together. It was unifying to make fun of those stupid 7’s. Except for Jennifer Dean-Hill of course. She’s cool (by marriage). But despite us drawing these lines between cohorts, if any of us should meet some students from LGP1, we would feel still feel some instant camaraderie by virtue of both of us being LGP’s. And thinking about it now I suppose I feel a connection with anyone at Portland Seminary because surely (at least I imagine) they have had similar experiences as me. And to take it another step back, I suppose I share some unity with anyone from George Fox. And Wider again, I felt some immediate relief when I learned that another Californian, Dave, was going to be in this cohort because, well… Californians know how to party. Not to bludgeon this point to death, but lastly, consider how you can be halfway across the world and run into someone who happens to be from your hometown. This type of chance encounter will always produce shock, excitement and instant friendship. But why is this? When we were in our hometown, we weren’t excited to meet a stranger. But placed in a foreign context where we don’t belong and don’t share much with those surrounding us, we become a little desperate to find a little community. And so this serendipitous stranger gives us imagined community. And it’s unifying.
This concept, but on a national level, is what Benedict Anderson writes about in his book Imagined Communities. By this phrase Imagined Communities, he is referring to the formation of a shared perceived national identity, which became a global development in the early 19th century. It should be noted that labels and definitions are difficult and are rarely agreed upon when it comes to nationalism. James Joyce ominously alludes to this difficulty of definition in a line from Ulysses,
“—What is it? says John Wyse. —A nation? says Bloom. A nation is the same people living in the same place… or in different places.[1]”
But for us, Anderson lays out two criteria for what is required to have nationalism; it must be limited and it must be sovereign. By limited, Anderson means that it must have some level of exclusivity to unite a people together. Just like the LGP8’s is a closer and more secure group now that no one else can join. And by sovereign Anderson is saying the nation must have independence from any other sort of categorization, like religion. This is a huge shift world-shift, for up until nationalism primarily identified with their religion. In the past, to be Roman meant to have Roman gods. But now, people could be British and not be part of the church of England.
And so nations all over the world began drawing lines and marking boundaries to separate themselves and this began building unity amongst those who were on the inside. And as they drew lines many people who lived on the borders of these boundaries gained a new identity, sometimes unknowingly.
A line is drawn and a village mayor says, “oh, I guess we’re Russian now”
A villager responds, “what the hell is Russia?”
A lot of power goes to the person who gets to draw the lines.
And today new lines are being drawn. Last week we looked at what it means to be evangelical. And many of our LGP8’s highlighted and wrote about their desire (and much of America’s desire) to draw new lines for what it means to be evangelical. Their imagined communities had spoiled as they were witnessing powerful evangelicals acting in ways that should be viewed as “unbecoming of an evangelical”. So in an act of spiritual gerrymandering, they attempt to redraw lines so as to exclude those they no longer wish to be identified with. They say, “Oh, no I don’t like you; I’ll redefine my category to no longer be associated with you.”
They might be right. This might be needed.
The one who is able to draw the lines is a powerful person.
And Anderson writes in Chapter 11 of how many nations as they expanded across the globe followed the trend of renaming newly acquired territories as new versions of something old.[2] New England, New York, New Amsterdam, and even New Mexico. And of course, with this “new” naming came separation between the new and the original (now old by default). This also brought the assumption that the old was subservient or lagging behind the new. These groups, as Anderson describes, might be parallel to each other in many things and yet there is still a great distance between them. This seems to be a great description of how many denominations split and renamed themselves to be the new version of the old, many times remaining practically parallel to the former.
Evangelicalism was supposed to be a term that encompassed many denominations, and yet today it is becoming a term lacking in distinction and lagging behind in relevance.
Perhaps today we need a “New Evangelicalism.”
But who can draw these new lines?
It will be drawn by those leading the megachurches, where people can walk into a church of 5,000+ and feel an imagined community amongst its ranks. It will be drawn by the loudest ministers in media who preach to an audience of hundreds of thousands and stream their definitions 24 hours a day.
grey skies ahead indeed.
____
[1] James Joyce, Ulysses (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2018), chp. 12.
[2] Benedict R. O’G. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Verso, 2016), chp. 11.
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso, 2016.
Joyce, James. Ulysses. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2018.
11 responses to “Imagined Evangelicalism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post, Kyle. Yes, the ones who draw the lines have a lot of power. What makes you think that the megachurch pastors wil be the ones to define the New Evangelicalism? I’m out of the US loop,but form my perspective they seemlike the ones who are clinging to evangelicalism at the Right Wing, Conservative stronghold, content with the old “lines” if you will. Who would you like to see drawing the lines?
Jen. Hmmm this made me think. I think the mega church pastors are redrawing lines. I think they have even made the current status quo. I also see a lot of the prosperity gospels having one of the loudest messages that has changed the assumptions and perceptions those on the outside have made to those on the inside.
I would like to be the one drawing the lines of course. ??. But that probably wouldn’t end well
Hi Kyle,
Seems to me the media is the one who will redraw the lines, and seems to me they are the ones with much power.
New Evangelicalism? That is a great idea. One day we will all say we heard it here first, from one of our own. You are the man!
And, what a closing by you, “grey skies ahead indeed.” Wow! That keeps me thinking after i finished the reading…
Thanks Jay.
Would you like to be the superintendent of my “new evangelicalism” denomination? I’m accepting applications.
Great post Kyle…and it brought much laughter for Jenn & I (good thing you singled her out of the 7’s :-)! Also your CA party song was awesome, especially since we are both Californians as well. I loved how you applied the principles in the book to our great cohort LGP8 and how we developed community with each other even though we all came from very different locations and walks of life. I also agree that for a group to bond effectively there needs to be a limitation at some point of who can join because each time a new person adds to a group it creates a level of unsafety due to the group dynamics changing. Obviously, if the group is large enough this is not as much a factor. Also, I would love to apply to be a part of the New Evangelicalism denomination.
Kyle,
I thought we called ourselves the Elite-8, but hey, I have bad hearing. I enjoyed your “most excellent” analysis on imagined communities, from the great-eights to the boardwalk stranger in Cape Town. It sounds like you are describing an innate urge that we must form relationships with others, even strangers. Gosh, I wonder if our creator chose to wire us that way? Groovy!
Great deduction on the power dynamics of the “person who gets to draw the lines.” Dr. J. draws our lines, and so far I feel connected to LGP.
Good post!
Stand firm,
M. Webb
Kudos to you Kyle for posting a link to Dr Dre. That spiced up my Sunday afternoon – thanks. 🙂
Your comment about the people who get to draw the lines has a lot of power, as does your comment about “spiritual gerrymandering”. Amazing thoughts there, and I especially love that powerful metaphor that is slightly political (ie. sleazy). We love drawing lines keeping some in and others out. I wonder if the new heaven and new earth is more about erasing the lines rather than drawing them?
Hey Kyle thanks for your thoughtful post. I particularly appreciated the clarity with which you drew out Anderson’s primary way of describing a nation as limited and sovereign, and also how you integrated the reading with evangelicalism and the way in which we imagine communities ourselves.
Kyle, I’m sorry, but I did not realize you are from California…I have to kick you out of my club…that is, unless you are a 49ers fan…cause then you are back in.
I am glad you mentioned the “sovereign” comments in the reading. So here is the question, In Philippians 3:20 Paul writes, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ…” What happens to the attitude of nationalism if I do not recognize myself as part of any nation but the nation of heaven? Now Christianity is a “must” instead of a “must not”.
Great post at putting the reading into a clear perspective.
Kyle you begin with a faulty premise the Elite Eight are not better than the rest…shame on you. Seriously, great point on looking and finding unity in anything that is familiar. Appreciated the way you brought in last weeks evangelicalism as more than a history lesson but a scary prediction of how we like to make things new and redefine for our enjoyment (and worship). How do we becomes changers of society without joining the problem?
Kyle,
Dominant post. I enjoyed your basic, core idea about the way that we naturally draw lines and circle ourselves “in” as part of a group (even an imagined one). And the way that we do that as humans seeking connections, relationship and community.
I also thought you nailed it about California and our knowledge of knowing “how to party”. Well said.
So, in a philosophical sense, I wonder if any of this “matters” at all. I mean, if lines can be re-drawn so easily so as to make someone German one day and Russian the next (or whatever), how deep do these identities really run? What would it take to push you to change one of your identity markers? And in the end, what are the identities that we consider most important and vital? I’m thinking about our Christian faith as probably the most core one, but what are the others, and at what point do they become less necessary…