I just received a copy of Jesus Made in America by Stephen J Nichols (thanks to my new friend, Adrianna of IVP). It'll take a bit before I can actually review it, but I've read the first little bit and have already found it to be an interesting read. He observes that it is natural for Christians to bring their cultural understanding and expressions into their reading and application of the Bible. But, he claims, "there is something peculiar to the tendency to contemporize in American evangelicalism" (10). He lists 4 areas he sees as American tendencies to contemporize, which I'll summarize (these are found on pages 10-12).
"First, American evangelicals reflexively harbor suspicions of tradition." He notes that this tendency "leaves American evangelicals more vulnerable than most when it comes to cultural pressures and influences. In the absence of tradition, we tend to make up a new one, one not tested by time and more or less constructed by individuals or by a limited community."
Second, is the tendency to appeal to sola scriptura, one of the rallying cries of Luther's call for reformation. But, Nichols notes, "the mistaken conclusion is that because American evangelicals hold firmly and prize sola scriptura, it naturally flows that all of the beliefs of American evangelicals naturally flow from the pages of Scripture."
Third, "much of contemporary evangelicalism... operates under the assumption that we are neutral in the acquisition of knowledge. The upshot of all this is that our ideas or beliefs are not held as our ideas or beliefs but as the ideas or beliefs."
Fourth, "American evangelicals are strongly influenced by pietism, which emphasizes personal religious experience, and values devotion and practice over doctrine."
These four tendencies, Nichols claims, "all conspire to make American evangelicals quite susceptible to culture in the shaping of beliefs and interpretation of Scripture."
Now, I suppose it's open to debate that contemporary American evangelicals are any more susceptible to this than any other group of Christians in various times, places and cultures. The questions I ask you: do you think Nichols observations are true? What are the potential outcomes (good or bad) of these tendencies?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As Inspector Gadget would say, "Wowsers!" Sounds like this is going to be a provocative read. A few gut reactions:
A hearty "yea, and amen!" to his first point. I belive that suspicion of authority/tradition is part of America's cultural DNA (was not our country founded on the very shoulders of a revolution against authority?). The underdog is always more popular than the favorite; the little guy is always victimized by the big guy; politicians are held under the highest suspicion for corruption, to the point of it bordering on a blanket assumption. Examples abound, I believe, but suffice to say I think Nichols is right on here.
Points 2 and 3 are good ones, but less compelling in my view. I'm tempted to boil point 2 down to an issue of (poor) hermeneutics and exegesis, a problem likely experienced by any culture. This can lock arms with point 3, viz. a self-serving bias and a very modern epistemology. (Kant must be rolling over in his grave.) These are good points, but I can't say they're especially "American." I'd say any culture still under the sway of modernity could fall victim.
Point 4 is a good one as well, though I'm sure it's debateable as to whether we'd trace the focus on personal experience to pietism. I'd be more inclined to think along po-mo lines of relativism and/or the general American trend to privatize religion.
So, though I might nuance things differently (and perhaps Nichols does this later), I would ultimately agree with his thesis that these four points "conspire" to shape the American Christian expression.
I will expect to receive this book on loan when you're done.
I agree with your assessment of point 1.
As for point 2, I think I differ slightly from what you offer. I think it it follows naturally from point 1. Those who have a natural suspicion of authority but are Christians are more prone to this error. So, whereas you link point 2 with point 3, I link it with the preceding point.
I agree with your assessment of point 3, it's not really an American problem, it's a human problem. But, I suspect Nichols will nuance this further.
I think I differ a bit from your assessment of point 4 as well, in that privitized and personalized devotion long preceded postmodernity (though not really relativism, but anyway). I actually see pietism as a (over?) reaction against modernity's division of religion and reason. You want to argue scientifically that God doesn't exist? Well, argue with my personal devotion and godly character. (This is actually worthy of another post, since it also addresses something else I recently read). In fact, I'd see pietism as the prepostmodern reaction to modernity.
Anyway, I agree that these points need further nuancing, and I'm sure he'll provide it. I throw these points out there because I thought they were thought provoking and, well, you're bogarting all the good blog discussions right now.
Post a Comment