Analysis and Response to J.D. Hunter's Evangelicalism: The coming generation

Posted by Scott Foutz on November 22, 2006 10:22 AM
© Scott David Foutz

Introduction to the Work

In his earlier work American Evangelicalism: Conservative religion and the quandry of modernity (1983), Hunter focused on the question of "why" an orthodoxy (i.e., Evangelicalism) is able to survive and grow within an increasingly secularized modern society. In sequel to this, Evangelicalism: The coming generation (1987), focuses upon the question of what, if any, are the cultural costs and consequences of this orthodoxy's survival in the modern world. Hunter intends this work to be a sociological interpretation, which he admits may be speculative on several points. He states the purpose of this work as follows: "In making this interpretation I hope... to make a contribution to the understanding of the fate of religion in the contemporary world order. I further hope to make a modest contribution to a deeper understanding of modern life - how ordinary individual (for whom traditional religious and cultural realities still provide meaning, encouragement, and hope) make sense out of their daily lives in the modern world." (Preface, x) A major and central portion of Hunter's book deals with statistical data regarding contemporary evangelical views of the issues of theology (Ch. 2), work, morality and the self (Ch. 3), family issues (Ch. 4), and politics (Ch. 5). Hunter's basic argument is that fundamental changes have begun to take place in all four of these areas, and that these changes are so rudimentary that the coming generation of Evangelicals may bear little resemblance to the Evangelical world of preceeding generations.

Methodology

Hunter bases the majority of his thesis upon data retrieved through the Evangelical Academy Project (EAP), a major attitudinal survey of the students and faculty at sixteen institutions of higher learning across America conducted during the years 1982-1985. The schools surveyed included 9 liberal arts colleges, all of which belong to the Christian College Consortium (Wheaton College, Gordon College, Westmont Colege, Bethel College, Houghton College, Seattle-Pacific University, George Fox College, Taylor University, and Messiah College) and 7 evangelical seminaries (Fuller Theological Seminary, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Asbury Theological Seminary, Talbot Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Wheaton Graduate School). Portions of EAP also survey the faculty of these schools, as well as secular university students. Hunter also makes use of other studies such as the 1978/1979 Gallup/Christianity Today national survey, the 1984 Gallup/Robert H. Schuller survey, the 1963 Religion and Morality Survey (Moberg), and the 1982 Roper Theology Faculty Survey.

Redrawing the Boundaries

Theology

Under the rubric of theology, Hunter examines contemporary evangelical attitudes regarding the issues of inerrancy, salvation, and the social gospel. Regarding inerrancy, evangelical college and seminary students were asked in what way they perceive the Bible as the Word of God (See Table One). In both groups, a majority indicated that although the Bible is not mistaken in its teachings, it is not always to be taken literally in its statements regarding science, history, etc.. Hunter sees in this a shift away from the traditional evangelical stance on the Bible, namely, that "the primary purpose of the Bible is not to be a historical or scientific text. Nevertheless, when it makes statements of historical or scientific fact, it does not err." He sees the contemporary evangelical position as being that "the primary purpose of the Bible is not to be a historical or scientific text. Therefore, it might make mistakes of this kind, but that does not comprimise its authority as the Word of God." (25) Hunter sees this as a swing toward neo-orthodox views of Scripture. But do the questions presented in Table One allow for such a conclusion? There seems quite a bit of ambiguity as to what is implied by "literally, word for word" (question 1) and "not always taken literally" (question 2). Whereas the former smacks of literalism (e.g., disregarding the possibility of figures of speech), the latter, though stating nothing explicitly about "errors" in the Bible, seems conducive to such an understanding, Hunter obviously makes a judgment call in his conclusion, which portrays the students as accepting the possibility of "mistakes".

The second theological issue examined is that of salvation, and in particular, traditional Evangelicalism's exclusivistic claims regarding salvation. Again, evangelical college and seminary students were asked their views regarding life after death (See Table Two). In both groups, nearly one-third responded that the unevangelized may be eligible for some alternative arrangement of salvation. Hunter points out that compared to earlier studies (1948 & 1964), this contemporary sentiment differs greatly from the previous generations'. A growing uneasiness regarding the issue of eternal damnation seems apparent. For example, when asked to specify the most persuasive reason which they would present in trying to convince someone to become a Christian, only one in ten said it would be to "escape the wrath of God and eternal damnation, whereas nearly seven in ten claimed that the primary persuasion was the "sense of meaning and purpose in life" as a Christian, or the fact that "God made a difference in my life". Nearly half felt that in most, if not all circumstances, to emphasize to nonbelievers that "they will be eternally damned in hell if they do not repent of their sins" was in "poor taste" (40).

Regarding evangelical students responses to questions pertaining to the issue of social justice, Hunter sees a major swing away from the earlier Fundamentalist hostile reaction to the Social Gospel. Instead, contemporary evangelicals seem to view social justice as something to be striven after for its own sake, regardless of whether it takes place within the sphere of Christian ministry or not. In summary, within the realm of theology, Hunter sees a definite modification or abandonment of some of the emphases of the earlier evangelical generations.

Work, Morality, and the Self

After tracing the development and consequences of the Puritan and Protestant work ethic, Hunter attempts to show how this originally Christian-motivated ethic has now passed over into the hands of the secular arena where it has become devoid of spiritual motivation. The work ethic is now maintained for its own sake within both the secular and evangelical worlds, being seen more as necessary for a certain quality of life and social interaction than being dependent upon any religious understanding of humanity. Regarding the evangelical community Hunter writes, "work has lost any spiritual and eternal significance and it is important only insofar as it fosters certain qualities of the personality" (56).

Likewise, The traditional moral boundaries which served to separate the evangelical and secular worlds are deteriorating, says Hunter. He traces the percentage of change in attitudes regarding the activities traditionally seen within the evangelical community as morally wrong all of the time. In the decade between 1951 to 1961, the following decreases occurred: "studying on Sunday" (11%), "playing billiards" (22%), "playing cards" (44%), "folk dancing" (28%), "social drinking" (30%). When students in 1982 were asked about these activities, not one felt that participation in them was ever morally wrong unless abused by carrying it to excess. Similar attitudes are seen regarding more illicit behaviors as well. Hunter concludes that the morality of the contemporary evangelical community is becoming indistinguishable from the secular, a fact which results in the ultimate fragmentation of its unity. He writes, "By opposing worldliness and those who engaged in worldly behavior, [Conservative Protestants] were able to establish their moral authority and reaffirm their collective sense of identity as a unique and even "chosen" people - light in a world of darkness;... With the erosion of these moral boundaries and no substitutionary norms replacing them, social cohesiveness is much more difficult to attain, as is a collective sense of identity as a distinctive moral and religious community." (64)

Regarding the self, Hunter sees a general reversal within the evangelical community from the traditional perspective of the self. Rather than seeing oneself as a fallen and habitually erring being, contemporary evangelicals have come to adopt the secular preoccupation with the fulfillment of personal goals and self-esteem. This movement is visible in the tremendous increase in Christian publications dealing with personal issues. Rather than stressing self-denial and self-mastery, contemporary evangelicals strive for self-understanding and self-improvement. Hunter inquires, "At a purely practical level, how is self-denial or self-mastery for the purpose of developing moral character possible when that which is to be denied or mastered is under almost constant examination? How is the renunciation of the self possible if it is being 'improved' or is being developed to its 'full potential,' or is needing stimulation by 'new experiences'?" (72) Hunter sees the Protestant legacy of austerity and ascetic self-denial as virtually obsolete within the current evangelical community, and extinct within a large percentage of the coming generation.

Family

For the evangelical community, the family remains one of the last evangelical symbols. For this reason, the fate of the evangelical family is determinative of the evangelical movement. Hunter sees the key issue as roles within the family, in which he sees a definite move toward androgynization. For example, current emphasis is being made by Christian professionals and clergy for the need of the husband to participate in activities which had traditionally been left solely to the wife and mother. The husband is encouraged to tap into the sentimental side of family life in order to ensure a quality of development for himself, his spouse and his children. But Hunter sees this as "doublespeak", for at the same time, the husband is required to be the spiritual and material leader and authority of the household. Hunter observes, "The upshot is this: though the husband and father has ultimate authority, that authority is qualified by an emphasis on sentiment. To maintain final authority and to carry out the form of strong leadership normative for centuries past, a clear difference in status from other members of the family was required. ...That social distance though is significantly reduced if not eliminated altogether by the normative expectation of sensitivity and intimacy. In this sense his authority becomes purely theoretical and abstract. Paternal authority is little authority at all." (96-7)

In similar fashion, the wife and mother increasingly takes on responsibilities and roles once relegated exclusively to the husband or father. Hunter takes note of the current debates within the evangelical community regarding the role of women in light of Paul's statements in the New Testament, citing examples of three different evangelical interpretations to the problem. Hunter claims an irony exists in that the evangelical family experts, often with the intention of salvaging the "traditional" Christian family, espouse behaviors which are not traditional and which may ultimately result in the loss of such fundamental elements as specific and defined roles for husband, wife and child.

Politics

Hunter outlines evangelical political activism in three stages or "waves". Wave one (1920s) dealt with anti-evolutionism, Prohibition and anti-Catholicism. Although poltically successful in each of these endeavours, Hunter points out that conservative Protestantism paid a very high price in the public perception, as "from this point on, [they] became objects of derision for their anti-intellectualism, their bigotry, and their narrow-minded moralism." (121) Wave two (1950s) dealt with communism as an atheistic threat to the world. The association of certain circles of Conservative Protestantism and McCarthyism likewise eventually resulted in a public perception of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism as detrimentally extremist, if not fascist. The third wave (1980s) dealt with the moral decline in America, and in particular, secular humanism. Groups such as the Moral Majority, Christian Voice, and Religious Roundtable all lobbied congress for conservative moral agendas. Hunter states that as a result, conservative Protestants were seen as trying to force a minority and anti-intellectual agenda upon the majority, an agenda which many claimed threatened both the Bill of Rights and the American tradition of democratic pluralism.

In light of this background, Hunter sees a general reactionary movement within the upcoming evangelical generation away from any political stance which may be interpreted as intolerant or totalitarian. Many have distanced themselves greatly from movements such as the Moral Majority, stressing instead the need for a more democratic and pluralistic toleration. In the place of a Christian political morality, Hunter claims that the evangelical community is increasingly embracing the secular "ethic of civility" as the determinative social philosophy. This ethic demands that religion be contained in its proper place within society, and that any attempt by religion to reclaim authority for itself in the public sphere is to be seen as a breach which should and must evoke strong moral reactions. In effect, Hunter believes that the upcoming generation of evangelicals has abandoned any desire or ambition to act on the behalf of a solely religious agenda within the political realm.

Consequences of Life in the Modern World

Too late for Reconstruction?

Hunter sees a subsidence in the clash between Evangelicalism and modernity due to a greater lack of consensus within the evangelical community regarding what the Bible teaches, even pertaining to basic points of doctrine such as scriptural authority, the Devil, creationism, and the second advent. Another factor of this subsidence is, as seen above, a breakdown in the general standard of personal morality, a trend which has removed many of the traditional moral barriers between the two cultural systems. Hunter writes: "the cultural infrastructure of orthodox Protestantism for many who claim to be orthodox is visibly weakening, eroding from the inside out. To the degree that this is true the traditions lose continuity with the past and Evangelicals lose continuity with what they have long understood to be their historical identity." (162) But rather than admitting a loss of identity and heritage, Hunter sees the evangelical community engaging in an "alteration in the cultural meaning of orthodoxy and, accordingly, an alteration in the cultural meaning of specific criteria of orthodoxy" (Ibid.). Since this alteration of the traditional constituents and understanding of orthodoxy is taking place, Hunter claims that orthodoxy in the traditional sense is now impossible. For any changes in the orthodoxy are in essence accommodations to a secular understanding of self and society. Neither does this modification imply an implementation of an alternative unified or standard "orthodoxy". Therefore, by abandoning what it believed to be narrow and outdated interpretations of Christian life, the new evangelicals have unwittingly given await their only claim to an identity as a religious community capable of demonstrating a uniquely attractive lifestyle.
An Evangelical Revival?

According to the thesis of David Kelley's Why Conservative Churches are Growing (1972), the unique traits of strictness and guidance which Conservative Protestantism offered was a major factor in what was believed to be an evangelical revival during the 1970s. Hunter questions whether there actually was such an increase in membership since according to his statistics, there was a gradual decline during this period in the evangelical community's conviction and practice of these "traits of strictness". Instead, Hunter posits that a shifting of already existing members and "old" members accounted for the numerical increase within the more conservative churches. Hunter writes, "The real revival of the 1970s, then, may have been more of a cultural phenomenon than a numerical phenomenon, that is, a revival of public awareness about Evangelicalism due in part to the extraordinary attention given to it by the mass media." (206)

Hunter also sees in the increasing theological diversity within the evangelical community the possibility that a major split may take place, perhaps into "separatist" and "moderate" camps much in the same way it did in the late 1940s. (And perhaps in the same way British Evangelicalism was fragmented in the 1900s due to an abandonment of inerrancy!) But Hunter notes that accommodation is increasing within most, if not all of the separate theological and demographic circles within Evangelicalism, a phenomenon which could result in the inability for a split over "issues" to take place. He writes, "Evangelicalism may simply suffer a form of cultural paralysis where moral and religious authority becomes an impossibility" (208).

Conclusion

It is clear from Hunter's analysis that accommodation is the yeast which is slowly leavening the whole. There is strong evidence to suggest that contemporary evangelicals derive their primary understanding of their heritage and history via nonevangelical interpretations and commentary. A general lack of understanding of both the issues at stake and the motivations for acting within the earlier evangelical communities, accompanied by a bombardment of anti-evangelical propaganda and revisionism, has produced a reactionary abandonment of both heritage and traditional conviction. In the absence of an identity founded upon the moral authority of Scripture and its teachings, the young evangelicals have opted for the socially and intellectually comfortable ethic of civility, where authority is reduced to preference. The question then seems to be one of how to reclaim our traditional values, pride and identity without reverting into a separatist community such as the Amish or Mennonites. I believe the danger does not lie so much within the environment (modern or other), but in the abandonment of Scriptural authority in favor of less controversial (or "controversialized") authorities. Truly, there was no "Golden Age" for either Conservative Protestantism in general or Evangelicalism in particular. But we do possess a golden Rule, namely Scripture, which has been the determinative shaper of understanding of both self and society during those periods which have seemed "golder" than the rest.

Regarding Hunter's methodology, three issues may be raised. The first pertains to the difficulty of interpreting data gathered via questions which are ambiguous or pregnant with meaning. An example of this difficulty has already been demonstrated in the beginning sections of this paper. Secondly, since Hunter's data dealt overwhelmingly with college and seminary students within 16 schools, to what degree are we to understand their responses as representative of the majority of evangelicals, who are statisticaly lower and middle class blue-collar families? Does a college sophmore's views on salvation really tell me where Evangelicalism is headed? Perhaps it is indicative, but this connection seems to be assumed by Hunter. And lastly, in defining Evangelicalism, Hunter states that it may be understood as "synonomous with Protestant orthodoxy and conservative Protestantism", terms which he confesses may be used to encompass "a wide variety of religious and denominational traditions" (4). In American Evangelicalism, Hunter identifies Evangelicals by their claims to Scriptural inerrancy, belief in the divinity of Christ, and the efficacy of His life, death and resurrection. (7) But this definition does not restrict him from listing Pannenberg and others among the "evangelical theologians". (Evangelicalism, 255 n.24) The fact that Hunter does not feel compelled to seriously define Evangelicalism within his second work, nor restrict the discussion to a narrower understanding of "Evangelicalism" may influence Hunter's interpretation of how quickly and how far the evangelical community is moving to the left.

Categories: