Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
Cultural Evangelicalism: The Background for Personal Despair*
JAMES R. DOLBY
Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center
Waco, Texas 76701
Responses by: Gary R. Collins, Richard H. Cox, Vernon J. Ehlers, Walter R. Hearn, Russell Heddendorf, David O. Moberg, and Bernard Ramm
From: JASA 24 (September 1972): 91-101.
Dr. James E. Dolby received his undergraduate and graduate training at Baylor
University, completing his Ph.D. there in clinical psychology in
1964. He taught
at Wheaton College from 1960-1967. He is currently Associate
Professor of Psychology
at Baylor.
Copyright 1969 under the title, "Help for the Disillusioned
Evangelical,"
by Christian Herald and reprinted by permission.
Evangelical Culture and Theology
One spring afternoon a young mars sat quietly in my office staring blankly out
the window' at a beautiful world of budding trees and fresh green
grass. He could
not see the beauty of creation going on before his eyes because he was morbidly
focused on his great personal need. He expressed it like this: "I wish I
could believe as I did when I was in high school; then I knew what
was right and
wrong and I was ready to evangelize anyone to my view of
Christianity."
The fact was that he could not regress and could no longer stop the questions
which filled his inquiring, searching mind, nor could he reject the
evidence which
bad confronted him on all sides that those ;who claimed to hold the
key' to Christian
truth were also human beings with gross frailties, lie had tried all
of the formulas
for "spiritual growth," gone through all of the
"deeper life"
prescriptions, but he found that in his honest moments they were not
very helpful
to him and only added frustrations to his more mature
deliberations.
This man's frustrations had precipitated a personal crisis which was
characterized
by alternating periods of anxiety and depression. He was in need of help, not
necessarily professional, which could mean the difference between regressing to
earlier forms of behavior or progressing-accepting himself with his
human limitations
and ultimately living in a world where there are few black and whites
and developing
a Christian belief system that is as much filled with doubt and question as it
is with faith.
I know of many such Christians who have been brought up in an
evangelical Christian
culture who find it most difficult to separate the evangelical culture from the
essence of Christianity. They want to breathe fresh air, think new thoughts and
he Christian in the real world of sweating, thinking, loving and hating people.
The challenge to find a personal commitment to Christ tree of the many cultural
overlays which the evangelical community puts on Christianity can be, and often is, a major struggle; only the hearty and very
secure persons
make it. At best the struggle of separation is filled with anxiety and despair
to parallel the joy and release that accompany the metamorphosis process.
It is my belief that what is traditionally called evangelicalism is an almost
inseparable combination of a cultural style and a theological belief
system. For
many they are so interwoven that to deny any part of this combined
whole is emotionally
to deny the whole package. For those who try to separate the two, the task is
difficult if not impossible. Some of these people in their
questioning will suffer
such intense anxiety and depression that they cannot proceed and will bold on
tenaciously to both the evangelical culture and the evangelical
theology because
the inner conflict is too much. For others it means that to be freed
from a part
they must reject the whole. One can recall many cases where this entire package
was emotionally thrown out because the ability or the inclination to
disentangle
the two required too much. There are others, however, who want to find and keep
the kernel of the Christian world-life view but discard the husk and
all the remaining
roughage. This last group often are in a state of conflict and
vacillate between
progress and regression.
I recall the comments of a college professor, who would be classified
as an orthodox
Christian, as he expressed his feelings of uncomfortableness when ques
tioning either evangelical culture or evangelical theology. It was his opinion
that anxiety and depression will always' accompany the evangelical Christian
who keeps questioning and challenging his culture and beliefs. One
person literally
thanked God that he had not been raised in this background because he was not
haunted by the impress of this overwhelmingly closed system. I agree with him
that a person can never completely separate himself from those
beliefs and value
systems of his childhood.
What is traditionally called evangelicalism is an almost inseparable combination of a cultural style and a theological belief system.
Definitions
Perhaps I should clarify before proceeding what I mean by evangelical culture
and evangelical theology. Evangelical culture in my opinion is a subculture, a
'way of life, which is basically similar to that of most white,
middle-class Americans,
it stands for restrained criticism of authority, a deep belief in competitive
enterprises, it places a premium on authority and encourages
punishment as a way
of child and social control. It also has a high regard for
politeness, restraint
of angry feelings and finds expression of affection difficult. The evangelical
subculture also has
a variety of taboos which are remnants from the cultural fundamentalism of the
1920's and '30's. These taboos vary from group to group and geographic area to
geographic area, but generally they are expressed in opposition to
such practices
as drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking, card playing, gambling,
body exposure,
most of contemporary popular music, dancing, etc. This is my thumbnail sketch
of the culture which surrounds and is fused with evangelical theology.
When one considers the nucleus of evangelical theology one has a difficult time
determining which came first, the Puritan, middle-class culture or
the evangelical
theology. It is likely that they grew up in need of each other. The theological
system which I am describing as evangelical has at least the
following components:
(1) a belief in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, (2) a premillenial view
of "last things" (this is optional with some), (3)
traditionally orthodox
views about God, Christ and the Church, (4) a special creation of man (often
eliminating the theory of evolution as the descriptive process 1w which God created man), and (5) a minimizing
of church history and historical theology as an important guide with emphasis
on the individual Christian's personal encounter with God through the
Scriptures
and prayer-often called the "deeper life." One cannot, and pe'rhaps
should not, try, to encapsulate a theological viewpoint in a
paragraph, but this
gives an idea of what I mean when I use the term cultural evangelicalism.
Causes of Anxiety
Why the inevitable anxiety and depression in those struggling to find
truth through
the layers of training and cultural overlay? I think the answer rests
in at least
four areas: (1) fear of separation from parents, friends, and God,
(2) guilt feelings
for doubting and testing reality in taboo areas, (3) the anxiety
which is produced
when one has to live with a host of unanswered questions-a pattern
that is foreign
to the cultural evangelical system which is precise', definitive,
and full of already determined answers, and (4) the despair which
comes when one's
reasons for living have eroded.
Fear of Separation
The best example of an extremely depressed person is the individual
in deep sorrow
because of the death of a loved one. To go into the psychology of
sorrow is beyond
the scope of this article, but it is obvious that the main reason for sorrow is
a very deep and personal loss of an individual with whom mutual love
has existed.
This is a prototype for depression and we can see the obvious implications for
those brought up in cultural evangelicalism. The rejection by
parents, peer groups
and churches of those who deviate in part or totally from their system can be
documented over and over. I think cultural evangelists show more compassion to
the "nonbeliever," the outsider, than to one who challenges
the system
from within. The stories told by college students after a vacation of rejection
at home or in church fill the dormitories at evangelical
colleges. The parents or churchmen were aghast at the new ideas and
they encouraged
their hometown young people to avoid such "hearers of heresy."
In an extreme, but none the less real, ease, I recall the young woman and man
who "had to get married" because of pregnancy. The woman's
parents refused
to talk to her, except to exhort her to repent, and did not establish
communication
with this young woman until about six months after the child was burn. To this
day the child's birthday is held on a different date so that members
of the local
church will not know that her mother had violated the most sacred of
all taboos-premarital
sexual intercourse.
This official rejection was painful, powerful' and devastating to the
young woman.
She had to either follow the road of repentance and conformity or
leave the system.
She chose the latter course. But rejection is usually much more
subtle than this,
taking such forms as hints via prayers or conversation. I can
remember the person
who humorously, with an underlay
The very heart of cultural evangelicalism is often fear, rather than the good news of forgiveness and love.
of sadness, told how his parents would put hymns on the record player when he
was home to indirectly influence his "wayward" ideas.
Rejection by parents or friends can he most immobilizing and can
bring on depression
because there is the real element of loss of love. Unless the person
is very strong
or can find camaraderie with persons of kindred spirits, the
temptation to capitulate
and regain love will win out, and he will most likely return to the evangelical
fold even with some latent questions unanswered.
To be rejected by parents or friends can be overwhelming, but to be afraid that
God will also reject
the already struggling person, can be completely disabling. To believe that God
will punish those who deviate can produce a level of anxiety (another word for
fear) which can propel one into serious emotional disturbance. In
cultural evangelicalism
one is encouraged to believe the entire system is true and to
challenge any particular
is to challenge the whole and to potentially incur God's wrath,
either by eternal
separation in "hell" or by here-and-now punishment.
I once heard an evangelist tell a story of a man who resisted God's
Spirit convicting
him to return to the way (cultural evangelicalism). This was followed by a gory
story about the death of his children which was interpreted as God's
payment for
nonconformity. Think what a permanent impact this story would have on
the impressionable
young person who is not able to see what is really being said. The essence of
the story is that God punishes severely (at times by killing loved ones) if one
does not conform to the "gospel"
as presented by the evangelist.
It is my opinion that the very heart of cultural
evangelicalism is often fear, rather than the good news
of forgiveness and love. Much of the cultural conformity and lack of
inquisitiveness
is a byproduct of fear rather than reasoned conviction. This
conclusion will undoubtedly
he challenged by many who read it, but a little introspection should
he done before
the observation is rejected, Many of the stories people recall
through the years
of training in this subculture are not the stories of grace but of punishment,
damnation and of a vindictive God.
Guilt
Guilt feelings are basically the by-product of a child's interaction with his
parents. If the parents think something is wrong they will tell the child and
usually hack it tip with a threat and actual punishment for
disobedience. As the
child grows, he too accepts these parental values as truth and no longer needs
the
Cultural evangelicalism is about a generation behind in most areas where change is involved and this includes the great social issues which face us.
parents around to enforce a violation of these taboos. What happens in reality
is that the person has built into his mental processes away of
punishing himself
if he violates his conscience.
I can recall the young adolescent who felt very guilty about
masturbating, which
in the evangelical subculture is one of the strongest taboos. He would punish
himself through guilt feelings. He would become depressed, and in his depressed
state tell himself how bad and unlovable lie was, and would walk
around despondent.
During thus siege of guilt feelings and self-incrimination, he also
tended to say
things to others which would precipitate argument. Now he
actually had someone angry at him. He had punished himself by telling himself
how had lie was and by having someone angry with him-just as his
parents had been.
After lie had punished himself enough lie would feel better and the depression
would subside. It is not a pleasant picture but a common pattern which occurs
when one's conscience is violated and guilt feelings develop.
Cultural evangelicalism with its Puritan tradition, stress on
authority and belief
that punishment is the best way of social control has produced a
group of people with sensitive strong consciences. As a person moves away from this culture or
challenges its taboos, guilt feelings are likely to flood over him. To smoke a
pipe or swear without guilt feelings is almost impossible for such
sensitive persons
and it is likely that the' can never completely free themselves from the guilt
attached to these and other taboos. I recall the story of the man who refused
a drink at a cocktail party not because lie thought it was strong but
because
it would violate his conscience which his parents and culture had
built into him.
He would prefer not to drink to avoid the unavoidable strong guilt
feelings.
It is highly likely that a person brought up within cultural evangelicalism when
trying to break out of the system will violate many taboos producing
guilt feelings
and, therefore, depression will follow. This will fluctuate from
person to person
and taboo to taboo, and it is part of the picture of despair.
The Need for Answers
One of the main components of cultural evangelicalism is its tightness or its
definitiveness. It has answers to just about everything from how to get out of
bed in the morning to a commentary on international relationships, from reasons
for nonparticipation in dancing to beliefs about why man tends to be
destructive.
If one has been brought up in a world where answers are simplistic
and where there
is a well defined blueprint for living, and a belief that hat we are
not sure
of probably can he answered by an extrapolation from a biblical text,
one is likely
to become anxious when answers are not clear or when questions arise.
To leave a position of surety to go into a land where questions
rather than answers
reign is dangerous and frightening. Cultural evangelicalism does not prepare a
person for either cultural or theological change. Change is always a
threat because
truth is not supposed to change. Cultural evangelicalism has been
caught recently
in several boxes like this. Not to mention the fight over the theory
of evolution,
it has had to adjust to such problems as television in the home when
the theater
and movies were taboo. Its views have changed but it took about a generation,
and many still will not face the reality- of change. It appears that cultural
evangelicalism is about a generation behind in most areas where
change is involved
and this includes the great social issues which face us. For those who realize
that among the things we can be sure of are death, taxes, and change,
the evangelical
is an anomaly. The
evangelical is ill prepared for change, and when the 'truths" of
the culture
are challenged, fear and despair will normally follow. It is much easier to be
sure as we were in high school than to look at a problem more maturely and see
that almost all issues are complex and that most answers to life questions may
at best he only educated guesses.
The Loss of Meaning
When one lives for a cause, life takes on meaning, zest and verve. To live and
die for a principle or for a person make life full and challenging.
If, however,
the reason for living is dashed to meet's, then one is left without
purpose, and
until new goals and meaning are found, despair will be abundant. This is what
often happens to those who try- to leave the evangelistic zealousness
which accompanies
cultural evangelicalism.
This group knows what truth is and has the personal task of
communicating it throughout
the world. The mission is clear and so is the message. But for the man
who is not sure that either the message, as it has been taught, is
clear nor the
purpose of the mission obvious, despair often sets in.
Some persons fill this area of meaning with other reasons for living. Some take
the Christian ethic and apply it to the racial issue or other social concerns.
Others become involved in professional pursuits such as medicine, social work,
psychology, etc., where they can live to help others-a sublimated
form of Christian
concern. Still others live for their families, their country, or for the next
paycheck and run from a meaningless existence into all forms of
escapist activities
such as TV, sports, clubs, etc.
The person leaving cultural evangelicalism needs to find the heart of
Christianity
and renew his commitment to this; but when the core is unclear,
purpose and meaning
are also unclear. what is needed is a new glimpse of Christ
without the trappings
of our culture to see again his message and his way. The problem is that there
are few who are able to see this need clearly and, therefore, little
is available
to those in the process of emancipation. The battle takes place all alone, and
the loneliness of this search may he more than one can hear. Because of this,
many reluctantly return to the "womb" and others break out and find
their friendships exclusively with those who care little
about Christ or his message to mankind.
The Solution
The solution? If there is to he help for these searching people, it must come
from the friendship and love of those who understand and care.
Usually this friendship
is found among those friends who have broken away from this
subculture hot still
have faith in Christ and among those presently in the struggle themselves. To
he accepted, questions and all, is the first remedy for despair. Small groups
where honesty, openness and genuine searching is standard are prob
ably the only real source of help. These mini-churches within the church may he
the next major Christian movement.
I see glimpses of this in a variety of movements in and out of the church and
delight in each new venture. This article however, is an attempt to point out
the problem and to sensitize many to the dilemma of despair which these people
face. Despair like this can he as painful as any migraine headache
and as devastating
as any cancer. These people need help - an understanding, honest
Christian friend.
A Straw Man
Gary R. Collins
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield,
Illinois 60015
To respond to an article like that of Dr. Dolby is to invite certain criticism.
To agree is to invoke the wrath of those who disagree; to criticize
the author's
points is to risk being classified as is disillusioned evangelical-and none of
us 'would want a fate like that! The paper is thought provoking
enough, however,
that I'm willing-indeed anxious-to stick out my neck and make a few
observations.
To begin, we must recognize that there is much ill the article that is true to
life. The author must be congratulated for his boldness ill tackling
issues which
a lot of Christians would prefer to sweep under the rug arid ignore.
Many evangelicals
do tend to tie extra-biblical cultural norms with biblical theology'
and to assume
that the two must stand together. Often we too get suspicious of the theology
of those who would criticize the evangelical subculture. We are guilty at times
of rejecting those who fall into sin, or over-emphasizing the wrath of God,
or stimulating unhealthy guilt in our children, or of having too many
pat answers.
Certainly evangelicals are not perfect and there is value in looking
at our faults
since thus is a first step towards improving behavior.
There are, however, a number of points in this article with which I take issue.
In the first place, I believe that Dolby has constructed a highly distorted and
biased picture of evangelicals. He has constructed a straw man which can then
be destroyed with relative ease. To create this image, the author
makes two basic
errors. First, lie is guilty' of generalizing from the particular.
Based, apparently',
on observations of his own patients, be describes what most
evangelicals are hike,
He forgets his own good warning that evangelical taboos vary from
person to person,
and he
assumes instead that we are still hike the "cultural fundamentalism of the
l920's and 30's." Is it a characteristic of evangelicals that they usually
reject those who criticize, refuse to talk to their children when they have an
illegitimate pregnancy, teach that God's wrath will descend on those
who challenge
the system, preach "gory" stories, consider masturbation as "one
of the strongest taboos," and propagate "answers to just about
everything from how to get out of bed in the morning to a commentary
on international
relationships?" Perhaps Dolby and I circulate in different
circles but this
is not lily stereotype of evangelicals-except perhaps for a small minority on
the fringe of the movement. Then to say that contemporary evangelicals are a
generation behind in terms of social issues is just not true as anyone who reads
contemporary evangelical periodicals will realize.
In addition to generalizing from the particular, Dolby classifies as
exclusively
evangelical a number of faults which characterize great numbers of
people in the
society at large. A lot of people are critical of pregnancies out of wedlock,
train their children by threats and punishment, react slowly to
change, have no
purpose in life, or become involved in social pursuits for essentially selfish
reasons, Why hint that these are unique traits of evangelicals, when they may
very well be traits of the whole society?
Having erected a straw man, Dolby then proceeds to knock it down. In so doing
he is guilty, I believe, of rejecting both what is good and what is bad about
evangelicals-of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
For example,
lie is critical of those who raise their children by "threat and
actual punishment
for disobedience." Undoubtedly such methods can be harmful if
used exclusively
or excessively, but to eliminate threat arid punishment is not only unbiblical,
it is bad psychology. Children need standards and controls and we
know that punishment
is all effective technique if followed by an opportunity for learning
more acceptable
and socially approved behavior. Then, Dolby seems to think that
asking questions
is more to be desired than having answers. True, evangelicals-hike
everybody else-are
guilty at times of having answers that are a little too simplistic, but this
does not hide the fact that the Scriptures which we believe do give
some answers,
many of which are simple and to some people just plain foolish. It is
an overgeneralization
to imply that answers are generally "an extrapolation from a
biblical text."
In an age when people have a "need for answers" should we
always respond
with another question? Arid what about the taboos-the "opposition to such
practices as drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking, card playing,
gambling, body'
exposure, most of contemporary
popular music, dancing, etc.?" Certainly many evangelicals may
have overemphasized
the dangers involved in these practices, but the fact remains that
many of these
are harmful and should be condemned. Numerous non-evangelicals and
non-Christians
recognize this! Undoubtedly, extremists have been overly concerned about some
aspects of the evangelical culture, but this does not mean that the culture is
completely wrong and needs to he thrown out. There is a lot about the
evangelical
sub-culture which is logically sound, consistent with biblical
teaching, and worth
keeping.
Having erected a stereotyped picture of the evangelical subculture
and then having
thrown it out, Dolby finds himself in a corner from which he fails to
remove himself,
in spite of a gallant attempt at the article's end. In his paper the
author clearly
states that the evangelical cultural style and theological beliefs
are "almost
inseparable." To separate the two is "difficult if not
impossible,"
be writes. They "grew up in need of each other." If the culture and
theology are so closely woven together, then to throw out the cultures is, ipso
facto, to eliminate the theology. We are left only with small
discussion groups.
The authority of the Scriptures, the influence of the Holy Spirit,
and the certainty
which we have in Christ is all replaced by "small groups where
honesty, openness
and genuine searching is standard ... (and) probably the only real
source of help."
We get guidance, not from the Word of God (which ASA members, in
their constitution,
describe as inspired and the only unerring guide to faith and conduct) but from
the friendship and concern of others who have "broken away" from the
sub-culture and are, by Dolby's definition, likely to be
characterized by anxiety
and depression.
At this point I may sound like one of the rigid people described in
Dolby's article,
but it seems to me that the author has condemned himself. lie has
linked together
his culture and theology and then tries to throw out one while he hangs on to
the other. I do not know Jim Dolby very well, but from our several
conversations
together I do not think that this represents his real position. For one thing
he writes that be wants a "Christ without the trappings"
and I believe
him. Nevertheless, Dolby has made an error which seems to be typical
of many Christians,
including quite
a few of us in the ASA. He has assumed that we can have a theology
which is isolated;
which has no bearing on our behavior, standards, values,
interpersonal relations,
or scientific endeavors. This idea came out several times during the recent ASA
symposium on science and the Bible (Journal ASA, December, 1969.)
A Christ without trappings is sterile and meaningless. It is true
that evangelicals
may have emphasized some minor issues and have been un-Christian in some of our
behavior. But we won't solve these very real problems 1w throwing out
the evangelical
sub-culture and those parts of the Word of God which give rise to many of our
cultural beliefs. We must seek to find how the Scriptures apply to
our daily behavior-including
our scientific work. We must find where Nve are wrong in our beliefs-cultural
and otherwise-and we must be honest enough to change, Some of this change will
come as we worship and discuss with other Christians, but we must
keep our evangelical
culture and the unerring authority of the scriptures in proper
perspective. Failing
this, I question bow much we can really give help to disillusioned evangelicals.
A PROFESSIONAL TREATMENT
Richard H. Cox
San Diego Medical Center
San Diego, California 92123
Dr. Dolby has carefully thought through some of the intense conflicts
of the "evangelical
Christian" and
has enumerated in a spendidlv professional fashion
the fears and concerns which herder on, and often represent, serious pathology
of a psychological nature. He is correct in pointing out the etiology of these
dynamics a often being in the mis-informed nature of the persons'
religious belief
and rearing. It is of course clear, (and I'm certain Dr. Dolby did not intend
otherwise) that evangelicals are not the only persons to suffer from
such symptoms.
The same symptoms are found in the general run of the population regard
less of their religious views. He is correct in stating that "the heart of
cultural evangelicalism is often fear" and the tact that the
heart of other
cultural or religious systems is also fear does not excuse any system. It. is
my personal belief that the most injurious portion of evangelicalism
is Dr. Dolby's
second component; namely: "a premillenial view of 'last things'." The
future is utilized in a most schizophrenic fashion; that is, a combination of
fear of hellfire and the bright hope of streets paved with gold, etc.
The evangelical
(regardless of his views regarding "eternal security")
always precipitously
hangs between hell and heaven. The very fact of requiring such a
doctrine as "eternal
security" by such a name' reveals the true precarious position which the
evangelical must both enjoy" and "fear". Dr. Dolby's article
is particularly helpful to persons in transition themselves. Those
who read "about"
persons in transition will be more critical. More on this subject is
needed. Often,
however, periodicals are reluctant to print such material due to the fact (or
fear) that their constituency will drop their support. Such groups suffer the
same kind of evangelical insecurity as the individual about whom Dr.
Dolby writes.
THE EVANGELICAL COLLEGE AS "FRIEND"
Vernon J. Ehlers
Department of Physics
Calvin College
Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49506
I am impressed with Dr. Dolby's analysis of an important problem. He
has displayed
a great deal of insight in his dissection of evangelicalism into its cultural
and theological parts. I believe it would be very interesting to extend this
analysis to the Christian religion in general. particularly in
America. I am continually
intrigued by the manner in which most Amencans have unknowingly
adopted a culture
religion (the American Way of Life') under the mistaken impression that it is
a theological belief system. This culture religion is complete with its creeds
(the Constitution,
Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address,
etc.), its theological periodicals (Time, Reader's Digest) , and its heretics (leftists and radicals). It is perfectly acceptable to hold divergent theological views
in much of America, for
indeed, is not religious tolerance one of the articles of faith of the American
niltune religion? However, a person deviating from the tenets of the American
culture religion will find very little tolerance displayed. This fact alone is
a strong indication of the relative values Americans place on their
culture religion
as opposed to their theological beliefs.
However, interesting as further discussion of this topic might he, I
would prefer
to restrict my discussion to the role of a college (or university) as
it relates
to the disillusioned evangelicals mentioned by Dr. Dolby. I believe' this to he
of extreme importance, H for no other reason that the preponderance
of disillusioned
evangelicals of college' age'. Furthermore, the college experience
naturally tends
to raise the questions and issues discussed by Dr. Dolby. The contact
with individuals
from other cultures, the study of cultural patterns in different
eras, the contact
with students and faculty members who can clearly distinguish between cultural
evangelicalism and evangelical theology; all these' factors lead
college students
to a direct encounter with the issues raised by Dr. Dolby. Although not every
individual facing these problems regards it as a major crisis there
is a sufficient
number of them so that one must pay attention to their problem. As
Dr. Dolby concludes
in his article "These people need help-an understanding, honest Christian
friend". I submit that a college and its faculty can fulfill a
valuable function
as "friend".
Let me' begin by discussing the role' of the faculty as a collective body. If
a college is to be a "friend" in Dr. Dolby's sense. It
seems imperative'
to me that every faculty member, and a college as a whole, must reflect a clear
philosophy of learning firmly founded upon evangelical theology. Furthermore,
the faculty must recognize and display its recognition of the
distinction between
evangelical culture and evangelical theology, and must possess a commitment to
the evangelical faith. This implies a strong need for an evangelical faculty to
serve the evangelical student community. To some this smacks of
"protectionism".
Some institutions in fact keep a "house atheist" on the
staff to dispel
this protectionistic image. However, my point here is not that the
student should
be protected from non-evangelical influences, but rather that only a person who
has undergone and understands the crises described by Dr. Dolby can effectively
provide understanding help and encouragement for an individual undergoing the
same crises.
Clearly the role of faculty members as individuals is even more
important. Every
professor has had those moments when a student, in the quiet of the
faculty member's
office, confesses his doubts about his Christiais faith. I recall one colleague
telling me about the student who marched into his office and
defiantly announced
that he did not believe in God, and then stood there as if expecting
either lightning
or the professor to strike him. What must the faculty member do in
such a situation?
Clearly' it is one of the most important moments of a student's life,
and represents
a golden opportunity for the faculty member to help the student
resolve his doubts
and draw closer to his Lord. It takes a kind, understanding,
concerned Christian
to handle this situation properly.
It is apparent from my remarks that I believe an evangelical student
should attend
an evangelical college. I cannot subscribe to the thesis that the
Christian should
attend a secular campus so that he may witness to the secular student
community.
This may be true for certain perceptive, secure Christians 'who have
already undergone
the crisis described by Dr. Dolby. However, during my years of
teaching on a secular
campus I saw too many students undergo this same crisis, find themselves unable
to resolve it, and not having a knowledgeable confidant to whom they
could turn,
end up discarding their evangelical theology among with their
evangelical culture.
It is apparent then that the college can play a vital role as a
"friend"
of the disillusioned evangelical student. Clearly, this implies that
the college
serves as a buffer between the evangelical community and its students.
This places
the evangelical college in a particularly difficult rule. Its financial support
in general depends upon a community of believers who support their evangelical
cultural beliefs as strongly as they support their evangelical
theological beliefs.
At the same time, the college cannot in good conscience turn its hack upon the spiritual needs of the student, and demand that the,,,
adopt and adhere to the evangelical cultural system. As one example,
the college
which imposes hair-length standards upon its male students either
does not understand
what Dr. Dolby is saying, or else is "selling out" to its
constituency.
In either ease it is doing a disservice to its students. This
problem, which has
always existed, is increasingly severe at present because of the
increasing militancy
of the students. Thus evangelical college presidents, who had hoped to remain
free of the difficulties plaguing secular campuses, find themselves embroiled
in even more difficult situations. The end of these difficulties is
not in sight,
and no easy resolution of this problem can he expected.
Finally, just a word about the role of the "dissenter". By this term
I mean an individual who has come to grips with the problem, resolved it, and
has rejected those parts of the evangelical culture which he believes
not 'worth
keeping. It appears to me this person has a peculiar responsibility
in the evangelical
community. Because he has a better understanding of the evangelical faith than
most individuals, I believe it incumbent upon him not to flaunt his
newfound freedom
in the faces of those who are unable to make the distinctions our dissenter has
made. As an example, I believe a dissenting college student returning
home should
not seek to "educate" his friends and relatives regarding
the individuality
of their cultural taboos, but rather should try to adapt to the
cultural patterns
of his community. This is not hypocrisy; this is merely concern for the weaker
brother. As in all eases, the increased freedom associated with a deeper faith
brings with it increased responsibility. I have sought to discuss
this situation
only in the light of Dr. Dolby's article. Thus I have neglected completely all
problems arising from the great differences between the youth culture and the
adult culture of today. Yet, in all situations I am convinced the evangelical
college can he, is, and should be a strong "friend" to
those disillusioned
evangelical students seeking help.
CHRIST SET US FREE
Walter R. Hearn
762 Arlington Ave,
Berkeley, California 94707
It is ironic that Christians should find it more difficult than
others to be "free
souls." Yet Dolby describes the cultural trap we fall into and need help
to escape from-or rather, the immaturity we need to grow out of. Freedom always
frightens us at first because we have to cope with the unexpected. As
a character
in the film "Easy' Rider" observed, even those who rave about freedom
may panic when confronted by someone really free.
Since it is almost equally frightening to confront freedom in ourselves, it is
wise to move slowly and cautiously in that direction. But "Christ set us
free, to be free men" (Galatians 5:1, N.E.B.). If Christ lives in us, it
is cowardly not to move with Him from cultural constraint toward
personal control
of our lives. Having gained some measure of spiritual freedom
ourselves, it would
he unloving not to support others struggling to be free.
The American Scientific Affiliation could play a significant role in
helping the
rest of the evangelical community learn to accept and enjoy a less
rigid outlook.
Consider how our experience as students and practitioners of science
has lightened
the load of anxiety accompanying our own maturation as Christians:
(1) The fear of separation Dolby describes has been mitigated at
least partially
for us by our participation in another "spiritual
community," the realm
of science, ill which innovation and experimentation are valued. The ASA itself
has been for me, at least, the kind of "life support system" needed
to provide "the friendship and love of those who understand and
care."
(2) The guilt associated with violating some of the traditional
taboos has probably
not been so oppressive to us. Professional life has broadened our
contacts and often exposed us to a wider range of cultural practices than we might
have known
otherwise, producing a healthy tendency to question the absoluteness of our own
patterns.
(3) Science, more than any other occupation, is surely "a land
where questions
rather than answers
reign, giving us much experience-even training-in living comfortably
with ambiguity
and tentativity. We have learned that to attack an idea need not mean rejection
of the person who holds that mica, so we are perhaps less fearful
than other Christians
of a critical approach to truth.
(4) Most of us have hammered out a definition of Christian service
that is broader
than tentmaking evangelism so we are less inclined to despair when simplistic
solutions fail to fit the problems of the world. The complexity of the creation
with which we wrestle has forced us to appreciate that God's purposes
can seldom
be simply defined.
As ASA members we are probably more deeply concerned about freedom
from intellectual
authoritarianism than about matters of personal conduct and
"life style."
In both areas a Christian must exercise his freedom responsibly,
"demonstrating
the truth in love" to those whose ideas seem ridiculous or whose behavior
is insensitive to the feelings of others. This is often terribly hard to do. In
spite of the wording of the beatitude in Matthew 5:9, most of us at heart are
really "peace-lovers" rather than "peace-makers."
To reconcile
opposing ideas or people intolerant of each other is a drain on our spiritual
energy and not all of us are up to it, at least not all the time. We
can conserve
energy by recognizing two kinds of issues: those involving change itself, and
those in which the possibility of change is at stake. The first are
seldom worth
a hassle: when change is necessary for our personal integrity, we
simply change our
ideas or our life style-disturbing other Christians as little as
possible. Issues
worth taking a public position on or engaging in controversy over are
almost always
those in which the freedom to change is in jeopardy.
Thus, while helping individual Christians achieve maturity, we should
also give
some thought to helping the collective body of Christ, the church, grow up. The
institutional perpetuation of evangelical culture, not stressed by
Dolby, is leading
many to conclude that the established church has not merely stopped growing-it
has almost stopped living. If it is any comfort, stagnation of the institutional church extends beyond the
evangelical slough
of despond. We recently heard an intelligent couple who dropped out
of a Unitarian-Universalist
church give reasons that sounded exactly like what we hear about
evangelical churches:
too little honesty or depth in personal relationships, too much
hollow ceremony,
too little serious grappling with real problems of our country and the world,
too much trivial hustling around.
Dolby sees glimpses of hope in a variety of movements in and out of the church
which he calls "mini-churches." It will take many many mini-churches
to make a dent in the problem, if our observations are correct. My wife and I
know very few intelligent, sensitive, evangelical Christians still in
the organized
church who are not disturbed by failure of their own church to exert
net positive
effect on their spiritual life or that of their children. Many tell
us they would
leave if they could see a viable alternative. In 1967, after years of service
within the established church, Ginny and I decided to drop our official church
connection and try' to develop an alternative to the institutional pattern of
Christian life. Recognizing that we had few guidelines to follow, we wrote up
an account of our decision and sent copies to close friends for their
suggestions and
criticisms. We have since sent several reports to the same people, to share our
experiences and problems.
Our own experimental model centers around two areas, family and
professional life,
with ad hoc cooperation for activity in larger arenas (such as
working with IVCF
in some specific effort or with a political party to help a peace candidate).
Free of incessant talk of Christian service in a secular world, we
find ourselves
with more time and energy to "get on with it." We call
contribute part
of our tithe to ASA without having to win approval of a committee or
congregation.
With no church activities crowding our schedule, we are better able to explore
the spiritual dimensions of family and university responsibilities. And without
the "synthetic fellowship" of chords life, we find more
time to cultivate
lasting friendships among both Christians and nun-Christians.
Some who read our original document feared we were withdrawing into
an isolationism
that would cut us off from other Christians, but after several years experience
we believe their fears were unfounded. Could it be that Christians
who roll against
each other in casual contact every Sunday actually attenuate their
capacity for deep personal relationships? At any rate,
we think of our family as an "open" or "extended" one,
as will the clan concept of the hippie movement (and the early
Christian movement).
We care about the acceptance, mutual respect, and hospitality our
home life reveals
to strangers-and to our children. Many people seem to remain in an organized
church not for themselves, but "for the children." Eventually we came
to doubt the wisdom of exposing a child to what at worst was Christian Mickey'
Mouse and at best was sermonizing in an artificial atmosphere. We now
value immensely
our Sunday morning "family time" of leisurely breakfast,
good talk about
life at lab and at school, and some Bible reading and conversational prayer.
Our ten-year-old has missed out ms some things, but we see many
"churchy"
kids missing the basics of the Christian way.
We are continuing to experiment and shift our emphasis from time to
time; flexibility
is obviously one of the great assets of a small group. When we began
facing opportunities
for Christian witness and service near at hand, the artificiality of
much of evangelical
culture became more apparent to us. We are beginning to sense how "radical"
Christianity is-both ill the modern sense of being at odds with the
establishment
and in the original meaning of the word ("having deep
roots"). Of current
concern to us is the American cultural pattern of sacrificing
high-quality family
life in order to do intense professional work. Is there a way of having both,
or must we choose between them? Is western culture as a whole, not
merely evangelical
culture, at war against man?
One final observation about arty radical movement toward
mini-churches: when large
numbers of Christian laymen begin to assume the kind of pastoral role advocated
by Dolby, some of the Christians most in need of sympathetic help will he our
professional pastors. Obviously many of them will feel threatened by any move
away from established churches, or even by any spiritual movement
within the church
that largely bypasses them. Some will try desperately to maintain the
status quo,
some will make changes-ton often, superficial ones-to stay in
positions of leadership,
others will recognize that they are caught in a personal tragedy unprepared to
make sweeping changes in their own outlook and way of life. Perhaps
to these people
especially, members of the American Scientific Affiliation are in a
unique position
to contribute love and
understanding. Many of us who have had a satisfying career in basic research
but see the handwriting on' the fiscal wall should be able to sympathize with
anxious ministers buffeted by changes they cannot control. Like its
they are professionals
whose life-work may be on the verge of being "phased out"
to make way
for something else.
Who knows? Rather than being "disillusioned" by changing
circumstances,
evangelical ministers and scientists may both be shedding false illusions about
the permanence of our roles. This is equivalent to having new freedom
thrust upon
us-and freedom may yet turn out to be contagious within the living
body of Christ.
ONE FORM OF A GENERAL PROBLEM
Russell Heddendorf
Geneva College
Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania
The problem referred to by Dr. Dolby can be placed in the larger context of the
problem of the disenchantment of the world. It was Max Weber who stressed the
fact that systems of meaning in the world lose their meaning for the individual
when he no longer sees the original "enchantment" in them. Weber considered
this to be an inevitable process which all persons experience in a
modern society.
The disillusioned evangelical appears to he a type of this person.
Faced with this problem, the individual seeks some resolution by
moving to another
meaning system. He attempts to find in a new subculture the original meaning
which
has been lost. The likelihood, however, is that lie will continue to
be dissatisfied
and will move again. What we find is a pattern of
"alternation" in which
the person repeatedly moves from one system of meaning to another seeking for
an enchanted world.
This pattern is not unique but is characteristic of disenchanted
society in which
life is bureaucratized.
I am quite sympathetic with Dolby's description of
"evangelical culture". It might very well be that it is
molded by secular influences and lagging mural principles.
Nevertheless, I think
be errs in his description of the "disillusioned
evangelical". Are the
symptoms lie describes significantly different from those which are
found in persons
who are disenchanted with secular meaning systems? Cannot the divorced person
feel similar feelings of guilt and depression as lie seeks happiness in a new
marriage? Doesn't the person who alternates to another lob experience anxiety
and feelings of separation?
Distinguishing between conversion and alternation,
Peter Berger suggests a difference between them. Conversion places the person
in a meaning system which is permanent. The satisfaction which is experienced
makes it unnecessary to seek alternation. It is quite possible, then, that the
person who desires to move out of the evangelical culture never
experienced conversion.
If he had, shouldn't his motivation to remain in the subculture be higher than
it apparently is?
I suspect that Dolby recognizes the validity of this type of
approach to the problem. lie refers to the loss of meaning and notes
that "change
is always a threat because truth is not supposed to change".
Such an idealism
is not necessarily limited to the evangelical. Surely lie is correct when lie
states that "what is needed is a new glimpse of Christ without
the trappings
of our culture". His apparent problem, however, is that he
directs his criticism
only at evangelical culture. He does not perceive the general nature
of this problem
in society nor does he acknowledge the responsibility which the
evangelical, who
has been truly converted, has to continue to seek for meaning in the
subculture.
One may overlook these weaknesses arid recognize them as subsidiary to his main
problem. But what is this problem? It is the need to come to grips
with the "core"
of the subculture. Apparently, this is a cultural, as well as a
personal, problem.
The solution which is offered, however, is psychological. It is suggested that
the disillusioned evangelical needs the support of understanding friends. Can
he, however, gain a new understanding of Christ by being accepted by
others?
The
conclusion may be drawn that Dolby has
a greater sympathy for the disillusioned evangelical than for the plight of the
evangelical culture. Yet if the
cause of the problem is cultural, as he suggests, why
deal only with the symptoms? Of course it is important
to he concerned with the person, but is the necessary help to he found in the
suggestions offered? One suspects that the ax to be ground is being honed by the
wrong stone.
ALWAYS GOSPEL PLUS
David 0. Moberg
Marquette University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Dr. Dolby's
interpretation of the disillusionment and despair among
numerous Christians
brought up in evangelic-al Christian culture seems generally valid,
at least for
those who are from the branch of evangelicalism that is best labeled
"fundamentalism."
Since that is the predominant perspective within the National
Association of Evangelicals, and since Dolby has qualifying words and phrases ("many such Christians," "Some of these
people," "these searching people," etc.), it may be appropriate
to view it as a general problem for evangelicals. Personally, however, I prefer
to distinguish between fundamentalists, who are narrow in their perspectives
of what is and is not acceptably "Christian", authoritarian
in spirit,
and vituperative in
their references to outsiders, and evangelicals, who are
more tolerant of and open toward persons and perspectives within the Christian
faith that deviate from
their own system of doctrinal interpretations and behavioral codes.
No evangelical who has taught in an institution of higher learning
for a substantial
length of time has failed to observe or at least to hear about eases
of disillusionment
of the kind Dr. Colby describes. Any fundamentalist who attempts to trace the
progress of youth who grew tip in his church will undoubtedly become aware of
many who have "lost their faith." Yet full analysis of what occurred
often will reveal that many base not given dip their faith in Christ;
they were strongly
indoctrinated with the need to trust Him as their Savior and Lord and with the
belief that salvation is a gift of God's grace that cannot he earned by man's efforts. Carrying that evangelical doctrine to its
logical extreme,
they' have become disillusioned wills the code of conduct and narrow requirements for "fellowship" imposed by their
fundamentalist churches
as if these were an essential part of the Gospel. (One wonders to what extent
Dr. Dolby himself has gone through this struggle.) Unfortunately, many youth
also have rejected significant aspects of the faith itself as their awakening
to the relativism of norms for conduct has spilled over into a belief
in theological
relativism or even universalism.
Certainly there is no question but that there are numerous (not just
one as Dolby
implies) evangelical subcultures in the U.S.A., and still more in
other nations.
It is normal for one's social group to develop its own unique combination i if
characteristics as people interact with each other and develop their respective
habitual modes of social relationships. It is impossible for any
enduring group
to refrain from developing its own subcultural characteristics. Social research
describing and analyzing these, including their varying patterns of taboos and
changes occurring with the passage of time, can he highly productive
and useful.
Not the least of the uses of such findings can he the identification
of cultural and subcultural trappings which are added In' the respective groups to their
membership standard of faith in Jesus Christ.
Every Christian group tends to have "cultural overlays and these intrude
even into interpretations of the Bible. Preconceptions handed down from our
national, regional, ethnic, denominational, occupational, and other
social identifications
blind its to certain teachings of the Scriptures, cause us to
spiritualize various
literal instructions given us in the New Testiment, and confine its to biased
systems of interpretation. .As a result statements like "The Bible says
really mean "My interpretation of what the Bible says is...," and we
sometimes even say. "The Bible states this, but it means that."
"The
Gospel" which is proclaimed by each Christian subculture-fundamentalist,
evangelical, neo-orthodox, neo-liberal, denominational, and every
other-is always
"The Gospel plus my subcultural overlay' of
interpretation." It is most unfortunate that so many Christians are blind to that fact except
when they criticize
their spiritual competitors for teaching heresies and practicing
hypocrisies!
The solution to this problem is possibly more complex than that
suggested by Dolby.
It necessitates, indeed, "a new glimpse of Christ without the trappings of
our culture-to see again his message and his way," if that is possible. It
certainly demands that we strive to identify those trappings. We will
not be freed
of them by' interpretive departures from the Scriptures. We must
consciously identify
them and differentiate between them and the faith. Social research as well as
theological and other studies can play a significant part in this, as in other
aspects of the work of the Christian church.
Christian education must get far beyond the Sunday School level with a program
of continuation studies that is related clearly to the contemporary needs and
that lasts an entire lifetime. "Mini-churches" may play a significant
part in this but they must be supplemented and coordinated also by
relevant large-scale
programs and projects, including effective Christian literature (like
the Journal ASA!) A biblical balance which demonstrates agape love both by evangelism and
Christian social concern is a major part of the solution. Its wholesome effects
will he apparent in the direct good that it achieves but also in the removal of
a major source for justifiable criticisms against those who are
"too heavenly
minded to be of any earthy good."
RIGHT ON!
Bernard Ramm
Baptist Seminary of the West
Covina, California
I believe Dr. Dolby's article is right on the target. In fact, I know
of no such
other perceptive article although I have read other attempts at such
a diagnosis.
He sees the issues so clearly from the inside as an evangelical and
from the outside
as a psychologist that I even suspect that there is something of the
autobiographical
in the article which gives it its unusual clarity of analysis.
I do know of the agonies that he describes and the structures he elaborates. I
know of them from parents I have talked with whose great concern is
their children,
They are at a loss to give the child the old guilt treatment-beat 'em
down, threaten
them, intimidate them, and try subtly to propagandize them as he suggests with
phonograph records. Others try to get with their children, be as permissive as
possible and put up with their music, long hair, and new mores (hardly yet a morality). But
the parents themselves are so tied up in the evangelical
culture-evangelical faith
complex that they have no freedom in either approach.
It is also my opportunity to he in many Christian colleges each year
where I see
the same drama enacted. Only here it is the administration versus the students,
rather than parents versus the children. But the dynamics are the
same. The problems
are identical. The approaches vary'. Some schools crack down hard and maintain
the evangelical-faith, evangelical-culture synthesis. Others try to get with it
with the kids.
The same is true in Bible conferences. The leaders of high school and college conferences have to make the same decisions and are caught up in the same agonies. 1 know of one conference grounds that has settled into concrete: the evangelical culture must go with the evangelical faith and their program and their speakers are all retreats hack to the 1920's.
1 think Dolby has the right theory, although how to pull it off will not be easy. We do need a new freedom, a new release, a new synthesis of evangelical faith and the new patterns of youth culture of the 1960's and the 1970's. lie is psychologically, sociologically and theologically right.
But I find the attempts at transition very difficult. I find parents, pastors,
elders, deacons unbelievably defensive. They do not know what a terrible price
they are paying for such defensiveness. I wish I could narrate the
dozens of times
I have tried to communicate what Dolby is saying to these elders and have run
into intransigence, bigotry, defensiveness; and I have left the
conversation sick
at heart, knowing that these defensive elders are sowing the wind to reap the
whirlwind.
However, all is not loss. There are some seminaries awake to this
problem. "The
times are a' changing" and they know it. There are some pastors and some
churches that can make this distinction between evangelical faith and
evangelical
culture and are leading their young people into the freedom of real evangelical faith. There are some parents who know that defensiveness is self-defeating and
are trying to get with it with their own children. Those making the transition
are small in number. We hope, however, that they are pioneers for the thousands
who shall eventually wake up and find that some have already
pioneered the pathway
of transition.
*This symposium on Cultural Evangelicalism was organized by
Consulting Editor
C. Eugene Walker, Department of Psychology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas.