Lost in the Middle? --- Review
LOST IN THE MIDDLE? Claiming an Inclusive Faith for Christians Who Are Both Liberal and Evangelical. By Wesley J. Wildman and Stephen Chapin Garner. Herndon, VA: Alban Institute, 2009. xxi + 212 pp.
We’ve been told that walking in the middle of the road is dangerous. You’re liable to get run-over. Then there’s that famous biblical text that talks about being lukewarm. Be hot or cold, but don’t be lukewarm; that is, don’t live in the middle (Rev. 3:15-16). The fact is, most of us live somewhere in the middle. Look at the political surveys – even as the political parties become more and more polarized, a growing number of Americans have staked out a place in the middle, which we call “Independents.” They’ve moved there because they’re tired of the partisanship that paralyzes the political system. They want something different, but they don’t know where to find it.
What is true in the political/cultural realm is also true of the religious realm. It might be dangerous living in the middle, but a large majority of American Christians have had enough of the polarized and politically-charged elements of religious life. They’re in no more of a mood for a religious left than a religious right. They want a religious life that is spiritually rooted and that has some depth to it, but without a narrow vision of reality. In other words, we want some ambiguity.
Lost in the Middle?, a book by Wesley Wildman, Methodist professor of theology and ethics, and Stephen Chapin Garner, a United Church of Christ pastor, attempts to stake that middle ground. The authors, both coming out of what is traditionally called Mainline Protestantism (a term that has lost much of its cogency over the past four decades), argue for a “liberal-evangelicalism.” The term may seem oxymoronic. Evangelical has become, in common parlance, a synonym for conservative, but as the authors note, historically it has a much broader dimension.
In order for the authors to lay out their vision of a moderate, liberal, evangelical, Protestantism, they attempt to define the poles on either side. As a reader, I must confess that I found this part of the book confusing, and at times unhelpful. In their effort to create a broad coalition, they at times define the opposing positions too narrowly. On one hand you have a fairly militant, politically charged, narrow conservative fundamentalism. On the other side you have a secular liberalism that has essentially dropped Jesus from the map. Now, I realize that these caricatures have an element of truth to them, but they may have drawn the portraits a bit too narrowly. That said, the message is important – people want something different. They want a spiritually vibrant, and yet intellectually stimulating faith tradition. They want a faith that is engaged in transforming the world, even as it engages the world. They want to go to church to worship, learn, grow, serve, without hearing a constant politically-charged harangue.
The principles that they lay out include embracing a “radical inclusivity,” one that includes what the authors call “core message pluralism.” They note that it is much easier to gather around a narrow band of ideology, whether left or right in origin. Unity is easier to experience, when we are all of one mind. But moderate Christianity requires that we live with and even embrace strongly this “core message pluralism.” Unfortunately, pluralism complicates things and doesn’t provide a social glue, which they suggest is the “secret to evangelical Christianity’s attractiveness” (p. 138). They note that the church needs a compelling message, one that is transformative. It has to be both bold and prophetic. Evangelicals have been known for their ability to define the gospel in bold and strong terms. Unfortunately they often do so in very exclusive and off-putting ways. Liberals on the other hand, have been known for providing a more welcoming and inclusive place to be. This leads the authors to conclude that a healthy Christianity requires both the evangelical and the liberal elements. It’s not simply that we stand up and celebrate our diversity, claiming that we really don’t believe anything, but we love everyone. Instead, we’re called to embrace a religious life that provides a “socially realistic way that creates excitement and changes lives without committing the social sins of suppressing diversity and boring people witless. It needs to be a spiritually vital way that rejects the dual sins of avoiding spiritual depth through compassionate social outreach and neglecting the world in the name of individualistic salvation” (p. 139).
The vision that they present is both Christ-centered and inclusive. It is spiritually-rooted and practical. It’s committed to exploring, hearing, responding to the Bible, but it is open to the leadings of a historically and critically engaged scholarship. It places practice over doctrinal purity. It is bound together by love. While embracing diversity, it also recognizes the limits of diversity. It’s not that moderates set firm boundaries, but there are limits nonetheless. On the right, an appreciation for biblical authority isn’t defined by biblical literalism. Inerrancy isn’t defining. On the other end of the spectrum, inclusion doesn’t mean jettisoning either the Bible or the centrality of Jesus. Literalists are welcome, as are those who would make Jesus optional, but they won’t define the nature of Christian worship or service. For some, even many, this will be uncomfortable, and thus people will self-select out.
Moderate Protestantism has a long history. It is rooted in American religious life. When mainline Protestantism was the dominant form, it was likely the dominant voice, one that was able to draw together conservative and liberal around a central core of beliefs. Historical criticism, Darwin, political pluralism, and other movements have splintered the coalitions of old. But, the witness remains present and inviting. The key is understanding the roots of both evangelicalism and liberalism. One is an embrace of the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of a vital and biblically rooted faith, the other is an embrace of freedom, of intellectual curiosity, and a more internal rather externally derived authority. The hope for the future of the church will be found in a coming together of these traditions, a reunion that embraces the best of both movements – something the authors call liberal evangelicalism. In order for them to claim this identity, however, they must reclaim the word evangelicalism, which has become synonymous with conservative. This link is, according to the authors, the result of an “aggressive semantic theft” (p. 186). Moderates, or better liberal evangelicals, need to rediscover their heritage, which requires exploring our history as Protestants, so that we might learn again about Horace Bushnell, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Niebuhr brothers, or Harry Emerson Fosdick, all liberal evangelical heroes.
I will accept the authors’ suggestions of liberal-evangelical heroes, though I’d love to add my own. As I read the book I wondered where Jurgen Moltmann was, or Charles Augustus Briggs, both of whom stand out in my mind as progressives who embrace the tradition of faith and offer a compelling Christian message. Indeed, while they discuss neo-evangelicalism, they make only a passing reference to Fuller Seminary, which has been at the forefront of moderate and progressive evangelicalism for some time. And, while the emerging movement is mentioned, we’re not told much about this movement, which is, at least in some of its forms, very much in the middle. The other movement that is mentioned but not explored in any depth is the Christian Practices movement that is linked to Diana Butler Bass and Dorothy Bass.
One of the more surprising entrees in the discussion of “liberal-evangelical” heroes was John Shelby Spong. When I saw his name, I wondered how he feel being placed in the moderate or liberal-evangelical camp, for if he’s part of the middle group, then surely we must add in Marcus Borg, who is much more confessional than Spong.
This isn’t a perfect book. At times I found it absolutely frustrating. At the same time, I think that the authors are on to something. They’ve put their finger on the pulse of the church, and they’ve recognized that we’re tired of culture wars and narrow agendas, that faith rather than politics needs to define who we are, and Jesus is a nonnegotiable when it comes to the Christian faith. We don’t have to agree on all the details, but Jesus isn’t an option that we can do without. The Spiritual but not religious crowd may be getting all the attention, but apparently there are still many who long for a bit more definition. Wildman and Garner seek to speak for them (us).
We’ve been told that walking in the middle of the road is dangerous. You’re liable to get run-over. Then there’s that famous biblical text that talks about being lukewarm. Be hot or cold, but don’t be lukewarm; that is, don’t live in the middle (Rev. 3:15-16). The fact is, most of us live somewhere in the middle. Look at the political surveys – even as the political parties become more and more polarized, a growing number of Americans have staked out a place in the middle, which we call “Independents.” They’ve moved there because they’re tired of the partisanship that paralyzes the political system. They want something different, but they don’t know where to find it.
What is true in the political/cultural realm is also true of the religious realm. It might be dangerous living in the middle, but a large majority of American Christians have had enough of the polarized and politically-charged elements of religious life. They’re in no more of a mood for a religious left than a religious right. They want a religious life that is spiritually rooted and that has some depth to it, but without a narrow vision of reality. In other words, we want some ambiguity.
Lost in the Middle?, a book by Wesley Wildman, Methodist professor of theology and ethics, and Stephen Chapin Garner, a United Church of Christ pastor, attempts to stake that middle ground. The authors, both coming out of what is traditionally called Mainline Protestantism (a term that has lost much of its cogency over the past four decades), argue for a “liberal-evangelicalism.” The term may seem oxymoronic. Evangelical has become, in common parlance, a synonym for conservative, but as the authors note, historically it has a much broader dimension.
In order for the authors to lay out their vision of a moderate, liberal, evangelical, Protestantism, they attempt to define the poles on either side. As a reader, I must confess that I found this part of the book confusing, and at times unhelpful. In their effort to create a broad coalition, they at times define the opposing positions too narrowly. On one hand you have a fairly militant, politically charged, narrow conservative fundamentalism. On the other side you have a secular liberalism that has essentially dropped Jesus from the map. Now, I realize that these caricatures have an element of truth to them, but they may have drawn the portraits a bit too narrowly. That said, the message is important – people want something different. They want a spiritually vibrant, and yet intellectually stimulating faith tradition. They want a faith that is engaged in transforming the world, even as it engages the world. They want to go to church to worship, learn, grow, serve, without hearing a constant politically-charged harangue.
The principles that they lay out include embracing a “radical inclusivity,” one that includes what the authors call “core message pluralism.” They note that it is much easier to gather around a narrow band of ideology, whether left or right in origin. Unity is easier to experience, when we are all of one mind. But moderate Christianity requires that we live with and even embrace strongly this “core message pluralism.” Unfortunately, pluralism complicates things and doesn’t provide a social glue, which they suggest is the “secret to evangelical Christianity’s attractiveness” (p. 138). They note that the church needs a compelling message, one that is transformative. It has to be both bold and prophetic. Evangelicals have been known for their ability to define the gospel in bold and strong terms. Unfortunately they often do so in very exclusive and off-putting ways. Liberals on the other hand, have been known for providing a more welcoming and inclusive place to be. This leads the authors to conclude that a healthy Christianity requires both the evangelical and the liberal elements. It’s not simply that we stand up and celebrate our diversity, claiming that we really don’t believe anything, but we love everyone. Instead, we’re called to embrace a religious life that provides a “socially realistic way that creates excitement and changes lives without committing the social sins of suppressing diversity and boring people witless. It needs to be a spiritually vital way that rejects the dual sins of avoiding spiritual depth through compassionate social outreach and neglecting the world in the name of individualistic salvation” (p. 139).
The vision that they present is both Christ-centered and inclusive. It is spiritually-rooted and practical. It’s committed to exploring, hearing, responding to the Bible, but it is open to the leadings of a historically and critically engaged scholarship. It places practice over doctrinal purity. It is bound together by love. While embracing diversity, it also recognizes the limits of diversity. It’s not that moderates set firm boundaries, but there are limits nonetheless. On the right, an appreciation for biblical authority isn’t defined by biblical literalism. Inerrancy isn’t defining. On the other end of the spectrum, inclusion doesn’t mean jettisoning either the Bible or the centrality of Jesus. Literalists are welcome, as are those who would make Jesus optional, but they won’t define the nature of Christian worship or service. For some, even many, this will be uncomfortable, and thus people will self-select out.
Moderate Protestantism has a long history. It is rooted in American religious life. When mainline Protestantism was the dominant form, it was likely the dominant voice, one that was able to draw together conservative and liberal around a central core of beliefs. Historical criticism, Darwin, political pluralism, and other movements have splintered the coalitions of old. But, the witness remains present and inviting. The key is understanding the roots of both evangelicalism and liberalism. One is an embrace of the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of a vital and biblically rooted faith, the other is an embrace of freedom, of intellectual curiosity, and a more internal rather externally derived authority. The hope for the future of the church will be found in a coming together of these traditions, a reunion that embraces the best of both movements – something the authors call liberal evangelicalism. In order for them to claim this identity, however, they must reclaim the word evangelicalism, which has become synonymous with conservative. This link is, according to the authors, the result of an “aggressive semantic theft” (p. 186). Moderates, or better liberal evangelicals, need to rediscover their heritage, which requires exploring our history as Protestants, so that we might learn again about Horace Bushnell, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Niebuhr brothers, or Harry Emerson Fosdick, all liberal evangelical heroes.
I will accept the authors’ suggestions of liberal-evangelical heroes, though I’d love to add my own. As I read the book I wondered where Jurgen Moltmann was, or Charles Augustus Briggs, both of whom stand out in my mind as progressives who embrace the tradition of faith and offer a compelling Christian message. Indeed, while they discuss neo-evangelicalism, they make only a passing reference to Fuller Seminary, which has been at the forefront of moderate and progressive evangelicalism for some time. And, while the emerging movement is mentioned, we’re not told much about this movement, which is, at least in some of its forms, very much in the middle. The other movement that is mentioned but not explored in any depth is the Christian Practices movement that is linked to Diana Butler Bass and Dorothy Bass.
One of the more surprising entrees in the discussion of “liberal-evangelical” heroes was John Shelby Spong. When I saw his name, I wondered how he feel being placed in the moderate or liberal-evangelical camp, for if he’s part of the middle group, then surely we must add in Marcus Borg, who is much more confessional than Spong.
This isn’t a perfect book. At times I found it absolutely frustrating. At the same time, I think that the authors are on to something. They’ve put their finger on the pulse of the church, and they’ve recognized that we’re tired of culture wars and narrow agendas, that faith rather than politics needs to define who we are, and Jesus is a nonnegotiable when it comes to the Christian faith. We don’t have to agree on all the details, but Jesus isn’t an option that we can do without. The Spiritual but not religious crowd may be getting all the attention, but apparently there are still many who long for a bit more definition. Wildman and Garner seek to speak for them (us).
Comments
This shift inopinion will surely effect choices and result in fewer terminations. More dignity.
Maybe a few of those new gay couples would like to adopt the unwanted.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_poll
David Mc
Thanks for reviewing this book. As one of the authors, I am grateful that you found something of value in it.
My coauthor Chapin Garner and I have often tried to imagine the perfect book for engaging moderate Christians with both liberal and evangelical instincts. I doubt that there is such a book. If there is, it certainly would not as demanding as Lost is.
As a philosopher-theologian who usually publishes rather technical books that arc across disciplines and religious traditions, my approach to these topics was always going to be rather odd relative to the interests of most people in our target demographic. If it hadn’t been for Chapin, who tries hard to compensate for my limitations as a communicator, I am sure my complex ways of thinking would have made the book much harder to understand. As it is, though, the book is still challenging, reflecting many disciplinary perspectives and asking a lot of readers.
That expresses the distinctive contribution we wanted to make with Lost. There are a lot of inspirational books our there, many of them reviewed on www.LiberalEvangelical.org. We wanted to do something different: to show how basic knowledge of demographics, sociology, political theory, and history can go a long way to explaining the meaning of being a moderate. This basic knowledge can help moderates get oriented to their situation and claim a heritage that is too often drowned out by the noise of more extreme positions.
Now, some moderate Christians are interested in that approach and some are not. I don’t know the breakdown but I’d expect that most moderate Christians, like most people generally, would prefer to acquire new insights and new ways of acting through inspiring stories rather than through analysis of ideas. For that reason our target audience is a subset of moderate Christians: the ministers, seminary students, and lay leaders for whom conceptual analysis is enjoyable and productive.
I found this picture of our audience liberating when we were writing the book. It helped me say what I thought was important without having to worry too much about people who prefer inspiring stories to analysis of ideas.
The biggest question most people seem to have after reading Lost is: What is the gospel message of a radically inclusive, Christ-centered form of moderate Christianity that acknowledges core-message pluralism in the Bible and in the Christian theological and liturgical traditions? Close behind are other questions. How can radically inclusive, Christ-centered congregations hold together despite their diversity? And how do moderate Christians of the liberal-evangelical kind conceive of personal and social ethics?
We think these are tough questions. It is all too easy to avoid them and many authors do. So our follow-up book, Found in the Middle!, tries to answer them directly. By focusing on theology, ecclesiology, and ethics, Found fleshes out the meaning of being a radically inclusive, Christ-centered Christian who takes the Bible serious but not always literally.
About the caricatures of liberals and evangelicals that you mention in your review… The hard truth is that liberals make fun of evangelicals and vice versa, and they do so in terms of these caricatures. We wanted to name these caricatures as clearly as we could in order to avoid a kind of politically correct politeness that refuses to face the true ugliness of relations between the ideological extremes in our churches.
Here again, this approach does not suit everyone. Some prefer politeness in all situations and get uncomfortable when people publicly point out rudeness. I guess we are blunter than that. We want to tell the unvarnished truth about how unkind we often are to one another. We hope that unmasking caricatures can help people see differently, even if it also makes them momentarily uncomfortable.
Thanks again for investing time with our book.
Wesley J. Wildman
Boston University
www.LiberalEvangelical.org
Thank you for your response to the review. On the issues raised about the caricatures, I guess I found them a bit too stark, by which I mean that they seem so polarizing that very few would identify themselves in that pocket.
I do appreciate the book, and Richard says he's sending me the follow up book, which I look forward to reading -- and engaging.