I Kissed Evangelicalism Goodbye: My Thoughts on Joshua Harris' Apostasy

Every once in a while, when he was alive, my dad would watch Abbot and Costello. Bud Abbott was the straight man, and Lou Costello the comic, or "banana man." This made up what is called a comic duo, where one man sets up, or "feeds," another in an act. It was all entertaining because one would identify with Bud Abbott as a rational man, and then get hit by the humor of the irrational funny man, as though the two were at odds with one another. In reality, they were both working together, one to set up the other, and to draw the audience in.

I remember sitting in the lounge of my dorm at Moody with some fellow classmates and hearing one of them talk about his belief that Evangelicalism was dying out. I said to him, "Really, I view Evangelicalism as orthodox Christianity." He said, rather astonished, "Really?"

Over the years, I came to realize why he was so astonished, and just how ignorant my belief was. That's because my true education began, not at Moody, but at Trinity and Westminster, where I started to learn the Bible and Christian theology at an advanced level. This allowed me to begin to see how much modern Evangelicalism was a superficial counterfeit of orthodox Christianity, not the champion of it that it had made itself out to be.

There are, of course, elements of orthodox Christianity within Evangelicalism, which is why it had become such a convincing counterfeit. It originally held up the Bible as the infallible Word of God, affirmed core Christian doctrines like the Trinity and justification by faith, etc.

However, that is all that it affirmed. There was never a fullness to its orthodoxy, a healthy weight on its bones. It always somewhat resembled an anorexic teenager, just enough skin on it to pass as living, but largely malnutritioned and dying.

What I realized over the years is that Evangelicalism is a part of a larger American religion that assumes all sorts of Enlightement and Post-Enlightment ideas in its view of knowledge, God, experience, sexuality, etc. In fact, what I came to realize at a certain point was that it was simply a more conservative form of the liberal theology that it pretended, and still pretends, to fight against.

I often use the term "Americanity" to describe the cult of American "christianity" that includes the flavors of liberalism, fundamentalism, evangelicalism, emergings, etc.; but in reality, they are all the same slurpee with different food coloring.

This is largely due to the fact that, at the end of the day, they all get their ideas from the same source, the self.

Oh, I know, Evangelicalism says it gets its ideas from the Bible, but does it really? The most important practice to grow as a Christian in Evangelicalism is to study your own Bible. Where is this concept in Scripture? The most important practice that leads to growth in Scripture is to set yourself under the discipleship of an apostolic church that teaches the Bible (Eph 4). That's quite a difference. It also means that one is connected to the Christianity that has been taught and learned for 2000 years before.

What that means is that one is constantly reforming, questioning one's secular culture and religious traditions, not by the standard of his Evangelical cult or the wider consensus of American culture, but by the Word of God as it has been understood throughout history and is exegeted in the community of the Holy Spirit that is the church. It is this measuring stick that gives a framework for thinking about any issue.

But Evangelicalism, at the very first, was primarily concerned for how the world around it perceived it. It wanted to be more respected by the larger culture. It argued that Christians should be more involved secular academics, which coupled with the desire to be accepted, resulted in the apostasy of many an academic Christian who soon realized that acceptance by the secular academy meant abandonment of Christian orthodoxy, not just an adoption of critical methods of study. It was meant to be less divisive over secondary issues, a designation it gave to anything outside of the skeleton of what it considered orthodox.

The effect that this had was that Evangelicals reduced what was required of one to believe he was a Christian. Some stayed on an inerrant Bible and the Trinity. Some went so far as to simply believe that one had to believe in Jesus in some way or another. Others believed that one needed only affirm that one is saved by grace. Whatever the boundary marker, it was so narrow a path that one could hardly blame the weary traveler from falling off of it.

And therein lies the problem of Evangelicalism. It isn't a robust worldview. It doesn't provide anyone a framework for thinking through issues and living them out in the Christian life. It's designed specifically as a blanket to be placed over whatever worldview one already has. It's much like the Roman Empire, desiring to grow bigger by assuming the cultures of everything in its path to the point where there is nothing distinctive about the Empire from the world before it was conquered by it. It certainly obtained for Evangelicalism bigger buildings and masses of people, but that's only because there was nothing to offend anyone anymore. People could just believe whatever they wished without the threat of walking outside the faith. After all, they still believe in the Trinity even though their ethics all came from superficial music, movies, newsmedia,  school, etc.

Since you can believe all sorts of things, there isn't much left to distinguish Evangelicalism from any other American belief system. Even Hindus and Muslims believe in Jesus in some way. Even Roman Catholics and EO's believe in the Trinity (which is why many Evangelicals think they're just another denominational option for them). Every religion on the planet has an idea of grace.

What does all of this have to do with the apostasy of Joshua Harris? His apostasy, and the statements he makes in his declaration, are a further reminder that Evangelicals are more influenced by their culture than they would like to admit.

For instance, he states that his previous views, i.e., the ones that were closer to orthodox Christianity, were "bigoted." This is an odd assessement from someone who no longer has a transcedent measuring stick. Where did he get the idea that such was bigotry? Oh yes. Popular opinion among the unbelieving masses. He also states that he is in a state of deconstruction; but how exactly would one know one's trajectory of thought without a standard? Oh yes, the standard is culture. One is moving toward culture and further away from an orthdox Christian worldview.

My point is that Harris already had a framework in place that eventually convinced him that orthodox Christianity was false, even while truly believing certain doctrines and practices that belonged to orthodox Christianity. I see this in every apostate that Evangelicalism produces. It is a system bereft of understanding.

I say this because anyone who thinks long and hard about it, anyone who is actually educated in the matter, would not come out acting like he knew a better way. The only options are Christianity or radical skepticism to the point that one cannot identify what is bigoted, what is right, what is harmful, etc.

But Harris comes out of Evangelicalism bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, knowing that everything is going to be alright, that he should apologize to unbelievers because the views he critiqued in the past are morally valid after all, and that his former views were wrong. How exactly does he know any of this? Because the real religious authority for the Evangelical is not the Bible or the historical church, or even his modern local church. It is culture. Evangelicalism, because it does not present the whole counsel of God as vital to its members, does not teach it, and now does not know it, ends up just being the straight man setting up the comic of secular culture. Only the punch line isn't all that funny. It leads to destruction, to divorce, to hopelessness, and to ruined lives that are convinced they are happy because they were living in some sort of legalism rather than in a loving relationship toward God that sought the truth and good in everything from the sources God commanded they be sought.

In essence, Evangelicalism is a rebellious movement form the get go. It is not a surprise that what is begun in apostasy ends in apostasy. So I am an apostate too. I apostasized from the cult of Evangelicalism. I kissed it goodbye. But I did not give up one chair in the cult meeting just to sit down in another as Harris did. By adopting genuine Christianity as a comprehensive worldview obtained from the whole counsel of God, I walked out of the building altogether.