Why I Am Not An Evangelical

I am struck with the same thing every time I return to Toccoa Falls College. I give them the benefit of the doubt when I am away, but I always foolishly get struck by it in full force when I come back.
They are extremely Evangelical, and I am not.
What does that mean? It means that my faith journey has taken me to a place where I am absolutely not of the Protestant, Evangelical, Modern, Western mode of existing.
Protestants are characterized by holding to the orthodox tenants of faith and to the teachings of the Reformation, which occurred when they broke off from the Catholic Church. The issue here is not orthodoxy, so let's move to the Reformation Solas, their self-created summation of their view. I'll attempt to save my worst disagreements for last.

Soli Deo gloria - Though originally intended to slam Catholic revering of saints, I like the premise. All glory is truly God's glory, and He is the ultimate reality, the one which humanity and all of the universe pales in comparison too. All glory is due to Him alone. Of course, I don't like the premise that He seeks glory, but that is not necessarily included in this.

Solus Christus - Not a lot to say here really. Basically means that the only mediator between God and man is Christ, that Salvation is available through him alone. Since Christ is God, it makes sense. Originally meant to oppose Roman Catholic sacerdotalism, which meant that Sacramental grace was only exercised through priests. Again, I agree that humanity comes to God because He comes to us, and we don't need to be part of the true Church to do so.

Sola gratia - Here we run into some problems. "Grace alone" asserts that unification with God is accomplished solely by His grace. Sounds good on the surface, but if that were so, would we not all dwell in His Kingdom forever, because He wishes all to be saved? Does God pick and choose? Negative to that one. Sure, we are saved and welcomed into God's Kingdom because of His grace, but it's not like we say a prayer and are in. We also don't have to continually do works and perfectly avoid sin to be saved, because that's impossible, and God obviously wishes for us to dwell with Him, not away from Him in disobedience. I'd say that it is not grace alone that saves us, but love alone. Accepting of God's love, and returning of it in the pale and incomplete way we can. Obedience of the heart rather than actions, which accounts for the change in existence that is the hallmark of our presence in the Kingdom of God. Those that are saved are saved because of God's love for them, and because of their love for God. They dwell with God now, and so they will forever.

Sola fide - By faith alone. Again, sounds good on the surface, but becomes problematic when we consider the implications. Luther's intent was to refute the Catholic Church's justification partially by works, saying that by faith the sinner is saved, and from that comes good works. The Catholic Church, in turn, says that faith and good works yield justification, putting justification down the timeline to eternity and the Last Judgment. The dispute here is where salvation occurs, not really what saves. If it occurs where the Catholics say it does (which I think makes more sense considering Christians continue to act like screw-ups), then of course we are saved by a combination, since faith without works is dead. I'd revise this one from faith alone to existence alone. If we exist in the Kingdom of God now, then faith and works flow directly out of it, and our eternal destiny, or Salvation, will occur in His eternal Kingdom.

Sola scriptura - This is where the real disagreement begins folks. Sola fide and Sola gratia are somewhat disagreements based on technicality, but "Scripture alone" is the real issue for me. The reformation asserted not only the inspiration of Scripture, but its' inerrancy, infallibility, perspicuity, and its' self-interpreting "alive" nature. This culminates in the term "Word of God." In my opinion, this is deification of a book, and idolatry. I have no doubt that a lot of Protestants do not do this. It is not my wish to attack anyone that calls themselves a Protestant as an idolater. However, there are exceptions when it comes to the more extreme Protestants, and this betrays a fundamental flaw in the assertion of the Bible as the "Word of God." It becomes alive and self-interpreting to any time and any place, and so we become radically devoted to it, spouting Scripture for anything and everything. I did it, and I exist in direct opposition to that tendency. The fact that Protestants, the ones that hold to this, are divided into thousands of denominations makes me question the validity of the Scriptures' self-interpreting perspicuity, and the fact that I can't even make a lot of it out without education in the culture of its' time tells me that the Bible does not stand alone.

My assertion is that it's possible for Christianity to stand on its' own without being "Biblical," by understanding itself historically and culturally, and by living by the words of Jesus in the inspired Scriptures: to exist in the nature of love, which is the nature of God. Sure, what Jesus said is Biblical in that it is contained in the Bible. It's still just a book, recording Jesus' inspired words. God is the one we worship, and the Bible is a history of and springboard into that faith.
I am not Protestant because I am not of the Reformation, and I also don't share their method of thinking, though I tend to on the surface. I am not Catholic or Orthodox because I can't agree that an institution is the one true catholic and apostolic Church, and I can't agree with their thinking either. I'll elaborate on thinking methodology later in this post, as it is what is truly at the heart of this composition.

So, we've covered Protestantism, let's move to Evangelicalism. Evangelicals are Protestants that have constructed a theology that places evangelism at the center of their goal, their Mission being to communicate their faith, this massive structure of beliefs, to all who they can convince, and then fit them into their religion so they can attain "salvation." While I have no doubt that a lot of converts to Christianity saved with this method know and follow God, I question its' effectiveness and its' overall correctness.
Evangelicals, for the most part, are Protestants who believe that the highest calling of the believer is evangelism, and heavily emphasize Heaven and Hell as a result. The way they bring people to God is through bringing them down (making them realize they are sinful) and then scaring them to God (tell them they're going to Hell and need God). As such, people say the Sinner's Prayer or something similar in order to attain this Salvation, which effectively makes them good with God. Oh yeah, and uh...discipleship.
Was Salvation ever intended to be this? Are we supposed to come to God because it is mutually beneficial, and we won't burn in a place of torment for eternity? That seems like a relationship of convenience, and explains why there is no real discipleship among Evangelicalism quite well. I constantly hear about how we need to care about people after they get saved and help them, but people do it out of obligation from the community. So the solution to this problem of a lack of community and discipleship becomes to create a subculture that does these things, because we are supposed to "obey God." Which only works because we are pressured to do it rather than it coming from who we are, in most cases.
Obviously, Evangelicalism doesn't seem to work very well, unless the goal is simply to convert people to the "right religion." But what if there is not a right religion? What if even our orthodox points don't capture all of who God is and all of what His calling is? Obviously, since God is infinite and calls us to a life beyond imagination, they can not. So it seems that even typical evangelism goes out the window.
What if the real issue isn't Heaven and Hell, but who we are as humans? What if humanity was simply made to exist in communion with God, and to not do so is what Hell really is? What if this relationship is not just a sinner's prayer that puts in "right standing" with God, but is a way of altering our own existence in a way that we become aware of God, and we interact with Him daily? His Furious Love can not be run from, it can only be rejected or accepted, a process which alters our consciousness.
I have no desire to communicate the entirety of my beliefs to anyone. I don't even have them all right, why should I try to convince other people of their validity or truth? I'd end up participating in foolishness like trying to convince myself of their truth while I am trying to convince others of it, something that I ironically find Evangelicals doing, panicking if I question their beliefs because their structure is falling, desperately trying to keep it standing.
What I do want to communicate though, is why I live how I do, and why I have hope. I have hope not in what I know, but in Who I know, and Who knows and loves me. His call is to love others as I love myself, and He's shown me how to love myself as well.
I fail at loving a lot, but I am learning.
To love others is to provide to them what they need. What do people need? They were created to need many things. God is one of them, as are food, provisions, shelter, love, and community. In fact, to provide for someone else is to show them the God that calls us to be like Him. That's evangelism.
Theological disagreements can come later, when they can be participated in in love and community. There is a place for constructing beliefs and defending them to others, but unfortunately Evangelicals seem to have let it inundate the entirety of their faith. They are not to blame, because the Evangelical movement came out of a reaction to Classical Liberalism, which tended to strip Christianity of its' beliefs. Indeed, if people believe something, they must fight for it if need be. If love is at the center of our disagreements as our motivation, it may not necessarily turn out right, but we can continue to have our goal be to show others our hope rather than our theology, and discuss beliefs secondarily.
"In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things unity."
So, I am not an Evangelical because I do not fit into a subculture of Christianity that wishes to take its' system of values, call them Christian, and make that the litmus test for anyone that claims to be one. My system of beliefs are not what defines my faith, and I have no desire to make other people believe what I do, especially not with Heaven and Hell as my motivation.
evangelical fervor? Sure, I'd love to tell people the reason why I live how I do. But not Evangelical fervor, because it makes no sense for me to convince people of things I don't even believe myself.
Even though I don't share their views, my real objection to Evangelicalism and Protestantism isn't that they're horrible and wrong systems, it's that they've become lost in BEING a system, and are hence stagnant. The real culprit here becomes what I will call Modernity.

Modernity is present in the thinking of the Reformation, and rightfully so since it was a progression from the Medieval beliefs of the Church of the day. But is that appropriate today, or do we need to continue to progress?
I am not going to try to speak for what is appropriate for the entirety of the world, because there are some who must follow their Western thinking into a Modernist type faith, and that's perfectly fine. If I can admit that my beliefs don't have the whole picture and I fall into corruption all the time and am still a part of God's Kingdom, then I can certainly extend that same generosity to all who share my faith or my hunger for God. I can only speak of myself.
What is completely inappropriate for me is a Modern faith in God and Christ my Lord. Though I can think systematically, it limits me if I hold to it. There are some things I can't explain, and there are some things I have found out about God by interacting with Him and by Him teaching me that are nowhere in the Bible. Paradox is a regular thing for me, and I live in tension where most Evangelicals would rather try to determine which system is "Biblical."
To be blunt, I don't care what is Biblical, because the Bible is a historical document that was inspired by God in the same way He continues to inspire believers today. Sure, God's Character is there, and that's what I care about. The rest of it is history or culture, which I care about for its' own sake, not because I want to pattern my life after Paul's Theology.
Naturally, I don't say most of this often, because it's really offensive to the Modernist thinker, and it's much better to relate to them on their level (intellectual and logical thought, good things) than it is to try and tell them they're close-minded. Really, there are a lot of Evangelicals that are not. This is why I am making the effort to cease attacking Evangelicalism, despite how broken I feel it is. The Evangelicals I know that are seeking more than just finding verses to tell them what to do have become the exceptions, because they break away from one thing the Reformation is about: reductionistic thought. People today commonly say they don't "put God in a box," and this is what I'd like to think they're referring to, whether they are right or wrong about their own beliefs.

This all leads me to one point: we need to redefine what a Christian is.
A lot of people tell me that they can't call certain people that don't hold to certain beliefs a Christian, but they can't speak for their heart. While I understand this distinction, I find it close to pointless, because by saying someone isn't a Christian, you are inferring things about them, mainly that they don't follow the Savior that has saved them if their heart is existent in the Kingdom of God.
This is why I don't think the qualifications to be a Christian should be orthodoxy. I say that as a Christian holding to the five orthodox beliefs (with quibbles over what is meant by Inspiration of Scripture, so maybe 4.5).
Is it possible to believe the orthodox tenants and not be a Christian? Yes. A person can believe in the Trinity, the Deity and Humanity of Christ, the Atonement of Christ, the Resurrection, and the Inspiration of Scripture and not be a follower of Christ, simply by refusing to follow Christ in word or deed.
Let's not discount orthodoxy though. God has brought me closer to being a completely orthodox Christian than ever, and my beliefs are evidence of His work in my life. It may be that those beliefs are right for me and wrong for someone else, because I can speak for myself. But I'd like to think that Christians can at least agree on something, and orthodoxy seems to be it.
But for those that don't or those that struggle, isn't there some other indicator of a person following Christ?
Therein lies the rub: it is in their heart. It is an existential change that no one else can know for sure. We can have indicators of this change (and indeed, they should flow out of it), but those indicators flow out of people that are not orthodox in any sense of the word.
Kinda hard to systematize, isn't it? Kind hard to wrap your mind around and define what a Christian is by what we can test, isn't it? I surely can't do it, and so I refuse to even try. If we must be Postmodern to grow, let's be Postmodern. I know that's my path.
I understand the desire to determine who is a Christian, but honestly I think the reasons we give for knowing that (who to let into institutional churches, who gets a say in what Christianity is), are a little too reactionary. But for those that need to do it, I advise only love.
As for me, I've come to a point where I follow God to be a more complete human, not to be a better Christian. I don't care how good of a Christian I am, and I don't care who thinks I am one or not. I care whether I really love those around me. I care whether I can truly say that God's Character flows through my actions. I care about who Jesus was as the archetypical human, and trying to be more like that, because I believe it's a reflection of God. These beliefs need no defense, because they're part of who I am, and what God has done in the light I shall not undo in darkness.
Evangelism as defined by Evangelicals (communicating right belief and a book to others) does not interest me, because people are different, and the fact that all of our faiths are different is evidence of that. The difference is not the problem, the splitting and schisming and divisive nature is. What does interest me is recognizing the God that is there wherever I go, and bringing that into the light as best as I possibly can. That's real evangelism, and is scandalous to the Evangelical, who relies so heavily on the Bible.
I don't mean to be scandalous or to tell Evangelicals they're wrong constantly, but when I am inundated with a subculture that does not work for me, I'm going to come across that way. It doesn't mean that we can't relate, and it doesn't mean that my faith is better than yours'. It means I'm different from you in a fundamental way, and we should learn from each other.
If that revolutionizes Christianity, then it will be God doing it, not I.