Bad and Good Evangelicalism

Under James McGrath's recent post, Self-Critical Faith, an evangelical commenter named Lex Fear reminded me of what irks me about evangelicalism, or at least certain prominent strands of it. I'll put parts of the quote in italics, then my response in normal print.

I have been following the little spat you have been having with Triablogue for a while now, but I'm failing to understand why they irk you so?

Here's what I see as the sub-text: "McGrath, you're obviously irked and angry about these fundamentalists on Triablogue, so that shows you're insecure about your liberal beliefs. Your anger and defensiveness prove that we're right and you're wrong!"

I've had to put up with this garbage in my own experiences with evangelicalism. You just can't win against that type of "reasoning"! You agree with the evangelical, and he concludes that you think he's right. You disagree with the evangelical, and he concludes that you think he's right but don't want to admit it. An evangelical gets angry, and that's a sign that he's zealous for God and righteously indignant. A non-believer gets angry, and that's a sign that he's insecure about his unbelief and knows deep down that the evangelical speaks the truth. How can you win against that? I'd like to think that this sort of view was limited to the evangelical small group I was in several years ago, but I've encountered it so often within evangelicalism that I've concluded it is a big part of that particular mindset.

It does occur to me now that you are far from being a Christian--and this is not from anything that Triablogue has written, though they called it first. It is from your own testimony. It occurs to me you have more in common with the gnostics, or possibly Buddhism...But the thing which finally led me to this conclusion, was the fact that in proving your own faith, you continually reference back to your early conversion experience and offer nothing else to support your belief in a god. Any Christian should be able to tell you that a relationship with God through Christ, is one which continues past the point of conversion. If asked, a Christian should be able to tell you of the latest 'experience' they have had with God, what they feel God is revealing to them. What revelation they have recently had or what new thing they have learnt from study of the bible (no matter how scholastically)...Do you have a recent testimony? A revelation recently? Do you consider the great commission important, do you consider it at all? And do you have consider yourself to be filled with the Holy Spirit, or at least consider the Holy Spirit to be dwelling within you? It's not a negative, it's not a put-down of your beliefs, but it is something that a person who considers themselves to be intellectually honest should realise.

What legalism! So a person has to have a recent "God spoke to me" experience to have assurance of salvation? Tell me something, Lex Fear: How do you even know that it's God speaking to you, and not your own thoughts or projections?

Also, since we're on the topic of signs of salvation, here's a question: How come I don't see too much of the fruit of the Spirit among certain Christians? Love. Consideration. Meekness. Maybe even an ounce of humility.

Fortunately, not all evangelicals are like this. Plenty would say that they're in no position to judge Dr. McGrath or his relationship with God, or that we know we're saved on the basis of God's grace, not from having a profound "aha" experience every week. So I guess I end this post with a positive view towards a lot of evangelicals, even though I realize there are plenty of bad mindsets within that movement!