In praise of Dysangelicalism

by Steve Neumann

[This is the first post by our new writer, Steve Neumann, aka Juno Walker. A short bio of Steve can be found on our Contributors page. Welcome aboard Steve!]

Dysangelicalism is an ugly word, but a beautiful concept. Let me explain, by way of a little background first.

I was born into born-again Christianity, aka Evangelicalism, and finally fully extricated myself from it in my mid-twenties. I came of age in the 1980s, during the heyday of the unholy marriage of Evangelicalism and Conservatism. If you don’t know what I mean by this “unholy marriage,” I encourage you to read a post by atheist blogger Libby Anne, entitled “The Merger: Evangelicalism and the GOP.” Anne briefly documents the mutually-corrupting cross-pollination that took place between American politics and religion following WWII. 

The term Dysangelicalism is my awkward coinage loosely based on Nietzsche’s analysis of Christianity in his book The Antichrist. There, Nietzsche employs a bit of liberal psychologizing of Jesus’ teachings (at one point he claims that there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross). But he shows particular vehemence toward the apostle Paul, calling him a dysangel, because he purportedly distorted Jesus’ original intent. Nietzsche claims that Jesus’ essential message was that the Kingdom of God was a state of mind and heart, and not an actual political, social or cultural institution to be realized in the near future — or the far future, for that matter. Nietzsche claimed that what Jesus taught was a “new way of life, not a new faith.”

The reason I bring this up is because it’s been reported that über-Evangelical Rick Warren, of The Purpose-Driven Life fame, is distressed by the fact that the term “evangelical” seems to have transformed into a pejorative political moniker. Welcome to the party, Rick; where have you been? Kidding aside, I welcome this development with open arms because it means, to me, that Christianity (at least of the American variety) is finally beginning to destroy itself from within, somewhat as Nietzsche predicted. Now, I’m not so naive as to believe that this signals a crushing death-blow to Christian hegemony in America. Rick Warren’s star seems to have dimmed in recent years, but he still wields influence in the Evangelical sphere. Nonetheless, this development adds weight to other significant trends in American Christendom.

For instance, we’ve all heard a lot about so-called “millennials,” members of Generation Y. We’ve heard that they are decidedly more liberal in their social attitudes than their parents, especially with regard to things like marriage equality and abortion, and there are many reasons typically put forth about why this is so. Most of my co-workers and friends are of this generation, and I find this to be generally true. But what is most encouraging to me is their repudiation of their parents’ narrow, bigoted approach to their faith. They certainly aren’t atheists, nor necessarily even “nones”; but they represent a progression toward what Nietzsche himself forlornly declared was nearly impossible in his time:

... To wed the bad conscience to all the unnatural inclinations, all those aspirations to the beyond, to that which runs counter to sense, instinct, nature, animal, in short all ideals hitherto, which are one and all hostile to life and ideals that slander the world. To whom should one turn today with such hopes and demands? (On the Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, Section 24)

In today’s parlance, we could say the goal should be to get people to associate all the bigotry of American Evangelicalism with what is to be scorned, ridiculed and repudiated. Instead of the pariah being the atheist who affirms the veracity of the theory of evolution and the reality of global climate change, for instance, it should be the Bible-believing, Bible-thumping bigot who is met with intransigent intellectual cleanliness, so to speak. Blatantly unfounded metaphysical assumptions, specious reasoning, quasi-journalistic anecdotes proffered as evidence (I’m looking at you, FoxNews), and all the casuistries of religious academics and think tanks like the Discovery Institute should be identified and combated with an unflagging severity.

Now, contra ideological allies like PZ Myers and others at controversial but nonetheless important outlets like Freethought Blogs, who generally engage in ridicule of individual religious believers and are attempting to turn Atheism into a full-fledged worldview (think A+) to compete with faith-based religion, I don’t believe that scathing ridicule of individuals is the best way to change hearts and minds and, ultimately, culture. (Truth be told, I do find it difficult to refrain from ridiculing the Michelle Bachmanns, Rick Santorums, and Pat Robertsons of the world; but in my day to day interactions with religious friends, family and co-workers, I try to limit my attacks to the content of their beliefs and the evidence and arguments they provide in defense of them. Though even then, it’s hard for me not to draw conclusions about their character, given what some of them believe about the world.)

So I praise the rise of Dysangelicalism. I welcome and encourage the instincts of millennials who renounce the faith of their parents and have the courage to strike out on their own paths, however disparate and inchoate they may be, and even if I’d rather have them ultimately embrace a completely naturalistic worldview. Though I suppose the project of changing hearts and minds is a marathon and not a sprint.

And if you have a more resonant term than “Dysangelicalism”, I’d love to hear it!