It certainly is not my claim that my view of evangelical history is the correct one. That is as dubious as the claim that ones Christianity is the correct one. Interpretation is always a big component of any telling of history as it is in the function of human memory. It is about deciding what meaning and lessons we take from the events in history. To be sure I am somewhat biased toward the experiential “flavor” as you call it from Finney, seeing much less value in the contributions of Wesley, Whitfield, and Edwards, which in my mind have more to do with early American Christianity and its various denominations. Since Quakerism is one of my favorite historical religions, I am particularly interested in the religious ideals which drew them into the evangelical movement, and far less interested in what I choose to see as the southern Baptist hijacking of the movement and its involvement in politics.
It is honestly and frankly focused on what I see of value in the evangelical movement and seeking to downplay the parts of the movement which I simply wish didn’t exist at all.
BUT that doesn’t mean I am without interest in different interpretations and understandings of this history which I have to admit shines light on things which I tend to ignore. Which is why the video above held my attention to the end. It is always good to know all of the facts.
Indeed, that is also a big part of my own motivation for focusing on the particular sector of the evangelical movement which I like and looking for reasons to discount the sectors which I hope to see the end of as soon as possible.
Yes… it is good to resist the human tendency to lump all of the things we dislike together.
LOL Are you absolutely sure that was a typo. LOL