**1. Introduction**

This article explores the nature, causes, and possible resolution of the profound intellectual and spiritual darkness that has descended on Christian churches in North America. The term "Churches"1 in this case refers to the Evangelical and the Orthodox traditions, both of which play a direct role in the author's experience, both of which are the intended recipients of the study's conclusions and suggestions. However, today, these terms (Evangelical, Orthodox) are being used with such a wide range of meanings and applied to so many different actors that it has become difficult to know who the actual subjects of analysis are and who the intended readers might be. Therefore, before looking at the darkness itself, some attempt at defining these terms is in order.

The only way to effectively use these terms in the limited context of this essay is for the author to clearly articulate his use of some generally accepted lexical meaning and carefully indicate when there are deviations from that standard. Moreover, the author is asking the readers, no matter their own opinions, to understand and accept that the meanings derived from those standards are the meanings ascribed to these terms as they are used in this text. Absent such agreement, no reasonable dialog can take place since the readers would be free to read other meanings into the text leaving the author's statements open to misinterpretation and, perhaps, rendering them completely incomprehensible. In a very general way, what is being asked for here is similar to adherence to a correspondence theory of truth, according to which a statement, or in this case a term, has to possess direct correlation to some real state of affairs (it is either raining or it is not) or, in the case of a word, conformity to some generally accepted lexical standard such as a dictionary (the musical note A has a frequency of 440 Hz2; in an ordinary dialog, this, not something determined by individual opinion, is the meaning of the note A).

As defined here, the term "Eastern Orthodox" is relatively straightforward and stable. It has usually defined in terms of commitment to the affirmations of the Creeds and the doctrinal affirmations of the early Church the authority of the Scriptures and, to a lesser extent, certain rites and practices. To be Orthodox is to ascribe to and participate in the

**Citation:** Rommen, Edward. 2021. Remnant and the New Dark Age. *Religions* 12: 372. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel12060372


Academic Editors: Bradley Nassif and Tim Grass

Received: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 17 May 2021 Published: 21 May 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

dynamic flow of history that includes the initial deposit of Christ as it passes over into the reality of human life, first to the Apostles, then through them from generation to generation. This allows for relatively stable lexical content and an identity that is clearly rooted in doctrine, specific practices, commandments and moral precepts, and structures (hierarchy, Ecumenical Patriarch). In that sense, who can rightly call themselves Orthodox? Only someone who was baptized in the Orthodox Church according to its canons, affirms the Creed, and participates in the sacramental life of the Church3.

Defining the term "Evangelical" is a bit more challenging since the lexical content seems to be a bit more fluid. During my youth (ca. 1950–1975), I was an active member of a group that, in no uncertain terms, understood itself to be Evangelical. That identity was in large part rooted in its Scandinavian Free Church heritage as well as Continental European (German) pietism that preceded it. This legacy was an active and vital part of my fellow Evangelicals' self-awareness and did, in fact, help create a sense of Evangelical identity and belonging4. However, that identity was also shaped by a shared commitment to a very specific set of doctrines, doctrines that had been articulated, fought for, and died for, and that within very specific and definable historical contexts. Growing up, it seemed impossible to separate what we believed from the people, events, and circumstances that brought us to those convictions. I was clearly a descendant of Scandinavian Free Church pietists who tenaciously ascribed to a very clearly defined set of beliefs, in particular, to an unwavering commitment to the authority of the Scriptures.

However, the way that identity was defined began to change in the late 1970s as the ethno-/historical commitments and ties began to fade. By the time I was teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the 1980s, identifying myself as an Evangelical in those circles had almost nothing to do with my historical (Scandinavian) heritage and more to do with what I believed about biblical authority, the necessity of witness, the importance of keeping Christ's commandments. In other words, as consciousness of a shared history diminished and disappeared, Evangelical identity increasingly became a matter of a shared theology. The common history was, of course, not erased from memory, but it was no longer a primary factor in the self-understanding of (these particular) Evangelical believers.

That should have given us a clear and stable standard for defining ourselves. Believe these things and you are an Evangelical. Unfortunately, that transition from an identity rooted in common ecclesio-theological history to one generated almost exclusively by our doctrinal commitments did not go as smoothly as expected because the assumed theological consensus and the unity of behavior that might have been expected never materialized. As a result, it became increasingly difficult to say exactly what it meant to be an Evangelical. By the mid-1980s, theological diversity became so pronounced within the Evangelical community that, according to Carl F. H. Henry, the "'evangelicals' sense of their own identity and purpose, as well as their public image, [had] never been more murky and maligned" (Affirmations: What Does It Mean to Be Evangelical? 1989, p. 16). So concerned were Henry and other "Christian leaders [that they] convened at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, to try to hammer out a concise definition of evangelical belief and practice" (Affirmations: What Does It Mean to Be Evangelical? 1989). The conference participants produced an 1800-word statement detailing nine theological positions to which all Evangelicals would agree. The document concluded with a three-fold definition according to which an Evangelical believes, first of all, the gospel as it is set forth in the Bible; second, holds to all of the most basic doctrines that emerge from the Bible and are summarized in the Apostles' Creed and the historic confessions of evangelical churches; and third, believes the Bible to be the final and authoritative source of all doctrine (Kantzer and Henry 1990, p. 5). Therefore, it was this commitment to that specific set of values that was to define these individuals as Evangelical and not the many different historical streams, institutions, and denominations that they represented (Labberton 2018, p. 16).

It seems then that we do have a generally accepted lexical content that allows us to define the terms "Evangelical" (affirmations) and "Orthodox" (Creed, Tradition). Indeed,

these standards are still widely used. For example, as recently as in 2017, the LifeWay Research Evangelical Beliefs project was able to categorize respondents to their surveys as Evangelical if they agreed with four statements: (1) the Bible is the highest authority for what I believe; (2) it is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior; (3) Jesus Christ's death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin; (4) only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God's free gift of eternal salvation (see Smietana 2017). These agreed-upon definitions have enabled us to use the terms with a high degree of mutual understanding in an ordinary dialog, that is, until recently when two things have conspired to change the situation.

First, within both of these faith traditions (Evangelical, Orthodox), there is now an increasing number of individuals, publications, and institutions that have begun to modify or alter the standards used to define these communities. These redefinitions range from altering or abandoning specific positions (on homosexuality), reinterpreting particular passages of Scripture (on materialism, divorce, etc.), all the while still claiming a commitment to its authority, taking a revisionist view of their own historical legacy, and, in a few cases, abandoning the defining framework (history and doctrine) altogether. While changes of this nature can be expected as the general drift of society puts pressure on the Christian community, what makes this challenging now is that one and the very same term (Orthodox, Evangelical) continues to be used even in the absence of any correspondence to an agreed upon standard. Of course, there are some who are honest enough to drop the label and leave those communities when they are no longer able to ascribe to the established definitions. David Gushee, for example, writes that there is now a "surging population of evangelical exiles," (Gushee 2020, p. 9) "post-evangelicals or ex-evangelicals or #exvangelicals or somewhere painfully in between. I am one of them" (Gushee 2020, p. 1). Given the number of young people leaving the Orthodox Church (Danckaert 2014), the same thing could be said about them.

Nevertheless, there are many others who still self-identify as Orthodox or as Evangelical, and that with a much-diminished adherence to the historical legacies or theological affirmations that once characterized these groups. This can be seen in recent polling which shows that many who still call themselves Evangelical now embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the general population. Divorce is more common among "born-again" Christians than in the general American population. Only six percent of the Evangelicals tithe. Forty-seven percent of the selfidentifying Orthodox think that aiding the poor "does more harm than good" (Orthodox Christians—Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics 2020). White Evangelicals are the "*most* likely people to object to neighbors of another race, and the sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only a little less outrageous than that of their non-evangelical peers" (Sider 2005, p. 12). The same kind of lexical discontinuity can be seen among the Orthodox. Sixty two percent of the Orthodox think that homosexuality "should be accepted" (Orthodox Christians—Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics 2020). They express this opinion and identify as Orthodox, all the while being members of a Church that has consistently considered the practice incompatible with Scripture.

Presumably, this is happening because these individuals assume it is their right to reinterpret, modify, replace, or even annul those standards. They might have come to believe that they, individually, "know or feel" what a particular passage of Scripture might mean and how it should be applied to any given situation. What if they thought that they themselves and not the Church, Tradition, or Scripture had absolute sovereignty over the moral decisions they make and the behavior they engage in? There does seem to be some evidence of this kind of thing happening. How often are phrases like "to me, this bible text means ... ", "I feel that this is ... ", or "let me tell you my truth" heard today! If this is indeed happening, then it is the individual who is determining what truth is, and the repository of actual truths contained in the Scripture, Tradition, and

the very words of Christ is being replaced by the individual's own words. Presumably, this would create complete agreement between the behavior and the desires, opinions, feelings, interpretations with which they have replaced Christ's teachings. In that case, they would not be following, or even claiming to follow, Christ's word, but rather their own. That would explain why these individuals would "not feel any sense of internal conflict when it comes to Jesus and their own behavior." They are, after all, doing exactly what they want to do or feel they need to do. Kristin Kobes Du Mez, after a lengthy study of what she calls conservative Christians<sup>5</sup> (Du Mez 2020), observed no internal conflict, "no angst or no sense that [their behavior] was somehow a difficult trade-off" (Illing 2020). Speaking of these conservative believers, Kobes Du Mez notes, for example, that they " ... are not acting against their deeply held values when they elect [corrupt politicians], they're affirming [their own feelings]" (Illing 2020), which means that they are free to continue self-identifying as, in this case, Evangelical. Obviously, this discrepancy between the standard definitions (affirmations, Creed, Traditions) and the beliefs and behaviors of these self-declared Orthodox and Evangelicals makes consistent and understandable use of these terms increasingly difficult if not impossible.

The second factor that has changed the situation comes from outside these faith communities. Here, I am speaking about the way in which these terms (Orthodox, Evangelical) are being used in public discourse or common parlance. This usage is largely driven by the mass media—major news outlets, social medial, print media—and it appears to be based on widely available lexical content and the resulting expectations. To get an idea of what these expectations might be, you simply have to look the terms up in a contemporary dictionary6. Somehow, because of their own study (dictionaries, literature, documentaries, etc.) or because of the claims and behavior of the believers themselves, these observers develop a mental image of Evangelicals and the Orthodox that at least initially approximate the lexical standards mentioned above. They then use that internal template to filter and inform their observations and, in some cases, condemnation of both Evangelical and Orthodox believers. This can be illustrated by the secular contractor who, after witnessing obvious misbehavior by Orthodox monastics, spontaneously said, "they are not acting like Christians." The contractor's understanding of Christianity may not be accurate, but he does have a preconceived mental image, an expectation, and he is using it. Similarly, reporters observe self-proclaimed Evangelicals aligning themselves with political positions and activities and proceed to evaluate them according to their own expectations of things Evangelical. They wonder how the Evangelicals' unrestrained embrace<sup>7</sup> of right-wing political candidates, issues, and conspiracies8 can be squared with their perceived claim to follow Christ. How can they "bestow a lopsided 75% to 80% majority of their political support upon ... a man constantly demonstrating his total lack of human decency through his cruel social policies, sleazy personal behavior, ceaseless torrent of lies and vicious, hate-filled slurs spewed at anyone who refuses to bow down before him" (McNally 2019). Other observers wonder in what sense these individuals can be seen as keeping Christ's commandments when the members of a packed Evangelical megachurch respond to a politician's announcement that one of our enemies had been "terminated" with "roaring applause ... " holding hands, praying, singing songs praising God while they "chant 'USA' and 'four more years....'" (Payne 2020). To many observers, the discrepancy between Jesus' teaching on non-violence and these self-identified followers of Christ is simply astounding and hence the charge of hypocrisy. "To celebrate an assassination in a church is not only a distortion of the Christian message [as imagined by the reporters], but it is also a gross example of moral hypocrisy and massive self-deception" (Payne 2020).

However, as these reports proliferate, the terms (in particular, Evangelical) are gradually changed, reshaped in the image of the reporters' observations, expectations, and disappointments to the point where, as those words are now being used publicly in the United States, they no longer correspond to the abovementioned set of theological affirmations and are almost always used negatively. "Christians have [it seems] developed a reputation for saying one thing and doing another" (Bradley 2016). Associating them with

hypocrisy9 has become a default position of sorts such that "Many folks don't perceive Christian individuals, churches, institutions, and organizations in the United States as being loving, patient, or kind—and with good reason. Instead, Christians are often viewed as being the exact opposite: envious, boastful, arrogant, and rude" (Matton 2019).

At the same time, even as the meanings are evolving, these terms (Evangelical, Orthodox) are still being used in public discourse as if we all agreed on what they mean. However, when speaking of Evangelical and Orthodox Christians, are we referring to individuals defined by the ancient creeds, Scripture, shared doctrinal affirmations, or a common historical legacy? Are they simply ritualists mindlessly performing certain rites, preserving a particular language or culture, doing church, all the while being divorced from the theology and Tradition that once defined them? Are they, on the other hand, fanatics, right-wing, seditionists (6 January 2021) referred to by the national media as Evangelicals (and, indeed, there were plenty of bibles, crosses, pastors present that day for the whole nation to see, bolstering identification)? When claiming that some Orthodox and Evangelicals no longer believe in or reflect the basic principles of the faith (as is indeed evidenced by recent polling), are we referring to the same individuals defined in the media as Evangelicals? As many Orthodox become nominal, are characterized by an appalling lack of biblical knowledge, and are gradually shifting allegiances and commitments, are we still to call them Orthodox? Obviously, this muddled state of lexical content, this definitional uncertainty makes writing an essay like this or for that matter just discussing the religious landscape quite challenging. At the same time, one has to wonder why this is happening and whether these shifting definitions and allegiances are indicative of, the result of, or even an expression of the Darkness now descending on us.
