Evangelical Triumphalism

I am right on the border of being an Evangelical. For many years I was an Evangelical however there are certain things within the tradition that I really do not like. Currently the thing that is annoying me most is the triumphalist ring to supposedly "academic" or at least scholarly Evangelical literature.

To me, a good academic treatment of a subject tries it's best to stand back a bit from it's subject. In other words when I read a paper or book I expect the author to at least try not to sound too prejudiced. This rule, however, is not adhered to within much Evangelical literature. Time and again I read supposedly scholarly accounts that implicitly assume there is a "right" interpretation and thus assess the history or philosophy in comparison to this assumed "correct" account. The result is a book that sounds extremely arrogant and somewhat blinkered, and more importantly misses the value of looking to see how philosophy or history might actually question certain aspects of the Evangelical creed. Two examples that I have read recently are Earle Cairn's "Christianity through the ages" which is particularly bad and John Stotts "The Cross of Christ".

My suspicion is that this observation is consistent with a more insidious, authoritarian side of the Evangelical movement. There seems to be (a sometimes openly stated) assumption that if someone is in a position of authority - either as a leader or author - then God has placed them there and thus they have God-given authority. Although there is room for a level of criticism, negative comments are quickly labeled as "judgmental" or "un-gracious", thus exerting psychological pressure on the questioner to stop their criticism. The result is a status-quo represented as a series of beliefs to which no questions can be asked, and any evidence against the wisdom of the belief being ignored or swept under the carpet. Such a situation cannot be good in the pursuit of God.