Defining Evangelicals…

I have had a Sojourners membership for a number of years now and enjoy the monthly magazine. One reason is that it shows me that I am not alone out there in believing what I do about Christianity.  Jim Wallis, who is the editor-in-chief of the magazine always has an editorial at the beginning of each issue.  This month is was about how the word “evangelical” means to the world in general.  In the editorial Jim opens with the following words:

Here we go again. Presidential elections are coming, and the role of ‘evangelicals’ is predictably becoming a hot political story. Voices on both the Religious Right and secular Left describe evangelicals as zealous members of the ultra-conservative political base.

Why? Perhaps because some conservative Republicans want to claim a religious legitimacy and constituency for their ideological agenda, and some political liberals seem determined to portray religious people as intellectually flawed, right-wing crazies with dangerous plans for the country.

He goes on to say that while there are evangelicals as described above they do not define the overall evangelical community.  He has been stating this view for many years. But from a personal experience I, like many others in this world,  have trouble getting the secular view of evangelicals out of my head.  For a couple of decades I was a member of an evangelical church and for the most part the majority of its members held radical right political beliefs. I always felt like the odd-man-out in our weekly bible studies especially when the discussions turned political in nature. It seems to me that the “social conservative” values of the these right wing political groups runs very counter to what I read in my bible?  I knew a few others in those studies felt as I did about being my brother’s keeper and doing good works but for the most part they sat silently while the majority, among many other topics, ranted about  personal responsibility and those lazy “freeloaders” who just need to get a job.

So, while I want to believe what Jim says I just saw very little evidence of it in the Christian world immediately around me. This is one of the reasons I have divorced myself from that group and no longer call myself a Christian but instead say I am just a follower of Jesus Christ.  I seem to be more attuned around the following message by Susan Isaacs (her message here also came from another Sojourners source)

While I may detect a difference between “evangelical Christian” (theological connotation) and “evangelical” (political connotation), a person outside the faith may not. Tell an agnostic you’re an evangelical — meaning you believe in the words of the Apostle’s creed — and he may assume you’re anti-gay, anti-Obama and pro-British Petroleum….I don’t know if we’ll ever divest “evangelical” of its political connotation. We might have to ban the word the way Germany outlawed Hitler as a surname. Which is sad, because the Greek root, evangel, means “good news.” – Susan Isaacs 

I like Susan think maybe it is time to ban using the word “evangelical” in a theological mode. It has just been too polluted by the political sphere and that is a terrible shame as the word actually means “good news”.  The words “evangelical” and “Christian” just don’t seem to mix together anymore. They are like oil and vinegar.

If God is Love (Part 2)

This is a continuation of my collection of snippets from the book by Philip Gulley entitled If God is Love.

The Psalmists boats, “Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with perfect hate. I count them my enemies” (Psalm 139:21-22). Hatred, when directed at those we have judged wicked, becomes a sign of religious devotion rather than a grievous sin. The enemy is not loved, but destroyed, not prayed for, but preyed upon.

We can protest religious hatred and violence are sins of the past, but to do so we must ignore current Christian visions of the future. How do we explain the tremendous popularity of the “Left Behind” series of books? These books, which have sold millions of copies have spawned two movies, portray a future in which Evangelical Christians are saved while everyone else is destroyed. They proclaim a Jesus with a sword in hand atop a charging steed, initiating a violent end.

Our violent religious past and expectations of a wrathful future impinge on Christian behavior today. David Beneke, a leader in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, discovered this reality shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He was suspended for eighteen months from his duties and required to defend himself before a variety of denominational panels. His sin was not something as radical as believing in the salvation of all people. His crime was joining with Muslim, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, and Sikh religious leaders in a prayer service at Yankee Stadium. He was accused of praying with “heathens”. He said “This ordeal reveals the hard side of Christianity”.

If fairness, similar stories abound in other religious traditions. This arrogant exclusivity plagues all the great religions. Adherents of each faith hate the “other” — Christians hate heathens; Muslims hate infidels; Jews hate Gentiles. For many, religion is how we decide who to love and who to hate.

As I have said many times Jesus melted down the Old Testament laws into just two: Love God and Love your fellow man. Hate was not in this mix. Why do so many current day religious institutions base so much of their practices on hate? One thing I love about reading Philip Gulley is that he doesn’t pull any punches. He certainly didn’t in this example. :)

Give them Jesus

There are thousands of different concepts and ideas floating around in Christianity and most of them have followers who have split from others over their specific views. Of course the biggest split started when a lowly monk decided he knew better than the Pope what God was really about. There are those who have split off other denominations because they believe that total immersion is the only way to receive a “correct” baptism and, of course there are those who choose different views of the Bible. Some say every word is literally true and some say only the doctrinal messages are true. There are literally hundreds of other excuses we Christians have used to divide ourselves into different flocks.

While the people involved in all these 35,000 or so splits take very seriously the reasons they believe it was necessary to go their own ways. When I think about them the book title by Richard Carlson entitled “Don’t sweat the Small stuff (and it’s all small stuff)” comes to mind. The front and center for all of us who call ourselves Christians must be Jesus Christ; everything else is just small stuff. I can hear some of your saying” NO that is not true. If you aren’t baptized correctly then you are going to hell!!” Or other such words. I hope some day we all realize how petty we have become over many of these issues.

I have spent the last several years studying perhaps a hundred books on theology. In that study I have basically found that for every thinkable concept of God there are many human versions of what that concept means. Things like the Trinity really don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Whether God is three in one or just one really doesn’t matter much. God is God and can be whatever he chooses to be and in my mind what he chooses to be is a God of agape love.

One of the basic things that does matter is why Jesus came among us? This question also seems to have many answers for us. Most, but not all, Christians believe that he came to be an atoning sacrifice for our salvation. As I have mentioned a few times in the past I don’t really understand this concept but do accept it on faith. Some say he also came to teach us lessons on how to live our lives in the universe he created. I am definitely in that camp but there are quite a few who almost totally discount this aspect of Jesus’ life. They believe that Jesus’ sole purpose was to die for our sins and to point us to heaven and that anything else he did or said about living was at best irrelevant to the “real” issue. They are totally convinced that it is proper to jump from Jesus’ birth immediately to his death. Nothing in between has much significance. Calling anything God says or did irrelevant is a pretty risky thing to me! Of course, Calvinists are among this group but I think many other fundamentalist denominations join them. To shortchange Jesus’ teachings on how to live causes them, in my opinion, to lose out on understanding of who Jesus really was. I feel sorry for them in that regard.

Let’s not spend much of our day worrying about what God looks like and instead spend it concentrating on what Jesus said and did while he was among us. All the other stuff is just stuff that causes us confusion and gets in the way of this central message. Jesus opened his three year ministry with the following words:

Luke 4:16-21

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoner and recovery of sight for the blind,

to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

I would hope that all of us take at least these words to heart in calling ourselves disciples of Jesus Christ. But sadly that is not the case for some of us. So to end this, concentrate on Jesus and all the other minor details will resolve themselves.