Evangelicals among us
I've been thinking a lot about some of the dialogue on our site.
I think its interesting to note here that there is still a very wide theological gap between the fundamentalists/literalists and those who hold a more progressive theology. Indeed, folks like the Center of Progressive Christianity define progressive Christianity in both progressive terms both politically and theologically. Meanwhile, Sojourners and other organizations who make efforts trying to court evangelicals into the Democratic camp while holding onto their fundamentalist and literalist theological worldview.
On issues of abortion and civil/human rights for our gay brothers and sisters, we frankly disagree.
On our site we've had some heavy duty convesations on the issue of gay marriage amongst progressive Christians. The literalists/fundamentalists hold on to a few passages of scripture to justify their position. The progressives look to science and a contextualized reading of the Bible.
Gary Wills has done the best job in capturing this historical dialogue in his American Christianities, Head and Heart which dissects "Enlightened" and "Evangelical" religion and their interplay throughout American history. These deist founders practiced an enlightened religion while the dominant religious discourse over the last 30 years has been "Evangelical". Indeed, political actors such as Obama and the Mara Vanderslices of the world have adopted this dominant frame. The media has as well. There was yet another report on ABC this weekend on the evanglical vote that featured my good friend Aaron Graham. His top issues: Poverty, Global Warming, and Abortion. I think that emphasis on abortion, while somewhat muted is what scares a lot of folks on the Left.
What's interesting about all this media attention is that the evangelical vote has actually swung substantially back and forth over the last 50 years (70% voted for Jimmy Carter). While Evangelicals have swung back and forth, there has been a slow and steady march of mainline Protestants (many of whom represent Wills's "Enlightened" religion) into the progressive theological and political camp. This is a long term trend that does not seem to be stopping and represents almost the same number in terms of population as the Evangelical vote. I wonder why this really isn't covered in the media and why all the attention on evangelicals.
By aggressively pursuing evangelical voters and the broadening of the evangelical political agenda, the left which is now largley enlightened, agnostic or atheist has invited the theological conversation within the tent rather than lobbing rhetorical bombs across party lines...I think this is for the better, but I have no illusions that this is going to be easy.
- Stephen Rockwell's blog
- Login or register to post comments
A good place from which to speak tonight.
I see participation here expanding to include many variations of what it is to be a Christian. With mutual respect for the beliefs and opinions for others we build a base that unites through diversity. It is my hope and desire to build an on-going theological panel of persons that can advise The IPC think tank policy development and provide guidance for the CL implementation measures.
Join us tonight at 8:30 EDT in our theological discussions. I find that talking in real time allows me to get to know other persons more deeply. From these discussions I hope we can work together to build a strong clear spiritual foundation to more clearly express our concepts of progressive Christianity.
Rich
What's the number?
What's the number again?
218-339-2500 access code 727705*
Rev. Roger et. al.,
Here's the number and access code. It'll be a pleasure talking to you in real time. I look forward to chatting with all the good folks who choose to join us. 8:30 PM EDT
Cheers,
Rich
I am an Evangelical
Hmmm. I consider myself to be an Evangelical because I belive that as a Christian I am called to evangelize... I think that the way that Brana uses it, as per your post Bill, is quite different than as it was originally intended. & I ask myself, what gives Brana the right to define what makes someone an Evangelical and what does not- when John the Baptist came way before Brana with his evangelizing?...
I think this is yet another case of the term being co-opted by a group. It's not the first time and I doubt it will be the last...
" "Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."
what I wonder about...
I really do try to keep current and precise definitions on all the theological labels, but "evangelical" still confuses me.
When I try to set the real pragmatic difference between evangelicals and other professing Christians, the only self-definitions I can find are political rather than theological. In the mid-1800s, evangelicals were identified by their stance on slavery (they were agin it). Today it's abortion and gay marriage.
So is "evangelical" a mostly political label? Or is there some theology in there somewhere? I mean where you can pick the evangelicals out of the inerrant scripture and great commission loving rest of the group. Those two theological (?) terms aren't good enough, because they also will include a great number of Christians who will NOT self-identify as evangelicals. But "anti-abortion and heterosexual only" separates the evangelicals out nicely.
Someone make this clear for me? Or else tell me it's okay that I can only find political criteria to identify them? Political criteria is a good thing, but has never felt quite appropriate with regards to "evangelicals."
re: wondering about definitions: "evangelical"
Janet, I'm no expert but I get regular emails from the Barna Group reporting on their religious and political polls. Barna is evangelical and the reports always include their definitions of "born again" and "evangelical", as in this standard excerpt:
" "Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."
" "Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."
"Non-evangelical born again Christians meet the born again criteria described above, but not the evangelical criteria.
"Notional Christians are those who consider themselves to be Christian but do not meet the born again criteria."
Barna's definition seems to me to be pretty close to the old definition of "fundamentalism" put forth by the Presbyterians in 1910 -- the five fundamentals being the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of Jesus Christ or, alternatively, the genuineness of Christ's miracles. And before that, there were the 14 fundamentals of the Niagara Creed that were promulgated in 1878 by the Niagara Bible Conference.
I think that, although evangelicalism is generally defined much more loosely than the Barna Group defines it, it's always defined in theological terms.
The political correlations are strong, however. Here's a comment from Barna's latest report:
"Understanding Evangelicals
"One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person’s religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.
"Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.
"Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice."
Is this helpful? How do we, or most of us, see ourselves in terms of Barna's criteria?
Bill
Good Question steve
Good question Steve. When it comes to certain issues, like abortion or gay rights, evangelicals and progressive theological Christians will just have to agree to disagree. I think the key to any alliance between theologically progressive Christians and Evangelicals is to find areas of common ground where neither side feels it has to compromise their principle beliefs. Evangelicals and theologically progressive Christians may disagree that homosexuality is a sin, for instance, but they can both agree that homophobia is a sin that goes against Jesus' injunction to love our neighbor and is worth uniting to fight against. One doesn't have to agree about a literal interpretation of the Bible to see poverty as an issue worth uniting in common cause to fight against. I think we just have to be creative about finding common ground.
I also think it would be helpful for progressive evangelicals if we connect them to a history of evangelicals being involved in progressive causes. It could help them fight the illusion that evangelicals only have the Republican Party and conservative politics as options. We could emphasize the role that evangelicals played in the abolition movement and the women's suffagrist movement. We could talk about William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat who fought for poor farmers and workers, was against American imperialism, fought for the right of women to vote, and favored the breaking up of corporate trusts. We could talk about Jimmy Carter, a Democrat who has worked for the poor and has acted as peacemaker in many global conflicts, and has taken a strong stand for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. There is Corrie Ten Boom, who saved many Jews during the Holocaust and fought antisemitism. And today, Tony Compolo and Rick Warren are evangelicals who are looking at an evangelical politics that is not defined solely on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Progressive evangelicals will probably need these examples and strong arguments to defend themselves from their more conservative fellow churchgoers.
Angelo