Two Separate Worlds

In a blog entry posted back April, Andrew Webb listed, "13 Differences Between the PCA and the PCUSA," that is between the Presbyterian Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Writing as a member of the PCA, he presents a fair assessment of those differences, and in them there is little that surprises anyone who knows at least something about these two intensely different Presbyterian denominations.  The list includes the following:

• PC(USA) ordains women and the PCA does not;
• PCA adheres to biblical literalism and the PC(USA) does not;
• PCA is "pro-life" and PC(USA) is "pro-choice";
• PCA considers homosexuality a sin and the PC(USA) does not;
• PCA adheres to a traditionalist Reformed theology and the PC(USA) does not;
• PCA is committed to evangelism and the PC(USA) is not;
• PC(USA) generally places more authority in the higher councils of the church while PCA is more grassroots; and
• PC(USA) accepts theistic evolution while the PCA does not.

There are other points of comparison, but these are the major ones.  They point to the undeniable fact that these two denominations live in very different faith worlds.  From the perspective of most of us in the PC(USA), for example, ordaining women and accepting the LGBT community are matters of simple, Christ-like justice.  Being "pro-choice" does not mean that somehow we are anti-life but that we are pro-women.  We are pro-life, which is about much more than abortion.  And so on down the list, which in all reflects a different set of values, attitudes, perspectives, and a different spirituality.

Webb does note that on a few of the differences there is some movement in the PCA toward the views held in the PC(USA), for example on evolution and in worship.  What he does not say is that in most of the differences between the two denominations, the PC(USA) is demonstrating a greater ability to adapt to changing social values and attitudes than the PCA, which is becoming more and more culturally isolated.  In a posting entitled "The Future of the PCA," conservative blogger Marshall C. St. John, makes that point and observes in some detail its significance, namely cultural isolation and inevitable statistical decline.  That decline set in 2008.  PCA apologists, of course, will argue that being culturally unpopular does not make its stands on the issues wrong, but equally of course it does not make them correct either.

A couple of thoughts: first, it really is better that we are two separate denominations.  We have relatively little in common in so many crucial ways, and about the best we can do with each other is exhibit some degree of tolerance of each other while equally believing that the "other" just doesn't get it when it comes to faithfully following Christ.  Second, perhaps in the larger scheme of things the reality of having two denominations so different at so many points is a strength rather than a weakness.  People in general are very different, and in faith as in everything else one size does not fit all.  This isn't a cause of celebration, but it does recognize the fact that the Spirit has to move in us where we are and in ways that we can hear.  It moves liberal Presbyterians in ways that conservative Presbyterians simply can't accept and vice versa, always pushing and prodding us in the direction of the Kingdom.  The Kingdom is not a race.  We all make it there or none of us make it.  Amen.

How (Some) People of Other Faiths View Christians

Back in June, Thom Rainer posted an article on his blog entitled, "What Do Non-Christians Really Think of Us?"  This week, he has posted a follow-up based on responses he received from people of other faith, which is entitled, "Four Thoughts from Non-Christians about Christians."  Both are worth looking at as are the comments that accompany them.

Going with the Flow

In Why Christianity Happened (Westminster, 2006), New Testament scholar James G. Crossley adds an intriguing reason for the rise of Christianity to the usual set of factors.  It is widely understood that the Roman Empire created a set of conditions conducive to the expansion of the Christian religion, such things as relatively rapid communications and an era of peace and stability.  Church historians also point to the person of Christ himself and the quality of church life as factors in that growth.  To this list, Crossley adds another factor, which was that an increasing number of citizens of the Empire were attracted to monotheism as a theological choice.  Judaism had something to do with the spread of monotheism, but there were also pagan versions as well.  Thus, when the Jesus Movement cut loose from Judaism and the cultural restraints it placed on converts, there was a ready pool of people primed in a sense to receive this new religious movement (see pages 99-101).

Like a depressingly large number of "facts" when it comes to the history of the Jesus Movement/church in biblical times, this is a matter of speculation although Crossley makes a good case for the argument that monotheism was an attractive, cutting edge theology at the time.  IF he is correct, it suggests that the Jesus Movement took hold because of its congruence with the spiritual temper of its times, not because it stood over against that temper.  It spoke to the spiritual aspirations of at least one key segment of Roman society in spite of the political opposition it provoked.

It only makes sense that any viable religious faith must speak to the spiritual and theological sensibilities  of an important part of society in its time and place.  In our time, that segment of society to which Christianity speaks most fully seems to be increasingly the more extreme end of conservatism,  which embraces dualistic doctrines that are increasingly at odds with the growing secularity and multi-culturalism of international culture.  It seems to speak best to that segment of society that represents where we have been spiritually and theologically rather than where we are going.  That segment is quite large, so Christianity is in no danger of disappearing any time soon; but it does seem that it has lost a key trait that made it the exciting faith of choice for many in Roman times.  It seems to be losing its ability to go with the spiritual flow of our age.  As I say, in ancient times the Jesus Movement spoke to where we were going; today Christianity seems to speak best to where we have been.

This is, of course, a matter of speculation, but it is not unreasonable speculation and is worth a good deal of thought.

The Bible as a Weapon

In a blog post entitled, "When Christians become a 'hated minority'," John Blake observes,

"Intolerance may be difficult to define, but some evangelicals say they have become victims of intolerance because of their reverence for the Bible. The conservative media culture is filled with stories about evangelicals being labeled as “extremists” for their belief that homosexuality is a sin. Their sense of persecution goes beyond their stance on homosexuality. There are stories circulating of evangelical students being suspended for opposing homosexuality, a teacher fired for giving a Bible to a curious student, and the rise of anti-Christian bigotry."

Evangelicals who complain that they are "victims of intolerance because of their reverence for the Bible" are wrong.  The problem a growing majority of Americans have with evangelical beliefs is not with their reverence for the Bible.  They do not have as corner on that market.  The issue at hand is they way they use the Bible to define others—and, secondarily, their inconsistent use of the Bible to define others.

Most Evangelicals, but not all by any means, claim that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.  They condemn it and frequently stand at the forefront of those political and social forces dedicated to withholding basic civil rights from homosexuals.  Their concern is for the sanctity of marriage and the purity of society.  Let us ignore for a moment the fact that homosexuality is a private "sin," one that does not do harm to others.  Indeed, it is social repression that has driven homosexuals into what evangelicals consider to be promiscuous behavior.  But set that consideration aside.  Let us take the evangelical definition of homosexuality as a sin at face value.  Let us take their desire to protect American society from this sin at face value—for the moment.

One cannot help but wonder then at a fundamental inconsistency in their application of biblical principles.  In the case of homosexuality, they claim the Bible teaches it is a sin and thus must be repressed as much as possible for the sake of homosexuals as much as the rest of us.  OK.  Why then are these same evangelicals, as a rule, willing to make allowances in their application of the biblical principle, "Thou shalt not kill," that they are not willing to make for homosexuality?  The biblical teaching is clear and absolute.  We humans are forbidden from killing other humans.  Yet, in the United States, we have a whole class of individuals who are trained in the art of killing, the military, and evangelicals are more often than not ardent supporters of this very class.  The Bible doesn't teach any exceptions to the biblical law that we are not allowed to kill.  Yet, patriotic evangelicals set that very principle aside for the sake of national defense.  In the case of abortion, most evangelicals passionately advocate this same divine prohibition of murder, yet in the case of the military they make an exception to a fundamental biblical teaching.

So, what is different about homosexuality?  Is not the sin of murder far, far more serious than the supposed sin of homosexuality?  Murder is a brutal, violent act with clear personal and social consequences.  Homosexuality is not.  So, why make an exception for murder?  Why apply biblical teaching in a limited way when it comes to murder but not in the case of homosexuality?

Here's the thing.  Evangelicals would quickly find themselves no longer "persecuted," if they would stop using the Bible as a weapon against others.  The larger society is not behaving intolerantly of evangelicals.  We are protecting ourselves and others from the way many evangelicals invasively interpret the Bible so as to deprive those who are not evangelicals of their basic human rights and freedoms.

Love Thy Theological Enemies

In the third chapter of his book, Victorian Religious Revivals (Oxford, 2012), author David Bebbington describes and analyzes an 1841 evangelical revival that took place in Washington-on-the-Brazos, Texas.  In his analysis of the event, Bebbington describes four groups who posed threats to the revival.  They were the denizens of frontier Texas' rough, almost crude local culture, freethinkers, and two other groups of evangelicals—anti-missionary Baptists and rationalist Campbellites.  The first two groups are hardly surprising.  The last two are.  The revival itself was promoted by moderate, revivalistic Baptists supported by Methodists.  The anti-missionary Baptists did not hold with such things as revivals because there is no record of them in the Bible.  The Campbellites didn't like the revivalistic emphasis on emotion and experience.

From Bebbington's commentary, it is evident that the revival itself found at least part of its identity in this opposition by non-religious and other religious elements.  What it was against was important.  It was against the hard-edges of frontier society, anti-religious thinking, and two other forms of the faith.  One form didn't allow for active revivalism.  The other form didn't value religious experience as being key to one's salvation.

It is not a new thought, but perhaps we don't think often enough about how important our theological "enemies" are to us in the formation of our own identity.  This is certainly true for those of us who embrace the label of "progressive Christianity."  Conservative evangelicals, especially of the literalist persuasion, as well as the so-called new atheists are both important to our own identity.  It is important to us that we are not like them in certain specific ways.  We are not biblical or scientific literalists.  We reject their rigid dualisms.

In this context, Jesus' injunction to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44) makes a whole lot of sense.  We take our identity from our theological enemies.  In what they are, we butt up against the boundaries of our own self-understanding.  We need them to be "them," and we need them to be "not-us."  It is worth considering that "when the Kingdom comes" they will be in it too.  The difference between then and now is that then we will be able to pray humble, sincere prayers for "them" and actually love them for what they are—understanding that what they are is important to us.  Amen.

We Love Our Walls

The latest Presbyterian numbers are out (here).  In 2012, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recorded a 5.3% decline in membership from 1,952,287 in 2011 to 1,849,496 in 2012. The denomination organized 13 new churches, closed 86 churches, and dismissed 110 congregations to other denominations.  The total loss is on the high end.  In some "good years," it is half or less of 5.3%.  But, then, the loss of so many churches to other denominations was a significant factor last year.

It is a fair question to ask our evangelical sisters and brothers in those departing congregations how they intend to witness to Christ's love in an increasingly secular, religiously skeptical world when they can't even find ways to lovingly witness to people of faith who largely share their core values whatever the differences driven by the hot button issues.  As evangelicals across America continue to separate themselves from the rest of American society, they only serve to build the walls between themselves and the rest of society higher and thicker.  How will they ever meaningfully and effectively share God's love from behind those walls?

On the other hand, as I wrote a couple of posts back (here), it is an equally good question to ask of progressive and moderate Presbyterians, "When will we ever learn to share our faith in ways that bring people to Christ and to church?"  Many of the dying Presbyterian and other mainline congregations have impressive records of public service done in Christ's name.  From all of that service, however, few individuals outside of the church if any discovered faith in Christ.

So, there's the irony for you.  A recent Gallup Poll (here) indicates that most Americans agree that religion is losing its influence in society and, interestingly, many of them think we would be better off if it didn't lose its influence.  But those who have a heart for evangelism cut themselves off from those they would evangelize.  Those who can best share faith effectively in our secular age aren't interested in doing so.  Indeed, they often reject the idea of faith-sharing (witnessing, evangelizing) as being "like them," that is the like "those narrow-minded" evangelicals.  We love our walls.

Tolerance: the Good, Bad, & Ugly

In a recent posting entitled, "Tolerance: The New American Religion," a Christian Post commentator takes to task Christians who believe in what he believes to be the secular, unfaithful new religion of tolerance.  He assigns their tolerant attitudes to ignorance of scripture, fear, and idolatry.  he concludes, "Tolerance is not love, the Cross is. I think it is time we let God define love and stop relying on Man’s worldly definition."

If anything, the author sounds like a liberal—in the sense that liberals criticize people of his persuasion in pretty much the same way he criticizes them.  Progressive Christians feel that fundamentalists in particular and evangelicals in general are ignorant of the true meaning of the gospel, practice a fear-based religiosity, and turn the Bible and faith into idols.  Liberal Christians have even coined the word, "bibliolatry," to make that last point.

There is no question.  The author of this posting has virtually no clue how those of us who advocate openness to others and a non-dualistic approach to faith understand our faith.  But, that's not my point here.  My point is that both of the warring camps among Christians today tend to treat those in the other camp the way this author treats people of a progressive faith.  Until that changes, postings like this one and any rebuttal of it are a waste of time and energy.  They change nothing.  They may serve to "gin up the base," but that only promotes the failure to understand each other within Christian circles, which brings us so much discredit in society at large.  All too often, we are our own worst enemies.  We are obstacles to the work of the Spirit rather than channels.

There is one point in the author's article on tolerance, however, that I would like to take exception to here.  He is incorrect in his statement that, "The problem with Tolerance is it doesn’t lead anyone to repentance." If we truly value a Christ-like tolerance we are led led precisely and exactly to repentance. Far too often, we fail to practice what we value and what we preach to others, and we do need to repent.  Amen.

The War Between the States - Round III

The Old South

About a month ago, Michael Lind published an insightful piece entitled, "The white South’s last defeat," subtitled, "Hysteria, aggression and gerrymandering are a fading demographic's last hope to maintain political control."  His thesis is that the real political divide in our nation today is not between right and left but, instead, between South and North.  The "Old South" (white, evangelical, & of British-American origins), Lind insists, has continued to exist down to the present and has successfully maintained political control of most of the states of the Confederacy.  Now, however, that dominance is increasingly threatened and has already been lost in Florida and Texas, which have become minority-majority states.  Other regions of the country have historically undergone this same process, and there was considerable political upheaval when they did.  Now, it is the South's turn.  Lind warns us that, "The demographic demise of the white South is going to be traumatic for the nation as a whole." He concludes, "But the old-stock Yankees in the Northeast and Midwest did not accept their diminished status in their own regions without decades of hysteria and aggression and political gerrymandering. The third and final defeat of the white South, its demographic defeat, is likely to be equally prolonged and turbulent. Fasten your seat belts." (The first two defeats of the white South were the Civil War and the civil rights movement).

If Lind is correct, his thesis suggests that we can look at the future in two related ways.  It looks like we should probably feel more pessimistic about the short-term and more optimistic about the long-term.  That's why we have seat belts—to keep us safe in dangerous times.  Let's just hope that our democratic institutions and habits of mind will be sufficiently strong to carry us through.  Amen.

On the Horns of a Dilemma

In a world that is increasingly inclusive, it is difficult to maintain the integrity of an exclusivist Christian faith.  The problem is this: those who hold to an exclusive gospel—that is that only Christ saves—often care deeply about those who do not share their faith.  They are convinced that "non-believers" are going to hell.  They want to communicate with non-believers about their plight and help them escape it.  Communication is important.  However, in a world that  increasingly rejects exclusive ideologies, it is all but impossible for exclusivists to communicate across the boundaries of their exclusive message.  Fewer and fewer people find any kind of exclusivism to be "good news."

This is a real dilemma.  A recent example of it has engulfed the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in controversy over the participation of one of its pastors in ecumenical services held at the time of the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, CT.  As widely reported (here), the pastor of Newtown's Christ the King Lutheran Church was reprimanded by the president of the Missouri Synod church, for taking part in an ecumenical service in Newtown in spite of the fact that one of the children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary was a child of Christ the King Church.  The pastor did apologize for upsetting the denomination although not for his action.  Now, the president in his turn has felt compelled to apologize to the denomination for his own actions (here).  His letter of apology can be found on the Missouri Synod website (here).

The president's letter articulates the dilemma he and his denomination face in their exclusivist approach to the Christian faith.  In the letter, he states,

As the nation struggles with increasing violence and tragedy, we as a church body have struggled and continue to struggle with how to respond to civic/religious services in the midst of such events and to do so in a way that is in accord with our core convictions about the uniqueness of Christ. There are strong differences of opinion on this issue within the Missouri Synod, and that is because we all take our commitments to the Bible and to serving the neighbor very seriously. One view is that by standing side-by-side with non-Christian clergy in public religious events, we give the impression that Christ is just one path among many. Others view participation as an opportunity to share Christ and to truly love a hurting community, which may not happen if we are not participating. We struggle with the tension between these two views. We all deeply want to support our hurting communities in ways consistent with our religious convictions. (italics added)

That's the dilemma: engaging with those in need while remaining disengaged from those who believe the wrong things when those in need and those who don't believe are one and the same.  So, sitting on a stage with other clergy is wrong, but sitting with clergy ministering to a community in deep pain is not.  For a consistent exclusivist, sitting with the other clergy is always wrong and cannot be done, which seems to have been the initial position of the Missouri Synod president.  In an increasingly pluralistic, inclusive age, his reprimand of the pastor is widely seen as hurtful—among Missouri Synod members as well as in the public.

In sum, in an increasingly inclusive and pluralistic American culture exclusivist versions of the gospel are increasingly seen as bad news.  Exclusivism builds walls, encourages judgmentalism, and forces its adherents to behave in ways that others find unloving.  And often enough it is its own "reward," as can be seen in the case of the controversy sparked by Missouri Synod narrowness in the face of the Newtown tragedy.

In the Spirit—and Liberal

Anugrah Kumar's recent editorial, "How Should a Reformed Pastor Be Charismatic?" raises important questions for liberal pastors and moderately not conservative churches, namely the role of the Holy Spirit in vital church life and how we perceive that role. Kumar's editorial reports and reflects on a speech given by a pastor from the U.K., Tope Koleoso, who opened his speech with the claim that church leaders should "understand and exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit while shunning fanaticism." He then raised the question, "why would anyone who is Bible-believing, Christ-centered and theology-loving be hesitant, cautious or resistant to the Holy Spirit?" Koleoso wants pastors and churches to engage in faith-healing, teach the power of the Holy Spirit, deliver people from "demonic forces," and rely more explicitly on the power of the Spirit. He cited the example of the early church, which "did not know discipleship that was apart from the filling of the Holy Spirit." He concluded that it does not matter what faith tradition a pastor comes from; pastors and churches need "to be filled with the Holy Spirit daily."

To be filled by the Holy Spirit, Koleoso claimed, "means to be restored to the initial intention so that you once again have the relation and resources." It is an ongoing process that puts God at the center of things. In the Spirit, one longs for God's presence as the one central concern of ministry and preaching. And when pastors and churches are filled by the Spirit and long for God, "things begin to happen … [God] begins to speak to the people … give gifts to them … the gifts begin to come forth … the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, interpretation, gifts of healing, gift of faith."

Protestant church culture in America today is heavily influenced by the evangelical and charismatic/pentecostal wing(s) of American Protestantism.  That influence has a dark side for those of us who are not part of that wing.  But it also has its beneficial side, if only we have the wit to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Among other things, evangelicals and pentecostals have brought the Holy Spirit into prominence, and they are correct when they insist that a church cannot be healthy without the Spirit.  In mainline churches, we may not engage in faith-healing of physical ailments or speak in tongues, but it still takes the work of the Spirit to infuse our worship with life, small groups with enthusiasm, and individuals with spiritual healing.  It takes the Spirit to turn conflict into reconciliation.  It takes the Spirit, frankly, to restore healthy vibrancy to declining mainline churches.

Whether interpreted literally or liberally, the Spirit still can speak through the Bible—inspire it.  The work of the Spirit is not limited by our theologies.  The Spirit persistently lurks in mainline sanctuaries as much as it does in pentecostal ones and tugs at liberal hearts as insistently as it does evangelical ones.  The story of the early churches in Acts is the story of the Spirit at work among those churches.  Our story can be and should be but another chapter in that same tale of the Spirit.  The thing is liberal-ish preachers and moderately not conservative churches need to begin to focus on the theme of the Spirit and even go so far as to pray for its manifest (rather than latent) presence.  And things do happen.  Amen.

Hearing Other Voices

The reelection of President Obama and the general electoral success of the Democratic Party has, as most of us know, sent shock waves through American conservatism, which apparently was convinced that its big wins in 2010 were the beginning of a trend rather than just one more oscillation in current American voting patterns.  Lots of things are happening on the Right, some hopeful, some troubling.  One of the hopeful things is that some conservative evangelical Christians are thinking more critically about the way they relate to the rest of us.  In what almost amounts to a confession of sin, for example, Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, is calling on evangelicals (here) to approach those who are not evangelical more moderately and with more humility.  Evangelicals, he argues, should stop looking on their neighbors of other persuasions through the lens of hot button issues such as abortion and homosexuality.  He is particularly disturbed at the rising tide of gay marriage and suggests that evangelicals have contributed to the decline in "traditional" marriage by their intransigent behaviors.

Even a decade ago American evangelicalism was riding the crest of a wave of popularity and enthusiasm, but recent trends have not treated the movement well.  Its juggernaut denominations are no longer growing as they once did.  The megachurch phenomenon has proven to be a two-edged sword with even its most ardent supporters now reflecting on its limitations.  And it has become increasingly clear that the collective decision to become a de facto wing of the Republican Party has harmed evangelicalism more than helped it.

So, we are hearing other evangelical voices.  These voices are more conciliatory, less dogmatic.  One wonders if the time is coming when at least some evangelicals and ecumenicals will find common ground for increased dialogue and even cooperation.  The evangelical-ecumenical split affects us all in our local communities.  Could there be some healing take place?  Will those of us on the left bank even be willing to engage in such a thing?  Is all of this just a momentary blip caused by the shock of a lost election, the effects of which will soon go away?  Perhaps little will come of this new opening, but perhaps the Spirit can quietly make more of it than we otherwise will.  That's a prayer.  Amen.

Varieties of Evangelicalism

Evangelicalism is not a single, monolithic thing, which is part of the reason it can be so hard to define.  In the U.S., we generally think of it as being a conservative religious movement with strong tendencies toward biblical literalism, fundamentalism, uncritical patriotism, and right wing social values.  But even here there are many different expressions of evangelicalism, and once we leave the U.S. the picture is even more complicated.  A recent news posting on the Christian Monitor website, "In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord," provides a case in point.

France is one of the most aggressively secular states in the world.  Religion is widely looked on with varying degrees of indifference, suspicion, and even open hostility.  In this hostile environment, however, French evangelicalism is quietly growing in numbers along the fringes of French society.  Figures in the posting suggest that today there are about 600,000 evangelical Protestants in France.  In a nation of nearly 66 million according to Wikipedia (here), that is an unimpressive figure, but the important thing is that the numbers have been growing steadily, and some experts consider it the fastest growing religion in France today.

The article cites a variety of reasons for this growth: evangelical churches are informal and warm hearted.  Minority groups find them appealing.  In hard economic times, they provide a refuge for some people.  Furthermore, France is changing socially into a less hierarchical society,  and evangelicalism fits this change.  At the same time French-style evangelicalism is self-consciously not like American evangelicalism.  It is more liberal, ecumenical, and European in its approach.

There is a larger point here, which is that in many settings evangelical Protestantism is proving itself more adaptable and spiritually attractive than the historic Protestant churches.  Its churches take faith more seriously.  They also seem to find more joy in their faith.  Evangelicals are often more willing to share their faith and better able to do so.  In sum, one direction declining mainline churches would do well to explore (and some are exploring) is discovering and adapting a more warm hearted, joyful, and spiritually articulate evangelicalism to the life of our congregations.  We would do well to become more joyfully serious in our faith.

Occasional Convergences

Doi Saket Temple, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Although we sometimes seem to live in different worlds, there is evidence of a fair amount of cross-fertilization between evangelicals and ecumenicals (a.k.a. the mainline).  A wing of the evangelical movement, for example, has developed a deep concern for issues of social justice and for the environment.  There are mainline churches, meanwhile, that are discovering the importance of engaging in evangelism.  In particular cases, ecumenicals and evangelicals are each learning to speak the language of the other.  A case in point is a recent posting by Prof. Paul Louis Metzger, a self-styled evangelical, entitled, "Mormons and Buddhists are not “Isms” or “Ists.  They're people.”  Metzger calls on evangelicals to be more sensitive to the heritages and faith perspectives of people of other faiths and advocates what we might call a "soft" approach to evangelism by which one approaches others out of respect and a genuine desire to learn about their faith in hopes that the sharing that follows will help them see Christ. He concludes the posting by saying that, "Hopefully, the more personally and particularly we engage diverse religious practitioners from the perspective of their experiential participation in their traditions, the more they will experience through us and hopefully for themselves how personal—not packaged—the Jesus revealed in the Bible really is."

While some liberal Christians might feel that Metzger still has too much of an agenda, the tone and feel of his approach to people of other faiths stands in stark contrast to that of many evangelicals who are dismissive of other religions and certainly would not be willing to listen to what their adherents have to say.  In interfaith settings, there is nothing inherently wrong with a respectful mutual sharing of one's own faith.  The key is a willingness to be shared with as much (or more) than to share.  I recommend that you take a look at Metzger's posting.  It represents a hopeful convergence between the best of ecumenical and evangelical thinking.

Worth Thinking About

Yesterday's Huffington Post online contained several postings on its Religion Page  worth reading and thinking about.  First, Paul Brandeis Raushenbush wrote a posting entitled, "Rick Santorum's Political and Biblical Mistake," which calls presidential candidate Rick Santorum to task for apparently claiming that President Obama espouses a false, unbiblical theology that he seeks to impose on the nation.  Raushenbush makes the points that it is not wise to introduce theological differences into politics and that Mr. Santorum can himself be charged with unbiblical views.  Second,  an unsigned news posting entitled, "Hannah Kelley, Pastor's Daughter Accidentally Shot At Church, Dies," picks up on an article from the Tampa Bay Times (here) reporting the death of  Hannah Kelley, a pastor's daughter who was accidentally shot and seriously wounded at church on Sunday, February 12th.  The sad incident suggests that sometimes guns do kill people almost of themselves.   Third, there is an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack, who writes for the Salt Lake Tribune, entitled, "Evangelicals Defined: The History Of American Evangelicalism," which originally published in the Salt Lake Tribute under the title, "Who are evangelicals?"  The article offers some insights into how hard it actually is to define "evangelicalism".

And, finally, the posting entitled, "The End of Church," by Diana Butler Bass offers comments on the future of religion in America.  She looks for a reorganization of religion and of Christianity, noting that a large majority of Americans remain interested in spirituality and faith—but not in the conventional, traditional ways of the past.  This posting, too, is worth a read and some thought.  Happy Reflections!

Outreach in Love (xxii)

FPC, Lowvilee, NY

This is the twenty-second posting in this series working on what it means to be a church, based on eight criteria the Mars Hill Church uses to define its branch congregations as churches. The series began (here), and the previous posting (xxi) is (here). We take one more look at the eighth and final criterion, which reads, "The church is an evangelistic community where the gospel of Jesus is constantly made visible by its preaching, its witness of the members, and its Spirit-empowered life of love."

In the last posting, I rounded off on the evangelism that one finds on mission fields and among evangelical churches.  We have to modify such criticism by remembering that in the last 40-50 years the American evangelical movement has been remarkably successful by every measure of statistical success and has pumped huge amounts of religious energy into American society.  It is far from all good, but it is also far from all bad.  The indications are, as I've noted in several postings over the course of things, that contemporary evangelicalism is diversifying, changing, and losing steam.  At the end of the day, revivalistic church growth strategies can only take churches so far, as evangelical churches are now beginning to learn.

Mainline churches, so-called, generally don't talk much about evangelism and do even less about it.  Fewer and fewer churches have evangelism committees where the great majority do have mission or outreach committees.  That's how mainline churches "do" evangelism—through social action, community outreach, and service to those beyond the church.  For sure, this emphasis on service does not lead to church growth, if by church growth we mean statistical growth and winning converts.  On the other hand, it is a mark of mainline commitment to Christ that has important consequences for society.  When, for example, a flood of Vietnamese refugees arrived on our shores after the Vietnam War, it was primarily the churches that welcomed the refugees and helped them get started in American society.  In doing so, they consciously sought to fulfill Christ's injunction to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.  One thing that receives less attention than it deserves is the fact that mainline church members are often deeply involved in various helping and service agencies, and many of them see their vocations as opportunity to serve in the name of Christ.

So, the bottom line is that if we mainline folks were better at evangelism and the evangelical folks were better at social service (and they already do a fair amount), we'd probably both be better off as would our society.  Amen.

The Evangelical Shift Further Documented

Evangelical Christians are have historically been  identified with a web of conservative values, attitudes, and beliefs that include such things as a salvation limited to Christian believers, a literal interpretation of the Bible, pro-life values, and ant-homosexuality.  As we have seen in a series of posts, however, contemporary evangelicalism is far from monolithic; and while its adherents tend to resist (supposedly) change, they are changing.  The changes are significant, and they include shifting attitudes towards homosexuality.  Last month, we saw (here) that the Willow Creek Church now takes a more nuanced, balanced attitude regarding homosexuals, enough so that the church has come in for criticism by other evangelicals.

Recent research conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) provides evidence that a generational shift is taking place in evangelical circles regarding homosexuality. In a summary entitled, "Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights," of a larger report (here), PRRI researchers report that, "Forty-four percent of white evangelical Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, compared to only 12% of evangelical seniors and 19% of evangelicals overall."  "Millennials" are young adults aged 18 to 29.  The difference in attitudes between young and older evangelicals mirrors a similar difference in American society generally where there is a widely documented shift in attitudes towards homosexuality.  That is to say that in this important case changing social values are having a significant impact on young evangelicals just as they are among younger Americans generally.

Amish Evangelicalism: "Leaving Amish Paradise"

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) religious series, Compass, has just aired an hour long program on the Amish of Lancaster, PA, entitled, "Leaving Amish Paradise," which tells the story of two families that have left the Amish community to join an evangelical church that evangelizes the Amish (here).  The families were excommunicated by their Amish community.  While the program provides insights into the Amish way of life and thinking, it projects a somewhat negative tone about them—in part because it depends on former Amish for information about the Amish.  Since we have an Amish community here in Lewis County, programs such as this help us to better understand them as our neighbors.  Happy viewing!

P.S. The show is also on YouTube - just search for the title,"Leaving Amish Paradise."

Further Evidence of an Evangelical Shift

Bill Hybels, Pastor of Willow Creek Community Church

There is perhaps no better measure of the state of American Christianity than the evangelical churches, which grew spectacularly beginning in the 1960s and have fundamentally changed the religious landscape in the U.S.  As I've reported before, there seems to be something of a shift going on among evangelicals. Their numbers are no longer growing rapidly. More of them seem to be nominal rather than enthusiastic in their faith. And they are demonstrating changes in their attitudes, ones that have led to a good deal of criticism from more traditional evangelical commentators.  Now comes further evidence from one of evangelicalism's most prominent megachurches,  Willow Creek Community Church, located in a suburb of Chicago.

Earlier this month, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Shultz, backed out of a speaking engagement at Willow Creek under pressure from the LGBT community, which considers Willow Creek "anti-gay."  The specific criticism was that Willow Creek is associated with Exodus International, a ministry aimed at converting gays to a straight life style.  It turns out, however, that Willow Creek had quietly severed its association with Exodus International some time previously.  When Pastor Bill Hybels of Willow Creek addressed the issue (here), he stated in no uncertain terms, "Willow Creek is not anti-gay...It is not anti-anybody."  In his statement, Hybels walked a fine line because, on the one hand, he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and that, biblically speaking, everyone else has to lead a celibate life.  On the other hand, Willow Creek seems to follow a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which in effect acknowledges that everyone who comes in the door is imperfect.  Hybels stated that the church honors the journeys of every person who attends worship at Willow Creek.

This is not, I think, Hybels merely talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Rather, it is a thoughtful, even prayerful attempt to balance his understanding of the Bible with an openness to those who are not like him.  He is trying to stay true to the Bible and practice Christian love.  It is not an easy line for evangelicals to walk sometimes, and in this case his attempt at a balanced approach has left him open to criticism from both the LGBT community and other evangelicals.  Members of the one are unhappy because he still discriminates against gays by defining marriage as being between a woman and a man, and the other is critical because he doesn't follow a hardline on homosexuality.  He is tolerant and thus "unbiblical."

The point here is not who is right, who is wrong but rather to see in these events the way in which one of the most influential evangelical pastors in the U.S. has shifted away from hardcore evangelical thinking to views that are more balanced and that leave open the possibility of dialogue and understanding.  Hybels struggle for balance is not classical my-way-or-the-highway evangelicalism, and it is important to recognize that fact.  It is further evidence that elements of the evangelical movement are shifting toward moderation.

Bridging the "God Gulf"

Nicholas Kristof has written a commendable op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, "Evangelicals Without Blowhards," that distinguishes some evangelical leaders who give the evangelical movement a bad name from many other evangelicals who live out their faith in caring,  loving ways.  It is important to understand the goodness that he sees in evangelicals, Kristof concludes, "Because religious people and secular people alike do fantastic work on humanitarian issues — but they often don’t work together because of mutual suspicions. If we could bridge this “God gulf,” we would make far more progress on the world’s ills. And that would be, well, a godsend."  You might want to take a look at the whole essay.  And I would also recommend a thoughtful evangelical reply by Adam Jeske (here).

Divinely Guided Evolution

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's report entitled, "Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders," introduced in an earlier posting (here), included a question concerning evolution, which provides us with further insights into the various ways people of faith understand the relationship between God and evolution.  Question 41 of the questionnaire (p. 109) asked the respondents, evangelical leaders who attended the 1010 Lausanne Conference in South Africa, to select one of three choices that corresponded most nearly to their own thinking.  The results were:

• 3% agreed that, "Humans and other living things have evolved over time due to natural processes such as natural selection."
• 41% agreed that, "A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today."
• 47% agreed that, "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
• 9% gave no answer.

This is not what we might have expected.  The general perception is that evangelicals are biblical literalists and have to believe that all living species were created out of whole cloth at the beginning of creation.  No so, however.  Four evangelical leaders in ten, instead, accepted the truth of evolution but rejected natural selection as the mechanism that drives evolution.  Instead, they hold that God guides the process of evolution—a half-step away from a literalist interpretation of Genesis and toward biological evolution.

The Rev. Bill McGinnis, who apparently represents this middle way between outright rejection and wholesale acceptance of evolution, writes, "God created evolution, and He guides it and controls it, for His own purposes. Evolution is not an accident, and it does not happen according to any mechanistic process."  Rejecting the idea of the survival of the fittest and the role of random mutations in evolution, McGinnis also states, "No. God is the Creator of everything, just as it says in the Bible. He uses evolution as one of His creative tools, and he guides it and controls it every step of the way."

It's an interesting approach, but the problem is that the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming and growing by the minute.  (See the RPK posting, "The Scientific Method vs. the Creationist Method," on this same subject).  It, furthermore, leaves unanswered the issue of why God would use a method that is so clearly hit or miss and leaves all sorts of sloppy left overs (like the human appendix) that are unnecessary and sometimes harmful.  The idea that God manipulates the details of evolution, finally, also leaves us with the thorny issue of predestination and human freedom.  If God is in such intimate control, then we seem to be no more than puppets whose strings are pulled by a divine evolutionary comptroller.  God must also be the immediate source of all suffering in nature and among humans.  In all, it still seems best to understand God as the creator of evolutionary processes, which operate by fixed laws but also incorporate freedom and even chance as part of the process.  We see God's presence in the process of evolution as just that: a Presence working within the laws of evolution, seeking to mold us to ends that we really don't comprehend.  God works by the Spirit, not by fiat.