Interview with Christine Wicker, Author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation

Evangelicals also have similar rates of drug, alcohol and pornography addiction. They seem to engage in extra-marital and pre-marital sex at the same rates that others do.

Faith doesn’t appear to have impact on moral behavior.

Sure doesn’t stop them from loudly proclaiming their morals, though. Fundamentalist Christians are posers.

It’s like the premarital sex statistics. I’ve read that 25% of Americans think premarital sex is wrong, yet 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. Notice a discrepancy?

In all seriousness, this is probably one of the most optimistic and positive articles I have read in a long time.

I’ve read that 75 to 100 million Americans identify as evangelicals – nearly a third of the population (I’ve also read that the most conservative denominations within Christianity and Judaism are growing the most rapidly). I don’t understand the discrepancy, unless there’s a wide range of terms under which people define themselves as “evangelicals”.

I’d like to read a really good analysis of the available statistics.

Some of them may be, but I know that the Baptist denomination is in fact shrinking.

Mainline or Southern Baptist?

“It’s rare to find anyone in evangelical megachurches who will admit to being a Democrat. Megachurch preachers are unlikely to push particular candidates from the pulpit but they tie Republican policies to Biblical truth regularly.”

This may have been true a couple years ago, when Ted Haggard was pastor of the megachurch New Life Church, and also president of the NAE. But since his downfall, any firm connection between megachurch evangelicalism and Republican ideology and policy has been seriously hindered, if not severed at the root. You’re even starting to see pastors like Rick Warren inviting Barack Obama to speak from the pulpit. Whether it is ethical that churches should have ANY candidate, Republican or Democrat, speak in a service is another matter; the point is that there have always been moderates, and some liberals as well, in evangelicalism.

Take Brian McLaren, for example. He’s considered one of the godfathers of the Emergent movement. He encourages a move away from poiticking from the pulpit, and a move toward social involvement; poverty issues, social justice, etc. He is decidedly liberal in his approach, but his books have sold many thousands of copies.

It’s my opinion that evangelicalism is predominately moving towards an Emergent ideology, and that as such, Evangelicalism won’t disappear, but reform it’s ranks with a new, more moderate center. Those who are considered fundamentalist will continue to become more so, though I think they will face increasing hostility from what will be mainstream/emergent evangelicals, and eventually will break off from evangelicalism altogether.

“Perhaps a thousand evangelicals leave their churches every day and most are thought to leave faith altogether. Others drift into more mainstream Christian churches.”

That number is speculative at best, and speaking as someone who does occasionally darken the doors of a local evangelical megachurch, probably mis-informed. I can tell you now that attendance for this church today, as compared with attendance from the same church ten years ago, has dramatically increased. It’s the same with most of the large churches in the area.

But let’s say for a moment that Wicker is right, and that “a thousand evangelicals” are heading out the doors. She’s still wrong about where they’re headed. Evangelicalism has always been a very dynamic and fluid movement, if fundamentally because it has no traditional theology or escatology, and no substantial history. Looking at it from an overarching perspective, Evangelicalism is just a small progression in the 20th century that has been morphing and transforming over centuries since the reformation and the effective establishment of the protestant church.

Only someone with a lack of understanding of Christian church history would say that evangelicals will leave by “the thousands”; the reason is say this because evangelicalism is changing so much. Mostly, evangelicals are transferring within the movement itself to different iterations of the evangelical church, not away from it altogether. Like I said earlier, they’re moving to more open progressions of evangelicalism; emergent, neo-orthodox; and yes, some are moving into mainline churches. But Evangelicalism won’t disappear; it will simply evolve, as it always has, into whatever movement best represents the central core of modern, non-denom Christians.

Joel, if evangelicalism does morph into emergent churches, that’s great. But it does indeed mean that evangelicalism will be gone because the two really are not the same or even compatible.

It’s my opinion that evangelicalism is predominately moving towards an Emergent ideology, and that as such, Evangelicalism won’t disappear, but reform it’s ranks with a new, more moderate center. Those who are considered fundamentalist will continue to become more so, though I think they will face increasing hostility from what will be mainstream/emergent evangelicals, and eventually will break off from evangelicalism altogether.

That’s true, and that’s why it’s important to draw a distinction between evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity. Right now, fundamentalism is sort of hiding in mainstream Christianity’s skirts, and it’s doing a damn good job feeding on the legitimacy of it. I’m hoping that, 20 years or so from now, things like Biblical literalism won’t get nearly the respect it gets now.

(And that goes for literalism on both ends of the Bible – ie, creationism and LaHaye/Jenkins style End Times beliefs, which take the book of Revelation “literally.”)

“Joel, if evangelicalism does morph into emergent churches, that’s great. But it does indeed mean that evangelicalism will be gone because the two really are not the same or even compatible.”
But that’s my point in the first place. Evangelicalism is only a very small blip in the course of church history, and more specifically protestant history. Before Evangelicalism, there were numerous movements, many of which have found new realizations within different parts of Evangelicalism. Except for a small constituency of hard-core non-denom groups, Evangelicalism is not considered the peak of Christian thought, and is by no means enshrined as a Christian credo. It is a progression of protestant ideology, just like puritanism, methodism, revivalism, and fundamentalism. It will grow and evolve into the next form of non-denominational thought.

Evangelicalism today is very different from what it was 50 years ago, and it will look very different in 50 years from now, if it remains as a major church philosophy.

“That’s true, and that’s why it’s important to draw a distinction between evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity. Right now, fundamentalism is sort of hiding in mainstream Christianity’s skirts, and it’s doing a damn good job feeding on the legitimacy of it.”

Exactly. There’s a major distinction within understandings of Evangelicalism that must be made more clearly. Classical Evangelicalism is a philosophy that says that interaction of faith should be between people, and that if there is a change in culture, it is because of personal and individual interaction between people, at a grassroots level. Fundmentalism is a approach which has always been defined as a separatist movement; their understanding of interaction with culture is basically nil. They believe that culture should become predominately Christian in nature, and the method through which this will be brought about is directly through politics. They believe that domineering the political world will give Christians the power to force culture to adhere to a Christian worldview. This perspective especially came into play in the past few decades. People like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson all fall under this perspective.

Unfortunately, Fundamentalism has associated itself (and has been associated by mainstream media) under the Evangelical tag in the last 25 or so years, and consequentially, has changed (in a presumably negative way) the meaning and reputation of Evangelicalism. But it isn’t classic evangelicalism, and a lot of Evangelicals feel betrayed by such a movement.

This is why I find Wicker’s perspective enormously problematic, because it fails to truly understand the Evangelical core perspective, and instead focuses on a fringe constituency that has commandeered evangelicalism; this is why there is a great movement in Evangelicals toward the Emergent church, and also to evangelically-inclined liturgical churches.

This article gives me hope that the religious right won’t in fact take over the U.S. afterall.

For example, how can it be that over 50% of Americans believe in some form of creationism? Is that just a comment on the sorry state of science education in the U.S.? Or are there large numbers of creationists who don’t count as “evangelicals” for some reason?

Most of these people don’t believe anything with any conviction. They believe, when asked, that these are the things that they are supposed to believe, and having little or no understanding of science are happy to do so.

Okay. It looks like I’m going to have to defend my good name here.

I didn’t use the word fundamentalism in my answers, but I do look at the overlap in the book. And I deal with fundamentalism in some detail. If you look at the core beliefs of fundamentalism, there’s very little difference in it and in what most evangelicals believe. Rick Warren included.

I do say that the evangelicals I’m looking at are predominately Religious Right. Your points about diversity within the evangelical community are exactly what the book is proving up. Only 5 to 7 percent of those who self identify as evangelicals fit into the pubic conception of what an evangelical is — which is a supporter of the Religious Right. (For a look at the political implications of that, see my first column on Huffington Post. There’s a link on my website.) This is a vital point to understand because of the hold that these misconceptions have had on discussion in the public square and politics.

They’ve all been lumped together, but as the Mother Jones reviewer (herself an evangelical said) a lot of those people didn’t even know they were being counted in the Religious Right. Only 20 percent of self identified evangelicals say they are in the RR.

Are evangelicals changing? Absolutely. They have to. And they know it.
But they’re going in different directions. For more on that, take a look at the piece I wrote for The Dallas Morning News. It’s on my website.

Are a large proportion of them becoming emergent? I haven’t seen any numbers. Have you?

Emergent ideas appear to be mostly attracting young people and as important as they are for the future, the rest of us aren’t dead yet. As anyone who remembers the Jesus People will attest, what young people do doesn’t always hold into adulthood.

But this may because it’s being supported by societal pressures.

It’s an exciting time for Christian faith.

You think that churches will mind their own business? That would be great, but if you think this is even starting to start to begin to begin to happen, then you obviously have never set foot in the USA.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but as a self-professed Christian, and as a Christian who once considered myself Evangelical, AND as a Christian who has lived my life predominately in the USA, I meant exactly what I said.

But if you’re asking if Churches in the United States will become self-contained communes, which don’t interact with the rest of the world, or culture at large, I think you’ll be sorely disappointed. The problem is not that churches don’t mind their own business. A church has as much right to freedom of expression as any other social group. The problem is rooted in some churches in fringe groups that have set themselves up as cultural arbiters, and feel it is their duty, and right, to judge what is and isn’t acceptable, culturally speaking. It doesn’t help that such churches are forceful and manipulative in their approach.

However, as I said, they are fringe churches, and though they may get a lot of attention because of the noise they make, they don’t represent Evangelicalism as a whole. There is a large movement away from such practice; as a matter of fact, there are a lot of Evangelicals who resent the stereotypes that such fringe groups bring to Evangelicalism as a whole. Consequently, there is a considerable movement towards a more ecumenical structure that focuses as much inward as outward.

So no, the Evangelical church isn’t going to disappear or fall behind the scenes; but I do think that it is becoming a more nuanced and thoughtful voice than has been attributed to it in the past, and I think with time, it will continue to progress in that direction.

writerdd, good point 🙂

I just finished the book. I thought Christine backed up her points well and I liked the people stories interspersed throughout that show how being evangelical personally affects peoples’ lives. Well, when I say ‘liked’, some of them made me wince but they were written up very well by Christine.

seekers join the church, are real excited for a while (perhaps a few months), then slowly stop tithing, then stop attending all together.

This is actually what got Ray Comfort started. He thinks they don’t appreciate what God has done for them, so his answer is to try to make them understand how truly depraved they are, and how much they deserve to go to hell.

Joel,

RE: Seattle and the Emergent movement – bear in mind that the Pacific Northwest, like the Northeast, tends to be far removed from the rest of the country in terms of attitude and ideology.

Christine (if you’re still watching),

I’m growing increasingly confused by all of the talk here about the differences between “Evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism”, and how they correspond, supposedly, to the statistics at hand. From my perspective as an atheist and as someone who didn’t grow up in the Christian milieu, the differences seem rather subtle and insignificant. I’ve come across conservative Christians of Calvinist orientation who insist that they aren’t “fundamentalists”. Frankly, I just roll my eyes when I hear this. They all think I’m going to hell! Whether or not they also think that humans rode dinosaurs to work is beside the point, and isn’t of any interest to me, unless I’m over at PZ Meyers’ blog talking about evolution. To me, they’re all in the same basket. Whether they happen to congregate on one side of the basket or another is irrelevant. I’m not interested in gradations of belief.

The bottom line is that I don’t believe that only seven percent of the population thinks I’m going to hell. My experience would lead me to believe that the 25-35% figure is more likely to be accurate. Now, within that group, are we going to parse out who believes in saying it “nicely”, and who believes that screaming and threats are more effective? I really don’t care.

I would add that many, if not most of the Emergent folks wouldn’t even really qualify as “Evangelicals”, as Christine defines them:

those people who have accepted Jesus as their personal savior and as the only way to heaven, who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and who are scaring the bejesus out of the rest of America.

Many (probably most) are not Biblical inerrantists, and some, like our own Mike Clawson, are not salvific exclusivists and aren’t even entirely comfortable with the term “Evangelical”. And few if any are “scaring the bejesus” out of people!

This is why, after thirty-odd comments, I still don’t know which “Evangelicals” are being discussed here, or how they correspond to these statistics.

Is it largely an urban phenomenon – cities, suburbs?

All of the above. Here in Chicago we have 4 branches – three in the suburbs and one in the city. I’ve also been getting three or four new cohorts going in rural Kansas and Nebraska lately.

I meant in Texas, actually. You mentioned Austin, Waco, San Antonio, Dallas, and Fort Worth.

You guys are convincing me that I should have used the word fundamentalist.

So why didn’t I? Well the book is full of people who bravely shared their stories with me. I believe they took that risk, and it’s a big one, because they wanted to testify to what they had found. They wanted to serve Jesus. They wanted to help other people. All three. I admire them for that.

I didn’t want to insult them by branding them with an inflammatory label that would distort who they want to be. As I see it, a journalist has three primary responsibilities: to the source, to the reader and to the truth. All are problematic and sometimes they contradict one another.

A second point: remember, I’m not a scholar. I’m a journalist who is always speaking to the broadest audience possible.

There is a belief definition of evangelicals in the Evangelical Manifesto and one in the book framed by evangelical pollster George Barna. I’m going to reproduce both of them on my web site. (As soon as I stop blogging.) I hope to do it today. So people can compare the two. Lots of evangelicals believe the George Barna definition is too stringent. As I say in the book one longtime Baptist, who works for a Baptist organization, said, “St. Peter himself wouldn’t qualify under that definition.

But when I looked at it, I laughed aloud. It’s so loose. I might even fit. I also wrote a pretty hot rebuttal to the Christianity Today editorial, which pretty much said I was ignorant for not realizing that anybody can believe anything and act any way and still be an evangelical. That’s on my website too. (Of course, they thought those things about me. Evangelicals are their income base. They sure don’t want to count anybody out. One of the mistakes we journalists make is to forget that religion is a billion-dollar business.)

To the issue of everyone else going to hell. Evangelicals, as I understand them, do generally believe that.

Or they used to. I’m sorry to do this again but look on my website under Baptists Aren’t Who They’re Thought to Be (or some such title.) This blew me away. And when I tell other Texas Baptists about it, many of them don’t even blink.

The times, they are a changin’. And evangelicals are too. Because they have to.

Joel,

I appreciate the personal thoughts. As a former “evangelical” (who shared the gospel ala Ray Comfort style)-turned emergent-tuned Atheist, this is a very interesting topic to me. However, I’ve had this debate with Mike Clawson a bit (I think it’s under “Pluralistic or Totalitarian” in April of 2008) and I hold to my opinion. Your version of Christianity (which sounds pretty emergent even if you don’t claim to be) is so outside of the norm that it is almost unrecognizable. It should be called something else, perhaps. Even while diasgreeing with them, I can at least say the conservatives/fundamentalists/evangelicals who would tell me that I am seperated from God eternally are consistent. I can jive much better with the emergent crowd (who especially share my political views), but I think in way, they dance around the idea of what makes a Christian distinct. Again, we’ve had this discussion before, but a couple of items to discuss:

This is a broken world, and we’re a bunch of messed up people; all of us. So in many senses, we’re all lost.

Where are you getting this? The Bible? I mean, I’ll agree with you partially. On the other hand, I think there are many things in this world which are beautiful, innocent, exciting, etc. (Cipher will disagree) I think it’s oversimplified to say “everything” is broken, when it’s clearly not. After all, you and me having this discussion in a non-hostile way seems to be a very good thing. And I attribute nothing of it to a superstition of god.

When I realize the depth of God’s love for people, or the fact that he created something that we humans are using rather irresponsibly, it compels me to change my way, and makes amends. I don’t think it’s a perspective that says that only Christians can do good things; I think it’s that God changes the way we think; He messes with our comfortable paradigms, and throws them out the window. It’s an issue of motivation, not exclusivity.

Again, nice thoughts, but what is your source? The Bible? The “Holy Spirit”? For everyone who believes your explanation of the gospel, I can find ten more Christians who know their Bible (maybe) and would tell me that, as an atheist, I’m lost and anyone who isn’t for Christ is against him (someone said that a couple thousand years ago, didn’t they?). I might say, “well, I think Jesus has some great teachings, but I also disagree with him somewhat and don’t believe he ever performed miracles or rose from the dead”, and they would say I need him, or I’m “lost”. So, whose “holy spirit” or “intepretation of the Bible” is correct? I’m afraid I have to side with the conservative here who believes that God had every right to commit genocide in the Old Testament and make Judas betray Jesus while still punishing Judas in the NT. Your view of the Bible seems to dodge the difficult parts. I know Mike C. will disagree, but I had to put it out there again.

Seriously dude, if Hell does exist, I’m pretty sure it consists of being forced to watch professional sports (pretty much any sport, doesn’t matter) for hours on end. I can’t think of any greater torment.

Careful Mike. You’re on sacred ground here and I will go jihad on your ass. 🙂 Have you ever watched the Spurs? Minus their last series against the Lakers, they are poetry in motion. A bunch of experienced players who don’t whine or make excuses, but just get the job done (or at least four times in the last nine years). I think you need to become more emergent and progressive in your professional sports watching. Get out of your comfortable paradigm! (Substitute the word “heaven” for “hell”, “basketball” for “sports”, and “bliss” for “torment” and I agree with you 100%).

Your version of Christianity (which sounds pretty emergent even if you don’t claim to be) is so outside of the norm that it is almost unrecognizable.

Though my point is that it is becoming more recognizable, not less so.

“I think there are many things in this world which are beautiful, innocent, exciting, etc. (Cipher will disagree) I think it’s oversimplified to say “everything” is broken, when it’s clearly not.”

I totally agree. Which is why I didn’t use the word “everything”. That was your own insertion. 🙂

“After all, you and me having this discussion in a non-hostile way seems to be a very good thing.”

Agreed! I’m having a thoroughly good time.

“I might say, “well, I think Jesus has some great teachings, but I also disagree with him somewhat and don’t believe he ever performed miracles or rose from the dead”, and they would say I need him, or I’m “lost”.”

And I’m totally with you that this is a rather futile circular argument. I certainly can’t speak for you about whether or not your life is fulfilled. That’s your own issue with God. I can however say that I’ve found a lot of fulfillment personally through my faith, and if you’re interested I highly recommend it! 🙂

“For everyone who believes your explanation of the gospel, I can find ten more Christians who know their Bible (maybe) and would tell me that, as an atheist, I’m lost and anyone who isn’t for Christ is against him (someone said that a couple thousand years ago, didn’t they?).”

Well no offense, but there are 1.7 Billion of us Christians on earth, and I’ll bet you’ll find a good deal more perspectives in that amount than you’re giving credit to here.

As to the question of what Christ said about those who are not for him, you’re referring to Matthew 12, and a section in that chapter which has caused a lot of disagreement between theologians about “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”; the verse in question probably does not pertain directly to issues of salvation. Only literalists would take that verse on face value.

“So, whose “holy spirit” or “intepretation of the Bible” is correct? I’m afraid I have to side with the conservative here who believes that God had every right to commit genocide in the Old Testament and make Judas betray Jesus while still punishing Judas in the NT. Your view of the Bible seems to dodge the difficult parts.”

So…Does that make you a fundamentalist? 😉

Well, in that paragraph alone, you’re dealing with free will vs. predestination, inerrancy vs. errancy, Biblical history, divine punishment, the nature of God, and other such small, irrelevant questions. I’m not intending to back off, but I can tell you right now I’m not able to take all those issues in one fell swoop. I’d be more than happy to discuss them over time, and one at a time.

To the issue of everyone else going to hell. Evangelicals, as I understand them, do generally believe that.

Or they used to. I’m sorry to do this again but look on my website under Baptists Aren’t Who They’re Thought to Be (or some such title.) This blew me away. And when I tell other Texas Baptists about it, many of them don’t even blink.

Christine,

There is a link at your website entitled, Baptist thinking isn’t always what people think it is , which leads to a post at Conversation at the Edge, A Texas Baptist who sounds like Jim. Is that the one? George Mason, the minister you describe, sounds as though he still thinks that many of us are going to hell – he just doesn’t want to be the one making the decision. I’m sorry, but I’m impatient with that attitude. A lot of evangelicals today are a little queasy abut the idea of hell, but they can’t or won’t give up the idea altogether, so they take the position, “It isn’t my place to judge. I’ll just leave it up to God.” I think that’s a colossal cop-out. People here have heard me complain that a lot of the Emergent folks waffle on this issue as well.

Joel,

I

think there are many things in this world which are beautiful, innocent, exciting, etc. (Cipher will disagree) I think it’s oversimplified to say “everything” is broken, when it’s clearly not.”

I totally agree. Which is why I didn’t use the word “everything”. That was your own insertion

.

Oh…you’re right. I misquoted you. You said…

This is a broken world, and we’re a bunch of messed up people; all of us. So in many senses, we’re all lost.

…and I still think this is too oversimplified, as I would mention the same thing: some of the world (and the people in it) is (are) amazingly beautiful and again, I find that to have nothing to do with a belief in god.

Well no offense, but there are 1.7 Billion of us Christians on earth, and I’ll bet you’ll find a good deal more perspectives in that amount than you’re giving credit to here.

Well, maybe. But, I think most would say someone that doesn’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection is “lost”, no matter what that means. It’s hard to quantify that with numbers (Mike says the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t say this), but if you don’t think that that’s the case, then why be a Christian? Why elevate Christ? If being a Christian is about being restored from my broken self, then don’t I need Christ? If it’s just about a path or “the way”, then why do I have to believe in Jesus’ resurrection to do that?
“

So, whose “holy spirit” or “intepretation of the Bible” is correct? I’m afraid I have to side with the conservative here who believes that God had every right to commit genocide in the Old Testament and make Judas betray Jesus while still punishing Judas in the NT. Your view of the Bible seems to dodge the difficult parts.”

So…Does that make you a fundamentalist?

Well, in that paragraph alone, you’re dealing with free will vs. predestination, inerrancy vs. errancy, Biblical history, divine punishment, the nature of God, and other such small, irrelevant questions

Yeah, maybe I’m an atheist fundy. If that’s possible. Let me simplify the question without answering it myself. If you and Pat Robertson follow the same Bible, both claim to be “restored” or “on the path to restoration” (however you want to define that) by Christ, both claim to be indwelled with the Holy Spirit, then why do you have such different takes on theology (do you really?) and life? Where has the Holy Spirit gone wrong here?

I certainly can’t speak for you about whether or not your life is fulfilled. That’s your own issue with God.

Joel, this sounds like dodging. If you believe he Bible, it would be very clear that you know damn well that my life is not fulfilled. The Bible calls me a fool, liar, and many other things for rejecting the existence of god or the divinity of Christ. In fact, this sounds an awful lot like the comments Cipher mentioned earlier:

A lot of evangelicals today are a little queasy abut the idea of hell, but they can’t or won’t give up the idea altogether, so they take the position, “It isn’t my place to judge. I’ll just leave it up to God.” I think that’s a colossal cop-out. People here have heard me complain that a lot of the Emergent folks waffle on this issue as well.

I can however say that I’ve found a lot of fulfillment personally through my faith, and if you’re interested I highly recommend it!

I’m still not sure about any coherent definition of evangelism, but this seems to be a good example of it. Even if the fundamentalists would call it evangelism-lite.

Agreed! I’m having a thoroughly good time.

Me too, especially since I should be doing more productive things.

Cipher,

I think you’re right about the waffle. And I, too, find it unsatisfactory. But what’s astonishing is that a Baptist preacher in Dallas, Texas, would even be moving that way and preaching it. I never thought I’d live to see that day.
They are backing off, slowly perhaps, of their major premise. They’ve still got Jesus dying for us, which is a strange idea (but most religious ideas are strange to outsiders.) And they still proclaim that their way is the best way.

I suspect that evangelical Christianity and probably all of Christianity is too hemmed in by its doctrine and the Bible to be great use to the majority of people today. I think that if you begin with the premise that they do, you can’t get to real friendship and real openness with outsiders.

But, I’ve known people who do. I’ve known Baptists who are simply the best people, the most open-minded people I’ve ever known. I suspect they’ve matured spiritually because of and in spite of the church. Would they have become the same people without church? I don’t know.

I’ve been slowly drawn into friendship with some evangelicals in the last few years. Something very exciting is happening among them. Questioning and thinking that I never expected. When they talk about the need for a Reformation, they are groping toward some incredible changes. As Brian McLaren says, a deep shift.

How deep? How far? I don’t know.

I think they’ll have to go back to basics. And a central question would be whether Christianity really has anything to offer if you give up guilting and threatening people. And if you give up exclusivity. I think they must give up exclusivity.

At the same time, I think the news in my new book is the best thing that’s happened for Christianity in the last 30 years. I’m not tooting my own horn, just talking about the facts coming to light. They mean that fundamentalism isn’t the only way for Christianity to go.

On another subject.

This issue of brokenness does keep coming up. I was Austin last week. I spoke at First Baptist Church, which is one of the most progressive Baptist churches in Texas (don’t laugh). (or okay do laugh, it’s a description that is hard to imagine). Afterwards, I went to dinner with the Baptist preacher, a U/U preacher and some others. Brokenness was a big topic. Very controversial.

When so much heat is generated around a topic, you know something very central is shifting. Or has shifted already.

Take a look at David Brooks’ column in the NYT today. Interesting discussion. He’s more conservative than I am, and I suspect his motives for reasons you will immediately see if you know he’s a Republican, but he is an interesting thinker.

This is my unique challenge as well. I see much dodging with “progressive Christianity”, but like you guys, I’d much rather see it be more prevalent.

And all of this is happening in Texas? I can’t really believe it; I think you guys keep getting lost.

Cipher,

Texas is actually a bit more diverse than you would think. With well over 20 million people and lots of diversiy (especially in the cities), we’re a pretty interesting state with a lot of different viewpoints. You shouldn’t think we all love John Wayne or resemble George Bush.

…and I still think this is too oversimplified, as I would mention the same thing: some of the world (and the people in it) is (are) amazingly beautiful and again, I find that to have nothing to do with a belief in god.

Well, maybe. But, I think most would say someone that doesn’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection is “lost”, no matter what that means. It’s hard to quantify that with numbers (Mike says the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t say this), but if you don’t think that that’s the case, then why be a Christian? Why elevate Christ? If being a Christian is about being restored from my broken self, then don’t I need Christ? If it’s just about a path or “the way”, then why do I have to believe in Jesus’ resurrection to do that?

Well first off, I’d definitely agree that I think those not living in God’s love are going in a direction that will neither benefit them, nor help them solve their personal problems. I do think that trusting God with our lives is a journey, and it’s not all over when someone says the “sinner’s prayer”.

I think that the best way to go about this discussion is to explain what I believe about my faith, sin, redemption, hell, and in the course of the post, maybe answer some of your questions.

I would hold that there are very few, if any, complete people who don’t have some sort of reliance on God, in some religious form or another. Of course there are amazingly beautiful people, some of whom don’t believe in God; but even amazingly beautiful people struggle with doubt and failure inside of them, and awareness of their own shortcomings. If they don’t, then they haven’t lived long enough to know their own fallibility, and sadness in the world.

That’s the contention that Christians make; sin (regardless of what it means for eternal judgment) is an internal force in everyone, and it causes a lot of grief and pain and loss. It’s there when we’re born, and it’s there when we die. We can still do good things, but we’ll be haunted by sin. It’s the struggle between two things that we Christians believe; that people are created in the image of God, which makes us beautiful and wonderful and valuable; and conversely that we are held by sin, unable to escape it on our own.

Of course as a Christian I hold to the belief in the resurrection. But I also hold to the belief that as humans, we need something outside of ourselves, greater than us, to save us from ourselves. When I talk about resting in the “strong hand of love”, I’m resting in an outside force that I believe is beyond sin, and because of Christ’s sacrifice, where there was a separation between a holy God and sinful people, there is now no separation. I’m not sold on any one perspective about when or how exactly person becomes “saved”. I hold to the conviction that God works with “faith of a mustard seed”, and contrary to what the fundies think, it’s not for them to decide how that works. It’s not for me to decide how that works. That much is in God’s hands.

As to the afterlife? You got me. The ideas surrounding Heaven and Hell in the Bible are very complex, and interwoven with descriptive narrative, allegory, and parables, not to mention the fact that there is a lot of prophesy thrown in for good measure, so that it makes it all but impossible to nail one definition down. I’m kind of leaving that up to God while I try and study it, and work out my own understanding of it.

I think it’s pretty obvious that the Bible speaks about Heaven, Hell, salvation, sin, and all issues central and pertinent to the Christian faith. However, I don’t think there’s a problem with there being a number of approaches to those issues. It’s what makes Christianity such a dynamic faith. It’s really a shame that the fundamentalists feel their perspective is the exclusive Christian perspective, because for me, part of understanding Christianity is respecting and being open to the perspectives of all Christians, and all philosophies therein.

So to sum up, Christianity is a journey of discovery that I will be on for the rest of my life, and I’m still working out the details. I’m humble enough to say that I don’t have it all figured out yet; the difference between us is that I’m headed towards trying to find meaningful reasons for my faith, and you’re headed towards trying to find confirmation against Christianity. Our perspectives are fundamentally focused on opposing ends of the spectrum. I respect that, and of course, hope that perhaps someday you’ll consider looking back into what Christianity means.

Joel, this sounds like dodging. If you believe he Bible, it would be very clear that you know damn well that my life is not fulfilled. The Bible calls me a fool, liar, and many other things for rejecting the existence of god or the divinity of Christ. In fact, this sounds an awful lot like the comments Cipher mentioned earlier:

I think the problem here is that you want me to say something incriminating and bigoted. It’s easier to criticize a fundie who’s shoving hellfire and damnation down your throat, than it is to deal with someone like me. I’m not going to do that, because I am still working the answers out myself. The Bible is complicated and nuanced, and I don’t just take it on face value. Like I said, I’m still trying to work my own salvation out; but I think I’ve sufficiently given a “reason for the hope that is in me”, as St. Paul said. You can take it or leave it. I’m not going to proselytize. I’ll pray for you personally, I’ll talk with you if you’re interested. But it IS your issue with God, it’s not on my shoulders. I have neither the wisdom, nor the authority to make a call on your standing with God.

I do agree however, that everything isn’t equal. I really do think that Christianity is more fulfilling, and more meaningful as a form of belief. If I didn’t think it was, then why would I believe in Christianity in the first place?

I’m sorry to say this, but I am a busy guy, and I really don’t have the time or energy to keep up this discussion. Not to mention the fact that our little rabbit trail has gone really far off course of the original subject at hand, that we ought to finish it up. I think after 10 or 15 long posts, I’ve said enough to make it clear what my position is, and I hope that’s helpful in the course of this interaction. I don’t plan on responding from here on out. I have had a good time, and I wish everyone here all the best.

But that doesn’t prevent me from being pissed off.

SF, if it helps you at all, I have a similar problem in the Jewish world. Jews, even the ultra-Orthodox, generally aren’t Biblical literalists in the Christian sense; the Talmud is a written record of 2,000 years of oral commentary and interpretation. The rabbis spent centuries reinterpreting the Bible to accommodate evolving sensibilities, although, naturally, they didn’t want to see it that way, so the idea arose that there are multiple levels of meaning, and that only those whose souls and/or intellects are refined can apprehend the deeper meanings.

One simple example is the injunction to parents to have a disobedient son put to death. This troubled the rabbis during the medieval period, and they claimed that it rarely happened. One of them got pretty hot about it and declared, “It never happened!”, so that became the official opinion – it never happened, and it never will. My problem is that I don’t believe it; I think it did happen, as a matter of societal control, and was approved of; that’s why it was included.

I mentioned recently that I’m friendly with (a very liberal and open-minded) Orthodox rabbi. I told him this the other day – I don’t think that there are any “deeper” or “hidden” meanings; it was written by people in a primitive state of development, and it reflects their savagery. Progressive evangelicals (both of them!) and liberal Christians in general often say that we atheists have the same understanding of the Bible as do the fundamentalists. Well – yeah. I think the fundies are correct; I don’t think that there are, for the most part , any subtle or nuanced meanings (perhaps later on, by the time you get to Revelations, but we lost the key to that a long time ago). I think it means what it seems to mean. Put your child to death. Commit genocide. Later on – if you don’t believe, you’ll be burned alive for all of eternity. All of the attempts, on the part of both Christians and Jews, to see it otherwise are rationalizations, and nothing more.

Christians often use flowery, sentimental language to refer to the Bible – it’s God’s “love letter” to humanity, etc. Obviously, I think that’s a load. It’s a bloody, savage series of books, written by people in a primitive stage of development and it reflects their inherent violence and cultural outlook (as well as, as I keep saying here, centuries upon centuries of accumulated self-loathing). I agree with the fundies – either you accept it, or you reject it. I reject it. I can’t do otherwise. I don’t think ill of liberal Christians and Jews who accept it and try to reinterpret it; as I’ve said repeatedly, salvific exclusivism is the line of demarcation for me. As long as you don’t believe that the rest of us are going to hell, I don’t have a problem with you. And if you have more than a few neurons to rub together, we can talk. On the subject of the Bible’s origin and inherent worth, however, we can never agree.

And, if it really is the product of divine revelation, we’re in a shitload of trouble, because God is obviously psychotic.

And now Mike will probably stop talking to me altogether.

That being said, I’m still glad there are Mikes and Joels in the world. I may critique them for what I see as a lack of consistency, but polticially and socially, the world is a better place because of them. In my opinion.

Certainly. I don’t think it will be enough to salvage this sorry civilization – but I agree.

sorry, I’m way late with this, but I disagree with the commenter who suggested “fundamentalism” as a better name than ‘evangelicalism.’ ‘Fundamenralism” has a long tradition of use in hermeneutics and has ties to liberals like Fosdick and near- agnostics like Mansel. And too, unless I’ve got it wrong, the Religious Right encompasses charismatic and holiness churches which aren’t fundamentalist wrt exegesis,