I’m More Evangelical than You

Jon Fitzgerald, who no longer uses the term “evangelical” to describe himself, weighs in on a topic that I’ve often pondered on this blog: What, Exactly, Is an Evangelical? He notes, among other things, how ham-fisted the mainstream media is with the term:

When it became clear that in the popular mind the word evangelical was more a social and political construct than a theological one, it set off a scramble to accurately self-identify in books, articles, and blog posts among evangelicals of all stripes. There are those who defend the theological roots of the term and wish to reclaim it from social rebranding, and others who recognize their own views in the social and political categorization and thus accept the term as is. Still others reject the label outright, ceasing to identify as evangelical altogether.

The result of all this hand wringing and word wrangling is that, in 2012, it is more difficult than ever to know what one means by the term. Today, we have what I call shades of evangelicalism. The term is not going away, but the people it is meant to describe are becoming more and more diverse—politically, theologically, and socially. At the same time, the media is using the term with far greater frequency.

Read the rest of Jon’s column: The 50 Shades of Evangelicalism | Politics | Religion Dispatches.

A Better Atonement: Lean Left, Tony, Lean Left!

Try as he might, Peter Laarman can’t help but sneer at my latest book. Just…Not…Progressive enough for him. Also, not smart enough, too hipster, and too evangelical. He doesn’t seem to like my eyeglasses, either. Or the book’s subtitle. Or Rob Bell. (Wait, what in God’s name does Rob Bell have to do with my book on the atonement? You’ll have to read the article to find out.)

Penitentially present to RD readers for just a minute during Holy Week, I want to welcome a new Kindle-only book from Tony Jones: A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin.

I have never met Tony Jones, and I was initially inclined to offer a sneer instead of a review. I am still inclined toward sniping, as you will see, but the easy snipe just won’t do this time. I’ve thought about it, and (God forbid) I’ve even prayed about it. I conclude that the old Common Front principle of “no enemies on the Left” really ought to apply right now, at a moment when anyone who is honestly seeking to recast troublesome old Christian doctrines should be seen as an ally and not an enemy.

Read the Rest: Rejecting Blood Sacrifice Theology, Again | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches.

But here’s the point of the review: Oh, look at the little post-evangelical emergent discovering what we smart liberals have known for decades. How cute!

Spiritual But Not Religious – Defended

Kate Blanchard, a religious studies professor, pushes back on Lillian Daniel, whose post about spiritual but not religious became a meme a couple weeks back:

But most Sundays I don’t go to church because, frankly put, it bores me; I am tired and church fails to provide any compelling reason to get out of my pajamas. (Were I living in a large, cosmopolitan city where churches with high liturgy, weekly Eucharist, beautiful architecture, and trained musicians abounded, my story might be quite different.) Although I like the people at church very much and I wish to support them in their hours of need, I am still unwilling to prioritize membership. I have an emotionally demanding job that takes up all of my time and psychic energy during the academic year, and I would honestly rather get work done in my off hours than act as an usher or sit on a church governing body. (via Spiritual But Not Religious? Come Talk to Me | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches.)

Blanchard makes a good point, I think.  She also points out in the article that Daniel is a UCC minister, a denomination that might fall into the “boring” category for a lot of people.  Blanchard’s post is a good read, and worthy of consideration.

On Being a (Not Quite Good Enough) GLBT Ally

In the last week, a couple of writers have taken to the interwebs to proclaim that my support of GLBT persons is, well, sub-par.  At Religion Dispatches, Elizabeth Drescher takes offense to the closing salvo in my post, “Homoerotic Churches,” in which I imply that some evangelicals’ taste for the man-on-man grappling in mixed martial arts may mask their own longings. Drescher writes,

Jones has apparently missed the homoeroticism of the quarterback snap in football and the rampant ass-slapping across all sports, gender notwithstanding. In any case, the gays-are-rubber-Mark-Driscoll-is-glue approach to confronting Driscoll’s thug-like homophobia is hardly the same as a clear condemnation. And, I might add, while I personally find MMA, boxing, and wrestling in all its forms distasteful, I’m sure there’s little pastoral grace for either LBGTQ or straight kids who do enjoy these sports in highlighting them as ironically effeminate—even for the sake of pointing out that Mark Driscoll is a jerk. Even the Apostle Paul, disciplinarian of the Early Church, attempted to model the practice of admonishment for bad behavior without resorting to shaming. Just sayin’…

There have been several comments along those same lines regarding my original post.  Was it a cheap shot for me to write, “we preach most fervently against the very sin that we are struggling with“?  Maybe.  But there were also many commenters who agreed with that sentiment.

While I believe that there’s ample evidence to make a claim like that, it was not meant to be universal.  Someone who preaches against a sin is not necessarily under the sway of that very sin.  Nor, of course, do I consider it an insult to imply that some conservative evangelical leaders may be harboring various sexual predilections.  In fact, I, like Dan Savage, would encourage them to honestly confront those.

[Read more...]

Elizabeth Drescher: Facebook Doesn't Kill Churches, Churches Kill Churches

Elizabeth Drescher has a great post at Religion Dispatches, riffing on Richard Beck’s excellent post about Facebook killing the church.  Money Quote from Drescher:

Not Enough Social to Go Around

The relationships among the undergraduates in Beck’s research were not formed on Facebook, they were enriched by students’ continued digital contact. The problem with regard to churches and other religious communities (and we see this over and over again with Facebook group pages whose only visitors are the minister and the technophile parishioner who championed the church’s foray into the digital domain) seems to be that there’s not enough social to go around.

That is, if church were, indeed, a robustly social experience, Facebook would enrich and extend that experience, enhancing week-to-week retention through ongoing conversation with valued friends—just as it appears to do with undergraduates moving from the first to the second year of college. Thin connections in face-to-face settings are not magically transformed by technology.

via Facebook Doesn’t Kill Churches, Churches Kill Churches | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches.

In fact, this very point was made by Mike Baughman at the Social Phonics Boot Camp last week in Dallas, when he challenged the group about how Facebook is actually picking up where the church dropped the ball.

Policing the Borders of Christianity

Brandy Daniels pens an intriguing piece at Religion Dispatches about the particular tradition in American Christianity to guard the borders of the faith.  (I said something similar in Relevant Magazine in 2006, but it’s no longer online, and I doubt anyone would remember anyway.)  Border guards are not what we need.  Border crossers are what we need.

I encourage you to read the whole post at RD, but here’s a taste:

Carter names what he calls a “profound pathology” at the heart of contemporary Christianity, in which Jesus names who belongs, and who does not—in effect “policing” the borders of the faith.

I would argue that this “border logic” that shapes racial-religious discourse (think of the Muslim cultural center in New York, the immigration debate in Arizona, etc.) is the same problematic theo-logic behind the borders that define public discourse on sexuality and religion.

via Stop Policing the Borders of Christianity | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches.

Star Wars and Evangelical Revisionist History

An interesting take on evangelical nostalgia for a past that never was, especially important during an era in which Glenn Beck and the Teabaggers are constantly invoking this glorious version of America that never existed.

So what do Peter Marshall and Star Wars have in common? A lot. Most importantly, they show us that Americans are still searching for and finding faiths that affirm who they imagine themselves to be as a people rather than religions that challenge them to be better than they are. Marshall tells Christians that they are linked to a long line of holy predecessors just like them. Star Wars, in turn, helps viewers recognize their connection to an all-powerful, all-encompassing Force.

via 1977 Redux: Star Wars and Evangelical Revisionist History | Religion Dispatches.

Is Homosexuality an “Abomination”?

At Religion Dispatches, Jewish scholar Jay Michaelson undertakes an in-depth study of the word, toevah, most often translated “abomination” in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures.  His conclusion:

Now, if by “abomination,” the King James means a cultural prohibition—something which a particular culture abhors but another culture enjoys—then the term makes sense. But in common parlance, the term has come to mean much more than that. Today, it connotes something horrible, something contrary to the order of nature itself, or God’s plan, or the institution of the family, or whatever. It is this malleability of meaning, and its close association with disgust, that makes “abomination” a particularly abominable word to use. The term implies that homosexuality has no place under the sun (despite its presence in over 300 animal species), and that it is an abomination against the Divine order itself. Again, toevah is not a good thing—but it doesn’t mean all of that.

Progressive religionists must stop using the word “abomination” to refer to toevah. The word plays into the hands of fundamentalists on the one hand, and anti-religious zealots on the other, both of whom want to depict the Bible as virulently and centrally concerned with the “unnatural” acts of gays and lesbians. In fact, toevah is mostly about idolatry, and male homosexual behavior is only as abominable as remarriage or not keeping kosher. Whenever we use the word “abomination” we are perpetuating the misunderstanding of Biblical text and the religious persecution of LGBT people.

Personally, I like “taboo” as a replacement. It conveys the culturally relative nature of toevah, has some connotation of foreignness, and rightly aligns the taboo against homosexuality with taboos against, for example, eating unkosher food. It also has a vaguely archaic feel, which it should. Admittedly, “taboo” began as tabu, and specifically refers to a particular concept in Pacific indigenous religion; it is a bit inexact to import it to Judaism and Christianity. Yet the word has, by now, entered the common parlance, and in that general sense, it matches toevah fairly well. (Alternatively, we could stick with the Hebrew term, the foreignness of which heightens the foreignness of the Biblical concerns about homosexuality.) One thing remains clear, though: what’s really abominable here is the word “abomination” itself.

via Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an “Abomination”? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches.

Believe Out Loud Campaign Targets Gay-Friendly Mainline Pastors

Last year I asked whether Christian leaders who quietly support increasing the rights of gays and lesbians in society and church should be outed.  I asked because I have publicly stated my position, and I’m often asked told by others that they just know what so-and-so Christian leader/author/pastor thinks about “the gay issue.”  In other words, some people suggest that particular Christian leaders are being coy about how they feel about same sex marriage or gay/lesbian ordination in order to not be punished in the Christian marketplace.

I was chastened by a friend of mine who leans toward full acceptance of gays and lesbians in all spheres of ecclesial and secular life.  He’s a pastor, and he told me that there’s even more at stake for him.  To make the gay issue a major trope of his preaching or pastoral leadership has implications for both his gay and hetero congregants.  In fact, he told me that several lesbian couples in his church have asked him not to vocalize his opinions on the matter.  They want their church experience to be free of the politics that their sexuality brings up elsewhere in their lives.  Fair enough, I said.

Well, along comes the Believe Out Loud Campaign, meant to encourage mainline pastors who favor gay inclusion in church and society but fear congregational dissension to come out about their beliefs.  [UPDATE: their website does not seem to work -- not a good sign for the campaign, which launched yesterday (Valentine's Day).] [NEWER UPDATE: Free advice: If you're trying to launch a social media campaign, pay the $19.95 on GoDaddy to get your own URL. And have your subpages up and running before you launch.]

Religion Dispatches quotes Robert Chase, who is running the campaign, saying,

[Read more...]