Jump to content

Evangelicalism


Recommended Posts

fundamentalism is "militantly, anti-modernist, American evangelicalism

 

The neo-evangelicals were basically fundamentalists who decided that fundamentalism had to be upgraded

 

That's what I've come to appreciate with all the reading I've done the past few days.

 

You could have saved me a lot of work had you been around! :angry:

 

Aletheia ;)

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

from an email from http://www.sojo.net

 

From book tour to movement tour

by Jim Wallis

 

It's only the second week of the book tour for God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, but already I'm convinced that the country is ready for a new discussion of faith and politics - one the Religious Right will not control. All the venues so far have been packed with audiences more diverse than we've ever seen. And we've had lots of fun with the media appearances that have brought a progressive faith message to more and more people.

 

One of the most fun was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. You can read my behind-the-scenes reflections on that experience in the blog I've started at http://www.sojo.net/Godspolitics .

 

Perhaps the most gratifying thing to me about the past two weeks has been the flood of e-mails, many from young people, in response to The Daily Show and other appearances. Most were personal and heartfelt. Many said they had lost their faith because of "Republican religion," George W. Bush, television preachers, or the war in Iraq. Others said they never knew people of faith could be against the war, concerned about poverty, or care about the environment. What became clear is how many people have never seen, heard, or imagined a progressive faith option, a Christian social conscience, or a connection between their spiritual hunger and their passion for social justice. People have come up to my family in restaurants, stopped me in train stations, or walked up to me on the street just to say "Thank you," or "I feel like we have a voice now," or "I am young, religious, progressive, and you speak for me." Often they say that they feel the possibility of faith again - or for the first time - and hope that we could make a difference.

 

Many said that the Terry Gross interview on NPR really felt like "fresh air" to them in offering a new spiritual and political option. I got to quote Amos during NBC's inaugural coverage: "Take away from me the noise of your solemn assemblies, but let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." I was able to share Jesus' words about "the least of these" from Matthew 25 - on Comedy Central! On Hardball, Chris Matthews (who was one of the few television journalists consistently critical of the war in Iraq) and I talked about how the Bush doctrine of extending "freedom" just ends up killing people, and we raised the issue of tens of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq. And on Charlie Rose, we had one of the first conversations about religion, values, and politics I've ever seen on his show.

 

Now we're traveling city to city, to almost every region of the country. We're doing public forums in campuses, churches, and bookstores. Check our Web site to see when the tour comes near you, or organize new events that could offer a different perspective on faith and politics in your community, as many people are now doing.

 

We also were gratified (actually, "stunned" best describes my reaction) when God's Politics quickly climbed up the Amazon best-seller list (thanks almost exclusively to SojoMail readers like you who bought the book early), and we were told it will appear on this Sunday's New York Times best-seller list. That means that a progressive religious option will be in the front of bookstores across America. At last, we'll be better able to present the culture with an alternative to the Religious Right. This book tour is fast becoming a movement tour. Thanks be to God.

 

--------

Jim Wallis on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

 

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml...eleb_10009.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who makes the Watchman's "BLEEP" list? or that is, "CULT" list?: Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Liberal Christians [and Progressive Christians], Buddhism, Islam, Church of the Second Advent, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses Church(es) of Christ, Unitarian-Universalist Churches, Christian Science, Shintoism, Taoism, the Baha'i Faith, Native American religions, Seventh-Day Adventism, Sikhism, Jainism, and various others, including a vast number of smaller religious and philosophical groups too numerous and diverse to list here.

 

I *really* dislike the term cult, as I think it is used primarily as a way of stigmatizing other groups that don't agree with you. The term cult makes no sense at all when applied to some of the groups like Buddhism (!), Islam (!), Judaism (!), Roman Catholism (!), etc. etc.

These are groups that are very large and, in some cases, predate Christianity.

 

Some other groups are quite large and have many followers, like Baha'i which is really kinder gentler Islam. :-) (At least these days). They has been extremely negative actions against Bahais in Iran.

 

It makes no sense when applied to Native American religions, which also are ancient.

(As are Shintoism, Taoism, etc.)

 

And it is only just that UU and Progressive/liberal Christianity are different/opposed to fundamentalism that they get that label (by fundamentalist groups and nobody else, btw)/

 

The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible.

 

Religioustolerance.org does not ever use the word "cult". I would kind of keep it for very small groups that engage in dangerous practices or bizarre practices (to the most people), like handling snakes, following ufos, commit mass suicide, etc. CS might be one of those, since they don't go to doctors.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XianAnarchist:

 

"For the record, the five fundamentals that fundamentalists believe that one must believe in order to be a Christian:

 

1. Plenary inspiration of Scripture

 

Can you explain this?

 

2. Virgin birth

 

I don;t think that bothers most progressives

 

3. Diety of Christ

 

This gets into a grey area. Progressives already discribe Christ as "The relm to God....But this does not mean that all progressives are trinitarians. As i pointed out in another post I noticed on the Progressive Christian board of Beliefnet that at least 5 or 6 Progressives there discribed themselves and non-trinatarians. Fundamental protestants claim one can not accept Jesus as Savior if they are not trinatarian. Ovbiously i disagree.

 

 

4. Sacrificial Atonement

 

I guess this means the resurrection of Christ? Even the Progressive Christian who wrote the book, "Ten Things I Learned Wrong From A Conservative Church," believes this so it's not an Evangelical protestnat thing only.

 

 

5. Bodily Resurrection

 

I never understood this phrase by Assembly of God. What does "Bodily" mean, anyways? Organic matter? I believe Christ was resurrected in Spirit..Likely this would not satsify the fundamentalists but I am not too concerned about that.

 

 

These 5 terms are sketchy and are open for a wide interpreatation, would you not agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I *really* dislike the term cult, as I think it is used primarily as a way of stigmatizing other groups that don't agree with you. The term cult makes no sense at all when applied to some of the groups like Buddhism (!), Islam (!), Judaism (!), Roman Catholism (!), etc. etc.

These are groups that are very large and, in some cases, predate Christianity. "

 

I agree 100%. Whether I agree with everything of things groups or hardly anything makes no difference...either way they should not be labeled cults.

 

"Some other groups are quite large and have many followers, like Baha'i which is really kinder gentler Islam. :-) (At least these days). They has been extremely negative actions against Bahais in Iran"

 

I have great respect for Bahia! i find much of their teachings very agreeable! They are very good with standing up for women's equality. They catch hell from the Fundamental Protestants mainly becuase they don;t embrace a trinitarian view of God. <_<

 

"It makes no sense when applied to Native American religions, which also are :ancient.

(As are Shintoism, Taoism, etc.)"

 

I also find much in Native American spiritual beliefs highly agreeable!

 

"The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible. "

 

This groups, in my opinion are VERY fundamental in nature and do not puhold social justice for minorities..but hell this can ALL be also be said of those calling THESE groups 'CULTS' aka The Fundamental branches of Protestantism aka Southern Baptists, Assembly of God, Bob Jones University, Jerry Felwell, Calvary Chapel.

 

But I think putting ANY of these groups along side Jom Jones serving poision coolaid for lunch is over-the-top.

 

"Religioustolerance.org does not ever use the word "cult". I would kind of keep it for very small groups that engage in dangerous practices or bizarre practices (to the most people), like handling snakes, following ufos, commit mass suicide, etc. CS might be one of those, since they don't go to doctors."

 

Precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI...

 

Rescuing Religion From the Right

The Rev. Jim Wallis says gay marriage and abortion aren't the only values-related issues religious people care about.

 

Interview by Rebecca Phillips

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15988_1.html

 

Who's Who on the Religious Left

Beliefnet's guide to some of the major figures on the liberal side of religion and politics.

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15998_1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I positively think that this Jim Wallis thing shows that we DO need a Progressive Christian who is good at public speaking to be ON TV. I'd like to see a Progressive christian tc show where different progressive christians are invited as guests to talk about things regarding the 8 points. Maybe this could come on channel KTLA or what-have-you. It could even be set up as a varity talk show with guests and music performers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignorance Dsiplayed By ACMs & Most Fundamental /Pentecostal Protestants

 

* AMC stands for Anti-Cult Movment

 

 

The ACMs critisize sociologists, theologians, and other PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS who study Alternative Religions, and who announce the conclusions that 99% of these ARMs that Fundamental Protestants and Penecostals tag as emotionally descrtuctive cults are actually BENIGN.

 

This angers ACMs/Fundamental and/or Pentecostal Protestants because their professional findings and conclusions make the ACMs claims look foolish, uneducated, intolerant, and down right hateful towards 'ALL' faiths other than their own.

 

Outside of THEMSELVES...Who 'Else' AGREES With The ACM's Opinion On What Defines A 'Cult'? Nobody. But Since They Don't Listen To ANYone Other Than Themselves...It Does Not Matter What Anyone Else Has To Say?...

 

The Religious Tolerance Network of Canada states that after reading ACM's own articles of attack against ARMs they found much of their information to be in error. For example, they said that the ACM sites lump Neo-Pagans, Wiccans and Santists all together. They also stated that, "NO Unitarian Universalists believe in the trinity. " This statement I know not to be true because I have personally taked to a number of Liberal Protestants who say they attend both the UU church AND Episcopalians which is completely PRO-trinity.

 

I have also caught a number of individuals on Beliefnet claiming that JW's threaten family members that if they do not become JW that they would go to hell. I know this to be FALSE for a FACT because JW's REJECT the belief in hell!

 

Many times ACMs claims against ARMs is just based on hearsay or ignorant hand-me-down answers that are mistakenly in error. Yet other times well planned out and pre-meditive lies are proven on the part of Fundamental Protestants merely to coex recruitement. Case in point:

 

Fake LaVey? by John Morehead

 

"YUCAIPA,California —On April 29 Charisma News reported that Anthony Jess LaVey,son of Anton LaVey, the late founder of the Church of Satan,had converted to Christianity after a lifetime of physical and psychological abuse by his father,and was now preaching the gospel and warning Christians about the dangers of Satanism and the occult.

 

As a result of his conversion story,Anthony LaVey has been a frequent guest speaker on Christian radio programs and at churches.The major problem with this story is that Anton LaVey had no son named Anthony Jess LaVey. LaVey fathered three children, two daughters named Karla and Zeena, and one son named Xerxes. This fact has not stopped a number of individuals from making fraudulent claims to be LaVey offspring in order to gain the support of Christians and churches for themselves and their ministries.

 

When contacted and asked for documentation to support his claims, Jess "LaVey" responded that he was unable to provide evidence due to satanic conspiracies against him. He then threatened litigation for those who disputed his claims. In addition to a lack of supporting evidence, counterevidence is available. As noted above, biographical data supports the existence of only three authentic LaVey children, and Jess "LaVey's" alleged satanic experiences perpetuate debunked Satanic Ritual Abuse stories and all-too-common evangelical misrepresentations of the diverse beliefs of Satanists. To make matters worse, EP News Service picked up the story on May 9 and circulated it as legitimate.

 

Unfortunately, evangelical gullibility and misrepresentation are commonplace in the areas of Satanism, Wicca, and Paganism."

 

From Cornerstone magazine- Voice of The Jesus People USA- Page26,Vol#31,Issue#123

 

Can you believe this? That a Fundamental Christian group would actually make up a LIE to coex new converts? Surely, if one traces this story back as this writter of this article did and verifies the information to be false it not only causes the account to loose creditability..but also the resource that create and promotes it, and in the end they end up making ALL forms of Christianity look like the ass that those against Christainity or all froms of religion 'claims' it is. It does not help. By WHY would a person do such a stupid thing? As the writter of this Cornerstone article said: "Unfortunately, evangelical gullibility and misrepresentation are commonplace-...".The other reason goes back to the previous article on the harm done by Fundamental and /or Pentecostal fear-tactict beliefs of HELLFIRE and/or the 'Rapture'....of which motivates this "ZEAL"...

 

Are Fundamental &/Or Pentecostal Protestants Guilty Of These Charges they Make Against NRMs?

 

1. Uses Deceitful Methods To coex New Converts

 

2. Claims Their Group Alone Knows The Right Way To Salvation

 

3. Teaches Those Outside The Group Are Eternally Lost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this article.

 

Beliefnet Reporter:

"You shy away from the term "religious left." Why?

 

"Left" is a political term, and I don't think religion fits neatly in the political category. "Progressive" is OK, but it still sounds kind of like a substitute for "liberal."

 

I find this view/comment to be a problem. First, for myself I much perfer to be mistakenly indentifed with "liberal" rather than "evangelical." Jim Wallis seem to be embarrased to be indentified as or fully with Progressives. More troubling, he greatly desires to hold on to and claim the word "Evangelical" as his own. Not just because he thinks the Far Right branch of protestnatism has taken it..but also because it appears that even though he finds with this community which has crowned itself the "Orthodox" bullhorn for "Christianity", but because he wants to be accpeted by them and thus be considered "Orthodox" too.

 

 

Jim Wallis also said:

 

"I probably line up with the left on some issues. If the left is against war in Iraq, I'm against the war in Iraq too."

 

Ok I understand this part perfectly and I agree.

 

"But for theological reasons, I'm not with the left on other things. I'm an evangelical, my theology is quite biblical, I'm even conservative and pro-family, pro-marriage."

 

What does this mean? These are vauge statements. "I am Evangelical". "My theology is quite bibical", and "I am even conservative."

 

These '3' quotes or phrases need to be explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: ACM is only useful for fundamentalists and not really for anyone else. A cult is, to them, someone who is not a fundamentalist. Yikes.

 

I think they totally go overboard on the Satanist thing. I would guess there actually are Satanists. I have never met one (but I haven't met a snake handler either). But if it were as common as the fundies say, I should know lots of them. Also the beliefs of Satanists are not what fundies normally think, sacrificing and eating babies. My understanding is that they are basically hedonist. And worshippers of sexual and other pleasure.

 

To put Wicca and NeoPagan in the same group as Satanist is absurd. If the harm is that they are leading people away from Christianity, then I guess it is "harm" but otherwise I don't see it. At least, as I see it, most neopagans and wiccans are more respectful of the environment than a lot of people. I see some values as good, even if I might not agree with them on everything.

 

To put Unitarian in there as they don't believe in the trinity (although that is no doubt an exaggeration as you say), is to put a humungous value on doctrinal and religious purity. I really dislike the whole heresy argument.

 

If we do this we might as well be burning people at the stake ala Salem Mass.

(That might be next at the rate some in the US are going.)

I think I'm inclined to go along with religioustolerance.org

I think you have to define harm very specifically, in order to decide something is damaging.

Handling snakes is dangerous. Drinking poison Kool-Aid is dangerous. Not believing in the trinity is harmless. Nature worship is harmless.

 

 

--des

Edited by des
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Des-

 

You seem to feel the only dangerous teaching is that which leads to physical harm. I disagree. Paul warns many times, as when he is instructing Timothy on setting up a church, against false teaching. 2 Peter Chapter 2 is devoted entirely to destructive doctrines and false teachers, as much of 1 John is.

 

John and Peter (along with James) were two of the apostles closest to Jesus--in hin"inner circle". If they, after all He had taught them, and all the miles they had walked with Him, all the things they had seen, felt this strongly about false doctrine and teaching, and the damage it can bring to the church, I think we would do well to be very keen to false teaching as well.

 

The challenge for us all is to hone in on what is "false teaching."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For clarity:

 

Jim Wallis is a progressive Evangelical Christian. He would not likely subscribe to all of the 8 points of tcpc. He is best viewed as an ally rather than as "one of us."

Or perhaps, what we mean by "us" might be more generously inclusive..

 

Wallis takes the Bible probably more seriously, and a tad more literally, than many in this community do. He is conservative on some matters, and yet, what he means by conservative actually embraces what has come to be called liberal these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible.

Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You seem to feel the only dangerous teaching is that which leads to physical harm. I disagree. Paul warns many times, as when he is instructing Timothy on setting up a church, against false teaching. 2 Peter Chapter 2 is devoted entirely to destructive doctrines and false teachers, as much of 1 John is."

 

We Progressives believe that the Fundamental Protestant's beliefs that Jesus supports sexism and bigotries is "destructive doctrines and false teachings"..the only difference is that Progressive Christians are NOT calling such Fundamental Protestants "CULTS" or "Unsaved" because of this.

 

The challenge for us all is to hone in on what is "false teaching."

 

"false" is subjective. However, destructive might be more credible. Bigotries are very destructive..such as the exmaple of Southern Baptists trying to use Scriptures out of context to try and justify the continued inslavement of African Americans during the 1800's. End of the world threats and hellfire threats used as a fear tactic controll tool can also be very emotionally destructive.

 

 

 

QUOTE (des @ Jan 28 2005, 02:04 AM)

The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible.

 

DCJ :

 

"Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead."

 

Neither Has Billy Graham nor Hal Lindsey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good grief! :rolleyes:

 

I started this thread as a way to open DISCUSSION, not debate, otherwise it would be on the debate board.

 

Why can't progressives exchange ideas with conservatives without resorting to "You're a fundementalist!" and "You're a cult!"

 

I DON'T think Christianity is a cult. I was being ridiculous to make a point. By calling JW's and others a cult, all you're doing is shutting communication down.

 

All evangelicals are not fundementalists. By using the term interchangeably it becomes an insult and shuts communication down.

 

Sigh :(

 

With the way the thread started off, I thought a polite conversation was possible. Alas, the "us versus them" mentality quickly raised its head.

 

Oh well. :D

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AletheiaRivers, when you said the following were you talking to me or DJC?

 

 

"Oh good grief! I started this thread as a way to open DISCUSSION, not debate, otherwise it would be on the debate board.Why can't progressives exchange ideas with conservatives without resorting to "You're a fundementalist!" and "You're a cult!""

 

The 'difference' Aletheia, is that Fundamentalists Christians gave themselves this term, not us. Whereas We did NOT give outselves the term 'CULT."

 

"I DON'T think Christianity is a cult. I was being ridiculous to make a point. By calling JW's and others a cult, all you're doing is shutting communication down."

 

It's a game of theologically getting even.

 

"All evangelicals are not fundementalists. By using the term interchangeably it becomes an insult and shuts communication down."

 

Whether they one or the other or both is up to them to verify. But when Evangelicals go around calling other non-Protestnat Evangelical faiths 'cults' then they become Fundamentalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was I talking to? I dunno anymore. :unsure:

 

I created the thread because I'm finding that many of the writers I like are falling into the evangelical camp. Perhaps they are on the fringe, I don't know.

 

I do get the impression that many people calling themselves Evangelicals are actually Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals don't like it at all. If Wallis wants to take that name back, I say more power to him.

 

All I know is I've avoided reading certain Christian authors because I had a bad attitude. I'm the one who lost out for so long, not them. The resentment I carried was a poison to ME. It didn't hurt them at all.

 

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I have hope that we can all learn from each other without name calling from either side.

 

Time for a new thread I guess. How about Cynthia's "Thin Places"?

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term is more fairly applied to Christian Science, JW, or LDS, say which have their charasmatic leader, special books, etc. But lets be fair. As Aletheia (I think pointed out), Christianity has Jesus and the Bible.

Joseph Smith didn't rise from the dead.

 

 

No and neither did Mary Baker Eddy. But they had a phone there just in case. It is a rather infamous story, and all the more so because it is true. Some ex-CSists say she is the woman who never called back.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Des-

 

You seem to feel the only dangerous teaching is that which leads to physical harm.  I disagree.  Paul warns many times, as when he is instructing Timothy on setting up a church, against false teaching.  2 Peter Chapter 2 is devoted entirely to destructive doctrines and false teachers, as much of 1 John is.

 

Darby, I don't think that progressives take as much stock in some of what Paul said (as compared to Jesus), as he said some fairly heavily anti-female things (among other things). The other is what is "false teaching" and you end up with very much of an argument of who's Christianity is more authenically Christian.

 

I believe there are other kinds of harm. For example, it often takes ex-Christian Scientists a long time to get over using denial heavily as a defense mechanism, and many ex-CS feel they were neglected as children, which can be psychological rather than physical.

 

OTOH, when people say there is harm in somethign, I think that they have the obligation to show the harm done. For ex. I have heard some say Wicca is harmful--- well then I think they need to show that it is. It isn't Christianity. I do not accept the position that Non-Christians are somehow in harm. You would have to do better than tell me they would, say, go to hell for their beliefs.

 

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to be one who values the Gospels as primary over other scriptures - including Paul's letters. This said, I think Paul has gotten a bad rap by many liberals. Most of the verses that are seen as most misogynistic (sp?) are found in what scholars refer to as the Pastoral Epistles, i.e. letters that were not written by Paul, but some of which were written in his name.

 

Paul was actually very egalitarian for his day and he supported several women serving as heads of various churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Bro R. I highly recommend everyone check out this book that was written bya progressive Disciples of Christ minister from Seattle WA. It's called, "What Paul really Said About Women." In this book, the authir, John Temple Bristow shows the reader step by step how the orhinal Greek word KEPHALE was CHANGED to ARCHE to try and and add a sexist agenda slant to the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service