The Annoying Assurance of Evangelicals – “Believe what you want to believe, but how dare you insist that others believe it, too?”

In two previous posts on Evangelicalism, I have defined what I understand to be my responsibility as “an Evangelical” in contrast to those who would apply that term to something entirely different. (That post can be found here: http://deathpastor.blogspot.com/2014/11/when-you-say-evangelical-youve-said-lot.html.) I then addressed the implications of being Evangelical as it pertains to the unique, singular, and exclusive stance regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ, while still pursuing conversation and understanding with those outside the ranks of that designation, and beyond the boundaries of Christianity as well. (It’s here: http://deathpastor.blogspot.com/2014/11/evangelicals-evangelize-but-that-word.html.)

"Of course I'm right. Even the real killer can't disagree."

In both posts, I am very sure that I come across as being very sure of my position. This is, in part, due to my conviction that inviting discussion requires a clear statement of my position, in order to encourage others to state their position(s) with equal clarity. But it is also due to my conviction that, not to put too fine a point on it, I am right.

How can I presume such a confidence, one easily mistaken for an air of superiority? As an Evangelical (in what I think is the highest sense of the word), in emphasizing a high value on God’s written communication, I cannot escape a Trinitarian and Incarnational perspective. Interpersonal relationships and the benefits God makes available through Jesus Christ are paramount to my life and ministry. Among many implications of this commitment: placing a very high value on every other human person is essential to my practical devotion to Jesus Christ. As Christ’s servant, I demonstrate my devotion by serving others. Yet to be concerned for other persons is to be concerned for evangelism in the assumption that it leads others to the best possible fulfillment of the life for which they were created. And so, my focus and investment is not entirely about benefitting the other human persons with whom I seek understanding and relationship.

"Of course I'm right. Why else wouldn't I explain myself."

If I am, first and foremost, a friend of Jesus Christ, I necessarily share His interests. As Creator, He wants to have the relationship with each person for which we were designed. As Redeemer He wants to see the effects of restoration and renewal from the brokenness of our sin and its damage upon the world in which we live (including our damage by and to one another). He seeks for a “born-again” regeneration to be accepted by every person, which He has demonstrated through His incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and continued intercession.

But where do I fit into all that? I am, admittedly and badly, broken by sin’s damage in the world, and by my own participation in that damage (as perpetrator and as casualty, predator at least as much as prey). How could I presume to prescribe an improvement in belief and behavior for anyone else? I find my answer in II Corinthians 4:5. Being called by Christ means I am the servant of all other persons, seeking the very best for them amidst their present circumstances and toward their ultimate fulfillment, and that can only be accomplished in and through the gospel.

"You're welcome to take this road whenever you choose."

Clearly, though, there is still the valid objection that all this puts me in the position of “knowing what’s best” for another person. And, because I do hold the beliefs described above, I accept those charges and plead guilty. But I also accept that my perceptions of the implications and applications of those beliefs are uniquely filtered and colored by my own experience and perspective. Therefore, I try to encourage others to share their reactions and/or responses to those beliefs, in order to understand what I believe God to be doing in their lives, whether their beliefs coincide with mine or not.

My purpose, then, is not to validate my perspective, position, or passion for the gospel. Neither do I ask others to validate their beliefs to me. But I do hope to learn how to more clearly communicate the gospel, the whole gospel, and nothing but the gospel. It would be too clever, but not inaccurate, to end here with “So, help me, God!” So, I will add that I intend to continue those efforts by learning more from those who want only part of the gospel, or something beyond the gospel, or anything but the gospel. In order to communicate at that level, however, I must be willing to hear others communicate their beliefs clearly as well. Only then might we overcome the misperceptions, misunderstandings, and miscommunications that not only distinguish our beliefs from one another, but which prevent us from pursuing even our essential common interests.

Evangelicals Evangelize – But that word, too, means more than you may think it means.

In a recent post to his blog (“Bait and Switch” at “Uncommon God; Common Good” found here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uncommongodcommongood/2012/05/bait-and-switch/), Paul Louis Metzger responds to those who would assume that any commitment by Evangelical Christians toward other persons is merely a function of their desire for recognition on account of their success in evangelism.

 To be an Evangelical means to do...what?

I would add another factor in the equation. Some with whom I am acquainted seem desperate to validate their own beliefs by convincing others of their perspective on the truth. Failing to convince others, those engaging in these attempts will then turn to those, they believe, are already convinced. Thus we often seek to “evangelize” those who are already Evangelicals. It’s called “preaching to the choir,” a reference to pastors who punctuate their sermons by turning to the loft behind them and asking, “Can I get an Amen?!” Sadly, what has frequently become strident argumentation with others has been replayed to me by otherwise kind and compassionate Christians, ridiculing the beliefs of those who disagree, even with minor doctrines, even from within our own Christian traditions. It is sometimes as though I, as a pastor, must ally myself with a particular position in order to reassure the reporter of their relational security with Jesus Christ.

In those conversations, as well as those with others outside my particular heritage and tradition, and especially with those outside the Christian faith, I confess that my interests are not only those of mere curiosity and/or diplomatic dialogue. My concern for other persons is always framed by my desire to see the very best for them in their current circumstances, their continuing development, and their eternal destiny. As with Dr. Metzger, this is part of what makes me “an Evangelical.” (Note: that term, for me, carries implications of both “guilt-by-association” and “pride-of-ownership”—depending upon one’s definition of “Evangelical”—which point I belabor in the first post in this series, found here: http://deathpastor.blogspot.com/2014/11/when-you-say-evangelical-youve-said-lot.html)

Whatever you do is likely to be criticized. (It belongs on the counter.)

I would hold that an Evangelical is responsible to carefully study scripture as the basis for the discussions I would qualify as “doing theology in community.” That discussion must include the depths of twenty centuries from our historical community as well as a breadth of sources within the faith today. In order to communicate as clearly as possible, the current cultural and social realities of our day must also be as fully understood as possible. This requires dialogue with those outside the ranks of Christians, and certainly beyond the narrower designation of Evangelicals—and I can understand why they may not wish to talk as openly with me as I would prefer.

There will always be, for me, two key components to these conversations. First, I need to understand others’ perspectives in order to more clearly communicate (and even refine, as necessary) my own positions. Second, I seek to more clearly communicate my perspective so that others may have opportunity to accept or reject an accurate representation of the beliefs and behaviors of Christ’s gospel, instead of the accretions and adulterations that the gospel regularly attracts, even in my own presentation of it.

Again, this view is influenced by my deep dissatisfaction with so much of the misrepresentation of the gospel, especially by those who seek to abscond with the term Evangelical as a label for their socio-political manipulation, exploitation, and oppression—but even in that, I would hope to persuade you of my position’s accuracy. Why? Well, you’ll have to read about that in the next post.

When You Say “Evangelical,” You’ve Said a Lot of Things So Many Others Say. (In other words, “You keep using that word. But I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

More than a few blurred distinctions.

When You Say “Evangelical,” You’ve Said a Lot of Things So Many Others Say. (In other words, “You keep using that word. But I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

What’s in a word? For those of us seeking to communicate clearly, too often the answer is “far too much.” For example, when the word is “Evangelical” the variety of definitions is so diverse as to make the word nearly meaningless. That has not always been the case, but today there needs to be some clarification.

"Assumes facts not in evidence."

Many confuse the term “Evangelical” as representing at least a portion of “the religious right,” those who crusade for a more comfortable and convenient social environment in which to pursue their narrow view of “Christian culture” amidst a “sanctified” society. Try as they might, however, the term does not fit, leaving the would-be Ecclesial Emperors without the clothes in which they would cloak beliefs and behaviors that are entirely incompatible with the Evangelical label.

You should know, though, that I do have a dog in this fight. Being “a theologically conservative Christian holding a high view of scripture and a subsequent insistence on salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone” (I believe that to be an acceptable definition of “Evangelical.”) requires me to reject two of the most prevalent practices of “the religious right.”

First, and worst, the politically-motivated are looking for such “Evangelicals” as will arrogantly augment, if not entirely eliminate Christians’ dependence upon answered prayer. They preach that we should pursue, in addition or instead, mass-market fund-raising approaches to accomplish our social-engineering goals through adversarial litigation and lobbying for legislation.

John Hancock did not sign The Gospel.

The methods are bad enough. But what if they were successful? I reject not only the prescribed means, but the ends toward which these efforts are directed. The politically conservative among us offer Evangelicals a false utopia. This paradise would be devoid of dissent against whatever they define as their distinctive doctrines. They would prohibit the disaster of allowing individual disobedience, lest it lead to social dysfunction. And they would suggest they could defeat the effects of depravity by destroying its source: the availability of temptation. But God did not send His Son into the world to eradicate the dissenters, the dysfunctional, the disobedient, or even the depraved. The Son’s calling, and ours, is to alleviate the suffering, illuminate the escape route, and welcome those who would join us in doing the same.

Why do I reject the utopia offered by the religious right? Because it’s the wrong goal, pursued along the wrong path. Religiously-enforced behavioral constraints (i.e., emphasizing moral behavior and ritual participations as the core elements of “Christianity”) are as ineffective an end as the means to establishing them are unbiblical. And for an Evangelical (so far as I understand what the term was intended to mean), that is inconceivable.

More to follow shortly.

Part Two of Sewell v. Metzger – The Tolerance of Intolerance meets The Intolerance of Tolerance

Those of others are at least as dangerous as our own.

For the sake of clarity and brevity, please understand that I am focusing on the details of a blog post, “Saying Goodbye to Tolerance” by a Unitarian Universalist minister and writer, Marilyn Sewell. My reasons for doing so, as well as links to her post and Paul Louis Metzger’s response to it are discussed in Part One, found here: http://deathpastor.blogspot.com/2014/11/sewell-v-metzger-tolerance-of_55.html

Specifically, Dr. Sewell’s conclusions are based on specific assumptions and stereotypes. The resulting beliefs about her subject (conservative Evangelical Christianity) lead her to behavior she admits as being inconsistent with one of her most deeply held beliefs: to “respect all religious beliefs.” In hopes that those behaviors may become more consistent as a result of greater clarity in her beliefs, I hope to point out, as graciously and humbly as possible, what I see as being some assumptions, stereotypes, and logical inconsistencies.

Dr. Sewell notes that she has been a guest-lecturer in seminary courses. Therefore, her perceptions of certain failures to meet her expectations of the institution as well as its students are based on personal observation. But while there are graduate schools in which “students open themselves to new ideas (and) question received beliefs,” many, if not most, are considered to be professional schools. In these, the goal is to develop students’ skills in applying their beliefs and knowledge to practical applications, usually in ministerial careers. To the extent that students’ beliefs are broadened, the professional orientation of many seminaries is designed so that their convictions are simultaneously deepened.

Better a leap of faith than a leap of logic.

Dr. Sewell objects that the students she encountered “were not confrontative in the least,” much less fulfilling her desire for “passionate discussion, even a reasoned rejection.” Their polite assimilation of the information she presented left her, she writes, to presume of one student’s comment that it belied being “concerned even for my soul, which she no doubt thought would be burning in hell upon my demise.” The doubt that arises, then, is how little compassion it would show if that were the position a seminary student held, and yet could not bring themselves to articulate that concern. Might there be some other explanation? Is the clarity with which Dr. Sewell understands her position necessarily the same clarity she was able to convey to the particular student she quotes? Does this episode represent a conflict between the student’s belief and behavior, or between Dr. Sewell’s assumptions and expectations?

Dr. Sewell also describes a conflict between her two nephews. She identifies both as handsome and talented, with one who is also funny and warm, “who happens to be gay.” His brother “is a jock sports star and business man – and…a conservative Christian who lives in the Deep South.” The “alienation” she describes occurs, in part, “presumably because (the jock’s children) might be adversely influenced.” Her source of information is “my sister, the boys’ mother,” and the attitudes portrayed, she admits, “are culturally influenced” regionally as well as religiously. Is it possible, though that there are other factors at work here? Even if the representations of the conflict being presented to Dr. Sewell are accurately understood, are the representations themselves accurate? (To be more direct about it: Are the boys telling Mom the whole story? And is Mom getting all the details clear for Aunt Marilyn?)

Having expressed her personal concerns, Dr. Sewell turns to the alarming prevalence of “hate crimes.” She asks, “Is it fair to blame these crimes on conservative Christianity?” Her answer, “Not directly” leads her to presume again that there is “No doubt” that not even the majority of hate crimes are committed by Christians. And yet, despite clearly representing the objections most Christians would have to violently assaulting any group or individual, she states as though it were unquestionable fact: “They contribute immensely to the cultural ground out of which prejudice grows and flourishes,” because they “support and perpetuate the milieu in which hate crimes take place.” How is it that those she quotes as claiming to “‘hate the sin and love the sinner,’” especially since they consider themselves “‘sinners saved by grace,’” are culpable for behavior contradicting those beliefs? If it is not (and it is not) inconsistency of which Dr. Sewell is accusing conservative Christians, then what is the logical link through which Christians who condemn hate crimes are simultaneously culpable for hate crimes?

Dr. Sewell addresses those whose “faith in Jesus as your personal savior” results in “doing great harm,” and with whom “(she) in no way wish(es) to be an ally.” Having noted their overt condemnation of hate, not to mention hate crimes, she condemns Christians for the “covert permission…being given to those inclined to act violently on their prejudices.” My inability to follow her logic may stem from my limited perspective. I frequently work among those who welcome “a more inclusive society” promoting the overt permission to construct their own beliefs and behaviors. As I understand her, Dr. Sewell would support those beliefs (so long as they are outside of conservative Christian doctrine). But there are also profound consequences to accepting all other beliefs, especially when those beliefs result in behaviors that, I would presume, Dr. Sewell would find as unacceptable as conservative Christians’ “singularity.” In my experience, however, the general pattern seems to begin with a determination to engage in particular behaviors, and only subsequently involve the construction whatever beliefs are necessary to justify them.

The logical link of Christians’ culpability that Dr. Sewell offers, which I will address in part three, is not found in the hypocrisy of practicing hate crimes while condemning hate crimes. It is, instead, found in the integrity of holding “their theology of singularity.” She claims it is that “conservative evangelicals believe there is but one way to salvation” which is at the root of the “milieu in which hate crimes take place.” Affected though it may be by my limited perspective in proximity to such crimes, you will find that my conclusions differ from hers. 

Be sure to tune in next time.

Sewell v. Metzger – The Tolerance of Intolerance meets The Intolerance of Tolerance – Part One

Some months ago I was party to a discussion regarding two blog posts. The first was by a luminary among Unitarian Universalists, the minister and writer Marilyn Sewell. (Her post, “Saying Goodbye to Tolerance,” is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marilyn-sewell/saying-goodbye-to-tolerance_b_1976607.html) The second post was by our mutual friend, currently my doctoral program supervisor, Paul Louis Metzger. (His post, “Beyond Tolerance to Tenacious Love,” is here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uncommongodcommongood/2012/11/beyond-tolerance-to-tenacious-love/) I remember at the time having the nagging feeling that something should be said about the irony inherent in the positions taken by each writer. But other discussions intervened, and I had a strong sense of being “out of my league,” were I to question well-respected, articulate, and (most intimidating to me) published authors.

"Wait, who's out of whose league?" he said.

Now, however, I am, perhaps, less humble, having recently been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (By invitation, no less! But there’s no need to belabor my fading humility.) Frankly, though, I would still consider this as “angels fear to tread” territory, were it not part of an assignment for that doctoral program. I have been asked to comment, specifically, on Dr. Metzger’s post. But in that post he recommends strongly a careful reading of Dr. Sewell’s post as well. In doing so, I believe I have identified what I found troubling in each during that previous discussion.

Metzger’s is the simpler conflict to identify. He writes, “I know of many adherents of various religious traditions, whether they be Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus or Atheists who believe that their views best reflect ultimate reality and that my views are wrong. They are not morally culpable for holding their positions.” I believe that Metzger means that there is no moral failing represented by their contradictory position toward his beliefs. For them to believe as they do is, consequently, to oppose his beliefs wherever they diverge from their own. What is troubling to me is that I keep reading into his statement that they are not morally culpable for the beliefs they choose to hold. And, with that (which is, potentially, my own misinterpretation of Metzger’s position), I disagree.

Dr. Paul Louis Metzger: Tolerant Evangelical

I hold firmly, as I believe that Metzger does, that one is morally compelled to act in accordance with their beliefs. Therefore, in their perspective that Metzger is wrong, those he references are not morally culpable, but merely being morally consistent in the application of their beliefs in “an ultimate reality” that they hold is contrary to Metzger’s beliefs in a differing ultimate reality. But I also hold, as it seems Metzger would reject, that there is a moral component to the beliefs one develops or adopts. Logical consistency, historical accuracy, practical application, and societal implications are all part and parcel of the moral obligations carried into forming our beliefs, as well as those which stem from our beliefs.

It is in this light that I recognize what it is about Dr. Sewell’s post that troubles me. I can fully support her assertion that her beliefs compel her to “reject this tradition” (i.e., “conservative Christianity”) since she believes “those who teach it and preach it are doing great harm, and I in no way wish to be an ally.” Yet only because Christianity represents the dominant cultural influence over the society in which she lives can her position be defended against charges of being a “perpetuation of prejudice and hate,” as she claims against Christians who live in accordance with their conservative theology.

Dr. Marilyn Sewell: Intolerant Unitarian Universalist

In developing her beliefs about evangelical Christianity, she assembles some assumptions and stereotypes that, she admits, directly contradict her own empirical experience of an ongoing friendship with “a professor at a local conservative evangelical seminary” (she means Dr. Metzger). She rightly points out the irony of being “a liberal who is closed, in a relationship with a theologically conservative evangelical who is open.” The additional irony she intends is well-founded, too. She is expressing her intolerance for what she concludes is intolerance, despite her experience of something other than intolerance in those she accuses of intolerance. She cites some distinctly intolerant Christians in support of her claims. But what are we left to make of the intolerance of a Unitarian Universalist? May we make the same broadly sweeping generalizations about her tradition, on the basis of one minister’s attitude? Unitarian Universalism, according to Dr. Sewell, claims to “respect all religious beliefs.” The sole exception, as she explains, is the rejection of the beliefs of those who see a moral culpability in developing and adopting those beliefs as well as for the behaviors that stem from those beliefs.

In the next couple of posts, I will look first at Dr. Sewell’s specific assumptions and stereotypes, and then address the fatal flaw in her argument in favor of rejecting those whose “covert permission is being given to those inclined to act violently on their prejudices.” To be sure, beliefs have consequences (unless they are merely a dilettante’s dalliances, in which case they should not be honorably labeled as “beliefs”). But just as she charges against conservative Christians, there are consequences to the position Dr. Sewell promotes here, and those consequences include their fair share of violence as well.