Showing posts with label Evangelicalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelicalism. Show all posts
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Heaven, Hell, Chan & Bell (Part One)
Tweet
I am a little late to the "Rob Bell, Love Wins" controversy. I was more than a little overwhelmed by the initial hype and online bantering, and so I didn't read the book right away. However, I borrowed Love Wins from my brother-in-law last week and read it. At the same time, another friend was reading Francis' Chan's "Erasing Hell." We engaged in some friendly dialog about the books and the topics covered therein. I've since finished both books, and have some specific thoughts to share.
I am a little late to the "Rob Bell, Love Wins" controversy. I was more than a little overwhelmed by the initial hype and online bantering, and so I didn't read the book right away. However, I borrowed Love Wins from my brother-in-law last week and read it. At the same time, another friend was reading Francis' Chan's "Erasing Hell." We engaged in some friendly dialog about the books and the topics covered therein. I've since finished both books, and have some specific thoughts to share.
First, some thoughts about Bell and Love Wins:
The book is written in Bell's now notorious style: conversational, short sentences, lots of spaces, more like a blog post than a book. It is not an academic book; there are no footnotes, very few references to theological big names past or present, and Bell rarely even offers the exact Biblical reference. Rather, he'll say something like, "In John 3 Jesus tells a man..." When I first started reading the book, I was a little disappointed, and thought that it wasn't Bell's best work.
The book is written in Bell's now notorious style: conversational, short sentences, lots of spaces, more like a blog post than a book. It is not an academic book; there are no footnotes, very few references to theological big names past or present, and Bell rarely even offers the exact Biblical reference. Rather, he'll say something like, "In John 3 Jesus tells a man..." When I first started reading the book, I was a little disappointed, and thought that it wasn't Bell's best work. He begins by asking some of the questions that surround heaven and hell, questions that most people are afraid to ask. Like pulling on a loose thread in a hand-knit sweater, Bell keeps tugging, searching, questioning, showing that our tightly-knit theological doctrines have more than a few holes. For example:
"So demons believe,
and washing Jesus's feet with your tears gets your sins forgiven?
We could go on,
verse after verse,
passage after passage,
question after question,
about heaven and hell and the afterlife
and salvation and believing and judgment
and who God is and what God is like
and how Jesus fits into any of it.
But this isn't just a book of questions.
It's a book of responses to these questions." (pgs. 18-19).
The most common and basic accusation against Bell is that he is not "Scriptural." However, you can see even from this short selection, that he is looking at Scripture. But he correctly points out that the Bible presents a myriad of stories and descriptions about heaven, hell, salvation and sin. Bell's book is full of Scripture, and initially he tries to show that the Bible is far from clear on these issues, and if we are really honest, we have a lot of difficult questions to answer.
So Bell moves forward, trying to paint a better picture of heaven and hell. This is a bold task, and one that Bell attempts all the while employing his casual, conversational tone. So, in some places the book feels thin and lacking support. But, in short, Bell is trying to help Christians think differently about heaven and hell. He isn't necessarily refuting or rejecting the evangelical doctrines, but rather trying to broaden our vision of the future so that our lives can really be changed in the present. He states,
"It's very common to hear talk about heaven framed in terms of who 'gets in' or how to 'get in.' What we find Jesus teaching, over and over and over again, is that he's interested in our hearts being transformed, so that we can actually handle heaven." (pg. 50)
And again,
"Eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection with God." (pg. 59)
In my opinion, these are far from controversial statements. These are necessary and helpful corrections to doctrines that can quickly get out of control. However, some of the strongest responses haven't come against what Bell says about heaven, but rather what he says about hell. Again, Bell tries to take on the giant task of reframing an entire theology, in one short chapter. He cites all the verses in the Bible that use the word "Hades" or "Hell" explicitly, and he explains how these words have complex meanings. Most importantly, he reminds us that our concept of "hell" cannot be read backwards onto Scripture.
One of Bell's major points is that Hell is a current reality. Again, he is trying to broaden our vision of the issues, and in my opinion, this is necessary for modern American Christians. Death, famine, war, and abuse are every day realities for people around the world, but these are far away concepts for Americans. What Americans are familiar with are things like depression, suicide, sexual abuse, addiction, divorce and death. But rarely do we allow the full weight and severity of these realities enter our church doors. Church is a happy place, a place where we ignore the hells in the world around us and the world inside of us.
But Bell doesn't stop there. He uses Scriptural stories, from Jesus, to more fully explain the concept of hell and punishment. But he does this in a way that is not simplistic or childish. For example, using the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he states (about the Rich Man):
"He's alive in death, but in profound torment, because he's living with the realities of not properly dying the kind of death that actually leads a person into the only kind of life that's worth living...How do you communicate a truth that complex and multilayered? You (meaning, Jesus) tell a nuanced shocking story about a rich man and a poor man...Brilliant, just brilliant." (pg. 77)
To accuse Bell of not being Scriptural is not accurate. Rather, he is reading and using Scripture in a very different way. Not just a different interpretation of verses, but his understanding of what Jesus was doing when he was teaching is very different. Most of Bell's opponents read Scripture looking to piece together a tight theology, a scientific encyclopedia that has all the answers. Bell reads the words of Jesus, and he sees a "brilliant" teacher, who is telling transformative stories that are true on a level that goes beyond scientific fact. Bell clearly has the utmost respect for Scripture and the teachings of Jesus, and I found myself learning a great deal from his exegeses, as well as being challenged to transform how I live.
I started by saying that I didn't think Love Wins in Bell's best work. However, as I got past the midway point, I found myself strongly resonating with what Bell was writing. I found myself agreeing on almost all of his points, but more than just agreeing, my soul was responding with a deep yes. After the two chapters on heaven and hell, Bell's writing really hits a stride, and each page is filled with beautiful explanations of the words of Jesus. His chapter "There Are Rocks Everywhere" is a simple, provocative and compelling argument for Christian Inclusivism, and when he concludes with the chapter "The Good News Is Better Than That," Bell brings all of the issues home to a personal level, dealing with self-mutilation, abuse, jealousy, misconceptions about God, and finally summing up the love of God the words of Scripture, "You are always with me, and everything I have is yours."
For me, this is a Christianity I can really believe in, that I can share with my atheist friends, that can change the world." For me, I find myself thinking, "Finally, someone is putting together all the ideas and inclinations about God and faith that I've been feeling for so many years." Bell states on pg. 135,
"How many people, if you were to ask them why they've left church, would give an answer something along the lines of, 'It's just so....small?"
Me. I would. I've felt that way for years.
Bell continues,
"Of course. A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small. A gospel that has as its chief message avoiding hell or not sinning will never be the full story."
YES.
In short, I think that Bell gets the Christian story - on a grand scale - very right, and I wish that more Christians would read his work, not just from a perspective interest for the sake of conversation at dinner parties, but for the sake of changing the way they are living now. As Bell says at the end of his book,
"Whatever you've been told about the end -
the end of your life,
the end of time,
the end of the world -
Jesus passionately urges us to live like the end is here,
now,
today." (pg. 197)
____________
In part two, I'll talk about Francis Chan's book, "Erasing Hell"
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Definitions....
Tweet
Here is an interesting post that discusses evangelicalism's obsessions with defining who is "in" and "out." I thought there were some interesting points as I consider myself one who as "come out of" evangelicalism, and also now struggle with how exactly to answer people who ask me where I go to church, or if I am a Christian.
A long quote:
I am a part of a messy group (only a few of us) who are trying to think and live like Christians, taking seriously God's presence in the world he created - whatever that might mean. Right now, I don't much give a shit what I'm called or who calls me it. I'm pretty tired of the infighting and finger pointing.
I'm eager to start living into the life of God, not another church or definition. I hope you are ready to do the same, and if you are, we should have some coffee and talk about it sometime.
---
thanks to @jason_a_coker for the link to Patrol Magazine
Here is an interesting post that discusses evangelicalism's obsessions with defining who is "in" and "out." I thought there were some interesting points as I consider myself one who as "come out of" evangelicalism, and also now struggle with how exactly to answer people who ask me where I go to church, or if I am a Christian.
A long quote:
It is astonishing that so many intelligent Christians seem to believe there is a deficit in emphasis on evangelism and scriptural literalism, and that, if the hatches are just battened down on a more solid “worldview,” evangelicalism can resume explaining the universe to new generations of believers. In this respect, evangelicalism’s true believers resemble the faction of the Republican Party that asserts with a straight face that returning to “core principles,” and not a radical restructuring of priorities, will bring waves of Americans back to the right wing.
But so many twenty-somethings are not calling themselves “post-evangelical” because they know too little theology or have put too small an effort into synthesizing it with reality. They have come from the most apologetics-obsessed generation of Christians in American history, and have realized that many of their prepared answers are for questions that no one is asking. Adrift in the cultural sea, many turned to traditions and theological systems of the past, only to find those similarly unequipped to address the questions of our time. The only choice has been to begin the messy and at times overwhelming process of drafting something new.
The growing collection of post-evangelicals is what the defensive, definitional evangelical fears the most, and could by itself explain the recent obsession with protecting the label. Surely many of the intelligent professors, students, writers and bloggers rushing to its defense have also felt the naggings of cognitive dissonance and the inkling that the world might make more sense if they abandoned some of their cultural presuppositions. But haggling over the details of theology provides a psuedo-intellectual haven from real-world questions, where evangelicals can exercise their minds without coming to any unsettling conclusions. And thus the cycle of definition and redefinition continues, providing endless diversion as it cuts deeper and deeper ruts into what was once known as the Christian dialogue.
Refusing to align squarely with evangelical shibboleths requires courage, but the sooner it happens on a larger scale the better. All signs point to a near future where religion will play an increasingly climactic role in global culture and politics. Men and women who, as Mark Noll puts it in the final pages of The Evangelical Scandal, “think like a Christian”—by which he means “take seriously the sovereignty of God over the world he created”—should be leading the way on the meta questions that are already besieging society. But as long as they are busy drafting manifestos in their barricaded salons, hubristic rationalism will continue charging unchecked into the 21st century.
I am a part of a messy group (only a few of us) who are trying to think and live like Christians, taking seriously God's presence in the world he created - whatever that might mean. Right now, I don't much give a shit what I'm called or who calls me it. I'm pretty tired of the infighting and finger pointing.
I'm eager to start living into the life of God, not another church or definition. I hope you are ready to do the same, and if you are, we should have some coffee and talk about it sometime.
---
thanks to @jason_a_coker for the link to Patrol Magazine
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Evangelical Sermons: A Sacred Cow
Tweet
While I haven't thought about it too much, I think I agree with this post by Bob Carlton, which essentially says that Evangelical Christians worship the 20 minute sermon, and we would be a lot better off as Christians (and as people) if we largely did away with sermons and instead spent the time, still "in church", doing something more spiritually beneficial.
Some quotes:
I also think the sermon poses a problem for the 21st century media culture. There is no need for me to go to church to hear so-and-so talk when I can easily download and listen to any number of world renowned pastors and speakers right in my own home, or while I walk the dog, or drive in my car. Why listen to an "OK" sermon when I could listen to a "GREAT" sermon?
I can hear the response now: Listening to a sermon on my iPod takes me away from the community of believers, whereas going to church and listening to a sermon is worshiping with the community. This sounds good in theory, but when I really go to church, I typicaly walk in, sit, stand, sing, sit, listen, and then walk out. There is very little interaction with the community. Arguably, there even less interaction than when I listen to a sermon online and then blog or post comments about the content and my reactions.
Again, no real conclusion here, except just to say that IMO, there are many other ways we could express our faith together, many other ways that would invite God's presence more, many other ways that would draw us to worship God rather than the church, and many other ways that would generally be spiritually beneficial rather than simply going through the rituals of being Christian-eze.
Perhaps that is why today, instead of going to a Sunday morning service, I will be joining with my friends from the Central Ohio Emergent Cohort at three in the afternoon to discuss The Great Emergence. I expect to meet God, to be challenged, encouraged, and hopefully changed into a person who is more like Jesus.
Some quotes:
But come rain or shine, there will be a 20 minute sermon. We will listen - he (it is almost always he) will talk. Thoughts will be thought - assumptions challenged- pop culture will be cited, oh yes pop culture will definitely be cited. You walk into a quasi-evangelical faith shop - you are gonna get a sermon, just as surely as walking into Chick-fil-A means you are gonna eat chicken.I think these are valid points, and are perhaps this is one reason why it is so hard for me to drag myself to church on Sunday mornings. I often wonder, as I sit and listen to a guy talk to me for at least 20 (if not 30 or 40 minutes) what exactly it is I am doing there. Perhaps part of the problem is that sermons are no longer a "proclamation of the Word" as they were when the practice was developed by the Reformers in the 16th century. I've heard many sermons based upon only one verse (or a fraction of a verse) and sometimes the basis of the sermon is simply a "good idea" with some sprinklings of Scripture added for good flavor. As Carlton points out, even if there is no Scripture, there will always be references to pop-culture and media. But this is hardly proclaiming the Word of God which Christians confess to believe has such transformative power.
...we gotta stop kneeling to this cow. It would be healthy to start just by admitting our dependency on this cow. That the modern - and much of the pomo - model of churchianity i[s] built on the assumption that a preacher will draw us in, that those sermons will be the connective tissue, that content can be re-purposed into books & podcasts & TV show[s].
People - good people, faithful people, many ordained people - just do not want more sermons. Our lives do not have a sermon shaped hole. We do not itch to be talked at for 20 minutes each week - even if that talking is wise or cool or edgy or soothing or quotes someone we like or hate or would like to buy stuff from.
What to do with that 20 minutes ? Imagine..just imagine. Be still. Hold someone's hand. Talk & listen in clusters of 2 or 3, human size talk instead of sermoning.
being a room when a sermon is given no more makes us a Jesus follower than being in a gym makes us Lebron James.
I also think the sermon poses a problem for the 21st century media culture. There is no need for me to go to church to hear so-and-so talk when I can easily download and listen to any number of world renowned pastors and speakers right in my own home, or while I walk the dog, or drive in my car. Why listen to an "OK" sermon when I could listen to a "GREAT" sermon?
I can hear the response now: Listening to a sermon on my iPod takes me away from the community of believers, whereas going to church and listening to a sermon is worshiping with the community. This sounds good in theory, but when I really go to church, I typicaly walk in, sit, stand, sing, sit, listen, and then walk out. There is very little interaction with the community. Arguably, there even less interaction than when I listen to a sermon online and then blog or post comments about the content and my reactions.
Again, no real conclusion here, except just to say that IMO, there are many other ways we could express our faith together, many other ways that would invite God's presence more, many other ways that would draw us to worship God rather than the church, and many other ways that would generally be spiritually beneficial rather than simply going through the rituals of being Christian-eze.
Perhaps that is why today, instead of going to a Sunday morning service, I will be joining with my friends from the Central Ohio Emergent Cohort at three in the afternoon to discuss The Great Emergence. I expect to meet God, to be challenged, encouraged, and hopefully changed into a person who is more like Jesus.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Finding God in unexpected places
Tweet
Reflecting on this trip has caused me to think a lot about Christianity, religion, and the whole "God-thing." My day-to-day life is infused with a lot of "Jesus" - from teaching Bible classes, to leading the music in weekly chapel services, to reading the latest Evangelical books. I get a full dose of Jesus every day. But those daily activities, perhaps simply because they are a part of the daily routine, feel like a shell that encompasses and often stifles the living core of my faith. What I have been reminded of as a result of this trip, is that the very core of my faith is not stable or definable, but it is a chaotic uncertainty that is surprised by finding God in the most unexpected places.
I'm not sure how to tie these experiences together in some powerful blog-like prose, so instead I'll just list some of the places I was surprised to find God in the past week:
I'm back from the 5-day retreat to southern Ohio with the 2009 GCCS Seniors. Truthfully, I wasn't looking forward to this trip all that much. But I was surprised to find God in unexpected places. Not so much in the beautiful weather, the fall leaves, or even conversations with the camp staff - but in the lives of students who were searching for hope.
Reflecting on this trip has caused me to think a lot about Christianity, religion, and the whole "God-thing." My day-to-day life is infused with a lot of "Jesus" - from teaching Bible classes, to leading the music in weekly chapel services, to reading the latest Evangelical books. I get a full dose of Jesus every day. But those daily activities, perhaps simply because they are a part of the daily routine, feel like a shell that encompasses and often stifles the living core of my faith. What I have been reminded of as a result of this trip, is that the very core of my faith is not stable or definable, but it is a chaotic uncertainty that is surprised by finding God in the most unexpected places.
I'm not sure how to tie these experiences together in some powerful blog-like prose, so instead I'll just list some of the places I was surprised to find God in the past week:
- The first was certainly the Transgender Day of Remembrance which I was kindly invited to. I had had a somewhat frustrating day, and as I drove onto campus, I felt my latent anger rising up inside of me, as it often does for no good reason. I knew that I really wanted to be around people in a real way. And as I sat in a church sanctuary with about 200 gay couples of every combination imaginable, I was challenged in the deep chaotic core of my being. I saw more courage, strength, faith and perseverance in the lives of those who shared during that hour than I would describe in my entire life. From the simple confession of a teenage male lesbian, "I'm sure being a woman is great, but I'm not one," to the Zen benediction, "The way you do anything is the way you do everything," I knew that the heart of God was beating strong in that room.
- Every year on the retreat, we go to Carter Caves and take the students exploring through small crevices and dark tunnels. It's a great time of getting dirty and feeling adventurous. This year I was with a small group of 3 girls and 1 guy. We went to a familiar spot, started crawling back into the cave, and soon enough we were army crawling for about a 1/4 mile deep into the hills. The cave opened up, and we had enough space to roll over onto our backs so we could rest. We started talking, and I found out that the 3 girls - all students of mine at the Christian school for four years - rarely (if every) went to church because neither they, nor their family were Christians in any sense. They simply attended our school because it was better than public school. As we sat there in the darkness, unable to tell the difference between eyes closed or open, a very poignant honesty sunk in, and we realized that we could be honest with one another.
- Later that night, back at the camp, it was time for the annual "foot washing" service. This was something I had started about 3 years ago, but now for some reason was really dreading. I didn't want to set it up, talk about it, or wash anyone's feet at all. But moments before I knew I would have to describe what was going to happen, I felt led to give an invitation to wash anyone student's feet who would let me. The result was about 2 hours of conversation, prayer, foot-washing, and praying words of hope for different students. I didn't expect it at all. I didn't think I had it in me - and I still know that I don't. But from somewhere, something powerful happened.
- A day later, a group of students got brutally honest with me, sharing that they didn't feel the "Jesus thing" at all. Singing songs, reading the Bible, talking about God didn't do it for them. But as we kept talking for about 2 hours into the night, I think we all felt something very real happen, where we realized that God was real, and really with us, but in a way that was not what the good Christians were singing, writing or preaching about.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The day after Nov. 4th, 2008...
Tweet
So much to think (and write) about today! I didn't stay up to watch Obama's acceptance speech, but from what I read online, these are the points I resonate with:
So I would describe myself today, along with many others, as hopeful, excited, and eager to change begin to occur in our country. However, today I certainly encountered some of the "cynicism" that Obama mentioned as well. 47% or so of the nation still voted for McCain, and a good portion of those strongly opposed Obama, especially amongst evangelicals. This TIME article is sad to me, especially when it mentions that "there are unquestionably theological and racial reasons for the continued alignment of many white evangelicals with the GOP."
Today, the atmosphere in the small Christian school where I teach was tense. Students said they were moving to Canada, that America was going down, that this was the beginning of the end. In class, I fielded quesitons about the antichrist, gay marriage, race and other political and theological issues. One email sent by a church pastor said that "it seems God has allowed Barack Obama to become president."
For my part, I told students that I was very hopeful, that I felt that as a nation we were in an exciting time. I reminded them that the antichrist has very little to do with American politics, that both Republicans and Democrats have a similar position regarding gay marriage, and that both Christian Democrats and Christian Republicans want to see the number of abortions reduced but have differing opinions about how to reach that goal.
My hope is that Barack Obama is as much a man of action as he is of rhetoric and that the "new spirit of patriotism" will begin to be felt, even amongst evangelicals.
So much to think (and write) about today! I didn't stay up to watch Obama's acceptance speech, but from what I read online, these are the points I resonate with:
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.I appreciate that Barack Obama doesn't just make political promises, but reminds us that our country is made up of many citizens, all making daily and moment-by-moment choices that move our country in one direction or another. I like that he is a person who recognizes American is an international focal point, and so our actions, our words and our politics will shape the future not only of the U.S.A., but of the world. I think that the phrase "out of many, we are one" applies not only to Americans, but to all humans.It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other...
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
This is our moment.
This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
So I would describe myself today, along with many others, as hopeful, excited, and eager to change begin to occur in our country. However, today I certainly encountered some of the "cynicism" that Obama mentioned as well. 47% or so of the nation still voted for McCain, and a good portion of those strongly opposed Obama, especially amongst evangelicals. This TIME article is sad to me, especially when it mentions that "there are unquestionably theological and racial reasons for the continued alignment of many white evangelicals with the GOP."
Today, the atmosphere in the small Christian school where I teach was tense. Students said they were moving to Canada, that America was going down, that this was the beginning of the end. In class, I fielded quesitons about the antichrist, gay marriage, race and other political and theological issues. One email sent by a church pastor said that "it seems God has allowed Barack Obama to become president."
For my part, I told students that I was very hopeful, that I felt that as a nation we were in an exciting time. I reminded them that the antichrist has very little to do with American politics, that both Republicans and Democrats have a similar position regarding gay marriage, and that both Christian Democrats and Christian Republicans want to see the number of abortions reduced but have differing opinions about how to reach that goal.
My hope is that Barack Obama is as much a man of action as he is of rhetoric and that the "new spirit of patriotism" will begin to be felt, even amongst evangelicals.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Voting Pro-Life...Voting Democrat
Tweet
Read (or listen) this NPR article about the Catholic vote and abortion.
Obviously abortion is at the top of the list of important issues for evangelical voters as well, but like some of the Catholics mentioned in this article, my opinion (and vote) in the matter has swayed in the last few months. I would agree with Douglas Kmiec, who was quoted as saying:
Obviously abortion is at the top of the list of important issues for evangelical voters as well, but like some of the Catholics mentioned in this article, my opinion (and vote) in the matter has swayed in the last few months. I would agree with Douglas Kmiec, who was quoted as saying:
"We are not baby killers," Kmiec said. "We are simply finding analternative way to build up life, to honor the truth of the humanperson, to promote human good."
He also told the students thatObama's policies would reduce the number of abortions more thanMcCain's would. Kmiec says the position goes beyond abortion — itincludes health care, living wages, caring for the poor.
The article also presents information regarding the implications of a possible overturn of Roe v. Wade, stating that abortion would still be allowed in 30 states.
I first began to reconsider my position when I heard of the 95/10 initiative which is a comprehensive plan put forth by the Democratic party, aiming to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years. The plan covers such issues as promoting abstinence and contraceptives, support for mothers facing unplanned pregnancies, and child health care. As I read about this plan, I realized that even though I voted Republican in the first two presidential elections that I could ('00, '04) in large part because G.W. Bush spoke so strongly against abortion, very little has been done by the Republican party (even with a majority in Congress) to decrease the number of abortions in the United States. My hope is that this plan will be adopted and implemented, and more work will be done at a federal, state and local level to go beyond the pro-life rhetoric and actually do something to decrease the number of abortions and increase the quality of life for those dealing with the challenges of unexpected/unwanted pregnancies - and the young lives that courageously brought into this world.
See also Pro Life Pro Obama
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
What do you do with political emails?
Tweet
We get a lot of these type of political emails at school - some more "inaccurate" than others. By "a lot" I think I've received 3 over the past week. Depending on how wrong, inaccurate or offensive they are, I sometimes write back to the original author. But here are some of the questions/ideas I'm still wrestling with:
- Why are some Christians so adamant about political views? When it comes to politics, why can't we disagree? Why do we allow it to divide us so much? As I said in my previous post, this is one reason I appreciate and feel at home in Emergent groups, not only because many seem to share similar political views as myself, but because I know that in areas that I do differ, I am not ridiculed or judged for it. My friends in the cohort have talked about this recently here.
- How should I receive emails like this? I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "just an email fwd." In casual conversation, I could drop a racial expletive and say, "It was just a joke" and expect others to let it slide. In the same way, I've decided it's not acceptable to electronically mail inaccurate slander against other humans and think that we should "just delete it." Email is one of the primary forms of communication in our world, and so what is written, fwd:, and replied to should be taken as if spoken word, and the senders should be held accountable (myself included). Of course, sometimes intentions and meaning can be misunderstood, but often the intentions are clear but are disregarded because it's online.
- How should I respond/reply to emails like this? When I asked Don Miller that question at the little coffeehouse conversation he hosted at Ohio Wesleyan a few weeks ago, he reminded me of the Matthew 18 principle. So I've tried to write back to the sender of the email. What is interesting is that the person (yes I am thinking of one in particular) usually doesn't respond...at all. I've tried to meet face-to-face. I've tried to call, set up an appointment, and it never works out. What should I do now? Take it to the "next level"? I guess we'll see.....
All of the above aside, this is why I'm most frustrated - the people who send the emails seem to think it is "no big deal," when to me it is a really big deal. For several reasons: If the email is factually incorrect (and perpetuating untruths), that's a big deal. But even more than that, I feel like these types of emails that circulate so regularly around conservative evangelical circles - whether they are in regards to politics, homosexuality, Islam, or another hot topic - it sends a message to me that "this" particular position is what every good evangelical Christian should believe. And if I disagree, then I am on the wrong side. And being on the wrong side of the conversation means I am wrong...plain and simple. There is no room for discussion, contemplation, or growth. Just the standard answers that everyone should agree upon.
Again, I appreciate the Emergent conversation, simply because it is a conversation with more than one side! As much criticism as it gets for refusing to take a stance on a lot of issues, I feel it is better than being forced to pretend that I agree with every position that is circulated through the email list.
We get a lot of these type of political emails at school - some more "inaccurate" than others. By "a lot" I think I've received 3 over the past week. Depending on how wrong, inaccurate or offensive they are, I sometimes write back to the original author. But here are some of the questions/ideas I'm still wrestling with:
- Why are some Christians so adamant about political views? When it comes to politics, why can't we disagree? Why do we allow it to divide us so much? As I said in my previous post, this is one reason I appreciate and feel at home in Emergent groups, not only because many seem to share similar political views as myself, but because I know that in areas that I do differ, I am not ridiculed or judged for it. My friends in the cohort have talked about this recently here.
- How should I receive emails like this? I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "just an email fwd." In casual conversation, I could drop a racial expletive and say, "It was just a joke" and expect others to let it slide. In the same way, I've decided it's not acceptable to electronically mail inaccurate slander against other humans and think that we should "just delete it." Email is one of the primary forms of communication in our world, and so what is written, fwd:, and replied to should be taken as if spoken word, and the senders should be held accountable (myself included). Of course, sometimes intentions and meaning can be misunderstood, but often the intentions are clear but are disregarded because it's online.
- How should I respond/reply to emails like this? When I asked Don Miller that question at the little coffeehouse conversation he hosted at Ohio Wesleyan a few weeks ago, he reminded me of the Matthew 18 principle. So I've tried to write back to the sender of the email. What is interesting is that the person (yes I am thinking of one in particular) usually doesn't respond...at all. I've tried to meet face-to-face. I've tried to call, set up an appointment, and it never works out. What should I do now? Take it to the "next level"? I guess we'll see.....
All of the above aside, this is why I'm most frustrated - the people who send the emails seem to think it is "no big deal," when to me it is a really big deal. For several reasons: If the email is factually incorrect (and perpetuating untruths), that's a big deal. But even more than that, I feel like these types of emails that circulate so regularly around conservative evangelical circles - whether they are in regards to politics, homosexuality, Islam, or another hot topic - it sends a message to me that "this" particular position is what every good evangelical Christian should believe. And if I disagree, then I am on the wrong side. And being on the wrong side of the conversation means I am wrong...plain and simple. There is no room for discussion, contemplation, or growth. Just the standard answers that everyone should agree upon.
Again, I appreciate the Emergent conversation, simply because it is a conversation with more than one side! As much criticism as it gets for refusing to take a stance on a lot of issues, I feel it is better than being forced to pretend that I agree with every position that is circulated through the email list.
A good post on the upcoming election...
Tweet
...and all the drama that goes along with it.
Tim Keel shares his experience at an Obama rally. I think I would probably react in much the same way (feeling uncomfortable with chants and cheers like O-B-A-M-A). But I also really appreciate Keel's honesty, his explanations, and his perspective. He also links to a good post by Scot McKnight about voting and politics.
The election season has offered another reason why I feel more uncomfortable in conservative evangelical circles, and more comfortable with so-called "Emergents." Authors/bloggers like Keel, McKnight and Brian McLaren do a good job offering their views and opinions, and even trying to persuade people, without offending the other side or slandering the other candidate.
See also Don Miller's recent political stumping for Obama.
Tim Keel shares his experience at an Obama rally. I think I would probably react in much the same way (feeling uncomfortable with chants and cheers like O-B-A-M-A). But I also really appreciate Keel's honesty, his explanations, and his perspective. He also links to a good post by Scot McKnight about voting and politics.
The election season has offered another reason why I feel more uncomfortable in conservative evangelical circles, and more comfortable with so-called "Emergents." Authors/bloggers like Keel, McKnight and Brian McLaren do a good job offering their views and opinions, and even trying to persuade people, without offending the other side or slandering the other candidate.
See also Don Miller's recent political stumping for Obama.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Courting Evangelicals
Tweet
NPR had two reports on the "evangelical vote" this past week, Thurs. & Fri. Find them here and here. If you didn't catch them on the radio and you are an evangelical voter, take a listen - they are very interesting. Some thoughts I had:
After listening to the report on John McCain, I was really frustrated for a few reasons.
1) I felt like my vote was just an object to be won over. The phrase "courting evangelicals" feels so offensive to me. I get the very strong impression that McCain and other Republicans figure out what they need to say, how to say, and when and who to say it to so that evangelical Christians will vote for him. It feels a lot like a horny teenager telling his girlfriend she is the prettiest girl in school so she'll sleep with him - then he breaks up with her. This is how I feel about G.W.Bush right now. He said all the right stuff to get me to vote for him - pro-life, pro-family, finish the war, protect embryonic stem cells, go Jesus! And then his administration is so very un-Christ-like it makes my stomach churn.
2) How can evangelicals be so dumb? The McCain report was laughable in uncovering his two-sidedness. Direct quotes from 8 years ago in his campaign against Bush in which McCain was unwilling to "pander to the outer reaches" of religious extremism - and he mentions Jerry Falwell by name! Quotes from James Dobson saying he would "never" vote for McCain - the evangelical attitude toward McCain was that he did not hold the same values at all. And then one appearance in a church with Rick Warren where McCain states "Life begins at conception" (whatever the hell that means for legislation or actually providing social programs to care for young mothers? uh.....???) Then McCain chooses Sarah Palin for his running mate, and she is staunchly pro-life, and so all the evangelicals are back on board. Now the conservative Christians are confident that McCain is the right man to run the country. How did we so easily forget what he said 8 years ago? This is why I feel insulted, embarrassed and ashamed to even be slightly connected to the evangelical camp (when it comes to politics especially).
Regarding the Obama report - I didn't actually hear it in the car, where I usually listen to NPR and have more time to think and reflect, so I don't have as much to say. Except that I get the sense that Obama's faith is much more genuine. I know that is a judgment call I can't really make, but when he says, "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work," it sounds like the man is speaking with conviction about what he believes, not just what he thinks will get him the vote. I appreciate that he was willing to speak honestly to Rick Warren and answer the same question about when life begins by admitting it's a tough question.
Overall, the reason I appreciate (and have already voted for) Obama over McCain is that I don't feel like he is insulting my intelligence or my faith, but rather he is someone who genuinely holds to the same worldview that I do.
Of course, he could just be a better politician than McCain.
NPR had two reports on the "evangelical vote" this past week, Thurs. & Fri. Find them here and here. If you didn't catch them on the radio and you are an evangelical voter, take a listen - they are very interesting. Some thoughts I had:After listening to the report on John McCain, I was really frustrated for a few reasons.
1) I felt like my vote was just an object to be won over. The phrase "courting evangelicals" feels so offensive to me. I get the very strong impression that McCain and other Republicans figure out what they need to say, how to say, and when and who to say it to so that evangelical Christians will vote for him. It feels a lot like a horny teenager telling his girlfriend she is the prettiest girl in school so she'll sleep with him - then he breaks up with her. This is how I feel about G.W.Bush right now. He said all the right stuff to get me to vote for him - pro-life, pro-family, finish the war, protect embryonic stem cells, go Jesus! And then his administration is so very un-Christ-like it makes my stomach churn.
2) How can evangelicals be so dumb? The McCain report was laughable in uncovering his two-sidedness. Direct quotes from 8 years ago in his campaign against Bush in which McCain was unwilling to "pander to the outer reaches" of religious extremism - and he mentions Jerry Falwell by name! Quotes from James Dobson saying he would "never" vote for McCain - the evangelical attitude toward McCain was that he did not hold the same values at all. And then one appearance in a church with Rick Warren where McCain states "Life begins at conception" (whatever the hell that means for legislation or actually providing social programs to care for young mothers? uh.....???) Then McCain chooses Sarah Palin for his running mate, and she is staunchly pro-life, and so all the evangelicals are back on board. Now the conservative Christians are confident that McCain is the right man to run the country. How did we so easily forget what he said 8 years ago? This is why I feel insulted, embarrassed and ashamed to even be slightly connected to the evangelical camp (when it comes to politics especially).
Regarding the Obama report - I didn't actually hear it in the car, where I usually listen to NPR and have more time to think and reflect, so I don't have as much to say. Except that I get the sense that Obama's faith is much more genuine. I know that is a judgment call I can't really make, but when he says, "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work," it sounds like the man is speaking with conviction about what he believes, not just what he thinks will get him the vote. I appreciate that he was willing to speak honestly to Rick Warren and answer the same question about when life begins by admitting it's a tough question.
Overall, the reason I appreciate (and have already voted for) Obama over McCain is that I don't feel like he is insulting my intelligence or my faith, but rather he is someone who genuinely holds to the same worldview that I do.
Of course, he could just be a better politician than McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)