I used to be a Gay
Evangelical
I used to be gay. In fact, pretty much everyone in the conservative church in Pennsylvania where I grew up considered themselves gay. Today most Christians consider being a conservative Christian and being gay mutually exclusive. Back in the 1950s most of us considered ourselves gay because we were Christians. We even dressed gay and sang about it: “Don we now our gay apparel.”[1] Of course we didn’t consider ourselves to be homosexual. We were just gay—we were happy, lively, bright, cheery, lighthearted “since Jesus came into our heart.” Those of us who were comfortable saying we were gay in the 1950’s don’t say we’re gay any more. How come? We’re still happy, we’re just not gay—the meaning changed.
So, I no longer say I’m gay. The term now means something different than it did when I was a kid. And the redefinition was largely beyond the control of the church—a secular world, particularly homosexual men, redefined the term. We can no longer ignore their effective redefinition of the word. I dare you—tell your neighbor you’re gay and watch their reaction. See? In every dictionary I referenced same-sex orientation was the first definition for gay.[2] It means quite simply a same sex sexual orientation. The term no longer means what it meant. When gay meant happy I was gay. Now that gay means same-sex orientation I no longer claim to be gay. When words change their meaning it often requires us to reclassify ourselves.
I used to be an “Evangelical” too. Actually pretty much everyone in my denomination since the mid 1970’s has considered themselves to be “evangelical.” Back in the 1970’s then the word meant something like this:
But I’m not so sure I’m an evangelical any more. The term is rapidly coming to mean something else. While the dictionaries I referenced above still have a doctrinal and experiential definition similar to my list[3] the term’s meaning is rapidly changing in poplar usage.[4] This change in the meaning of “evangelical” is mostly out of our control and thus we’re going to be stuck with it I think—like we are with “gay.” For instance consider Time® Magazine’s recent issue announcing the 25 most influential evangelicals. They gathered a virtual who’s who[5] of evangelical leaders who are influencing either the church or Washington D.C. While started off by tipping their hat to the traditional (doctrinal/experiential) definition of evangelical they went on to thumb their noses at it in the rest of their writing. Evangelical no longer denotes Protestant (two of their names are Roman Catholic). In fact many leaders have little connection to the church—they are para-church leaders, political leaders or moral crusaders.[6] Time fits in with the rest of the media. There is an ongoing redefinition of the label “evangelical.” Here is what it is coming to mean:
The
dictionaries will eventually catch up.
The media will strip out the theological and spiritual DNA from the term
and insert new political DNA into the evangelical egg. What will be born is “evangelical = political
conservative.” Christian conversion, the authority of the Bible, heaven and
hell will be removed form the term’s meaning.
While most doctrinal evangelicals have a conservative political
position, some do not [7].
All evangelicals do not automatically believe that self-reliance in Social
Security is more Christian than a we-all-help-each-other central plan.[8]
If the media is successful in redefining evangelical what new label is there? That’s my question. Actually I believe they already have been successful so I’m already thinking about it.[9] Evangelical as a term has been hopelessly politicized. But what term will people like me use. I don’t like Fundamentalist—the Moslems ruined that term. I certainly don’t like preservationist (Bob Jones XXIII’s new term for fundamentalists). Conservative Christian might work—but I’m afraid “conservative” now has gotten political connotations too instead of theological ones. Orthodox might work—that is clearly theological, but it is tied to the Eastern Church a lot. I suppose I could go back to being Wesleyan or since it has not yet been politicized. I might try emerging Christian—that gets me the freedom to be anything I want since I’m still emerging” but it seems unseemly for a 60 year old man to be “emerging” doesn’t it? Who knows, maybe I’ll have to go with Christian then when people ask “what kind?” I can fill in the blanks.
So what label would you suggest can be the new label for people who believe in a clear conversion experience, hold the Bible in high authority, believe in the Virgin birth and other miracles and still believe there is an actual heaven and hell in the afterlife. What can we call ourselves when “evangelical” no longer is a religious word?
I used to be a gay evangelical but neither label works for me any more.
Keith Drury 2/13/05
[1] The song was Deck the Halls
[2] Except for some strange reason the American Heritage Medical Dictionary 2002 edition who puts the sexual definition as #6—I wonder why?
[3] The term is not uniform for the whole world though. While I’ve represented the meaning in the USA, it also can refer to all protestant churches in Germany—that is you are “Catholic or evangelical” and the same for the Lutheran church in Switzerland—it is the “evangelical” church. There is a minority meaning also to the term—meaning passionate or zealous…as in “evangelical liberal” defining a liberal that is passionate about their position.
[4] Dictionaries, like denominational disciplines, always change last, reflecting the changes that have already happened in the real world.
[5] The list includes: Howard & Roberta Ahmanson, David Barton, Doug Coe, Chuck Colson, Luis Cortčs, James Dobson, Stuart Epperson, Michael Gerson, Billy & Franklin Graham, Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, T.D. Jakes, Diane Knippers Tim & Beverly LaHaye, Richard Land, Brian McLaren, Joyce Meyer, Richard John Neuhaus, Mark Noll, J.I. Packer, Rick Santorum, Jay Sekulow, Stephen Strang, Rick Warren, and Ralph Winter,.
[6] I was delighted however that Rick Warren, a real local pastor headlined off the list. Though of course he got there not because of anything he did in his local church-0-he’s been doing that for ages He got on the list by selling more books than any secular author last year—that got their attention. If John Maxwell had sold so many books he would have been on the list. Frankly such lists are contrary to the truth of the gospel—the first will be last and the pastor who slaves away in Arthur Nebraska never being known by anybody except the Lord. (for what its worth Arthur Nebraska is a real place—the population of Arthur county is 444. Now don’t expect to hear form any Arthur pastors in the next pastor’s conference you attend. These pastors have to wait until ehaven to deliver their wisdom—at that time the people on Time’s most influential evangelicals will be taking note furiously and saying to each other “Great stuff—huh?” But that will be after they are glorified. ;-).
[7] Most, but not all—at least 20% of religious evangelicals are not politically conservative. But it is true that the vast majority of evangelicals adhere to these conservative political positions as a factor in their faith. I have at other times pointed out that many hold these political positions with greater passion that they hold their faith. This is of course what James Dobson has discovered. Whenever he “focuses on the family” or some church related subject his donations nosedive. But as soon as he gets into the political fray donations rocket to the top. Frankly it is a wonder he has as many spiritual and family broadcasts as he does given this reality. Is it any wonder that people in a para-church “business” who have to live from hand to mouth for funds gravitates toward the political issues—that’s where their next week’s salary comes from. The shocking fact is not that they focus so much on politics, but that they still sponsor so many “loser programs” (fund-raising wise) about parenting, devotions, prayer and giving to the local church.
[8] Actually on this one I personally lean toward a modified Bush plan. I generally like economic self-reliance and even prefer the notion that the government force people to save money in certain government-sponsored funds for use in retirement. So I am probably with Bush on this one, or a modified Bush approach. But my position here is not automatically a Christian one—I don’t believe I can state that it is more Christian to be self-reliant rather than “everyone caring for everyone according to their needs.” Indeed if I were forced to make my political position on Social Security based on the New testament I might have to go the everyone-cares-for-everyone else out of love” position.
[9] I’m not alone. A number of organizations, institutions and denominations are already searching for a new term. This is especially interesting to my own denomination—the Wesleyan Church—who relatively recently discarded the label “holiness church” exchanging it for “evangelical” and now has some buyers remorse—the term doesn’t reflect what they wanted when they made the purchase. And it is of course why Asbury Theological Seminary is now in the process of shedding the “evangelical” label (along with the term’s association with a reformed view—they are going back to “Wesleyan.”