Selected
responses to “I’m
a Gay Evangelical” column
è The Billy Graham fundamentalists stole “EVANGELICAL” from
the Lutherans, who meant “Lutheran Protestants” by it, and redefined it to mean “semi-Pelagian (at least) revivalists.” Now the Christian right wants
it to mean, simply, them. Christians
like Drury and me, which include many others on Abet, need to get more
specific. How about “Bible Preaching Born Again Blood-bought
Parousiasts”? I think that
would scare the Politicos from the
right and the left from being identified with us, or from attempting to steal
our identity.
è For a few years I’ve been playing with the idea of calling
myself a “post-evangelical.” Nobody knows what it means (much as it used
to be for the term “postmodern”), but at least I can have the opportunity to
explain it, instead of calling myself an evangelical and letting people come to
their own, probably mistaken, conclusions.
And in explaining it, I can explain what evangelical used to mean - two
opportunities in one! But, in the end,
who would listen that long? <g>
è There’s a new term floating around...I think I like it (at
least I hope I do...one of my references just labeled me as this to an
inquiring church): “Generous Orthodoxy”
è Brian McLaren jus wrote a book entitled: A Generous Orthodoxy...I have not picked
it up yet but am hoping to read it soon.
Actually, the WHOLE title is: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant,
Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative,
Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green,
Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN
Clear enough?
è I’m hearing the word “missional”
quite a bit with the ministry masters students...
è Hi, that was an
interesting column regarding what you want to be called as a
Christian. I find it striking that you want to be
called anything other than His child. So, how does your family refer to
themselves? Drury clan? Evangelical Drury clan? Conservative Drury clan?
Liberal Drury clan? Keith’s clan? So, why does God’s family need to be grouped
under a title anyway? Is it not good enough to be called the family of
God, a child of God, a follower of Christ.
Maybe we just want to lose that identity and have a more “spiritual, secular identity”. You know, compete with the world’s need to
categorize
people. Besides, with can flaunt our
position in Christ with a title you know.
è “Generous Orthodoxy”
might be the new term if we go with Brian McLaren(English Teacher turned
Emergent Guru) but he stole the term from Hans Frei, but since nobody who ever
read Hans Frei can get anything he’s saying because of his obtuse writing let’s
credit it to McLaren—he who makes it clear ought to get the credit anyway.
è Hmmm? So what am I?
“Non-denominational (don’t tell the
D.S. that!), non-partisan, non-racist, non-sexist follower of Jesus
Christ, whom I believe to be the only Son of God who died and rose again to
forgive sin and bring those who believe into a life-changing relationship with
God the Father through God the Holy Spirit so that we may live a life
characterized by unconditional love for all people.” Okay, maybe that’s a bit wordy.
Perhaps a REAL relationship with God can’t be boiled down to sound
bytes, church sign slogans or even—gasp—statements of belief in little blue
books. I think it’s something much more
profound and mysterious than human language can denote.
è “We are a missional
church in the Wesleyan Methodist tradition”
Missional in
that we seek to:
1)
proclaim the good news of redemption and reconcialition to God through Jesus
Christ to all.
2)
experience the possibility of a complete spritual transformation, as God makes
the grace available.
3)
serve Christ and His Church with consecrated hearts and open minds.
4)
build the Kingdom of God and establish a witness of God’s universal love by
pursuing social justice and wholeness with all people, irrespective of
race,sex, economic position, or religion.
i.e. that is we seek the same temporal rights/opportunity for all people
even if they don’t attend/plan to our church.
Wesleyan
in that:
-We
seek the aid of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scriptures and form theology
grounded in reason, and the traditions and experiences of the Church Universal.
Methodist in
that:
-connectional
church, shared history with Methodist etc.
(From a
United Methodist who is acquainted with the Wesleyan Church)
è How about “Radical,
Half-Crazed, Delusional Fundamentalist”?
Sad to
say, that seems to be the path that we are headed, unless God moves.
è Well, John Hick and other “liberal” writers would consider
your beliefs: “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” - a fundamental
conservative. Any time they refer
to a “select few who still believe in...” they refer to you as a fundamental
conservative.
è I might say you’re a “new
kind of Christian” (thanks, Brian) or I like what you said, an “emerging Christian.” People will then ask about it and you can
talk through it with them. Or what
about a CHRISTIAN. Nothing more,
nothing less. People can decide what
that means...but they will probably define you as what you talked about in the
article. Or what about a Jesus
follower?
èAs a conservative,
right-wing, evangelical, fundamentalist, (add any other similar adjectives)
Christian who is a Government Major at a Conservative, right-wing, evangelical,
fundamentalist, etc. College dedicated to changing our culture (mostly through
government.) I would have say that the new definition of evangelical largely
describes me. However, I agree that
the term should not be politicized. I
consider myself an evangelical, conservative Christian - in that order, doctrine first and political affiliation
second. Soon, though, the Democrats
will start using the term to try to get the Christian vote, and it will be
fully politicized. :-( However, many conservative Christians do not
believe necessarily that 2nd and 3rd points for the “new evangelical” are
Biblically necessary. Rather, we
believe that what is Biblically necessary is integrity and the obedience of our
nation’s laws, a point that is to be found in scripture in several places. At this point, a large part of our press for
these 2nd and 3rd points are to support the Constitution, which is the highest
law of the land. To do otherwise would
both be dishonest and would go against this law. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t support these positions anyway
(I would), but there is a legitimate moral basis for these beliefs, besides the
“I think this is best for the country” attitude.
è That’s the limitation of language, I guess, that words
really only “represent” the accepted meaning behind them. The interesting thing is, lately I’ve found
that even the word “Christian” by
many people is taken to mean “right-wing political/religious fundamentalist”
(which is obviously not the true definition of the word). But it brings me to what I think is the
next question—when do we accept our culture’s redefining of words like these,
and when do we insist on redefining the word for our culture?
è I usually just call myself a Christian and, as you said, explain further when they ask.
The only problem is when obvious (by their lifestyle) pagans say, 'Yeah, me
too.'
è How about our movement going back to just being… holiness.
It is a good doctrinally all-inclusive word, familiar to enough Wesleyans to
give a soothing comfort, but unfamiliar enough to others to provoke good
questions and commentary! I've always
like just being… holiness. I hope we have not given it up!
è We could say that we
are Semites: Semites literally means "People of the Name" and
would express who we are quite well. Unfortunately, that has been used up some
and those who recognize the word would likely apply it to Jews. Isn't it sad
that "anti-semite" is a far more widely recognized term than
"semite?"
If the world is willing
to take our words or to make up words of their own to describe us, maybe we
could follow their lead: we could call ourselves gracelanders, for we
above all people hope to live in a land of grace. Of course, this would
probably lead to some misunderstanding with Elvis' house in Memphis. We could
use middlers: we are in the middle between the world and our home. But
then that would probably get confused with middle man or some such and again we
would be defeated. We could just call
ourselves lovers, since that so richly describes the life we try to live
and the Life that was not spared so that we could have eternal life; but then
love has been so misconstrued in the world that it would cause more problems
than it would solve. I think I'm going to stick with your suggestion and just
remain a Christian. Then if I am asked, "What kind?" (and
hopefully I will be asked) I can tell them that I'm the kind that is loved by
God so much, that I have experienced and continue to experience the grace of
God through Jesus Christ and that I am a traveler on The Way (not to be
confused with The Way International) between my sinful self and the promised
eternity of Jesus.
è Yes Keith, I have
considered the same question and even though I have used the term "evangelical"
much of the time, I am beginning to favor the term" orthodox." I work with several Eastern orthodox people,
and it's interesting to see their reaction to the term and gives me a chance to
explain what " live " faith is to them ,as opposed to dead
religiousity. By the way, I'm not
bothered by Roman Catholics that are labeled evangelicals. I have a nephew who is R.C. and wears a
shirt with John 3:16 on it . He is more excited about his faith and shares and
understands it better that some so-called evangelicals (all Roman Catholic
trappings aside).
èI
would like to suggest the term "Ultimate Judaism". Is seems old school but progressive. A nod to the past and a look to the
future. It already sounds arrogant so
we won't have to wait for secular society to make that
claim about us as an
insult. I'm sure the theological
ramifications of so closely identifying with the "old covenant" need
to be considered but hey, nobody else is using it and it would be a great
conversation starter. I am obviously
joking about this but I agree with your point about needing a new name. I'm not even sure I like the term Christian
anymore. That could mean pretty much
anything from ordaining homosexuals to shooting abortion doctors and anything
in between. What about older terms for Christians
like followers of the way. It's not as
pithy as Evangelical or Christian or
Fundamentalist but that could be a good thing.
Because it's less pithy it is less likely to get picked up in common
speech and then less likely to be corrupted my the media or mainstream society
or whoever else we hold responsible.
è There are definitely some Christians who
think to be a good Christian you need to be a part of the religious right, but
I think they are the minority. The
media perpetuates the correlation between Christian and conservative politically
to the point that some lay people may assume the two typically go together. I would hate to exclude Christians from the
political arena out of fear of how the media, entertainment, or academia is
going to perceive or brand it. I
suppose we could somewhat counteract the misconception if we were very vocal
about the fact that we respect and love others who have different opinions than
us. Chuck Colson reminds his
subscribers that Christians haven't fared very well when they have been in
political power and that we need to be diligent about being marked by
graciousness and humility in our political endeavors. I would hope we can do that and still strongly support what we
believe to be good public policy. I
suppose I am a bit defensive on the subject after reading some of the
postmodern stuff that is so anti conservativism.
è
I really like the term "emergent Christian." Goes along with the emergent
church! ;-) Check out this guy's thoughts on that http://stumin.blogspot.com/2005/03/emergent-church-candles-and-incense.html You can then check out my blog/stream of consciousness at http://geauxblog.blogspot.com
...I'm a former Baptist, turned charismatic, turned Wesleyan, turned
"reformed", reformed what, I don't know yet though :-) "in the essentials, unity"
è I just read a chapter in a book by Brian MacLaren (A
Generous Orthodoxy) last night on the term evangelical. He favors the term post evangelical. I am still evaluating his ideas so not
advocating just saying you might find it interesting if you have not seen it
since you were questioning the term. Along
those lines, I am not sure why so many Christians are so disturbed that
Christians are getting involved in conservative politics. I don't think those of us who are
politically active would say you have to agree with our politics to be a
Christian? If a bunch of Christians
play tennis is that going to pose a threat where people think to be a Christian
you need to also play tennis?
____________________
Responses are no longer
being posted on this column—to offer a personal response to Keith Drury, writer
of the original column click
here