Introduction
For a long time, British evangelical Christians have been expressing disquiet about aspects of American evangelicalism. There have always been theologicial differences between the two groups, but the main difference is that British evangelicalism has largely avoided political engagement, while American evangelicalism has been strongly associated with right wing politics. But, according to a recent article, this may be changing.
Discussion
Mark:
Here is an interesting article, which from the perspective of a non-believer raises much bigger questions than the one it attempts to answer. Where is the involvement of the God they all believe in? If these people are believe they have the 'mind of Christ', why is there such division and disagreement? And of course does the absence of 'fruit' imply they are all labouring under false delusions?
(Sadly, this article is on the New York Times website, and you will need to register to view it if you have 'used up' your free visits to the site.)
Brian:
This great article is not really much about God, if at all. It's really about what happens when hypocrisy is reinforced, over and over again - eventually, such institutions break
apart under the weight of all the lies needed to hide what it's really all about.
Many church attendees seem to treat their church just like a secular social club - with some nice, cheery songs and going through the motions with lots of nice people - just like themselves – or People Like Us. It gives them a circle of friends, it gives them assurance of their "rightness" (or "righteousness"), it rewards their similarity of views and, for sure, their preacher will preach all kinds of reassuring stuff, strongly linked to various approved Bible passages. So, yes, they believe with all their strength that whoever they worship will defend them specially and uphold their lifestyle. Because that is what they are meeting for - to reassure themselves that they are in the right and so is their lifestyle. They've been good, so they are entitled to the benefits, after all - right?
The article said this:
When I was young, I had a weird obsession with people who adopted and then broke with communism around the middle of the 20th century — Arthur Koestler, Stephen Spender, Richard Wright, Andre Gide and Whittaker Chambers. Breaking ranks was brutal for many of this set; they were ostracized and condemned.
They were also liberated. They began to think new things, find new allies and sometimes embark on new causes. Some of them contributed to an anthology describing their experiences called “The God That Failed.”
I’ve watched a lot of evangelical Christians endure similar experiences. They’ve broken from the community they thought they were wed to for life. Except for them it wasn’t God that failed, but the human institutions built in his name. This experience of breaking, rethinking and reorienting a life could be the first stage in renewal.
This excellent article is pointing towards what happens to a politicised group of people whose business seems largely focused on "moral" issues such as banning abortion, when in actual fact, their political stance embodies partisan grievances based upon their own position in life compared to "others" (e.g. typically blacks or other minorities of choice) never mind the two or three cars they own, the lovely house, and so on. They are among the wealthiest people per capita on the planet and they still feel aggrieved - because they feel threatened by "others" (e.g. typically blacks or other minorities of choice). There is always more to own and to be done for their materialistic scramble to the very top.
I have to apologise here but I always trot out the same POLITICO article when dealing with what's wrong with the "mainstream" protestant church in middle-class America - yes, the article is not very fair and most likely hugely biased, but it probably contains quite a bit of truth in it as well. What can you say about a society that denies the right to abortions, but then as soon as the baby is born, the newborn, the mother and family are left to fend for themselves. It's completely and utterly wrong:
Here is a more recent Guardian article making the same points:
Adrian:
I read Mark's article and Brian's reply and articles.
The problem is that these Americans believe absolutely that they are evangelical Christians, and absolutely believe that they are right and that their side is the one that is hearing from God and doing God's Will.
This is nothing new. Humans have a massive tendency to sectarianism. The view that we on this site subscribe to, that it is ok to disagree and continue to associate with and respect those with whom we disagree, is a great example of human progress and enlightenment, and possibly you could argue the work of the Holy Spirit, but it is not typical. The Plymouth brethren who I grew up in had split after split, ostensibly over what we now see as obscure theological issues such as the pre-existence of Christ, and other movements such as the Baptists were almost as bad. The split in US Evangelicalism is more obvious because the issues and the personalities involved are of national importance. As usual, the church is mirroring society rather than the other way round.
To be fair, Marxist and Trotskyist groups have also had continual splits over obscure issues.
So, how do we view the apparent failure of Jesus' prayer that Christians should be "as one"? Has that prayer failed because prayer has no power? Or does the answer to prayer depend on the actions of the people involved rather than supernatural intervention? If some prayers appear to have supernatural answers, why not this one if it is so important? If God's plan was to have us grow as Christians by taking responsibility for unity, why phrase the request or guidance as a prayer?
Paul:
I think Adrian's question about Jesus' prayer for unity is an important one - I'm not clear if that is on topic for the original article, or another thought arising out of it, but either way I don't want to lose it.
[Also see Christianity]
Comments