DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: EVANGELISM & THEOLOGY
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29141--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: May 10, 2021, 6:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/123558.png?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2021/may/ten-things-that-arent-evangelism.html
Ten Things That Aren't Evangelism
What does it mean for 21st century people to engage in
evangelism?
In Act II, Scene II of the classic work, ‘Romeo and Juliet’,
there is a famous conversation between the couple. They love
each other and want to be together, but they carry the burden of
their surnames, and this means that they will be apart forever.
In the midst of this complicated mix of feelings and emotions,
Juliet uses a metaphor to persuade Romeo that their names do not
matter; she says that if a rose had another name, it would still
produce the same perfume. I believe that evangelism has a
similar dynamic, because although the name comes with a full
range of feelings, pre-concepts, fears and worldviews, it’s true
nature, motivations and purpose, go beyond any word that we can
use to name it.
It is time for people to understand what evangelism is, and what
it means for the church of the 21st Century to engage in
evangelism. So, to begin to ‘stir this pot’ I would like to
introduce 10 things that evangelism is not.
1. Evangelism is not supposed to be complicated.
One of the first things that comes to people’s minds when they
hear the “E” word, is “it’s complicated”, but the fact is that
this is not true. Evangelism is not complicated; it is simply to
share with the world the life that you have found in Jesus.
There are three people who, in a very natural way, carried out
evangelism in the New Testament, but who many people don’t
recognise as engaging in evangelism. They are the blind man, the
demon-possessed man of Gadarene, and the Samaritan women. None
of them knew Jesus for a long time, or had much, if any,
training. But they were willing to share the difference that
Jesus had made in their lives and that is what it is to
evangelise - to share who Jesus is and to share what difference
He is making in our lives.
2. Evangelism is not supposed to be born out of guilt.
We don’t evangelise to be saved or to earn salvation, but
because we are saved. Some Christians share the Gospel only
because of internal pressure and because they feel obliged to
repay the debt that Jesus paid when He went to the cross – this
feeling is based in guilt. In reality though, evangelism is a
response to His love and forgiveness, that rises up in us
because we want everyone to experience the same level of
abundant life that we are experiencing. This removes the need
for guilt and leaves only a place for loving obedience.
3. Evangelism is not supposed to be a response to external
pressure.
We shouldn’t evangelise because people around us are pressuring
us to do it, but because Jesus released us and sends us to share
the good news. Any motive that is not from God or Godly is a
wrong motive. Your friends, church leaders and family should
encourage you and cheer you on in your evangelism and ministry,
but that should never become an external pressure to “make” you
go and share. Remember that Jesus is freedom, and it is
important that we share because we are free to do so. At the
heart of evangelism is the truth that because love has found us,
we now want to share this love with the world.
4. Evangelism is not to bullying, coercing or convincing people.
We don’t bully people into accepting the gospel. Evangelism
should never be an ‘act of terror’ and we definitely shouldn’t
try to coerce anyone into becoming a Christian. In the past I
was a victim of ‘terror evangelism’; while I was still an
atheist, I was the target of many people who knocked at my door
asking: “Do you know that if you die today you will go to hell
and burn forever?” I don’t know if you have ever had an
experience like this, or if, like me, you were the target of
something similar, but I have never met anyone who came to Jesus
because of this kind of evangelism.
It is not our role in evangelism to convince people. Yes! I will
write it again to help people to be released from this burden!
It is not your role to convince people; that role belongs to the
Holy Spirit. Although we need to be ready to give the reason for
our faith, the Holy Spirit is the one who convinces, and He is
very good at doing that! Our role is to present and proclaim
Christ to the world, everything else is the work of the Holy
Spirit.
5. Evangelism is not the marketing of your local church.
It’s ok that you like your local church, and it’s ok to invite
people to come along, but this is not evangelism. Many churches
think that to invite people to an event or service is
evangelism, but this is not the case. Evangelism is to share the
good news of Jesus and His story, with the world. It’s not wrong
to offer an invitation or to be willing to bring people to our
local churches, but what changes people’s lives is the gospel,
and that’s what we need to be actively sharing!
6. Evangelism is not to critique other religions, other churches
or other church leaders.
Evangelism is not to critique other religions, or other churches
and their leaders. We don’t waste time sharing what we are not,
but instead, spend our time sharing who Jesus is and what He has
done for each and every one of us. Don’t waste the precious time
that you have to talk about the King, with talking instead about
your views of other people and religions.
7. Evangelism is about more than technique.
Technique is not wrong, but if God is in it, any technique will
work. The three unusual people who were engaged in evangelism
that I mentioned in the first point, didn’t have any technique,
but even so, many people believed in Jesus because they shared
the life that they had found in Him. Every church and
organisation will have their own technique, and although I
strongly recommend that you should support and get involved in
the technique of your local church (if it is sound and
biblical), remember that this is only one way in which to
communicate the precious, unchangeable, good news of Christ.
8. Evangelism does not begin from a position of superiority.
We don’t engage in evangelism or in evangelistic activities
because we are the saved ones who go to those who are less than
us. Spurgeon said that evangelism is “one beggar telling another
beggar where to find bread”. We go to others because we have
received, and we are commissioned to go, not because of any
merit or status of our own.
9. Evangelism is not supposed to be unloving.
There is no true evangelism that exists without love. That is
how the world will know that we are His disciples. When the
message of the gospel reaches us, it transforms us, and this
love will break the cycle of indifference and inertia in our
lives, so that we are unleashed into the world, to do as Jesus
did.
10. Evangelism is not an activity, but a way of life.
I don’t do evangelism just as an activity on “Saturday at 3pm”.
In fact, I don’t ‘do’ evangelism at all! We can go for a walk
and distribute flyers as a one-off event, but evangelism is so
much more than this – it is sharing life and we should do that
in our lives in natural ways; it is part of who we are and what
we do as Christians. We share about Jesus and the difference
that He has made in us, and that can never be an isolated
activity, but instead must grow to become something that is part
of everything that we are and do.
Luiz F. Cardoso, missiologist, writer and local pastor. He is
the Advance Development Manager at the message trust, pastor of
Connect Church in Stockport - UK and the director of the Global
Network of Evangelism for the Portuguese speaking world. He did
his B.A. in theology in Sao Paulo - Brazil and the M.A. in
mission in the University of Manchester. Luiz has been married
to his wife Dani for 20 years; they have two boys together.
#Post#: 31743--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: June 16, 2021, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124170.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/june-web-only/survival-resistance-evangelical-america-crawford-gribben.html
Meet the Conservative Evangelicals Practicing ‘Strategic
Hibernation’ in the American Northwest
They might embrace their marginal status, but they don’t plan on
staying marginal forever.
In September 2020, about 150 Christians gathered to stage an
informal Psalm Sing in the parking lot of Moscow, Idaho’s city
hall. They were there to protest the local mask mandate.
Five individuals were cited by police for violating the local
order to wear masks, and two were arrested “for suspicion of
resisting or obstructing an officer.” One of the event’s
organizers was Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in
Moscow, a 900-member congregation with historical connections to
Christian Reconstructionism (also known as theonomy), a movement
that hopes to see earthly society governed by biblical law. One
month earlier on Twitter, Wilson had framed his concerns about
the issue in revealing terms: “Too few see the masking orders
for what they ultimately are. Our modern and very swollen state
wants to get the largest possible number of people to get used
to putting up with the most manifest lies.”
In Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America: Christian
Reconstruction in the Pacific Northwest, historian Crawford
Gribben recounts how in recent decades conservative
evangelicals, inspired by assorted strands of theonomy and
survivalism, came to settle in the Pacific Northwest. Gribben
explores how this group of “born-again Protestants who embrace
their marginal status” has thrived in the wilds of Idaho and
adjoining states, proposing “strategies of survival, resistance,
and reconstruction in evangelical America.”
Turning toward triumphalism
Gribben describes his book as a “social history of theological
ideas” based on long-distance interviews of several subjects and
in-person fieldwork. Rather than crafting a journalistic exposé
or a theological critique, Gribben employs “biographical,
institutional, or thematic” approaches.
Previous accounts of Christian Reconstructionists have tended to
focus on these believers’ theocratic vision of a future
Christian polity rather than their separation from mainstream
society. Today, Gribben concludes, these practitioners of
“strategies of hibernation” may no longer be as marginal as some
have assumed. In a series of illuminating chapters, Gribben
astutely examines the history of theonomist migration to the
Northwest, the eschatological assumptions underlying the
original Reconstructionist vision, theonomic political theory,
the movement’s influential educational ideas, and its thoughtful
and innovative use of publishing and electronic media.
For these theonomists, present-day survivalism is closely linked
to a future reconstruction of a godly society and Christianity’s
earthly triumph. Theonomy is a diverse theological movement,
arising within a conservative Reformed milieu. Its central ideas
were first articulated by Rousas John Rushdoony, a
California-based Presbyterian pastor and the son of Armenian
immigrants. Gary North, Rushdoony’s estranged son-in-law, is one
of many to carry its banner forward into the 21st century.
Although theonomy first gained notoriety through its bold
application of Mosaic law to the existing political order, more
recent adherents have often sanded down its sharp edges.
Among the most intriguing features of Reconstructionism is its
view of human history as it relates to Christ’s second coming.
For much of the 20th century, American evangelicals were mainly
premillennialists, believing Jesus would return to earth before
inaugurating a thousand-year reign of peace and prosperity (the
Millennium). Premillennialism went hand in hand with pessimism
about existing social conditions—if Christ needed to come before
things would get better, then why waste much energy on making
them better in the here and now? By the 1970s, works like Hal
Lindsey’s best-selling The Late Great Planet Earth had
popularized a premillennial eschatology that stressed cultural
and moral decline and applied apocalyptic prophecies to the Cold
War.
Rushdoony challenged this dominant paradigm in the early 1970s,
shifting toward a postmillennial view that saw the earthly
progress of Christianity as a precursor to Christ’s return.
First in a biblical commentary and then in volume 1 of his
magnum opus, the pretentiously titled The Institutes of Biblical
Law, Rushdoony argued that most believers lacked faith in
Christianity’s ultimate triumph. “The whole of Scripture,” he
countered, “proclaims the certainty of God’s victory in time and
in eternity” (emphasis mine). The saints were called upon to
fight for a Christian society here and now, and their victory in
this world was assured.
The unalloyed triumphalism of Reconstructionism appealed to some
disheartened evangelicals. Douglas Wilson’s evolving theology
was shaped by Rushdoony’s postmillennial vision, although he has
subtly distanced himself from the more extreme aspects of
Rushdoony’s application of ancient Israel’s legal code. Because
of years of hard work by Wilson and his followers, Gribben
argues, “Moscow may now be America’s most postmillennial town,”
with two large, thriving Reconstructionist congregations and
members who play important roles in the town’s social and
economic life.
In his chapter on the Reconstructionist understanding of
government, Gribben carefully examines the historical origins of
the movement’s odd coupling of Old Testament legal codes and
libertarian politics. While other evangelicals were being drawn
to Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, Rushdoony began
working for the conservative William Volker Charities Fund. The
Fund played a key role in getting libertarian economist
Friedrich Hayek appointed to the faculty of the University of
Chicago, and it embraced Hayek’s anti-statism.
While Rushdoony advocated the adoption of Mosaic civil law in a
reconstructed Christian political order (including stoning those
who engaged in homosexual behavior or disrespected their
parents), he also embraced a small-government model that would
have warmed the heart of Thomas Jefferson. Theonomy’s focus on
Old Testament regulations has had little impact on conservative
public policy, but Rushdoony and North’s tireless efforts to
reconcile Christian principles with libertarian governing
philosophies have been quite influential among some Christian
conservatives.
Reconstructionists have also shaped evangelical educational
theory. Rushdoony first gained attention with his forceful
critique of public education. Inspired by theologian Cornelius
Van Til’s argument that a neutral philosophical perspective was
impossible and that secular and Christian approaches were
fundamentally incompatible, Rushdoony advocated Christian
alternatives.
By the 1990s, Wilson had become a widely acknowledged authority
on homeschooling, promoting a classical curriculum based loosely
on Dorothy Sayers’s previously neglected essay, The Lost Tools
of Learning (1947). Moreover, Wilson helped found both a
seminary and a small residential liberal arts college
(ambitiously christened New Saint Andrews) in Moscow. Pacific
Northwest theonomists separated themselves from the public
school system as part of their strategy to transform society at
large. “Before we can enlist in the culture war,” Wilson
commented, “we have to have a culture. And that culture must be
Christian.”
To promote their educational ideas and socially conservative
vision, Wilson and company have creatively used both
conventional book publishing (establishing Canon Press) and the
internet. Behind all these ambitious efforts is the ultimate
goal of cultural renewal or reconstruction. As the community’s
organ, Credenda Agenda, put it bluntly, publishing “is warfare.”
This campaign included a well-publicized series of debates
between Wilson and atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens in
2009 over whether Christianity has been good for the world.
(Gribben mentions the interaction with Hitchens at least five
times.)
Gribben’s study is a welcome contribution to our understanding
of the theonomist movement. His dispassionate, non-alarmist
account allows the participants to speak for themselves.
Occasionally, however, Gribben seems reluctant to pursue more
searching questions, and his appraisal can sometimes be muted.
It provides little comfort, for instance, when Gribben reassures
readers that while Rushdoony “may not have approved of
democracy,” he didn’t actually “approve of its violent
subversion.” Allowing subjects to speak for themselves can
periodically wander toward accepting their self-portraits.
Still, Gribben handles complex cultural and theological
questions deftly and with admirable sensitivity.
Two questions
Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America raises a host of
fascinating questions that no single work of this sort can
answer. Two such questions spring to mind.
First, despite all their dismissals of benighted pietism, isn’t
it ironic that Rushdoony, North, and Wilson all ended up
following 20th-century evangelicals in disparaging state
intervention and embracing libertarianism? Despite the
theonomists’ reverence for the Puritans, libertarian assumptions
appear to trump the Puritans’ focus on the common good and their
conception of the state as a moral agent. As such, their
theonomy appears to owe more to Rand Paul than to, say, the
Massachusetts Bay Colony’s first governor, John Winthrop. In
this sense, is it really accurate to affirm, as Gribben does,
that “the Moscow community … has successfully resisted American
modernity”?
Second, and more broadly, while theonomy has certainly proven
influential in ways unrecognized by scholars, just how seriously
should Christians take its theological and social project?
Evangelicals can sometimes be taken in by the appearance of
scholarship. Answering those who claimed theonomists were
weighty thinkers, former First Things editor Richard John
Neuhaus once commented acerbically:
One might object that the argumentation of the theonomists is
more often obsessive and fevered than well-reasoned, and the
pedantry of bloated footnoting should not be mistaken for
scholarship. One may also be permitted to doubt whether there
is, in the explosion of theonomic writing, one major new idea or
finding that anyone outside theonomy’s presuppositional circle
need feel obliged to take seriously.
Though downplayed by Gribben, Rushdoony’s circle of fellow
travelers should give any thoughtful Christian considerable
pause. To note only a few red flags: In the first volume of his
Institutes, Rushdoony appeared to flirt with Holocaust denial.
Years later, he promoted the work of a writer who endorsed
geostationary theory, which denies that the earth orbits around
the sun. Gary North was among the most alarmist and apocalyptic
of the Y2K prophets—at least until the clock struck midnight at
the close of 1999. More recently, Wilson authored a booklet,
Black & Tan, that adopted discredited Lost Cause views regarding
secession and described the allegedly benign features of
antebellum slavery. It is easy (especially in the age of
Twitter) to confuse quantity with quality and strong opinions
with wisdom.
Biographer Michael McVicar once speculated that Rushdoony was
“one of the most frequently cited intellectuals of the American
right.” Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America provides
an insightful exploration of the larger social and regional
contexts inhabited by Rushdoony’s offspring. While strict
theonomists remain comparatively few, their influence has been
significant in some surprising places. Lamentably, they have
usually championed an approach more narrowly ideological than
genuinely scriptural.
Gillis J. Harp teaches history at Grove City College. He is the
author of Protestants and American Conservatism: A Short
History.
#Post#: 32114--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: June 21, 2021, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124276.png?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/june/evangelical-support-bennett-netanyahu-israel-prime-minister.html
US Evangelicals Promise Prayers and Support for Israel’s New
Prime Minister
Letter welcomes Benjamin Netanyahu’s successor after Friends of
Zion founder pledged to oppose the incoming leader.
A diverse group of American evangelicals congratulated Naftali
Bennett on becoming the new prime minister of Israel and
successfully forming a coalition government, offering
reassurance on to Israelis concerned about Christian support
after Benjamin Netanyahu’s departure.
“We pray that God grants you wisdom and strength as you make
hard decisions that will affect the lives of millions, and we
trust that He will answer those prayers,” wrote more than 80
religious leaders, organized by the Philos Project, a group
promoting “positive Christian engagement” with Israel and
pluralism in the Middle East.
The letter expressed appreciation for Netanyahu and everything
he did “to strengthen Israel and its alliances” over the past 12
years he served as prime minister. It also welcomed the change
brought by Bennett, a religious Jew and former Netanyahu
disciple who formed an alliance with multiple parties across the
political spectrum to oust Netanyahu.
“We want to thank you in advance for protecting our shared
values as they apply to Israel’s citizens, whether Jews,
Christians, Muslims, or Druze; for guarding the holy sites and
welcoming religious pilgrims from around the world to discover
the birthplace of their faith; for defending Israel from outside
aggression; and for continuing to work toward peace with
Israel’s neighbors,” the letter said. “In return, we pledge to
deepen our friendship with your country and its wonderful
people.”
Some Israeli political commentators have worried about
evangelical support for the new government. In the run-up to the
election, former Israeli ambassador to the US Ron Dermer argued
Israel should be very concerned about losing the support of
American evangelicals.
Those fears seemed to be confirmed when Mike Evans, founder of
the Jerusalem-based Friends of Zion Heritage Center and the
Jerusalem Prayer Team, lambasted Bennett in an open letter.
The Jerusalem Prayer Team’s Facebook page had 77 million
followers before it was taken down in May, and Evans is
regularly described in Israeli media as a prominent American
evangelical leader and even the “world’s largest evangelical
leader.”
“Shame, shame, shame on you. Don't ever call yourself a defender
of Zion. You're not,” Evans wrote to Bennett in early June,
while Bennett was negotiating to form a coalition government.
“I will fight you every step of the way. You have lost the
support of evangelicals 100 percent,” Evans said. “We gave you
four years of miracles under Donald Trump. We evangelicals
delivered it. You delivered nothing. What appreciation do you
show us? You s— right on our face.”
Evans later apologized for using rude language, but repeated his
opposition to Bennett and any other political figures who might
attempt to replace Netanyahu.
“You’re gonna wave a white flag of surrender—not a blue and
white flag—a white flag, because you’re so blinded by your
hatred, by your petty politics and your obsessions with power
that you can’t see the trees for the forest,” he said.
Evans also reiterated his claim to represent American
evangelicals, and referred to “my 77 million evangelicals” in
his press conference.
Other American evangelicals with a record of strong support for
Israel stepped in to say that not everyone felt the same as
Evans.
“While Evangelicals do highly respect and appreciate Netanyahu,
their love for Israel is not tied to one man,” wrote Joel
Rosenberg, a Christian fiction author and founder of All Israel
News. “Christians of course know that at some point Netanyahu
will move on, but they sincerely want to bless and strengthen
Israel for the long haul regardless of who is in power.”
Rosenberg is one of the dozens of leaders who signed the Philos
Project letter.
It was also signed by Methodist, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist,
and Missionary Baptist pastors; bishops in the Anglican Church
in North America and the International Pentecostal Holiness
Church; and representatives from the National Day of Prayer Task
Force, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference,
National Religious Broadcasters, Pastors Wives of America, and
Promise Keepers.
Professors from The King’s College, Grove City College,
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dickerson-Green
Theological Seminary, and Beeson Divinity School signed on, as
did Tony Suarez and Johnnie Moore, who served as evangelical
advisors to President Donald Trump.
Robert Nicholson, president of The Philos Project, said in a
statement that the letter was designed to show broad support.
“This list represents tens of millions of Christians from all
over the denominational spectrum,” he said, “who differ on many
things but agree on the importance of Christian friendship with
Israel based on shared values that come from the Bible.”
#Post#: 32486--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: June 28, 2021, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124312.png?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2021/june/no-longer-evangelical.html
No Longer Evangelical
Is the label 'evangelical' sustainable for Christians in our
post-everything world?
I became a Christian at the age of 20, while doing my honors
work in philosophy at the University of Michigan. Up until that
point, I was an atheist, being raised by atheists. My childhood
home had a sign declaring, “The Moore’s, The Atheists,” and a
barrel for Bible burning—seriously. That’s why when I converted
to Christianity, I had nearly zero history with organized
religion and was utterly unfamiliar with a great many terms and
labels that came with my conversion.
One of the most important labels I inherited at the time was
“evangelical.” I was told that was what I had become, an
evangelical Christian. It seemed right to me, because, after
all, I had not become a Catholic, Pentecostal, fundamentalist,
or Orthodox Christian, I had become an “evangelical Christian,”
and that meant something to me at the time.
At the time, as I learned about the ecosystem of the variety of
Christian expressions, evangelicals cared deeply about
intellectual engagement, spreading the message of Jesus to the
world, working together to accomplish that mission, and had a
commitment to personal spiritual transformation. That isn’t to
say these hallmarks didn’t also present themselves in other
forms of Christianity, but after my conversion in the early
1990s, I found them all to be replete within evangelicalism.
How has evangelicalism changed
At its core, evangelicalism is a global expression of
Protestantism, which is patently “trans-denominational,” and
fundamentally concerned with the spread of the Christian message
through mission and evangelism. At its best, evangelicalism was
a highly ecumenical movement that enjoyed a long era of engaging
issues of social good and justice, intellectual and academic
engagement, and a culturally sophisticated understanding of
peoples and ethnic social capital. Through my commitment to the
evangelical brand of Christianity, I spent nearly 20 years as an
abolitionist, mobilizing state and federal lawmakers, faith
communities, corporations, and hundreds of thousands of citizens
in the fight against modern-day slavery. This was because of the
brand of my Christian faith, but today, it is despite it.
Today, evangelicalism has devolved into a grasp for cultural and
political superiority at any cost as we can see from its
collapse into Christian nationalism. Today, evangelicalism is
rife with conspiracy theories and an anti-intellectual,
anti-scientific worldview. This collapse is simply the proof
that evangelicalism went from hallowed to hollow somewhere along
its way, and we are now just witnessing its inevitable demise.
For most Americans, they’ve never known a world where
evangelical was a term to be revered, even amongst its
antagonists. For most, there have never been the “good old days
of evangelicalism,” and that is part of the problem.
Evangelicalism is a shadow of what it used to be, offering
little to the world it once cherished and lived in as a good
global citizen. It is hard to break with one’s heritage—after
all, it was evangelicals that first taught me, as a former
atheist, to care for the environment, to fight for modern-day
slaves, to believe in the power of science, to speak out for
racial diversity and empowerment, and pursue a lifelong
commitment to intellectual integrity.
These were some of the many reasons why I originally, proudly
accepted this label for myself, but as my spiritual journey has
evolved, I’ve increasingly kept my evangelical card-carrying
identity close to the vest. Being an evangelical has become
cumbersome and a source of embarrassment, always needing to be
nuanced, contextualized, and qualified. “Well, I’m not that kind
of evangelical,” or “Many evangelicals are like that, but not
me.” For many, the term is synonymous with MAGA and Christian
nationalism—a corruption of the ways of Jesus for sure. For many
outsiders, the word evangelical summons amorphous images that
are homophobic, misogynist, anti-scientific, and racist. The
constant negotiating of the term evangelical has gone beyond
tedious; it is clearly unsustainable. This is why I am no longer
considering myself an evangelical Christian. I am no longer
willing to participate in the charade of pretending that
evangelicalism means what it meant.
Beyond faith labels
As I leave the faith tradition that has given me so much, I want
to qualify what I mean when I say I’m no longer an evangelical.
I will always be Christian, but no longer of the evangelical
variety, primarily because I don’t see how evangelicalism can
ever be salvaged from what it has become. Today, to be an
evangelical in the minds of our society is to be an enemy of the
ways of Jesus. To be sure, there are millions of Christians who
still don the name ‘evangelical’ who are passionately and
unswervingly following the ways of Jesus but under the banner of
that label are doing so to their detriment. We are in desperate
need of a new expression of Christianity—an expression that
creates space for a new way forward.
The ways and teachings of Jesus were radically incompatible with
many of the aspects of the mainstream culture of His day, things
like misogyny, elitism, and the oppression of the immigrant. One
needs only to read one of the four biblical gospel accounts to
see that the good news Jesus announced envisioned a new normal
that would dismantle many of the powers and privileges of the
elite. For many American evangelicals, these are the same powers
and privileges they seek to control and benefit from through
their use and abuse of political power and cultural echoes from
past eras when evangelicalism had a much bigger megaphone than
it does today. American Evangelicalism, as it now stands, is
quickly becoming synonymous with the very culture and power
systems Jesus Himself sought to dismantle!
I am no longer an evangelical, but I am a Christian. In
abandoning my evangelical faith tradition, I am sure I will
cross and disappoint many who are still desperately trying to
redeem and defend the term. But let’s be honest it is a lost
cause. We have gone too far, made way too many compromises, and
cashed in what little equity we had left in evangelicalism
during these last four years. My call is for others to do the
same: to denounce what evangelicalism has become and re-embrace
the radical ways of Jesus. For millions of church-going,
Bible-reading, sincerely praying Americans, who love God and
their neighbor, we are not helped by continuing to own this
bankrupt label. What our world needs in this time of healing are
women and men who are committed to justice, peace, equity, and,
most of all, love. This, after all, is the way of Jesus in the
first place, so let’s begin by returning to that and figure out
what a post-evangelical faith in America looks like together.
R. York Moore is the Executive Director, Catalytic Partnerships
at InterVarsity Press as well as National Evangelist for
InterVarsity USA and Co-Founder of the EveryCampus Movement.
A passionate, visionary leader and an effective communicator,
casting vision and leading change through written and oratory
talent.
#Post#: 32926--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: July 6, 2021, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124479.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/quick-to-listen/critical-race-theory-racism-evangelicals-divided-podcast.html
Critical Race Theory: What Christians Need to Know
Let’s talk about the issue tearing the American church and
country apart.
Christians should be afraid of critical race theory. That’s the
message that a number of conservative Christian leaders have
shared in recent months. Last fall, the presidents of the five
Southern Baptist seminaries issued a statement saying that
“affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and any
version of Critical Theory” is incompatible with the Baptist
Faith and Message, the denomination’s core beliefs. This anxiety
made CRT a main focus at the denomination’s recent gathering.
In recent years, some evangelicals have identified critical race
theory as an ascendant ideology in the church that is
fundamentally at odds with Christian faith. This anxiety has
been mirrored by many conservatives at large and the debate over
this ideology has moved from the previous president’s public
disgust of the ideology to state legislature measures that would
ban it in schools. All of this comes months after the deaths of
George Floyd and Breonna Taylor have once again spurred both
conversations about how the church ought to respond to racial
injustice but also how the church should discuss this reality.
One recurring concern for some Christians: that their fellow
believers have adopted the worldview and talking points of
critical race theory and Marxism.
Over time, these charges have been lobbed by Christians at
Christians, the latter of whom often feel like this language
mischaracterizes the movement, miscasts their efforts, or
unfairly shuts down conversations without a hard look at the
issues actually at stake.
D. A. Horton directs the intercultural studies program at
California Baptist University and serves as associate teaching
pastor at The Grove Community Church in Riverside, California.
His 2019 book, Intensional, presents a “kingdom” view of ethnic
divisions and reconciliation. Horton has written a four-part
series on Ed Stetzer’s blog, The Exchange, about CRT and
Christian missions.
Horton joined global media manager Morgan Lee and senior news
editor Kate Shellnutt to discuss what critical race theory is,
why it unnerves some Christians, and what can be done to help
Christians stop talking past each other when it comes to
addressing the reality of racial injustice.
Highlights from Quick to Listen: Episode #271
Can you define what critical theory is before we get into
critical race theory?
D. A. Horton: So critical theory was developed inside of a
school in Germany, known as the Frankfurt School, specifically
inside the Institute for Social Research. And it really got its
start in the late 1920s and the early ’30s. And it was led by
the scholar Max Horkheimer, who framed critical theory with
three criteria.
First of all, it needs to be explanatory. This means the
individual who’s engaging the theory must be able to explain
what is wrong with the current social reality that they are
analyzing. They also have to identify who are the powers that
are maintaining what is wrong through the systems, through the
rhythms of the society. Second, it needs to be normative. What
norms in this wrong society should be criticized? What are the
pieces of evidence of the wrongdoing? And then finally, it has
to be practical. What are the achievable, practical ways society
can be transformed?
Coming out of that, we have to understand what Horkheimer meant
by the term “critical.” In his writings and his lectures, he
framed it as a distinct meaning: a different approach to
analyzing society than the traditional way of viewing society.
And honestly, Horkheimer used “critical” in synonymous with
Marxism. His tool of analysis was the lens of Marxism and he
used critical theory to identify what values of capitalism were
producing injustice in the society that he was in.
But it is good for us to understand that, from the beginning,
that framework is not how it always stayed. It did not always
stay within the conversation of Marxism. What we see is in the
second generation of the Frankfurt School is that it produced
intellectuals like Jürgen Habermas, who expanded the research
and the analysis beyond Marxism. He said claims to truth must
also be moral and political goodness, and they have to be
justified. And so he began to pivot away from critical theory
from Marxism.
In his later works, especially in the ’90s, he began to expose
how secularism, or the humanistic perspective of pushing God
out, kept religious thought out of the spaces of law and
politics—to which Habermas was preventing us from having a
better model of society. And so in his work Habermas actually
says religious voices can impact society for good if they learn
to communicate their ideas in understandable language for those
who are not religious.
And he goes on to give an appeal of a biblical perspective. He
says that the biblical social vision is made evident in Genesis
1:26–27, where every human is an image-bearer of the God who
created them. And the way that you can translate that
theological concept to people who are not religious is by
identifying that there is invaluable dignity that every human
being has been given.
So critical theory, when it was initially founded as a framework
of analysis, the objective measurement tool was Marxism. But
then the second generation broadens that reach and even made
appeals for the inclusivity of religious dialogue with a very
specific biblical appeal.
And as a missiologist, I take that as an invitation to engage
with a biblical perspective that analyzes the society but also
has a different finish line than what those who are not coming
from a Christian theistic worldview may present as their
conclusion.
Are we waiting for our Habermas with critical race theory? Do we
need someone who can take some of the ideas proposed in the
framework of critical race theory and add that theological
dimension to make the bridge happen for people who still see it
in conflict?
D. A. Horton: Well, there have been many, many Christians who
are living out their vocations as given to them by God, in the
different spaces and arenas in society. In the behavior
sciences, social work, the field of education, and legal
studies, you have believers who engage the terms, the language,
and the concepts, but at the same time, they’re also looking for
the way that they can communicate a biblical perspective.
Understanding that society is not going to be perfectly
transformed, that our finish line is not a utopia of this side
of eternity, but rather it is residents in the city of God that
we read about in Revelation chapters 21 and 22.
I believe that there have been people doing that; it’s just that
critical race theory and its scholarship has not been mainstream
until recent years. And so that’s where I think it gets a little
murky. But there have been Christians who have engaged this
perspective and they’ve been engaging at it for quite some time.
Is there a way to define critical race theory for people outside
of academia? And how would you define it in contrast to the
perspective of race that existed prior to CRT?
D. A. Horton: The first thing that I think everyone should
understand is that critical race theory is a direct growing out
of something known as critical legal studies. And this is
particularly focused and centered in the United States of
America, so it’s not a global perspective. The only way it
becomes global is if somebody adapts the principles and the
tools that critical race theory leverages as a methodology of
social analysis, and then they apply it to their society outside
of America.
But basically, critical legal studies focused on the
relationship between the legal scholarship and the struggle to
see a more humane, egalitarian, and democratic society. And so
critical legal studies contain insights from the Supreme Court
rulings on Scott v. Sanford in 1857 and Plessy v. Ferguson in
1896 because that provides the context for the legal debates
surrounding the flawed “separate but equal,” as well as the
colorblindness, or the neutrality, of American law.
So after these rulings, it was a normative belief in America
that the law was colorblind, that although people were separate
but equal in the Jim Crow era, everyone still had the same type
of access to freedom and liberty and everything that our
founding documents promise to residents of America.
However, that’s where critical race theory comes in. One of the
architects, Richard Delgado, communicated that they began to
realize that the momentum of the civil rights movement in the
’60s had stalled when it became evident that a lot of the
implementation and legislative changes were not being made by
academics.
The cornerstone founder of critical race theory is Derek Bell.
His documents are what people consider the foundation of CRT.
And alongside the scholarship of Delgado, Kimberly Crenshaw,
Ellen Freeman, Cheryl Harris, Charles Lawrence III, Mari
Matsuda, and Patricia Williams, they are often framed as the
primary voices of critical race theory. To define critical race
theory, you really must look at the themes that these primary
voices begin to bring to the forefront.
I do think it’s important also to qualify that Derek Bell was
interviewed before he passed away, and Bell distanced his
perspective as it relates to what would become later known as
critical race theory from the views of Marxism. And the reason
that he did that is that he didn’t want people to think that he
had to turn to European “white” men to understand the racial
interactions that he as a Black man has had his entire life in
the United States of America. And so one of the misnomers that
we have is that CRT automatically, unequivocally, always equals
Marxism. And that’s just not true because the founder, Derek
Bell, distanced himself from that.
Based on the primary voices I listed, the five themes that I
typically identify critical race as is, one, race is something
that is manmade, and it has created privilege for something that
is known as whiteness—a created American identity which
immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe could assimilate.
They would become white in exchange for their ethnic heritage,
and that would secure them citizenship, employment, housing, and
even religious freedoms and liberty.
In addition to that, racism is something that is seen as
permanent in the United States of America. And a lot of that is
because of the implicit racist language in our founding
documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the US
Constitution.
The third thing is that counter-stories from marginalized people
are necessary. In Christian language, we call a counter-story a
testimony. It’s somebody sharing their testimony of how they
have interacted with racism in America.
The fourth is that being colorblind is not being truthful.
And then the fifth element that I would say is a common theme is
that racial progress seems to only be made when “white people”
are the ones who benefit from it.
So these are the five themes that I have identified from the
primary voices themselves.
The question about critical race being a worldview—which, when I
hear “worldview,” I'm thinking through the lens of the arena of
theology. A worldview is how one answers the questions such as,
Who is God?; Who am I?; What’s my purpose for living?; What is
real?; Who determines right from wrong?; and What happens after
I die?
To me, a worldview would include deism, existentialism,
monotheism, naturalism, new consciousness, nihilism, and
pantheism. And each of those has varying beliefs as it relates
to the concept of race. So, in my opinion, critical race theory
is not a worldview—it’s comprised of legal scholars who are not
dedicating their work to the cosmology of humanity or the
universe, let alone the eternal condition of humanity. The focus
of critical race theory scholars is the inequality of the law in
the United States of America.
And I think that’s one of the misnomers: that people have forced
it to become something known as a worldview. And I just don’t
see that in the primary voices. Their focus is the United States
of America; it’s not global-centric. It throws me off when
people compare critical race theory to a worldview, because as a
theologian, it doesn’t give answers to some of these worldview
questions.
When critical race theory moved from academia into something
that some Christian leaders begin to identify as posing a danger
to our faith, what were some of the stories or connections that
set off alarm bells?
D. A. Horton: This is my personal opinion; I’m limited by my own
experiences and experiences of others that I’m in dialogue with.
But, what began to happen is that some of the language that
critical race theory has developed began to become more normal
in a lot of “Christians of color.”
Critical race theory does provide language for concepts that
believers, specifically of color, have wrestled within their
minds, and now they have terms to use to help these abstract
ideas explain in concrete ways.
One example is the term microaggression. The definition of
microaggression is an action or an incident that is an instance
of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against
somebody who is part of a marginalized group. As an example from
my own life, I was really stressed going into my PhD entrance
exam at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and for that
whole process, I was just really nervous and I doubted myself.
And I remember being driven to the airport by a brother in
Christ and he was asking me what was on my mind because he could
tell I was stressed. I explained to him how I felt overwhelmed
by the process and demands of the exam.
And he looked at me and confidently said, “You should not stress
out. You’re going to pass no matter what. Southeastern needs
you. You’re a minority. They need more Hispanics”—which is a
term I don’t use, but he used it—“They need more Hispanics so
that they can show themselves to be diversified. They need more
guys like you, so you’re going to get in no matter what.”
It was saying that I don’t have the educational capacity or the
academic rigor and wherewithal to pass, but I’m going to get a
pass simply because they need me for visibility. That’s a
microaggression because he connected my ethnicity with the fact
that I was going to pass.
If I share that statement in a Christian space, people ask, how
can you know his motives? How can you know his intentions? And I
think at that point, we want to begin to theologize what
somebody said so that we don’t have to accept the claim that
what was said showed discrimination.
So there was a list of terms that seem to be the no-no terms,
and whenever you heard these certain words used, it was like,
“Oh my gosh, there are Marxists, communists, socialist people in
the church!”
Do you think part of it is that there is a suspicion that comes
from hearing the non-Christianese language used by Christians?
Especially when it’s being used to critique us?
D. A. Horton: I think that is part of it. But if we just even
assess the language that we use as Christians—I mean, the term
gospel was not a Christian term; it comes from a Greek word that
was literally connected to the imperial cult, it was used for
the “good news” that was proclaimed when a new Caesar was
crowned or when the Caesar was going to have a child.
Our writers of Scripture—under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit who safeguarded them from writing anything in error—used
that concept, which was connected to pagan worship. And we have
seen that used to translate into the gospel because we do
proclaim the Good News of Christ being the only source of
redemption that God has in his plan of redemption.
And so I think that’s where it takes more education for
Christians to understand that everything in our speech is not
purely Christian. The clothes that we wear are not always
stitched by Christians. This is exactly what Habermas asked. He
gave an invitation for religious people to communicate their
beliefs and how society can flourish, but they have to be able
to do it using terms and concepts that the nonbeliever can
understand. There has to be some shared language.
Another term is intersectionality. When people hear
“intersectionality” in the church, I often think they’re fearful
of a slippery slope and that it is going to somehow give
affirmation and acquiesce to the LGBTQ+ community. And my
pushback to that is we see the concept in Scripture. And some
would say I’m isolating and reading intersectionality into the
Scriptures. But what I’m doing is identifying a modern word that
describes something that we already see in the Bible.
One of the classic examples I give is John 4. Jesus spoke to the
woman at the well. She was identified by her ethnicity as being
a Samaritan. She was a woman. You can even argue that the reason
that she was drawing water from that well at that time of the
day was that she was socially ostracized, so she was
marginalized. Those are three identifying realities for her.
Another example is in Galatians 3:28; in addition to identifying
ethnicity, he [Paul] also identifies gender, and he identifies
the reality in social class. All three of those concepts are
right there in Scripture.
And this is where evangelicals struggle, because when it comes
to gender, we see constant material being produced to advocate
biblical roles in marriage, in the home, biblical masculinity
and biblical femininity. So, we don’t deny gender. We’re not
gender-neutral. At the same time, we see the economic realities
and we talk about financial stewardship, giving, employment
ethics, good work ethic. We talk about those things. So, we
acknowledge the reality of employment and financial stewardship.
But now we want to say, “I don’t see ethnicity”? That’s not
true. You do inasmuch as you see gender and the reality of the
need for financial stewardship and employment and employee
ethics. And if you’re talking about ethnicity, gender, and
class, that is intersectionality.
So by saying the concept of intersectionality is in Scripture,
does that mean I am forsaking Christ as the only means of
salvation? Absolutely not. What I’m saying is that there are
multiple facets to the reality that we embody in a fallen world.
I am a man. I am also married. I am also Latino. I’m also
Choctaw Nation. I have various European descents inside of me.
I’m married to a woman. I have daughters, I have a son. I fit in
a social class. I grew up in a different social class. These are
realities. Acknowledging these realities does not mean I’m
doubting the gospel. It doesn’t mean I’m denying the sufficiency
of Scripture. Claims of such things are just erroneous and
they’re hyperbole.
And I think if we approached it that way, without the
name-calling, we would see greater progress in the body of
Christ. You can engage the language, but you don’t have to lay
down to the agenda of the world by engaging the language.
Because my purpose and intention for engaging the language is to
help the nonbeliever understand the perspective that God offers
as a solution, in Christ alone, for the realities of the broken
and this one.
As a missiologist, instructor, and a pastor using the language
developed through CRT, what are the ways that it’s helpful, or
are there places where there are limits or concerns? Are there
boundaries you draw for how it can be employed as a tool within
a faith structure?
D.A. Horton: My personal approach is to be honest. What I can do
is look at the claims that critical race theory makes, and if
it’s true then I can acknowledge that truth.
If all truth is God’s truth, then with common grace, God has
given every human being who bears his image rationale, the
ability to process information, to think about it, and to
communicate. And so I would be remiss if I think that
non-Christians cannot tell the truth. And when it comes to
social analysis and assessment, if they depart from truthful
claims, that’s where, as a follower of Christ, I can say that I
have a different guardrail that I’m using to measure the truth
claims. Mine is the Word of God.
For example, when I look at the claim that race is a social
construct, that it is manmade, that is very true because, in all
the times of antiquity, we do not see the racial structures or
caste system that we have seen throughout the colonization of
the indigenous Americas. Spain and Portugal created the caste
system first in the Caribbean and Mexico and South America, and
then Protestants did the same thing in the United States. None
of that is endorsed in Scripture; however, it is a reality, and
it is something that shows in the documents of the United
States.
However, what has God given? He’s given ethnicity. And we see
this in Acts 17:26 and Genesis 3:20. Ethnicity is a gift from
God. And when I look at Revelation chapters 21 and 22, I see
that ethnicity is present in the eternal state. So, Christians
do not need to be ashamed or feel guilty for their ethnicity.
One of the things that I have been trying to do is to get rid of
the color-coded language of the racial caste system and begin to
challenge people to affirm their ethnic heritage that was
elected for them to have and that will be present in the eternal
state. And in doing that, I’m departing away from critical race
theory because I’m going back to the cosmological creation of
humanity and I’m going to the eternal state. Critical race
theory doesn’t go there.
Another example: Often people say that critical race theory says
that whiteness was created and it provides privileges for only
people who are in that category. And there is some truth in
that, but it’s not fully true. And one of the things that I want
to communicate is that privilege is not a bad thing.
Anyone listening to this podcast, anyone that has running water,
anyone that has shoes on their feet, has food in their
pantry—that’s privilege because not everybody in the world has
access to those amenities. Privilege is not bad. It’s not
sinful. It only becomes sinful when it is not leveraged to help
other humans in need. I don’t apologize for my privilege because
I can leverage my privilege in specific moments.
In the four blogs with Christianity Today, I explore all of
this. What are the claims that critical race theory makes? Where
are they true and where are they not true? And then how does
Scripture speak to the truthfulness of their claim? But also,
how does it correct the errors in their claim as well?
Do you think the reason that some Christians are turning to the
language of critical race theory is that they haven’t found
sufficiently comprehensive language within Christian contexts to
talk about racial injustice?
D. A. Horton: I think in some situations, people have grown
weary and tired and they’re just exhausted. They’re just tired
of trying to make evangelicals believe that this is a reality
for some people. At the same time, I think some people are
disgruntled because they don’t feel that they have a safe space
that is safe to communicate these things without being charged
and accused of various terms. It’s a smorgasbord of realities
for people in their experiences.
We, as believers, have to understand that this is also a
discipleship issue. Jesus has given the Great Commission and
included is language which means “to every ethnicity.” So we are
to be making disciples of every ethnicity in America. We are
blessed because God has allowed the neighborhoods to be
inhabited by the nations, so we’re without excuse. And that’s
where I think the work of being diligent to diversify our dinner
tables, to diversify our inner circles of friendships and
discipleship rhythms is important. It should reflect the reality
of the community that God has chosen for us to live in.
I think our local churches should not see the reality of Great
Commission fulfillment as affirmative action or a secular
perspective. No, this is the reality of what Christ is
commissioned every Christian to do. We all have the same job
description as the Great Commission.
And in the eternal state, what we recognize is that the
ethnicities are present, we are worshiping God. We even see that
products of cultural grace are going to be brought in by leaders
of the various ethnicities into the city of God. So, we can
appreciate the cultural expressions that we have, and we can
even see them redeemed for the glory of God.
In my family, one way we’ve done that is with the quinceañera.
The quinceañera began as an aspect of pagan ritual, but then it
was synchronized with Roman Catholic practice and dogma. And
what we did for our daughter when she was 15 is that we made
Christ the center focus. We removed the paganism, but we kept
the cultural celebrations. And a lot of the language and the
customs could be leveraged for the glory of God. Every one of
our daughter’s padrinos and madrinas (godparents) gave a gift
that was connected back to Scripture and affirmed her walk in
Christ.
These are beautiful things of our culture. There are certain
dances, there are certain songs, there are certain testimonies
and oral traditions in various cultures that in the United
States of America have often been deemed as unholy. And if we
have divorced ethnicity, if we have divorced the reality of
race, because we’ve chosen colorblindness or other methodologies
to not even acknowledge those things and framing ethnicity is
something carnal and holy and sinful, that’s a discipleship
issue.
I don’t think we can talk about people’s fear of critical race
theory without discussing cancel culture. How do you define
cancel culture? What concerns might you sympathize with for
those who are very concerned about this, and where might you
push back on people regarding those fears?
D. A. Horton: Cancel culture was derivative of the African
American community. As it would be expressed on Black Twitter,
it was stepping away from public support, and even the shunning,
and the dropping of endorsements of entities or people that did
not fall in step with the progression of whoever was doing the
canceling.
One of the aspects of cancel culture that has now become a
little bit more normative in mainstream society, which then
provided a tributary into evangelicalism in America, is this
contra-biblical way of interpersonal relationships. We have to
understand that cancel culture and the way that it’s been done
by the nonbelievers is not endorsed in Scripture.
It basically opens the door for the Evil One to allow suspicions
to be brewing in the hearts of people. That we can be content
with being warriors of the faith, defenders of the truth of
scripture and Christianity by labeling our brothers and sisters
enemies of the church enemies.
Even the term woke—a lot of people don’t have the historic
understanding of the term. It was something that, again, was
first used in the African American community to mean to be aware
of the reality and the nuances of practical racism that had been
expressed pre–Jim Crow, during Jim Crow, and post–Jim Crow.
And that terminology has now been hijacked in a similar way that
the term evangelical has been hijacked. And I think one of the
things that we have to do better at in evangelicalism is
explaining and defining our terms. And I ground my definitions
from themes all throughout Scripture—not social sciences, not
critical race theorists, not the Frankfurt school, but from
Scripture.
And the reason I want to define those terms is that often in
these conversations, in the church we’re not defining our terms.
We are allowing the interpreter to read their understanding into
the terminology we’re using. That means we have to do the
diligent work of explaining to our listeners what we mean by
these terms. And then we can give them a better understanding of
where we are coming from.
Having terms with no clear tangible definitions just leads
people to move forward in their own assumptions, or move forward
with the trusted voices that they listen to, and that’s a
problem because sometimes the voices that you trust—whether they
are grossly misinformed or whether they are intentionally
participating in this sin of slander—are not always being
consistent and truthful with their assessments and their
terminology and even their claims.
To what extent do you say there are a significant number of
Christians who are being bad actors, and when is it okay for us
as Christians to call people out for acting in bad faith, and
are people always aware that they’re acting that way?
D. A. Horton: I think one thing that I have learned in my
journey of walking with Jesus, over the last 25 years in
America, is that there is a way to theologize yourself out of
being guilty of sins like slander and gossip.
We use codified language like “I’m seeking counsel” or “I’m
trying to get wisdom,” and we’ll throw a Bible passage on that.
And I’m not saying that it’s wrong to seek wisdom and counsel
and guidance; however, when it starts getting into the realm of
suspicion leading to reading things into what they’re saying …
We live in a fallen world, and sometimes when people want to see
something, they’ll see it when it’s not even there. And they’ll
convince themselves that they see it and they will be very
convincing to others. And when I look at that framework in
Scripture, the reality of systemic deception in the world and
society at large is in Ephesians 2:1–3. We see that there is a
worldly system that is in opposition to righteousness, justice,
and all things that are derivative from God’s design for
humanity.
So, is there systemic sin in society? Absolutely. Now can it
also be in the church? That’s exactly what Paul was arguing in
Ephesians 4. The language that he is using points to the
systematic lies that are present in the churches, that were
brought into the church. And the way that we refute that is
through discipleship, rooting ourselves in the Word of God while
living on the mission of God.
We, as followers of Christ, don’t have to be aloof when it comes
to the systemic deception that unfortunately can make its way
into local churches. And what’s being framed now is this new
religion called woke-ism, this new perspective of critical race
theory being charged as an enemy. We are headed to an
unnecessary civil war. And to have a civil war, you have to have
an enemy. And this enemy is manufactured because I’ve yet to see
anyone who is purposefully seeking to bring the nuances of
critical race theory into the Southern Baptist Convention with a
desire to take it over.
Now, is that possible? Sure. We live in a fallen world, people
may have vindictive motives, but the reality of what I see and
who I engage with that are the “faces of this new religion” this
new “liberal takeover,” I'm like, y’all are trippin’. They are
not what you're calling them.
For those opposed to CRT, what do you think is the “worst-case
scenario” in their mind?
D. A. Horton: You know, the only interaction that I’ve had in
length with the side that is framing CRT as a religion and
woke-ism and the social justice movements as entering into the
church, is Fault Lines by Voddie Baucham.
And from the very beginning, the conversation is framed that
you’re standing on one of two sides of a fault line, and
literally the fault line—no pun intended—of the book is framing
the side that Voddie is on and then the side that’s the
nonbiblical social justice perspective, which starts with the
world and then these Christians now are speaking the world's
philosophies and perspectives into the church. And, at the end
of the day, he concludes with a call to war against the opposing
side.
And in that perspective, he’s framed it as a binary where the
reader has to pick a side. And in my mind, that’s a false
dichotomy. I don’t have to pick a side. Is there really even a
fault line? And as I began to assess some of the claims made,
some of the references that were there were cited, it didn’t
work for me.
It’s not choosing a side. I don’t have to. I’m being faithful to
the work of Christ, and I know where the truth claims are, and I
know where they derive away from the truthfulness of God’s Word.
And as a competent follower of Christ, I can engage in those
conversations and I can give empirical data within the space of
the academy.
As a missiologist, I don’t see a dichotomy between faith and
scholarship. I don’t see a dichotomy between faith and career
vocation. Because God is the one who has his fingerprints on the
lives of his children, and the gifts, the talents, and the
opportunities he’s given them, which provides them with an
opportunity to give him representation in the spaces that they
entered.
So, as I enter into the academic space, I am not aloof or naive.
I know that I’m walking into social injustice because my God,
the only true living God, has been systematically parsed out
from representation in data. And I found a way to introduce the
reality of who he is, what he has done, in a way that can be
communicated inside of a humanistic-centric space.
But the way I communicate about that data in that space is way
different than in the church. With the church I’m making the
appeals for ethnic conciliation, grounding my definitions in
Scripture, helping us see a pathway forward. But the pushback
I’m getting is, “Well, you should read Fault Lines.”
Well, I did, and when I express my difference in opinion from
where Voddie is coming from, somehow people don’t think that
that’s Christian-like. And I think we, as followers of Christ,
have to understand that it’s okay to disagree on things. It
doesn’t mean that people are kicked out of the kingdom of God. I
mean, if that’s the case, then that's a non-biblical view of
salvation in the first place.
But when people are trying to create these false dichotomies and
call us to war, I’m like, hold on, time out. We are wasting
friendly fire. We should be advocating against the
principalities and structures that the Evil One has put into
place, but we should not be assuming that brothers in Christ are
the ones being used as sons of disobedience. Especially if
they’re still pointing to Christ as the only means of salvation.
So why are we allowing cancel culture in our evangelical spaces
to now be practiced in interpersonal relationships, church
relationships, and relationships with staff members? We, as the
people of Christ in America, have to be able to recapture the
art of dialogue. We have lost that.
In that spirit, can you see the genuine or sincere motives that
people have for raising questions about critical race theory? Do
you see a good reason or the gospel as a motivation for people
who are still suspicious, skeptical, or trying to learn?
D. A. Horton: Yes, absolutely. I do feel that there is a desire
now for followers of Christ in America to at least understand
critical race theory, and how a Christian is supposed to
interact with it.
The first thing that I express to people is a Christian doesn’t
need to use critical race theory. You don’t have to. Nobody’s
forcing you in the Word of God to communicate that you have to
engage critical race theory. Salvation is a gift given by grace
alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, confirmed in
Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone. So only embracing
Christ, the Savior, is necessary to be a part of the kingdom of
God, to be a part of Jesus’ church.
Jesus’ work is not dependent on anything or anyone other than
him. And I recognize that as a follower of Christ. But as a
missiologist, who is evangelistically active and discipleship
driven, I engage critical race theory because it’s relevant to
my mission field in North America.
So, when people enter into the conversation wanting to
understand, then that’s what I want to do. I want to help give
them the themes that I’ve identified from the primary voices and
point them in the direction of Scripture. I want to show them
where some claims are truthful and you’re not compromising
Christianity or reducing the finished work of Christ if you
acknowledge that there are claims that are true in this
methodology. And then, at the same time, as a follower of
Christ, because CRT was not developed in a theological sphere or
arena, it’s not going to lead to the same kingdom conclusions
that we see as those living on mission for Christ. The
conclusions and the solutions should lead to gospel
conversations with people.
And I think the fear is that people are saying that CRT is being
forced on them by Christians who have platforms. CRT is saying
that the gospel is not enough, and we need this to help us. And
I think that’s where we just read our presuppositions and what
people are saying.
I’m not admitting that the gospel is not enough. I still
proclaim the gospel. So when people are saying you got to pick
critical race theory or the gospel, I’m like, that’s a false
dichotomy. I don’t have to play your game. Helping people
understand that through dialoguing and answering honest
questions with us honest research will help us. And it doesn’t
mean that just answering questions is going to suffice and
everything goes back to being good. No, these are ongoing
conversations again. That’s why I say it’s a discipleship issue.
People are cherry-picking some of their quotes, not giving
diligence to the context of the quote, and people are only
seeing the sound bite. And the people who don’t want to do the
diligent work of researching or cross-referencing or searching
for context, they're going to believe these little sound bite
options. And that’s where the motives of people then have to be
measured.
These are things that I think can only be parsed out through
ongoing, honest, transparent, and safe spaces created for these
real conversations, and they’re best done in discipleship
relationships.
#Post#: 33063--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: July 9, 2021, 6:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124549.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/july/pope-francis-lebanon-crisis-christian-leaders-vatican-visit.html
Evangelicals Ask Pope Francis to Help Save Lebanon
Visiting the Vatican for a Christian summit, leaders explain why
the problems of sectarian politics have become unbearable.
Pope Francis has a message to consider from Lebanon’s
evangelicals.
“We are not comfortable in our sectarian system, and thank God
that we are not a part of the politics that led the country to
collapse,” said Joseph Kassab, president of the Supreme Council
of the Evangelical Community in Syria and Lebanon.
“We are not benefiting, and it hurts us like the vast majority
of the Lebanese people.”
Last week the Catholic pontiff invited Lebanon’s Christian
denominations to the Vatican for a time of prayer and
reflection. Ten patriarchs, bishops, and church leaders
gathered, as Francis encouraged them to speak with one voice to
the politicians of their nation.
Lebanon has been unable to form a new government since its prior
one resigned 11 months ago, following the massive explosion at
Beirut’s port. As its Christian, Sunni, Shiite, and Druze
political parties wrangle over representation, more than half
the population now falls below the poverty line.
Following a default on national debt, personal bank accounts
have been largely frozen as the Lebanese lira has lost over 90
percent of its value. The World Bank estimates the economic
collapse to be among the world’s three worst in the last 150
years.
“We blame and condemn our Christian and Muslim political leaders
equally,” said Kassab.
“We have to say this loudly.”
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124548.jpg?h=683&w=1024[/img]
[size=10pt]Pope Francis (left) attends a prayer with Lebanon’s
Christian leaders in St. Peter’s Basilica on July 1, hosting
them at the Vatican for a day of prayer amid fears that the
country’s descent into financial and economic chaos is further
imperiling the Christian presence in the country.
The nation’s longstanding sectarian system, however, works to
recycle these leaders. Lebanon’s president must be a Maronite
Christian, its prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and its speaker of
parliament a Shiite Muslim.
The 128 parliament seats are divided evenly between Muslims and
Christians, with one reserved for Protestants. But confessional
distribution extends into ministerial and civil service
positions, including the army, police, and intelligence
services.
Each community seeks to maximize its interests, while being
careful not to upset the sectarian balance.
“Positions are distributed by religious identity, not
qualification,” said Kassab. “Francis called us to push our
politicians toward the common good, but we are imprisoned in
this system.”
Closed door discussions were frank, he said, but conducted with
a brotherly spirit. There is no Lebanese consensus on solutions,
let alone among Christians.
The Maronite patriarch has repeatedly called for an
international conference to compel a political solution, as well
as to ensure Lebanese regional neutrality. But AsiaNews reported
that the Greek and Syrian Orthodox leaders have reservations,
likely due to headquarters in Damascus.
Consequently, the pope sought to find the common denominator
between the churches. This was identified as the urgent
necessity for a government, and social assistance to keep
Christians in Lebanon.
Currently “50 to 60 percent of our young people live abroad,”
stated Samir Mazloum, the Maronite patriarchal vicar. “There are
only old people and children left.”
The Vatican released no official statement, but Pope Francis’
closing homily served as an indication.
“Lebanon cannot be left prey to the course of events or to those
who pursue their own unscrupulous interests,” he said. “It is a
small yet great country, but even more, it is a universal
message of peace and fraternity arising from the Middle East.”
Francis’ earlier visits with the Grand Imam of Egypt’s al-Azhar,
a Sunni, and the Grand Ayatollah in Iraq, a Shiite, represent
his attempt to secure good relations across the Muslim world. In
Lebanon, however, there was some unease about the nature of last
week’s Christian-only dialogue.
To assuage them, John X, patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church
of Antioch, met with the heads of the Sunni, Shiite, and Druze
communities in advance of the gathering. This initiative, Kassab
said, was roundly appreciated by the pope and Lebanese Christian
leaders.
“We need to be a church that serves the Muslims,” he added. “We
cannot exclude our partners in the nation.”
Despite the economic troubles, this sentiment is holding firm.
Lebanese dismiss the possibility of a return to civil war, which
tore the country apart from 1975 to 1990. But those wounds were
never healed, stated Bishop Michel Aoun of the Maronite church,
with no confession of wrong. International pressure may help
force a government, but the political system—adjusted after the
war—failed to instill a sense of Lebanese unity.
So Francis prayed for it.
“We have seen our own lack of clarity and the mistakes we have
made,” the pope stated during his closing homily. “For all this
we ask forgiveness, and with contrite hearts we pray: Lord, have
mercy.”
And specifically, he mentioned a failure “to bear consistent
witness to the Gospel,” including missed opportunities for
reconciliation.
The daylong gathering began at Casa Santa Marta, where Lebanese
leaders joined the pope at his simple residence. He walked with
them to St. Peter’s Basilica, where they recited the Lord’s
Prayer. After about five minutes of silent meditation, the heads
of denominations descended into the crypt, where they each lit a
candle in front of an ornate Bible.
Left above was Charlie Costa, head of Lebanon’s Baptist
convention, invited by Kassab as part of the evangelical
delegation. Awed by the sense of history at the Vatican, he
remarked that this cathedral was built with the indulgences that
triggered the Reformation. Yet it also preserved Western
Christianity throughout the ages.
Francis listened intensely during the sessions, speaking little,
he said. And he received the Protestants respectfully, engaging
them as an equal component of Lebanese society, along with the
Catholic and Orthodox delegations.
“He is an amazing man,” said Costa. “Christians in Lebanon,
evangelicals included, can learn from his humility.”
There was a consensus among the Lebanese leaders that they must.
“We forgot for a while about our differences,” said Kassab. “But
if we leave the situation as it is, Lebanon is going to die.”
The evangelical report handed to Francis emphasized the
necessity of freedom of conscience and belief, while maintaining
good relations with the traditional churches and Muslim
community.
Lebanese evangelicals would welcome the Vatican taking a leading
role in international efforts to rescue Lebanon. Francis
announced no concrete steps, but delegation members anticipate
he will lead the charge to preserve the diverse,
multi-confessional nation.
Will it remain sectarian in its political system? No one knows
the details.
“Lebanon will be different,” said Kassab.
“We as Christians have to be prepared for that future.”[/size]
#Post#: 34184--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: August 1, 2021, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124067.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/july-august/crowdfunding-christian-give-substack-patreon-givesendgo.html
Patrons’ Saints: Christians Turn to Patreon, Substack, and
Kickstarter
As more evangelical figures embrace crowdfunding, is the format
demanding too much of them?
To release her first contemporary Christian music album back in
2004, Beth Barnard signed a contract with Sparrow Records during
her freshman year of high school.
Her 11-song debut was self-titled Bethany Dillon, a stage name
she adopted at the recommendation of execs who thought her
maiden name—Adelsberger—would be a mouthful. Through Sparrow
(now Capitol Christian Music Group), Barnard spent most of her
teen years recording music. Her hit songs were nominated for
Dove Awards and appeared on WOW compilations.
She then married Shane Barnard—one Shane-half of Christian music
group Shane & Shane—and realized that she wanted to stay at home
with her family rather than record and tour. More than a decade
and four kids later, Barnard sensed last year that she had
another collection of songs to share. Only this time, she
launched a Kickstarter campaign.
The crowdfunding site had allowed Barnard to release a worship
album, A Better Word, in 2017. She turned to Kickstarter again
in 2021 to bypass some of the business baggage she was happy to
leave behind when she stepped away from the music industry years
ago, like marketing efforts and hitting the road to promote the
album.
Her fans remembered her and came through, giving more than
$20,000 in the first 12 hours of the fundraiser in January.
“Thank you, thank you … not only for helping us meet the
financial part of rolling this out, but also for what that
speaks … that you’re behind this and excited about it,” Barnard
told backers in a recorded video after her project was funded.
Kickstarter, where supporters can pledge for a one-time project,
and platforms like Substack and Patreon, where they can pay to
subscribe for content on a regular basis, offer creators a way
to directly connect with their audiences while giving fans a way
to directly support the creators they love.
These setups took off over the past decade among the aspiring
and niche, including in Christian circles. Then, as the pandemic
canceled events like concerts and conferences, more artists and
speakers relied on direct funding and online subscription models
as they adapted their material for online audiences.
Apologists, pastoral coaches, and theologians have also begun to
turn to direct funding as a revenue stream and a way to share
resources. The Truth’s Table podcast, hosted by Michelle
Higgins, Christina Edmondson, and Ekemini Uwan, has over 250
Patreon supporters offering $5–$50 a month for bonus episodes
and other perks. Australian Bible scholar Michael Bird offers
Q&As and commentary in his Substack newsletter Word from the
Bird.
Big names have stepped over to the direct-funding space too.
After 40 years in Christian music, the late singer Carman
created what remains one of the highest-funded Kickstarter
projects in the app’s history, raising $538,103 in 2013 for what
turned out to be his last album. Some of the top Christian
artists on the site today include singer-songwriters Nichole
Nordeman and Jasmine Tate and worship band Citizens.
Though he continued making music and releasing books through
traditional outlets, rapper Lecrae joined Patreon during the
pandemic, offering his weekly podcast for $5 a month or perks
like live Zoom chats for $50 a month. Christian writer and
podcaster Tsh Oxenreider launched a Substack in 2019, where
subscribers get access for $60 a year or $6 a month to her
newsletter and are invited to special events, including
in-person book club gatherings (when pandemics allow).
The widespread use of direct funding has shifted the
relationship among supporters, creators, and the institutions
that used to stand between them.
But despite the success many Christian artists, public
theologians, and podcasters have found in crowdfunding, the
model raises questions Christians should consider: What are we
selling, exactly? And should we sell it just because someone’s
willing to buy in?
‘Quintessentially Christian’ giving
Christians were in the direct funding game long before there
were websites. In Roman society, wealthy patrons supported
poets, philosophers, merchants, and artisans, and the framework
carried over into the church. Paul refers to Phoebe as
prostatis—a “patron” or “benefactor.” Other New Testament
figures such as Lydia, Jason, Onesiphorus, and Philemon may have
also played that role in supporting the early Jesus movement.
For most of history, being a patron required status and big
bucks. An elite few would commit to consistently support a
respected artist or teacher over their career. Online tools
today, however, have opened the door to huge swaths of
middle-class supporters, who can offer up $5 a month via their
credit cards for a members-only podcast and the distinction of
digital patron status.
But the church itself has always leaned on the benevolence of
the masses. Most churches across the globe rely on tithes and
donations from members to operate. Churches build buildings,
send youth groups on mission trips, plant other churches, and
send out full-time missionaries almost exclusively on donated
funds.
In a proto-crowdfunding model, missionaries regularly visit
churches or send letters to recruit like-minded Christians to
pledge ongoing support for their ministry work. Like the
creators now recruiting online, missionaries are expected to
provide their backers with updates about how the investment is
paying off on the mission field.
Those missionaries are tapping into a key motivation of their
donors: They want to feel intimately involved—or at least
aware—of what they’re supporting. That sense of intimacy is key
to other, more global Christian efforts like World Vision and
Compassion International, where donors can choose a specific
child and international community to support.
Still, research suggests younger generations are more inclined
to give to individuals than to institutions doing mission work.
Giving directly to Christian artists over the internet leans
into that reality.
Whatever the reason people give, crowdfunding does seem
quintessentially Christian. It answers the call to be generous,
to bear one another’s burdens, and—depending on the “product”—to
work together in pursuit of gospel causes.
That’s why Heather Wilson and her brother, Jacob Wells, said
they wanted to create an explicitly Christian crowdfunding site.
They launched GiveSendGo in 2015 and now estimate the site has
raised around $25 million so far, spread out among about 8,000
successful campaigns—everything from missions and Habitat for
Humanity projects to, more recently, funding for adoption or
foster care.
“We got to talking about how this is really what the church
should be doing,” Wilson said. “The church in Acts would give
what they could and help support each other. This is the kind of
the same thing.”
In practice, though, it’s not that simple. For one thing, the
site doesn’t require campaigners to be professing Christians or
be raising money for explicitly Christian endeavors. In fact,
GiveSendGo offers a case study in the pitfalls of populist
funding. It’s come under fire recently for hosting deeply
controversial campaigns.
Earlier this year, a high-ranking member of the violent
alt-right group Proud Boys raised more than $100,000 on
GiveSendGo.
Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of murdering two Black Lives Matter
protesters in Wisconsin during the unrest last summer, has
raised more than a half million dollars for his defense.
Before his murder conviction in the killing of George Floyd,
former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin allegedly raised
more than $6,000 (his campaign is no longer active).
Wilson and Wells told Religion News Service that they decide
which campaigns to allow on their site on a case-by-case basis
and that they don’t want to participate in “cancel culture” or
presume to be “judge and jury.”
There’s a difference, of course, between crowdfunding for a
cause (controversial or not) and the patron-artist relationship
fostered on sites like Kickstarter and Patreon.
GiveSendGo is perhaps a cautionary tale: When anyone can launch
a crowdfunding effort with the click of a button, people will
ask for money for anything—and some people will give money for
anything. So how can Christians think critically about what we
should create, and where we should give?
Sustaining income?
Hannah Anderson is a Christian writer whose work often explores
the relationship between home life and the marketplace. Anderson
thinks crowdfunding may appeal to people, especially women, who
are used to giving away their artistic work for free.
She first began writing as a young mom, she said, in part
because her family needed the money, but also because she felt a
calling to create. “That’s just a human need,” she said.
For many like Anderson, crowdfunding and subscription platforms
may seem enticing. They’re often marketed as an alternative to
the uber-competitive and exclusive “marketplace”—Kickstarter’s
mission is to let “creative people…take the wheel” rather than
leaving “art world elites and entertainment executives to define
our culture.”
But many who have found success in crowdfunding already had a
steady following built through more conventional means.
The Holy Post podcast had been around for four years before the
show added a Patreon with bonus content in 2016, and its popular
cohosts author Skye Jethani and Phil Vischer (of VeggieTales
fame) had name recognition with Christians long before that.
They now bring in over $18,000 a month on Patreon.
While direct funding may allow artists to finally monetize their
work, it’s usually not enough to pay the bills.
Beth Barnard says she never planned for her album’s Kickstarter
to put food on her family’s table. “We wanted funds to be able
to pay the band well and to check all the boxes of what it is to
make a record,” she said.
That funding problem isn’t exclusive to crowdfunding sites,
though. Even established Christian authors who publish books the
old-fashioned way typically don’t make a sustaining income on
writing alone.
“Almost everybody who is publishing in traditional ways in the
Christian world, who are successful authors … almost everybody
has a day job,” said Trevin Wax, outgoing senior vice president
for theology and communications at Lifeway Christian Resources.
Publishing is “at best a nice little bonus.”
For that reason and others, Wax doesn’t worry that crowdfunding
sites will elbow out traditional publishing houses. Lifeway
offers a machine of publicists, editors, graphic designers,
inventory managers, and, crucially, event planners that those
going the independent route won’t have. The events are key, Wax
says; any author who wants even a modicum of success must also
be speaking in front of audiences.
Expectation of intimacy
So if the majority of Christian creators using crowdfunding
won’t make a sustainable family income on the art alone, what
else can they sell?
Crowdfunding offers something that traditional publishing
doesn’t: intimacy between creators and their audience. But the
expectation of that intimacy—which comes to the forefront on
social media and through these subscription models—can be more
rewarding and more demanding.
Glorious Weakness author Alia Joy used to field requests from
committed readers who wanted to send her money through Venmo to
support her work. After her 2020 conference plans were called
off during the pandemic, she took the readers up on their
suggestion and started a Patreon.
“The people that have believed in my writing have really rallied
around me,” said Joy, who lives in Oregon with her three kids,
husband, and widowed mother.
Joy’s bipolar disorder, physical disability, and bouts with
severe depression have often kept her from writing consistently.
In February of this year, she wrote a confessional post to her
Patreon supporters apologizing for her inconsistency and trying
to set a more realistic expectation.
“When I have words, I will serve them here,” she wrote. “When I
don’t, I will rest. His grace is sufficient.”
The $5 Patreon subscriptions total about $350 a month, which Joy
said she uses to cover the cost of her psych medication.
She says her readers have been mostly kind and supportive. She
has less of a problem with getting pushback from followers than
with hearing from some who feel too connected to her when she is
not able to reciprocate.
“I 100 percent don’t care if people just don’t like me,” she
says. “But if people ask me, ‘Hey, can we go get coffee?’ and I
say I can’t do that … if they’re like, ‘I’m not worth having
coffee with,’ that actually is the thing that makes it really
hard for me to set boundaries.”
After she released her book, in which she wrote about her
childhood sexual trauma and other heavy issues, Joy says she
started getting really personal, weighty emails from readers who
wrote as if they knew her—and were expecting a response in kind.
For a while, Joy shared an 800 number that connects callers with
mental health experts in their area. She’d send it to especially
troubled supporters.
Whenever the line between person and brand blurs, expectations
become unmanageable, Anderson warns. Financial backers might
feel too much entitlement to creators’ content (and time).
Creators might view negative feedback as a referendum on them as
a person.
In addition to the personal risks, she sees another potential
problem: The quality of the art could suffer. “You have the
accountability of contenting your audience, but to me that’s not
a good form of accountability,” she said.
If the artist is the product, she says, there’s no editor
necessary. That might feel like freedom, but when artists focus
more on their fans than on their work, it can also lead to
stagnation.
“If you enter into this space like, ‘Oh, I’m just going to give
my thoughts to the world’ … there’s no reciprocation about
whether your thoughts should be shifted,” she said.
“I would worry that people who go down the Patreon route without
a clear sense of putting boundaries in place for themselves …
one of the things it would do is it would stifle your personal
growth.”
Wax at Lifeway says professional editors push writers to do
better work. “There’s always going to be a need for traditional
publishers to vet writers really well and edit their work with
excellence.”
Scripture, too, warns of the potential downsides of a
crowdfunding model, with James criticizing churches that catered
to their generous benefactors (James 2:1–4).
There’s no doubt crowdfunding sites like Patreon and Kickstarter
have paved the way for albums, podcasts, articles, theological
insight, and art that may never have otherwise been produced.
Beth Barnard may never have released another album if doing it
required a year of touring apart from her family. Alia Joy may
never have found an outlet that would publish the heartfelt
prose her audience has come to love—and that her disability
keeps her from producing consistently.
But despite their clever marketing, crowdfunding sites offer
neither perfect populism nor unfettered creative freedom. They
don’t eliminate many of the setbacks of traditional publishing:
Some really good artists still won’t find an audience. Some
really bad art will. “Success,” after all, still hinges on
popularity and money. And those looking for money for nefarious
reasons will also try this new avenue to get it.
This presents challenges for Christians on all sides of the
crowdfunding relationship: to make sure we’re creating good
things that warrant distribution and to make sure we’re giving
money to those good things—not as a bid for influence over the
person creating them.
For her part, Hannah Anderson doesn’t support many Patreons.
Instead, she likes looking for digital “tip jars” (usually links
to PayPal or other money-transfer apps) at the ends of articles
she enjoyed.
“I link it more directly to the artifact,” she said. “I’m going
to give you money for this thing, not for you.”
#Post#: 34597--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: August 16, 2021, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/124909.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/august/tiktok-charismatic-pentecostal-tongues.html
TikTok in Tongues? Charismatics Disagree.
Spirit-filled content creators test theological limits on social
media.
Michael Paul Corder says he “cut his teeth” praying in public by
going around to grocery stores and striking up conversations,
asking folks if they wanted to pray. But even in the Bible Belt
of East Tennessee, he found people were often hesitant or
embarrassed.
Not so, he said, on TikTok.
Corder does a livestream open prayer every day, in which he
prays for the hundreds of people who hop into the virtual
chatroom without embarrassment. Many of his nearly 165,000
followers who join express feeling relief or calm when he prays
for them. Their pain or healing is not something that can be
verified, Corder admits, but still, he believes their presence
testifies to something missing from their churches.
“At those churches, they’re not praying for the sick, or if they
are, they’re not seeing results. At mainstream churches, you get
more of a philosophical lecture,” Corder told Religion News
Service.
Sometimes on his livestreams, Corder will pray in tongues—a
practice popular among charismatic and Pentecostal Christians
who say the unknown language is a gift from the Holy Spirit, as
described in Acts 2.
“I think words are not the greatest at describing the
sensation,” Corder said. “It’s being filled, it’s being
baptized.”
“It’s a little mysterious,” he added, saying he speaks in
tongues when the Holy Spirit moves him.
Pentecostal or charismatic TikTok is a thriving community of
diverse Christians. It’s multilingual and multicultural and
spans generations. Its hashtags have millions of views. Here,
Christians who identify as charismatic, nondenominational,
Assemblies of God, or Pentecostal all gather to share
encouragement and witness for their on the internet.
Many of the videos on charismatic TikTok are dedicated to
prayer—talking about prayer, encouraging others in prayer or
praying on camera. In the charismatic tradition, this can often
include praying in tongues, also known as glossolalia, and the
hashtag for speaking in tongues has more than 4 million views.
Heidi Campbell, author of the recent book Digital Creatives and
the Rethinking of Religious Authority, says new media has long
been a ripe platform for evangelization and religious
discussion—from the printing press to TikTok.
Before the internet became widely available to the public,
Campbell described participating in charismatic email-based
communities on internet relay chats, forerunners of popular
messenger platforms like AOL Instant Messenger.
“If you were speaking in tongues, you would just kind of let
your fingers go over random keys—like gobbly goop,” said
Campbell, “but that was the symbolism of speaking in tongues.”
In nearly 30 years of research on faith practices in the digital
world, Campbell believes that Pentecostal theology provides a
warrant for enthusiastic embrace of new technology.
“Pentecostal theology is all about being led by the Holy
Spirit,” said Campbell, “so the idea of the Holy Spirit moving
through the computer or having a spiritual experience through
the computer is very acceptable.”
But not all believers on charismatic TikTok agree.
Taylor Cuthbertson, 27, has 27,000 followers on TikTok who watch
her videos about living as a Pentecostal Christian. For
Cuthbertson, there are some things that “are a big no on TikTok”
and one of them is praying.
“I’m a very private person,” she said.
Michael Grattan, pastor of Manhattan Pentecostal Church,
believes prayer belongs in public, but he’s not sure it belongs
on TikTok.
Grattan explains the tradition of speaking in tongues as a sign
of God’s spirit dwelling with baptized believers. The apostles
were able to speak in many languages, to be understood as they
addressed a crowd of people from different nations gathered in
Jerusalem.
In a monolingual community, Grattan said, that sort of diversity
of language becomes unnecessary, so the often unintelligible
prayer language of “speaking in tongues” becomes a way of
“expressing the deepest parts of your spirit,” Grattan said.
It’s perfectly appropriate for a public setting, Grattan said.
But he cited Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which
reads, “Let everything be done decently and in order.” On the
internet, Grattan sees disorderliness and chaos.
Grattan does have an account on TikTok. “It’s a good way to get
the pulse of the people,” he said. But he doesn’t post on it.
He’s not sure it’s the ripest ground for prayer or
evangelization, saying he thinks the internet’s constant
stimulation drowns out the message of the gospel.
“When you have so many choices, it’s hard to see the real value
and it’s hard to communicate value,” he said, “The vistas of
knowledge available on the internet are unimaginable. But the
flip side of that is that meaning is lost in the midst of it.”
“TikTok to me is the ultimate noise,” Grattan said.
Montana Cooley sees her mission on TikTok as breaking through
the noise. “I want to spread the love of God,” she said.
At the end of 2020, Cooley, 19, said she was in a dark place.
And then she started getting more involved again at the
Assemblies of God church at which her great-grandfather was a
preacher.
“I fell back in love, I guess,” she said.
She wouldn’t show video of herself praying in tongues, however.
First, she said, because it’s not premeditated but rather
prompted by the Holy Spirit. “Sometimes I’ll do it out in public
when the spirit comes my way,” Cooley said. But mostly because
it usually happens in church.
Cooley does however talk about her experiences praying in the
spirit to her 15,000 followers because she wants them to know
that talking in tongues is a part of the Christian life.
“Some people think that talking in tongues is demonic,” she
said, “but it’s evidence, showing other people that the Holy
Spirit is there in your presence.”
#Post#: 34601--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: August 16, 2021, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/125024.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/august-web-only/split-church-is-evangelicalism-due-for-hundred-year-schism.html
Is Evangelicalism Due for a Hundred-Year Schism?
Our divisions are markedly political, and they echo religious
controversies of the past.
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You
shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to
judgment,’” Jesus told the crowd in the Sermon on the Mount.
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or
sister will be subject to judgment. … You have heard that it was
said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’” he continued. “But I
tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:21-22,
27-28). He goes on to set a higher standard in other aspects of
life, too, a standard where even private intentions matter to
God.
The future of American evangelicalism—particularly white
evangelicalism, a part often wrongly mistaken for the whole—has
been subject to intense scrutiny for at least half a decade, and
this year’s departures of Russell Moore (who has begun a public
theology project here at CT) and Beth Moore (no relation to
Russell) from the Southern Baptist Convention have revealed just
how deep those divisions are.
As I’ve browsed reporting on the Moores’ decisions and read
analyses on whether the US evangelical movement is heading for a
schism—a complete and formal break in fellowship—Jesus’ words
about murder and adultery keep coming to mind: If intentions
matter so much, have we split already?
Widened and embittered division in the movement is certainly
impossible to deny. The specific issues are many, some
comparatively new (critical race theory, former President Donald
Trump), some all too familiar (racism and race relations beyond
the one theory, roles of women, sexual ethics, Christian
nationalism, church handling of abuse), all with a political
edge.
It’s not primarily about different policy agendas or rival
partisan loyalties. On paper, a lot of that remains unchanged.
The political division I see is more, as CT president Timothy
Dalrymple wrote in April, about different informational worlds
feeding different fears, hopes, habits of speech, and political
priorities. And that political aspect is crucial, in two ways,
to thinking through where we are now and where we may go next.
The first is this: If we were to diagram where American
evangelicals coalesce around the issues I’ve just listed, the
collective result would look a lot like a new (and newly
important) tribal division in US politics.
For a long time, there was a stereotype that cast Republicans as
rich people who go to country clubs and work at big banks, and
Democrats—Hollywood and the media aside—as poor and
working-class. This was a decent shorthand once, but no longer.
Nationally, we aren’t polarized according to income as we once
were; the “diploma divide” is now the more useful indicator, and
its importance is growing. More educated people increasingly
vote Democratic, while the less educated increasingly vote
Republican. That disparity contributes to a defensive populism
on the American right, including among educated Republicans, via
the perception that elite institutions (where college degrees
are a baseline for participation) are all controlled by
political enemies.
Among white evangelicals, the education-politics correspondence
isn’t so strong. Being college-educated doesn’t make you a
Democrat or a progressive theologically or politically. But
there’s an echo of the diploma divide in the discord among
evangelicals.
The populist faction in evangelicalism similarly accuses
prominent figures and institutions (“big eva,” in the Twitter
terminology) of neglecting or abandoning truth to curry secular,
liberal favor. Such accusations played a role in both Moores’
departures from the SBC, though both remain dependably
theologically conservative.
In a widely shared Twitter thread in late May, historian of
American religion and politics (and CT contributor) Paul Matzko
compared this divide to older divisions in American Christianity
in the 1830s and 1930s. Those were times, like ours, of “intense
political polarization,” he told me in an email exchange, as
well as “intensive technological innovation, dramatic social
change, and widespread fears that something vital was being lost
in the shuffle.”
Matzko believes our politicized breach is already in its middle
stages and will prove irreparable. He anticipates “the current
divide will widen into a series of formal splits that cut
through each of the major evangelical denominations and
institutions,” a forecast with which I struggle to disagree.
Yet I’m less sure about his expectation that the populist
faction “retain control of the existing infrastructure.” In many
cases, I think that will prove true—the Southern Baptist
Convention could become one such case, though the June gathering
in Nashville seems to have delayed it.
Elsewhere, however, institutions may go to progressive
evangelicals and still-churched post-evangelicals, to borrow a
label from a June Mere Orthodoxyarticle proposing a six-way
fracture of US evangelicalism. See, for example, Bethany
Christian Services’ shift on LGBT adoption, or how disagreement
over gay marriage within Mennonite Church USA has led to
conservative departures while progressives stayed put.
The question of reparability brings me to the second way
focusing on the political nature of this division is
instructive: Our turmoil is significantly about political
content consumption and how it competes with Scripture, pastor,
and church community to claim our attention and disciple our
minds.
Matzko’s Twitter thread gestured in this direction: “Evangelical
clergy only get their congregants in the pews one to three times
a week,” he wrote, while their favored political media “get them
every day, all day.” When there’s a conflict between the two,
polling suggests, political media win and the intra-evangelical
divide expands.
Matzko highlighted political media sources like Newsmax, One
America News, and outlets further right, which is the pulpit’s
populist competition, but the same dynamic can and does emerge
anywhere on the political spectrum.
The bad news, as he wrote to me, is it’s very difficult to break
habits of heavy media consumption in a political echo chamber.
The resultant “influence gap” between church and political
content will prove a durable challenge to discipleship
regardless of the issue arguments at hand.
But the good news—as Matzko and the Mere Orthodoxy authors,
Michael Graham and Skyler Flowers, noted alike—is that as
alarming, precarious, and dire as intra-church conflicts feel
now, some past upheavals have ultimately borne good fruit.
“Something new can be built on a firmer foundation, new churches
founded, new magazines started (or older magazines expanded),
new denominations coalesce, new communities engaged and
churched, and so on,” Matzko wrote to me. “You wouldn’t have
thought it possible in the 1930s,” when the
liberal-fundamentalist schism happened, “but if it happened
then, why couldn’t it happen in, say, the 2030s?”
And after all, Graham and Flowers conclude, the “church is not
held together by its own strength but by the unbreakable bond of
the unity of the Spirit. With this confidence, the church can
move forward into this sorting, whatever it may look like, with
hope that the Lord is using it to strengthen and embolden his
church for fruitful mission in this age.”
I suspect that we have indeed already split in our hearts, and
that it is impossible to go back to what we had before. Our
schism is already here by the standard Jesus raises in the
Sermon on the Mount, and we too often do not behave as we ought
with the knowledge that, together, we “are of Christ, and Christ
is of God” (1 Cor. 3:23). We may well be “subject to judgment,”
not least for treating fellow Christians as our enemies. Yet
even here, God can and will work for our good (Rom. 8:28).
#Post#: 34671--------------------------------------------------
Re: The fearless evangelist
By: patrick jane Date: August 21, 2021, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/125164.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/august/india-christians-persecution-pew-report-efi-rlc.html
Indian Christians Discuss Different Reports on Persecution
Evangelical Fellowship of India panel responds to Pew research
as annual tally of religious freedom violations gets released.
Christians in India are seeking to square conflicting research
on communal tensions in their country.
About 100 Christian leaders from across the subcontinent
attended an online consultation last month hosted by the
Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI) to discuss the findings
and ramifications of a recent landmark report by the Pew
Research Center, entitled “Religion in India: Tolerance and
Segregation.”
A panel of seven leaders convened by EFI, which represents
65,000 churches and hundreds of Christian organizations across
India, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the report’s
methodology and engaged attendees in Q&A on Pew’s findings on
tolerance, segregation, religious beliefs, identity,
nationalism, and more. Indian Christian sources previously told
CT the report offered quantitative validation of their lived
experience.
While the report surveyed about 30,000 Indians nationwide across
six faiths and 17 languages, including about 1,000 Christians,
the EFI panel wished the sample size had been even larger—given
their nation’s 1.38 billion people and its size and
diversity—and thus better able to examine regional differences
in complex issues.
Their biggest area of disagreement: the level of communal
tensions between India’s majority Hindus and its Christians,
Muslims, and other religious minorities.
Pew found 9 in 10 Indian adults say they feel very free to
practice their religion, while 8 in 10 say respecting other
religions is very important to their own faith as well as to
being truly Indian. Yet Pew also found a fair amount of support
for religious segregation. For example, a third of Hindus in
India would not be willing to accept a Christian as a neighbor,
and neither would a quarter of Indian Muslims or Sikhs.
“Indians, then, simultaneously express enthusiasm for religious
tolerance and a consistent preference for keeping their
religious communities in segregated spheres,” wrote Pew
researchers. “They live together separately.”
“It was generally agreed that the [Pew] report, although
unsurprising in some respects, does not adequately reflect the
ground reality in India—particularly the narrative of hate and
polarization,” said Vijayesh Lal, EFI’s general secretary and a
panelist during the consultation.
As CT previously noted, tensions over increasing Hindu
nationalism in India have caused the nation to climb the ranks
of persecution watchdogs in recent years. Open Doors ranks India
at No. 10 on its 2021 World Watch List of the 50 countries where
it’s hardest to be a Christian. The US Commission on
International Religious Freedom recommends India be added to the
State Department’s list of Countries of Particular Concern. Pew
itself calculates that India has the highest level of social
hostilities regarding religion among the world’s 25
most-populous countries, as well as one of the higher levels of
government restrictions.
Pew found that only 1 in 10 Indian Christians reported being
discriminated against in the past 12 months because of their
faith. Yet this ranged regionally from 19 percent of Christians
in the East and 12 percent in the Northeast to 6 percent in the
South. (Pew could not break out Christian responses regionally
in the North, Central, or West due to sample sizes.)
Days after EFI’s panel assessed the Pew report, its Religious
Liberty Commission (RLC) released its latest report on hate and
violence against Christians in India, concluding the number of
incidents targeting Christians in the first six months of 2021
has increased compared to the same time period last year—even
despite a brutal second wave of COVID-19.
The commission recorded 145 incidents targeting Christians from
January to June 2021. Researchers stated the violence “was
vicious, widespread, and ranged from murder to attacks on
church, false cases, police immunity and connivance, and the now
normalized social exclusion or boycott which is becoming viral.”
The analysis documents three murders, 22 cases of physical
violence, 22 instances of attacks on churches or places of
worship or their vandalization, and 20 cases of ostracizing or
social boycotting in rural areas of families which had refused
to renege on their Christian faith and had stood up to mobs and
political leaders from the local majority community.
“The most alarming development has been the expansion and scope
of the notorious Freedom of Religion Acts, which are popularly
known as the anti-conversion laws, earlier enforced in 7 states,
to more states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party,” stated RLC
researchers. “Once targeting only Christians, they are now armed
also against Muslims in the guise of curbing ‘Love Jihad.’ This
is an Islamophobic term coined some years ago to demonize
marriages between Muslim men and non-Muslim women, particularly
those belonging to the Hindu upper castes.
“The laws ostensibly punish forced or fraudulent religious
conversions,” the researchers stated. “But in practice, they are
used to criminalize all conversions, especially in non-urban
settings.”
For example, a mob of religious extremists forcefully barged
into a church and assaulted 25 Christians, including women
worshipers, on February 7 in the Alirajpur district of Madhya
Pradesh, according to the report. The attackers also lodged a
complaint against the Christians at the Udaygarh police station
alleging conversions. This resulted in the police detaining and
interrogating the two dozen Christians and filing charges
against their pastor Dilip Vasunia under the state’s Freedom of
Religion ordinance. The pastor was imprisoned and finally made
bail after a few days, while no action was taken against the
attackers who assaulted the Christians.
The report also narrates how on June 28, police in Uttar Pradesh
arrested pastor Shivkumar Verma and another Christian on trumped
up charges of religious conversions. Local sources alleged that
since there was no evidence corroborating the accusations,
police demanded bribes to release the two Christians. Verma
spent a month in prison before finally being released at the end
of July.
The EFI commission made it clear that its report is indicative
of current events, not an exhaustive tally, and the actual
number of sectarian incidents may be much larger.
Madhya Pradesh, the central state of India, and Uttar Pradesh,
the most populous state, led the tally of incidents against
Christians, followed by Chhattisgarh and Karnataka.
“Violence against Christians by non-state actors in India stems
from an environment of targeted hate,” stated researchers. “The
translation of the hate into violence is sparked by a sense of
impunity generated in India’s administrative apparatus.”
The RLC report offered recommendations to the government of
India. Chief among them: enacting a comprehensive national
legislation against targeted and communal (sectarian) violence;
advising the various state governments to repeal anti-conversion
laws that limit religious freedom and are being misused against
religious minorities; the enaction of laws to check hate speech
and propaganda; and amending paragraph 3 of the Constitution
(Scheduled Castes) Order of 1950 to include Christians and
Muslims.
“The sad reality is that minorities are targeted, and these
incidents occur and despite the pandemic have increased over
last year’s figures,” said Lal. “This appears to be in contrast
with the Pew report that would like us to believe that tolerance
runs high in present-day India. While there are examples of
tolerance historically, the dividing of people driven by narrow
political interest is real as well and too often makes use of
religion for polarizing people and carrying out sectarian
violence.”
Panelist John Dayal, a Delhi-based Christian political analyst
and cofounder and past secretary general of the All India
Christian Council, said the report could mislead global thought
leaders, the media, and fellow Christians into a “dipstick
understanding” of religion in India and miss the “extreme
polarization” in recent years.
Pew’s research found that 53 percent of all Indians and 44
percent of Indian Christians think religious diversity benefits
India, while 24 percent of all Indians and 26 percent of Indian
Christians think it harms the country. Christians were the least
likely of any religious group to say that religious diversity
benefits India.
The EFI panel concluded with recommendations for the Indian
church.
The first was for Indian believers to go beyond the segregations
of the denominationalism that exists within the church in India,
and to examine how a more inclusive Christian spirituality could
be developed.
“Failure to do this may destroy our ability to be a witness in
the nation,” warned panelist C. B. Samuel, a respected Bible
teacher and former executive director of EFICOR (formerly the
Evangelical Fellowship of India Commission on Relief).
The divides of regionalism and caste in Indian society exist
also within the church, thus a noticeable difference in the
response of south Indian Christians vs. their brethren in the
north or northeast. “Therefore, a conscious modeling of church
which breaks the barriers is very important,” said Samuel.
Both panelists and participants stressed the themes of common
humanity and the intentional visibility of good deeds. It was
also shared that the church must be intentional about critiquing
power issues.
“The report speaks about segregation, but the core issue is the
misuse of power that leads to segregation which eventually
destroys common humanity and leads to silos,” said panelist
Richard Howell, principal at the Caleb Institute of Theology and
past general secretary of EFI.
Howell also stressed the primacy of theological identity rather
than cultural identity. “We have forgotten our theological
identity. If we only major on cultural identity, there is no
critique of power left,” he said. “Our critique comes from a
transcendence. We must never forget this.”
Panelist Ashish Alexander, head of the English department at Sam
Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology, and Sciences
in Allahabad, pointed out that during the survey Christians were
asked if Muslims were discriminated against in India and only 16
percent agreed. When Muslims were asked the same about
Christians, only 8 percent agreed. Hence, Indian Christians need
to be sensitized about Indian Muslims and vice versa, and a
bridge needs to be built.
The consultation ended with a call for deeper research into
themes both explored in the Pew study and beyond it, such as
polarization, hate campaigns against minorities, and
Islamophobia in India.
“I also wish that Pew would have dissected Indian Christianity,”
said Dayal, “to find out what are our strengths and soft spots.”
“We do need more studies, more understanding among ourselves,”
said panelist Vinay Samuel, founder of the Oxford Center for
Mission Studies and the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public
Life. “Identities have boundaries as well. So, we do need to
look at how different groups are constructing their identities,
i.e. South Indian Christians, North Indian Christians, Punjabi
Christians, etc.”
“There is a need to devise institutions to bring India’s
religious communities onto common platforms to discuss issues
and diffuse tensions,” said Lal in summary at the end of the
consultation.
“In India, religion has to be experienced. Experience comes
first, then relationship and thirdly conceptuality,” said
Howell. “Where Christians have taken time to build bridges,
things are better. We [Christians] must take time to build
bridges with all communities.”
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page