Originally Posted by
Jaw
I really enjoyed this. I learned some things, I agreed with some things, I disagreed with some things.
First off,
And, again, unlike many in mainline Protestantism, evangelicals believe that Jesus truly did exist as the divine Son before he was born, that he actually was born of a virgin, and that he really was raised bodily from the dead.
1. I am surprised that any denominations that disagree with any of the above are considered as part of Christianity.
Next
Finally, contemporary evangelicals feel bound by both desire and duty to share their faith with others in both word and deeds of service. In this, they seek to resemble, as well as to obey, their Lord, Jesus, who is described as mighty in word and deed.
That was the best definition I have seen for "Evangelical." In my mind it is the difference between "casual Christians" and those that feel the fire. If you feel the fire, you really have no choice but to meet the author's description of an Evangelical.
I take issue with this:
In my view, these churches tend to be much more committed to racial justice and care for the poor than is commonly seen in white Evangelicalism. In this way, they might be called liberal. On the other hand, these multicultural churches remain avowedly conservative on issues like sex outside of marriage. They look, to most eyes, like a strange mixture of liberal and conservative viewpoints, although they themselves see a strong inner consistency between these views. They resist the contemporary ethical package deals that today’s progressivism and conservatism seek to impose on adherents, insisting that true believers must toe the line on every one of a host of issues. But these younger evangelical churches simply won’t play by those rules.
2. I feel that the author picked the low hanging fruit here, intentionally avoiding the difficult issues. Presbyterians have fought over Amendment B. The UMC is on the brink of civil war over the same issue. It's admittedly terrible to fight inside a church, but these are things that have to be worked out. The Kansas City pastors quoted in the article I linked earlier seemed eager to dodge the controversial, the author of this piece did as well. I have heard the same in sermon podcasts from a mega church that is flourishing in Atlanta right now.
We need people to know they can come as they are. Nothing is more important. But "Come as you are" isn't the end of the message, it's "Come as you are, and be transformed." It feels like there is a trend developing where the last part of that sentence is left out, and I think that is dangerous. Let me stop here and say that I've been in something of a fervor lately, feeling amplified amounts of both the love and the fear, but we don't walk a wide road. We are told it is easier to thread the eye of a needle with a camel than for a rich man to get to Heaven. It terrifies me to think we would skip past the messy parts when the stakes have been made so plain. We are also told not to judge those outside of the church, but to hold each other accountable. How can a church body do that when they aren't willing to offend anyone? How can we grow spiritually without recognizing our faults and working to improve them?
I'll shut up now. I had planned on saying a lot more but I'm finding it difficult to articulate my concerns in the well meaning way that they are meant, and my alarm is going to start assaulting my eardrums in about 4 hours.