Intellectuelle

I personally don't see a problem with the broadenng of the tent to include people like me who you would clasify as a seculas liberal, when in fact I am a progressive Christian. I am more likely to worship and serve with a community of leaders who aren't quick to label me as "other" based on my stance on abortion and gay rights. What's wrong with taking the two most divise issues off the table for the sake of showing people the transformative and challenging love of Jesus Christ.

In the case of the community I am a part of, I am in the minority in that I support both gay rights and abortion. But, it's not an issue - neither of us bring it up as a condition of belonging or believing.

Tam - nice to hear from you on this. This discussion isn't really about some evangelicals broadening the agenda to include other kinds of people, its about broadening the agenda to include other issues. However, I think the way you describe it is the ultimate goal because I believe this is a matter of utility, not just principle.

Can you explain what you mean by "progressive Christian?"

I think that if any prolife individual takes their issues "off the table, as it were, they run the risk of making the issue of human dignity secondary to other issues, thus undermining any other work they want to do. As well, taking the human dignity issue off the table is a political concession, it's not a move of commitment to a cause.

Finally, I don't know anyone's heart, I can't know if anyone is saved or not. I can see fruit, and I can see when people are not Christlike in their lack of love or in disrespect for humanity - but I cannot know for sure if they are saved/unsaved. I believe people are often in process and err in action and perspective. But in order to have true, safe community, there must be respect for all persons. If the condition of respect and safety cannot be met, then authentic community cannot exist.

Thanks for responding Sarah. I actually forgot about this blog for a while, and as I have become more serious in my walk and life as Christian, I find I am seeking different Christian voices. I really appreciated your post on the Church Lady issue.

Back to this topic, though...
What is wrong with broadening the agenda to include other issues? And, is it that they are broadening the "evangelical" agenda or the broader Christian agenda. THough you may define it as the evangelical agenda, those on the outside, don't make such nuanced distinctions as those of us on the inside. They see someone claiming to be Christian only speaking "boldly" about sexuality issues, but noticably silent on other issues. And that is what keeps people away.

I know for me, growing up in a very liberal church, I was always scared of more conservative evangelical churches. But, I have found that I need that now - to help me grow in my relationship with Christ and help me understand my end of the relationship...of the bargain, so to speak. The evangelical agenda as it were, kept me from churches and communities that would take a stronger stance on the Bible and hold people accountable. That is what I wanted - I didn't and don't want the political agenda that comes along with being a part of an evangelical or conservative community. I had to swallow a lot of my own pride and pray a lot to be comfortable where I am. And the fact the community that I am a part does not the more divisive issues a part of the "agenda" has made it much easier to be here. We have found things that we can work on together for the glory of God, rather than getting stuck in things that would tear us apart.

As far as me being a Progressive Christian. I use that term to describe where I am both politically and theologically. I am a Democrat, though not far-left. I think the word liberal has been taken to mean the far-left side of the party, of which I am not. Theologically, I'm still trying to figure that out. I can agree with the basic tenets of Christianity, but I am by no means a conservative in literal in my interpretation and application (praxis?) of Scripture. So, Progressive just fits better for me - allows me to be in process, and moving without being stuck or tied to one particular theoligical camp.

Interesting that you bring up human dignity as an issue. How do you define that? Because in my mind, my support of abortion and gay rights are at their core about human dignity...

Tam, a lot to respond to here. First of all, I prefer the use of "Christian agenda" not "evangelical agenda" but I am responding to its usage in the article primarily. But I accept your caution.

Re: human dignity.
Human Dignity IS the issue as it pertains to abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. Because humans are created in the image of God, they have dignity, dignity isn't something you get. See www.cbhd.org on more on this topic. Therefore, it makes no sense on the abortion topic to "give" dignity to the pregnant woman when she already "has" dignity, as does her unborn child. To abort is to violate the dignity of the child. As it pertains to gay rights: my perspective on homosexuality does not allow for me or anyone else to mistreat or lack love for them. If my disagreement on that issue is believed to embody a violation of human dignity, then the conversation is simply over before it starts, because the fact is people disagree about many things.

And here is where we frame human dignity differently. But then, I am not surprised...

Trusting a woman's to determine whether or not she has the emotional, spiritual, financial resources to continue an unplanned pregancy is respecting her dignity as a human to plan and choose the course of her life. Respect is at the core of dignity. As long as that unborn child/fetus is reliant on a woman for it's life and livelihood, she has the right to determine the course of that pregnacy - up to a point. I know you will not agree with me on this, and that's fine. I'm not asking you to.

In regards to gay rights - I have a hard time understanding how we can respect or love a gay person, with their sexuality being a core part of their identity and humanity, and yet call them a sinner in the next breadth. There is nothing dignified about sin. The two are in conflict, and until that is resolved, I it is difficult me to see homosexuality as a sin.

My purpose in stating where I am coming from is not to spark a debate or to "prove" the validity of my point. These are issues in which people rarely, if ever, change their positions on. As you said, peoole disagree about many things...

Which I guess is my point. If these issues, which seem to be the central points of the "Christian agenda" are so divisive and people are so set in their ways about them, why are they so critical?

If part of being an evangelical Christian is to lead people to Christ, doesn't this agenda get in the way of that? Aren't you essentially saying that to be a Christian, to come on board with Jesus, you also have to come on board with this agenda?

(this comment has also been posted at www.flashpointfiles.blogspot.com)

About your article, I guess I need clarification. Are you observing an actual political move to the left in younger evangelicals, or are you only suspicious of such a move?

I guess I would consider myself one such younger evangelical who is concerned about human trafficking, et. al. I don't understand the "buying into the politically-correct tone of the day" and "abandoning [of] certain issues" though. What exactly are they buying into? What issues do you think they are abandoning/might abandon?

The quoted article speaks of opening up the movement to coalitions with groups who don't share the Christian worldview typically...and how for Dobson and Robertson this might mean an "unacceptable" dilution of focus....this does not logically follow. Is holding hands with these groups, who on other terms are at odds with evangelicals, be entirely negative to the point of not being worth it?

I don't want to see evangelicalism hijacked by the political/religious left any more than you do. However, I don't believe that is the bottom line here in this topic, which needs a lot more unpacking before we can say anything more definite. I suppose I'm just taking a different perspective. Can you tease this out a little more?

*Letitia*

Letitia, I can't answer for Sarah, but I see a distinct resemblance to what's happening with "seamless garment" issues amongst Catholics. The "seamless garment" approach advocates that all "respect for life" issues must be pursued, which is in many ways a laudable goal. However, in practice, this has been used by more "progressive" groups to pursue a largely leftwing agenda, to the point of insisting that prolifers have no business opposing abortion unless they also are activists regarding a host of other issues (often expressed in terms of favoured leftwing policy approaches to issues such as war, hunger and poverty).

With the abortion and homosexual discussion going on... The real disagreement is a deeper issue. If you go back and read the arguments, you can see this going on. One side is founded in the Scriptures as the final authority. The other side believes the scriptures, but they are not the final authority. There are other things that trump the scriptures. Things like, "it doesn't seem right..."

The discussion will get nowhere until you come to an agreement on the Bible.

Atlantic, I have seen that, too.. and so I think this is a common argument used for people of religious convictions. It goes along this pattern:

1. If you really believe "X", then you must necessarily also hold to "Y","W", and "Z"...

2. If not, then your personal integrity must be called into question, and you must be silent on your issue "X", but if you do come along on "Y","W", and "Z", then you become part of our platform and align with our group.

3. If you align with our group, then you recognize our leadership and we can hold you hostage on your expression of the issue "X" or its relative importance. If you break with our group you return to point #1 in the cycle, with not only your integrity in question, but additional points of hyposcrisy and untruth being thus added to your now "proven faulty"character.

IOW, they have claimed the right to define your character and judge your integrity based on their criteria of issues "Y","W", and "Z".

It is an often effective way of shutting down the debate. Except for the stubborn, who keep tooting the horn on issue "X".

Politically, I see a shift in the Christian's coalition ( Christians of all sorts), which has been going on for some time and is not tied only to the new generation. Maybe it is simply more evident in them. Christians who have been active politically, or politically cognizant as a part of their faith, are not as willing to be tied into partisan politics. To the Right this seems like a definite shift to the Left, but I don't think it is that simple.

There is a shaking down in the specific sides of an issue, and it isn't yet plain where this will take things in partisan political loyalties.

But Republicans and pragmatic conservatives have brought this upon themselves. Many of them moved away from a strong 'right to life' side several years ago.

It is politics as usual for many different and widely diverging groups to coalesce on an important issue, and usually Christian conservatives aren't worried about that ( take the Restoration of the Right to Religion Act of some years back) , mainly when it benefits their side of things. It is only when they see some sort of constituency base shift that they voice worry. But I don't think this is the way that Christians act if they are mindful of staying integral with their mode of life as dictated by the doctrines of the gospel.

I do think we are seeing winds of change. We just aren't quite sure of the shifting direction, yet.

The Christian life is a whole, but we have made it into two parts: Intellectual Assent and Social Gospel. This is a grievous error.

Our problem is that the church has largely divided into these two camps. The Intellectual Assent side spends all its faith living out of its brain, debating doctrine, concentrating on the parsing of this Greek word or that. The blogosphere is filled with the Intellectual Assent side.

The Social Gospel camp has largely kept quiet because it's not as concerned with the Web, so its voice lacked representation. Now that representation is increasing and the Intellectual Assent side is getting nervous. They don't like this emphasis on loving one's neighbor regardless of that neighbor's status in the Book of Life. They don't like talk of stewardship and justice. All this Kingdom of God talk bugs them. Unfortunately, they're wrong for opposing the Social Gospel.

On the other side, the Social Gospel folks are wrong for jettisoning large chunks of the tough parts of Scripture (e.g. - unbelievers destined for an eternal hell). They get soft in their understanding of the Scriptures. They drift into error.

This is why God, in His wisdom, crafted the Christian life as He did: as a coherent whole of doctrinal stability and personal outreach to the least of these. We cannot divide the faith into pieces if we're to live as true Christians.

But we chafe at this because we do tend to favor one camp over the other. Worse, we end up thinking our piece is the only one that's true. But that's a deception from the Enemy. If only we'd let the Holy Spirit open our eyes to our own predilections and biases, perhaps we could put all these divisive arguments aside and walk on in Christ in the Faith He delivered to the saints once for all.

Dan, I think you have articulated the Church's side of this shifting very well. Extremely well.

I think the two sides as represented in the blogosphere are necessarily parts of the Church and not the whole. I don't think the Church as a whole can be represented properly on the Web because of the nature of the medium. Obviously I don't hold with "internet Church" anymore than television Church.... although at least the internet has a place for interaction. This will remain a problem for the way Christians interact on the blogosphere- and why we all need to practice the action of giving grace much more.

I think it was very clever to retitle the Right and Left as "Intellectual Assent" and "Social Gospel" to represent views from the emphasis of the group. I think it is more accurate, but we are still talking about the same antagonism between the types of group focus. It brings the discussion more into the Church life, and that is probably the context we should really give to this.

I tend to use the word "Church" for "Christian life" when speaking collectively rather pertaining to an individual. Thought I better clarify that. ( So insert whichever of the two terms you use into my statements)

Perhaps I live in a bubble after all, but I long have hoped that between the two poles of Intellectual Assent (the "right") and Social Gospel (the "left") lies the greater majority of Christians who believe in scriptural authority, sound exegesis and yet also ache to relieve the suffering of injustice. Why does the nature of the debate make us all extremists to one side or the other??? As I see it, throwing right/left politics into the matter distracts from articulating a truly biblical position on such matters with a sound orthopraxy built in; politics is not a good starting point. Is my head in the clouds? To reduce it down to two biblical terms I think we'll all understand, are shrewdness and purity at odds in evangelicalism? If so, WHY?

Where are those that want to 'have it all', as I do (in my idealistic stupor)?

I resisted posting pointed questions about abortion and gay rights, not because I don't care (I do care!), but because that is off topic in this thread. As a younger evangelical and dare I say of the emergING strain, I do think evangelicals need to show more grace to the younger crowd who have views that might be in conflict, with the caution that those views might NOT be in conflict once you stop that knee-jerk reaction that says there is only one way to perceive an issue, and that is the older. Which issues depends on the issue.

There is a place for younger, conservative, pro-life, pre-modern evangelicals who care deeply about human life suffering and want to promote some act of compassion, I HOPE, and not just under my own roof! Or am I back in my bubble?

*Letitia*

Letitia, I understand your concerns, what I'm not sure of is how you see the entirety. Do you think that we are being extreme in siding one way or the other, or do you see the political issues as creating extremes? Just not sure.

I think no matter which type of emphasis someone tends toward, most Christians are sincere and have a high regard for scriptural authority. I think that is what both sides would say is the foundation underneath the way they prioritize. Intellectual assent is assent to the truth of the scriptures, the Social gospel is ( or should be) the mandate of the scriptures in how one behaves. There is a lot of ground to cover before there is a unity of view on the exegesis, but not that there aren't fervent efforts to understand.

I don't think the conversation is about throwing right/left politics into the conversation, but about the fact that as we work out our faith in this country we make judgments on political issues and discern political platforms in terms of our faith. Unless you subscribe to a separatist type of creed, like the Pietist movement of the past, most likely you will act at times on the political stage in terms of political actions. I think that is why we are talking about right or left politics.

I fully agree that we all ought to give grace to each other and truly listen. The knee-jerk reaction isn't just age-related, though.

There is always room for the truth, for the gospel advancing, for disciples being made, for the real life of faith being lived out and I think Dan expressed that, and the hope for that... as are you, Letitia.

I do want to note that being sincere about serving the Lord and understanding th etruth of scripture will not always mean that we are agreed on what form that takes. That is what the debates and the studies, as well as prayer and grace given all work toward, trying to find that place of agreement.

"shrewdness and purity "
Did Jesus say " be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves"? I think, therefore, shrewdness and purity are both possible. Do they need to be at odds? I am not sure what your idea of this encompasses. What view do you have of the odds of Barnabas and Paul over the matter of Mark? Or Paul and Peter over the matter of how one keeps the law as a believer? Can there be conflict that needs resolution and still be Christians who are trying to follow Christ? that gets back to Rick Ianniello's questions: Can you say a Christian is wrong and call him on the carpet and still be Christian about it? I say yes, but you have to be careful in the doing of it.

The Intellectual Assent and the Social Gospel are both needed parts of the whole, but not everyone exhibits the same insights and gifts for ministry, so naturally they tend to see their own more clearly. Maybe this is why Paul teaches on body ministry and how it differs and yet is all necessary to be complete. I think Dan shared this same message: to look at the whole.
That doesn't mean that there aren't the appearance of partitions, but those aren't the spiritual reality.

I just think that one side has more identified with the political left in this country and some have identified with the right, depending upon their focus: right foundation and values or social justice.

I hope this addresses something of what you have said, if I totally missed it, maybe you could be specific in your discussion of the issues-

I stop reading for a couple of days and you guys leave me a book to read!!! :)

I'm going to back up to Tam and Letitia's comments on my post and leave it there. So much to say, so much to think about.

Letitia: I am not speaking of "younger evangelicals" broadly, but the "young pastors" as I wrote of in my post. Yeah, I was cryptic...don't know why. I take serious issue with Rick Warren (who is younger compared to someone like Billy Graham) who is willing to publically align himself with Barak Obama who is clearly pro-abortion--for the sake of the AIDS issue. I think evangelicals like Warren are distorting the picture in such a way that his followers won't always be able to have a proper perspective on human dignity. It doesn't have to be a left vs. right on these issues, I want to see evangelicals working on these other issues - I already said that one person can't do everything. I'm just not convinced that cobelligerent relationships allow for us to function with our Ultimate authority perspective intact.

Tam wrote,

"In regards to gay rights - I have a hard time understanding how we can respect or love a gay person, with their sexuality being a core part of their identity and humanity, and yet call them a sinner in the next breadth. There is nothing dignified about sin. The two are in conflict, and until that is resolved, I it is difficult me to see homosexuality as a sin."

Let's take another look at this argument, but pick another sin to do it. Alcoholism. Someone very close to me is an alcoholic....this is a "core part of his identity", yet he is also a sinner in that alcoholism hurts himself and other around him. There is nothing dignified about it. Yet, I am able to respect him, love him, and remain in fellowship with him. I don't see the conflict.