Get E-Mail Updates

Randall Balmer answers, "What is an Evangelical?"

orange question markNothing better symbolizes the current confusion over the nature and character of evangelicalism than the subtitle to an article in the current issue of Christianity Today, the magazine considered by its editors the flagship publication of evangelicalism.

The article, written by Aaron B. Franzen, a graduate student in sociology at Baylor University, summarized his research findings among evangelicals who read the Bible for themselves, absent the biases of evangelical leaders.

Franzen discovered that "unlike some other religious practices, reading the Bible more often has some liberalizing effects -- or at least makes the reader more prone to agree with liberals on certain issues."

The puzzle here is not that readers of the Bible would tilt toward the political left. That, for me, as well as for thousands of other American evangelicals, is self-evident. Jesus, after all, summoned his followers to be peacemakers, to turn the other cheek, to welcome the stranger and to care for "the least of these." He also expressed concern for the tiniest sparrow, a sentiment that should find some resonance in our environmental policies.

No, the real conundrum lies in the subtitle the editors of Christianity Today assigned to Franzen's article, which was titled, "A Left-Leaning Text." Adjacent to a picture of a Bible tilted about 45 degrees to the left, the editors added the subtitle: "Survey Surprise: Frequent Bible reading can turn you liberal (in some ways)."

The fact that anyone should register surprise that the Bible points toward the left should be the biggest surprise of all.

But it reflects the unfortunate state of evangelicalism in America today. (I specify "America" because almost everywhere else in the world, aside from some belts of homophobic hysteria in Africa, evangelicals gravitate toward the left of the political spectrum. In Latin America, to cite one example, Pentecostalism has all but displaced liberation theology as the "theology of the people.")

The conundrum of American evangelicalism deepens when one considers the history of American evangelicalism itself, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Antebellum evangelicals mounted a comprehensive campaign to remake society. They worked to abolish slavery and to establish public education, known at the time as "common schools," in order to advance the fortunes of those less fortunate. They advocated equal rights for women, including voting rights, and they sought reform of the penal system (the whole notion of a "penitentiary," where a criminal might be rehabilitated -- become penitent -- and eventually rejoin society).

Antebellum evangelicalism also included a robust peace movement, and Charles Grandison Finney, the most influential evangelical of the 19th century, excoriated capitalism as utterly inimical to Christianity. Finney allowed that "the business aims and practices of business men are almost universally an abomination in the sight of God." What are the principles of those who engage in business? Finney asked. "Seeking their own ends; doing something not for others, but for self."

Other evangelicals echoed Finney's suspicion of business interests, as did evangelicals of a later era, people such as William Jennings Bryan, the three-time Democratic nominee for president. But the one overriding characteristic of these evangelicals was their concern for those on the margins of society.

Contrast that with the sentiments of the tea party and the agenda of the Religious Right.

What happened? The story is too complex to recount here -- and it is the subject of my next book -- but the pages of Christianity Today provide a clue. Just a few issues earlier, the editors ran another of their (seemingly endless) series of puff pieces on hard-right politicians, a series that has included such heroes of the faith as Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich.

The co-mingling of evangelicalism with political conservatism represents a tragic distortion of the faith as well as a forfeiture of the noble legacy of 19th century evangelical activism. I suspect that Franzen, author of "A Left-Leaning Text," is correct: "Those who are most engaged in their faith (by directly and frequently reading its source material) are those who are most supportive of social justice."

Randall BalmerRandall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is Professor of American Religious History at Columbia University and the author, most recently, of The Making of Evangelicalism: From Revivalism to Politics and Beyond.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: liberalinlove

10-14-2011 @ 6:53pm

http://www.mtio.com/articles/a...

"That Finney would be taken seriously as an evangelical, even in the
broadest use of that term, speaks volumes that the term evangelical has
no meaning."

And yet according to this article Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell are both fans of Finney!

Which begs the question...What is an evangelist?

by: liberalinlove

10-03-2011 @ 6:48pm

What happened is we've been bamboozled by professional marketing from those who have corralled a segment of population and then with a great deal of polished rhetoric, wooed them into thinking "all God's children are..."

It is why Jesus likened us to sheep! We like to follow loud and authoritative voices and get plentiful, although not always very nurturing sustenance, in our McChurches.

I love the idea of "taking back" America if it means returning to those principles that early evangelicals, (those who are often recognized by today's evangelical as the pillar of God's America) espoused.

Thanks for giving us a history lesson that is much needed.

by: RachelK

10-03-2011 @ 7:37pm

Because blacks cannot self-select being black, but "evangelical conservatives" can self-select that affiliation -- and it is not mere stereotyping but experience that shows this refugee from the Southern Baptist Convention wars that many of those evangelical conservatives follow whoever shouts the loudest and longest.

by: ThaddeusMay

10-03-2011 @ 7:18pm

What happened is we've been bamboozled by professional marketing from those who have corralled a segment of population and then with a great deal of polished rhetoric, wooed them into thinking "all God's children are..."

Isn't this similar to what Herman Cain said about blacks being brainwashed? It was correctly identified as offensive to state that black individuals are not choosing their political affiliation independently. Why is it acceptable to conclude that evangelical conservatives have been bamboozled?

by: Stein

10-03-2011 @ 8:10pm

Let's not let ThaddeusMay's squabbling about "bamboozled" distract from the substance of the article. Reading the bible and taking it seriously really does make one more liberal in some ways. Tea Party supporters should really engage with this finding and rethink where there true loyalties lie.

by: SamHamilton

10-03-2011 @ 8:37pm

Balmer raises two questions. The first is a good one. The premise on which the second is based rings hollow to me.

The first question: Why are American evangelicals so different politically than evangelicals in other countries? This is a great question, and I think it goes deeper than a mere bamboozling by the leaders of the religious right.

The second question: Why have the political leanings of American evangelicals changed so much from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries to today? I'm not so sure they have, but I'm open to being convinced with evidence. Balmer doesn't really give it here, but perhaps his book will provide more.

Why am I skeptical? Balmer cites examples of causes for which American evangelicals fought in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. What he says is true. There were prominent evangelicals who fought against slavery, for women's suffrage, for quality universal education, for reform of the criminal justice system, etc. However, you can make a list of causes involving those at the margins of society today and find prominent evangelicals who support those causes as well. But was the average or typical American evangelical really all that engaged in these causes back in the 1800s and early 1900s? Was American evangelicalism defined by it's support for these causes or were evangelicals all over the map on these issues, as they are today on other issues?

As Jim Walls and others have pointed out recently, evangelicals are a diverse group of people and have always been. You can find them on the left, the right and in the center, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as what motivates them is their love of God and neighbor.

by: ThaddeusMay

10-03-2011 @ 8:29pm

"Tea Party supporters should really engage with this finding and rethink where there true loyalties lie."

I think there has been a great movement, spearheaded by Sojo and similar organizations, to challenge the mentality that some "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" churches and Christian leaders have pushed, which is that faith and politics are inexorably linked and that link can best be realized in the Republican party.

What I fear is when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction and arrives at intolerance yet again. Both sides of the arc seem to be shouting at each other "how can you call yourself a Christian and not agree with me politically?!"

by: Stein

10-03-2011 @ 8:54pm

Again ThaddeusMay seems to be distracting from engaging in the real substance of the finding. He puts forth a fear-based argument that the pendulum may swing too far in the other direction. Why not just engage directly with the article?

by: Sin_Boldly

10-03-2011 @ 8:57pm

"Isn't this similar to what Herman Cain said about blacks being
brainwashed? It was correctly identified as offensive to state that
black individuals are not choosing their political affiliation
independently. Why is it acceptable to conclude that evangelical
conservatives have been bamboozled?"

Not at all. Evangelical conservative are free to believe or subscribe to whatever theological or philosophical views they find that for themselves provide truths and meaning to their life and faith. What they do not have a right to do is to usurp the mantle of a noble Christian movement (Evangelical Christianity) and to proclaim that theirs is the exclusive and legitimate modern manifestation of that movement and, in fact, is the only "right" and "legitimate" manifestation of Christianity in the world today, which is what many conservative evangelicals and their churches are proclaiming (listen to the radio or go on line and read the many posts/blogs on the world wide web). This is the "bamboozling" that is going on.

Perhaps it is time for some of us to take back the moniker of
evangelical from the likes of Pat Robertson, John Hagee and others who
have too long usurped the title for their exclusive use in clothing
their own brand of Christianity in a mantle of legitimacy and orthodoxy
which many of their fellow Christians, myself included, believe to be wrong headed, mean spirited and
perhaps even, to some degree, un-Christian in its very nature.
To my way of thinking, much of what I have seen and experienced in my life of "Conservative fundamentalist Evangelical Christians" certainly does not flow from the life and teaching of Emanuel, the Christ, Jesus, Son of God or Prince of Peace.

"Conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christians" are free to believe and even says what they want and to live their lives in and for their faith. They are not the only game in town, however, nor is theirs the only story/truth to be told. I, along with many millions of the Christian faithful, will never again allow their narrow story to be proclaimed as the exclusive truth about God's saving grace in the world or to allow them to claim the mantle of evangelical as their exclusive garb. To do otherwise would be to dishonor the enumerable evangelicals from our past and the glorious and righteous legacy they left us, and to perhaps even allow our great faith to be hijacked from its truer and more noble trajectory through the history of humankind's presence on this small orb in the immense universe of God's creation.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-03-2011 @ 10:16pm

Jim Wallis just wrote a post about the diversity of Evangelicalism--striking a very different tone than many of his posts over the last several years--but sounding very much like an earlier Jim Wallis.

And now another author in a parade of Sojo contributors whose books depend on a polemic in which they represent a progressive politics juxtaposed against a one-dimensional right-wing Evangelicalism.

Why not build a case for your position within the context of where Evangelicals are at--instead of battling a 'straw man?'

by: CommLaw

10-03-2011 @ 11:57pm

That Finney would be taken seriously as an evangelical, even in the broadest use of that term, speaks volumes that the term evangelical has no meaning. Finney was more political moralist than anything. He denied or distorted most of the central doctrines of Christianity. His continued popularity by people like Dr. Balmer who laud him as evangelical simply means that the term evangelical has no meaning. Finney was by no means an evangelical in the classic sense. He was a utopian moralist. How did that work out for him?

His revivals were abject failures. The burned over district in which he preached gave birth to the largest cults of today. There is a direct link.

by: jesse3

10-04-2011 @ 1:04am

"Randall Balmer answers, "What is an Evangelical?""
--Did he?

by: SamHamilton

10-04-2011 @ 1:48am

But the one overriding characteristic of these evangelicals was their concern for those on the margins of society.

jesse - Perhaps that was his answer... I don't know.

by: Lisa_Belise

10-04-2011 @ 3:07am

You missed it-

"The story is too complex to recount here - and it is the subject of my next book"

I hope he's not going to CHARGE MONEY for that book. That would make him a capitalist. What is it called if you write books about God and the Church for money? Oh yeah....liberalism.

by: Lisa_Belise

10-04-2011 @ 3:08am

Because you can't sell books that way?

by: Lisa_Belise

10-04-2011 @ 3:15am

" Democrats are free to believe or subscribe to whatever
theological or philosophical views they find that for themselves provide
truths and meaning to their life and faith. What they do not have a
right to do is to usurp the mantle of a noble movement
(Republicanism) and to proclaim that theirs is the exclusive
and legitimate modern manifestation of that movement and, in fact, is
the only "right" and "legitimate" manifestation of in the
world today, which is what many Democrats and their caucuses are proclaiming (listen to the radio or go on line and read the
many posts/blogs on the world wide web). This is the "bamboozling" that
is going on."

And the point goes to ThaddeusMay

by: liberalinlove

10-04-2011 @ 3:57am

What, are you serious. In the circles I grew up in, he was in the who's who of evangelists saving America!

by: liberalinlove

10-04-2011 @ 3:56am

You need to read Frankie Schaeffer's books on the history of corralling the religious right's votes for candidates. If you are a fundamental Christian, as I am, and have voted right-wing as I did, you may remember the rhetoric that swept us all along the campaign trail during Focus on the Family's, "all is lost if you vote for anyone but" campaigning.

I've seen both sides of the fence and feel pretty bamboozled for assuming my faith was in question if I read or looked at anything outside the anti-abortion, anti-gay agenda that bought our vote.

by: liberalinlove

10-04-2011 @ 3:59am

Amen and thanks!

by: CommLaw

10-04-2011 @ 11:25am

I am very serious. I know that many consider Finney a hero. Obviously, they do not know what he believed.

Do you know anything of what he believed? His theology? Doctrine?

I think you would be surprised. You ought to check it out.

Rhetoric? And you give credence to Frankie Schaeffer's screeds about extreme right wingers creating a theocracy?

Are you serious?

by: Carolee138

10-04-2011 @ 12:56pm

I feel it misrepresents and dishonors Jesus for the religious right Republicans to call themselves Christian. The Republican ideology represents selfish greed, which is the opposite of what Jesus teaches us.

by: SamHamilton

10-04-2011 @ 1:17pm

Carolee - Be careful. First, I think you're misjudging the motivation of a lot of people who would consider themselves "religious right Republicans." Second, couldn't your statement about "religious right Republicans" be said about any group of Christians? Remember, we all fall short. Do you consistently represent and honor Jesus? Do I?

by: Stein

10-04-2011 @ 1:47pm

I still remain astounded how we so easily partition Jesus' message away from our thinking.

The religious right must read the words "Blessed are you who are poor; woe to the rich", "Give away all that you have and come and follow me", "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, to preach good news to the poor", "release for the captives", "Do to others as you wish they would treat you.", etc.

The Tea Party advocates pretty much the opposite in nearly every regard. And yet, after reading those words, Christians can still support the Tea Party. It boggles the mind.

And then CT acts like it is a surprise that the bible is a closer fit to the left than to the right ("A Left-Leaning text"), as if they were somehow unfamiliar with its content all along.

As I say, I am astounded at our human ability to partition away what we don't like to hear, and go our own way.

by: BlueDeacon

10-06-2011 @ 7:35pm

Actually, "taking care of the poor" is not, and never was, the church's responsibility -- the only reason the early church did so was because many of its members were "down-and-out" and thus could identify with the dregs of society. Much of the modern institutional church simply doesn't have the ability to minister to the poor because, having been the cultural authority in society for so long, it generally just doesn't know how.

What is clear from the Scriptures, OTOH, is that the church should work and fight for justice -- the ability for people to make their own way without charity for the disadvantaged. The context of, say, Isaiah 1:17 ("Defend the fatherless, plead the case of the widow") is in the political arena. But again, because the church in this country is so in bed with the culture, those words straight from God's Word represent a threat.

by: TrebHawkins

10-05-2011 @ 12:07am

Where in the Bible do you find the mandate for Caesar (the government) to take from the rich and give to the poor? Jesus told us to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God, the things that are God's".
The only corporate mandate to give to the poor was charged to the church and not any government or governmental entity.
We (Christian's) are commanded to individually give to the poor and needy. Giving is my personal responsibility.
The Proverbs 31 woman is a perfect example. v. 16 "She considers a field and buys it; From her profits she plants a vineyard". She was commended for making a profit, not castigated as an evil capitalist whom the government must tax. v. 20 "She extends her had to the poor, Yes, she reaches out her hands to the needy". She gave personally to the poor. v. 21 "She makes tapestry for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple". She is very rich!
Caring for "the least of these" as you call the poor and needy is the Christian's personal responsibility. I don't find anywhere in God's Word, even the hint that we as Christian's should ever abrogate our responsibilities to the government or to even encourage anything of the sort.

by: Carolee138

10-05-2011 @ 12:53pm

I hear you, Sam. After 65 years of going to church every Sunday and teaching home Bible studies, I now consider myself to be less "religious" and more "spiritual". I don't call myself a Christian anymore. If asked, I say I'm a follower of the teaching of Jesus in the life-long process of being transformed.

by: liberalinlove

10-05-2011 @ 3:44pm

As Frankie was there filming the event and in on the back room discussions, I'd say yes! I believe Francis would turn over in his grave if he saw how ugly it has become.

by: rob madrid

11-09-2011 @ 10:57am

I'm surprised no one brought this up. There's a simple reason why American Evangelist generally lean to the right. Abortion and Gay marriage. Plus the fact that Americans tend to be more conservative than Europeans.

On the other hand my brother in law runs an out reach to the mentally ill and the vast majority of supporters are churches.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Sin_Boldly

10-03-2011 @ 8:57pm

"Isn't this similar to what Herman Cain said about blacks being
brainwashed? It was correctly identified as offensive to state that
black individuals are not choosing their political affiliation
independently. Why is it acceptable to conclude that evangelical
conservatives have been bamboozled?"

Not at all. Evangelical conservative are free to believe or subscribe to whatever theological or philosophical views they find that for themselves provide truths and meaning to their life and faith. What they do not have a right to do is to usurp the mantle of a noble Christian movement (Evangelical Christianity) and to proclaim that theirs is the exclusive and legitimate modern manifestation of that movement and, in fact, is the only "right" and "legitimate" manifestation of Christianity in the world today, which is what many conservative evangelicals and their churches are proclaiming (listen to the radio or go on line and read the many posts/blogs on the world wide web). This is the "bamboozling" that is going on.

Perhaps it is time for some of us to take back the moniker of
evangelical from the likes of Pat Robertson, John Hagee and others who
have too long usurped the title for their exclusive use in clothing
their own brand of Christianity in a mantle of legitimacy and orthodoxy
which many of their fellow Christians, myself included, believe to be wrong headed, mean spirited and
perhaps even, to some degree, un-Christian in its very nature.
To my way of thinking, much of what I have seen and experienced in my life of "Conservative fundamentalist Evangelical Christians" certainly does not flow from the life and teaching of Emanuel, the Christ, Jesus, Son of God or Prince of Peace.

"Conservative fundamentalist evangelical Christians" are free to believe and even says what they want and to live their lives in and for their faith. They are not the only game in town, however, nor is theirs the only story/truth to be told. I, along with many millions of the Christian faithful, will never again allow their narrow story to be proclaimed as the exclusive truth about God's saving grace in the world or to allow them to claim the mantle of evangelical as their exclusive garb. To do otherwise would be to dishonor the enumerable evangelicals from our past and the glorious and righteous legacy they left us, and to perhaps even allow our great faith to be hijacked from its truer and more noble trajectory through the history of humankind's presence on this small orb in the immense universe of God's creation.

by: Carolee138

10-04-2011 @ 12:56pm

I feel it misrepresents and dishonors Jesus for the religious right Republicans to call themselves Christian. The Republican ideology represents selfish greed, which is the opposite of what Jesus teaches us.

by: jesse3

10-04-2011 @ 1:04am

"Randall Balmer answers, "What is an Evangelical?""
--Did he?

by: Lisa_Belise

10-04-2011 @ 3:15am

" Democrats are free to believe or subscribe to whatever
theological or philosophical views they find that for themselves provide
truths and meaning to their life and faith. What they do not have a
right to do is to usurp the mantle of a noble movement
(Republicanism) and to proclaim that theirs is the exclusive
and legitimate modern manifestation of that movement and, in fact, is
the only "right" and "legitimate" manifestation of in the
world today, which is what many Democrats and their caucuses are proclaiming (listen to the radio or go on line and read the
many posts/blogs on the world wide web). This is the "bamboozling" that
is going on."

And the point goes to ThaddeusMay

by: TrebHawkins

10-05-2011 @ 12:07am

Where in the Bible do you find the mandate for Caesar (the government) to take from the rich and give to the poor? Jesus told us to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God, the things that are God's".
The only corporate mandate to give to the poor was charged to the church and not any government or governmental entity.
We (Christian's) are commanded to individually give to the poor and needy. Giving is my personal responsibility.
The Proverbs 31 woman is a perfect example. v. 16 "She considers a field and buys it; From her profits she plants a vineyard". She was commended for making a profit, not castigated as an evil capitalist whom the government must tax. v. 20 "She extends her had to the poor, Yes, she reaches out her hands to the needy". She gave personally to the poor. v. 21 "She makes tapestry for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple". She is very rich!
Caring for "the least of these" as you call the poor and needy is the Christian's personal responsibility. I don't find anywhere in God's Word, even the hint that we as Christian's should ever abrogate our responsibilities to the government or to even encourage anything of the sort.

by: ThaddeusMay

10-03-2011 @ 8:29pm

"Tea Party supporters should really engage with this finding and rethink where there true loyalties lie."

I think there has been a great movement, spearheaded by Sojo and similar organizations, to challenge the mentality that some "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" churches and Christian leaders have pushed, which is that faith and politics are inexorably linked and that link can best be realized in the Republican party.

What I fear is when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction and arrives at intolerance yet again. Both sides of the arc seem to be shouting at each other "how can you call yourself a Christian and not agree with me politically?!"

by: SamHamilton

10-04-2011 @ 1:48am

But the one overriding characteristic of these evangelicals was their concern for those on the margins of society.

jesse - Perhaps that was his answer... I don't know.

by: Lisa_Belise

10-04-2011 @ 3:08am

Because you can't sell books that way?

by: CommLaw

10-04-2011 @ 11:25am

I am very serious. I know that many consider Finney a hero. Obviously, they do not know what he believed.

Do you know anything of what he believed? His theology? Doctrine?

I think you would be surprised. You ought to check it out.

Rhetoric? And you give credence to Frankie Schaeffer's screeds about extreme right wingers creating a theocracy?

Are you serious?

by: liberalinlove

10-05-2011 @ 3:44pm

As Frankie was there filming the event and in on the back room discussions, I'd say yes! I believe Francis would turn over in his grave if he saw how ugly it has become.

by: rob madrid

11-09-2011 @ 10:57am

I'm surprised no one brought this up. There's a simple reason why American Evangelist generally lean to the right. Abortion and Gay marriage. Plus the fact that Americans tend to be more conservative than Europeans.

On the other hand my brother in law runs an out reach to the mentally ill and the vast majority of supporters are churches.

by: SamHamilton

10-03-2011 @ 8:37pm

Balmer raises two questions. The first is a good one. The premise on which the second is based rings hollow to me.

The first question: Why are American evangelicals so different politically than evangelicals in other countries? This is a great question, and I think it goes deeper than a mere bamboozling by the leaders of the religious right.

The second question: Why have the political leanings of American evangelicals changed so much from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries to today? I'm not so sure they have, but I'm open to being convinced with evidence. Balmer doesn't really give it here, but perhaps his book will provide more.

Why am I skeptical? Balmer cites examples of causes for which American evangelicals fought in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. What he says is true. There were prominent evangelicals who fought against slavery, for women's suffrage, for quality universal education, for reform of the criminal justice system, etc. However, you can make a list of causes involving those at the margins of society today and find prominent evangelicals who support those causes as well. But was the average or typical American evangelical really all that engaged in these causes back in the 1800s and early 1900s? Was American evangelicalism defined by it's support for these causes or were evangelicals all over the map on these issues, as they are today on other issues?

As Jim Walls and others have pointed out recently, evangelicals are a diverse group of people and have always been. You can find them on the left, the right and in the center, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as what motivates them is their love of God and neighbor.

by: Stein

10-03-2011 @ 8:54pm

Again ThaddeusMay seems to be distracting from engaging in the real substance of the finding. He puts forth a fear-based argument that the pendulum may swing too far in the other direction. Why not just engage directly with the article?

by: letjusticerolldown

10-03-2011 @ 10:16pm

Jim Wallis just wrote a post about the diversity of Evangelicalism--striking a very different tone than many of his posts over the last several years--but sounding very much like an earlier Jim Wallis.

And now another author in a parade of Sojo contributors whose books depend on a polemic in which they represent a progressive politics juxtaposed against a one-dimensional right-wing Evangelicalism.

Why not build a case for your position within the context of where Evangelicals are at--instead of battling a 'straw man?'

by: Lisa_Belise

10-04-2011 @ 3:07am

You missed it-

"The story is too complex to recount here - and it is the subject of my next book"

I hope he's not going to CHARGE MONEY for that book. That would make him a capitalist. What is it called if you write books about God and the Church for money? Oh yeah....liberalism.

by: liberalinlove

10-04-2011 @ 3:59am

Amen and thanks!

by: Stein

10-04-2011 @ 1:47pm

I still remain astounded how we so easily partition Jesus' message away from our thinking.

The religious right must read the words "Blessed are you who are poor; woe to the rich", "Give away all that you have and come and follow me", "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, to preach good news to the poor", "release for the captives", "Do to others as you wish they would treat you.", etc.

The Tea Party advocates pretty much the opposite in nearly every regard. And yet, after reading those words, Christians can still support the Tea Party. It boggles the mind.

And then CT acts like it is a surprise that the bible is a closer fit to the left than to the right ("A Left-Leaning text"), as if they were somehow unfamiliar with its content all along.

As I say, I am astounded at our human ability to partition away what we don't like to hear, and go our own way.

by: liberalinlove

10-03-2011 @ 6:48pm

What happened is we've been bamboozled by professional marketing from those who have corralled a segment of population and then with a great deal of polished rhetoric, wooed them into thinking "all God's children are..."

It is why Jesus likened us to sheep! We like to follow loud and authoritative voices and get plentiful, although not always very nurturing sustenance, in our McChurches.

I love the idea of "taking back" America if it means returning to those principles that early evangelicals, (those who are often recognized by today's evangelical as the pillar of God's America) espoused.

Thanks for giving us a history lesson that is much needed.

by: ThaddeusMay

10-03-2011 @ 7:18pm

What happened is we've been bamboozled by professional marketing from those who have corralled a segment of population and then with a great deal of polished rhetoric, wooed them into thinking "all God's children are..."

Isn't this similar to what Herman Cain said about blacks being brainwashed? It was correctly identified as offensive to state that black individuals are not choosing their political affiliation independently. Why is it acceptable to conclude that evangelical conservatives have been bamboozled?

by: Stein

10-03-2011 @ 8:10pm

Let's not let ThaddeusMay's squabbling about "bamboozled" distract from the substance of the article. Reading the bible and taking it seriously really does make one more liberal in some ways. Tea Party supporters should really engage with this finding and rethink where there true loyalties lie.

by: CommLaw

10-03-2011 @ 11:57pm

That Finney would be taken seriously as an evangelical, even in the broadest use of that term, speaks volumes that the term evangelical has no meaning. Finney was more political moralist than anything. He denied or distorted most of the central doctrines of Christianity. His continued popularity by people like Dr. Balmer who laud him as evangelical simply means that the term evangelical has no meaning. Finney was by no means an evangelical in the classic sense. He was a utopian moralist. How did that work out for him?

His revivals were abject failures. The burned over district in which he preached gave birth to the largest cults of today. There is a direct link.

by: liberalinlove

10-04-2011 @ 3:56am

You need to read Frankie Schaeffer's books on the history of corralling the religious right's votes for candidates. If you are a fundamental Christian, as I am, and have voted right-wing as I did, you may remember the rhetoric that swept us all along the campaign trail during Focus on the Family's, "all is lost if you vote for anyone but" campaigning.

I've seen both sides of the fence and feel pretty bamboozled for assuming my faith was in question if I read or looked at anything outside the anti-abortion, anti-gay agenda that bought our vote.

by: liberalinlove

10-04-2011 @ 3:57am

What, are you serious. In the circles I grew up in, he was in the who's who of evangelists saving America!

by: Carolee138

10-05-2011 @ 12:53pm

I hear you, Sam. After 65 years of going to church every Sunday and teaching home Bible studies, I now consider myself to be less "religious" and more "spiritual". I don't call myself a Christian anymore. If asked, I say I'm a follower of the teaching of Jesus in the life-long process of being transformed.

by: BlueDeacon

10-06-2011 @ 7:35pm

Actually, "taking care of the poor" is not, and never was, the church's responsibility -- the only reason the early church did so was because many of its members were "down-and-out" and thus could identify with the dregs of society. Much of the modern institutional church simply doesn't have the ability to minister to the poor because, having been the cultural authority in society for so long, it generally just doesn't know how.

What is clear from the Scriptures, OTOH, is that the church should work and fight for justice -- the ability for people to make their own way without charity for the disadvantaged. The context of, say, Isaiah 1:17 ("Defend the fatherless, plead the case of the widow") is in the political arena. But again, because the church in this country is so in bed with the culture, those words straight from God's Word represent a threat.

by: SamHamilton

10-04-2011 @ 1:17pm

Carolee - Be careful. First, I think you're misjudging the motivation of a lot of people who would consider themselves "religious right Republicans." Second, couldn't your statement about "religious right Republicans" be said about any group of Christians? Remember, we all fall short. Do you consistently represent and honor Jesus? Do I?

by: liberalinlove

10-14-2011 @ 6:53pm

http://www.mtio.com/articles/a...

"That Finney would be taken seriously as an evangelical, even in the
broadest use of that term, speaks volumes that the term evangelical has
no meaning."

And yet according to this article Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell are both fans of Finney!

Which begs the question...What is an evangelist?

by: RachelK

10-03-2011 @ 7:37pm

Because blacks cannot self-select being black, but "evangelical conservatives" can self-select that affiliation -- and it is not mere stereotyping but experience that shows this refugee from the Southern Baptist Convention wars that many of those evangelical conservatives follow whoever shouts the loudest and longest.