{"id":1165,"date":"2005-03-29T10:09:44","date_gmt":"2005-03-29T14:09:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/nateptest\/2005\/03\/29\/we-found-some-evangelicals\/"},"modified":"2005-03-29T10:09:44","modified_gmt":"2005-03-29T14:09:44","slug":"we-found-some-evangelicals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/2005\/03\/29\/we-found-some-evangelicals\/","title":{"rendered":"We found some evangelicals!"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Apparently, the big media outlets discovered evangelical Christians this week.  The New York Times Magazine ran a long piece on the phenomenon of the exurban megachurch<\/a>.  Jeff Sharlet over at The Revealer has excellent analysis<\/a>, and many of his commenters have pretty intelligent stuff to say, too.<\/p>\n

This morning, the Boston Globe ran its “Meet the evangelicals” story<\/a>. 
\nAlthough I enjoyed the NYT article and its semi-practice of Weberian
\nideal type analysis, today’s Globe story was more interesting. 
\nIt, also, substituted this particular family, the Wilkersons, for a
\nlarger phenomenon, but unlike the Times, Brian MacQuarrie did not shy
\naway from presenting the contradictions and harshness of the
\nevangelical worldview.<\/p>\n

We learn that the Wilkersons feel bad and even attacked that they are
\nthought of as narrow-minded and exclusionary people, but we also learn
\nwhat they believe.<\/p>\n

\n

\n”Christianity is lived out every hour of every day. I have no hidden
\nagenda,” Michael says. Thumbing through a Bible, he adds, ”I don’t
\nknow why people hate this story so much.”<\/p>\n

\nTo him, the media and entertainment industry have for decades
\ncaricatured devout Christians as narrow-minded, judgmental bumpkins. In
\nthe Wilkersons’ view, Hollywood is out of touch with the mainstream,
\ninstead of the reverse.<\/p>\n

\n”Those people don’t have a clue,” Michael says, shaking his head in disgust….\n <\/p>\n

\nOn the subject of gays, the Wilkersons say they oppose discrimination,
\nbut their view of marriage is a divinely-sanctioned biblical one,
\nlimited to a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family.
\nMichael turns to St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, 6:9-11,
\nwhich reads in part in the New International version: ”Neither the
\nsexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor
\nhomosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
\nslanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” He
\ninterprets the Scripture to mean gays cannot be admitted to heaven.<\/p>\n

\n”I don’t hate anyone who’s a homosexual,” Michael says. ”But do I hate what they do? Yes.”\n<\/p>\n

[What do we do?  One
\nwonders if he knows.  And from what he thinks he knows, he might
\nconsider how his subculture, evangelical Christianity, plays out in the
\npopular imagination before assuming he knows much about gays. -Ed.<\/span>]\n <\/p>\n

\nOn abortion, the Wilkersons are adamant: ”A life is a life,” MarCee
\nsays, and to her, life begins at conception. The only possible
\nexception for abortion, MarCee says, is when the life of the mother is
\nin jeopardy — not for rape, and not for incest.\n <\/p>\n

[If a life is a life, then
\nwouldn’t taking the life of the embryo or fetus to save another life
\nstill constitute some form of killing?  If it’s an absolute, then
\nhow do we justify that exception? -Ed.<\/span>]\n <\/p>\n

Like many evangelical congregations, Hope Church is nondenominational.
\nIts members include former mainstream Protestants as well as one-time
\nCatholics ”who now are Christians,” Michael says. ”The Catholic
\nreligion? I’m not too sure that Jesus is a big, integral part of that.”<\/p>\n

[Have they ever been in a Roman Catholic Church?  Jesus is usually pretty front and center, literally even.  -Ed.<\/span>]<\/p>\n

…”Basically, it comes down to there’s only one God,” Michael says.
\n”You have to come to that conclusion: There’s one way to that God, and
\nthat’s through Jesus.”<\/p>\n

\nUnfortunately, Wilkerson said sadly, the ”harsh reality” of the Bible precludes salvation for non-Christians.\n<\/p>\n

When asked if that means Gandhi, a Hindu who reached across religious
\nlines, was denied entry to heaven, Wilkerson dropped his head and
\nnodded.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It sounds to me like this family (who may or may not actually
\nrepresent evangelicals [although my experience leads me to say that
\nthey’re pretty representative], but who are being made to function as
\nsuch) has some hatred of gays (the separation of action from identity
\nin any identity\/affinity group is highly problematic), believes Roman
\nCatholics are probably not Christians (one wonders if they know where
\ntheir own religion came from), hasn’t thought through the full
\nimplications of their position on abortion, and may even be ashamed of
\nthe absoluteness of their belief that only their particular form of
\nChristianity goes to heaven.\n<\/p>\n

One thing that comes up in the Globe article more than that in the
\nTimes is the not just the harsh absoluteness of evangelical life, but
\nthe rule-oriented basis of it.  Don’t listen to the wrong sorts of
\nmusic, don’t be gay, don’t have an abortion, don’t, don’t, don’t. 
\nRules can be useful, but in this sense, the rules seem to be the ticket
\ninto heaven, which is the real goal of this life.  \n<\/p>\n

Everything that the Wilkersons do orients them to the reward of
\nheaven. “In the end, two cars, a pickup, a nice home, good jobs, and a
\ncomfortable life in the American heartland are all temporary amenities
\nto the Wilkersons and the other churchgoers who fill Hope’s sanctuary
\nwith song and prayer each Sunday. They have their eyes on the
\nhereafter.”<\/p>\n

This attention to heaven seems the largest tragedy for a people who have such a focus on
\nnot being like the world.  (In the circles I grew up in, a
\nfavorite Scripture to quote was, “Be in the world but not of the
\nworld.”  There was even a Christian pop song that used this as a
\nchorus.)  It’s a capitalist, materially oriented way of
\napproaching their faith.  Faith is a transactional
\ninteraction–it’s like employment in a firm.  God sets out a contract for that which He expects me
\nto do.  I fulfill those obligations.  I am compensated with
\neternal life in heaven.\n<\/p>\n

But the faith of these people, at least in the Globe article,
\ndoesn’t seem to have much to actually do with God.  Rules,
\nyes.  Regulating other people, yes.  God?\n<\/p>\n

(In the church that my parents go to, which is a member of the same
\ndenomination as the Wilkersons’ [contrary to the Globe reporter’s
\nassertion, “Evangelical Free” is a denominational marker, even if the
\ncongregation wants to downplay it], they have a group for Adventists
\n“recovering from legalism.”  I always found this a remarkable
\nshort-sightedness, since Protestant evagelicals are a pretty rule-bound
\nlot of people.)\n<\/p>\n

For depth on that matter, we have to go to the Times article.\n<\/p>\n

The spiritual sell is also a soft one. There are no crosses, no images
\nof Jesus or any other form of religious iconography. Bibles are
\noptional (all biblical quotations are flashed on huge video screens
\nabove the stage). Almost half of each service is given over to live
\nChristian rock with simple, repetitive lyrics in which Jesus is treated
\nlike a high-school crush: ”Jesus, you are my best friend, and you will
\nalways be. Nothing will ever change that.” Committing your life to
\nChrist is as easy as checking a box on the communication cards that can
\nbe found on the back of every chair. (Last year, 1,055 people did so.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is what bothered me about the Christians portrayed in the Times
\narticle.  There is no challenge, no difficulty, no struggle
\ninvolved in their faith.  Faith is the means by which one
\novercomes struggle, but it is not a struggle in itself.  But what
\nboth hagiographers and historians seem to tell us is that “saints”,
\n“religious innovators”, and the like all struggle with their faith and
\ntheir faith leads them not out of struggle but into the fray of
\nit.  Gandhi certainly did not see faith as a way out of trouble
\nand trial–it led him straight to it.  In light of the Passion
\nlast week and Easter for this week, neither did Jesus.  Neither
\ndid Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King, or Oscar Romero.\n<\/p>\n

Not all evangelicals think this way, as there is some trenchant
\ncriticism out there from within the evangelical movement.  (See,
\nfor example, Ronald Sider’s “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience<\/a>”
\nin Christianity Today.)  And in fact, the Wilkersons seem to be
\nenacting many of the problematic elements that Sider points out. 
\nWhere’s the talk about materialism and the poor?  All we have is
\nevidence of material accumlation.  What about racism?  They
\nseem to be tolerant of other races, as long as those people are also
\ntheir sort of Christians.  But are there many non-white people in
\ntheir church?  Why or why not?\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nUntil then, the Wilkersons say, their journey is one worth emulating.<\/p>\n

\n”If you want the country to be better, you would want to take a model
\nof a husband and wife and a family who wants to do the right thing,”
\nMichael says. ”You would think that would be the model the country
\nwould want to go after.\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Absolutely not.  That model neatly ravaged body and soul in my case, and I have seen it do the same to many others.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Apparently, the big media outlets discovered evangelical Christians this week.  The New York Times Magazine ran a long piece on the phenomenon of the exurban megachurch.  Jeff Sharlet over at The Revealer has excellent analysis, and many of his commenters have pretty intelligent stuff to say, too. This morning, the Boston Globe ran its “Meet […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":709,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rayleejun"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5G3PH-iN","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/709"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}