This is the title of a tract that a man handed Nadia outside a coffee shop in my neighborhood. It's from a fundie Baptist church nearby. Lot's of raging quotes; here are a couple, complete w/ colonial-style over-capitaliziation-of-Nouns:
"Churches and Pastors and Christians today do not know anything about holiness. They are so worldly and the world is so churchy. Preachers today do not preach against the sins they preached against in yesteryear. Where's the Prophet? Where's the Man of God? Who'll cry out against the sins of the Church members."
"Most preachers are controlled by pulpit committees and the IRS."
"Call us if you're searching for a hellfire & brimstone Baptist Church in your area that believes the King James bible and stands for something"
"We welcome all Religions & Cultures"
This last one is particularly rich given that the man who handed the tract to Nadia is Latino and speaks very limited English. While one never knows, it's a safe guess that he's not a cradle fundamentalist Baptist, and neither are his friends and family--but good chance they're Christians. Nothing like being "welcomed" by being told your faith isn't good enough and you're going to burn in h-e-l-l.
This is the thing that makes it hard for me to go too far down the "conservative and liberal Christians each have their blind spots and intolerances; let's meet in the middle and try to understand each other better--we're all equally guilty in this area." (And yes, I know that this tract comes from some pretty fringy folks, but the mainstream religious right sentiment is softer and kinder more than it's substantively different.) But, while the liberal church may read the Bible just as selectively as the religious right, ignore just as many of its own doctrinal tensions and contradictions, and look down on people who disagree, I've never, ever heard a left-leaning mainliner--fringe or otherwise--say or even imply that conservative Christians aren't real Christians, or that they're going to hell.
This is a difference that matters.
Jesus Passion made present John 18 1 19 42
5 weeks ago
While not one, I like the fundamentalists. The more radical the better. They know what they believe--there is a hell. They think the rest of us are going there and are actively trying to prevent it. Noble, no?
ReplyDeleteTheres a lot of people out there who consider themselves Christians who haven't met what I believe is the requirement for going to heaven.
ReplyDeleteSo what does the liberal church do when someone hasn't met the requirement(s) to go to heaven?
Is it kept a secret from them? Do the left-leaning mainliners use a lot of "maybe"s or "probably"s or "you never know"s so as to not offend?
I'm actually very interested in how it works.
I'm all for understanding where people are coming from in creating their religious beliefs. In the end though its all about looking at the information available and asking God for wisdom and conviction.
Mark: sure, the part about wanting other people to have what you have is noble. But the part about wanting to add converts to increase your own riches and influence is a little less so. And it's pretty hard to discern where one stops and the other starts--especially in a context as manipulative and judgmental as the one I'm highlighting here (again, a group I identify as fringe, not representative of conservative evangelicals).
ReplyDeleteMike: Good question, and there isn't one answer. But I think that at our best, we mainline Protestants conceive of doctrine as existing in two lists--essential and nonessential. The essential list, the things that define Christian belief, is short. Something like this: Jesus is God's son, and in his death he reconciled/reconciles the whole world to God. The nonessential list is where other doctrinal beliefs go--everything from the particular theology of the crucifixion to the nature of the Bible to our primary mission in the world. These are things that we agree to disagree about.
Most evangelicals I know also have two lists--only the fundie fringe described above has just one, on which every detail they believe (the KJV Bible in particular!) is required to avoid burning in hell. But evangelicals' essential list tends to be much longer and more specific, something like this: the Bible is completely inerrant, salvation is an individualistic thing based on saying a sinner's prayer, Jesus' death saves us specifically by appeasing God's need for a blood payment for human sin, the community of the church is secondary to your personal relationship with Jesus, and Christians' primary task in the world is getting other people to become Christians. I happen to disagree with all these things, and I even think the issues behind my disagreement are pretty important--but I DON'T believe they define the difference between who is and isn't a real Christian.
As I see it, this is why evangelicals and liberal/mainline Protestants don't relate to each other on equal terms--only one side is threatening the other with hell. I grew up in a quintessentially evangelical church, but we rarely used the word--instead we just said "Christian." I'm convinced this is why--because there's no need to specify which kind of Christian you are when you think you're the only kind.
Having said all that, I do agree with you that it comes down to understanding what information is out there and relying on God for wisdom. And I appreciation your genuine interest.
So does hell exist or has it been rendered obsolete by the death of Jesus when "he reconciled/reconciles the whole world to God"?
ReplyDeleteAre there certain books in the Bible you believe to be errant? Or is it the translation you believe is errant?
I should clarify: I like fundamentalists because I know how to engage in dialogue with them. If I make a statement, "we should do more for the poor." Then I must back it up with scripture, "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.(Gal 2:10)" Discussion continues, common ground established, and perhaps world views change.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, if you had included a scripture to back up your assertion that it is wrong to say that one group of Christians is going to hell. Then perhaps your blog could be read by a conservative and change his or her mind.
I should add that I really enjoy reading your blog.
I think most christians believe as you do and most Christian churches teach the essential and non essentials doctrines.
ReplyDeleteI believe when people refer to themselves as Christian instead of breaking it down into specific denominations it does more to unify around the essential doctrine of Christ as saviour/reconciler.
Its saying we may not agree on everything or much of anything. But we agree on one thing, which is the most important thing.
Jerry: You may be right about why people self-identify as "Christian" instead of a more specific label--I'm often guilty of accepting the most cynical of all plausible interpretations. But even if you are right, it raises the question of how long their own essential lists are. I'd like to think they're as short as mine, but experience among evangelicals suggests otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy your blog. I have just discovered it so I am new to it. I do hope you do not lump all of us evangelicals into the same box. I belong to a church that is, in your words, fundamentalist. I do not agree with everything that is preached or believed, but I do believe more of what this church believes than what the ELCA believes (just as an example). I find it disconcerting when either side makes general statements about the other. To say that the liberal church is somehow better or more "Christian" than the conservative church is a very condemning statement and seems to close off the dialogue that I always believed the liberal Christians were tryin to start. Why bring up a fringe element of the conservative side to open a discussion? If you truly have never had a liberal Christian treat you as badly as this man treated you then I would have to believe you have never disagreed with a liberal over some of their deeply-held beliefs. I have been called stupid and treated as if I didn't have a brain by liberals who refused to have discussions with me because I had the audacity to question some of their thoughts. I have had to limit my discussions with family members over numerous topics because I do not follow the party line. The fundamentalist Nadia ran into was wrong. Many of the tracts I have seen passed out by churches are mean-spirited and wrong. This does not make all of us fundamentalist evangelicals mean-spirited and wrong. It would be SO nice if we could discuss these types of issues without resorting to completely disregarding one side of the issue or other.
ReplyDeleteHi Phil,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading.
I certainly do not lump all evangelicals in the same box, and I tried to make it clear in this post that I'm well aware that this particular tract/church/individual is pretty far outside the evan. mainstream. And yes, both conservatives and liberals can be rude, patronizing, and blind to their own faults, as I started to get at toward the end of my post.
But while I've heard liberal Christians--by which I mean theologically liberal, politics aside--rail against conservatism many times, I've not heard them play the "they're not real Christians" card or condemn other Christians to hell. If you've had that experience, I'm sorry. I'd be interested to know where the individual(s)in question were coming from, as I'm not aware of any denomination or movement within liberal Christianity that teaches that other people who profess the name of Christ are mistaken/lying in doing so. On this particular issue, the subject of my post, the same cannot be said of their conservative counterpart.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI will concede the point that conservatives tend to be much more strident in their belief in this point and in fact look and act quite foolish when they make statements like the ones in this particular tract. But to claim the high road for the liberal wing of the church on this point is going a bit far. While the condemnation may be a lot more subtleor just a bit more subtle, it is condemnation nonetheless.
You ask for an example. Try discussing homosexuality with a liberal Christian whan you do not agree with their beliefs. A hot-button, to be sure. Homosexuals are not condemned to hell, as many conservatives wouold have you believe, but neither are they free from sin as tha liberals would have me believe. When attempting to have this discussion, not only am I treated as if I am dense, but I have heard from a member of the ELCA that true Christians would be more tolerant and more willing to accept the sexual orientation of others. Not quite condemning me to hell, as Nadia's attacker did, but certainly questioning my Christianity.
the oint I am trying to make is that your attitude towards mainstream religious right people like myself is just as big a stumbling block to open communication as anything the religious right believes. To claim otherwise is just another example of "mainline" Protestants attemting to grab the moral highground and beat the right about the head and shooulders with their holier than thou attitude. Wouldn't it be nice to have conversations on difficult topics without either side trying to put down the other.