a great explanation of post-evangelicalism

steve bush from generousorthodoxy.net has written a great explanation over at emergent-us, describing the difference of the evangelical mindset and the post-evangelical direction many are taking, myself included.

Postconservative evangelicals believe that the conservative's’ privileging of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is mistaken. Inerrancy is a data-centered approach to Scripture, whereas postconservatives practice a person-centered approach. In our view, the Bible is not a repository of facts, but rather a witness to a living person: the resurrected Jesus Christ.

We have other theological questions for our conservative friends. Conservative evangelicals tend to see salvation as an individualistic affair, postconservatives emphasize the communal dimension. Conservatives tend to see hell as a place of eternal, conscious torment after death; postconservatives are concerned about this-worldly hells of genocides, slums, and diseases. The postconservative attitude towards non-evangelical and non-Christian thought is an attitude of critical but receptive openness. We are not zealous to debunk non-Christian views, but instead seek to find what is valuable in other perspectives.

And we postconservatives have social and political differences, too. We'’re not trying to fashion America into a Christian nation or put God'’s stamp of approval on the imperial ambitions of the United States. We do not think that one's gender disqualifies one from any position of leadership in home, society, or church. Further, within progressive evangelicalism, you will find not uniform prohibition, but a variety of opinions, regarding the moral status of committed homosexual relationships. Our response to poverty goes beyond charitable gifts and soup kitchens. We want to talk about and practice justice. We'’re concerned about educational funding disparities, inner city unemployment rates, and global trade inequalities.

you gotta find another Bible Study

tj left this comment on my post yesterday and she is so right. just so you understand a bit about me i need to tell you why i stayed.

i have stopped everything else - it's not at the church and i thought i could handle it, these were the women who sang to me and planned our going away night. i stayed because it was the closest thing to community that i had, and i knew that if i had nothing i would start to isolate myself (that is already happening). this is a big problem for me, it has been all my adult life. it was a problem for my mother and her mother before her.

i truly could be the kind of person who only leaves home to be anonymous. it is because of shame. i know i haven't done anything wrong here - we can hold our head's high in our community - but i just despise running into anyone at the grocery store or in town. too many things to explain - most of which are none of their business. if they really cared they would have called - this seems/feels like mining for information to tell their friends.

the other reason i choose to stay was because they choose to study the beatitudes. i felt like i could really have some input here that wouldn't be the standard, christian 'jesus answers'. i really wanted to challenge that thought, verbalize truth and fight the rich, suburban mindset that fills those women's lives. this study is rocking their world. the truth is making them very uncomfortable. helping them unpack these words of jesus in a way that transforms what they think being a christian is all about. it's very satisfying in some ways - to allow jesus' own words to convict them. to make them think about poverty and loss of power - to understand that 'poor in spirit' doesn't just mean 'oh i feel so blue today'.

so that is why i have stayed - sanity and kingdom life. if either of those two are compromised i'm done. and if i can find anything else to fill that requirement i will step away. these are really the only people (with skin on) that have made any effort to remind me that i meant more to them than my husband's job.

speaking of that, tonight is the business meeting - we have fantasized about showing up - i think we're still members - unless some bylaw states otherwise - but secretly, well not so secretly i want some parents to get up and give them hell. to hold somebody accountable. i know it's not really going to happen - they silence every critic and shame every courageous one - and call it unity - but i just want someone to make them uncomfortable and hold them accountable.

it's like somehow on the calendars in our brain that this was the last date that tied us to the church - getting past today will be a milestone of sorts. yesterday was hard, i shut down. i haven't been sleeping well and it caused stupid things to be important and i found myself scratching at liam when i wanted to be scratching at 'them'... we talked it out, but it was another affect of their stupid power to hurt us still.

off to our new church this a.m. - it's a god send. i'll tell you more about that later. have a good day!

letter to the editor, bobbie's response

christy at dry bones dance has written a response to an articles in sojourners by jim wallis and brian mclaren. this is my response to her response. i started to reply to her in her comment box, but i got so long winded that i needed to move it to my own blog. (she has since added a disclaimer of sorts, but this was written before she went away, and i didn't want to post it until she got back) so here it is:

good thoughts christy, but i have to disagree with you. it may seem that way in california, but here in the 'heartland' there is really this mentality. it's so prevalent that for me to even challenge anything the president says in my sunday school class or small group has me labeled immediately as a liberal. not in the way you use the word, but like a swear word that when said the speaker looks like they've just tasted something vile.

wallis was also raised in 'a world of premillenial dispensationalism where we were told to watch out for what evil rock bands were saying on their records backwards, where practically everybody was Republican, and no one had much good to say about the liberal media' church (he was from the same denomination i was raised in). so there is probably some 'fear mongering' going on that is left over from his heritage.

that is a valid point, that trying to stop others from fear mongering whilst fearmongering himself is not his best move. but in his defense (not that he needs me to defend him) he had just come off of that debate with falwell and i think it left him in shock at the reaction and wake that followed.

95% of the people in my educated, upperclass, seeker sensitive church believe that because bush calls him self an evangelical christian he truly has god on his 'side'. a vote for kerry is a vote against god.

i don't think that voting for kerry will change much, but i do know that i don't want to be part of a 'holy war'. i think that the mentality that is here in middle america is a fearsome, broken, nearly brainwashed one.

i am scared. not because jim wallis told me to be. i am afraid because i hear things coming out of christian mouths, of well meaning people, that are dangerous and poisoned. they don't sound like jesus and i truly don't want to be lumped into any movement or church or even america that thinks that a theocracy is a good idea. things done in the name of god by governments in the past are some of the most atrocious, horrific scars on history. if i can do anything at all to prevent one from happening in the future i want to be a part of it.

this is new ground for me. part of my emerging is political. sifting through the platitudes and untruth of the stuff that i was spoon fed my whole life. part of it looks like standing up and saying 'you don't speak for me'.

i think what was meant when he said 'our faith has been stolen' was that so many of the public 'christian' figures are truly highjacking the name evangelical and putting a public face on a group of people who may feel they are being misrepresented. i know i feel that way.

yes, am i owned by god more than i own my faith, but there is still an ownership on my part. do i own my faith like a stereo? no, but it is mine. mine is not an easy faith, it is hard, it is work, but i think anything worth having is.

would it still be there if i didn't own it? i don't know. it used to be 'easy', it used to be simple. i used to accept anything they told me was true. i don't do that anymore. i now have taken possession of my faith, not because it was given to me, but because i am figuring it out. not working for it in any non-grace, works kind of way, but working for it to strengthen it and sift through the crap i was fed for so long.

but this i know though, my faith is not what it used to be and i don't want to be bunched in with 'them' anymore. i signed that petition proudly. they don't speak for me. i don't want 'that face' of graceless, christian radio and televangelist to speak for me anymore. i don't know who i will vote for yet, but it will be about issues, and not just because one man calls himself an evangelical and says 'god told him to run for president.'

wallis' previous article spoke of the highjacking of the term 'evangelical'. people like falwell and dobson putting a face on that word that isn't what the word truly means. that face that they place on it represents that public faith that wallis is fighting against, that political power has an ugly face to it whose mouth no longer speaks for me.

i believe that the left can do as many horrible, horrific things in the name of peace and helping the poor that the right can do in the name of god, i don't agree with that or support it any more than i do the 'right'.

i just i don't want to be a part of this unholy war. not just iraq, not just osama, this unholy war that is raging right here in america, in the church. people believing things to be true and 'christian' that aren't biblical or christlike. jesus isn't an american, america isn't a christian state and the patriotism i'm seeing looks more like idolatry to me than support of one's country. that is unholy.

yes, my faith is personal, and it is mine. i am owned by god far more than i own my faith. but because this has become a politcal issue now i do feel it must become a battleground of sorts. the world needs to know that the church just doesn't care only about pre-born babies, but children living in poverty. not about 'protecting marriage' from two who say they love each other, but about strengthening the family and communities they live in. we have more depth, more brains and more passion than that unholy face has been spewing. i think it's time to take back the issues and remind them that they don't speak for us anymore.

i love you christy, and this passion i'm feeling isn't directed at you, it's from biting my tongue more times than i can count at church, small group, or even at the grocery store. i wrote this to give voice to the self-silencing i've been doing and to get my thoughts organized enough to voice them publicly if i feel so moved.

the thing that saddens me the most is that NO ONE at my church will even hear or see that sojo article, or even see the new york times ad. we are so insulated and isolated in middle america that jim wallis doesn't even exist.

the big "E"

adam over at pomomusings has a post that i read before bed last night. it's been chewing at the edge of my thoughts even before i read it, and it resonated deeply within me.

as the wife of a youth pastor 'in the big E' evangelical church i am struggling. i too care more about the small 'e' than i do about the big "E" now. but that wall of christianity that says once it's labelled big "E" we can turn off our brains, not have to think anymore, it's been 'approved for our consupmtion' mentality is so rampant in the church today that i feel like i'm swimming against the tide.

i think that if you truly are evangelical it should be evident without words. it's almost like having to tell someone you're smart or handsome - if you do - you're not. if those around you can't figure out you're intelligent or good looking by being around you then your telling them isn't going to change anything (other than the fact that they're going to think you're delusional).

lately i've noticed that the term 'EVANGELICAL' is like 'look for the union label' - if it's stamped big "E" then it's safe. but what that really means is it's watered down, 2nd generation information that others have already processed for us.

i have tried for the past year to explain to others in my church that the pablum they are reading is inspired by real thoughts and works by people outside the realm of the big "E". that people like henri nouwen and thomas merton, parker palmer and theresa of avila are the people that the authors they are reading read. trying to push them just a bit outside the 'abc' books (already been chewed) that they can't seem to put down.

but when they hear words like 'catholic' or 'monk', 'quaker' or 'contemplative mystic' they look at me like i've got three heads, make the evil eye sign and run for cover. i'm weary. coming from creation and heading to the national youth conference tomorrow i realize that i don't 'fit' in like is used to. the 'rah, rah, hyperactivity of the big "E" church' leaves me feeling queasy and empty inside. they're trying so hard to convince me and everyone else that they really have it all figured out, that they are spiritual. please stop telling me that you are 'evangelical' - for god's sake, show me.