âWill the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?â
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
For Christian faith this identification embraces all humanity as such, including Jews and their Jewishness; and the redemption of man rests directly upon this identification of God with all humanity in the historical being of Jesus. Jews, therefore, serve Christians as an inescapable witness to the historical arena as the location of God’s action in the world. Christian support of a positive Zionism in the form of a Jewish state means support for the historical continuation of Jewish existence and repudiation of an anti-Semitism that is willing to take advantage of Jewish powerlessness. As to the second point, Christians will be in controversy with Israeli nationalism as with every nationalism. Christians are called to a suffering-servant role; they are to identify in non-ideological concern with all authentic human suffering in the name of Jesus the Christ. Therefore, Christians are called to oppose a Zionism which plays the cold war game along with the exploiters of the world. For example, a Christian must stand with the dispossessed Palestinians against those who dispossess them. Daniel Berrigan is right when he scathingly denounces the ruthless side of Israeli policies, but he flirts with anti-Semitism when he comes close to begrudging Jews any entry into the sphere of nationalism. Arthur Hertzberg is right when he claims that the privilege of nationalism is proper and necessary for Jews, but he errs egregiously when he substitutes the charge of anti-Semitism for an explanation of Israeli complicity in oppressive policies. Berrigan inappropriately uses “Zionism” to denounce Israel, and Hertzberg just as inappropriately throws the term “anti-Semitism” at Berrigan. . . . Let Christians then see Jews as a positive sign of the historical anchorage of their faith; and let Jews see Christians as nondiscriminatory critics of nationalisms, even of Israeli nationalism. Let a Berrigan realize that Hertzberg’s Zionism is a simple desire for space to be human in a vital Jewish way, and let a Hertzberg understand Berrigan’s outcry as a courageously impartial identification with human suffering. In sum, let Jews and Christians alike appreciate the covenant nature each of the other’s faith.
Further Resources BOOKS
Cunningham, Philip A. and Arthur F. Starr, eds. Sharing Shalom: a Process for Local Interfaith Dialogue between Christians and Jews. New York: Paulist Press, 1998. Klein Halevi, Yossi. At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: a Jew’s Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. New York: W. Morrow, 2002. 530
I
Religion
Perelmuter, Gorem, ed. Reinterpreting Revelation and Tradition: Jews and Christians in Conversation. Franklin, Wis.: Sheed & Ward, 2000. PERIODICALS
“Catholics Reject Efforts to Convert Jews.” The Christian Century, 119, no. 18, August 28, 2002, 16. Levenson, Jon D. “How Not to Conduct Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” Commentary, 112, no. 5, December 2001, 31. Martin, James. “Of Many Things.” America, 186, no. 6, February 25, 2002, 2. WEBSITES
“Ecumenical Considerations on Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” World Council of Churches. Available online at http://www .wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/j-crel-e.html; website home page: http://www.wcc-coe.org/ (accessed February 26, 2003). “Jewish-Christian Relations.” International Council of Christians and Jews. Available online at http://www.jcrelations .net/ (accessed February 26, 2003). Levenson, Jon D. How Not to Conduct Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” Originally published in Commentary Magazine, December, 2001. Available online at http://www.findarticles.com /cf_0/m1061/5_112/80680260/p1/article.jhtml; website home page: http://www.findarticles.com (accessed February 26, 2003).
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?” Magazine article By: Lerond Curry Date: May 26, 1976 Source: Curry, Lerond. “Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?” Christian Century, May 26, 1976, 512–516. Available online at http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin /relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1822 (accessed March 1, 2003). About the Author: Lerond Curry (1938– ) was born in Bowling Green, Kentucky. After receiving his doctorate from Florida State University in 1967, he became a professor of history and religion at Western Kentucky University, a position he held until 1970, at which time he joined Averett College as a professor of religion. Curry is a noted Ecumenical Christian and wrote Protestant-Catholic Relations in America: World War I Through Vatican II (1972). I
Introduction The term “evangelical,” as used in European Christianity, referred to the followers of Protestant Reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546). In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Methodists in England were called Evangelicals. In the United States during the 1930s and 1940s, fundamentalist Christians were also known as American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
Evangelicals. Several evangelists during the 1970s became familiar names to Americans because of their television programs: Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, Kathryn Kuhlman, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Paul Crouch, Jim Bakker, Tammy Faye Bakker, Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy Swaggart. The liberal Protestant tradition in America can be traced to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. William Ellery Channing, a Congregational minister in the nineteenth century, became a Unitarian and placed a great deal of stress on moral responsibility and social causes. In the later part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, Reverend Walter Rauschenbusch advocated the social gospel, a belief that Christianity must be applied toward the reduction of social problems in the society. More modern liberal Christian trends can be seen in the form of the liberation theologies (political, racial, and feminist). Some of the characteristics commonly attributed to modern-day evangelical Christians were: practicing personal witnessing of one’s faith, preaching to the masses, emphasizing the conversion of non-Christians to Christianity, meeting deep spiritual needs of the individual, and adhering to traditional Biblical beliefs. In comparison, some of the characteristics commonly attributed to modern-day liberal Christians were: preaching a people-oriented gospel in politics and religion, supporting civil rights and ecumenical movements, advocating and working toward applying the social gospel in the society, and being open to religious pluralism.
Significance Dr. Lerond Curry examined three major questions concerning Christian evangelicals. What exactly is a Christian evangelical? What is the difference between the terms, “evangelical Christian” and religiously “liberal Christian?” Can a person be evangelical and religiously liberal at the same time? Curry did not approve of a strict dichotomy between evangelical and liberal Christians. Many Christians embody characteristics of both models. His thesis was that being a liberal Christian and an evangelical one were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Curry considered himself to be both a liberal and an evangelical, and hoped that Christians would stop using these labels as categorical descriptions. He pointed out that these labels were ultimately artificial and capable of building obstacles to dialogue. There were two primary reactions to Curry’s arguments for a cessation of the Christian family infighting between the evangelicals and the liberals. The first reaction came from those who agreed that the time had come for a truce between these two factions. Too much American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
energy was being wasted in the war of words and religious convictions between the evangelicals and the liberals. Both groups were being true to their Christian values, and neither one could be faulted for their zealousness. The second reaction to Curry’s arguments was that he was being unrealistic in his appraisal that one could be an evangelical and a follower of liberal Christianity at the same time. He was seen as oversimplifying the differences in the theology and practice of these two groups. The followers of the evangelical movements continued on their own course, as did the supporters of the liberal Christian position. Christians on both sides reacted by stating that the differences between the groups was healthy and good, because it gave people more choices in determining their own personal paths to God.
Primary Source “Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?” [excerpt] Professor Lerond Curry argues that the distinctions being made between evangelical Christians and liberal Christians were creating exaggerated and artificial categories. These labels were deemed to be especially faulty when it came to applying them to individual Christians. His conclusion was that a person could be both an evangelical and religiously liberal at the same time. SYNOPSIS:
Two years or so ago I picked up an issue of a widely circulated religious publication and found a statement titled “A Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern.” The document put into words many of the convictions which I had been moving toward since the days when I first began to grasp the social dimensions of the gospel. I subsequently became a co-signer of the Declaration, and I am glad to have my name associated with it. However, as I read through that magazine, many of its pages devoted to events surrounding the issuance of the Declaration, I became increasingly puzzled. For the reports of the Chicago meetings that gave birth to the document indicated that some of the original signers had in their deliberations contrasted themselves, the “evangelicals,” with other church people whom they called “liberals.” Their language perplexed me. For years I had used both terms to describe myself. I grew up in a tradition which was “evangelistic,” and though I now recognize the folly of reducing evangelism to acts of “personal witnessing” or of preaching to the masses, I have never lost the conviction that there is a gospel, Religion
I
531
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
A billboard in South Carolina promoting National Bible Week in 1979, reads, “Welcome to the Bible, Come Inside . . . for the Good Life.” Lerond Curry questioned if evangelism like this is as mutually exclusive with liberal Christianity as it is often portrayed. © F R A N K E N O W E N / C O R B I S . REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION.
an euangelion, and that it should be shared. Because of my commitment to this euangelion I have always thought myself to be evangelical.
A People-Oriented Gospel I never heard the terms “liberal” and “conservative” until I was about 2 or 3 years old, but from that time I heard them used in ways which made the term “liberal” more descriptive of the convictions I was forming. As I matured, I kept hearing the term “liberal” used to describe thinking like my own— thinking which seemed to grow out of a basic concern for the gospel itself. Those whose political priorities were people-oriented rather than moneyoriented or corporation-oriented were called liberal; and though I did not see politics as the salvation of the world, I felt that the gospel should have root influence in all my thinking. The Christ of the gospel was people-oriented; therefore, if to be people-oriented in politics was to be liberal, then I was happy to be called liberal. Those who supported civil rights goals were called liberal, and I felt that supporting these goals gave expression to my biblically oriented belief in the dignity and worth of all people. Those who in reli532
I
Religion
gious faith believed in intellectual honesty—indeed, in intellectual openness—as an expression of one’s trust in God as the source of all truth were called liberal. Those who in church life believed in ecumenical Christianity because they took seriously the prayer of Jesus that his followers may be one (see John 17:11) were called liberal. If all these things meant being “liberal,” then I was more than ready to embrace the term. It continues to baffle me that “evangelical” is frequently used to suggest a spiritual virtue in contrast to “liberal” or to some other perfectly honorable word. I am not satisfied when I am told that the word liberal describes a 19th century view of humankind based on a view of Absolute Idealism. I know enough philosophy and historical theology to know when these disciplines are not the topic of discussion—and they are not in most of the places where I hear the term “evangelical” contrasted to “liberal.” “Evangelical” is being used not in the sense that European Christians use it but to describe what Robert Ellwood calls a “mood or style” (One Way: The Jesus Movement and Its Meaning [Prentice-Hall, 1973], p. 25). American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
Defining the Terms I am distressed too by the sloppy way in which so many who call themselves evangelicals throw other terms around. In otherwise sound and provocative essays and volumes the word is used in contrast to other words without any clear definitions of what the writer means. Donald Bloesch’s book The Evangelical Renaissance is basically a courageous call for openness of attitude and spirit. Yet Bloesch tosses terms about as if his very use of them established some ecclesiastical or theological fact. For example, on page 7 he speaks of “both ecumenists and evangelicals.” Are the two mutually exclusive? But on the next page he declares: “I try to speak as one who is both evangelical and ecumenical.” I do too, and so I might conclude that Bloesch and I are of one mind. But in speaking of “evangelicals and liberals” he declares that “an evangelical church, unlike a liberal church, will have a passion to convert the world” (p.17). And then, as if the statement were axiomatic, he equates the terms “evangelical” and “conservative” and gives the term “liberal” another bad mark by saying, in reference to Dean Kelley’s book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, that “conservative churches seek to meet those deep spiritual needs while liberal churches seem to be more interested in working for social change” (p. 18). In his scheme of things it seems that one who claims to be liberal necessarily lacks a strong desire to take the gospel to the world and to meet people’s “deep spiritual needs.” What he has done is to set forth his own definitions and to structure his own view of the Christian world around them. But the definitions and contrasts are tenuous. This tactic is little different from the error I once committed in a political bull session in graduate school when I said, “Conservatives do not believe in progress”—to which a friend replied, “Since you have set up your own definitions, no one can argue with you.” Of course he was right. I had structured the world to suit myself, around my own emotional responses to certain terms, but this did not make what I described the real world. Similarly, the characterizations of those who claim the word “liberal” made by many who call themselves “evangelicals” are not necessarily accurate.
The Cross and the Flag (edited by Robert Clouse, Robert Linder and Richard Pierard [Creation House, 1972]) is a commendable book in its social concern and its attempt to end the marriage between some brands of popular religious thinking and right-wing ideas. Yet in discussing liberal politics one contribAmerican Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
utor asserts that “Christians must reject the liberal concept of freedom as nothing more than the absence of restraint.” (Apply that view of freedom to corporations, and the concept suddenly becomes conservative!) And: “The Christian rejects the liberal concept that the human condition is fundamentally a product of the environment” (p. 87). As a political liberal I do not believe either of those “liberal” concepts. I support liberal causes and candidates because they are more often people-oriented, and to be people-oriented is to be consistent with the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth.
Evangelical One-Upmanship But what bothers me even more than the imprecise use of other terms is the evidence of oneupmanship in the use of the term “evangelical” itself. A noticeable segment of the religious population takes this term, defines it by imposing doctrinal conclusions on what is basically an English derivative of the Greek word for “good news,” and reads the rest of the religious population out of its circle of definition. In doing so the definers are really saying that “evangelical” means what they have said it means. Instead of “good theology” this is actually the fallacy of petitio principii, known commonly as begging the question or circular reasoning. Just recently, in thumbing through one of America’s better-known “evangelical” publications, I found a list of the nation’s four-year “evangelical” colleges. What struck me was that all the schools listed seemed similarly “conservative” in the extreme. The editors admitted leaving out schools “associated with Seventh-day Adventists, non-instrumental Churches of Christ, Church of the Brethren, Lutherans, and Southern Baptists” because so many of them were so denominationally oriented (Christianity Today, November 7, 1975, pp. 39-41). But the list included only one United Presbyterian school, though there are probably over 20; only one Presbyterian U.S. school, when there are 17; only two American Baptist schools, though there are 22; no Disciples of Christ schools; no schools affiliated with the United Church of Christ, despite a heritage which includes the Evangelical and Reformed denomination; and no United Methodist schools, though that denomination has the rich tradition of the Evangelical United Brethren. The list is preceded by a statement that some of the colleges in omitted groups are “no longer sectarian but have become too pervaded, in our judgment, by nonevangelical views of the Bible, theology, and ethics.” Religion
I
533
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
In other words, the editors imply, to be “evangelical” means to agree with them. And because the word “evangelical” calls to mind the word euangelion, if one does not agree with them one is by implication not soundly committed to the gospel. I so much as heard Harold Ockenga (now president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) say this once in a freshman assembly at a state university where I was teaching. He spoke on modern theological movements; before several hundred 18year-olds—many of them less than six months out of small towns and rural churches, many others from no substantial religious backgrounds at all—he talked about the “liberal” and “modernistic” trends that had resulted in something that wasn’t Christianity at all. He then told them, almost in passing, about “neo-orthodoxy”: though it had some truth to it, it wasn’t the real thing. Finally, he told them about “orthodoxy”—wherein lay the truth. Of course I had to explain his remarks to my freshman honors students later, for none of them—much less the other freshmen—had even understood what he was talking about. But though I did tell them what I thought to be the essence of Ockenga’s address—that there were many theological positions but that his was the “right” one—I did not tell them that he was also a champion of political conservatism. . . .
Putting Aside the Labels Those of us who have been excluded from the boundaries of the term “evangelical” by persons who have drawn the boundaries too narrowly must avoid reading these people out of the Kingdom. The teaching of Jesus to “love your enemies” applies to us as well. Frankly I find much to feed my spirit in writings of both the self-styled evangelicals and their critics, and for years I have remained puzzled over what many of the squabbles are really about. Both sides have resorted to knocking over straw men. I propose that the church begin by putting aside the rampant use of labels. Whatever the shorthand labels, they quickly become flags around which people rally or barriers that divide. One “evangelical” journal to which I submitted an article pleading for attention to people instead of labels sent it back to me with the explanation that my characterization of myself as a liberal would “not be effective with our readership.” This of course demonstrated the very point of my article—that all labels are ultimately artificial and capable of creating artificial barriers. The church, if it must use labels, should use them as invitations to dialogue. I suggest the fol534
I
Religion
lowing “propositions” as a beginning: (1) The term “evangelical” refers at root to one’s primary commitment. (2) If one’s primary commitment is to the gospel—the euangelion—that is what is basic. (3) The gospel is the Christ Event. (4) Theological conclusions, because they vary and change in each of us, are not necessarily identical with our basic commitments. Indeed, our commitments may be the causes of some of the changes which take place. (5) We should talk to one another at the level of commitment and “judge not.” If these “propositions” are taken seriously, then the next step is to get those who think they are the evangelicals together with those whom they think are not—to talk and pray. For those of us interested in ecumenism as a theological verity, it would certainly be a necessary step. (What greater ecumenical breakthrough than an exchange of lecturers between Moody Bible Institute and the divinity school of the University of Chicago?) But more broadly it can be a revealing step. All of us might discover the following: 1. That Jesus’ call is to discipleship and not to labels. That he did not say “Follow me and I will make you a conservative,” or “Follow me and I will make you a liberal,” or even “Follow me and I will make you an evangelical.” To fishermen he said “fishers of men” and to his followers generally he simply said “followers”—disciples. 2. That Jesus had among his first disciples both Matthew the publican and Simon the zealot—an establishment conservative and a radical revolutionary—and that therefore temperament is not the mark of discipleship. 3. That the Spirit, like the wind—in both cases the pneuma—”blows where it wills”—a hint that God is not captive of theological systems nor the prior possession of certain ones. 4. That Jesus once admonished his disciples for forbidding those with another identity from casting out demons in his name and told them that “no one who does a mighty work in my name will soon after be able to speak ill of me,” and that “he that is not against us is for us.” 5. That, as a speaker at one ecumenical conference remarked, “brothers don’t have to be twins”—but brothers should be brothers.
Further Resources BOOKS
Ellingsen, Mark. The Evangelical Movement: Growth, Impact, Controversy, Dialog. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Pub. House, 1988.
American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
Fully Human, Fully Alive
June, Lee N., ed. Evangelism & Discipleship In African-American Churches. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999. Terry, John Mark. Evangelism: a Concise History. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994. PERIODICALS
George, Timothy. “If I’m an Evangelical, What Am I?” Christianity Today, 43, no. 9, August 9, 1999, 62. Winner, Lauren F. “From Mass Evangelist to Soul Friend.” Christianity Today, 44, no. 11, Oct 2, 2000, 56. Wright, Rusty. “Downtown Evangelism Makes a Comeback.” Christianity Today, 45, no. 1, Jan 8, 2001, 24. WEBSITES
“Christians Online.” Fish the Net- The Evangelistic Tacklebox. Available online at http://www.fishthe.net/ (accessed March 1, 2003). “Evangelism Toolbox- Online Resources.” Available online at http://www.evangelismtoolbox.com/ (accessed March 1, 2003). “Online Web Evangelism Guide- Focus Page.” Brigada Today. Available online at http://www.brigada.org/today/articles/web -evangelism.html; website home page: http://www.brigada.org (accessed March 1, 2003).
Fully Human, Fully Alive Theological work By: John Powell Date: 1976 Source: Powell, John. Fully Human, Fully Alive. Niles, Illinois: Argus Communications, 1976, 169, 170–171, 176–178, 179 –180, 181–185. About the Author: John Joseph Powell (1925–), born in Chicago, was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. He earned degrees in theology, psychology, classics, and English. For many years, he was a professor of theology at Loyola University of Chicago, and throughout his career, he wrote several best-selling books. Among them are Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? (1965), Why Am I Afraid to Love? (1975) and Touched by God: My Pilgrimage of Prayer (1996). I
Introduction Religious observers have often commented that the latter half of the twentieth century could be characterized as a time when many Americans experienced a great spiritual void. Traditional religious beliefs and practices, a source of comfort to their parents and previous generations, were no longer applicable to the lives of many people. In these people, there was a deep spiritual hunger, as expressed by searching for meaning in their lives and deeper ways of relating to God. Many people expressed American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
a fundamental unhappiness with their day-to-day existence. There was not necessarily a lack of material items or physical wants that contributed to this discontent, but there was an emptiness within one’s self. Was there any meaning to be found in living other than the daily meeting of one’s physical needs and comfort? During the 1960s and 1970s, there was much discontent in the nation that was expressed through a number of social movements. The search for racial justice, equality for women, reduction of poverty, and peace in Vietnam led to a number of protests and demonstrations, questioning the resolve of the government to deal with these issues. The unhappiness with the government was also accompanied by disenchantment with the institutions of education, the family, and religion. It seemed that almost everything was open to criticism and dissatisfaction, including religious values and practices. In order to help fill their spiritual emptiness, some people turned to destructive behaviors like drugs, alcohol, and other forms of escapism. As a teacher and spiritual counselor, Father John Powell, a Roman Catholic priest, was exposed to people who expressed to him this basic unhappiness with their lives. Life lacked the joy that they desired and needed. Could he help them find meaning and happiness in a seemingly meaningless and unhappy world?
Significance In trying to reach out to help these people and others suffering in the same manner, Powell wrote Fully Human, Fully Alive. The focus of his book was vision therapy, or the creation of a new life through the adoption of new perceptions. He believed that God intended all humans to experience happiness, and he wanted to show how this could be done. Powell’s thesis was that the process of becoming a complete fully alive human being was based upon three factors: the nature of one’s intrapersonal dynamics (those qualities existing within the individual self or mind), interpersonal relationships (those qualities that mark how one deals with other people), and a frame of reference. In his previous books, he centered upon the first two. In Fully Human, Fully Alive, his concern shifted to the third factor: a frame of reference. Powell defined a frame of reference as a person’s basic perception or vision of reality. This perception or vision affected the way people made judgments, interpretations, and sense in the understanding of any new persons, events, and ideas that they may encounter. In order to become fully human and fully alive, one’s frame of reference must include a relationship with God. Fully Human, Fully Alive met the needs of a spiritually hungry public in the 1970s and in future decades. Powell’s contribution to happiness and mental health was Religion
I
535
For Christian faith this identification embraces all humanity as such, including Jews and their Jewishness; and the redemption of man rests directly upon this identification of God with all humanity in the historical being of Jesus. Jews, therefore, serve Christians as an inescapable witness to the historical arena as the location of God’s action in the world. Christian support of a positive Zionism in the form of a Jewish state means support for the historical continuation of Jewish existence and repudiation of an anti-Semitism that is willing to take advantage of Jewish powerlessness. As to the second point, Christians will be in controversy with Israeli nationalism as with every nationalism. Christians are called to a suffering-servant role; they are to identify in non-ideological concern with all authentic human suffering in the name of Jesus the Christ. Therefore, Christians are called to oppose a Zionism which plays the cold war game along with the exploiters of the world. For example, a Christian must stand with the dispossessed Palestinians against those who dispossess them. Daniel Berrigan is right when he scathingly denounces the ruthless side of Israeli policies, but he flirts with anti-Semitism when he comes close to begrudging Jews any entry into the sphere of nationalism. Arthur Hertzberg is right when he claims that the privilege of nationalism is proper and necessary for Jews, but he errs egregiously when he substitutes the charge of anti-Semitism for an explanation of Israeli complicity in oppressive policies. Berrigan inappropriately uses “Zionism” to denounce Israel, and Hertzberg just as inappropriately throws the term “anti-Semitism” at Berrigan. . . . Let Christians then see Jews as a positive sign of the historical anchorage of their faith; and let Jews see Christians as nondiscriminatory critics of nationalisms, even of Israeli nationalism. Let a Berrigan realize that Hertzberg’s Zionism is a simple desire for space to be human in a vital Jewish way, and let a Hertzberg understand Berrigan’s outcry as a courageously impartial identification with human suffering. In sum, let Jews and Christians alike appreciate the covenant nature each of the other’s faith.
Further Resources BOOKS
Cunningham, Philip A. and Arthur F. Starr, eds. Sharing Shalom: a Process for Local Interfaith Dialogue between Christians and Jews. New York: Paulist Press, 1998. Klein Halevi, Yossi. At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: a Jew’s Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. New York: W. Morrow, 2002. 530
I
Religion
Perelmuter, Gorem, ed. Reinterpreting Revelation and Tradition: Jews and Christians in Conversation. Franklin, Wis.: Sheed & Ward, 2000. PERIODICALS
“Catholics Reject Efforts to Convert Jews.” The Christian Century, 119, no. 18, August 28, 2002, 16. Levenson, Jon D. “How Not to Conduct Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” Commentary, 112, no. 5, December 2001, 31. Martin, James. “Of Many Things.” America, 186, no. 6, February 25, 2002, 2. WEBSITES
“Ecumenical Considerations on Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” World Council of Churches. Available online at http://www .wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/j-crel-e.html; website home page: http://www.wcc-coe.org/ (accessed February 26, 2003). “Jewish-Christian Relations.” International Council of Christians and Jews. Available online at http://www.jcrelations .net/ (accessed February 26, 2003). Levenson, Jon D. How Not to Conduct Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” Originally published in Commentary Magazine, December, 2001. Available online at http://www.findarticles.com /cf_0/m1061/5_112/80680260/p1/article.jhtml; website home page: http://www.findarticles.com (accessed February 26, 2003).
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?” Magazine article By: Lerond Curry Date: May 26, 1976 Source: Curry, Lerond. “Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?” Christian Century, May 26, 1976, 512–516. Available online at http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin /relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1822 (accessed March 1, 2003). About the Author: Lerond Curry (1938– ) was born in Bowling Green, Kentucky. After receiving his doctorate from Florida State University in 1967, he became a professor of history and religion at Western Kentucky University, a position he held until 1970, at which time he joined Averett College as a professor of religion. Curry is a noted Ecumenical Christian and wrote Protestant-Catholic Relations in America: World War I Through Vatican II (1972). I
Introduction The term “evangelical,” as used in European Christianity, referred to the followers of Protestant Reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546). In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Methodists in England were called Evangelicals. In the United States during the 1930s and 1940s, fundamentalist Christians were also known as American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
Evangelicals. Several evangelists during the 1970s became familiar names to Americans because of their television programs: Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, Kathryn Kuhlman, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Paul Crouch, Jim Bakker, Tammy Faye Bakker, Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy Swaggart. The liberal Protestant tradition in America can be traced to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. William Ellery Channing, a Congregational minister in the nineteenth century, became a Unitarian and placed a great deal of stress on moral responsibility and social causes. In the later part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, Reverend Walter Rauschenbusch advocated the social gospel, a belief that Christianity must be applied toward the reduction of social problems in the society. More modern liberal Christian trends can be seen in the form of the liberation theologies (political, racial, and feminist). Some of the characteristics commonly attributed to modern-day evangelical Christians were: practicing personal witnessing of one’s faith, preaching to the masses, emphasizing the conversion of non-Christians to Christianity, meeting deep spiritual needs of the individual, and adhering to traditional Biblical beliefs. In comparison, some of the characteristics commonly attributed to modern-day liberal Christians were: preaching a people-oriented gospel in politics and religion, supporting civil rights and ecumenical movements, advocating and working toward applying the social gospel in the society, and being open to religious pluralism.
Significance Dr. Lerond Curry examined three major questions concerning Christian evangelicals. What exactly is a Christian evangelical? What is the difference between the terms, “evangelical Christian” and religiously “liberal Christian?” Can a person be evangelical and religiously liberal at the same time? Curry did not approve of a strict dichotomy between evangelical and liberal Christians. Many Christians embody characteristics of both models. His thesis was that being a liberal Christian and an evangelical one were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Curry considered himself to be both a liberal and an evangelical, and hoped that Christians would stop using these labels as categorical descriptions. He pointed out that these labels were ultimately artificial and capable of building obstacles to dialogue. There were two primary reactions to Curry’s arguments for a cessation of the Christian family infighting between the evangelicals and the liberals. The first reaction came from those who agreed that the time had come for a truce between these two factions. Too much American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
energy was being wasted in the war of words and religious convictions between the evangelicals and the liberals. Both groups were being true to their Christian values, and neither one could be faulted for their zealousness. The second reaction to Curry’s arguments was that he was being unrealistic in his appraisal that one could be an evangelical and a follower of liberal Christianity at the same time. He was seen as oversimplifying the differences in the theology and practice of these two groups. The followers of the evangelical movements continued on their own course, as did the supporters of the liberal Christian position. Christians on both sides reacted by stating that the differences between the groups was healthy and good, because it gave people more choices in determining their own personal paths to God.
Primary Source “Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?” [excerpt] Professor Lerond Curry argues that the distinctions being made between evangelical Christians and liberal Christians were creating exaggerated and artificial categories. These labels were deemed to be especially faulty when it came to applying them to individual Christians. His conclusion was that a person could be both an evangelical and religiously liberal at the same time. SYNOPSIS:
Two years or so ago I picked up an issue of a widely circulated religious publication and found a statement titled “A Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern.” The document put into words many of the convictions which I had been moving toward since the days when I first began to grasp the social dimensions of the gospel. I subsequently became a co-signer of the Declaration, and I am glad to have my name associated with it. However, as I read through that magazine, many of its pages devoted to events surrounding the issuance of the Declaration, I became increasingly puzzled. For the reports of the Chicago meetings that gave birth to the document indicated that some of the original signers had in their deliberations contrasted themselves, the “evangelicals,” with other church people whom they called “liberals.” Their language perplexed me. For years I had used both terms to describe myself. I grew up in a tradition which was “evangelistic,” and though I now recognize the folly of reducing evangelism to acts of “personal witnessing” or of preaching to the masses, I have never lost the conviction that there is a gospel, Religion
I
531
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
A billboard in South Carolina promoting National Bible Week in 1979, reads, “Welcome to the Bible, Come Inside . . . for the Good Life.” Lerond Curry questioned if evangelism like this is as mutually exclusive with liberal Christianity as it is often portrayed. © F R A N K E N O W E N / C O R B I S . REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION.
an euangelion, and that it should be shared. Because of my commitment to this euangelion I have always thought myself to be evangelical.
A People-Oriented Gospel I never heard the terms “liberal” and “conservative” until I was about 2 or 3 years old, but from that time I heard them used in ways which made the term “liberal” more descriptive of the convictions I was forming. As I matured, I kept hearing the term “liberal” used to describe thinking like my own— thinking which seemed to grow out of a basic concern for the gospel itself. Those whose political priorities were people-oriented rather than moneyoriented or corporation-oriented were called liberal; and though I did not see politics as the salvation of the world, I felt that the gospel should have root influence in all my thinking. The Christ of the gospel was people-oriented; therefore, if to be people-oriented in politics was to be liberal, then I was happy to be called liberal. Those who supported civil rights goals were called liberal, and I felt that supporting these goals gave expression to my biblically oriented belief in the dignity and worth of all people. Those who in reli532
I
Religion
gious faith believed in intellectual honesty—indeed, in intellectual openness—as an expression of one’s trust in God as the source of all truth were called liberal. Those who in church life believed in ecumenical Christianity because they took seriously the prayer of Jesus that his followers may be one (see John 17:11) were called liberal. If all these things meant being “liberal,” then I was more than ready to embrace the term. It continues to baffle me that “evangelical” is frequently used to suggest a spiritual virtue in contrast to “liberal” or to some other perfectly honorable word. I am not satisfied when I am told that the word liberal describes a 19th century view of humankind based on a view of Absolute Idealism. I know enough philosophy and historical theology to know when these disciplines are not the topic of discussion—and they are not in most of the places where I hear the term “evangelical” contrasted to “liberal.” “Evangelical” is being used not in the sense that European Christians use it but to describe what Robert Ellwood calls a “mood or style” (One Way: The Jesus Movement and Its Meaning [Prentice-Hall, 1973], p. 25). American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
Defining the Terms I am distressed too by the sloppy way in which so many who call themselves evangelicals throw other terms around. In otherwise sound and provocative essays and volumes the word is used in contrast to other words without any clear definitions of what the writer means. Donald Bloesch’s book The Evangelical Renaissance is basically a courageous call for openness of attitude and spirit. Yet Bloesch tosses terms about as if his very use of them established some ecclesiastical or theological fact. For example, on page 7 he speaks of “both ecumenists and evangelicals.” Are the two mutually exclusive? But on the next page he declares: “I try to speak as one who is both evangelical and ecumenical.” I do too, and so I might conclude that Bloesch and I are of one mind. But in speaking of “evangelicals and liberals” he declares that “an evangelical church, unlike a liberal church, will have a passion to convert the world” (p.17). And then, as if the statement were axiomatic, he equates the terms “evangelical” and “conservative” and gives the term “liberal” another bad mark by saying, in reference to Dean Kelley’s book Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, that “conservative churches seek to meet those deep spiritual needs while liberal churches seem to be more interested in working for social change” (p. 18). In his scheme of things it seems that one who claims to be liberal necessarily lacks a strong desire to take the gospel to the world and to meet people’s “deep spiritual needs.” What he has done is to set forth his own definitions and to structure his own view of the Christian world around them. But the definitions and contrasts are tenuous. This tactic is little different from the error I once committed in a political bull session in graduate school when I said, “Conservatives do not believe in progress”—to which a friend replied, “Since you have set up your own definitions, no one can argue with you.” Of course he was right. I had structured the world to suit myself, around my own emotional responses to certain terms, but this did not make what I described the real world. Similarly, the characterizations of those who claim the word “liberal” made by many who call themselves “evangelicals” are not necessarily accurate.
The Cross and the Flag (edited by Robert Clouse, Robert Linder and Richard Pierard [Creation House, 1972]) is a commendable book in its social concern and its attempt to end the marriage between some brands of popular religious thinking and right-wing ideas. Yet in discussing liberal politics one contribAmerican Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
utor asserts that “Christians must reject the liberal concept of freedom as nothing more than the absence of restraint.” (Apply that view of freedom to corporations, and the concept suddenly becomes conservative!) And: “The Christian rejects the liberal concept that the human condition is fundamentally a product of the environment” (p. 87). As a political liberal I do not believe either of those “liberal” concepts. I support liberal causes and candidates because they are more often people-oriented, and to be people-oriented is to be consistent with the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth.
Evangelical One-Upmanship But what bothers me even more than the imprecise use of other terms is the evidence of oneupmanship in the use of the term “evangelical” itself. A noticeable segment of the religious population takes this term, defines it by imposing doctrinal conclusions on what is basically an English derivative of the Greek word for “good news,” and reads the rest of the religious population out of its circle of definition. In doing so the definers are really saying that “evangelical” means what they have said it means. Instead of “good theology” this is actually the fallacy of petitio principii, known commonly as begging the question or circular reasoning. Just recently, in thumbing through one of America’s better-known “evangelical” publications, I found a list of the nation’s four-year “evangelical” colleges. What struck me was that all the schools listed seemed similarly “conservative” in the extreme. The editors admitted leaving out schools “associated with Seventh-day Adventists, non-instrumental Churches of Christ, Church of the Brethren, Lutherans, and Southern Baptists” because so many of them were so denominationally oriented (Christianity Today, November 7, 1975, pp. 39-41). But the list included only one United Presbyterian school, though there are probably over 20; only one Presbyterian U.S. school, when there are 17; only two American Baptist schools, though there are 22; no Disciples of Christ schools; no schools affiliated with the United Church of Christ, despite a heritage which includes the Evangelical and Reformed denomination; and no United Methodist schools, though that denomination has the rich tradition of the Evangelical United Brethren. The list is preceded by a statement that some of the colleges in omitted groups are “no longer sectarian but have become too pervaded, in our judgment, by nonevangelical views of the Bible, theology, and ethics.” Religion
I
533
“Will the Real Evangelical Please Stand Up?”
In other words, the editors imply, to be “evangelical” means to agree with them. And because the word “evangelical” calls to mind the word euangelion, if one does not agree with them one is by implication not soundly committed to the gospel. I so much as heard Harold Ockenga (now president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) say this once in a freshman assembly at a state university where I was teaching. He spoke on modern theological movements; before several hundred 18year-olds—many of them less than six months out of small towns and rural churches, many others from no substantial religious backgrounds at all—he talked about the “liberal” and “modernistic” trends that had resulted in something that wasn’t Christianity at all. He then told them, almost in passing, about “neo-orthodoxy”: though it had some truth to it, it wasn’t the real thing. Finally, he told them about “orthodoxy”—wherein lay the truth. Of course I had to explain his remarks to my freshman honors students later, for none of them—much less the other freshmen—had even understood what he was talking about. But though I did tell them what I thought to be the essence of Ockenga’s address—that there were many theological positions but that his was the “right” one—I did not tell them that he was also a champion of political conservatism. . . .
Putting Aside the Labels Those of us who have been excluded from the boundaries of the term “evangelical” by persons who have drawn the boundaries too narrowly must avoid reading these people out of the Kingdom. The teaching of Jesus to “love your enemies” applies to us as well. Frankly I find much to feed my spirit in writings of both the self-styled evangelicals and their critics, and for years I have remained puzzled over what many of the squabbles are really about. Both sides have resorted to knocking over straw men. I propose that the church begin by putting aside the rampant use of labels. Whatever the shorthand labels, they quickly become flags around which people rally or barriers that divide. One “evangelical” journal to which I submitted an article pleading for attention to people instead of labels sent it back to me with the explanation that my characterization of myself as a liberal would “not be effective with our readership.” This of course demonstrated the very point of my article—that all labels are ultimately artificial and capable of creating artificial barriers. The church, if it must use labels, should use them as invitations to dialogue. I suggest the fol534
I
Religion
lowing “propositions” as a beginning: (1) The term “evangelical” refers at root to one’s primary commitment. (2) If one’s primary commitment is to the gospel—the euangelion—that is what is basic. (3) The gospel is the Christ Event. (4) Theological conclusions, because they vary and change in each of us, are not necessarily identical with our basic commitments. Indeed, our commitments may be the causes of some of the changes which take place. (5) We should talk to one another at the level of commitment and “judge not.” If these “propositions” are taken seriously, then the next step is to get those who think they are the evangelicals together with those whom they think are not—to talk and pray. For those of us interested in ecumenism as a theological verity, it would certainly be a necessary step. (What greater ecumenical breakthrough than an exchange of lecturers between Moody Bible Institute and the divinity school of the University of Chicago?) But more broadly it can be a revealing step. All of us might discover the following: 1. That Jesus’ call is to discipleship and not to labels. That he did not say “Follow me and I will make you a conservative,” or “Follow me and I will make you a liberal,” or even “Follow me and I will make you an evangelical.” To fishermen he said “fishers of men” and to his followers generally he simply said “followers”—disciples. 2. That Jesus had among his first disciples both Matthew the publican and Simon the zealot—an establishment conservative and a radical revolutionary—and that therefore temperament is not the mark of discipleship. 3. That the Spirit, like the wind—in both cases the pneuma—”blows where it wills”—a hint that God is not captive of theological systems nor the prior possession of certain ones. 4. That Jesus once admonished his disciples for forbidding those with another identity from casting out demons in his name and told them that “no one who does a mighty work in my name will soon after be able to speak ill of me,” and that “he that is not against us is for us.” 5. That, as a speaker at one ecumenical conference remarked, “brothers don’t have to be twins”—but brothers should be brothers.
Further Resources BOOKS
Ellingsen, Mark. The Evangelical Movement: Growth, Impact, Controversy, Dialog. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Pub. House, 1988.
American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
Fully Human, Fully Alive
June, Lee N., ed. Evangelism & Discipleship In African-American Churches. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999. Terry, John Mark. Evangelism: a Concise History. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994. PERIODICALS
George, Timothy. “If I’m an Evangelical, What Am I?” Christianity Today, 43, no. 9, August 9, 1999, 62. Winner, Lauren F. “From Mass Evangelist to Soul Friend.” Christianity Today, 44, no. 11, Oct 2, 2000, 56. Wright, Rusty. “Downtown Evangelism Makes a Comeback.” Christianity Today, 45, no. 1, Jan 8, 2001, 24. WEBSITES
“Christians Online.” Fish the Net- The Evangelistic Tacklebox. Available online at http://www.fishthe.net/ (accessed March 1, 2003). “Evangelism Toolbox- Online Resources.” Available online at http://www.evangelismtoolbox.com/ (accessed March 1, 2003). “Online Web Evangelism Guide- Focus Page.” Brigada Today. Available online at http://www.brigada.org/today/articles/web -evangelism.html; website home page: http://www.brigada.org (accessed March 1, 2003).
Fully Human, Fully Alive Theological work By: John Powell Date: 1976 Source: Powell, John. Fully Human, Fully Alive. Niles, Illinois: Argus Communications, 1976, 169, 170–171, 176–178, 179 –180, 181–185. About the Author: John Joseph Powell (1925–), born in Chicago, was ordained a Roman Catholic priest. He earned degrees in theology, psychology, classics, and English. For many years, he was a professor of theology at Loyola University of Chicago, and throughout his career, he wrote several best-selling books. Among them are Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? (1965), Why Am I Afraid to Love? (1975) and Touched by God: My Pilgrimage of Prayer (1996). I
Introduction Religious observers have often commented that the latter half of the twentieth century could be characterized as a time when many Americans experienced a great spiritual void. Traditional religious beliefs and practices, a source of comfort to their parents and previous generations, were no longer applicable to the lives of many people. In these people, there was a deep spiritual hunger, as expressed by searching for meaning in their lives and deeper ways of relating to God. Many people expressed American Decades Primary Sources, 1970 –1979
a fundamental unhappiness with their day-to-day existence. There was not necessarily a lack of material items or physical wants that contributed to this discontent, but there was an emptiness within one’s self. Was there any meaning to be found in living other than the daily meeting of one’s physical needs and comfort? During the 1960s and 1970s, there was much discontent in the nation that was expressed through a number of social movements. The search for racial justice, equality for women, reduction of poverty, and peace in Vietnam led to a number of protests and demonstrations, questioning the resolve of the government to deal with these issues. The unhappiness with the government was also accompanied by disenchantment with the institutions of education, the family, and religion. It seemed that almost everything was open to criticism and dissatisfaction, including religious values and practices. In order to help fill their spiritual emptiness, some people turned to destructive behaviors like drugs, alcohol, and other forms of escapism. As a teacher and spiritual counselor, Father John Powell, a Roman Catholic priest, was exposed to people who expressed to him this basic unhappiness with their lives. Life lacked the joy that they desired and needed. Could he help them find meaning and happiness in a seemingly meaningless and unhappy world?
Significance In trying to reach out to help these people and others suffering in the same manner, Powell wrote Fully Human, Fully Alive. The focus of his book was vision therapy, or the creation of a new life through the adoption of new perceptions. He believed that God intended all humans to experience happiness, and he wanted to show how this could be done. Powell’s thesis was that the process of becoming a complete fully alive human being was based upon three factors: the nature of one’s intrapersonal dynamics (those qualities existing within the individual self or mind), interpersonal relationships (those qualities that mark how one deals with other people), and a frame of reference. In his previous books, he centered upon the first two. In Fully Human, Fully Alive, his concern shifted to the third factor: a frame of reference. Powell defined a frame of reference as a person’s basic perception or vision of reality. This perception or vision affected the way people made judgments, interpretations, and sense in the understanding of any new persons, events, and ideas that they may encounter. In order to become fully human and fully alive, one’s frame of reference must include a relationship with God. Fully Human, Fully Alive met the needs of a spiritually hungry public in the 1970s and in future decades. Powell’s contribution to happiness and mental health was Religion
I
535
