This topic contains 15 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
Danielle 4 months, 3 weeks ago.
-
Posts
-
There have been threads on the facebook site (which you should all join if you haven’t already!) about whether anyone believes such things, or does such things any more.
I have to say, that saddens me a little. The thing is, I lost my faith in the church. That did not mean I should throw out everything that the church has taught me – some of which is good – as long as I understand why I still believe and accept these things.
So, I would still describe myself as an evangelical. I feel that significant parts of the evangelical church have moved away from the core tenets of evangelical faith – they have move, and I have moved in the opposite direction. I will not deny the label, and hand it over to the more fundamentalist wing.
I still read my bible daily. It is still important to me, I still believe it. I will still pray, and I am happy to pray for healing for people and anything else they want. I believe that God does answer prayer – but that is a very simplistic way of putting it. I retain a whole lot of my personal spirituality actions, BECAUSE I no longer have a church to go to. What I do that helps me is even more important.
It seems to me that it is far too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and reject all forms of Christian spirituality just because the church that introduced them to me sucks. That would be, ISTM, just as bad as what so much of the church does, in throwing out contemporary culture, because some aspects of it are problematic.
AnonymousI suppose that is a good thing to avoid, but some of us have been through the bathwater with a sieve; no babies to be found.
How I wonder would you describe an evangelical?
As a Brit I am very conscious that there is a distinct difference between evangelicalism on the two sides of the pond.
As someone who has never been an evangelical this was something I was ‘forced’ into exploring.
I cannot accept the teachings of original sin; the inerrancy of the Bible; or the common teaching of hell.
But having said that I recognise that the Evangelical churches have a recognised place in history – I’m thinking particularly of the work of the Salvation Army in the slums of London and Glasgow in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Maybe there was a place for the teachings of hell, fire and brimstone (and that’s what I think of when people mention evangelical).
Any thoughts?
AnonymousSteve – I’m sorry you are saddened by so many of us no longer subscribing to Evangelical principals/habits. I don’t know what to say exactly, except that for many of us, , like Peter and myself, once we began questioning a few things like Biblical inerrancy/taking the Bible literally, original sin, and the concept of hell, it was like a house of cards that just came crashing down. There wasn’t enough of a foundation left to re-build on. We had to lay a brand new foundation and had to decide whether our former foundational beliefs made for good construction material or not. For many of us the answer we arrived at is simply no. And just for the record, that is sad for many of us as well.
Joshua – Well said!
Peter – I’m with you as far as no longer believing in original sin, the inerrancy of the Bible, and the concept of hell. And once you eliminate those three, there isn’t a whole lot left of Evangelicalism left to embrace.
It does seem that evangelicalism requires the belief in hell. Why else would there be this big desire to go out and try to save people from this imagined horrible outcome? Take away the belief in Hell then one can simply adopt a live and let live attitude without trying to change or vonvert anyone.
If God is a God of love, why is so much RELIGION based on fear?
Jo, that puts it so apt. A house-of-cards crashing down…
Peter, it was reading some non-mainstream works, including the Gospel of Thomas that showed me there is an awful lot of guilt and fear tangled up with what most mainstream evangelical churches teach. And they don’t even know it!
Wade.
I should clarify – I don’t actually mean that everyone should continue to be an evangelical. I was only explaining that for me, retaining some of the aspects of my faith works for me. I fully accept that for others, these aspects are not helpful.
In the end, I don’t mind what sort of spirituality people find and grow into. I fully expect that others will find routes that I don’t follow and could not embrace. What I am concerned about is the apparent dismissal of so much of the tradition of the church, which can be helpful and useful, just because the church that has produced it is a pile of shit.
I have learned a lot from Celtic spirituality – again, not something that works or is right for everyone – but I learned there that picking the bits that work is perfectly reasonable. You do not have to accept the church organisation that produced it to take the good. Yes, there is a lot of fear and damage in the evangelical church, but that does not mean that it does not or cannot have anything to offer. And yes, I have experienced the fucked up parts of the evos, and I have no desire to hold onto them.
Now then, in answer to the question what I consider an evangelical to be, I would say someone who accepts the Bible as the word of God, and as the root and basis of faith. Of course, all of those words need exploring in depth, not least the fact that the Bible we have is an interpretation and translation etc etc etc. It is not about taking proof texts, it is about an exploration of the Biblical material to find truth, and to find that truth in all sorts of places.
Do I believe in inerrancy? Again, that is a complex topic. Not as such, but mainly because I would distance myself from those who believe the KJV is the actual words of God himself. That is crap. I believe that the Bible is worth exploring, and that the problems need understanding, not dismissing. That might make me an inerrantist in reality.
What about Hell? Again, I would have to say yes, but not to the Fire and Brimstone depictions so beloved of some people. I am more with the Rob Bell approach, that Hell is something we experience on Earth. My role – as Christian – is to help those in Hell here on earth. End of.
And yes, I know that Evangelicalism has a different reputation each side of the pond. As I said in my OP, I am not prepared to let those twisted bastards of Westboro and suchlike demean a label that I hold dear, and that has been very significant and important throughout the history of the west. Not least because I have many evo friends, and I want to demonstrate that being an evangelical is possible even without the church. It is not necessary to reject evangelical belief if you reject the church. It is not necessary to be an extremist to be evangelical in belief.
Joshua – I know some have sieved the bathwater. I am concerned that some may not have, and believe that to reject church means to embrace a different set of beliefs – a fundamentally liberal one. There are many in the evangelical churches for whom this is still a synonym for unbelief (sadly). Whereas I KNOW that it is possible to hold onto an evangelical faith, and yet leave the church. And to be nice to gay people. And women. And all sorts of other people. In fact, to my mind, most of these are a necessity of evangelical belief (leaving church is optional).
AnonymousSteve – thanks for the clarification. I understand a lot more about where you are coming from now. Sorry if I did a defensive “knee-jerk reaction” to your original post. I agree with you that there are still good things in the Bible and in some faith traditions. I’m just at a point where I’m not able to try to salvage the good parts without toxic baggage coming along for the ride too. I’m glad you have found a way to filter out the bad stuff and hang on to the good stuff. Maybe someday I will be able to do that too, but right now that process is counter-productive and even harmful to me.
I appreciate your input and I’m glad there’s a place for all of us at this table! I would hate it if we were all the same and all of us had the same viewpoints.
Jo – that’s cool, and it is my fault if I was not clear enough.
The reason this is important to me is that it is so easy to reject Christianity by rejecting the church. People decide to reject the church because the local institution is damaging, and then throw out the whole faith, because everything that they understand about how to be a Christian they receive from the church. Because they see the church as a corrupt institution, they then have to reject the whole caboodle.
This is so fundamentally wrong that I have to rile against it. The church has produced a whole lot of really good stuff. I want to use this. It has produced some appallingly bad stuff (like Original Sin), and I want to reject this. And if I cannot take the whole gamut of what is available, find the bits that are right and work out what works, then why have I left the church in the first place? If I need someone else to tell me how to express my faith (or how not to express it), then I have not really gained anything. All I have done is changed the institution that tells me what to do from a long-respected Christian one to something else.
Yes I understand that some people have been hurt by these same things. But the mature approach, the considered approach, that I hope many on here are following (and working out on your own is a mature and considered thing to do) is to be open and accepting of all sorts of input. Otherwise, the worries of the evos about the liberals start to become true. In reality, neither have it right, not the traditionalists. Each has aspects that are helpful to some people. Each has big problems that hurt and abuse people. If rejecting the abuse of the churches means turning to a radical liberalism, then I want nothing to do with it. I don’t believe it does.
And yes, this is important to me. Very important.
AnonymousI completely get rejecting church, evangelical or otherwise. I completely get rejecting man-made Christian constructs of who Jesus is, the gospel, etc. I really struggle with understanding why Jesus was rejected too and that is my “baby with the bathwater” moment.
This is a curious discussion worth having. Thanks for bringing it up.
This is a good discussion. I think that the problem is that in many Christian circles, it is all or nothing if you are to be a part of that group. You cannot question, doubt, or throw things out. Reminds me of the verse about being cold or luke warm lol. I was once told to leave Catholicism by some Catholics b/c I was on the more liberal side. I left years later of my own accord. And it’s because I really did not agree with most of their positions, both theological and social (social justice-i.e., caring for the poor is really all I carry with me when it comes to Catholicism). I have tried a wide variety of Christianity and it does nothing for me.
And the more “liberal” churches are at a point where they are still trying to please a crowd that is more conservative and has considerable sway (council members, money, free time). I like many aspects of Christianity, think Jesus is someone we should strive to be like, pray I know the Bible and still believe in God but it’s just not something I want to be formally a part of and I feel no responsibility in sustaining it. If Christianity is going to continue, it will continue without me and do just fine.
Agnosticbeliever – I think there is a sense of “all or nothing” in many churches/Christian groups. You either have to have the whole lot or reject it all. This is the case in liberal and traditionalist circles as well as evangelical ones.
It does mean, I think, that it is so much harder to work through your belief, and reject certain parts of it. The danger is that because you no longer believe in, say, PSA, you feel you have to reject the entire evangelical theological package. And possibly Christianity itself, becasue they are interlinked in your understanding. Whereas , in truth, being able to pick and choose means that you can find the right parts from all traditions, and maintain a faith even when some critical parts of it are taken away.
I do wonder how many people have rejected Christianity because they could not accept some aspect of what they were taught, and had never learnt to pick and choose? There is a similar danger that people who are conservative evangelicals, say, can reject this version of faith, but then embrace radical liberalism as an alternative, and never deal with the fact that it is their all-or-nothing approach to faith that causes them problems.
Well, it came to a point where I was rejecting more than I was believing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.