[Another outtake from my correspondence with “Linus.” I’ve edited it somewhat, so it is not identical to the email I originally sent Linus.]
Can someone believe that God is against people having homosexual sex, and still treat lesbian and gay people with substantive dignity?
There are three issues here, I think.
First of all, can you hold the view that lesbian and gay people within your particular faith should be celibate, while treating them with substantive dignity?
On the surface, it seems like you can — after all, people make the choice to join your faith, and if they freely choose to be celibate, who am I to question it?
But I’d argue you cannot, because it’s inherently cruel for lesbian and gay children (by which I mean, all children who will grow up to be lgb, regardless of if they’re aware of their sexual orientation during their childhood) to be brought up in a faith that teaches them that their own sexuality is so “disordered” that it’s against natural law/God’s plan and they must never, ever practice it. Many of their deepest desires are — they are taught — immoral and against God.
For many people, sexuality — including expressing sexuality — is an important part of their self. There is nothing more cruel than a child being raised to believe that part of their core self is inherently unworthy of love. Many children raised this way take years or decades to grow beyond the self-hatred that they are taught; some will turn to drugs or alcohol to dull the pain; some will commit suicide.
You may believe that it’s possible to bring up children to both believe that they are fine, lovable, and worthy, and that for them to ever have sex is disordered, immoral and wrong. I think it wouldn’t take much time listening to lgbt people raised in traditional Christian families to learn that for many, that’s not so. Most will spend huge portions of their live plagued by internalized self-hatred, arguably the worst pain of all.
Raising people in that way is unjust and cruel. I don’t think it’s compatible with substantive dignity.
The second question is, can you hold your beliefs and avoid devaluing those lgbt people who aren’t members of your church?
Again, I’d argue the answer is no.
When a traditionalist Christian says in effect “God considers your family and love life wrong, and the only acceptable way for you to live, in God’s opinion, is as a celibate,” of course that Christian is devaluing lgbt people. It’s saying that a core element of their being is inherently immoral.
No matter how sincerely the words are meant, no matter how kindly they’re put, telling someone that their love is immoral devalues them.
Now comes the third question: Can you treat lgbt people with real dignity while calling for them to be legally second-class citizens, by banning them from equal treatment under civil law?
I think here, the answer is self-evident: No. Without legal equality, we cannot have real dignity of treatment.
I know my answer may seem hurtful to those who oppose marriage equality, yet think of themselves as a friend to lgb people. To those readers, I say: I don’t doubt your intentions or your good will. But there is no substitute for equality. Someone treated unequally — no matter how kind the heart or sincere the intent of the person treating them unequally – is still, at the end of the day, being treated unequally.
I am beginning to be of the opinion that those who insist they “love the sinner, hate the sin” are basically offering this “love” as a way to make themselves feel good.
Few of the “sinners” they allegedly love, want love like that, or experience it as loving at all. So it seems to me that it’s an empty position meant by the conservative religious to convince themselves that they are still good people who “don’t judge” (a phrase I hear from my highly religious students on a regular basis).
It seems like a very selfish, self-aggrandizing kind of love, a kind of “praying in the synagogues and street corners” that is meant to showcase their Christian-ness for others and reduce their cognitive dissonance for themselves. But it doesn’t do anything for the supposed object of their love, which kind of makes a mockery of the concept of love itself.
If you believe that homosexuality is disordered and will not exist in heaven, then what are the implications of believing that an lgbt person’s sexuality is “part of their core self”? You’d have to believe that an lgbt person who remains celibate and goes to heaven will not simply be cleansed or altered in identity-retaining ways, but altered on a core level–would they even count as themselves in heaven?
Some Christians believe there will be no sexuality of any kind in heaven or after the end of the world or whatever–that we will be like the angels, which they may interpret as sexless. So for them, the same would apply to considering *any* sexuality to be part of the core self. Would anyone really count as themselves anymore?
Here are some possible responses that retain the belief that homosexuality is disordered:
1. Heterosexuality can be part of the core self, but no other sexuality is core, because disordered traits are never core.
2. No sexuality is part of the core self, including heterosexuality. It’s a non-core part of the self. People who feel their sexuality is a core part of them are simply wrong.
3. All kinds of things might be core, even sinful things. You shouldn’t value your current core self. Eventually “you” will have a new self. A new heart and a new spirit. The old person will die and “you” will be born again as a new person. When God says He loves you, by “you” he means some mystical property that continues on even though your core self does not.
This just seems a restatement of the “my beliefs are right!” with the extra step of dignity thrown in.
That’s because religinuts are bonkers.
(Warning: I’m about to illustrate a logical point which is very difficult to do without analogy. Unfortunately, because of the subject matter, the analogy may appear offensive at first glance. It’s not–please read it all before you get mad!)
There are plenty of relationships which we consider to be on the “acceptable” side of the spectrum, including–for me, anyway–gay relationships. There are also (analogy warning!) plenty of relationships which we don’t consider to be acceptable. These range from incest, to pedophilia, to student-teacher, and so on.
In order to consider gay relationships as a fundamental right, you need to consider gay relationships to be on the acceptable side AND you need to consider it an innate and fundamental right to have a relationship so long as it’s on the acceptable side (or you need to have an exception.)
From the perspective of a fundamentalist religinut, neither of those are true.
Gay relationships aren’t acceptable to religinuts. I have no idea about the level of unacceptability, but they appear to be somewhere along the range of adultery. Can you do it? Sure, but you’ll burn in hell and all that.
Being born gay is pretty much the same (to a religinut) as being born with a kink that makes you only able to have sex in the center of a pentagram, covered in devil tattoos; or being born on a desert island where the only other people are your immediate family members; or having the bad luck to own an innate desire to have any other kind of “unacceptable” relationship. You don’t get a “but there is no acceptable relationship option!” exception; you simply need to refrain from relationships entirely.
Moreover, there’s no right to have a relationship in their view. Most religinuts are heavily focused on personal sacrifice rather than personal satisfaction. If God made you miserable, it’s your cross to bear, and so on. If there was a religious exception to the rule every time something was really hard and shitty to deal with, what would they have left?
When evaluating it, it’s crucial that religinuts put gay sex in the “unacceptable” category. To them, the question can be generally phrased as: “I am only attracted to [unacceptable activities] and I am only interested in performing [immoral acts] but if I don’t I’ll be really sad and lonely; will you please approve of my [immorality] so that i can be happy?” From THEIR perspective, “gay sex” and (warning!!) “pedophilia” probably complete the sentence the same way.
There is no real way to convince them. In fact, most of the truly crazy ones will even admit that there is nothing that would possible change their mind. That is why they are bonkers.
Ampersand:
The anti-SSM crowd don’t think that homosexuality or bisexuality are a core element of anyone’s being. The ones who are heterosexual cannot imagine feeling an actual attraction to anyone not of the “opposite sex”, and so they conceive of gay people as just like them, but with a pathology. The ones who are not heterosexual are in such denial about their own attractions that they reject that it could possibly be natural for anyone, because where does that leave them?
This is a fundamental disconnect, and has to be overcome before any meeting of minds. They do not take LGB people at their word on their own lived experience. (That’s why scientific evidence that same-sex attraction is physically, neurologically innate is important, even though it should be unnecessary — to convince that percentage who simply will not accept testimonial evidence.)
So, you are making a heartfelt argument on principle, but my guess is that the people you are making it to would disagree that it is an argument based on principle at all.
(Also, although one would think that it is obviously wrong to condemn someone for something they can’t control, I know from experience that it is not obviously wrong to all people. Years ago, I listened to a police officer with command rank argue vehemently that LGB people (not the term he used) were not making a choice — and then go on to denigrate them.)
Grace
G&W – I guess I’m not sure of the point of your comment. Yes, fundamentalists equate GLB sexual orientations to pedophilia, and bestiality for that matter. This happens on a regular basis (and is why Rick Santorum got the Dan Savage treatment).
This is pretty much not news, certainly not to GLB people who are good and tired of the analogy.
I think the point is it’s kinda strange to focus on homosexual sex, while ignoring all the other sexual acts religion condemns. Let’s replace it with something much more innocent:
You see that whole point just becomes vaguely ridiculous. Sure, you can object to religious views about masturbation and the harm this does, but you wouldn’t call it an affront to people’s substantive dignity and go off on one like Amp did, would you? Now maybe the comparison between masturbation and gay sex is inappropriate too, but I couldn’t say what the meaningful difference in this context is.
And I still don’t think you’re engaging with Christian thought properly. Views about homosexuality aren’t simply “SSM should be banned because gay sex is sinful”. Even if homosexuality isn’t a sin, Christianity is still actively in favour of heterosexual marriage in a way that it isn’t in favour of SSM. It is after all a sacrament.
Just because working for a construction company isn’t sinful, doesn’t mean it’s as praiseworthy as working for a hospice. But you wouldn’t get people saying that while they don’t doubt your intentions or good will of people in favour of restricting tax breaks to people doing good works, that we really should extend these to commerce as without legal equality we’re not treating those engaged in trade with real dignity.
I… I think I just got a “You’re interrogating the text from the wrong perspective” de-rail.
I feel so proud.
Christianity is still actively in favour of heterosexual marriage in a way that it isn’t in favour of SSM
“My Christianity is still actively in favour of heterosexual marriage in a way that it isn’t in favour of SSM.”
There. Fixed that for you.
james, I hear lots of people making that argument, that same-sex couples don’t deserve the “rewards” of marriage. Usually the argument is that opposite-sex marriage usually produces children and so deserves special status. Where I think the analogy falls apart is that we give tax-free status to all non-profits, not just ones that are doing something particularly praise-worthy. I mean, I’m in the SCA, which is a non-profit organization because it has an educational purpose. I would never say that learning about the Middle Ages for our own enjoyment holds a candle to running a food bank or a hospice or tutoring underprivileged kids. But, it all falls under that same umbrella.
The same way, relationships don’t have to be particularly praise-worthy to get the benefits of marriage. None of the tax and inheritance and medical decision-making that marriage confers is dependent on whether a couple actually *does* all that stuff in the Bible about loving and taking care of each other. Some celebrity’s week-long marriage, or the couple that cheats on and abuses each other, is given the same legal benefits as a couple that loves and supports each other for fifty years.
And if the arguments against same-sex marriage are based on a *religious* line of thought, then they’re beside the point, at least until we have a theocracy. The sacrament of marriage and the legal institution of marriage should really be completely separate.
I also think the masturbation analogy is flawed because it’s a specific sex act, not a whole relationship or an orientation (and because no one’s arguing that if someone is caught masturbating, there should be legal consequences, or they should not be allowed to marry).
This is actually the biggest argument against teaching that same-sex relationships/orientation is sinful. It hurts people and screws them up when they’re kids. What you can fairly expect of adults who join your religion knowing what they’re getting into is a lot different from what you can reasonably expect from kids who are raised in it and surrounded by it, who couldn’t leave if they wanted to.
It’s also not just teaching that a particular sex act is sinful–it’s teaching kids and teenagers that their crushes, their desire to hold hands with a boyfriend or girlfriend, are sinful. Not just a sex act, but any and all sex and romance, ever.
And defining someone’s core self for them, contrary to their own understanding of it, can be harmful all by itself.
When I read comments like James’ at #6, my grumpy homo self comes out and I just want to say that I’ll make more of an effort to understand where the anti-SSM Christians are coming from when they make more of an effort to understand and cop to the real damage they do to human beings (both gay and straight) by their insistence on holding me to the tenets of their personal faith. I’m not being too unreasonable by expecting them to do the lion’s share of effort in that trade-off, am I?
It’s not really possible to understand it, insofar as their beliefs are functionally difficult to distinguish from beliefs in unicorns and flying aliens and pasta monsters. But one can try.
Still, the real reason to try to understand it isn’t about empathy (which is often misconstrued as understanding) but rather, about knowing where the chinks in the armor are, versus where the extra plating is. Otherwise one can both miss opportunities and waste time.
There is something overwhelmingly refreshing about this statement, don’t you think? Don’t many sensible people feel a rush of relief upon reading it for the first time? Oh, I get it, that’s exactly right!
Now because it’s kind of circular it isn’t much help, but darn it it feels so good. Back in the day, there was an X-Files episode which featured a serial killer who was searching, asking people, trying to figure out why he kept killing people. The savant character in this drama said, “That’s easy. It’s because you’re a homicidal maniac!” The killer felt this same sense of relief. Closure, really.
I say all this as a practicing Christian, a category which is not to be equated with “religinut.” I mean, if you atheists are irritated by these people, imagine how vexing it is for us, we have to sometimes actually have conversations (or, reasonable facsimiles of conversations) with them.
I suppose this comment doesn’t much advance the conversation, but I felt impelled to thank gin-and-whiskey for this formulation.
I say all this as a practicing Christian, a category which is not to be equated with “religinut.” I mean, if you atheists are irritated by these people, imagine how vexing it is for us, we have to sometimes actually have conversations (or, reasonable facsimiles of conversations) with them.
I was raised a progressive Christian. My mother and her husband are progressive Christians. My father and his wife… watch a little too much Fox sometimes but are generally at least middle-of-the-road fiscal conservative Christians who get uncomfortable legislating the fine points of people’s lives even if they do keep voting Republican.
I am not sure that having to sometimes converse with fundamentalist/evangelical Christians is really worse than being a member of the most hated and distrusted minority group in America, “”a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years.” (source). Without de-railing this conversation into the obviously incorrect “last acceptable prejudice” territory, I hope that you were being hyperbolic rather than suggesting that it really is worse to be a member of this country’s most vocal and powerful (if divided) religious majority than of a group “singled out for special hatred on the basis of church/state separation” (see previous).
Elusis, I notice that while you are voluble on the theological views of your parents (who I gather are divorced, with new spouses) you are silent on the topic of your own views on this subject.
You are also, apparently, the self-appointed monitor of your parents’ lives (and the lives of your step-parents), so that your father and his wife “watch a little too much Fox” (too much for whom? you?) and “vote Republican.” (Oh noes, kiss of death, the only Right Vote is Democrat I guess. Horrors!) (BTW, how do you know how they vote? We have secret ballots in this country I thought. They say so? How do you know they’re not lying?)
I did not suggest or intend to suggest that having to deal with religinuts is worse than any other thing. I just said they are insane and a pain in the butt, and suggested that atheists sympathize with us. (Want to argue with that?) I don’t have time right now to follow out your links to figure out who is the most hated minority group in America in your estimation. Sadly, whoever it is has plenty of competition.
I’m on your side. (I think; I’m having a little trouble figuring out what your views are.) So why are you attacking me?
The software won’t let me edit my own immediately previous comment, doubtless because I started out declaring that I’m a Christian, so I have to start over. (“You are not authorized to edit this comment” you bad girl!)
Elusis, you after me for the same reason? I can’t figure out what I said in my original comment that gives you the idea I’m doing you some kind of injustice by observing that conversing with religinuts is a pain in the butt. (Darn it, it just is.)
I didn’t say, if you will review my original comment, that dealing with them is “worse than” being a downtrodden member of an oppressed class. I just said they were a pain in the butt, OK?
If it is not OK here to be a follower (or, in my case, an attempted follower) of Jesus the Christ, I hope the moderators will so inform me, so that I can bow out without further ado.
I can’t even agree with you without getting you on my case. This says more about you than it does about me.
Susan – I apologize; I meant to identify myself as an agnostic but omitted it. My point was I was raised in a Christian church (several actually) and am close to practicing Christians who are not evangelicals or fundamentalists. My ongoing dialogue with my parents is requesting that for every time they want to talk to me about coming back to the church, they go spend that energy on doing something to bring Christian moderates back into the public dialogue to counteract fundamentalism in politics.
I commented because I find it objectionable when Christians of any stripe try to tell non-Christians how hard they have it in the United States. Sometimes having to deal with irritating “relatives” is a pain. But asking for sympathy (“if you guys are irritated, imagine how vexing it is for us!”) is bang out of order when your burden amounts to being embarrassed or annoyed, while others are both demonized and subject to religiously-motivated legislation designed to oppress and marginalize us while having to hear about how Christians are the real victims here. Yes, that includes jokes about being victimized by software.
I don’t sympathize with you at all, I’m sorry to tell you. I find nothing about the privilege that comes with being a Christian in the United States to be sympathetic. Maybe as a queer woman raised in part in the “mainstream” United Methodist Church I’m once again feeling the acute sting of the General Assembly refusing to welcome GLB people as fellow Methodists. (Every couple of years, queer Methodists are reminded that the UMC has apparently decided they can tolerate abortion or gays but not both.) So much for moderate, contemporary Christianity.
Maybe you were trying to be funny, but it fell flat. I didn’t find your statement very charming or humorous, which was the point of my comment.
There are Christians who are neither fundamentalist nor evangelical. Such a critter is possible…barely. That one might choose to label that group as “moderate” seems a little weird. Moderates ought to be the majority, or have a viewpoint which is conceptually central to the organizing principle(s) of the group, ideally both. Non-fundamentalist non-evangelical Christians are a fairly small portion of Christians, and are pretty far on the outskirts of the practice of the faith, numerically speaking, and are at one extreme of the approach to converting new people to the faith. (I tried to write prosely…thing fifteen times and can’t remember how to spell it. Fuck it, Jesus couldn’t spell it either.)
It’s possible that you mean non-fundie and non-evangelical as *attitudinal* descriptors rather than strict theological ones; there are fundamentalists and/or evangelicals (people who believe the Bible to be the inerrantly inspired word of God and people who believe Christians are obliged to preach the Gospel to those who have not yet heard it) who aren’t ASSHOLES about it; I know many, of A, B, and AB configuration. You may be using “moderate” in that non-asshole sense, in which case, never mind.
Robert,
Your misreading is bizarre.
As you may be aware, evangelical as an adjective describing Christians does not simply mean Christians who believing in proselytizing (hah hah, my web browser has a spell check!). Evangelical refers to a specific movement within Christianity. Roughly 1/4 of Christians in the US identify as Evangelicals.
Likewise, Fundamentalism is a militant strain within Evangelicalism based in adherence to the tenets set forth in the 12 volume series The Fundamentals, and does not simply refer to all Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrantly inspired by God.
It’s OK with the mods as far as I know. It just means you’re somewhere north of non-bonkers, and (assuming that you’re not a fundamentalist who just doesn’t realize it) south of religinut.**
I won’t say “there’s no need to be defensive,” because IMO of course there is. It’s difficult (if not impossible) to carefully carve out personally-acceptable aspects from a religion which is inherently problematic. Especially if you’re trying to hold yourself out as an adherent of that religion. And it’s even trickier to do so while simultaneously declining to believe in unicorns, dragons, flying spaghetti monsters, the physical existence of the Egyptian pantheon, the validity of other contrary religions, and the 2009 Saturn Ion which is currently orbiting Alpha Centauri.
But hey, that’s your call. You can believe what your religion tells you, and I can believe that if you deliberately choose to follow Christianity you’re a few cards short of a deck.
**You noted “I say all this as a practicing Christian, a category which is not to be equated with “religinut.” As you may or may not be aware, almost nobody thinks they are a religinut or an extremist. Self-identification is poor in this category.
After all, it can be difficult to distinguish people who “only” believe in a physical deity, god-human fertility, virgin birth, literal resurrection, angels, devils, heaven, hell, and/or transsubstantiation–these are the relatively sane ones, mind you–from those who also believe in the even more bizarre aspects of the theology.
Fundamentalism is NOT a strain within evangelicalism. No time to get into the weeds on this one today.
You know, I figured that out. My apologies for agreeing with you-all about the religinuts.
According to the 2010 survey by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, Christian congregations claim less than half of Americans as “adherents.” Utah claims the most, at around 75%; Maine claims the least, at about 25%. And while southern states predictably have high rates of adherents, Minnesota ranks 8th, Massachusetts ranks 9th, and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin all rank highly among the states.
For what it’s worth….
You know, the more I read this thread, the more I wince every time the term “religinuts” is used. It’s an ugly term, and I’d like people to stop using it here.
Robert,
While Fundamentalist can be used by extension to refer to militant and literalist branches of any religion or sect (fundamentalist Wicca, fundamentalist Catholicism (Opus Dei?), fundamentalist atheism), its origin and primary meaning refers to a specific faction of Evangelical Christianity that arose in the late 19th century.
I won’t use the term any more, as per your request.
Do you think it’s improper, impolite, or something else?
It’s meant to point out the inherent problems and innate issues of most religions (certainly including Christianity, but not necessarily all others.) It’s also meant to reinforce the point that belief in religious myth isn’t materially different from belief in flying unicorns or other myths (which most people would deem to be “nutty”) At heart, it’s designed to encourage listeners to view people as increasingly illogical and unreliable, in direct proportion to their adherence to religion.
Is it offensive? Sure. But it doesn’t target anything other than a volitional choice. If you don’t want to be referred to as a ___, don’t act like one. Not only do I think it’s appropriate to criticize choices, I think it’s important.
But in any case, given the level of criticism (which amounts to a wholesale rejection of their position) there’s no real way to say that politely, at least not as far as I’ve found to date. What equivalent term would you suggest as an alternative? Or would you rather that I not express that sentiment at all? (which, again, your blog, so OK.)
I think it’s name-calling, of a level more appropriate for a schoolyard than a space like Alas.
Couldn’t you express the sentiment using statements like “belief in religious myth isn’t materially different from belief in flying unicorns or other myths” and “people are increasingly illogical and unreliable, in direct proportion to their adherence to religion”?
Charles –
Yes, narrowly that is true. Similarly, “Libertarian” has as its origin and primary meaning a movement that got its start in the 19th century – but if you start talking about libertarian elements of Roman political thought in the 3rd century BC, or the libertarian underpinnings of French economic theory 1200 AD – 2100 AD, nobody is going to get confused.
Elusis’ use of the term in this thread has made some specific connections to Protestant Christianity (when discussing his/her parents) but has also made plenty of references that would seem to connect to “fundamentalist” in the much larger sense of the word. It is POSSIBLE for someone who refers to “fundamentalists” to be thinking of Jerry Swaggert and only Jerry Swaggert, while hardcore Opus Deists or mullahs or no-Internet-for-YOU-orthodox Jews are totally off their radar…but rare, I think.
Only when “Christian” is defined by fundamentalists and evangelicals. I don’t find it particularly difficult to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins without denying evolution or thinking my mission in life is to convert everybody I meet or even that the modern church (and secular society) should follow everything Paul said.
In terms of actual demographics, mainline Protestant churches (as opposed to evangelical and fundamentalist denominations) used to be the majority of Christians in the US and still comprise a pretty solid minority. So not some rare and “barely possible” critter, but a pretty significant subset of Christians.
“Only when “Christian” is defined by fundamentalists and evangelicals. I don’t find it particularly difficult to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins without denying evolution or thinking my mission in life is to convert everybody I meet or even that the modern church (and secular society) should follow everything Paul said.”
None of those things are requirements for being either fundamentalist or evangelical.
“In terms of actual demographics, mainline Protestant churches (as opposed to evangelical and fundamentalist denominations) used to be the majority of Christians in the US and still comprise a pretty solid minority.”
Every mainline Protestant church is evangelical, to at least some degree, and it is usually a pretty significant degree. To take as an example the Methodists (since Elusis mentioned them), and without pre-Googling, here’s a few interesting Google hits:
http://www.worldmethodist.org/ – a site for Methodist evangelicals
http://naume.org/ – a more professional version of the same idea
http://www.wmei.ws/wordpress/ – an institute that trains Methodist evangels
https://www.facebook.com/pages/World-Methodist-Evangelism/133604846679651 – the Facebook fan page for Methodist evangelism
http:/www.umc.org – the Methodist denomination’s official home page. Big yellow letters at the “hotspot” of the page: “Our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”
Evangelical doesn’t mean standing on a soap box in Tappan Square shouting that putting a pizza up your nose is a meaningful allegory of homosexuality (Obie reference, sorry). It just means believing that the gospel is true and that people who haven’t heard it, ought to.
I, for example, am an evangelical Christian, though not anything even close to a fundamentalist one. Like a few gazillion of my compatriots, I try not to be an ass about it. I would never go onto a thread at Alas and start talking about “hey, you guys ought to believe in Jesus instead of this spaghetti monster fellow”, even an open thread – this isn’t a place for that. I don’t go door to door (or even website to website). Heck, most weeks I don’t even go to church. But, nonetheless.
Evangelical christianity is distributed throughout protestant demoninations. It is not a sub-set of Southern Baptists. There are Evangelical Methodists. There are Evangelical Lutherans. There are Evangelical Baptists. Most Methodists are not Evangelicals. Most Lutherans are not Evangelicals. I’m not sure about most Baptists, but many Baptists are not Evangelicals.
There is an Evangelical umbrella organization. Most US churches do not belong to it.
Surveys have been done of people in the US. only about one quarter call themselves Evangelicals.
The most common meaning of evangelical does not mean “in favor of proselytizing.” The churches you point to do not merely mean that when they call themselves Evangelical. There are plenty of churches that actively support missionary work that are nonetheless not Evangelical churches. The Catholic Church, for instance, is not an Evangelical Church. If you go look up the dictionary definition of evangelical, you will find definitions that you could claim apply to most Christians, but the sense in which Elusis meant it was pretty obviously the common meaning of someone who identifies with the Evangelical movement or who is a member of an Evangelical church. Unless you have converted recently, you are not an Evangelical.
I am capitalizing Evangelical to make it explicit that it an identification, not merely a description, but Elusis point was clear even without capitalization.
When you wrote: “Fundamentalism is NOT a strain within evangelicalism. ” you demonstrated that you actually understand this perfectly well, and are perfectly capable of using “evangelical” to refer to the Evangelical movement. Somehow, you nonetheless claim to be incapable of understanding when Elusis used the word with the same intent.
I guess maybe I am just not as sure of Elusis’ intent. Is a Colorado Roman Catholic parish that sends missions to Mexico every year, explicitly to preach the Gospel and maybe secondarily to dig wells or something, evangelical as you meant the term, Elusis? Or is it non-evangelical?
I’m Catholic AND an evangelical, and I don’t see any conflict. Other than that you’d have to be kind of crazy to want to join the Catholic denomination these days. Scandals on every side, and the whole hot-guilty-sex thing is really a shadow of its former glory.
When I say “evangelical Christian” I’m referring to the often non-denominational, socially conservative Protestant church (some of which are “charismatic”). Those who are very concerned with being engaged in culture, particularly in changing culture, which usually seems to mean getting involved in policing other people’s bedrooms and bodies.
The Wikipedia article was interesting and useful to me, particularly the bits on the 20th century (separation from “fundamentalism”), and the “contemporary North American perspective” section as well as the politics section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
I’m thinking of the anti-choice, prayer in schools, anti sex ed, anti gay marriage, “Christian Nation” or Dominionist flavor of activist Protestantism.
That may be the technical definition, but any church I’ve ever been to that describes itself as evangelical has been big on relentless attempts to convert the people around you–regardless of whether they’re interested in hearing the gospel or have already heard it forty-seven times. It often goes way beyond “people who haven’t heard it, ought to” and into “it’s your job to convince everyone around you to be a Christian, and if you fail at that, when they burn in hell forever it’ll be partly your fault.” (Though as I’ve said before, I grew up in a pretty rural and conservative area and that tends to skew everything in the direction of the worst definitions of fundamentalism.)
Also, I think there’s a distinction between interpersonal or missionary evangelism (small e, in the “people should hear the gospel and become Christians” sense) and cultural or legal evangelism (people should be legally forced to hear the gospel* and prohibited from actions we don’t find Christian**). The cultural and legal are the more problematic versions, because it seems very much to be in favor of freedom of religion only for Christians, and at that, only a subset of Christians.
*Being in favor of (Christian, out loud) prayer in schools, public postings of the Ten Commandments (and, yes, I know those aren’t the gospel, nobody ever tries to get the beatitudes or John 3:16 plastered all over courthouses), religiously based “sex ed” or other presentations in public schools, and any other state-sponsored preaching at a captive audience.
**Reproductive choice, same-sex marriage, etc. etc.
Slacktivist discusses the question of “what/who is evangelical?” (about halfway down).
He writes more about what he calls “The Big Four” here and here.