I don't think the Brennan Manning quote is describing a single event. I'm not an atheist, but I am very skeptical of organized religion, and the quote describes the reason exactly. It wasn't any one particular event, but my observation and reading about many, many self-described Christians who fit this mold.
Wow, I never thought about the exact meaning of Evangelism, so I looked it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Two definitions:
1 : the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
2 : militant or crusading zeal
Pretty scary in either one, 'winning' meaning a Victory over another, or 'militant' meaning forceful or with fighting.
I might have thought that evangelism was simply an ACTIVE role in spreading The Word, as opposed to a passive role in waiting for others to ask. Even so, an active role can still be peaceful. "Here is The Word. Don't agree? Okay, thank you for your time." Sadly, there are evangelicals who believe their responsibility is to convey The Word upon others or kill them if they resist. Such radicals are the ones currently causing problems for the Muslim religion which is truly no more violent than the Christian religion.
An excerpt from an article about convicted abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph, who says in USA Today, "...Jesus would condone 'militant action in defense of the innocent...'" shows how religion is USED to promote hatred and violence.
I mean, seriously, picture this coming out of Jesus' lips, "He needed killin'." Holy Wyatt Earp, there's a new sheriff in town and he carries a halo with his gun.
As Mike points out, it is people like Eric Rudolph (and others who would bomb abortion clinics and the like to "save lives") who help sell the bumper stickers that ask "Who Would Jesus Bomb?", and "Who Would Jesus Kill?".
I have actually heard, "You don't seem like one of 'those'", when I have occasiona to mention offhand that my parents met in seminary more than fifty years ago. There are probably many good reasons that neither of my parents has made their living as the paid pastor of a church, even though they both graduated from seminary. Just one of those is the pressure they felt from many denominations to evangelize at all costs.
In fact there are at least two reasons that they did not end up becoming missionaries (which is what they were going to do), that both relate to this one-sided, black-and-white view of the world and spirituality, much less missions. One is that my mom was baptized as an infant and believed that being FORCED to be RE-baptized as an adult so it would "count", cheapened the act of baptism. A second is that they would not name her as a missionary too, but were only willing to name my father as one, and would merely consdier her "the missionary's wife".
People may think this comes from the fact that it was 1952, but I still hear similar in some fundamenalist churches; only men can be ministers and women are neither strong enough (physically, or in their faith) nor smart enough to be allowed to take that role. Their role for God is solely on the home front. I am so grateful that my parents never bought into that - it is polar oposite of how they live now as active and caring Christians in two different mainline denominations!
I will have to disagree somewhat with your equivocating evangelicalism to hatemongering. The term "evangelical" iself has been co-opted by so many erroneous movements that it no longer retains its historical meaning. Those that affirm historical evangelicalism are debating whether or not to abandon use of the word.
The quote by Brennan Manning is one I agree with. The observation is not lost on many Christians and Christian leaders. Primarily it points to the failure of both the church body and its leadership in remaining true to the Bible.
To Millie: I can only speak in generalities based on your brief comments regarding the experience your parents went through. It sounds like they encountered a denominational agency that held convictions that were different from their own (but are biblical). There are certain biblical teachings/beliefs/convictions that conflict (for example infant/paedo-baptism v. credo-baptism) but fall within orthodox Christianity. Some differences will prevent Christians from working together, some differences should not. Nevertheless I am glad that they are serving their local church the best they know how.
---
I'm not sure "equivocate" means what you think it does, but I was not only quoting the letter-writer (an evangelical himself) about it, I threw in both quotation marks and a question mark to make it terribly clear I knew how inflammatory such a comparison was. -rc
Evangelical = Hatemonger? - Comments
I don't think the Brennan Manning quote is describing a single event. I'm not an atheist, but I am very skeptical of organized religion, and the quote describes the reason exactly. It wasn't any one particular event, but my observation and reading about many, many self-described Christians who fit this mold.
Posted by: Eric, Franklin, MA | May 15, 2007 8:41 AM
Wow, I never thought about the exact meaning of Evangelism, so I looked it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Two definitions:
1 : the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
2 : militant or crusading zeal
Pretty scary in either one, 'winning' meaning a Victory over another, or 'militant' meaning forceful or with fighting.
I might have thought that evangelism was simply an ACTIVE role in spreading The Word, as opposed to a passive role in waiting for others to ask. Even so, an active role can still be peaceful. "Here is The Word. Don't agree? Okay, thank you for your time." Sadly, there are evangelicals who believe their responsibility is to convey The Word upon others or kill them if they resist. Such radicals are the ones currently causing problems for the Muslim religion which is truly no more violent than the Christian religion.
An excerpt from an article about convicted abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph, who says in USA Today, "...Jesus would condone 'militant action in defense of the innocent...'" shows how religion is USED to promote hatred and violence.
I mean, seriously, picture this coming out of Jesus' lips, "He needed killin'." Holy Wyatt Earp, there's a new sheriff in town and he carries a halo with his gun.
Posted by: Mike from Dallas | May 17, 2007 2:25 PM
As Mike points out, it is people like Eric Rudolph (and others who would bomb abortion clinics and the like to "save lives") who help sell the bumper stickers that ask "Who Would Jesus Bomb?", and "Who Would Jesus Kill?".
I have actually heard, "You don't seem like one of 'those'", when I have occasiona to mention offhand that my parents met in seminary more than fifty years ago. There are probably many good reasons that neither of my parents has made their living as the paid pastor of a church, even though they both graduated from seminary. Just one of those is the pressure they felt from many denominations to evangelize at all costs.
In fact there are at least two reasons that they did not end up becoming missionaries (which is what they were going to do), that both relate to this one-sided, black-and-white view of the world and spirituality, much less missions. One is that my mom was baptized as an infant and believed that being FORCED to be RE-baptized as an adult so it would "count", cheapened the act of baptism. A second is that they would not name her as a missionary too, but were only willing to name my father as one, and would merely consdier her "the missionary's wife".
People may think this comes from the fact that it was 1952, but I still hear similar in some fundamenalist churches; only men can be ministers and women are neither strong enough (physically, or in their faith) nor smart enough to be allowed to take that role. Their role for God is solely on the home front. I am so grateful that my parents never bought into that - it is polar oposite of how they live now as active and caring Christians in two different mainline denominations!
Posted by: Millie from Madison, WI | May 19, 2007 3:57 PM
I will have to disagree somewhat with your equivocating evangelicalism to hatemongering. The term "evangelical" iself has been co-opted by so many erroneous movements that it no longer retains its historical meaning. Those that affirm historical evangelicalism are debating whether or not to abandon use of the word.
The quote by Brennan Manning is one I agree with. The observation is not lost on many Christians and Christian leaders. Primarily it points to the failure of both the church body and its leadership in remaining true to the Bible.
To Millie: I can only speak in generalities based on your brief comments regarding the experience your parents went through. It sounds like they encountered a denominational agency that held convictions that were different from their own (but are biblical). There are certain biblical teachings/beliefs/convictions that conflict (for example infant/paedo-baptism v. credo-baptism) but fall within orthodox Christianity. Some differences will prevent Christians from working together, some differences should not. Nevertheless I am glad that they are serving their local church the best they know how.
---
I'm not sure "equivocate" means what you think it does, but I was not only quoting the letter-writer (an evangelical himself) about it, I threw in both quotation marks and a question mark to make it terribly clear I knew how inflammatory such a comparison was. -rc
Posted by: James, Dallas | May 23, 2007 8:25 AM
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.