Hugh Hewitt got me thinking part 2
After the last post i was thinking about this post and the vast diversity that the word 'evangelical' covers. Hugh Hewitt said "don't tell me or imply to the public that you speak for evangelicals" and rightly so. If you say this, then what section of the "evangelical group" do you speak for. Diversity is inevitable in the "church" but sometimes it really gets me uptight when i consider what we have become. The denominations within denominations and the splits and disagreements that have caused a word like 'evangelical' to no longer mean very much are just endless. So, when Rolling Stone Goes Undercover with the Christian Fringe i get upset!! Why? Well in this instance Rolling Stone went to John Hagee's Church! You can read their article here. I suggest reading it for a better explanation of why perhaps Hagee's Church wasn't a great choice, and that way i don't have to give my own opinion and get into trouble. I would hate him to "speak" my blog into obscurity!!
I came across the article on Jollyblogger but there are some other great posts about this here and here. When a journalist decides to do this they never end up at a regular or normal Church do they? Hang on, is that an oxymoron? I guess to the "unbeliever" it is but my point is that so often the reputation of all Christians is based on the extreme teaching or activity of a minority. That extreme may fall under a very large umbrella of "evangelical" practice just because they say "Jesus" or "repent" from time to time but as Hugh points out, you cannot "speak for evangelicals." Maybe you could 30 years ago but not now!
I came across the article on Jollyblogger but there are some other great posts about this here and here. When a journalist decides to do this they never end up at a regular or normal Church do they? Hang on, is that an oxymoron? I guess to the "unbeliever" it is but my point is that so often the reputation of all Christians is based on the extreme teaching or activity of a minority. That extreme may fall under a very large umbrella of "evangelical" practice just because they say "Jesus" or "repent" from time to time but as Hugh points out, you cannot "speak for evangelicals." Maybe you could 30 years ago but not now!
Labels: blog, Church, God, spirituality
posted by supersimbo at 5/08/2008 03:59:00 PM
2 Comments:
Interesting thoughts... I agree with so very much of what you have to say.
All this is a powerful reminder for me: just as the loudest, most extreme, most obnoxious Christians always seem to get all the press so to do the loudest, most obnoxious representatives of other groups. When I don't hold on to this view it's easy to think that Richard Dawkins actually does speak for all atheists, for example, or the Jihadists speak for all Muslims.
I guess my point is that the silver lining in all this for me is that it builds in some awareness and empathy for others who get stereotyped by people claiming to speak for them.
Well, all I can say — having gone clickety-click through several layers of bloggetty-blogs before eventually finding my way back here — is: Thank God I'm not an Evangelical!
Methinks these people need to have a read of Joel Edwards' new book, An Agenda for Change. He stopped by my shop last week and kindly signed a few copies: more about that here.
Personally I'm not convinced there's much mileage in trying to rescue the word. Let's let it go and get on with following Jesus. Hate to point out the obvious, but he wasn't an evangelical, y'know; wasn't even a Christian, and never went to church in his entire life. Well OK, I suppose you could call the barbecue on the beach with the disciples an inaugural church meeting if you like, but that wasn't during his life, so that hardly counts, does it??
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home