Wednesday, January 31, 2024

NO!

Is it time to scrap the term ‘Evangelical’?

iStock/Rawpixel

There are many followers of Jesus in America today who do not describe themselves as “Christians.” It is not because they are ashamed of their faith. Instead, it is because the word “Christian” has become so diluted that almost anyone can call themselves a Christian, regardless of how they live or what they believe. To say, “I’m a Christian” does not necessarily convey a specific set of beliefs or moral standards, and this has been the case in America for many years now.

The positive side to this is that, as followers of Jesus, we have the opportunity to define who we are and what we believe. Even to say, “I’m a follower of Jesus” is to trigger a potential discussion.

What, exactly, does that mean? And what’s the difference between saying, “I’m a follower of Jesus” and, “I attend such and such church”?

Or, to take things one step further, what if we told people who asked, “I’m a disciple of Jesus”?

What does that mean? Or do we even dare make the claim? (For the record, followers of Jesus in the New Testament were most commonly called “disciples.”)

When it comes to the term “Evangelical,” it is not so much that it is a potentially ambiguous term (like “Christian”) as it is a misleading term, a term that has become cultural and political more than spiritual.

Explaining the history of the word “Evangelical,” which first came into use in the 1500s as a synonym for “Gospel,” Thomas Kidd notes that, “By 1950, the use of the word had changed dramatically, especially because of the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942. ‘Evangelical’ was coming to denote conversionist Protestants who were not fundamentalists.”

A major factor in this was that, “in 1949, Billy Graham rose to prominence, and by 1950 he had become the undisputed standard-bearer for what people saw as Evangelical faith.”

Evangelicals, then, believed what Billy Graham believed. That was pretty simple.

But, Kidd explains, “in 1976. That year, Jimmy Carter, a self-described Evangelical, won the presidency, and Newsweek declared 1976 the ‘year of the Evangelical.’

“Of more enduring importance, Gallup for the first time began asking survey respondents in 1976 if they were ‘evangelical’ or ‘born again’ and pairing that response with political behavior. Of course, the rise of the Moral Majority in 1979 was a decisive moment in the politicization of the word ‘evangelical,’ too, but once ‘evangelical’ became a standard category in polling, the public perception began to shift inexorably toward a political understanding of what it meant to be an evangelical. By the 2010s, most casual American observers had come to assume that evangelical meant ‘white religious Republican.’”

That’s why, for a decade or more, some Evangelical leaders have suggested that we drop the term entirely, since to most Americans, it speaks of a cultural and political aspect of our faith more than the essence of our faith.

Recent studies suggest that the trend in that direction has deepened, with many conservative white voters (especially Trump supporters) self-identifying as Evangelicals, even if some of them do not hold to traditional Evangelical beliefs.

And so the term, which was first entirely spiritual in meaning, became a spiritual term with cultural and political associations, and now, perhaps, primarily a cultural and political term.

As noted in a Jan. 8 article in the New York Times by Ruth Graham and Charles Homans, “religion scholars, drawing on a growing body of data, suggest another explanation: evangelicals are not exactly who they used to be.

“Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically, and Trump looms large.”

To be sure, some of the scholars cited might see things through the lens of their own biases, viewing many Evangelical Trump supporters as White supremacists and/or insurrectionists.

But either way, there is no doubt that the term “Evangelical” does not mean what it used to mean, especially to the general public.

In house, among committed Christians who identify as Evangelicals, or distinguishing between Catholic Christians and Evangelical Christians, the term still speaks of those who hold to a certain set of beliefs (in harmony with what Billy Graham preached).

But for the outside world, it may be time for us to reconsider how we who are traditional Evangelicals describe ourselves.

It might also lead to more conservations about Jesus and the Scriptures.

Shall we take that step?

Dr. Michael Brown (https://thelineoffire.org/) is the host of the nationally syndicated The Line of Fire  radio show. He is the author of over 40 books, including Can You be Gay and ChristianOur Hands are Stained with Blood; and Seizing the Moment: How to Fuel the Fires of Revival. Dr. Brown is dedicated to equipping you with hope, engaging your faith, and empowering you to become a voice for Moral Sanity and Spiritual Clarity. You can connect with him on FacebookX, or YouTube. CP.

Mike Pilavachi.

Read more:

 

So Many Directors of TV Series and Films Should Hang Their Heads In Shame.

 My wife and I are fed up to the back teeth with directors of TV and film who revel in making their works become unfathomable to ordinary viewers.

How many times do we see outlines of characters wandering about the set enshrouded in so much darkness that it becomes impossible to work out who is who?
How many times do directors create more than one character of the same hair colouring, same body shape, similar clothing and even similar features? Is this intended to confuse?
Why do so very many actors mumble constantly?
Time after time, Mrs Blogger and I turn off a series which had appeared quite promising.

Today, I happened to watch an old episode of The Bill from around 2005. We saw every movement with genuine clarity; heard every word uttered without exception; recognised that the director seemed to care - not just with people having health or age issues - but for the young and healthy also!
We were enjoying 'The Outsider' series but there were so many areas of confusion - even after we had played it back - we had no alternative but to abandon it. 
This occurs a number of times weekly.

Birdie.


 

Trust In Him.

Fire & Burning - Propaganda Revealed.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-__pY6Dp5M


   FRAUD! Nothing less.
           EXPOSED!

Er ... Yes.


 

If Jesus Felt The Need To Pray Often - How Much More Do We Need To Do So?

 Luke16) But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.

More Migration To This Country in last Quarter of A Century Than From 1066 To 2,000.

 NOW will the politicians finally get why SO many people are now SO angry?

(This is not anything to do with racism!)

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

NI Brexit Problems Finally Resolved?

 https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1861080/brexit-northern-ireland-ireland-UK-deal-dup-eu-stormont

Well Put, Janet.

Tory capitulation to the soft-Left orthodoxy has ruined Britain.

Don’t blame Reform. Sunak’s party is unravelling because it succumbed to socialist delusions that were impossible to implement. Janet Daley.

The Teddy Bird Look.


 

The World Does Not Belong To Us.

No Surprises Here.

My Answer To The Question Is Unequivocal.

Can Christians attend gay weddings?

To update the famous comment of Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in the sexual revolution, but the sexual revolution is interested in you. Some of us are still privileged enough to be partly sheltered from this revolution. I count myself as one, along with those whose detachment from real-life pastoral situations apparently qualifies them to sell political pedagogy to others.  But as the push among the progressive political class to dismantle traditional sexual mores continues apace, it is harder and harder to find a pastor or a priest who has not faced a difficult question from congregants about Christian obedience and their livelihood.

Only last week a pastor friend told me of a member of his church who, as a manager of a business, has been ordered to integrate the bathrooms and is now faced with complaints from women staff who feel their safety and privacy have been compromised. It’s easy to decry right-wing scaremongering in the abstract, but far more difficult to advise real people who have to make decisions that could cost them their careers. 

The sexual revolution has revolutionized everything, to the point where questions that once had simple answers have become complicated. For instance, the question “Can I attend a gay wedding?” comes up with increasing frequency and is proving less and less easy to answer, as Bethel McGrew’s closing paragraphs in her recent World column indicate. It is not hard to guess what reasons a Christian might give for attending a gay wedding: a desire to indicate to the couple that one does not hate them, or a wish to avoid causing offense or hurt. But if either carries decisive weight in the decision, then something has gone awry.

A refusal to attend might well be motivated by hatred of the couple (though in such circumstances, an invitation would seem an unlikely event) but it does not have to be so. To consider a declined invitation necessarily a sign of hatred is to adopt the notion of “hate” as a mere refusal to affirm. That is our secular age’s understanding, and not that of the Christian faith. A refusal to attend might also cause offense, but to make the giving of offense itself into a moral category is to replace moral categories of right and wrong with aesthetic categories of taste. The latter should always be subordinate to the former in the realm of ethical questions. 

There are also obvious reasons why a Christian should never attend a gay wedding. Many wedding liturgies, including that of the Book of Common Prayer, require the officiant to ask early in the service if anyone present knows any reason why the couple should not be joined together in matrimony. A Christian is at that point obliged to speak up. I would hazard a guess that such an intervention would be far more offensive than simply refusing to be at the service. 

The issue can also not be separated from the broader question of sex, gender, and human nature. If marriage is rooted in the complementarity of the sexes, then any marriage that denies that challenges the Christian understanding of creation. It is one thing for the world to do that. It is quite another for Christians to acquiesce in the same. 

Further, the biblical analogy between Christ and the church means that fake marriages are a mockery of Christ himself. Of course, that applies beyond the issue of gay marriage. A marriage involving somebody who has not divorced a previous spouse for biblical reasons involves that person entering into an adulterous relationship. No Christian should knowingly attend such a ceremony either. As Francesca Murphy declared at First Things some years ago, to lose sight of the religious dimension of marriage risks allowing people to commit “blasphemy against themselves and against God.” That means Christians have a moral responsibility to stand firm on this issue. We fool ourselves if we think the bride and groom as individuals are the most significant part of any wedding. They are not. What their union symbolizes with regard to Christ and the church is far more important. 

Whatever the alleged gains that might be made by showing the couple a morally amorphous form of love or by avoiding giving offense, the price of attendance is huge. Much has been made of the perplexity sown by the Pope’s recent statement about blessing gay couples. Just as momentous for individuals and churches could be the confusion sown by a failure to think clearly about attending gay weddings. After all, attendance so as to show “love” or avoid giving offense is a form of blessing, just without the name. 

In short, attending a gay wedding involves remaining silent when one should speak. It involves a concession on bodily sex that undermines any attempt to hold fast to the importance of the biological distinction between men and women. And it involves approving of a ceremony that makes a mockery of a central New Testament teaching and of Christ Himself. That’s a very high price tag for avoiding hurting someone’s feelings. And if Christians still think it worth paying, the future of the Church is bleak indeed.


Originally published at First Things. 

Carl R. Trueman is a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College. He is an esteemed church historian and previously served as the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and Public Life at Princeton University. Trueman has authored or edited more than a dozen books, including The Rise and Triumpth of the Modern SelfThe Creedal Imperative, Luther on the Christian Life, and Histories and Fallacies.

Sounds Reasonable.

Indiana may allow public schools to employ chaplains.

Indiana lawmakers are considering legislation that, if enacted, would allow religious chaplains to be employed by public schools to provide both secular and religious services.

Known as Senate Bill 50 and authored by Republican Sen. Stacey Donato of District 18, the proposal was introduced earlier this month and passed committee last week.

The Republican Party controls both houses of the state legislature and the executive branch. 

The legislation would allow a school superintendent or principal to employ or "approve as a volunteer" a chaplain, provided the person has "a master's degree in divinity, theology, religious studies, or a related field," two years of experience in counseling, passes a criminal background check and "has never been convicted of an offense requiring registration as a sex offender."

Additionally, the chaplain can only provide secular support to students or faculty unless a student, school employee or "a parent or guardian of the student receiving services" gives permission to receive religious services.

Donato says her legislation aims to give schools "an option to add additional resources for emotional needs of students." Freedom Post.

An Interesting Assessment.

Author: Islamist Threat ‘Played Down’ Partly Thanks to Identity Politics.

Daniel Ben-Ami said Islamism is a political movement akin to Nazism and Stalinism, and progressivism has fed the latest form of anti-Semitism.
Journalist, author Daniel Ben-ami speaks to NTD's "British Thought Leaders" programme. (NTD)
1/29/2024

The threat of Islamism has been “played down” in the West partly because of identity politics, says journalist and author Daniel Ben-Ami.

He told NTD’s “British Thought Leaders” that the Islamist ideology, unlike Islam as a religion, is a “totalitarian movement” that’s similar to Nazism and Stalinism and “inherently anti-Semitic.”

However, with the identitarian worldview permeating through the West, “we can’t talk about it” because Muslims are considered “inherently oppressed,” he said.e

The anti-Semitism expert said he believes people don’t understand the nature of the Islamist movement.

The Muslim faith is not inherently anti-Semitic. Mr. Ben-Ami said, “Islamism is something different. It’s a political movement, religio-political movement.”

Islamists see the global Muslim community as a political movement rather than a community of faith, “and they see their role as creating an Islamic world order that everyone has to follow,” he said.

“Their view that is that the true Muslims—because they see themselves as true Muslims, they don’t see a lot of Muslims as true Muslims, from that perspective—have to kind of banish this pre-Islamic barbarous view in the world.”

“So they’re the kind of anti-modernity, they’re kind of anti-enlightenment. They’re very hostile to the idea of the nation state, generally speaking, anti-democracy, identitarian, completely hostile to any kind of opposition.

“So I see Islamism as a kind of totalitarian movement, akin to Nazism and Stalinism.”

For Islamists, “Jews are central to their worldview,” Mr. Ben-Ami said.

“They see Jews as being the main opponents in trying to create this kind of global Islamic order. And so anti-Semitism is very central to Islamism, to the Islamist worldview,” he said.

Institutional Islamists

Among Islamists, there are a small minority of jihadists who are“willing themselves to use violence,” and there are the “institutional Islamists” or “participation Islamists” who “support violence in principle, but themselves do not engage in violence,” he said.

“Often, that’s seen as the distinction between the kind of extremists and the moderates. But that’s a bit misleading,” he said.

“Because ... they both subscribe to the same extreme set of ideas.”

According to Mr. Ben-Ami, the “institutional Islamists” would often stand in elections or be involved in non-violent political movements, such as organising the so-called pro-Palestinian marches in Western countries.

Progressivism Feeds Newest Form of Anti-Semitism

According to the anti-Semitism expert, apart from Islamist anti-Semitism, there are far-right kinds of anti-Semitism, which he believes is “pretty small” in most countries; those who see themselves as radicals but see Jews as “epitomising” all problems that exist in the world; and “the newest form of anti-Semitism” that came from progressivism.

The progressivism-driven anti-Semitism is “very problematic,” he said.

“You have this hierarchy of oppression, that white people are inherently privileged, that ‘people of colour,’ as they call them, are oppressed people at the bottom of the hierarchy are kind of always destined to be at the bottom,” he said. 

“And then people often draw the conclusion that Jews because they’re very often successful, ... now it’s seen at least by the kind of identitarian ins as a kind of mark of privilege.”

As a result, the slaughtering of Israelis in the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack last year “doesn’t really count” because the Israelis are seen as oppressors, he said.

Mr. Ben-Ami cited a recent Harvard-Harris poll, which found that 67 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds believe that “Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors.”

According to the same poll, 66 percent of respondents from the same age group believe the Oct. 7 attack was “genocidal in nature,” but 60 percent believe it can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians.

Mr. Ben-Ami said it’s “absolutely fine to sympathise with the Palestinians or be critical of the Israeli government, however, people now ”very often“ see Israel as ”a kind of personification of evil. So they'll talk about Israel as being an apartheid state, ... colonialist, racist, all the rest of it.”

“And once you don’t judge Israel by normal criteria, but you see it as a kind of epitome of evil. I say that is a form of anti-Semitism,” he said.

According to Mr. Ben-Ami, Israel “was condemned twice as much as all the other countries put together” in resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly last year.

“To argue that Israel is as bad as all the 192 [countries] put together in terms of its faults, to me, it shows there’s something very skewed and wrong about the discussion,” he said.

However, Mr. Ben-Ami still believes free speech is “a very important principle,” arguing it’s not only right in principle, it also has practical utilities.

“If people have bad ideas, those ideas should be challenged rather than suppressed,” he said.

“But I think there’s also a practical question, which I think the whole anti-Semitism debate illustrates very well. Because if you ban people from saying anti-Semitic things by using abusive words for Jews, for example, all that tends to happen is that it just takes a more disguised form.” Epoch Times.

Danger Alert.

The broken immigration system is now becoming dangerous. The Home Office already has some serious questions to answer – as does the Ministry...