Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?

In the 16th century, John Calvin argued on theological grounds that anyone who believed that the earth moved in space was “motivated by a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding; possessed by the devil.” * 

In the 17th century, both Catholics and Protestants systematically executed Anabaptists for holding to the “heresy” that a confession of faith should precede baptism.

Here in America, the original Southern Baptist Convention was organized, in part, because Baptists in the South did not want to be told from Baptists in the North that owning slaves was wrong.

In the 60s, many evangelicals used Scripture to support racial segregation.

Oops. Hindsight is 20/20, huh?

I bring up these historical embarrassments, not to shame the Church or criticize the many godly people who supported them, but to pose a question: What’s next? What are the issues facing the Church today that may come back to haunt us in the future?

Every now and then I wonder what convictions I might have held had I lived in my hometown of Dayton, Tennessee just five, ten, or fifteen decades ago. Would I have used Scripture to defend my right to own slaves? Would I have remained silent as the Cherokees stumbled by my house on the Trail of Tears? We Christians must be careful not to imitate the Pharisees, who bragged that had they lived during the time of the prophets they would not have shed the blood of innocent men, but who then proceeded to crucify Jesus and persecute his disciples (Matthew 23:30-34). Our confidence that we are right about everything is often our downfall.

So what will be the hot issues for our generation? What will we be debating over the next five, ten, or twenty years?

I don’t know for sure, but I have some guesses. Let me know what you think.

1) Homosexuality: This week’s California ruling regarding gay marriage is sure to spark another round of arguments between conservative evangelicals and the gay community. It’s too bad. I’m really starting to get weary of all the hateful rhetoric coming from conservative Christians, rhetoric that only serves to alienate gays from the church.

If I were a betting woman, I would put money on the guess that in less than ten years, evangelicals will be blushing at some of James Dobson’s comments regarding homosexuality. I think that as more people come out and as more progress is made in identifying possible genetic influences in sexual orientation, evangelicals will have to back-track a bit. I also anticipate that in the coming years, theologians will re-approach those biblical texts used to condemn homosexuality and perhaps present evangelicals with some optional interpretations.

2) Religious Pluralism: As our world becomes more interconnected, I think young evangelicals in particular will grow hungry for fresh approaches to religious pluralism, and will begin to seek out alternatives to traditional exclusivism. The Catholic Church has taken the lead on this issue with the Second Vatican Council, and I expect evangelicals will follow. It’s hard to foresee any “official” changes in doctrine, considering the complexity of the issue, but I expect the dialog will open up a bit in this area.

3) Evolution: As scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory continues to become more widely accepted, I think conservative evangelicals will at least have to concede the point that it is possible for a  person to believe in both and old earth and a loving God, that “Christian evolutionist” is not an oxymoron. I have a feeling that the evolution debate might be our generation’s Galilean controversy, which is why I am wary of making sweeping pronouncements about God being on one side or the other. I’m hoping that this issue will spark a healthy conversation about whether should treat the Bible as a science textbook or a spiritual guidebook.

So, what do you think? What will be the hot-button issues of our time? In what ways do you expect evangelicals might change their minds?

(I also thought about mentioning the role of women in the church, changes in the political affiliations of young evangelicals, and a renewed interest in humanitarian aide and world poverty. What do you think about those issues?)

--
Citation:
* Sermon No. 8 on 1st Corinthians, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma, Oxford University Press, 1988, A. 72


glenhentz
Comment
Re: Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?
Reply #1 on : Fri May 16, 2008, 17:50:49
Regarding point #3: This is why I never use the word "inerrancy".
Micah
Comment
Re: Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?
Reply #2 on : Fri May 16, 2008, 18:39:39
At some point, Rachel, you might want to reconsider your labels. I know tons of Evangelicals who hold Old Earth views (this would include the pastor of my church and the dean of my seminary). I think you're speaking of what are more commonly called fundamentalists.
Micah
Comment
Re: Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?
Reply #3 on : Fri May 16, 2008, 18:58:40
At #1, I haven't had to follow the fallout over the california thing (no TV is wonderful), but there couldn't possibly be an outcome more designed to get people fired up over judicial activism. Judges struck down a measure that won the popular vote in California. CALIFORNIA. If it passed there it would pass in probably 46 other states. Talk about ignoring the will of the people.

The "optional interpretations" for homosexual readings of the bible won't be for the coming years... they're already here. You just don't hear about them because they're embarrassingly bad. If you'd like to make an argument from scripture, we'd be glad to hear it.

For the other stuff, though, these debates are already in the past. Maybe I'm misreading you, but by and large these aren't _future_ hot-button issues, they're past ones.

* Regarding "changes in the political affiliations of young evangelicals," I assume you're going to cover this week's big news, The Evangelical Manifesto? Regardless, this is simply a return to historic Evangelicalism. Until the 80s, Christians were never regularly associated with a specific political party.

* Regarding "women in the church," it's a solved problem most places. It's a recent blip on the radar (a reaction against 60's feminism), not a historical belief of most Christians. Go to Google Books and pull up commentaries on 2 Timothy from a hundred years ago... today's uber-conservatives are far more forceful about gender roles than uber-conservatives were a century ago.

* Regarding "a renewed interest in humanitarian aide and world poverty" I'm not sure what to say. Did you catch the Summit last year? If there's a _future_ move in this direction that's more than what's currently going on, then it's hard for me to imagine what that would look like.
Matt
Comment
Re: Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?
Reply #4 on : Fri May 16, 2008, 22:06:05
Interesting post. I may be a bit indulgent in speculation but the question you pose does reveal a person's vision for the Church in a certain way.

It's a little difficult for me to try to imagine projecting what the "evangelical" church will do in the future. The label is a fluid one which, in 30 years, will probably be unrecognizable to who we consider evangelicals today. But if we are speaking about the majority of conservative north american christians, perhaps I can indulge in a few guesses.

I think all three of the issues you highlighted will eventually be adopted by the majority of conservative christians. But your timeline seems strange. I think the acceptance of some form of macro-evolution and an old earth is on the verge of being secured. I give it 20 more years.

A form of inclusivism (though probably not universalism) is also just around the corner, I believe. I also give it about 20 years for acceptance among the majority of conservatives.

And while I think homosexuality will eventually be accepted as an ethically responsible Christian option, I think your suggestion that it may be accepted in ten years or so is way too optimistic. I give it at least 40 years before it makes any significant headway into conservative christian circles.

I have a host of issues I would add to these three. Women in the Church is a key one that is currently changing and will likely see significant success in 20-30 years. I disagree with Micah's assessment that it is essentially a "recent blip on the radar" or recent church history that shows discrimination against women. The Church has a long and painfully entrenched tradition of patriarchy and misogyny. This bias against women has become more articulate in recent decades in response to feminism but it is nothing new.

I do agree with Micah, however, that the conservative church's affiliation with right-wing politics is a fairly new phenomenon and not something to last very long. I give it 15 years.

I think "the renewed interest in humanitarian aide and world poverty" will likely come with the shedding of close affiliation with right-wing politics mentioned above. Granted I didn't see the Summit last year (to which Micah refers) but the conservative church has been embarrassingly slow to adopt humanitarian causes.

I would add to this list the tendency of conservative Christians to support nationalism/patriotism. [By the way, Rachel, I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic in a future post]. This has a long history in America, and in the Church in general, but this has changed among most Christians of the world today, even most conservative Christians outside of America. I do not mean that Christians will stop liking/loving their own country. But I do think there is a slowly growing recognition of the deep ethical dangers of elevating one's nationalistic/patriotic concerns to the level of Christian ethics. I give this issue 15-20 years to take substantial hold among conservative Christians.

[I am aware of the fact that I am speaking with incredible presumption. I don't actually claim to have unique insight into the conservative church's engagement with these issues. This is pure speculation].

-Matt
David
Comment
Women...
Reply #5 on : Sat May 17, 2008, 13:44:01
Seriously? The repression of women isn't an historic belief of the church? Seriously, when the ordination of women is still banned in the Catholic Church and when women's ordination in major denominations just occurred less than 100 years ago and didn't achieve acceptance in the most liberal denominations until about 50 years ago? When women are still counseled to stay with an emotionally/verbally/physically abusive husband? That is simply ridiculous.

Regarding homosexuality, let's just consider for a moment that all the alternate readings of the condemnatory texts are wrong. Is it possible, perhaps, that the Biblical authors might have just simply been *wrong*? Gasp.

Re: California. As a Californian, I must say that I don't care what the will of the people is if the will of the people is unconstitutional. What if the will of the people was to deny interracial marriage, as it was at one time?

And the evangelical manifesto isn't a return to historic evangelicalism, as if it is possible to ignore and turn back 100 years of history. It might be an attempt to right the ship. And a poor one at that.

Gotta go.
kristen
Comment
re:the will of the people
Reply #6 on : Mon May 19, 2008, 20:25:58
i know this does not directly address the subject of the post, but i, too, want to say that despite certain rhetoric our government was never intended to be the voice of the "will of the people." the will of the people is changeable and can be just plain wrong. abolitionists, for example, remained in the minority in the us until well into the civil war.

i hope and pray that most christian religious groups can dissociate themselves from the political party system. i am not saying not to take active roles in politics. rather, and i think most of you would agree, i am saying that alining one party works against both the party and the religious group (as both become to blame for the failures or the other and as attrocities slip by in favor of other 'pet' measures). however, i wonder (esp. having just done some intense study on the 'old south' and the civil war) if the phenomenon is not as new as we like to think. perhaps the allegiance just shifts.
Chris
Comment
a side note
Reply #7 on : Tue May 20, 2008, 20:16:33
The Baptists weren't the only ones to fall on the wrong side of the slavery issue: our beloved PCA is a direct descendant of the PCCSA (Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States of America). The PCCSA was formed in 1861 after splintering off from the main Presbyterian denomination over the issue of slavery. Only in 1973 did the PCA splinter off from that branch.

Side Note 2:
There are official Catholic documents dating back to the 8th century teaching religious tolerance. In fact, Pope Gregory VII (11th century) acknowledged in a letter that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 20:17:43 by Chris  
kristen
Comment
more side note :)
Reply #8 on : Thu May 22, 2008, 14:24:20
the methodists also split in the 1830s over slavery. after the war, they came back together however, thus the united methodist church.

who can say what prejudices and successes (?) believers in 100 years will judge us with? i find this conversation interesting, if without certain answers. :)
Jemila
Comment
future Christian pluralism
Reply #9 on : Mon May 26, 2008, 22:50:01
I loved reading your post. I think as a new pluralism emerges, Christ-lovers will focus on BEING incarnational, as oppposed to implementing incarnational theology. It's going to be less about constructs and more about the Ultimate that is beyond words -- the Word that no word or words can describe or contain, but only allude to a like a child's finger pointing to an apple blossom.
Tanner
Comment
Re: Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?
Reply #10 on : Tue May 27, 2008, 14:28:17
I had a question about your first point. I understand and to an extent belive the "genetic influences" between gay and straight. However there have also been genetic influences in sociopaths, psycopaths, and other mass murders. The Bible is pretty clear on where it stands on both grounds, if we say one is ok because of diferant wiring, can we still say the other is not accepted?
Rachel H. Evans
Comment
@Tanner
Reply #11 on : Wed May 28, 2008, 10:34:08
I guess I don't feel like homosexual relations between two consenting adults falls in the same category as mass murder.

Also, I'm not sure the Bible is quite as crystal clear on this issue as people make it out to be. I will probably post on this subject later, but I often wonder if the Bible references to homosexuality are more culturally influenced than we think.

Paul said that women who do not cover their heads "disgrace their heads." When a woman tells me, "I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible I take literally," I have a hard time taking her seriously unless she is wearing a head covering and no jewelry.

I often wonder if disdain for homosexuality fits into the same category as slavery and the oppression of women. All seem to be condoned in the Bible...but I don't think that means God approves.

Just some thoughts.
Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 10:35:50 by Rachel  

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code