Hijacking Evangelicalism

[Hammster]

Hijacking ‘Evangelicalism’

“As increasing numbers of professing Christians subscribe to a gospel of social justice – a fundamental tenet of which is the resurrection and prosecution of past sins committed primarily by white evangelical Christians against black people whether by commission or omission – the term ‘evangelical Christian(ity)’ has become synonymous with historical and present-day attitudes of white oppression and white supremacy in America, whether perceived or real.”

 

[redleghunter]

I don’t think the social justice gospel is interested in forgiveness.

 

[A Realist]

One bad apple spoils the whole evangelical barrel.

 

[Hammster]

Another facet of the same jewel.

defining evangelicalism- what it really means - Kaleoscope

“Evangelicals recognize that the Gospel message is for both the intellectual and the simple, the theologian and the construction worker, the professor and the home maker, and has the power to level class distinctions, ethnic divisions, gender distortions, and social disparities across the board.”

 

[iluvatar5150]

The degree of false equivalency in that OP article is kind of mind boggling. Trump + Moore aren’t remotely comparable to Obama in substance or competence.

 

[Hammster]

The degree of false equivalency in that OP article is kind of mind boggling. Trump + Moore aren’t remotely comparable to Obama in substance or competence.

The point is that 90% of blacks, Christians included, voted for someone who help values that that are unbiblical, yet they are largely given a pass.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The point is that 90% of blacks, Christians included, voted for someone who help values that that are unbiblical, yet they are largely given a pass.

I get the point. The author only gets there by ignoring so many factors that he’s either being dishonest or he’s so ignorant that he ought not be commenting on the subject.

 

[Hammster]

I get the point. The author only gets there by ignoring so many factors that he’s either being dishonest or he’s so ignorant that he ought not be commenting on the subject.

Then you don’t get the point. He’s not comparing the two presidents, and saying one is better than the other. It’s not even a political article.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Then you don’t get the point. He’s not comparing the two presidents, and saying one is better than the other.

No, he’s doing just the opposite. He’s implying that they and their supporters and their supporters’ behavior are equivalent or comparable, when they aren’t.

It’s not even a political article.

Oh, sure it is. The broadly dismissive attitudes towards social justice, the false equivalence between Trump and Obama and their supporters, the feigned ignorance of the definition of white evangelicalism (it’s evangelical denominations dominated by white people), his misapplication of Eph 4:32 to decry addressing past sins... That’s ALL political. If he wants to complain about the wors “evangelical” being co-opted or twisted or turned into a pejorative, fine. That’s a perfectly valid complaint. But the argument he’s using to make that complaint is almost entirely political and so grossly flawed as to be laughable. In his view, it’s apparently unkind to rehash sins of the past, but he says nothing about the white evangelicals who 1) deny those things happened, 2) acknowledge they happened but deny the extent of their impact, or 3) continue to harbor attitudes and/or advocate policies that perpetuate the same injustices.

I read several other pieces of his just for context, and they all have a similar vibe, where he’ll politely cricitize sjw’s b employing a host of strawmen and unbelievable ignorances.

 

[tulc]

Hammster...maybe you can explain what point you see the article is making?
tulc(because he's at something of a loss)

 

[Hammster]

Hammster...maybe you can explain what point you see the article is making?
tulc(because he's at something of a loss)

I think this sums it up well.

“Ironically, seldom, if ever, is the term ‘evangelical’ used in that same context when referring to Christians who are black. Unlike white evangelical Christians, black Christians are considered just, well, Christians, and under that generic descriptor are generally not held to the same standard of attitudinal or ideological scrutiny as their white evangelical brethren.”

And

“To assert, imply, or infer that all white evangelical Christian supporters of Donald Trump and Roy Moore are racists and white supremacists, while excusing black evangelical Christians who supported Barack Obama, a man who openly advocated for such unbiblical policies as homosexual marriage and partial-birth abortion, is tantamount to hijacking what evangelicalism truly is by uprooting it from its theological foundations and relegating it to merely a political philosophy.”

 

[Hammster]

No, he’s doing just the opposite. He’s implying that they and their supporters and their supporters’ behavior are equivalent or comparable, when they aren’t.

He made an argument that they are. Just hand-waving it away doesn’t make it untrue.

 

[Hammster]

In his view, it’s apparently unkind to rehash sins of the past, but he says nothing about the white evangelicals who 1) deny those things happened, 2) acknowledge they happened but deny the extent of their impact, or 3) continue to harbor attitudes and/or advocate policies that perpetuate the same injustices.

Would you care to expand on any of these?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Would you care to expand on any of these?

What’s to expound on? You participate in the N&P forum. What happens every time SummerMadness starts a thread? People crawl out of the woodwork to exemplify each of those points. The author only calls out the unkindness of dredging up past sins, not the ongoing promotion and excusing of those sins.

His complaint about the politicization of evangelicalism is entirely one-sided, and aimed at the wrong side. It was fundamentalists who broke away from he mainline churches over their perceived liberalization of doctrine. It was fundamentalists who re-branded as “evangelicals” to be more “relevant.” It was they who locked arms with the Republican party to conflate Christian doctrine with Republican ideology. And all of those denominations were/are overwhelmingly white; some were openly racist; more were closeted racist. IOW, it was the white evangelicals who politicized their religion and proudly bore that identity. Complaining that “evangelical” is now a pejorative ignores what white evangelicals did to poison their own brand.

Based on what I’ve read of his blog and his Facebook page, it appears as if his perspective on this (and on many other things) is completely filtered through the lens of his conservative political views. He’s politicizing his own religion and he doesn’t even realize it.

 

[Hammster]

What’s to expound on? You participate in the N&P forum. What happens every time SummerMadness starts a thread? People crawl out of the woodwork to exemplify each of those points. The author only calls out the unkindness of dredging up past sins, not the ongoing promotion and excusing of those sins.

His complaint about the politicization of evangelicalism is entirely one-sided, and aimed at the wrong side. It was fundamentalists who broke away from he mainline churches over their perceived liberalization of doctrine. It was fundamentalists who re-branded as “evangelicals” to be more “relevant.” It was they who locked arms with the Republican party to conflate Christian doctrine with Republican ideology. And all of those denominations were/are overwhelmingly white; some were openly racist; more were closeted racist. IOW, it was the white evangelicals who politicized their religion and proudly bore that identity. Complaining that “evangelical” is now a pejorative ignores what white evangelicals did to poison their own brand.

Based on what I’ve read of his blog and his Facebook page, it appears as if his perspective on this (and on many other things) is completely filtered through the lens of his conservative political views. He’s politicizing his own religion and he doesn’t even realize it.

Again, this generalization that will most likely get a “like” or two, but doesn’t actually address anything he said. So it looks, on the surface, like it’s a rebuttal, but it’s really nothing but fluff.

And not to be an apologist for him, but his views are filtered through the gospel. If that lines up with certain aspects of conservatism, then so be it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Again, this generalization that will most likely get a “like” or two, but doesn’t actually address anything he said. So it looks, on the surface, like it’s a rebuttal, but it’s really nothing but fluff.

Yes, it does. I addressed in this post his misapplication of Eph 4:32 and his complaints about how the word evangelical is being used.

And not to be an apologist for him, but his views are filtered through the gospel. If that lines up with certain aspects of conservatism, then so be it.

From his facebook page:

“The Obamas are buying a $15M mansion, while their supporters are fighting for $15 an hour. Y'all got played.”

“I find it ironic that the political party most responsible for slavery enduring as long as it did in America, is the same one that is advocating for reparations. Of course, they 're not sincere in their advocacy, but it makes for good politics. Democrats know full well of their history of being complicit in the oppression of blacks in America, not only by way of slavery but Jim Crow, the "Black Codes," and the post-Reconstruction peonage system in the South. These are unarguable facts. So why hold hearings on reparations? I mean, when you know already that you're guilty as sin, so to speak, why the dog-and-pony show? Why not just cut to the chase and cut the check?”

“In the short time I’ve been here (3 months), one of the best things I’ve found about living in California is being able to walk into a barber shop and not see pictures of Barack Obama hanging on all the walls.”

The Fallacy of Gun Control as a Means of Behavior Change
​

Those are all political (as are some of the pics he posted that I didn’t include). I went back to about April on Facebook and I skimmed over a bunch of his blog posts and found almost zero acknowledgment that there was even any validity at all to liberal or sjw concerns, whether or not he agreed with their methods or conclusions. That’s not the way a person merely filtering things through the gospel would write. That’s how somebody filtering things through politics writes.

 

[Hammster]

Those are all political (as are some of the pics he posted that I didn’t include). I went back to about April on Facebook and I skimmed over a bunch of his blog posts and found almost zero acknowledgment that there was even any validity at all to liberal or sjw concerns, whether or not he agreed with their methods or conclusions. That’s not the way a person merely filtering things through the gospel would write. That’s how somebody filtering things through politics writes.

Why isn’t it?

 

[Hammster]

Yes, it does. I addressed in this post his misapplication of Eph 4:32 and his complaints about how the word evangelical is being used.

You said he misapplied it. You didn’t actually address anything. So let’s look at it.


Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
— Ephesians 4:32

How should a social justician apply this verse to address their concerns?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why isn’t it?

Because filtering things through the gospel would inevitably show that both sides of most issues have both failings and legitimate grievances.

You said he misapplied it. You didn’t actually address anything. So let’s look at it.


Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
— Ephesians 4:32

How should a social justician apply this verse to address their concerns?

You can be kind to someone while still calling for them to come to justice. You can be forgiving while still calling for restoration of damages. God doesn’t just ignore our sins; He calls us to account for and repent of them and provides us with a pathway to absolution. Subsets of our society not on the wrong end of past abuses, however, would prefer to forget these sins and pretend as if they did no lasting harm. But acquiescing to that attitude is neither kind nor forgiving. It’s cruel and unjust and favors the powerful over the weak.

 

[Hammster]

Because filtering things through the gospel would inevitably show that both sides of most issues have both failings and legitimate grievances.

No, it doesn’t mean that both sides have legitimate grievances.


for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
— Romans 4:15

In other words, if it’s not a sin, then there is no grievance.