| Home > Community Forum > Reclaiming the Word Christian « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
June 03, 2005
Reclaiming the Word Christian
by Faithful Progressive
There is a chilling moment in Bruce Bawer’s book Stealing Jesus. An Episcopal Priest is at a dinner party and hears another party guest loudly proclaim that he is a Christian. The Minister cringes, thinking that this likely means the person is a "bigot, arrogant, mindless, intolerant, rigid, mean-spirited." While this turned out to be not entirely the case, the priest was struck "...by the fact that the word had come to stand for so many bad things that even a devout clergyman could find himself recoiling at the sound of it."
We are constantly barraged with examples of “Christians” harassing homosexuals, rejecting basic biological science, or acting in an offensive way toward members of other faith traditions. You don’t have to look very far on this site to see plenty of such examples. When I Googled the word Christian yesterday, the first story to pop up was about how "Christians are boycotting Ford" because of their ad campaign targeting gay buyers. There were links to MSNBC, The Independent, and other major media that all adopted the generic word "Christian" to describe the Focus on the Family types who are actually sponsoring the boycott. We need to reclaim the word Christian, and insist that this loud group of reactionary evangelicals not be allowed to represent Christianity in the mainstream media. Fortunately, many Christians are doing exactly that.
My battered old Webster’s Dictionary defines a Christian as “a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ or in the religion based on the teaching of Jesus.” I certainly don’t recall any ‘teaching of Jesus’ that urged his followers to pick up a stone and throw it at the next Samaritan or other social outcast. Of course, Jesus does ironically urge stoning of a woman-- but only if the person who casts the next stone be totally without sin. Apparently there are more of those folks now than when Jesus lived. We need to make sure that such special people are identified as more than simply "Christians" in the media.
Even more disturbing, the same small group of reactionary evangelicals has even begun to refer themselves generically as “people of faith.” This was their refrain during the recent debate about Bush judicial nominees: that rejecting 5 percent of Bush nominees was somehow an attack not just on radical right Christians, but on all people of faith. Wow, that's Chutzpah! But some in the media even accepted this grand leap!
Fortunately, a diverse group of mainline and liberal Christians called them on it... The latest was this wonderful piece in the Baltimore Sun, on May 25th, Don't Broad Brush People of Faith:
We are proud to be persons of faith living within communities of faith. We are proud to be Christians as well as Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, United Methodists and members of the United Church of Christ. We are glad that we live in a country in which we have freedom of speech and religion. However, we are saddened when our political and cultural conversations fail to recognize the rich diversity that exists among people of faith in worship practices, theological and political views. Speaking or acting as if this diversity isn't real harms the political process and limits the realm of God. When entering into a social dialogue, the language we use matters. So we call upon all people to be careful when using broad phrases such as "people of faith" to describe policy or theological positions. Remember: "People of faith" refers to a diverse group of Christians and non-Christians. Perhaps it would be more appropriate and accurate for citizen participants, religious leaders and politicians to refer to the specific denominations or organizations rather than paint everyone with such a broad brush. This approach would better honor the rich and important traditions of religious tolerance and freedom.
This was just the latest in a series of very encouraging recent events where diverse Christians have come together to reclaim the word Christian from the loud group on the far right.
In January, of this year the Chicago Tribune reported that:
"Leaders of 15 million black Baptists on Friday called on President Bush to pay as much attention to democracy at home as democracy abroad, issuing a list of demands that they say better defines America's moral values.After an unprecedented assembly of four historically divided Baptist groups, presidents of each denomination declared their opposition to the war in Iraq and to the nomination and expected confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. They also called for a higher minimum wage,discontinuation of recent tax cuts, investment in public education andreauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, some provisions of which areup for review in 2007."
In February, as the Boston Globe reported, a leading Evangelical spoke out against the extreme right. This illustrates that their are differences within the Evangelical community itself. Robert Wenz, who is vice president of national ministries for the National Association of Evangelicals....“ A top official of the National Association of Evangelicals told reporters gathered at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary that the Moral Majority, a 1980s political movement dominated by Christian conservatives, was ''an aberration and a regrettable one at that," even though it drew evangelicals into the political process, because the organization was ''fatally flawed by a hubris that made the movement condescending and more than a bit judgmental...The Moral Majority lacked a servant heart of Christ born out of humility and compassion for a fallen humanity," said the official, Robert Wenz, who is vice president of national ministries for the National Association of Evangelicals.”
In March, leaders of several mainline Christian denominations spoke out forcefully in a Joint Statement against the President's Budget priorities:
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, USA
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.)
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST and
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
March 8 .
The 2006 Federal Budget that President Bush has sent to Capitol Hill is unjust. It has much for the rich man and little for Lazarus. According to the White House’s own numbers, this budget would move 300,000 people off food stamps in the next five years. It would cut the funds that allow 300,000 children to receive day care. It would reduce funding for Medicaid by $45 billion over the next ten years, and this at a time when 45 million Americans—the highest level on record—are already without health insurance.
These cuts would be alarming in any circumstances, but in the context of the 2006 budget, they are especially troubling. For even as it reduces aid to those in poverty, this budget showers presents on the rich. If passed in its current form, it would make permanent tax cuts that have bestowed nearly three-quarters of the “relief” on one-fifth of the county. If passed in its current form, it would include whopping new cuts that would benefit, almost exclusively, those with household incomes of more than $200,000 per year. If passed in its current form, it would take Jesus’ teaching on economic justice and stands it on its head.
In April, a similar group came together to speak out about the so-called Justice Sunday. Including the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, Mark Hanson who said:
"(T)he rhetoric associated with Justice Sunday is divisive and damaging to religion and politics." He said religious and political leaders should invite people in this nation nto "lively civil public discussion of what makes for a more just world...The needs of this world are too great. The challenges facing this nation [are] too complex for such divisive rhetoric that we are hearing," Hanson said.
"The tragic irony of Justice Sunday is that it risks perpetrating further injustice," Hanson said. "To imply some people because of their political convictions are not persons of faith is an injustice." Using the power of an elected political leader to polarize people of faith is "unjust," Hanson said.
The wonderful web-site Religious Tolerance divides Christians into three broad groups:
Like politics, Christians and Christian groups can be divided into conservative and liberal wings, according to their belief systems.
Fundamentalists, other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxy generally form the conservative wing;
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Progressive Christianity, United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada and others form the liberal wing.
Often, a third, mainline wing is added, composed of such denominations as: American Baptist Churches in the USA, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church,etc
One can quibble with where they place individual denominations, and certainly there are moderates and progressives within all of the three wings--but it is nonetheless useful to identify and broadly describe the different types of Christians. Now, if we can just get the media to start seeing more than one group as Christians. When they don't, it's our job to set them straight.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at June 3, 2005 12:53 PM
Comments
Well said FP. Since the media and others are quick to paint with such a broad brush, we have much work to do.
Posted by: r.johnson at June 3, 2005 03:39 PM
Yes, it is exciting to hear of som any positive developments! Thanks for giving us the good news of bringing Christians back to the Good News.
Julie S
Posted by: Julie at June 3, 2005 09:02 PM
