Evangelical speaks some sense

[BioBeing]

Ousted Evangelical Reflects On Faith, Future (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128776382&ft=1&f=1001)

Cizik says that he still strongly believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to obtain civil unions.

"While I haven't come to a conclusion on [gay marriage,] I am convinced that you can't deny rights to people based on their sexual orientation. It's wrong," he says. "It's even wrong, I think, as Christians to take that position. Because we should support human rights for all people even when they don't agree with us."

Cizik was chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals, but was forced out of that position in 2008, after remarks he made on Fresh Air about his support of gay civil unions, environmentalism and climate change.

Not sure why he thinks civil unions are OK, but not marriage, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

[Ray Moscow]

The "ousted" bit is the clue here. When an evangelical leader starts making sense, he gets attacked by his brethren and has to find some other way to make a living.

[BioBeing]

Well, he was ousted from his official position, but he remains an Evangelical. (Course, Francis Collins describes himself as an Evangelical too, IIRC, so I'm not exactly sure what that term actually means.)

The article also notes that there is a shift in the Evangelical movement towards accepting civil unions.

What's changed since then — even over the last year — according to a poll released just this week by Public Religion Research Institute, is that a majority of evangelicals — not just younger evangelicals — say that they agree either with same-sex marriage or civil unions. That's a majority of white evangelicals in California. And evangelicals around the country are looking at this in new light and new ways and evaluating this in terms of the Constitution and in light of our Christian values. And that's good."

Does this signal a shift in Evangelical politics?

[sohy]

Does this signal a shift in Evangelical politics?

I think it's too early to say but my 84 year old evangelical Xian mother has held these views for a number of years. We discussed gay civil unions a few years ago and she approved of them but not of gay marriage. I think she equates marriage with religion and her religion doesn't approve of gay marriage. As you know, religion doesn't have to make sense. She never votes Republican, so it's unfair to generalize about all evangelicals. After all, Jimmy Carter continues to identify as an evangelical.

There was a time several decades ago when evangelicals were more politically progressive. This changed after Roe v. Wade, when conservatives realized they could use that issue to stir up the evangelical community. Not all evangelicals are one or two issue voters. Some of the old timers remain true to the old fashioned values of helping the poor and separation of church and state. Even if they are against abortion, they are smart enough to realize this is not such as an important issue as many other things. Sometimes I see hints that the younger ones here are headed in this direction too. If I see that here in the hotbed of conservatism, hopefully it's even more prevalent in other regions of the country.

[Politesse]

Well, he was ousted from his official position, but he remains an Evangelical. (Course, Francis Collins describes himself as an Evangelical too, IIRC, so I'm not exactly sure what that term actually means.) It's easy to get confused, since it is not a homogenous group. In the US, Evangelical can refer to anyone who is, roughly speaking, in a line of spiritual descent from 18th century thinkers such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, or John Wesley, or to the movement known as the Great Awakening which led to the splintering of Protestant churches in the country. They are united to each other ideologically by a high regard for Scriptural authority, a commitment to missionary work (hence the name), and the importance of being "born again". Beyond this, there is wide variance. American Fundamentalists have traditionally been evangelicals, but not necessarily the other way around; there are other parties such as Centrists, Modernists, and Isolationists who differ markedly from them, especially about politics. Cizik, in insisting on a gap between what is believed by the church and what is legislated by the government is espousing a traditional Centrist value, proceeding from Martin Luther's "Two Kingdoms" theology.

But many evangelicals are not aware of all these schools of thought, and in practice everyone gets mixed up, especially in the context of mass gatherings or political groups. So you can have someone like Cizik, who probably is espousing exactly what he was taught in seminary but nevertheless was made vulnerable to congregational politics by his comments. It's an interestingly confused situation.

Oh, and "evangelical" means something entirely different again in Europe, but that's not relevant to this discussion, except as a further source of confusion.

Does this signal a shift in Evangelical politics?I suspect it represents one or both of two things: one is a denominational shift, as mainstream evangelicals and fundamentalists/"Christian Right" increasingly see themselves as different groups in a way they never did before, a consequence of the growing radicalism of the latter group and the reassertion of Centrist/Modernist principles in the former. The other is a demographic shift: Evangelicals are getting younger, and as such many more are parents or grandparents of openly gay children than ever before. Another, probably smaller factor is the "emerging church" movement, which has affected some of the more liberal corners of the Evangelical world from the 1980's onward.

[BioBeing]

Thanks for the explanation, P!

[Yahzi]

My right-wing fundie dad is opposed to gay marriage.

But he thinks civil unions are not only inevitable but necessary.

/shrug