Main | Friedman - The World Is Flat »
April 23, 2006
The Evangelical Left
{This entry was made in April, 2006. The church has a new pastor and circumstances have changed.]
I am surprised to find myself attending a church (Midtown Vineyard, Indianapolis) that is part of the Evangelical Left. I chose my church because I liked the people, liked the atmosphere, and the pastor is a smart, articulate guy who is committed to serving God. Denomination had nothing to do with it, and politics certainly had nothing to do with it. In fact the church is not heavily into politics. It is into being multiracial, reaching out to poor and minorities, and social action generally. I don't object to those things, but I don't have much interest either.
When I mentioned to my pastor that Midtown was part of the Evangelical Left it was a new idea to him. So a little definitional work is needed. In fact it's tricky defining many terms about religious faith as well as political positions. As soon as you write a definition someone will disagree or provide a contrary example.
There's always been a Christian left whether they called themselves that or not. In almost any large group of people there will be diversity along may axes, including the political axis. Abolitionists from the mid-19th Century could probably be categorized as Christian left. Following the Great Depression there were theologians supporting socialism on the mistaken impression that capitalism caused the problem. During the Vietnam War prominent churchmen and theologians were among the most vocal in their opposition. So what's the difference between the Christian Left and the Evangelical Left?
The latter is a subset of the former, just as Evangelicals are a subset of all Christians. The justification for the extra name for the subset is, I think, that the Evangelical Left is seen in distinction from the "Christian Right". We've all been exposed to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Folks like them have been called the Christian Right for some time. They mix zeal in their faith with right wing politics, and the general impression is created that if you are strongly committed to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, you were likely to be on the political right. This impression was reinforced because so many of the Christian Left were not terribly concerned about closely adhering to traditional tenets of faith.
Defining the Evangelical Left
So Christians who were zealous and traditional in their theology, but politically left, needed a name.
Wikipedia has a short article on the Evangelical Left. They date it from the 1970s with the publication of a few articles. They list 10 or so prominent members of the movement, all North American pastors and seminary professors, except for two recognizable names: U2 lead singer Bono and former president Jimmy Carter.
Wikipedia identifies distinctive points about their beliefs. Perhaps separating them from the classic Christian left, Evangelicals believe in (1) the incarnation [of God in Christ], (2) the atonement [theory about the idea that Christ died to pay for our sins], (3) the resurrection, and (4) the authority of scripture.
Further, distinctives about their beliefs separating them from fundamentalists and the Christian right - aside from the fact that they vote for Democrats - would be (1) use of modern biblical criticism [modern academic scholarship about the Bible], (2) support for gun control, and (3) opposition to capital punishment. In fairness to my pastor I've never heard him say a word about gun control or capital punishment. There must be some flexibility in the definition.
These three distinctions Wikipedia offers seem inadequate to me. i want to say a bit more about the distinction between the classic Christian left and the Evangelical left.
Christian left people generally see Jesus' death as martyrdom. Jesus died for a cause, namely their cause, "liberation" and the redistribution of wealth. Any supernatural or eternal effects from Christ's death are mythical and irrelevant. The resurrection was not an historical, but rather an existential event. As one Methodist minister told me, "If Christ lives in your heart, then he was raised for you." Scripture is interesting and culturally valuable, but no more authoritative than the latest sermon.
The authority of scripture is a phrase at the tip of an iceberg of controversy. Among more theologically conservative Christians there is a debate about the Bible. The terminology is not always consistent, but generally Fundamentalists argue for the inerrancy of scripture while Evangelicals argue for "inspiration of scripture" or "authority of scripture". Inerrancy means every word of the Bible is true, every word comes from God, and every passage expresses truth about any topic which, on its face, it seems to address. Hence, the world was created in 6 days because that's what it says in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
Fuller Theological Seminary, which I attended, describes itself as an evangelical institution. In its statement of faith it subscribes to the inspiration of scripture. That means God inspired every word, but He worked through human beings embedded in their own cultures, and using their national languages. So to understand what God is conveying in scripture you should try to understand as much about the context as possible, as well as understanding the human author, the original intended audience, the genre of the writing (poetry, theology, history...) and the specific issue(s) the author was attempting to address. Hence the creation story may tell us about God's intentions and purposes in creation, and his sovereignty, rather than about the duration of the work.
Authority of scripture, to the best of my knowledge, is a doctrinal work in progress. An English scholar, Bishop N. T. Wright, has published on the topic and I hope to offer a book report here soon. He seems to want to use the Bible as a starting point for social and political action, but I must read more to see where he's going.
An additional way Evangelicals can be distinguished from other Christians (my opinion) is "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." The people I know who would accept the Evangelical label claim to have that. What does it mean? I think each person would have to tell their story. Generally there is a sense that Jesus is a living reality, that in some way they can communicate with him (back and forth), that they can and do know him, that he cares for them...
More theological positions of the Evangelical Left
In addition what I see from my pastor and other pastors with whom he closely associates are several genuine theological positions which I believe are characteristic of the Evangelical Left.
First is an assertion that Jesus was political. The claim is he was politically active and that political positions and conflicts were very much part of his ministry. I've never heard an explanation, but I think they point to Jesus' arguments and confrontations with High Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem, plus debates and confrontations with Pharisees, who were community leaders. Somehow they also see Jesus' hearing before Pilate as a political activity.
Second, Jesus came to change this world. Yes, there is an eternal aspect to Christianity, life after death and all that. Perhaps you can talk about that at funerals. But Jesus' preaching and teaching, his conduct and exemplary behavior, are very significant for the here and now. That's where the primary focus should be. For example the Sermon on the Mount is understood as teaching a new way of living in this world. Properly understood it is practical advice for us today. Perhaps the most important obligation is to be a salt and light people (Matt 5:13-16) behaving as Jesus did and taught.
Third, it is incumbent on us to be disciples of Jesus, to follow him and do as he did. As a practical matter what they saw Jesus doing was reaching out to the poor and disadvantaged, in his day lepers, women, social outcasts and tax collectors, and confronting the political powers. So we should have a special focus on disadvantaged people today; the poor, African-Americans and other minorities, and generally whatever groups political correctness would have us smile upon. And we can participate in politics to advance the interests of those disadvantaged people.
Participation in politics is understood to be principled rather than partisan. Christians are not motivated by self-interest, but rather by ideals and selfless desire to help the disadvantaged. They confront institutional evil even at their own risk.
My evaluation
My reaction to all this is caution. Certainly the Bible has a lot to say about how we conduct our lives in the here and now. Using Jesus as a model for our lives and trying to be like him is a good thing. Conducting your life so that you honor God and people observing you would have a positive impression of your faith (the salt and light thing) is good. I also feel when Christians vote or otherwise involve themselves in the political process, they should be motivated by a desire for the good of all rather than for self-interest.
On the other hand, I don't think Jesus was political. He was about the things of God. Because Judaism was a theocracy, his confrontation with the Jewish hierarchy had political effects but that was not what he was about. As he told Pilate, his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). Other than the hearing before Pilate I know of no passages which could be construed as confrontation with Rome. Nor are there confrontations with Herod or his successors, the local rulers imposed by Rome. The confrontations are with religious leaders over religious issues.
Pilate is portrayed relatively positively in the gospels. He is pictured as not wanting to put Jesus to death, but forced to by the High Priests. Yet, my second hand understanding is that history tells us Pilate was cynical and ruthless, contemptuous of human life, and motivated by power. Why does he come off as a reasonable, decent guy? I've heard a couple explanations. One is the gospel writers feared Rome and wanted to portray their movement as having no conflict with Rome. So they shaded things a bit. Another explanation was Pilate and the high priests were always butting heads, so out of spite he opposed whatever they wanted. That seems unlikely. A Roman governor would stay focused on political power issues rather than petty spats.
I don't think Pilate was a nice guy. I suspect he had a good internal security apparatus. Every brutal tyrant has one. The Romans would have been especially alert to new insurrectionist movements. As Jesus' ministry gained momentum he would have come under scrutiny from the Romans. They saw enough to learn he was a genuinely religious reformer and not a threat to them. A practical effect of Jesus' ministry was to turn the focus of Jews toward religious issues, and therefore away from anger over Roman oppression. Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus specifically because he wasn't political, at least with regard to secular matters.
The notion of altruistic, selfless political action devoted only to noble purposes is naive. Non-partisan politics is an oxymoron. In our system political action ultimately comes down to choosing one candidate over another. Inevitably both candidates are carrying a lot of baggage.
During the 2004 election campaign our pastor led a group discussion for all who wanted to attend. He hoped to steer us toward an idealistic Christian political position. There were too many diverse points of view to reach any specific position so he ended it by appealing to us to "remember the poor" when we voted. I'm sure to him that meant voting for specific candidates, almost certainly democrats. But would being a follower of Christ require you to vote democratic? Would a desire to help the poor require you to vote democratic? I can imagine spirited debate on both assertions.
Remembering the poor may be the single most important criterion for your vote if you are part of the Evangelical Left, but I don't feel it should be for all voters, not even all Christians.
The idea that Jesus came to change this world and his focus was on the here and now, is ultimately an issue of what the Bible is all about, what the Bible message is. That's an enormous topic which I hope to address in this blog, in bits and pieces, over time.
Posted by rob at April 23, 2006 11:29 AM
Comments
Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2006 11:29 AM