Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Who Speaks for You?
Maybe we evangelicals aren't as predictable and monolithic as the media paints us. That's the basic gist of two books recently highlighted in a Publishers Weekly article. "The vast majority of evangelicals are normal, reasonable people," notes Jeffrey Sheler, author of Believers: A Journey into Evangelical America. "They are hardworking, love their families, and are not out to cram religion down your throat and turn the country into a theocracy.”
Sheler may be right, but his statement doesn't address the core problem: When the media needs to get an "evangelical" opinion on an issue (or a conservative, liberal or secular opinion, for that matter), they will naturally gravitate toward the extreme position. Let's face it, nuance, gravitas and balance don't play well in five-second sound bites.
At best, allowing a self-proclaimed spokesperson to define a group's position on a given topic may lead to confusion. At worst, it leads to deception, as is often pointed out by African-American leaders who argue that activist/preachers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not necessarily speak for all blacks.
So, as high-profile church leaders claim to speak for evangelicals in the secular media, how do local pastors clarify their positions and protect themselves from being stereotyped in their communities? Here are two recent examples that bear consideration.
St. Paul, Minnesota, pastor Greg Boyd disassociated himself from his politically-active counterparts by preaching a series of sermons earlier this summer--a series that initially cost him 20 percent of his congregation. What did he say? Among other things, “America wasn’t founded as a theocracy. America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state."
In what may be one of the most unchurched cities in America, Mars Hill Church's Mark Driscoll writes a religion column for the Seattle Times (he alternates with columnists of several other faiths). Rarely taking a political tack in his writing, Driscoll instead drills down to the core spiritual problems facing society. In his most recent column, he applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for their philanthropy and explains what the Bible says about money. Rather than waxing eloquent on politically divisive topics in a city where he would alienate the very people he's trying to reach, Driscoll introduces his readers to simple biblical concepts in a winsome, direct way.
So, let's hear it: Are you frustrated by "evangelical" voices in the media that claim to represent your beliefs? What are you doing locally to dispel stereotypes and still address social issues in a constructive way? What methods have you seen that work? What methods fall flat? We're listening!
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Sheler may be right, but his statement doesn't address the core problem: When the media needs to get an "evangelical" opinion on an issue (or a conservative, liberal or secular opinion, for that matter), they will naturally gravitate toward the extreme position. Let's face it, nuance, gravitas and balance don't play well in five-second sound bites.
At best, allowing a self-proclaimed spokesperson to define a group's position on a given topic may lead to confusion. At worst, it leads to deception, as is often pointed out by African-American leaders who argue that activist/preachers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not necessarily speak for all blacks.
So, as high-profile church leaders claim to speak for evangelicals in the secular media, how do local pastors clarify their positions and protect themselves from being stereotyped in their communities? Here are two recent examples that bear consideration.
St. Paul, Minnesota, pastor Greg Boyd disassociated himself from his politically-active counterparts by preaching a series of sermons earlier this summer--a series that initially cost him 20 percent of his congregation. What did he say? Among other things, “America wasn’t founded as a theocracy. America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state."
In what may be one of the most unchurched cities in America, Mars Hill Church's Mark Driscoll writes a religion column for the Seattle Times (he alternates with columnists of several other faiths). Rarely taking a political tack in his writing, Driscoll instead drills down to the core spiritual problems facing society. In his most recent column, he applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffett for their philanthropy and explains what the Bible says about money. Rather than waxing eloquent on politically divisive topics in a city where he would alienate the very people he's trying to reach, Driscoll introduces his readers to simple biblical concepts in a winsome, direct way.
So, let's hear it: Are you frustrated by "evangelical" voices in the media that claim to represent your beliefs? What are you doing locally to dispel stereotypes and still address social issues in a constructive way? What methods have you seen that work? What methods fall flat? We're listening!
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
All I can say is "Amen, brother!" I realize that the media does this with all groups, as you stated - they migrate toward the "extreme", those voices that will stir the pot and make the topic as sensational as possible. But much of the time, I cringe by what I see and hear in the media...
Not only does the secular media have a narrow view, but so does "our" media. Radio talk shows on white-run Christian stations alientate so many Black listeners by insisting on airing white right wing radio hosts - many of whom are NOT EVEN SAVED. The assumption is that their right wing political views (from anti-abortion to pro-republican, pro-war, and anti-capital gains tax!!??) makes them OK for Christian radio. Many of these hosts are terse, proud, obnoxious, and in no way reflect the firm yet gentle heart of our Savior. We are supposed to be docile and monolithic enough to agree with this. I expect the SECULAR media to paint us with a broad brush, but when will the Christian media stop doing that as well? (By the way - was Jesus really against capital gains tax?)
The question should not be, "What is the opinion of various evangelicals and do you agree or disagree?" The question should be, "What does the Bible say about this? What is God's opinion on this matter? What does HE tell us to do in this situation?" The problem is that most people who call themselves Christians -- including evangelicals--do not read the Bible and therefore have no idea what it says. For example, how can a Christian be pro-abortion when God warns against the shedding of innocent blood? And when we know what happened to people who sacrificed their children to Molech? And when we know that God knew us and planned our destiny before we were even born? We need to live according to GOD'S word, not people's opinions.
what the heck is evangelical anyway? I think the narrow label and definition is something that the media came up with. I have no idea what that means. I think we're a lot more diverse beyond the WASP label, middle-class, blah, blah. I personally can't relate to those the media touts in this category such as Jerry Falwell. We live in very different worlds...
I've been bantering this question around and I don't know that I have an answer. Elections are coming up and it appears that I will choose with my vote who speaks for me, at least politically, if not spiritually, idealogically, and theologically.
I like talking about social justice. I like to listen to conversations about it. Unfortunately those who talk the most about social justice ignore the most defenseless of those whose rights are infringed. Any social justice that allows for a child's head to be crushed with salad tongs before it is born is simply hypocracy.
But then, so is the individual who has a view of government that says the community, and not government should care for the poor, and maimed, and then not give to groups like the salvation army, or medical charities. I have been truly surprised by the total lack of compassion within this last group. It usually is held by "nominal" Christians who have not associated with the humiliation of serving Christ, but sometimes these folks are active in the Church.
This issue is so much more complicated than I have the time to figure out.
I realize this is more political than ministry, but the media identifies the white-middle-class church with a specific political agenda. The African-American church 's message is largely ignored, or viewed as coincidental.
Casting politics aside, I'd have to say that Bill Wilson, Tommy Barnett, Tony Evans, or historically William Booth, Mark Buntain, Jim Elliot, Elisabeth Elliot etc..Lilian Thrasher, Jim & Peggy Snell, Mother Theresa and Aimee McPherson speak for me. It's not necessarily their lifestyles (though that is best), but the unadulterated Gospel mixed with active concern for helping those in poverty, or whatever need people may have that I identify with. Each of these people has actively demonstrated God's work in their life with their message, and in action (even if they were not perfect.)
Post a Comment
I like talking about social justice. I like to listen to conversations about it. Unfortunately those who talk the most about social justice ignore the most defenseless of those whose rights are infringed. Any social justice that allows for a child's head to be crushed with salad tongs before it is born is simply hypocracy.
But then, so is the individual who has a view of government that says the community, and not government should care for the poor, and maimed, and then not give to groups like the salvation army, or medical charities. I have been truly surprised by the total lack of compassion within this last group. It usually is held by "nominal" Christians who have not associated with the humiliation of serving Christ, but sometimes these folks are active in the Church.
This issue is so much more complicated than I have the time to figure out.
I realize this is more political than ministry, but the media identifies the white-middle-class church with a specific political agenda. The African-American church 's message is largely ignored, or viewed as coincidental.
Casting politics aside, I'd have to say that Bill Wilson, Tommy Barnett, Tony Evans, or historically William Booth, Mark Buntain, Jim Elliot, Elisabeth Elliot etc..Lilian Thrasher, Jim & Peggy Snell, Mother Theresa and Aimee McPherson speak for me. It's not necessarily their lifestyles (though that is best), but the unadulterated Gospel mixed with active concern for helping those in poverty, or whatever need people may have that I identify with. Each of these people has actively demonstrated God's work in their life with their message, and in action (even if they were not perfect.)
Links to this post:
<< Home
