Monthly Archives: March 2018

White Evangelicals: the Universal Donor

I love great analogies. I read one the other day from Sandra Maria Van Opstal, a Latina pastor in Chicago. She said her blood type is O-negative, which makes her the universal donor—her blood works for everyone. However, she can only receive O-negative blood. She related this to the evangelical church.

“In seminary, I learned that the universal theological donor is a white evangelical. This donor is always translating books into other languages, planting churches in other countries, setting up seminaries on other continents, and sending professors to teach global Christians. And this donor never seems to receive from the global church. White evangelicals wouldn’t say directly that they have nothing to learn from Latinx, African American, Asian America, or Native scholars—but they don’t notice when our voices are absent.”

This is worth talking about.

Go to the website of a suburban evangelical megachurch in your city. Check the staff page. How many are minorities? I’ve seen staff pages with 30+ staff members, and not a single minority. All white. If you do find a minority, there’s a good chance the person’s role is focused on that minority group—like, Pastor of Hispanic Outreach, or something like that. You rarely see a minority in a general pastoral position whose responsibilities include the entire congregation–an African American associate pastor, an Asian Pastor of Spiritual Care. The congregation may include people from the various minority groups, but only a white guy—a universal donor—gets to preach to them.

Van Opstal says that at religious conferences, “We tend to get relegated to speaking on niche topics like reconciliation, outreach to Latinx communities, and immigration. We aren’t given space to shape the framework of the conversations on universal themes, such as evangelism….No one sits at our feet.”

That must be frustrating.

Share Button
Comments Off on White Evangelicals: the Universal Donor

The Odd Cause of the Ten Commandments

In Alabama, voters will decide whether or not to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed on government property. This was a big deal with Roy Moore. It always struck me as an odd cause. Only two of the Ten Commandments are actually illegal–murder, and stealing. Some would actually be illegal to enforce.

1. “You shall have no other gods before me.” It would be illegal–unconstitutional–to enforce this one. To display it on public property, without similar nods to the beliefs of other religions, implies something the Founders most definitely didn’t want.

2. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.” It would be an unconstitutional infringement on religion to prevent people from making idols as part of their religion. Catholics might even be in trouble, or anyone who wears a cross. There would be court cases to determine what is and isn’t an idol (or graven image).

3. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” This is not currently illegal; the President does this, though evangelicals don’t seem to mind. Should we put a Buddhist or atheist in prison for what Christians would regard as misusing God’s name?

4. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.” Who is going to enforce this one? We all violate this commandment, at least as it was observed during Bible times. Are we gonna shut down all restaurants on Sunday? Better yet, consider that the Sabbath is technically Saturday.

5. “Honor your father and your mother.” This Commandment is not illegal.

6. “You shall not murder.” This one’s illegal, though we have laws which, arguably, allow the state to murder (war, death penalty, cop shootings). “Stand your ground” laws can be used to justify murder (Trayvon Martin, for example).

7. “You shall not commit adultery.” Not illegal. Again, the President. Do we really want to begin arresting people for adultery?

8. “You shall not steal.” Definitely illegal for most people. The richer you are, the more legal it is.

9. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” Consider the daily Tweetstorms. In some legal contexts, lying is illegal or actionable. But generally, it’s perfectly legal to tell lies about people.

10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, wife, or property.” Not illegal. In America, we tend to worship the idea of wanting more than we currently have.

Like I said, I don’t see the point of what Alabama voters want to do. But I can see how it would be easy to get people all worked up about it.

Share Button
Comments Off on The Odd Cause of the Ten Commandments

The Belt and Road Initiative

I’m guessing few of you know much about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which China launched in 2013. We’re ridiculously focused on the latest Presidential tweets, while the rest of the world marches forward.

The BRI is the largest economic development project in history, involving hundreds of projects in 65 countries, and it will change the world…at least for our grandchildren. It involves at least seven “corridors,” both land and sea, which will connect China with Europe, Russia, Africa, India, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. It includes roads, railways, pipelines, communication networks, ports, airports, satellites, and much more (China already has a rail link all the way to Spain).

Massive projects will help build the infrastructure of countries along these trade routes–electrical grids, roads, and a whole lot of green energy (windmills, solar farms, dams). As those economies develop, China will sign trade agreements, and Chinese companies will develop new markets and shut us out. China is also buying control of ports throughout the world.

China is investing a trillion dollars in the BRI–seven times the size of the Marshall Plan. It will help integrate China’s economy with the economies of all of these other countries, bringing both goodwill and influence to China.

China is even bringing Latin America into the Belt and Road Initiative, recognizing that the Trump administration is alienating Hispanic countries (who clearly heard the “s***hole countries” comment). In January, China’s foreign minister met in Chile with his counterparts from 31 countries from Latin America and the Caribbean. China’s goal, obviously, is to lessen US influence in our hemisphere and tie Latin American markets more closely to China (and insert Chinese values).

The United States won’t be part of the Belt and Road Initiative. We’ve been pulling out of international agreements, like the Paris Climate Accord and TPP, and lessening our involvement in international organizations, like UNESCO and the World Bank. China sees the Trump presidency as a strategic opportunity for increasing its influence. While we try to build a wall and otherwise keep people out, China is building pathways throughout the world. China is eagerly assuming the leadership that America is relinquishing (with big money to back it up). More and more, China is calling the shots on the regulations and systems that will govern the world, because we’ve chosen not to be involved in those meetings.

I encourage you to read up on the Belt and Road Initiative. Do a Google search–there’s a huge amount of information about the BRI. It’s important–maybe not for us, but for our descendants and America’s future.

Share Button
Comments Off on The Belt and Road Initiative

Evangelicals are Not Like You Hear on TV

Many people contend that the term “evangelical” has become so tarnished from its tight association with Donald Trump and the Republican Party that we need to abandon it and adopt a different label. I disagree. In writing my denomination’s history, I discovered we were using the term “evangelical” going back almost to our beginning in 1800. It’s got a rich history. We need to redeem it, not replace it.

I remember back around the late 1970s when Billy Graham began using the term “born from above” in place of “born again,” which society had misappropriated and watered down. Well, time moved on, and “born again” once again means what he originally intended. That’s my approach to the term “evangelical.” This is just (I desperately hope) a warped moment in time.

Thanks to political polls, people get an inaccurate picture of evangelicals. Evangelicals are not overwhelmingly white, and they are not overwhelmingly Republicans. Predominantly so, yes, but not overwhelmingly.

There’s a big difference between people who identify themselves as evangelicals, and people who hold evangelical beliefs. Ed Stetzer of LifeWay Research has done enlightening work in this area. To be an evangelical by belief, you must strongly agree with all four of these bedrock evangelical beliefs.

1. The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
2. It’s very important for me to encourage nonChristians to trust Christ as their Savior.
3. Only Christ’s death can remove the penalty for my sins.
4. Eternal life is freely given to those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior.

Stetzer found that half of the Americans who self-identify as evangelicals don’t actually believe all four statements. Those who qualify as evangelicals, theologically, are actually only 58% white, 23% black, and the rest are Hispanic, Asian, and other ethnicities. So 4 of 10 evangelicals are NOT white. That, according to my calculations, is 40%.

Pew Research, in a massive 2014 study of over 100,000 people in all 50 states, found that one-third of evangelicals are persons of color. That’s close to the LifeWay study. That study found that evangelicals are 19% black, 10% Hispanic, and 6% Asian, mixed race, or other ethnicities. Half of evangelicals under age 30 are non-white.

Political pollsters typically separate out “white evangelicals” and “black Protestants,” even though a quarter of all evangelicals are black. In fact, according to LifeWay, blacks are the group most likely to hold evangelical beliefs—30%, compared to just 13% for whites. When pollsters try to tell you what evangelicals believe, they are ignoring the views of the 40% of evangelicals who are not white. Some might call that racist. Smells like it.

Significantly, only 14% of blacks self-identify as evangelicals. That, Stetzer says, indicates that the term “evangelical” has become a turn-off to blacks, preventing many blacks from describing themselves as evangelicals, even though they are evangelical by belief. Perhaps they see it as applying only to white Christians and/or Republicans, who don’t tend to represent their concerns.

As for political affiliation: LifeWay found that only two-thirds of evangelicals self-identify as Republicans, and one-third self-identify as Democrats. That holds true whether it’s people who self-identify as evangelicals, or who qualify as evangelicals because of their beliefs. A Pew study, based on denominational affiliation, yielded similar results: 56% Republican, 39% Democrat, and 16% neither.

My point? The evangelicals you hear about on political talk shows are not the evangelicals we go to church with.

Share Button
Comments Off on Evangelicals are Not Like You Hear on TV

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives