We found some evangelicals!
Apparently, the big media outlets discovered evangelical Christians this week. The New York Times Magazine ran a long piece on the phenomenon of the exurban megachurch. Jeff Sharlet over at The Revealer has excellent analysis, and many of his commenters have pretty intelligent stuff to say, too.
This morning, the Boston Globe ran its “Meet the evangelicals” story.
Although I enjoyed the NYT article and its semi-practice of Weberian
ideal type analysis, today’s Globe story was more interesting.
It, also, substituted this particular family, the Wilkersons, for a
larger phenomenon, but unlike the Times, Brian MacQuarrie did not shy
away from presenting the contradictions and harshness of the
evangelical worldview.
We learn that the Wilkersons feel bad and even attacked that they are
thought of as narrow-minded and exclusionary people, but we also learn
what they believe.
”Christianity is lived out every hour of every day. I have no hidden
agenda,” Michael says. Thumbing through a Bible, he adds, ”I don’t
know why people hate this story so much.”To him, the media and entertainment industry have for decades
caricatured devout Christians as narrow-minded, judgmental bumpkins. In
the Wilkersons’ view, Hollywood is out of touch with the mainstream,
instead of the reverse.”Those people don’t have a clue,” Michael says, shaking his head in disgust….
On the subject of gays, the Wilkersons say they oppose discrimination,
but their view of marriage is a divinely-sanctioned biblical one,
limited to a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family.
Michael turns to St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, 6:9-11,
which reads in part in the New International version: ”Neither the
sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor
homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” He
interprets the Scripture to mean gays cannot be admitted to heaven.”I don’t hate anyone who’s a homosexual,” Michael says. ”But do I hate what they do? Yes.”
[What do we do? One
wonders if he knows. And from what he thinks he knows, he might
consider how his subculture, evangelical Christianity, plays out in the
popular imagination before assuming he knows much about gays. -Ed.]On abortion, the Wilkersons are adamant: ”A life is a life,” MarCee
says, and to her, life begins at conception. The only possible
exception for abortion, MarCee says, is when the life of the mother is
in jeopardy — not for rape, and not for incest.[If a life is a life, then
wouldn’t taking the life of the embryo or fetus to save another life
still constitute some form of killing? If it’s an absolute, then
how do we justify that exception? -Ed.]Like many evangelical congregations, Hope Church is nondenominational.
Its members include former mainstream Protestants as well as one-time
Catholics ”who now are Christians,” Michael says. ”The Catholic
religion? I’m not too sure that Jesus is a big, integral part of that.”[Have they ever been in a Roman Catholic Church? Jesus is usually pretty front and center, literally even. -Ed.]
…”Basically, it comes down to there’s only one God,” Michael says.
”You have to come to that conclusion: There’s one way to that God, and
that’s through Jesus.”Unfortunately, Wilkerson said sadly, the ”harsh reality” of the Bible precludes salvation for non-Christians.
When asked if that means Gandhi, a Hindu who reached across religious
lines, was denied entry to heaven, Wilkerson dropped his head and
nodded.
It sounds to me like this family (who may or may not actually
represent evangelicals [although my experience leads me to say that
they’re pretty representative], but who are being made to function as
such) has some hatred of gays (the separation of action from identity
in any identity/affinity group is highly problematic), believes Roman
Catholics are probably not Christians (one wonders if they know where
their own religion came from), hasn’t thought through the full
implications of their position on abortion, and may even be ashamed of
the absoluteness of their belief that only their particular form of
Christianity goes to heaven.
One thing that comes up in the Globe article more than that in the
Times is the not just the harsh absoluteness of evangelical life, but
the rule-oriented basis of it. Don’t listen to the wrong sorts of
music, don’t be gay, don’t have an abortion, don’t, don’t, don’t.
Rules can be useful, but in this sense, the rules seem to be the ticket
into heaven, which is the real goal of this life.
Everything that the Wilkersons do orients them to the reward of
heaven. “In the end, two cars, a pickup, a nice home, good jobs, and a
comfortable life in the American heartland are all temporary amenities
to the Wilkersons and the other churchgoers who fill Hope’s sanctuary
with song and prayer each Sunday. They have their eyes on the
hereafter.”
This attention to heaven seems the largest tragedy for a people who have such a focus on
not being like the world. (In the circles I grew up in, a
favorite Scripture to quote was, “Be in the world but not of the
world.” There was even a Christian pop song that used this as a
chorus.) It’s a capitalist, materially oriented way of
approaching their faith. Faith is a transactional
interaction–it’s like employment in a firm. God sets out a contract for that which He expects me
to do. I fulfill those obligations. I am compensated with
eternal life in heaven.
But the faith of these people, at least in the Globe article,
doesn’t seem to have much to actually do with God. Rules,
yes. Regulating other people, yes. God?
(In the church that my parents go to, which is a member of the same
denomination as the Wilkersons’ [contrary to the Globe reporter’s
assertion, “Evangelical Free” is a denominational marker, even if the
congregation wants to downplay it], they have a group for Adventists
“recovering from legalism.” I always found this a remarkable
short-sightedness, since Protestant evagelicals are a pretty rule-bound
lot of people.)
For depth on that matter, we have to go to the Times article.
The spiritual sell is also a soft one. There are no crosses, no images
of Jesus or any other form of religious iconography. Bibles are
optional (all biblical quotations are flashed on huge video screens
above the stage). Almost half of each service is given over to live
Christian rock with simple, repetitive lyrics in which Jesus is treated
like a high-school crush: ”Jesus, you are my best friend, and you will
always be. Nothing will ever change that.” Committing your life to
Christ is as easy as checking a box on the communication cards that can
be found on the back of every chair. (Last year, 1,055 people did so.)
This is what bothered me about the Christians portrayed in the Times
article. There is no challenge, no difficulty, no struggle
involved in their faith. Faith is the means by which one
overcomes struggle, but it is not a struggle in itself. But what
both hagiographers and historians seem to tell us is that “saints”,
“religious innovators”, and the like all struggle with their faith and
their faith leads them not out of struggle but into the fray of
it. Gandhi certainly did not see faith as a way out of trouble
and trial–it led him straight to it. In light of the Passion
last week and Easter for this week, neither did Jesus. Neither
did Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King, or Oscar Romero.
Not all evangelicals think this way, as there is some trenchant
criticism out there from within the evangelical movement. (See,
for example, Ronald Sider’s “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience“
in Christianity Today.) And in fact, the Wilkersons seem to be
enacting many of the problematic elements that Sider points out.
Where’s the talk about materialism and the poor? All we have is
evidence of material accumlation. What about racism? They
seem to be tolerant of other races, as long as those people are also
their sort of Christians. But are there many non-white people in
their church? Why or why not?
Until then, the Wilkersons say, their journey is one worth emulating.
”If you want the country to be better, you would want to take a model
of a husband and wife and a family who wants to do the right thing,”
Michael says. ”You would think that would be the model the country
would want to go after.
Absolutely not. That model neatly ravaged body and soul in my case, and I have seen it do the same to many others.
Ecto blogging software
30 March 2005 at 1:04 am.
a couple of comments:
1) the idea behind the Radiant church from the NYT article reminds me a bit of the jewish community center (jcc). the church fulfills not just a religious/faith need, but provides other social and recreational services for the community. the church, as mentioned in the article has replaced other, urban social settings that dont exist in the suburbs. filling this void perhaps has sucked people looking for a community into the church, and they then conform to the standards of this community… (sort of like a cult??)
2) rules. this reminds me of the ultra-orthodox and even modern orthodox jewish theology. there is an explict contract: do god’s commandments and go to heaven; don’t do them and don’t go to heaven… there is little room for autonomy or independent thinking. in contrast, the more liberal streams of judiasm (at least in the beginning) were very aware and even based upon intellectual autonomy and the struggle involved in faith/belief. with that said, the more mystically oriented ultra-orthodox sects are very aware of the struggle with faith and an individual relationship with the divine.
3) all hail the marketer. the article in the nyt showed to such an extent that if you market something properly, you can “sell” it. (in this case, perhaps the demand for a sense of community was also very high). the “it” can be anything: used cars, lycopene, or eternal salvation.
30 March 2005 at 9:37 am.
Make sure to take a look then at The Revealer’s piece on the NYT article. It talks, albeit briefly, about the commodification of religion, whether that’s key or a canard.
31 March 2005 at 3:43 am.
i think commodification is a key. perhaps this is my personal bias: i tend to see megachurches as an extension of the televangelicals; and i see the televangelicals as charletans. people who used religion to fleece innocents of their hard-earned money; ie. jim and tammy baker, jerry fallwell, etc. yes, in this case, i see the radiant church as amazing marketing. using “side-doors” to get people in, and providing them “services” (in this case lets say social and not necessarily spiritual) to keep them as return customers, and to increase their “sales” (ie to become more involved in church programs, socially and eventually, spiritually). i think, on some level, megachurches are a cynical rouse playing on people’s lack of a feeling of community/belonging. as is shown from the nyt article, the church, on a theological basis, likely does not appeal to most americans (perhaps even many people connected to the church). the intellectual laziness (and lack of sense of community) of suburban americans has them turning to churches like this. and/or, the megachurches have recognized a winning marketing shtick for this group of people: provide social services and a sense of community to “sell” a theology that if presented alone, most people wouldn’t buy. and, along the way, huge amounts of money are raked in. where does it go? …im sure the pastor now is handsomely compensated for his services.