For some reason, Beliefnet doesn't put dates on its articles, which can be more than a little annoying. But they do have lots of good content.
Zoba's interview is short, but covers some interesting topics. For example, on the difference between evangelicals and Pentecostals (both to some extent sources of support for the Christian Right), she responds to a question about why people fall down at tent revivals. It's a phenomenon called being "slain in the Spirit." This practice is presumably the source of the label Holy Rollers. And, yes, you godless heathens out there, I've been to a tent revival my own self. I didn't fall down and twitch or anything while I was there, though.
Anyway, she says, "This phenomenon is more typically expressed in Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement, which emphasize manifestations outside the parameters of conventional evangelicalism." Which is one way of saying that the difference between evangelicals and Pentecostals is not so much their main theological ideas, as a difference in rituals. The "charismatic movement" refers, I would think for most people, to those in non-Pentecostal denominations who practice Pentecostal rituals.
She provides this tidbit: "Among evangelical Protestants, 56% self-identify as Republicans, 27% as Democrats, and 17% as Independents." And she links to this 57-page paper in *.pdf file format: The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A Baseline for 2004 by John C. Green. I was also unable to find a date on it. What is it with Beliefnet and undated material?
It's always worth keeping in mind with statistics like this that the Christian Right, fundamentalism and evangelical Christianity are disproportionately strong among white Southerners. By no means exclusively, of course. But that connection, and the influence of pro-segregation Southern politics of not really so very long ago, is very important for understand the style and goals of the Christian Right.
Her interview, and most likely her book, seem to be aimed more at people who are unfamiliar with evangelical/"born-again" Chrisitianity, or who tend to identify it exclusively with its fundamentalist variety. I don't know how it came to be that "evangelical" tends to mean "Protestant" in Europe but a particular type of theologically conservative Protestant in America. But it does.
Because of her emphasis, she presents a clean-shaven version of evangelical (American-style) Christianity. And that's legitimate, as long as we remember there's also a dark side. But it does call attention to the fact that the evangelical viewpoint can lead to some perhaps surprisingly flexible attitudes:
Polygamy, for example, is recognized as part of the descriptive narratives of the Bible, as is King David's conspired murder of Uriah so he could cover his sexual misbehavior with Uriah's wife. Because these events are recounted does not mean they are prescribed as the way we must live. Polygamy is denounced in the New Testament, when Paul outlines that leaders within the church must have one spouse only.Evangelicals might be hesitant to phrase it the way I'm about to. But this is a recognition, couched in careful conservative Protestant language, that the Scriptures are not dealing with a single Institution of Marriage, but with many different forms of marriage over a long period of time. This opens up the possiblity of a wider attitude of tolerance for love relationships not encapsulated in the so-called "traditional family."
What about the Old Testament "laws," such as sacrifice of animals or stoning of adulterers? For evangelicals, these have been subsumed under the "New Covenant" inaugurated by Jesus, who said he "did not come to overturn the law, but to fulfill it." That means that the activities forbidden in the Old Testament are regarded as informative, but not required for living in relationship with God. The New Covenant initiated the era of "law of the Spirit," which, ideally, evangelicals are compelled to obey in accordance with the guiding impulse of love commanded by Jesus and reinforced by other New Testament writers.
It also allows for a heavy recognition that the institution of "traditional" marriage is also constantly changing. Fifty years ago, for instance, "community property" laws were much less common, which had a significant effect on the economic status of women in marriage. Everyone who's been through a divorce has their own ideas on how existing family law works out in practice. But the point here is that its an example of how the family itself as an institution has evolved in the US in recent decades. There are many other examples, as well.
I'll just note in passing here that the implication of that last quote that the "New" Testament is so much more flexible and liberating than that supposedly rigid Hebrew Bible could use a lot of qualification.
I was surprised that in a piece aimed at presenting the best face of "born-again" Christianity, though, she deals with the following issue as she does:
Evangelicals believe what Jesus believed (and said) about demons, and that is that they are real and they are force to be reckoned with. One will note in the gospel narratives that Jesus spent a lot of time "casting demons out" of people who were considered possessed. The classic evangelical view of the demonic (and evil generally) is that it is a parasitic force that latches on to something wholesome and good and then eats away at it until it loses itself--kind of like the way undergrowth in the rain forest lives off of larger trees until the host tree loses its ability to sustain life.I tend to think from a Christian perspective (and others as well!) that a literal belief in demons is better left to the cult world and horror movies. It's certainly a sort of belief that is open to enormous abuse. And it is not conducive to "reality-based" perspectives on life, love and religion.
When he sent out his disciples to start spreading the word about God's Kingdom, Jesus gave them "authority to cast out evil spirits." Both the authority and the casting out concur with the notion that the demonic realm is less powerful than God’s realm, and that when the two confront one another, God has the upper hand. A "deliverance" is a contemporary term used to describe the event Jesus himself exercised and gave authority to his disciples to exercise: that is, once it has been discerned by two or three mature believing individuals that a person has fallen prey to a parasitic demonic spirit, they possess the authority, given by Jesus himself, to command that spirit to leave the broken individual.
The temptation is to put so much emphasis on "the demonic" that one transfers responsibility for destructive behavior onto the devil instead of to the individual. This is why it is incumbent upon the ministering individuals to discern and be unanimous in their determination about demonic possession.
It's historically accurate, though, that Jesus' early reputation was based heavily on his activity as an exorcist. But it's not at all easy for us to put ourselves in the frame of mind and understanding of psychology of that time to get a picture of what that meant in the particular setting.
That's an issue for anyone looking at the Gospels, whether from a faith perspective or a secular one. But it's particularly challenging for those traditions like evangelical Chrisitianity, Pentecostalism and conservative Catholicism that lean heavily toward a "literal" understanding of the Scriptures, in the sense of reading them like a science textbook or something similar.
The exorcism ritual is actually practiced mostly by Pentecostal groups in the US. Exorcism is a ritual associated with ultraconservative theology. The Vatican tried to discourage reports, apparently well-founded, that the late Pope John Paul II participated in exorcisms in his pre-papal career in Poland. Not only does this ritual encourage a superstitious credulity. It also encourages a dogmatic good-vs.-evil view of life that can lead to more harm than good in many circumstances.
Tags: christian fundamentalism, christianity
No comments:
Post a Comment