Changing perceptions of those “crazy” evangelicals
In today’s USA Today “Opinion” section, Tom Krattenmaker, who describes himself as a “non-evangelical progressive religion writer from the People’s Republic of Portland,” talks about how his recent visit to the home office of Athletes in Action, the athletic outreach program of Campus Crusade for Christ, changed his perception of evangelicals. He expected the people he encountered in Xenia, Ohio, to be “insular and arrogant.” Instead he found “Hospitality. Curiosity. Respect. And surprising amounts of incipient change in the air.”
Krattenmaker goes on to report:
Several AIA staffers I met voiced a desire to change the way Christians are perceived. “Many Christians are uncomfortable with where our culture is going, so they retreat from it,” said Doug Pollock, AIA’s evangelism director. “Instead of being ‘in the world but not of it,’ as the Bible stresses, they lob truth grenades over the walls of the fortresses they’ve created.”
Some spoke of their hopes for broadening the mission of sports ministry such that it might bring a voice of Christian conscience to the moral issues in and around the game — bring “salvation” to sports, as Pollock put it. The idea: Go beyond evangelistic outreach to athletes and those who watch them (the clear focus of sports ministry the past half-century), and help save the soul of sports itself, so to speak. What a constructive and astonishing development it would be if AIA and similar ministries took up this mantel and devoted themselves more seriously to such issues as doping, cheating and race issues in and around sports.
Although Krattenmaker makes excellent points about the changing attitudes of evangelicals, he needs to understand that while evangelicals strive for better balance in how to approach cultural and political issues, there is no compromise when it comes to following God’s will for our lives, which is revealed to us through the Bible.
Krattenmaker concludes his piece by offering this advice for his fellow progressives: “For those of us in blue states or blue states of mind, it might be useful to journey to places such as Xenia, Ohio, if only metaphorically. We’ll probably return home with a less black-and-white idea about those crazy evangelicals.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top15 Comments to “Changing perceptions of those “crazy” evangelicals”
I’m glad if a growing number of evangelicals want to “bring a voice of Christian conscience” to not only sports but all aspects of culture, rather than continuing to “lob truth grenades over the walls of the fortresses they’ve created.” But I can’t help wondering, is there actually a significant change taking place, or simply more “non-evangelical progressives” becoming aware of it.
I went to a Christian college less than ten miles from Xenia, back in 1980-1982. And I was excited by hearing professors as well as other students talking about wanting to interact with the culture in positive ways, rather than simply “lobbing truth grenades.” I thought, over the subsequent decades, that I had seen signs of that happening, in the small ways real change usually happens. It seems strange to read now that someone outside the “evangelical world” sees it as being a new thing since the 2004 election.
Report comment to moderator
Hooray for Xenia! Thank goodness for the kind of Christians who are really in and not of the world. Though I’m not crazy about migrating toward a political middle. (Did any of you see the first comment down at the bottom?)
Report comment to moderator
Interestingly, this past weekend’s Dallas Morning News had a good piece in the Viewpoints section about Evangelicals on the wane.
Did anyone read it?
Rod Dreher wrote a great piece as well about homosex marriage. Mind you, Dreher is a rock-ribbed conservative. Yet he says the culture war is over and we fundagelical theocons and our political allies LOST IT. (ouch!)
The up-and-coming batch of young voters evidently see nothing wrong with gay marriage. Their view has infiltrated legal education and thus we should refocus our efforts. Upon what? Focus upon getting a constitutional exemption to recognizing gay marriages by religioous groups who oppose it on doctrine/theology grounds.
Otherwise, if gay marriage is truly put on the books and upheld via court cases, the religious folk and their orgs who have and who will continue to oppose it will be in mucho agua caliente (lawsuits etc)
Report comment to moderator
Dreher is probably right. We need to recognize that we will be under attack by the legal system. God will judge. He has already given us the rules.
Now we need to do what we Christians do best; change peoples hearts, love the sinner, help the widows and orphans, make disciples, worship God.
It looks like a call to be in the world but not of it.
Report comment to moderator
The pro-life moement has made some gains in the public. In the same way we Christians need to start loving the GLBT people. We know sinners need salvation.
Cor 13
Report comment to moderator
Well Sawgunner, I think your worries have overtaken logical thinking on the issue.
There is a difference between getting a marriage license from the state and the ceremony in a church. Everyone gets their license from the state. Some folks solemnize their marriage in the church. Some don’t.
We can look to MA for guidance on the matter. While all couples get a marriage license from the state, no church can be forced to perform a wedding. In fact, the Supreme Judicial Court made it clear in their ruling legalizing marriage equality that it could not be used to force churches to perform marriages. No church in MA has been forced to marry or to even recognize the marriage of any couple.
As a supporter of marriage equality, I would go so far as to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing religious bodies the right to refuse to marry anyone. However, I think our constitution already protects them.
It does your side no good to conflate the legal with the religious. It’s becoming a losing proposition given the present day reality.
Report comment to moderator
I agree ANLIR, In Canda we have marriage equality. No religious institution is required by law to provide a wedding ceremony (some do, of course). But in the eyes of the law, a same sex partnership is on the exact same legal footing as a mixed-sex partnership. The sun still comes up in the morning. Our politicians still manage to make fools of themselves. Pretty much business as usual.
I find it interesting to read the articles and postings on this site. If you want to understand why the evangelism embraced by many posters of this site is being rejected by the masses, read the words you are using. From the eloquent “homosex” comment of sawgunner, to the lecturing of Victoria, to the amazing fact that on the article regarding race and adoption, not one person who posted actually thought of it from other than a “white” perspective.
There is a prevailing attitude that, though the Constitution enshrines the ideal that all men (and women) are created equal, many a poster here are just that much more equal than everybody else.
With reference to the article, though I agree that lobbing “truth bombs” which more often than not more closely resemble “hate bombs” is not the way to convert or indoctrinate people to your way of thinking, by the same token, I do not go to a sporting event to get religion. If I feel the need, there are certainly other establishments that I could visit, and I would probably be rather angry to have anyones particular brand of religion broadcast to me at a sporting event.
Just my thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
#7 “the amazing fact that on the article regarding race and adoption, not one person who posted actually thought of it from other than a “white” perspective.”
Rob,
I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that the majority of those of us who comment here regularly are white. If that is the case, is your amazement at the fact that more non-white people would not choose to comment here, or that white people would express things from their own perspective?
I try to give some thought as to how things appear to people who are different from me, whether race, religion, gender, or whatever. But when I express my opinions, they are inevitably from the perspective of a white female Christian, because that is what I am.
Report comment to moderator
My experience is that most evangelicals I meet are pleasant. Nevertheless, there is a vocal minority within evangelical circles that specializes in grenade launching. I regularly receive e-mail and mail from three evangelical organizations (Focus on the Family Action, Worldview Weekend, and Vision Forum) that convince me that there is indeed an ugly underbelly to the movement.
I agree that the public influence of these groups is waning, as these groups have struggled to find younger adherents.
I disagree with Dreher’s assessment that the Culture War is a loss for conservatives. On many fronts, the trajectory of our culture has changed since the 1970s. Social conservatives have been effective when they partnered with fiscal conservatives and articulated rational arguments for their position. But to the degree that social conservatives have jettisoned rational argument in favor of demagoguery, they have failed. Demagoguery and alarmism may play well within certain evangelical circles; they don’t play well among the broader conservative movement.
Regarding the gay issue, the Haggard incident (including his subsequent “100% heterosexual” comment) has made it difficult for any evangelicals to speak with much authority.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline:
Thank you for your reply. I look at the comments from Nick, and some of the others on that topic, and my skin crawls. (I thought your reply to him was very well put). I suppose asking someone to look beyond their own experience is pretty much an impossibility, however, the comments do, as Kiyoshi above points out, reveal an ugly underbelly.
Report comment to moderator
I’d say that most evangelicals, like most people, are pretty nice as long as you don’t get them off onto topics about politics, sex, or religion. I don’t think many evangelicals hang out here. I’m not sure what I would label most WorldMag folk. Probably something between fundamentalist and evangelical (”fundagelical”?).
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Anlir. I don’t think it’s fair to lump in evangelicals with the WorldMag crowd. From what I can tell, many WorldMag folks are associated with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). It’s a fundamentalist Presbyterian denomination that seems to consist of about 75% God-and-country types (e.g., the late D. James Kennedy) and about 25% dominionists (e.g., followers of Rousas Rushdoony). One of the groups that I mentioned above, Worldview Weekend, holds a fair number of its weekend conferences in prominent PCA churches.
Typical evangelicals need to do a better of job of making sure that fundamentalists don’t try to include themselves under the evangelical tent.
Report comment to moderator
”Fundagelical” post 11 ?
And who are the Evangelicalbashersonparade ?
Report comment to moderator
#11 Note to WMB: No more talk about politics, sex, or religion. It’s not nice.
Report comment to moderator
#12 KIYOSHI
I am a Baptist. I used to be an American (Northern) Baptist, but our church voted to leave the ABC after the ABC had problems reading the Bible. They couldn’t understand, so my church, along with 30% of American Baptist churches, left.
I am Evangelical and probably mostly a fundamentalist. While I enjoy the differing opinions expressed by many on WMB, I usually see them as within the realm of Christ. I don’t think they would get in the way of fellowship, just show us as a little different.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!