@1986_overstaged, do you have direct experience with the various forms of American evangelicalism?
Not in north american soil, but most of historical protestant denominations in latin America are USA plants, and many of them still retain ties with their mother churches. It should be noted that in latin America and most of the developing word, there's almost no distinction between historical protestantism and evangelicalism. Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist and Baptist denominations are all evangelical, pretty much. Lutherans are the exception because they have been "imported" from Germany. But they too have an evangelical wing, which descends directly from German pietism. Comunities descending from german pietism and from north american missions usually think alike when it comes to social issues. The Roman Catholic Church, which represents the majority of christians, is even more conservative. That's why a developing world christian cannot see what's so peculiar about american evangelicals. To be honest, it's northern hemisphere liberalism that seems peculiar and alien to most worldwide christians.
I've heard evangelicals reasoning in similar ways too. But if the conclusion is the same, why do evangelicals get all the hate and catholics, orthodox christians, have a free pass to not marry gays and not ordaining women?
Since when are those positions not controversial, both within the Catholic church and among external critics? Seriously, who is giving the Catholic and Orthodox churches a "free pass"? This just seems like a whiny attempt to deflect criticism without having to address it.
I don't see people like you demanding catholics to reject their entire belief system because in the past it was used to support slavery. I don't hear people urging moderate and liberal catholics to leave their church cause it refuses to marry gays. Pope Francis calls gender theory an ideology, and is not considered a lunatic or fundamentalist. Many people will, of course, disagree with these ideas, but they're still respected on the basis of freedom of thought and speech. But it's pretty much a non-issue to call evangelicals "deplorables" or "the worst part of the society".
There's no intellectually consistent explanation as to why "liberalism" is acceptable when it comes to slavery or racial discrimination but it becomes anathema when applied to homosexuality or women's equality.
Why would evangelicals need to justify why they are not liberal on any issue? As if that was a default position any christian should accept unless there were strong reasons to do otherwise. And since when do you have to be a liberal christian to reject slavery or racial segregation? Liberals don't have the monopoly of justice and goodness in christianity. There are many examples in history of how a liberal theology can be used to justify atrocities. Once you reject the sinful humanity and the God who justifies as the center of the good news, you have to replace it with anything that is acceptable and cool at the moment. Nation, culture and race can easily take the place of the gospel in a theological system that caters to what's acceptable at the moment. If a theological system strongly rejects even the possibility of atemporal or universal truths, then even "love" and "social justice" can be thrown away next.
@1986_overstaged, do you have direct experience with the various forms of American evangelicalism?
Not in north american soil, but most of historical protestant denominations in latin America are USA plants, and many of them still retain ties with their mother churches.
Thanks. It is helpful to have a sense of your frame of reference.
With respect, I would suggest that despite what ties remain, you might not have a complete sense of evangelicalism in the US. (American evangelicalism, btw, is not a monolithic thing—it comes in a variety of forms, some of which are much more conservative, some of which are less so, and some of which can be downright liberal on certain issues.)
The history that @Crœsos has outlived is not a liberal gloss of some sort. It is well-documented history, which many within the evangelical denominations at issue readily admit, and in some cases, try to push their denominations to come to terms with. That’s not a uniquely evangelical thing, nor is acknowledging it a slam on evangelicals—historically, there’s pretty much no aspect of American life that isn’t affected by issues of race and slavery. The Catholics, the mainliners and everyone else have their own baggage with regard to it. To talk in the context of this thread about the American evangelical baggage concerning race and slavery (which includes the Methodists) is not to suggest that no one else has baggage.
Why would evangelicals need to justify why they are not liberal on any issue?
No one has suggested evangelicals need to justify why they are not liberals. What was suggested was that some evangelicals used a particular understanding of Scripture to justify their support of slavery, then rejected that understanding as supportive of slavery and unequal status of blacks, but still rely on that same understanding to support their positions on the role of women and on homosexuality.
So the question is not why aren’t evangelicals liberal. The question is why, when it comes to women and homosexuals, do they rely on a hermeneutic they have since rejected with regard to race and slavery. In other words, why aren’t they consistent?
And since when do you have to be a liberal christian to reject slavery or racial segregation? Liberals don't have the monopoly of justice and goodness in christianity.
Since you defined "liberalism" and "the traditional view" as being in opposition to each other, followed by a concession that support of slavery is a very traditional view. I second Nick Tamen's question. Is there an intellectually consistent reason why "justice and goodness" should prevail when dealing with slavery or racism, but not for gays?
Many people will, of course, disagree with these ideas, but they're still respected on the basis of freedom of thought and speech. But it's pretty much a non-issue to call evangelicals "deplorables" or "the worst part of the society".
For those who don't get the "deplorables" reference it's from a statement by Hillary Clinton about some of Donald Trump's supporters.
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
I think it's telling that someone hears "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic . . . offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric" and immediately thinks 'this must be about evangelicals!!!' even though the speaker specifically says she's referring to a subset of Trump supporters. Of course, saying racists are "deplorable" seems to be worse than actually being racist in some circles.
I'm not sure what @1986_overstaged is quoting with "the worst part of the society".
I had many, many serious problems with Hilary Clinton and her campaign, but the "basket of deplorables" was, IMO, a lovely and accurate turn of phrase. And yes, I would put the majority of American evangelicals in that basket, or rather they flooded into that basket like the Gadarene swine rushing over each other into the abyss.
So the question is not why aren’t evangelicals liberal. The question is why, when it comes to women and homosexuals, do they rely on a hermeneutic they have since rejected with regard to race and slavery. In other words, why aren’t they consistent?
I don´t really think it´s the same thing. Slavery and homossexuality are not comparable issues. When it comes to slavery, clobber texts have been used because it was convenient for white christians (not only white evangelicals, by the way) who relied on slavery. When it comes to sexuality, it´s not about a few bible verses, but the whole worldview and creation theology of evangelicals (and christians in general) that is at stake. In other words, the evangelical rejection of homossexuality has not so much to do with the few texts that can be interpreted as forbidding homossexuality, but it has everything to do with their conviction that God created men and women to complement each other (and, in some cases, procreation is also mentioned as an important factor). They would reject same sex relationships even if those clobber texts didn´t exist. So, it´s not about their hermeneutics concerning these specific texts, but their whole theological view. That´s why it´s much harder for evangelicals to give up on that issue. Rejectin slavery didn´t requeire evangelicals to change anything in their theology, just like a transition from monarchy to presidentialism doesn´t deman evangelicals to change their theology (even though clobber texts can be mentioned in support of honoring the king!).
It should be noted that evangelicals do not "win" anything by rejecting homossexuality, like they (and other christians) won when they accepted slavery. In fact, the rejection of homossexuality in evangelical circles do cause them many problems, and damages their group image. Evangelicals are pretty much the only religious group that white enlighted western progressives find it okay to hate. I don´t think evangelicals have personal benefits from the rejection of homossexuality.
So the question is not why aren’t evangelicals liberal. The question is why, when it comes to women and homosexuals, do they rely on a hermeneutic they have since rejected with regard to race and slavery. In other words, why aren’t they consistent?
I don´t really think it´s the same thing. Slavery and homossexuality are not comparable issues. When it comes to slavery, clobber texts have been used because it was convenient for white christians (not only white evangelicals, by the way) who relied on slavery. When it comes to sexuality, it´s not about a few bible verses, but the whole worldview and creation theology of evangelicals (and christians in general) that is at stake.
The white supremacy inherent in American slavery and well established in the contemporary white Christianity of the time seems like a "whole worldview". There's even an associated "creation theology". Pretending slavery was just some extraneous little addendum with no other social or cultural consequences is revisionist in the extreme. The fact that you can spin a "whole worldview" out of a few isolated proof-texts seems like a common thread here.
Identify enemies benefits conservative groups and the "threat" posed by gay folk has been a rallying call getting evangelicals to sacrifice every Gospel imperative on the altar of homophobia its attendant backing of far right politicians in the US.
Complementarianism is unbiblical nonsense at the best of times, and contrary to lived experience except in the most basic "insert tab A into slot B" way.
I also think you're massively underestimating how important slavery, and indeed race in general, were to conservative theology. You don't think the pro-slavery folks thought that abolitionism challenged their "whole worldview and creation theology"? Y'know what? It did; it does. It challenges hierarchy. It challenges the view that unequal power relationships in society are to be endured rather than changed. Pro-slavery evangelicals believed just as firmly that the natural order was that whites and blacks were different, that blacks were to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" just as homemaking and childrearing were the province of women. It's the same worldview that claims that distinct "kinds" within animals date back to creation, even if there may have been changes within those "kinds". It's a worldview that says that what is, should stay as it is, because God created it that way in the beginning. It is, in principle, a most extreme form of literal conservatism.
And since when do you have to be a liberal christian to reject slavery or racial segregation? Liberals don't have the monopoly of justice and goodness in christianity.
Since you defined "liberalism" and "the traditional view" as being in opposition to each other, followed by a concession that support of slavery is a very traditional view. I second Nick Tamen's question. Is there an intellectually consistent reason why "justice and goodness" should prevail when dealing with slavery or racism, but not for gays?
You should make this question to all progressive and liberal christians who, from the 19th century abolition of slavery until 2010´s acceptance of gay marriage in some mainline denominations, have been in contradiction with this issue. You do recognise that, in 2000 years of christian history, gay marriage appeared in like, the last minute? It´s not like it´s a solid institution that is being rejected by a small sect - in fact, it´s a new development adopted by a very small minority of christians (and this minority gets smaller every year considering these denominations are shrinking).
And perhaps, "justice and goodness" do not demand churches (and any religion) to change their theology of marriage and sexuality.
My description of something being "traditional" is entirely neutral. It doesn´t mean it´s right or wrong, good or bad, but simply the stablished belief. Evangelicals do not necessarily agree with tradition, but they tend to have a critical view of it.
So the question is not why aren’t evangelicals liberal. The question is why, when it comes to women and homosexuals, do they rely on a hermeneutic they have since rejected with regard to race and slavery. In other words, why aren’t they consistent?
I don´t really think it´s the same thing. Slavery and homossexuality are not comparable issues. When it comes to slavery, clobber texts have been used because it was convenient for white christians (not only white evangelicals, by the way) who relied on slavery. When it comes to sexuality, it´s not about a few bible verses, but the whole worldview and creation theology of evangelicals (and christians in general) that is at stake.
The white supremacy inherent in American slavery and well established in the contemporary white Christianity of the time seems like a "whole worldview". There's even an associated "creation theology". Pretending slavery was just some extraneous little addendum with no other social or cultural consequences is revisionist in the extreme. The fact that you can spin a "whole worldview" out of a few isolated proof-texts seems like a common thread here.
You propose christians (not only evangelicals) choose their views on human sexuality based on what criteria?
Identify enemies benefits conservative groups and the "threat" posed by gay folk has been a rallying call getting evangelicals to sacrifice every Gospel imperative on the altar of homophobia its attendant backing of far right politicians in the US.
Complementarianism is unbiblical nonsense at the best of times, and contrary to lived experience except in the most basic "insert tab A into slot B" way.
I also think you're massively underestimating how important slavery, and indeed race in general, were to conservative theology. You don't think the pro-slavery folks thought that abolitionism challenged their "whole worldview and creation theology"? Y'know what? It did; it does. It challenges hierarchy. It challenges the view that unequal power relationships in society are to be endured rather than changed. Pro-slavery evangelicals believed just as firmly that the natural order was that whites and blacks were different, that blacks were to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" just as homemaking and childrearing were the province of women. It's the same worldview that claims that distinct "kinds" within animals date back to creation, even if there may have been changes within those "kinds". It's a worldview that says that what is, should stay as it is, because God created it that way in the beginning. It is, in principle, a most extreme form of literal conservatism.
And what about the non-evangelical christians that, by the way, were the majority of christians at the time? You do seem to enjoy ridiculing evangelicals based on 19th century beliefs, taken out of context, as if the rest of the world back then didn´t espose similar views.
The issue of sexuality has nothing to do with slavery. You´re bringing this whole issue just to ridicule the group who currently has views opposed to yours on this issue. Basically, you just want to portrait evangelicals as "the enemy", so that you don´t have to debate their opinion in this subject. But the things you accuse evangelicals can easily apply to christians in general.
By the way, I´d like to mention one more time that the conservative view on sexuality prevailed on the UMC General Conference thanks to the votes of black and african folks. Must be a hell of an embarrassment for your narrative of demonising white evangelicals, so I understand you don´t want to talk about it.
I don't think I've ridiculed anyone. Challenge and criticism are not ridicule. Black people are just as capable of being bigoted and prejudiced as white, and there has been an unfortunate tendency to see resisting white liberals on the issue of sexuality as part of the anti-colonial struggle for black Christians in parts of Africa. Some people like to exert power and authority over others, that's part of the attraction of things like headship theology. It is also part of the attraction of slavery and white supremacy. As the balance of power in churches has shifted, a proportion of those previously on the receiving end of the power imbalance have seized the chance to take the whip hand. Now I don't doubt the sincerity with which conservative views are held, but it's clear that the desire to force conformity on these issues is at least partly because people like that feeling of power, especially when it has been long denied. Like it or not the modern politics of particularly protestant churches overlaps massively with the legacy of colonialism.
By the way, I´d like to mention one more time that the conservative view on sexuality prevailed on the UMC General Conference thanks to the votes of black and african folks. Must be a hell of an embarrassment for your narrative of demonising white evangelicals, so I understand you don´t want to talk about it.
Again, you’re oversimplifying. Conservative views prevailed because of the votes of African and conservative evangelical American delegates, some of whom were black and some of whom were white. (I say “conservative evangelicals” because studies show that some American evangelicals, particularly younger ones, take a more liberal view on homosexuality.)
As I understand it, African Americans make up around 7–8% of the UMC’s American membership, which in turn represents around two-thirds of the UMC’s total membership. Even together, they do not make a majority of the MC’s membership.
Around 40% of the UMC’s American membership supports the UMC’s current position on homosexuality, so clearly, that’s a lot of white conservatives as well as black, especially since not all African American UMCs fall on the conservative side of the line here. (Just one example: almost half of the South Carolina Annual Conference’s delegates to the special General Conference were African American, and they all opposed the Traditional Plan and advocated for full inclusion of LGBT+ UMs.)
I’m afraid the narrative you continue to push does not appear to be a well-informed narrative.
Comments
Not in north american soil, but most of historical protestant denominations in latin America are USA plants, and many of them still retain ties with their mother churches. It should be noted that in latin America and most of the developing word, there's almost no distinction between historical protestantism and evangelicalism. Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist and Baptist denominations are all evangelical, pretty much. Lutherans are the exception because they have been "imported" from Germany. But they too have an evangelical wing, which descends directly from German pietism. Comunities descending from german pietism and from north american missions usually think alike when it comes to social issues. The Roman Catholic Church, which represents the majority of christians, is even more conservative. That's why a developing world christian cannot see what's so peculiar about american evangelicals. To be honest, it's northern hemisphere liberalism that seems peculiar and alien to most worldwide christians.
Why would evangelicals need to justify why they are not liberal on any issue? As if that was a default position any christian should accept unless there were strong reasons to do otherwise. And since when do you have to be a liberal christian to reject slavery or racial segregation? Liberals don't have the monopoly of justice and goodness in christianity. There are many examples in history of how a liberal theology can be used to justify atrocities. Once you reject the sinful humanity and the God who justifies as the center of the good news, you have to replace it with anything that is acceptable and cool at the moment. Nation, culture and race can easily take the place of the gospel in a theological system that caters to what's acceptable at the moment. If a theological system strongly rejects even the possibility of atemporal or universal truths, then even "love" and "social justice" can be thrown away next.
With respect, I would suggest that despite what ties remain, you might not have a complete sense of evangelicalism in the US. (American evangelicalism, btw, is not a monolithic thing—it comes in a variety of forms, some of which are much more conservative, some of which are less so, and some of which can be downright liberal on certain issues.)
The history that @Crœsos has outlived is not a liberal gloss of some sort. It is well-documented history, which many within the evangelical denominations at issue readily admit, and in some cases, try to push their denominations to come to terms with. That’s not a uniquely evangelical thing, nor is acknowledging it a slam on evangelicals—historically, there’s pretty much no aspect of American life that isn’t affected by issues of race and slavery. The Catholics, the mainliners and everyone else have their own baggage with regard to it. To talk in the context of this thread about the American evangelical baggage concerning race and slavery (which includes the Methodists) is not to suggest that no one else has baggage.
No one has suggested evangelicals need to justify why they are not liberals. What was suggested was that some evangelicals used a particular understanding of Scripture to justify their support of slavery, then rejected that understanding as supportive of slavery and unequal status of blacks, but still rely on that same understanding to support their positions on the role of women and on homosexuality.
So the question is not why aren’t evangelicals liberal. The question is why, when it comes to women and homosexuals, do they rely on a hermeneutic they have since rejected with regard to race and slavery. In other words, why aren’t they consistent?
Since you defined "liberalism" and "the traditional view" as being in opposition to each other, followed by a concession that support of slavery is a very traditional view. I second Nick Tamen's question. Is there an intellectually consistent reason why "justice and goodness" should prevail when dealing with slavery or racism, but not for gays?
For those who don't get the "deplorables" reference it's from a statement by Hillary Clinton about some of Donald Trump's supporters.
I think it's telling that someone hears "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic . . . offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric" and immediately thinks 'this must be about evangelicals!!!' even though the speaker specifically says she's referring to a subset of Trump supporters. Of course, saying racists are "deplorable" seems to be worse than actually being racist in some circles.
I'm not sure what @1986_overstaged is quoting with "the worst part of the society".
I don´t really think it´s the same thing. Slavery and homossexuality are not comparable issues. When it comes to slavery, clobber texts have been used because it was convenient for white christians (not only white evangelicals, by the way) who relied on slavery. When it comes to sexuality, it´s not about a few bible verses, but the whole worldview and creation theology of evangelicals (and christians in general) that is at stake. In other words, the evangelical rejection of homossexuality has not so much to do with the few texts that can be interpreted as forbidding homossexuality, but it has everything to do with their conviction that God created men and women to complement each other (and, in some cases, procreation is also mentioned as an important factor). They would reject same sex relationships even if those clobber texts didn´t exist. So, it´s not about their hermeneutics concerning these specific texts, but their whole theological view. That´s why it´s much harder for evangelicals to give up on that issue. Rejectin slavery didn´t requeire evangelicals to change anything in their theology, just like a transition from monarchy to presidentialism doesn´t deman evangelicals to change their theology (even though clobber texts can be mentioned in support of honoring the king!).
It should be noted that evangelicals do not "win" anything by rejecting homossexuality, like they (and other christians) won when they accepted slavery. In fact, the rejection of homossexuality in evangelical circles do cause them many problems, and damages their group image. Evangelicals are pretty much the only religious group that white enlighted western progressives find it okay to hate. I don´t think evangelicals have personal benefits from the rejection of homossexuality.
The white supremacy inherent in American slavery and well established in the contemporary white Christianity of the time seems like a "whole worldview". There's even an associated "creation theology". Pretending slavery was just some extraneous little addendum with no other social or cultural consequences is revisionist in the extreme. The fact that you can spin a "whole worldview" out of a few isolated proof-texts seems like a common thread here.
Complementarianism is unbiblical nonsense at the best of times, and contrary to lived experience except in the most basic "insert tab A into slot B" way.
I also think you're massively underestimating how important slavery, and indeed race in general, were to conservative theology. You don't think the pro-slavery folks thought that abolitionism challenged their "whole worldview and creation theology"? Y'know what? It did; it does. It challenges hierarchy. It challenges the view that unequal power relationships in society are to be endured rather than changed. Pro-slavery evangelicals believed just as firmly that the natural order was that whites and blacks were different, that blacks were to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" just as homemaking and childrearing were the province of women. It's the same worldview that claims that distinct "kinds" within animals date back to creation, even if there may have been changes within those "kinds". It's a worldview that says that what is, should stay as it is, because God created it that way in the beginning. It is, in principle, a most extreme form of literal conservatism.
You should make this question to all progressive and liberal christians who, from the 19th century abolition of slavery until 2010´s acceptance of gay marriage in some mainline denominations, have been in contradiction with this issue. You do recognise that, in 2000 years of christian history, gay marriage appeared in like, the last minute? It´s not like it´s a solid institution that is being rejected by a small sect - in fact, it´s a new development adopted by a very small minority of christians (and this minority gets smaller every year considering these denominations are shrinking).
And perhaps, "justice and goodness" do not demand churches (and any religion) to change their theology of marriage and sexuality.
My description of something being "traditional" is entirely neutral. It doesn´t mean it´s right or wrong, good or bad, but simply the stablished belief. Evangelicals do not necessarily agree with tradition, but they tend to have a critical view of it.
You propose christians (not only evangelicals) choose their views on human sexuality based on what criteria?
And what about the non-evangelical christians that, by the way, were the majority of christians at the time? You do seem to enjoy ridiculing evangelicals based on 19th century beliefs, taken out of context, as if the rest of the world back then didn´t espose similar views.
The issue of sexuality has nothing to do with slavery. You´re bringing this whole issue just to ridicule the group who currently has views opposed to yours on this issue. Basically, you just want to portrait evangelicals as "the enemy", so that you don´t have to debate their opinion in this subject. But the things you accuse evangelicals can easily apply to christians in general.
By the way, I´d like to mention one more time that the conservative view on sexuality prevailed on the UMC General Conference thanks to the votes of black and african folks. Must be a hell of an embarrassment for your narrative of demonising white evangelicals, so I understand you don´t want to talk about it.
As I understand it, African Americans make up around 7–8% of the UMC’s American membership, which in turn represents around two-thirds of the UMC’s total membership. Even together, they do not make a majority of the MC’s membership.
Around 40% of the UMC’s American membership supports the UMC’s current position on homosexuality, so clearly, that’s a lot of white conservatives as well as black, especially since not all African American UMCs fall on the conservative side of the line here. (Just one example: almost half of the South Carolina Annual Conference’s delegates to the special General Conference were African American, and they all opposed the Traditional Plan and advocated for full inclusion of LGBT+ UMs.)
I’m afraid the narrative you continue to push does not appear to be a well-informed narrative.