In the UCC, the evangelical part of the family has been very closely tied to the conservative theological side of the family for the past few decades- the Community of Concern is the locus of this. If evangelicals are moving away from doctrinal conservativism they have yet to make this emergence a public movement.

Having said this, there are more liberals who publicly identify themselves as reclaiming the evangelical mantle, as they create a more balanced, spiritually alive faithfulness.

1/3 or 1/4, still pretty small numbers.

Even if they manage to shift to the RC side of conservative, that is a long way from the UCC.

IT

Russ

RevJamesMurray said: ... there are more liberals who publicly identify themselves as reclaiming the evangelical mantle, as they create a more balanced, spiritually alive faithfulness.

Interesting...  maybe, in a similar way, these evangelicals are picking up the liberal mantle. It would be great to get beyond the stereotypes of the liberal who can think critically but is spiritually dead & the evangelical who's online with the Divine but only within a very narrow intellectual horizon.  Maybe hybrids are a way forward...

Hi Rishi

Interesting article. I never knew anyone literally believed in the bible 100% until I came to the WC.

I read your second link. The first isn't working. I googled it and your post came up already; funny!  Google is sure plugged into the WC. Their search engine is set up to record every word we type!

Quote from your link: ( So this is the origin of it..)

Hi rishi:

I push mystical experience and postmodern interpretations of spirituality, unashamedly and unapologetically, with near evangelical zeal. I am, however, not absolutist about it, but rather see it as a creative process in which we all participate. Does that make me an open-minded evangelist?

I grew up as an Evangelical German Lutheran, and I think and feel that Martin Luther meant the Reformation he started to be an ongoing process, much like Process Theology is today.

So are we talking about evangelists or fundamentalists here? There's a difference. As far as moving fundamentalists towards a liberal theology, I think this has always happened - fundamentalists are just a few decades (or centuries) behind the wisdom of the rest of society. A century ago, they would have condemned divorce, birth control or votes for women with as much zeal as homosexuality; that's no longer the case (and two thousand years ago they would have defended plural marriage and slavery). (And on the other hand I wonder what liberal ideas of the current era will be thought to be extremely conservative/reactionary a century from now).

I have yet to meet a liberal evangelist, however. Evangelism being about spreading the good news/word of Christ, that is. That would involve meeting people where they are and expressing the good news in a culturally relevant way - not something most liberals have expressed much interest in doing.

We need to remem ber that evangelical and fundamental are two different categories.  True they have come to mean the same to many people but what James describes has happening within the UCC has happened within the culture as a whole.  The more conservative wing of teh church has beenthe most active at evangelism.

In fact, many liberal and mainline church folk consider evangelical a bad thing.  But it isn't.  To be evangelical means to share the faith, (literally to share the good news).  It need not be tied to the 5 fundamentals or to an exclusive "I'm right and you're wrong" point of view[digression but I always thought that this latter attitude would really get in the way of being evangelical].  We need to be more evangelical.  Or do we really believe we have good news to share?

Rishi

I'm back already! Any mention of  fundamentalism pushes a hot button on the WC! I just checked out your Newsweek article. I'm posting a comment contained therein. We've had many discussions on the WC along this line but I always feel as if I'm in the wilderness. There's no absolutes, no right, no wrong. There's something called situational ethics meaning right or wrong depend on certain circumstances. I find this  theory difficult although I'm far from being a fundamentalist. 

Quote from Newsweek:

Member CommentsPosted By: bojack27 @ 08/25/2008 12:41:27 PM

• Neo-conservatives vs the real Christians! .... it is easy to try to put a label on certain groups who do not agree with you but one only need to check the references of what they believe in.... If the Social Liberals believe in Moral relatiivism then how can they be absolutely sure that they are right since the moral relativism states there is no absolute rights or wrongs only differents situations..... This is a joke within itself....
   

   

  ??????

GordW: your quote:

We need to be more evangelical.  Or do we really believe we have good news to share?

I live in a highrise. We had a lady living here for about 10 years who always spoke about Jesus. The result was that she was considered highly foolish. She had no friends in the building. People crossed the street if they saw her coming.I know some people on the WC say that Christians have a persecution complex  meaning its their imagination. I don't believe so. I believe there's a high price to pay.

Of course this lady had her own church and she had no desire to really associate with secular society in general. Everyone was surely the devil! Still, my point is that her life was so lonely here in the building. I could always hear hymns coming from her apartment. She was a very beautiful working single mother  with a young child. I always felt so badly for her. She wasn't pushing Jesus on to people. She was mostly talking about what Jesus meant to her in her own life and always praising him.

Sorry, I'm not a very good evangelist. I'm much too chicken....

stardust

I think that a lot of us are like that, I admit I am.  I may chat away about God here, or at church, but there is no way I am going to put it on my sleeve and preach to the masses.  Those are the people we cross the street to avoid.

Very un-disciple wise isn't it.

IT

Russ

Open minded evangelical ........ maybe that's me?????
I am not a member of the UCC ...at least not yet.....
I was RC and after quite a remarkable experience I left and eventually became part of a evangelical fundamentalist church.   Only one problem..... I had been admonished to check things out and think for myself ..... sort of like the Bereans...
And now with dealing with aspects of my life and core being I have been brought face to face with a God that is much bigger and more complex than I ever imagined.   At one time too I clung to doctrine like a life raft when I should have been clinging to Jesus.   Jesus calls us to relationship not religion ....how freeing that was!    Now I am finally seeing the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in my life in new and exciting ways.   There is where I will expend my energies and thank you all for sharing that zeal with me.
Absolute right and wrong? .......situational right and wrong?.......
Seems to me that in God's wonderful creation there is room for both.
Did not God create black and white and all the shades of grey??? Did he not also create all the colours? ...... both the ones we can see and those beyond our ability to see??    How marvellous is our God that gives us that lesson in nature to help us understand our complex world and our complex lives!
Open minded evangelical? ....conservative fundamentalist? ..... I would much rather just be a child of God and a friend of Jesus thank you.   That is sufficient for me.
Thank you for letting me babble on like that .......
Rita

Hi Stardust....  yes, it's confusing because so many people are using the same terms but meaning very different things. For example, there is a kind of radical relativism, where nothing is better than anything else. Neonazis and vegetarian pacifists are just on different paths, but neither is better than the other, and so on. That kind of view sometimes gets associated with the word "liberal" in fundamentalist circles. But that's not at all what most liberal Christians that I know mean when they say "liberal."  

When I say "liberal" in relation  to Christianity, I only mean a point of view that recognizes that truth cannot get into us without having to filter through our minds. And, because our minds are conditioned by our context in so many ways, it means that there's simply no way to absorb an absolute truth from a text, including a sacred text. So, because our understanding is relative to our context in this way, we have a huge moral responsibility to pay attention to the context that is influencing our views. This is not the same, though, as the kind of radical relativism that makes it impossible to make any moral distinctions whatsoever (like between the neonazi way of life and the pacifist way).

But the sense I have been getting from views like the one I posted is that evangelical Christians are becoming more "liberal," in the way I'm using the word. Maybe that's the same as saying that evangelicals are separating themselves more clearly from 'fundamentalism.'  Not sure.

I'm a big believer in reclaiming the E word.  I'm trying to convince my lovely open-minded, pro-gay, intelligent, caring congregation to be loud and proud about the path that they are on.  Evangelism is sharing the good news of Jesus Christ -- this may look very different depending on your theology, tradition, context.  I wouldn't go around shouting "Jesus Saves!  Are you saved?"  but I would share the fulfilment that I have found in exploring the practices and traditions of Christianity -- it's not the only way, but it is a good and rich and meaningful way.

shalom!

Rishi- the hybrids you speak of are known by several names- progressives & emergents being the two most popular. This movement is known by its moderate to liberal theology coupled with social engagement, a personal faith in God through Jesus Christ, a desire to share it in a respectful manner and a missional outlook on the world.

I met an Anglican from Toronto who described his congregation as being politically moderate, evangelical, and inclusive. An interesting hybrid which probably wasn't possible a decade ago. (And here in Canada a political moderate is somewhere between small l Liberal and what used to be known as Progressive Conservative.)

Arminius wrote:  I grew up as an Evangelical German Lutheran, and I think and feel that Martin Luther meant the Reformation he started to be an ongoing process, much like Process Theology is today.

Great background for a mystic!  Luther is amazing, my favorite among the Protestant founders. Do you know Theologia Germanica?  It must be great to be able to read all of those mystical writings in the original language. I've heard that our translations miss zillions of nuances that are present in the originals.

Rishi

RevJamesMurray wrote: Rishi- the hybrids you speak of are known by several names- progressives & emergents being the two most popular.

Interesting.... I see the liberal part in the progressives & emergents that I know, but not the evangelical, inner-life, spirituality oriented part.  I'm thinking of evangelicals, though in maybe an older, more traditional sense of the word, like Luther and Wesley, not in the megachurch with powerpoint & a marketing team sense.  But maybe I just haven't met enough progressives & emergents in the UCC.  I do need to get out more...  Where do they hang out?

I guess it hinges on what views as Good News and what one sees as discipleship.

For me, I do not see the Good News the way anceints did or the early church did or the way some others today do. It, for me, is not about dead and risen, us saved from sin.... The Good News, for me,  is that we were given a teacher, shown a way,  to bring about God's kingdom, to create heaven on earth.

For me, being a disciple is not about preaching or even talking. It is about being a student and a learner...which makes you a doer and therefore a teacher.  

For me, it is believing, embracing, following  and sharing the teachings of another. I look at what Jesus did. He showed, taught a way, to live that held the sum of it all...  to love God and love neighbour as yourself. He did not do alot of lecturing on love. He did a lot of loving. He shared the love of God and showed us how to share that love with others.

When I say "Jesus___ " and put verbs in that sentence they are fed, listened, healed, helped... they are not mostly Jesus "said".

When I read Jesus sent the disciples out to minister, I do not think it means minister (preacher) and means preach. I think it means minister to people and means to serve or perform a service.  

I do not see my role as getting more arses in the pews or getting more folks sprinkled, chunked or dunked in the name of the three amigos. My role is to love God and love others. If I follow the teaching of Jesus, I will produce much fruit, show that love. That will make more disciples.

I do well some days and fall down on the job others.

StevieG

I do believe I can relate to THAT post 100%.

And I suppose, if you look at the doing rather than preaching aspect, then maybe the service club UCC church isn't that bad. We do try, and in  a lot of cases do, do.

And in some cases, do-do

IT

Russ

Hi Rita,  Yes, actually the way you describe your faith experience rings true in terms of what I was calling a kind of best of both worlds, "hybrid".  Pleased to meet you....  Rishi

I also love your post StevieG, but I remember Jesus doing quite a bit of talking as well -- focused on helping people understand what the kingdom of God is all about, and the implications of "God's dream" (the kingdom) for how we live.  The great commissioning passage says that the disciples were to go and make disciples -- so I can't separate the ministry pieces (feeding, serving, clothing, helping, healing) from the evangelism piece -- teaching others about the Way, and inviting them into a relationship with God, inviting them to be disciples/learners as well.  It's all about the balance for me -- integrating the practices of discipleship (communal worship, personal prayer time, reading Scripture, serving others, being in spiritually supportive relationships, giving generously) so that none are neglected.

shalom!

Rishi- we can usually be found hanging out in the bar at the annual meeting of conference. We can be found this June at the Madawaska Institute conference called

Transforming the Church <-> Transforming Society : Emerging Process of Theology, Mission and Spiritual Formation, June 14-17

http://www.georgehermanson.com/transforming-emerging-process-with-bru.html

We can be found in the pages of Christian Century magazine, as well as in Christianity Today. In websites like EmergentVillage.com and transformingtheology.org . In books like Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence. In Diana Butler Bass' Christianity for the rest of us. In Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy. In Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity.

 Thanks for the leads, James. I'll be looking for you.

To me Evangelical is a very distinct christian group like Catholic, or liberal Protestant. They're defined by preaching & high regard for their dogma. They care A LOT about abortion and gay marriage.

Asking if there are evangelicals in the UCC is like asking if there are catholics in the UCC. It's just weird. The act of evangelism, sharing your faith, bringing people to church, that sort of thing, that's different.

Hi Kinst...  There are actually evangelicals in the UCC (also in the Presbyterian, Anglican, probably every Protestant denomination, and even in the Roman Catholic church!).   The big question for me, though, is how liberal 'our' evangelicals are.  Hopefully some UCC evangelicals out there will let us know...

Well I guess your perspective is different from mine.

I just think it's what church your from (Evangelical, Mainline or Catholic). Your definition is prolly different from mine so you'd confuse the hell out of me.

In our conference we have a  Education and Evangelism ctte. Even the name gave people problems.

The United Church both by definition and proffession is an evangelical church (note the lack of capitalization...likewise you can be a member of the UCC and the catholic church). 

Clergychikita: you mentioned about saying Jesus saves.  I figure this is probably the best evangelical line in Canada because who wouldn't want Jesus to on the church hockey team.

Peace

Joel

Hi rishi,

It would probably depend upon which evangelical in the UCC you were talking to.

And from there it would depend upon how they define "evangelical."

This week-end past I was not described as "open-minded."  I was, however; described as being fair-minded which is still a compliment.

I have friends who would say I am not Evangelical enough and I have friends who would say I am too evangelical.  I figure so long as both sets of friends are mildly put-off then I must be doing something right.

Grace and peace to you.

John

You are making me think....

In practice, I think I tend to experience the evangelical/liberal difference as being something psychological, almost like a personality style, and not as something related to doctrine or denomination.

I'll describe it. These are stereotypes, I know, but I think there is some important truth in them.

When I say "evangelicals" I mean people who have had a certain kind of experiential encounter with the divine that was so transforming that it dramatically affected the course of their lives. You can see it in them. They have a kind of "glow." And they all describe having had some kind of recognizable "conversion" experience. Two examples among Protestants that I've read about are John Wesley and Martin Luther. Catholic examples might be saints like Ignatius of Loyola and John of the Cross.  Another distinguishing feature seems to be that this transforming encounter is somehow connected to Christ as a person; in other words, it's not just a subdued marveling at the beauty of a sunset. This "type" of Christian to me seems very different in their frame of mind than Christians who describe themselves as "liberals."  The "evangelicals" often seem to me to be more spiritually plugged in than the liberals, more attuned to the present reality of the divine in their lives, as though it was really real and alive, not just a code of values they agree with.   My stereotype of "liberals" is that they were likely born and raised in the church, according to good liberal Protestant values, tolerance and the like, but they are people who in their own life experience haven't known this kind of disturbing "conversion" phenomena, and don't know how to relate to it.  They seem to see themselves as having the key Christian values, just without all the broohaha.

A biblical example of the difference that comes to mind is the difference between the elder and the younger son in the parable of the prodigal son.  Both are equally loved by the father, both are well behaved (in the end), but  they have dramatically different  ways of experiencing the relationship with the father.  The prodigal is overwhelmed by the experience of the father's love and falls almost involuntarily into a posture of complete surrender and devotion. The elder son has a much more rational approach to life with the father; and he's much less likely to screw up, because he never colors outside of the lines.  For me, these are very different states of mind, which interests me much more than doctrinal differences between the two. The "prodigal" mind strikes me as more "evangelical," whereas the "elder brother" mind strikes me as more "liberal,"  in the ways I've stereotyped the two here. The prodigal also seems to be more experientially acquainted with grief, or maybe with a different degree of grief, than the elder brother.

What I wonder is if both of these postures might be unhelpful extremes, and if spiritual health is somewhere closer to the middle, a kind of synthesis of the prodigal and the elder brother.  This is why I am curious about the study in the U.S. that found young "evangelicals" were becoming more "liberal" in their views on issues like homosexuality and abortion, and that liberals here might be taking up the "evangelical mantle" as RevJames put it.  Both of these developments would seem to be movement in a good direction.  It's my understanding that, back in the days when the UCC was born, many prominent Christians (people like Richard Roberts and Walter Rauschenbusch) were simultaneously "liberal" and "evangelical,"  whereas, in my life experience, people have seemed to define themselves fairly strictly as either/or, with some fervor. On the other hand, some of the posts I'm reading here really seem to be coming from a third or middle way.

One final observation -- fundamentalist Christians evoke a different reaction / stereotype in me altogether. What I experience the strongest in "the fundamentalist" is a desire to dominate and control, which is not the same as how I experience "evangelicals."  Intuitively, that is how I tend to define fundamentalists, again not by doctrinal beliefs.  My experience has been that there are "fundamentalists" in this emotional/psychological sense among both people who hold "liberal" doctrinal beliefs and "evangelical" doctrinal beliefs.

The Liberals in the UCC are not open minded so why would the evangelicals be?

Hi Rishi:

Not only that, but I believe his translation of the New Testament to be more accurate than that of the English translators. There are nuances in his translations that seem minor, but really are monumental!

For instance, 1Cor13:9,10 he translated as follows: "Our knowledge is fragmentary, and our prohecies are fragmentations. But when that which is perfect has come, then the fragmentation will be done away."

I think he meant to say that ultimate reality is a unitive whole, in a state of synthesis. Analysis, however, fragments the whole. "But when that which is perfect has come," then we experience reality as it really is: as a unitive, unfragmented or undifferentiated whole, in a state of synthesis. "That which is perfect" is the experience of the unitive state, unitive love, unitive consciousness and conscience: the mystical rapture of the union and communion with everyone and everything, including God.

As I said before, I unashamedly and unapologetically push the experience of "that which is perfect." If this makes me an evangelist, so be it.

Privately, Martin Luther favoured the Rose and Cross: A red rose superimposed over the junction of the horziontal and vertical beams of a black cross. This, among others, symbolizes the union between life and death, God and Goddess, Jehova and Sophia/Sapienta, analytical knowledge and unitive wisdom, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. The ecstatic union between opposites: That which is perfect!

Another rosencross for you, Arminius:

Thanks, roshi, ah, rishi

With Pentecost coming up, the colour red and the red rose rank prominently. Red, the colour of blood and of fire, of passion, self-sacrifice, empathy and compassion.

When the tongues of the flame are in-folded

Into the crowned knot of fire

And the fire and the rose are one.

-last lines from LITTLE GIDDING by T.S. Eliot (Makes me more than a little giddy when I read it :-)

Also in LITTLE GIDDING are those two verses about the Descending Dove and the Flames of Pentecost—a true Pentecost poem!

The dove descending breaks the air

With flames of incandescent terror

Of which the tongues declare

The one discharge from sin and error.

The only hope, or else despair

Lise in the choice of pyre or pyre—

To be redeemed from fire by fire.

Who then devised the torment? Love.

Love is the unfamiliar name

Behind the hands that wove

The intolerable shirt of flame

Which human power cannot remove.

We only live, only suspire

Consumed by either fire or fire.

Wishing everyone a fiery Pentecost,

Arminius