the paper of record, the living of faith
The New York Times published an article in its June 1, 2008 edition titled “Taking Their Faith, But Not Their Politics, To The People” It’s a notable piece that highlights a church in the St. Louis area that is an example of what seems to be a larger trend: some of the younger generation of evangelical American Christians are desiring to re-focus what being ‘evangelical’ means.
The article states, “In a January 2007 survey of 1,000 young people for the book ‘Unchristian,’ one of its authors, David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, which studies Christian trends, found that 47 percent of born-again Christians ages 40 and under believed that ‘the political efforts of conservative Christians’ posed a problem for America. None of that means younger evangelicals have abandoned the core tenets of their faith, including a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus and the literal truth of the Bible. They think abortion and homosexuality are sins. But shifts in thinking among younger evangelicals may lead to an easing of the polarization that has defined the country’s recent political landscape, many of them said.”
Before we get ahead of ourselves and claim this generation of Christians is doing what no other has done before, let’s widen the lens and inhale a big breath of perspective. This has happened before. That doesn’t mean it’s absolutely ordinary, but neither is it amazingly unique. Churches have been pushing the envelope for generations in all sorts of areas of outreach and adapting to fit a particular culture.
So read the article, and ponder these forward-looking questions.
How do you think this focus shift might help Christians in interacting with the world, as Jesus called them to do as salt and light? What are some pros and cons to this that you can envision possibly coming with this movement? How do you imagine the generation following this one will seek to re-adjust the possible shortcomings in this view?
We look forward to reading your comments.
Posts
Hi Jim, I tried to read the link but it said I needed a password for the site of that paper. Just giving you the heads up there.
I think the key to the discussion is defining the passage of what salt means and what light means.
The one about light is fairly easy - we are to be a shining example of what faith does to a life - and that can and will light up the whole room (our example of living and treating others).
Salt is the tricky but cool analogy. Jesus actually mentions what if salt has lost it’s flavor? That salt would blend in with the food and become nothing (we wouldn’t taste it - the salt wouldn’t be doing anything speacial per se). Maybe we are to be like salt in that we have the teachings that can truly change societies and lives for the best - and we need to be ’salt’ in the midst of another ‘bland plate of noodles’. So when we offer a great taste - people take notice.
I will wait for the article - but if it doesn’t show I can guess what they are doing (lol).
Hey societyvs,
I edited the link, so hopefully it’ll work for you if you try it now.
I too am a fan of the salt analogy Jesus used, because of the tension it brings. Salt was a big-time preservative in that day to keep food from spoiling. In order for salt to properly preserve anything, it must remain pure. Impure salt is not good. Yet, to preserve the food, the salt must be grounded and kneaded into the food; it can’t avoid contact with it at all.
Anyway, check the link, hope it works. Let me know your thoughts on the questions.
The next question, at the utterance of the phrase, ‘conservative Christian’ ought to be, “With respect to what?” That is, to politics, theology, or both? And have we (or the NYT) even begun to think deeply about either one? (To say nothing of their interrelation) I sense in people my age an automatic default to baptized statism once they realize the focus of God’s concern goes far beyond the concerns of their elders. And that is equally dangerous. We may become unwitting accomplices in a deadly utopian nightmare antithetical to human liberty.