Has Evangelicalism Become an Essentially Negative, Fear-Based Form of Human Religiosity?

[Kenny]

It is fear-based. And this verse does not apply to them, as they are stuck in otherism. They are not in perfected love. If they were, you wouldn't have them engaging in a war on culture. That is not love.

No evangelicalism it isn't fear based. And it depends on what you mean by "war culture" - and how is that expressed. I'm sure you can always find bad apples but I'm talking globally

That is true in all generations. In fact, there's no need to call them a "true Christian". If they go by the name Christian, they should be true. If I'm going to make a distinction myself, I'll say "Fake Christians", alluding to Jesus' wolves in sheeps clothing reference. It's not even immature Christians. It's anti-Christian to hate, and claim Christ's name. Trump for instance, is antichrist.

Sounds like there is more to what you are talking about.

1) There are carnal Christians
2) There are baby Christians
3) There are young Christians
4) And you have brand new Christians who have yet to shed their old life-styles
5) And you have mature Christians.

None of the above are wolves in sheeps clothing. Sounds more like you had a bad experience and are broad-brushing the issue.

Absolutely correct. By their fruits you shall know them, not by their political views, be those conservative or liberal. But by how they treat their fellow man. Declaring war on culture, is not the fruits of a Christ-centered life, in any way, shape or form. That's the fruits of fear and hatred. By those fruits, you shall know them too.

Again... yes on the fruit (basically). But what do you mean by war on culture? Does it mean against violent protesting?

Correct. And that's what this thread is about.

Evangelicalism has basically destroyed the Christian image of love and grace, support and compassion in the world. Just doing that for those of like-mind, is not the measure of Christian love at all.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Agree with your scriptures. And, yes, that is what we should do and IMO what most evangelicals do!

 

[ppp]

No evangelicalism it isn't fear based. And it depends on what you mean by "war culture" - and how is that expressed. I'm sure you can always find bad apples but I'm talking globally

It has been on very, very rare occasion that an evangelical Christian, in pitching their religion at me, has not included the dire warning of eternal torture or eternal annihilation as part of their patter. Fear is a pillar of Christian evangelicalism.

 

[metis]

Has Evangelicalism become an essentially negative, fear-based form or expression of human religiosity? Why or why not?

I think a lot of it is. The implication often tends to be that if one doesn't covert, they will suffer in hell-- or at least miss heaven.

 

[blü 2]

They are at their core fear-based. Otherism defines their religious approach. That is of course, the opposite of what historical Christianity was about.

Well, yes and no ─ ask the Jews, for example, or the pagans from the time of Constantine, or refresh your knowledge of the rise of Charlemagne, the Crusades, the history of the Papacy, the Thirty Years War, the Spaniards, British and French throughout the colonial era ─ and so on.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, yes and no ─ ask the Jews, for example, or the pagans from the time of Constantine, or refresh your knowledge of the rise of Charlemagne, the Crusades, the history of the Papacy, the Thirty Years War, the Spaniards, British and French throughout the colonial era ─ and so on.

I knew after I posted that, I should have said, "Early Christianity."

 

[MNoBody]

Has Evangelicalism become an essentially negative, fear-based form or expression of human religiosity? Why or why not?


Here's why I ask the question...

I grew up in a small, Midwestern town during the 1960s and 70s. At that time and place, the highest compliment you could give someone's morals and character was to call them, "A true Christian".

That term was taken quite seriously by nearly everyone of my acquaintance, and it meant someone with exemplary human decency, compassionate morals, generosity of heart and means, etc. who treated everyone -- high and low, saint and sinner, Black and White, etc -- with the same respect, compassion, and caring kindness. You honestly could not earn a higher accolade in my home town than to be called "a true Christian". It was a powerful ideal and I knew people who were not especially religious -- and sometimes not even Christian at all -- who aspired to that ideal in their own lives.

All that began to change sometime during the 1970s around the same time that droves of up-until-then politically apathetic Evangelicals became politically active in order to vote for Jimmy Carter during his first run for office. As the 70s turned into the 80s, the term "a true Christian" progressively lost its former status and meaning. Eventually, it fell into disuse among just about everyone except the Evangelicals. One day in the mid-90s, an old woman asked me if I could recall the time that term "meant something". We put our heads together and realized that neither one of use could remember the last time we had heard it used in its former meaning.

Now, I think at least three things might have happened to crush the idea that 'true Christians' have exemplary morals. First, the leaders of the Evangelical movement into politics seem to have had a largely negative agenda. Down with women's rights. Down with LGBTQ+ rights. Down with political liberalism. Down with the separation of church and state, etc. etc. etc. Conversely, they do not seem to have had much in the way of a positive agenda, except in terms of window dressing for their core negative agenda.

Second, those same leaders tended to drum up support for their agenda largely through promoting fear and hatred of the groups that opposed their negative agenda. They were unremarkable in promoting compassion, understanding, and kindness towards those who disagreed with them, to put it mildly.

Last, for much of the American public, they (and their followers) came to represent the face of Christianity. That is, the term 'Christian' came to be almost synonymous for many people with the term 'Evangelical' or (until 9/11) 'Fundamentalist'.

In combination, those three developments destroyed the traditional meaning of the phrase, "a true Christian" outside of the Evangelical community itself. Today, I believe it has been over 20 years since I last heard anyone who was not an Evangelical praise someone as "a true Christian".

All of which leads me to wonder if Evangelicalism is an essentially negative, fear-based form of religiosity? If not, why do Evangelical leaders -- and so very many Evangelical followers -- seem preoccupied -- or, more than preoccupied. Obsessed. -- with who they fear and hate? Is that impression of Evangelicals an illusion, or is there any substance to it?

wasn't it always a fear based agenda, just more subtle, less obvious....people had better social values and manners a few generations ago, must have been the simpler life, the rural aspects, etc.
now kids are raised in front of a tv....which pretty much guarantees a scrambled egg.

 

[firedragon]

Has Evangelicalism become an essentially negative, fear-based form or expression of human religiosity? Why or why not?


Here's why I ask the question...

I grew up in a small, Midwestern town during the 1960s and 70s. At that time and place, the highest compliment you could give someone's morals and character was to call them, "A true Christian".

That term was taken quite seriously by nearly everyone of my acquaintance, and it meant someone with exemplary human decency, compassionate morals, generosity of heart and means, etc. who treated everyone -- high and low, saint and sinner, Black and White, etc -- with the same respect, compassion, and caring kindness. You honestly could not earn a higher accolade in my home town than to be called "a true Christian". It was a powerful ideal and I knew people who were not especially religious -- and sometimes not even Christian at all -- who aspired to that ideal in their own lives.

All that began to change sometime during the 1970s around the same time that droves of up-until-then politically apathetic Evangelicals became politically active in order to vote for Jimmy Carter during his first run for office. As the 70s turned into the 80s, the term "a true Christian" progressively lost its former status and meaning. Eventually, it fell into disuse among just about everyone except the Evangelicals. One day in the mid-90s, an old woman asked me if I could recall the time that term "meant something". We put our heads together and realized that neither one of use could remember the last time we had heard it used in its former meaning.

Now, I think at least three things might have happened to crush the idea that 'true Christians' have exemplary morals. First, the leaders of the Evangelical movement into politics seem to have had a largely negative agenda. Down with women's rights. Down with LGBTQ+ rights. Down with political liberalism. Down with the separation of church and state, etc. etc. etc. Conversely, they do not seem to have had much in the way of a positive agenda, except in terms of window dressing for their core negative agenda.

Second, those same leaders tended to drum up support for their agenda largely through promoting fear and hatred of the groups that opposed their negative agenda. They were unremarkable in promoting compassion, understanding, and kindness towards those who disagreed with them, to put it mildly.

Last, for much of the American public, they (and their followers) came to represent the face of Christianity. That is, the term 'Christian' came to be almost synonymous for many people with the term 'Evangelical' or (until 9/11) 'Fundamentalist'.

In combination, those three developments destroyed the traditional meaning of the phrase, "a true Christian" outside of the Evangelical community itself. Today, I believe it has been over 20 years since I last heard anyone who was not an Evangelical praise someone as "a true Christian".

All of which leads me to wonder if Evangelicalism is an essentially negative, fear-based form of religiosity? If not, why do Evangelical leaders -- and so very many Evangelical followers -- seem preoccupied -- or, more than preoccupied. Obsessed. -- with who they fear and hate? Is that impression of Evangelicals an illusion, or is there any substance to it?

In some movements, a good Christian (As with any other movement using religion) is someone who picks up a gun, suicide belt, and/or a camera. Also, in some movements a good Christian is someone who is humble enough to wash a Buddhist priests feet as a welcome gesture, not out of reverence but out of respect to tradition. In some places Christian evangelism doesnt really exist because its not necessary really. They behave so well they dont need evangelism. They attract people.

Anyway, there are of course some evangelical movements who have made living through it, and pretty well. When evangelism becomes a business that's when problems start to appear. But this is based on anecdotal experience so I could be corrected.

Watching some evangelical movements it definitely gives the air that they are motivated by a political agenda. When I say political I don't necessary mean "politics" of governance. This agenda is quite evident because of the hatred they spew. They talk about the enemy way too much in comparison to speaking to the normal people to make them more religious or simply good people. Its an illusion because it sells. It gives a bad name for the good ones.

 

[PruePhillip]

Has Evangelicalism become an essentially negative, fear-based form or expression of human religiosity? Why or why not?

Quite enjoyed this. You will note in the Gospels there is also negative reference to some of the groups
mentioned here - but you have to look for it. The emphasis wasn't on what is wrong but what is right.
And as for the world at large, that wasn't of concern to Jesus.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The true Christian still does exist, I believe, but is very rare.

I personally blame materialism and greed for corrupting the morals and character of people. Religion today, it’s my humble opinion, has become entrapped by it (materialism) and like a bird that once was able to soar in the heavens, once it became attracted to earthly things got its wings stuck in the mud of worldliness and was unable to fly again in the spiritual heavens.

Which is why I believe we need a renewal of religion today and why many Faiths speak of the return, one day, of their Buddha or Christ.

 

[Windwalker]

No evangelicalism it isn't fear based.

I could easily make the case that it is. The first thing that pops into my mind, granted it is old but it still carries forward into today's pulpits in its portrayal of God: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards

An image of God that casts sinners into hell, and saves the faithful few who follow the rules as their reward, is fear-based. Come to God, or else.... is not an invitation of love. It's exploiting fear. (And don't quote that "fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" verse, that's not about being afraid of hell. It's about reverence and respecting of God, not being made to be afraid of God).

That is of course not my only reason I say this, but it's an easy example to cite.

And it depends on what you mean by "war culture" - and how is that expressed. I'm sure you can always find bad apples but I'm talking globally

The War on Culture is a commonly used term since the early 1900's in reference to the Christian Right and their declared war upon culture. This garbage began in the early 1980's while I was in Bible College getting my degree in theology. It was one of the key factors that influenced me to examine the foundational basis for their beliefs, as it was a direct contradiction to my experience of divine love. It's attitudes were unloving, un-Christ-like, and self-righteous. It was steeped in "us vs. them" mentality, and contradicted what I was reading in scripture about how there is no "us vs. them" in God. "Love your enemies", only seemed to apply to those of your own group whom you disliked for whatever petty reason. It was not an attitude of universal and unconditional love that I recognized as of God.

You can begin with this Wiki article which gives a brief overview of what I am talking about, and how what you see with the co-opting of Christianity by conservatism and right wing politics. That's not what I signed up for. I was looking for God, not egotistical self-puffings and unloving hypocrisies: Culture war - Wikipedia

From the article:

A month later, Buchanan characterized the conflict as about power over society's definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major fronts—and mentioned other controversies, including clashes over the Confederate flag, Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his "culture war" speech received was itself evidence of America's polarization.[16]

The culture war had significant impact on national politics in the 1990s.[10] The rhetoric of the Christian Coalition of America may have weakened president George H. W. Bush's chances for reelection in 1992 and helped his successor, Bill Clinton, win reelection in 1996.[17] On the other hand, the rhetoric of conservative cultural warriors helped Republicans gain control of Congress in 1994.[18]

The culture wars influenced the debate over state-school history curricula in the United States in the 1990s. In particular, debates over the development of national educational standards in 1994 revolved around whether the study of American history should be a "celebratory" or "critical" undertaking and involved such prominent public figures as Lynne Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and historian Gary Nash.[19][20]​

It's this garbage that says to me, they know nothing of actual Christian faith. Divisiveness is not Christian. It's wolves in sheeps clothing - not just mere "carnal Christians", but wolves, using the name of Christ for their agendas.

Sounds like there is more to what you are talking about.

1) There are carnal Christians
2) There are baby Christians
3) There are young Christians
4) And you have brand new Christians who have yet to shed their old life-styles
5) And you have mature Christians.

None of the above are wolves in sheeps clothing. Sounds more like you had a bad experience and are broad-brushing the issue.

Carnal Christians don't go around pretending to be mature Christians telling others what God's will for America is. That's a wolf in sheep's clothing. No getting around that.

How do you define a carnal Christian? I see that as one who still is a "babe", because they haven't quite been potty trained yet. But if you wish to say that these right-wingers who claim the name of Christ are just acting carnally, then so be it. But the garbs they are wearing make them appear to be gleaming examples of "True Christians". And that, is the sheep's clothing, on the mangy wolves.

Again... yes on the fruit (basically). But what do you mean by war on culture? Does it mean against violent protesting?

No of course not. Everyone is against violence, left and right. But everyone is capable of violence, left and right. Condoning it, very few do.

Agree with your scriptures. And, yes, that is what we should do and IMO what most evangelicals do!

Except for the Christian right, apparently. Perhaps you mean evangelicals that transcend politics? Not the ones supporting Trump by 85% because they think he'll serve them up their final win of the culture wars, that they started because they fear change?

You asked before why I say it's fear based? Because right-wing conservatism, is by definition fear-based. Conservative, reactionary moves, are mainly based on fear of change. That "war" that got declared, and we now see the fruits of these Christian's efforts in the divisiveness today of this Country, is because fear of change informed every decision and action. And anything based in fear, is not listening to Love. Fear cannot hear Love. They are opposites.

 

[metis]

You asked before why I say it's fear based? Because right-wing conservatism, is by definition fear-based. Conservative, reactionary moves, are mainly based on fear of change. That "war" that got declared, and we now see the fruits of these Christian's efforts in the divisiveness today of this Country, is because fear of change informed every decision and action. And anything based in fear, is not listening to Love. Fear cannot hear Love. They are opposites.

And hated based as well. If we watch one of Trump's rallies, we should listen to whether his references are more hate-based or love-based, and with every rally I've seen of his it's the former hands down. Even Trump's two co-authors, who lived with him for a while (Tony Schwarz for 9 months) said that Trump really only loves himself and has 0 empathy for others.

Now, if it was Jesus talking at a rally, which would it be more of? Well, we know the answer to that question because of his Sermon On the Mount: Matthew 5-7. Are his and Trump's rallies similar? Clearly nada.

So, why should a Christian cheer on with Trump when he demeans one person or stereotyped group after another after another after another...?

1John.2[9] He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still...[11] But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

1John.3[15] Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

1John.4[20] If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

 

[Windwalker]

And hated based as well.

Hate is based upon fear. It's one of the fruits of Fear. We often think of hate as the opposite of love, but it's actually fear that is. That's why "perfect love casts out fear". It's the difference between light and darkness. Love has it's fruits, and it's opposite fear has its fruits, chief of which is hatred of others. We hate what we fear.

If we watch one of Trump's rallies, we should listen to whether his references are more hate-based or love-based, and with every rally I've seen of his it's the former hands down. Even Trump's two co-authors, who lived with him for a while (Tony Schwarz for 9 months) said that Trump really only loves himself and has 0 empathy for others.

It is beyond all comprehension to me how any genuine Christian can either deny the rabid fear and hatred of that man as president, or the energy of that darkness which it is at those rallies, or excuse it as a gift from God to bring about the apocalypse and the destruction of the world. It is unimaginable to me, as they are complete opposites to love and the message of Christ and Christianity. I hear that biblical term, "Father of Lies" everytime the man speaks. He literally is the father of lies. And Christians cannot see this, or far worse not care?

There is something spiritually wrong there. You cannot support a man of lies and hatred like this, and easily reconcile claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ who said to love your enemies, and went to great lengths explaining why they should. There is a real "culture war", and it is between a culture of love, and a culture of fear, Trump's world being the latter. It is literally a war between light and goodness and darkness and death.

Now, if it was Jesus talking at a rally, which would it be more of? Well, we know the answer to that question because of his Sermon On the Mount: Matthew 5-7. Are his and Trump's rallies similar? Clearly nada.

The Beatitudes vs a Trump rally! Oh my, the contrast! I wonder if some of his Christian supporters have tried to read a transcript of one of those, and then read the Beatitudes right after. You'd think it should instantly sicken them, make them weep in repentance before God, but.... apparently not for some unfathomable reason.

So, why should a Christian cheer on with Trump when he demeans one person or stereotyped group after another after another after another...?

1John.2[9] He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still...[11] But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

1John.3[15] Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

1John.4[20] If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Amen.

 

[ppp]

I grew up in a small, Midwestern town during the 1960s and 70s. At that time and place, the highest compliment you could give someone's morals and character was to call them, "A true Christian".

That term was taken quite seriously by nearly everyone of my acquaintance, and it meant someone with exemplary human decency, compassionate morals, generosity of heart and means, etc. who treated everyone -- high and low, saint and sinner, Black and White, etc -- with the same respect, compassion, and caring kindness. You honestly could not earn a higher accolade in my home town than to be called "a true Christian". It was a powerful ideal and I knew people who were not especially religious -- and sometimes not even Christian at all -- who aspired to that ideal in their own lives.

That was not the world of the 60's and 70's. Even on the generous assumption that you are not looking back through a filter of nostalgia, that was, at most, a tiny pocket of remarkable people.

But that assumption would be too generous. Your statement should have been, 'You honestly could not earn a higher accolade in my home town than to be called "a true Christian" among the Christian majority.' I'll bet the Jews, Muslims, other religions, non-religious and non-believers did not hold the same view.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Has Evangelicalism become an essentially negative, fear-based form or expression of human religiosity? Why or why not?


Here's why I ask the question...

I grew up in a small, Midwestern town during the 1960s and 70s. At that time and place, the highest compliment you could give someone's morals and character was to call them, "A true Christian".

That term was taken quite seriously by nearly everyone of my acquaintance, and it meant someone with exemplary human decency, compassionate morals, generosity of heart and means, etc. who treated everyone -- high and low, saint and sinner, Black and White, etc -- with the same respect, compassion, and caring kindness. You honestly could not earn a higher accolade in my home town than to be called "a true Christian". It was a powerful ideal and I knew people who were not especially religious -- and sometimes not even Christian at all -- who aspired to that ideal in their own lives.

All that began to change sometime during the 1970s around the same time that droves of up-until-then politically apathetic Evangelicals became politically active in order to vote for Jimmy Carter during his first run for office. As the 70s turned into the 80s, the term "a true Christian" progressively lost its former status and meaning. Eventually, it fell into disuse among just about everyone except the Evangelicals. One day in the mid-90s, an old woman asked me if I could recall the time that term "meant something". We put our heads together and realized that neither one of use could remember the last time we had heard it used in its former meaning.

Now, I think at least three things might have happened to crush the idea that 'true Christians' have exemplary morals. First, the leaders of the Evangelical movement into politics seem to have had a largely negative agenda. Down with women's rights. Down with LGBTQ+ rights. Down with political liberalism. Down with the separation of church and state, etc. etc. etc. Conversely, they do not seem to have had much in the way of a positive agenda, except in terms of window dressing for their core negative agenda.

Second, those same leaders tended to drum up support for their agenda largely through promoting fear and hatred of the groups that opposed their negative agenda. They were unremarkable in promoting compassion, understanding, and kindness towards those who disagreed with them, to put it mildly.

Last, for much of the American public, they (and their followers) came to represent the face of Christianity. That is, the term 'Christian' came to be almost synonymous for many people with the term 'Evangelical' or (until 9/11) 'Fundamentalist'.

In combination, those three developments destroyed the traditional meaning of the phrase, "a true Christian" outside of the Evangelical community itself. Today, I believe it has been over 20 years since I last heard anyone who was not an Evangelical praise someone as "a true Christian".

All of which leads me to wonder if Evangelicalism is an essentially negative, fear-based form of religiosity? If not, why do Evangelical leaders -- and so very many Evangelical followers -- seem preoccupied -- or, more than preoccupied. Obsessed. -- with who they fear and hate? Is that impression of Evangelicals an illusion, or is there any substance to it?

Generally, yes. I was scared to death to leave fundamentalism for mainstream Christianity. I thought Yahweh was going to punish me. After 4 or 5 days, I was okay. Yikes.

 

[Kenny]

I could easily make the case that it is. The first thing that pops into my mind, granted it is old but it still carries forward into today's pulpits in its portrayal of God: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards

An image of God that casts sinners into hell, and saves the faithful few who follow the rules as their reward, is fear-based. Come to God, or else.... is not an invitation of love. It's exploiting fear. (And don't quote that "fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" verse, that's not about being afraid of hell. It's about reverence and respecting of God, not being made to be afraid of God).

That is of course not my only reason I say this, but it's an easy example to cite.

OK... but it was my view that the OP was talking about current history and not the 1700's. You could go back to the Inquisition and make it fear based too.

But I think he was talking about today.

The War on Culture is a commonly used term since the early 1900's in reference to the Christian Right and their declared war upon culture. This garbage began in the early 1980's while I was in Bible College getting my degree in theology. It was one of the key factors that influenced me to examine the foundational basis for their beliefs, as it was a direct contradiction to my experience of divine love. It's attitudes were unloving, un-Christ-like, and self-righteous. It was steeped in "us vs. them" mentality, and contradicted what I was reading in scripture about how there is no "us vs. them" in God. "Love your enemies", only seemed to apply to those of your own group whom you disliked for whatever petty reason. It was not an attitude of universal and unconditional love that I recognized as of God.

OK. Don't know where you got your Bible College training and it may be it was fear based steeped in the religiosity of self-righteousness.

I know of a Bible Training Center that taught faith and love and yet there were people who left there on the crazy side and teaching things that were never taught there. It all depended on what the hearer heard (much like Jesus and when he preached) and thus he said "He that has ears that hear, let him hear" (mark 4) giving the understanding that there are those who hear but don't hear.

So, it may be that you were taught that but is it global or localized? I fellowship with a dozen different denominations and haven't heard that in our neck of the woods (Florida)

But I think we have to be careful that we don't begin to do the same thing that we are judging. In response to what is wrong we can become self-righteous and hateful in pointing out how wrong they are and how wonderful we are in comparison.

Carnal Christians don't go around pretending to be mature Christians telling others what God's will for America is. That's a wolf in sheep's clothing. No getting around that.

How do you define a carnal Christian? I see that as one who still is a "babe", because they haven't quite been potty trained yet. But if you wish to say that these right-wingers who claim the name of Christ are just acting carnally, then so be it. But the garbs they are wearing make them appear to be gleaming examples of "True Christians". And that, is the sheep's clothing, on the mangy wolves.

Yes... you can find bad apples in any group. But wolves in sheep's clothing would be an exception and not a rule. Carnal Christians are simply those who gave their lives to Jesus and still maintaining their old live's way of living.

Except for the Christian right, apparently. Perhaps you mean evangelicals that transcend politics? Not the ones supporting Trump by 85% because they think he'll serve them up their final win of the culture wars, that they started because they fear change?

You asked before why I say it's fear based? Because right-wing conservatism, is by definition fear-based. Conservative, reactionary moves, are mainly based on fear of change. That "war" that got declared, and we now see the fruits of these Christian's efforts in the divisiveness today of this Country, is because fear of change informed every decision and action. And anything based in fear, is not listening to Love. Fear cannot hear Love. They are opposites.

I still don't see 'fear-based' as conservative. Even now there is a fear-based reaction to the nomination of a Supreme Court nominee and it isn't from the Conservative side.

Perhaps, even, your reaction to conservatives based on a "war on culture" is also a fear based position. (It could be seen as such).

War on Culture? I think even Jesus had a war on the culture of his time. It isn't a war against people and there are some cultural things that need to be changed. Changing culture, when wrong, is what Jesus did when he said "You say... but I say..." It was his war on the religious culture of his time.

So, I really don't subscribe to your position. I'm sure there are pockets where what you say is true, but I'm talking on a macro level and not a micro level.

 

[Wandering Monk]

wasn't it always a fear based agenda, just more subtle, less obvious....people had better social values and manners a few generations ago, must have been the simpler life, the rural aspects, etc.
now kids are raised in front of a tv....which pretty much guarantees a scrambled egg.

Ah, the good old days, when everyone went to church and half your children died before age five.

 

[MNoBody]

Ah, the good old days, when everyone went to church and half your children died before age five.

sounds like a harsh world, well, only the calendar really changes

 

[Sunstone]

wasn't it always a fear based agenda, just more subtle, less obvious....

American Evangelicals have not always been prominently involved in politics Historically they go in cycles. For some stretches of each cycle, they shun politics as "worldly" and instead focus on their own religiosity, which you have correctly identified as fear-based or oriented. For the other part of their cycle, they become politically active and try to impose their religiosity -- or at least its values -- on everyone else. These cycles have been going on since the 1820s. The current period of political activism began in the 1970s.

 

[Windwalker]

OK... but it was my view that the OP was talking about current history and not the 1700's. You could go back to the Inquisition and make it fear based too.

But I think he was talking about today.

I'm usually pretty careful and precise in qualifying what I say. In double checking, I was in this case as well. Perhaps you missed it where I qualified citing that saying "...granted it is old but it still carries forward into today's pulpits in its portrayal of God"?

In other words, it is current history in how evangelicals view God today. Do you believe God sends sinners to the flames of an eternal hell? Then it pertains. Right? That's fear-based. But again, that was one example, not the only one, as I was also careful to say.

OK. Don't know where you got your Bible College training and it may be it was fear based steeped in the religiosity of self-righteousness.

It reflected pretty much everything I was hearing on mainstream evangelical radio and television of the day. James Dobson? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? All the those folks and more who represented all of that business. Granted, our particular church was maybe a tick or two even beyond them, but 10 cc's of poison is still poison, even if it's not a full 15 cc's of it. It still makes the body sick. Just maybe not as fast-acting.

I know of a Bible Training Center that taught faith and love and yet there were people who left there on the crazy side and teaching things that were never taught there.

It was everywhere in the evangelical world, outside our particular group. Heck, our group, following suit with them took it another step forward and considered all of them as "lost" too, but they were being used by God for his good purposes. I remember being told that these other Christians were "the scaffolding God used to restore his true church". Sort of like how evangelicals today see Trump! In fact, exactly the same as that

That reasoning was nonsense to me then, and it's a multiplicity of times more disingenuous and full of insincerity to me today than then. It was and remains so today, just an excuse for self-righteous hypocrisy, and that's all. Falwell today, is no different than the poisonous Christian right then. In many regards, more ripe in its fruits of hypocrisy.

It all depended on what the hearer heard (much like Jesus and when he preached) and thus he said "He that has ears that hear, let him hear" (mark 4) giving the understanding that there are those who hear but don't hear.

Exactly. The inner voice of the spirit spoke to me using scripture on a regular basis as I was trying to see this path as the way to God back then. "By their fruits you shall know them. By their fruits you shall know them." I finally became willing to honestly examine them and their claims about God head on. That led to me leaving them, of course.

It's hard to do that, when you want to believe in something, but find it increasingly difficult to do so, while maintaining any intellectual and spiritual integrity. I heard that voice all along, but was resistant to listen, out of fear to listen to it, and what it meant, what sacrifice I would have to make, and did.

So, it may be that you were taught that but is it global or localized? I fellowship with a dozen different denominations and haven't heard that in our neck of the woods (Florida)

If it were that simple, that would have been easy. Just leave them and try to fit into the mainline evangelicals. In fact, that is exactly what I did try. But my experience was that while in a lot of cases it was not nearly as rabid, it was all just a watered-down version of it. But even there, when they tune in to garbage like Focus on the Family, the poison is still there.

But I think we have to be careful that we don't begin to do the same thing that we are judging. In response to what is wrong we can become self-righteous and hateful in pointing out how wrong they are and how wonderful we are in comparison.

I agree you need to be careful. Yet, there is precedence for calling out hypocrisy without pulling punches. Jesus did it. And what I see that I am referencing, is pretty much the exact same targets of hypocrisy and hypocrites that Jesus went after. They are quite literally, the portrait of the Pharisees that the gospel authors portrayed whom Jesus chastised. Rightly so.

Being a sinner is one thing. Being a hypocrite is another. That harms people's faith. It certainly harmed my own back in that day, and I am convinced it harms countless others today. How many ExChristians and atheists has they created? "Better there a millstone around your neck", I think is the force with which Jesus referred to those who do that. Those are the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Yes... you can find bad apples in any group. But wolves in sheep's clothing would be an exception and not a rule. Carnal Christians are simply those who gave their lives to Jesus and still maintaining their old live's way of living.

I'm not talking just about a few bad apples. The system itself is the bad apple. And while there may be good honest folks that are in those systems, the entire structure inherently has that "us vs. them" poison built right into it. Think in modern terms of systemic racism built into police departments. You have some very fine upstanding cops out there, but the system innately creates an "us vs. them" mentality, even for them. Good people are affected by negative perceptions that are taken as the norm.

We can spend some more time exploring that idea later on.

I still don't see 'fear-based' as conservative. Even now there is a fear-based reaction to the nomination of a Supreme Court nominee and it isn't from the Conservative side.

I'm sorry. I don't think you understand that when I say "fear-based", I am referring to a system, not just a simple reaction of fear to immediate threats. I am talking about a core philosophy that motivates everything that follows, including reactionary movements. I'm talking about a philosophy of fear. I'm talking about 'isms'.

Conservatism, is by definition, a drawing back, a pulling away from change. It is at its heart based upon the fear of change. It fears that which is different. It fears outsiders. It fears progress. It fears challenges to its presumptions of truth. It fears knowledge which threatens itself. It fears the light of truth itself. Granted, some putting the brakes on change is warranted in some situations, but what we have instead in today's climate of change, is the exploitation of the fear of change by unscrupulous politicians, who sold a bill of goods to today's evangelicals.

That is what got all these folks fired up to declare war on culture. It's the fear of a different set of beliefs and values that challenge them, and they gave into that fear and literally, in the case of Trump particularly, made a deal with the devil out of that fear. They made a deal with the devil back in the 80's and today you have the "father of lies" being supported and championed by evangelicals. That is literally, a deal with the devil himself.

Evangelicals have destroyed all respectability they had as Christians, once they got in bed with politicians. They are now a different animal. "Jesuscans", followers of conservative politics, wearing the name Christian as shield against others it deems unworthy, and not the Jesus of the Beatitudes, who supports the poor, feeds the hungry, welcomes the stranger, and forgives the sinner.

Perhaps, even, your reaction to conservatives based on a "war on culture" is also a fear based position. (It could be seen as such).

No it's not. I have a hope-based philosophy of life. War is an act of violence against hope. Jesus never declared war upon those of different beliefs and values. He only attacked religious hypocrites. A "war against hypocrisy" is something I could get behind. We have examples of Jesus doing that. But examples of him declaring a war on culture, we never see.

War on Culture? I think even Jesus had a war on the culture of his time.

Where in scripture? Where did he say build a wall to keep Samaritans and other strangers out of Israel? Where did he ever say, let's elect judges who will make sure prostitutes and tax collectors are stoned to death, or denied the same rights as others in society? Where did he ever bash people for being gay? Where did he ever lead lynch mobs to hang dark-skinned folks of his day in the name of his Father? Or anything along those lines of 'anti-otherism'?

It isn't a war against people and there are some cultural things that need to be changed. Changing culture, when wrong, is what Jesus did when he said "You say... but I say..." It was his war on the religious culture of his time.

It was a war on religious hypocrisy. These posts you see me making, are following suit with that, calling out wolves in sheep's clothing, the religious who elevate themselves as the judge over others, and do everything in the power to be in positions of control and power, including lying and deception.

What we see for the past 40 years, is a pattern of that same hypocrisy in the Christian right. They are a direct correlation with the "Pharisees" in the gospel narratives. And like those in the story who were shocked in the day of judgement, "but lord, didn't we do all these wonderful things in your name," he responded "I never knew you".

So, I really don't subscribe to your position. I'm sure there are pockets where what you say is true, but I'm talking on a macro level and not a micro level.

85% of white evangelicals, is not "pockets". It's a systemic problem. It's a symptom of the poison of a fear-based philosophy against others infecting the whole body. Christianity is welcoming and inclusive of strangers, not isolationist and withdrawn into itself through fear of others. That's not just immature, it's spiritually diseased.

 

[MNoBody]

a major lesson for me in Bible College was the practicum of , well let's just put it this way-
learning how to see through one's own BS.
this fellow has a succinct way of expressing this