Comments on: The Next Evangelicalism: Interview with Soong-Chan Rah, Part 2

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:11:25 +0000

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

By: ando

ando — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:40:29 +0000

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:11:25 +0000

By: ando

ando — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:40:29 +0000

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:16:21 +0000

I've got bad news for you: The Christianity emerging from the Third World will be -- in fact, to a certain extent already is -- more "liberal" and Sojo-friendly than you might appreciate; they understand that the Christian faith is meant to apply to every sphere of life. In that context it won't be compartmentalized the way it often is in American society, where Jesus serves as little more than a value-added commodity, especially to the political right. And there's a reason for this: Many of them will go through more persecution for their faith than we ever will, and that will make them more empathetic with those who are not like them. I have never seen that from the right, which often complains about that when (usually) unwarranted.

Now, in your time on this blog you have consistently insinuated that the left and the right merely represent two sides of the same coin. That's patently ridiculous, if for no other reason that the evangelical "left" preceded the right and thus was never dependent on political power and cultural authority to stay in business. If this blog would go kaput and the national spotlight were to depart from Wallis he would keep on doing what he's been doing because it's his calling regardless of popularity. On top of that, it's always the right that questions the salvation of people on the left, best understood as those who don't subscribe wholeheartedly it its agenda (my pastor, who certainly isn't "left" by any means, has also made the observation).

And speaking of which, my own conservative, evangelical, down-the-middle church would welcome Wallis to our pulpit because we're involved in the same work he is, although on a smaller scale. But my pastor also has said that James Dobson has lost his authority to speak for God.

By: ando

ando — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:48:34 +0000

Point 1: Many people in other parts of the world DO have radios. That's
how a lot of agricultural, health and other important information has been
disseminated into rural areas, at least in the past.
Point 2: I agree it's an indigenous movement of God, independent of the
American Religious Right, post-modern theological cow plop, and liberal
hypocrisy.

By: WaveTossed

WaveTossed — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:24:41 +0000

“I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman.”

And these aren't social agendas? Or are these issues solely about saving individual souls?

Looks like it's only the “social agendas” that you favor are acceptable for Evangelicals. Other than that, it seems that you believe that the Sojo people are “too liberal” because some of them believe that saving souls would be interconnected with dealing with social and political issues.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:04:59 +0000

That doesn't mean anything because those broadcasts are funded here. Besides, you have to have access to a radio, which many folks in that part of the world don't. What we're looking at is an indigenous move of God in those countries totally independent of any cultural structures from Western evangelicalism, which is Rah's point.

By: ando

ando — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:44:34 +0000

Focus broadcasts to about a dozen countries around the world, in most all continents, according to their website. Their website can be accessed in Spanish.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:19:41 +0000

And I would suggest you are not altogether correct. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired a large number of black Africans, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa and especially South Africa, to resist racist oppression (I know this because I interviewed jazz trumpeter Hugh Masekela a few years back and he told me as such), and Billy Graham went over the South Africa in the 1970s and said, “Your system has got to go.” Indeed, a Christian ministry that I contribute to on occasion was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid.

Further, there's no need to have special concern with the environment in Africa and Asia; many Christians already are and would find those concerns addressed in Scripture. (The Bible comes out of an Afro-Asiatic culture.) Moreover, other cultures don't subscribe to the type of individualism rampant in America; thus, what we would consider “socialistic” here would be part of their daily operations.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Focus would be popular overseas; it's an America-centric ministry. Besides, other countries don't have the funds — and it's all about fund-raising!

By: ando

ando — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:12:34 +0000

I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set
against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government
policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man
and a woman. You might think that evangelicals in other countries only
talk about is racism, poverty and the environment. You would be dead wrong.
They are concerned about the above-mentioned issues, as well as drugs and
alcoholism, the breakdown of the family, and other issues that defined as
"conservative" by the Sojo-ites.
My guess is that Focus on the Family has a much bigger following
overseas than does Sojourners. Developing world evangelicals may be
conservative, but they certainly aren't liberal.
Evangelical is
loosely defined, both on the Left and the Right in this country

By: rosechef

rosechef — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:11:08 +0000

At a potluck this weekend, a friend told me about a Chinese-American friend in Boston who would never consider marrying anyone except someone from her own ethnic background. “Is she a Christian?” I asked. “Yes, and she wants to marry a Christian as well, but only a Chinese-American Christian.” I was disappointed for her. After spending four years in Beijing, my son–white–married a wonderful ethnic Chinese woman from Singapore who is deeply committed to Jesus Christ. Their engagement was a long process of trying to discern what was Biblical in their respective cultures (keep those) and what was not (negotiate those), but there was never any question in their minds (or ours) that God had brought them together. That process will probably continue indefinitely, but it is so exciting to see what God has brought about.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:55:32 +0000

This is an evangelical blog, if you haven't noticed; it has some mainline followers only because it touches upon issues ignored by American evangelicalism but which would be embraced by evangelicals in other countries — which is why those voices are disproportionally represented here. And BTW, the Good News of Jesus Christ does have political implications hardly limited to so-called cultural issues. Who do you think had Him killed? That day's political leadership, which correctly understood him as a threat.

By: ando

ando — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:05:48 +0000

It's also not allied with a liberal ideological agenda. You haven't refuted my point that mainline Christianity — of which many of the Sojo posters are part of — seem to be more interested in politics than preaching the Good News.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:23:17 +0000

Actually, evangelicals here are far too comfortable; the “Gospel” we preach doesn't make the surrounding culture take notice because evangelicalism is far too much a part of such culture and often exists (indeed, is sold) to maintain comfort. In contrast, in other lands calling oneself a Christian is a social and political statement — you are or you aren't. Nowhere else in the world except America is Christianity allied with a “conservative” ideological agenda.

By: ando

ando — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:04:35 +0000

Given the paucity of responses on the interview with Soong-Chan Rah, one wonders if people really care about the future of Evangelicalism. Perhaps we're too focused on the “social gospel” and the political issues of the day to care about souls? This may be a microcosm of why the mainline church in America is in decline and taking off is much of the rest of the world; the concern for souls is as important as political agenda of the day. (perhaps this will incite a few responses…)

By: The Next Evangelicalism: Interview with Soong-Chan Rah, Part 2

The Next Evangelicalism: Interview with Soong-Chan Rah, Part 2 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:42:42 +0000

[...] Any organization can change and adapt if they desire, and if they are willing to pay the price. T click for more var _wh = ((document.location.protocol==’https:’) ? “https://sec1.woopra.com” : [...]