Chris: The following material (below) was sent to the group a month ago. As per usual,
there was no interest shown in what it said. None that I know about, anyway. Let me use an analogy to try and explain my feelings. If I was direct and specific about this my belief is that it would result in a bad reaction of some kind, in still another wrong interpretation of what I am trying to say. About which, I am really tired of dealing with this sort of thing. I have known a number of Pentecostals in my life, not a large number, but enough to "get the idea." This started early, in childhood, back in the days when mother was still an actual person. She had a friend from her childhood who had become a Pentecostal, really gung-ho about it. Mother kept that friendship going out of respect for what that friendship had once been. And for a while, years, he never pushed it too far; some visits and you would not have guessed he was a Pentecostal, he could be a good and decent person, no strings attached, just a good man with good intentions. But as time progressed his fervor for Pentecostal faith got more and more intense. Toward the end of the friendship he "pushed" his beliefs more and more, oblivious to the fact that he was going to lose one more friend. Pentecostals refuse to believe that there is any kind of true faith except Pentecostalism. O, they may give lip service to the idea that other faiths, other forms of Christian faith, are based on spiritual truths, but that is as far as it gets, lip service. They say a few words to nod to some sort of ecumenical ideal, then immediately revert to their cherished view that the only "real" faith is their kind of faith. And the pushy-ness resumes, you know: "I mean this for the sake of Jesus," "Have I offended you, forgive me, I did it all for Jesus and that is why," or "my prayers are with you so that you may experience the peace and love of Jesus as I have." And on and on it goes, never ending. My mother's Pentecostal friend began to force his religion on his kids in a big way. No TV, no movies, no dancing at school events, you name it. And they were supposed to pray as much as possible. Can you guess how the kids turned out? I am sure you can. One became a criminal, the others all ended up with one kind of psychological problem or another. The extreme good intentions of the Pentecostal backfired on him yet, precisely because he was such a "true believer" (pietist, devotionalist, prayer zealot) he could not begin the see what the problem was. He simply could not -even as his life got worse and worse. He was captive to a religious ideology that had no place in it for basic self-reflection or for fundamental honesty about his own life. I won't say that all Pentecostals are this way. I have mentioned Evangeline and she is more-or-less Pentecostal herself. But she isn't a fanatic about it. She is very serious but is not a fanatic. She asks questions of herself, she admits it when some of her best intentions lead to bad results, and to some extent she sees the good in other faiths, at least other Christian faiths. Still, there is only so far she can go in this process. And her base of knowledge about the real world has a number of serious voids. Yet she is free of pretense, she does not claim to have a political solution to anything "out there," and she never says she does. The Pentecostal from years ago was different. He kept on doubling down on his strict Pentecostal beliefs no matter what. When things went wrong his approach was to think that he should pray even more, forgive even more, tell people about Jesus even more, and so forth. What pathetic self-indulgence. What if Schweitzer was having trouble with his hospital in equatorial Africa? And his autobiography tells us that there were all kinds of problems at various times. What did he do? Pray more? Forgive more? Tell others about Jesus even more? Not that he didn't pray about his difficulties, but he knew that what it would take to get his hospital in decent shape so that he could cure illnesses and mend injuries was to get busy in the real world, do things that matter, and find resources somehow. I can't think of any times when Schweitzer found excuses for action. Unlike the Pentecostal, he was very practical. What were his options? Could any really work? He was not after a utopia in the jungle that might be perfect in 10 years, he did what he could in the here-and-now and proceeded with what he had. Interesting was his relationship with the Reformed church group that sponsored his mission, a group with whom he had strong theological differences. But they reached agreement whereby Schweitzer would operate his hospital, which the Reformed people very much wanted, and he never tried to undercut their authority. The Pentecostal in this story could not begin to see things this way. George Will once said that the first "rule of holes" is to stop digging if you find yourself in one. For a devoted Pentecostal the rule is: "Keep on digging no matter what, never question what you believe, never listen to anyone else, if you are criticized get really defensive, and above all else, push Jesus down everyone's throats no matter how much they think you have lost your marbles and have become a religious crazy." I used to think really highly of mother's friend. But the more he became a zealous Pentecostal the less I thought of him, and what really convinced me that he was less of a Christian and more of a self-absorbed Gnostic who believed in Jesus, was how he burdened his kids with his own dysfunctional Pentecostal beliefs. >From that time onward I have generally thought very poorly of Pentecostals. Evangeline is a rare exception, but, then, at least by my lights, she is more of a really good generic Evangelical than she is a Pentecostal. Those who are committed Pentecostals have so many liabilities that other people almost always avoid them. And Pentecostals seem to be incapable of learning the most basic of lessons because, for them, there's nothing to learn, all the answers are known, its all about Jesus. Not the Jesus of the Gospels and Paul's letters, a man who actually was human and actually acted in the world, but only their interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. That is, it isn't real life Christianity, it is Reductionism carried to extremes, and it is based on self-absorption carried to an extreme. A few years ago the SBC made much of their apologies about racism in their Church in the past and sometimes continuing into today's world. But black people were not impressed. Did the SBC apologize? What difference was that supposed to make? Answer: It made no difference at all. The SBC got the message and took real world actions as soon as they understood the problem. If it had been a Pentecostal group no actions in the real world would ever have been taken because their beliefs are not based on anything real world or practical, but only on self-indulgence and religious emotionalism. I do not begin to see where Jesus was a self-indulgent religious emotionalist. He certainly was a man of faith, but he was moreso a man of action in the real world. And with him at his advent, so Matthew 12 says, as does Luke, will be the men of Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba, set to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven, not a company of Pentecostals self-absorbed in their prayers and unwilling to act in the real world because they are too busy with glossolalia and rolling on the floor. Pentecostalism, for all its good intentions, if you want my opinion, is a huge mistake. My view of things Billy ________________________________ From: Billy Rojas Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 12:39 PM To: Centroids Discussions Cc: Billy Rojas Subject: Evangelicals and Politics See the following article- Terrific article written by an Evangelical that "nails it" completely. This parallels things that I have said -repeatedly- over the years, maybe especially in the past two or three years. The basic theme has been: Unless you know what you are talking about politically, unless you know politics, take it seriously and actually study it in its own terms, you cannot possibly expect political success in the real world. Yet, while you would think that this truth is obvious to everyone, it simply is not obvious at all to most Evangelicals. Worse than that, which the article says nothing about, Evangelical theology -it may not be called "theology" but that is what it is- is basically pietist in nature and pietism not only is apolitical, it is anti-political. Some of my in-process work, not yet ready for distribution, takes up this matter in detail. But the gist of things is that the more pietist the religious group, the more it is out of touch with politics as such and out of touch with political realities at large. Which is to say that on the "Left" within the Religious Right, are community church Evangelicals who aren't so much anti-political as they are clueless about politics and never study it, or only do so occasionally, who, in any case, are usually not well informed. Many so-called "fundamentalists" are also uninformed and clueless but among organized Baptists this is far less an issue and, indeed, there have always been well informed Baptists who know full well how to engage in the political arena. Lindsay Graham is a prime example. On the Right among people of the Religious Right, are the Pentecostals with their traditions of strong anti-intellectualism and anti-political values. Now and then a few Pentecostals become involved in politics but when they do the overwhelming tendency among them is to make fools of themselves, people who have never cracked one serious book about politics, who then take public positions as if "of course" everyone else thinks like them so why wouldn't everyone else agree with their various cultural positions? The problem as I see it, is pietism itself, extreme devotionalism, or as the article infers, pietist "politics" comes down to the expectation and demand that everyone else must also become a pietist like them and the only future worth even thinking about is the coming of the Kingdom of God. In real life, of course, things are never so simple as this model of Evangelical (sad excuse for) politics as it now exists in America, but the model captures something of the problem. To take this further, at the heart of hard-Right Evangelicalism is the view that unless one becomes a pietist like them, he or she isn't really a Christian. This may not be necessary for Jews, and an exception of sorts may be made for Catholics, but this view is certainly common and can be found in probably all Evangelical churches. My view, needless to say, is antithetical to that view. Indeed, for all my admiration for the many good things that numerous Evangelicals do in the world, about this matter my outlook is just about 180 degrees the exact opposite. Which also says that Evangelical pietism is close to 180 degrees the opposite of Radical Centrism. Basic to RC, at least as I see it, is the imperative to be well-informed about any political issue you take a public stand on. Pietists have a very different view and regard study of politics as something like a mortal sin. Basic to RC is also the view that on issues of the day, if you cannot find a superior position by means of original thought that takes into consideration all relevant factors, then there needs to be a balance of L and R views because, structurally, neither the Right nor the Left could exist unless they contained some actual truths, that is, political truths as well as truths as understood by philosophy. But unless you are well informed politically it is not possible to take really educated positions. But pietists are opposed to becoming well informed. The pietist view can be summarized as: Everything reduces to Jesus and everything depends on prayer and everything depends on self-denial for the sake of Jesus. About which, in terms of the real world, this is to discuss a self-defeating project. It is safe to say that most people (put it in the 80% range, for people of all political persuasions) have no use at all for that kind of outlook and, for the record, neither do I. And where in all of Christian history has there been even one (1) successful pietist political regime? Name one. You can't. Because it is 100% impractical and pretty close to 100% anti-human nature. For sure, the witness of a Christian like Schweitzer says that living for Christ is necessary to be a Christian, but his witness also tells us that this is anything but exclusive of being well-informed, or exclusive of finding truths in other faiths, or exclusive of viewing Jesus as human, not only as incarnation, and, hence, many, many things of this world deserve our time and attention and wisdom. To add Luther to this discussion, this also means that being "earthy" is a virtue because, after all, we are people of this Earth, human-all-too-human, and to pretend that we can somehow rise to the ethereal level of angels is preposterous. Therefore, embrace being human, forget about being a 100% spiritual person and get your hands dirty. It will do you a world of good. Emphases are added to the article. If you prefer to read it without the highlighting simply click "select all" and go to the e-mail color selector and choose "white" for all background. Billy R. ---------------------------------------------- >From the site: Juicy Ecumenism Daniel Strand April 10, 2019 Lacking Depth: Evangelicals, Politics, and Immigration The current immigration<https://juicyecumenism.com/category/immigration/> debate that had been playing out in America and in the Evangelical community has exposed the lack of a rigorous approach to this contentious issue. When many Evangelicals take a stand on an issue and explain their basis, it is usually a bible verse or a claim from scripture. That may be right and good, but it’s often divorced from an understanding of actual politics as they are practiced and the ways that politics have developed in the West, which has formed the basis for European and American politics as we know and practice it today. If I could state it succinctly: I get the impression they want to say a lot about politics without having to know much about politics, either intellectually or historically. To add a further complicating factor: it’s not clear how the theology that they present should be related to politics, both in term of theory and practice. For a group that usually offers profoundly biblical and well-thought positions on a host of pastoral, doctrinal, or cultural questions, their engagement with politics is woefully underdeveloped. Michael Gerson outlined this problem in his critical piece<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-last-temptation/554066/> in The Atlantic back in April. He chastises Evangelicals for lacking “a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action.” In comparison to Catholics, who have a rather broad and deep tradition of political thought, Evangelicals make appeals to the “the Bible” which means they basically have no framework to keep them tethered when the political winds blow. Now, having a comprehensive set of concepts to help think through some of these very important political and social questions is not a panacea. Just ask the Catholic Church. They have a rather long and impressive body of social doctrine that many in the church just ignore. But it does help to have a tradition. The Biblicist impulse of Evangelicals that everything must have a direct bible verse to justify a statement prevents us from developing a broader body of social and political doctrine that will help frame issues regarding a whole host of social issues that are growing more contentious by the day. What is needed is a framework for thinking through these questions. Catholics, for instance, have a host of concepts about the role of the state in relation to the church and the family. Catholic political and social thought is an amalgam of scripture and various political ideas which they have assimilated and reformulated over time. The common good (bonum commune), an idea first developed by Aristotle and later reworked by Thomas Aquinas and subsequent theologians, is the all-embracing duty and responsibility of the government to preserve and protect through law and coercion, if necessary. Natural law, which finds its roots in the bible (Romans 2:14-15<https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A14-15&version=NIV>) and Stoic thought, provides the basis for positive statutory law. My point is that Catholics have sought to develop a systematic body of political and social doctrine to address and think Christianly about these questions. Evangelicals could learn a great deal from Catholics on this point. Without some orientation and structure to our deliberations Evangelicals lack coherence and discipline in our thinking and application. We also fail to learn from and understand how politics has actually taken shape in our history and how to apply our theology to those historic institutions and structures handed down to us. That process in long, arduous, and complicated. Debates will ensue and controversy and division will erupt, but that is part of the process and cannot be short circuited. Often Evangelicals emphasize what the Bible says about sojourners and aliens as basis for the church’s response for the current immigration issue. And surely, this is true. But it is not enough. When God is speaking in the scripture he is talking to Israel, which is not a modern nation-state, and so, one would obviously want to know how they go from laws of ancient Israel to laws in modern day America. America is neither Israel nor the church, so how do we relate Christian convictions into laws without expecting America to become the Kingdom of God? Evangelicals often cite the example of Jesus living in Egypt, which may or may not be relevant. The Gospels hardly emphasize that Jesus’ status as an “undocumented immigrant.” And the Gospels don’t claim to be a statement about state policies on immigration and border security, unless we think Jesus going down into the muddy waters of the Jordan for baptism as an affirmation of water pollution. Taking a moral stance on an issue is one thing, having a constructive way to think about addressing these issues is another. And while pastors and theologians do not have the complexity of knowledge that policy experts have, they must engage at some level with empirical data and develop a political framework for thinking through these questions, otherwise they are in danger of falling in the trap of so many progressive Christians who combine maximal moral outrage with equally maximal political idealism that paints marvelous and beautiful worlds that are utterly impractical. For evangelicals to begin the process of developing their own political tradition akin to Catholics would be a giant undertaking but one that is very necessary. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/34749fa93fed48f8b0e9489ebfc15080%40buglephilosophy.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
