This post is getting a lot of buzz.
I’ll quote some representative sections, then make a few comments:
Later research, documented in Kinnaman’s You Lost Me, reveals that one of the top reasons 59 percent of young adults with a Christian background have left the church is because they perceive the church to be too exclusive, particularly regarding their LGBT friends. Eight million twenty-somethings have left the church, and this is one reason why.
We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.
And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-and-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell.
Regardless of whether you identify most with Side A or Side B, (or with one of the many variations within those two broad categories), it should be clear that amendments like these needlessly offend gays and lesbians, damage the reputation of Christians, and further alienate young adults—both Christians and non-Christian—from the Church.
So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it?
Is a political “victory” really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church?
Is a political “victory” worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?
Is a political “victory” worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with gays and lesbians?
And is a political “victory” worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks—what if we get this wrong?
Too many Christian leaders seem to think the answer to that question is “yes,” and it's costing them.
Because young Christians are ready for peace.
We are ready to lay down our arms.
We are ready to stop waging war and start washing feet.
i) Her complaint amounts to blackmail. Threatening to boycott church unless the rest of us capitulate.
ii) Rachel, God doesn’t need you. You need God, not vice versa. God can get along just fine without you.
iii) Rachel, the church doesn’t need you. You’re not nearly as important as you think you are. If fact, if folks like you leave the church, that’s a winnowing process. That purifies the church. Given your attitude, the church will be much improved by your absence. The sooner you leave, the better.
iv) The church needs God, not you. To survive and prosper, the church must remain true to God.
v) Rachel, if you think you’re indispensable, I suggest you spend some time visiting the local cemetery. It might surprise you to find out how little difference you made.
That photograph of the cemetery is stunning! Where is that cemetery?
ReplyDeleteAlso, what I've noticed is that when some whiny-emotional people get an overdue well-deserved left-jab bop in the face, they stop crying and abandon their mopey whiny-emotionalism in favor of a more God-honoring direction.
Others, when they get a left-jab bop to the face, or when they see their friends get a left-jab bop to the noggin, they increase their banshee shrieking and will direct their ungodly anger at the incivility of the unwelcome intruder to their pity party.
I believe that's Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI've been there in person, and yes, it is stunning.
Rachel Held Evans is a pretender, to evangelicalism, to thoughtful blogging, and to reliability. She's achieved the reach she has only b/c our generation is full of shallow thinkers.
She's achieved the reach she has only b/c our generation is full of shallow thinkers.
DeleteI suspect people have always been shallow thinkers. In the past, however, writing and publishing seemed mostly limited to elites with a strong education, so this was masked to some degree. She's more the product of mass media than anything else.
Correct: it's Arlington.
ReplyDeleteI just another good article reviewing Rachel Held Evans post: Goodby Pro Gay Young Christians?
ReplyDeleteA Facebook friend of mine recently posted: "Question: What does it mean to be a radical Christian?" I responded: "Evidently, according to modern sensibilities, it means actually believing what the bible says about Jesus." Thanks for posting this confirmation of that statement. Rachel should have titled her post "I'll stand with the culture and reject the bible."
ReplyDeleteI wonder what she'd say to her comment:
"And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-and-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell."
...if it were written like this...
"And when it comes to adultery, we no longer think in the black-and-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people who have cheated on their spouses to consider adultery a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And marriage vows hurt like hell."
...or this...
"And when it comes to hooking up, sleeping around, and having babies, we no longer think in the black-and-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people who sleep around to consider this a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And silly things like marriage hurt like hell."
Insert anything there that is legal but immoral. I would think that Rachel would think that a guy having an affair on his 50 year old wife with a 25 year old co-ed would be bad. I wonder what basis she has for that thought if she even thinks it's wrong.
I'm still trying to figure out why this girl thinks she speaks for her "generation" of "Christians." As a "young Christian," the type of "young Christians" who think the way she does tend to be against the idea of the institutional church in general, and think if you use the term "Christian religion" that you are some kind of Pharisee because Christianity is a "relationship, not a religion." As if those who promote true doctrine and practice do not believe a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is fundamental to the Christian faith. Any moral code whatsoever is derided as a "list of dos and donts," which is, of course, legalism on par with that of the Judaizers.
ReplyDeleteThis type of Christian is the last of the dying nominal breed. They see no problem with premarital sex if you press them (though they would probably say that it should only be in a "serious relationship"). Serious young Christians are just as opposed to homosexuality as their ancestors, for the most part. Some might be less interested in fighting the "culture wars," but that is more because they have already conceded defeat for the time being than because they think the government should recognize homosexual marriage or permit abortion.
What a fool!
ReplyDeleteShe certainly doesn't speak for my 20 year old daughter who takes abuse on FB for her views on Amendment One and the murder of babies! Opinions are too easily and too frequently expressed these days, vapid mainly...
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, it was Jesus that drew the line in the sand:
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." - Matt. 12:30
lol...and as for "laying down our arms" well, my Lord had something to say about that too...
ReplyDelete“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34.
This woman needs Christianity for Dummies (that might be the four gospels and Romans...duh).
Rachel Held Evans is playing both sides of the fence.
ReplyDeleteShe should like to come right out with it, but is still a little afraid to.