Evangelicals full of fear

[Cow Poke]

Actually yes you do, note Mountain Man's conflating Christianity and Evangelicalism and evangelicalism below.

Both Evangelicals and white evangelicals were absent from the civil rights movement, at least from side of the civil rights marchers. Letter from a Birmingham Jail had a bit to say about those Christians.

You, sir, are a one trick pony. Charles is so blessed to have you and the rest of his peanut gallery.

[Mountain Man]

Actually yes you do, note Mountain Man's conflating Christianity and Evangelicalism and evangelicalism below.

Both Evangelicals and white evangelicals were absent from the civil rights movement, at least from side of the civil rights marchers. Letter from a Birmingham Jail had a bit to say about those Christians.

But wouldn't you agree that there were many Christians on the side of the Civil Rights movement? Or do they not count because they were black?

[KingsGambit]

One of the parties?

I'd say one. If you look at the campaign website of any average Democratic candidate, you'll see a section on LBGTQ justice. I think for the most part, Republicans have accepted that gay marriage is now the law of the land and moved on from the issue.

[Cow Poke]

I'd say one. If you look at the campaign website of any average Democratic candidate, you'll see a section on LBGTQ justice. I think for the most part, Republicans have accepted that gay marriage is now the law of the land and moved on from the issue.

OK, makes sense.

[simplicio]

With one notable exception in Billy Graham. There are some who wish he had done more, but he was not passive or on the wrong side of it:

https://faithtalk1360.com/articles/s...ights-movement



That statement highlights both sides. The Usher would not,so Graham did it himself. I would guarantee you the Usher represented many 'E'vangelicals during that time, but Graham was also an Evangelical, if you get my meaning.

"Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children". Graham equivocated on segregation, and was probably the most prominent and important opposition to King and his movement. His integration of some of his crusades does not separate him from some of the points made in Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

[simplicio]

But wouldn't you agree that there were many Christians on the side of the Civil Rights movement? Or do they not count because they were black?

Yes there were many Christians in the civil rights movement. The one segment notably absent were white evangelicals. White evangelicals were present and prominent in opposition to civil rights, offering the political program of Massive Resistance.

Black evangelicals? The group which accepts CRT and accepts the group experience as opposed to the individualism condemned by white evangelicals!

[oxmixmudd]

"Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children". Graham equivocated on segregation, and was probably the most prominent and important opposition to King and his movement. His integration of some of his crusades does not separate him from some of the points made in Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

I am not sure I agree with your there simplicio. I know the man took some pretty big risks during those times in favor of integration, in support of the idea we are all equal before God. I would say your quote is not 'equivocation' but rather pessimism that humanity will be able to overcome its limitations. He was not advocating for racism, but lamenting the difficulty associated with overcoming it. He fundamentally believed the best way to solve the problem was to bring people to Christ and allow God to change them, and that kept him from participating in the more forceful declarations and demonstrations that came later.

This is not to say he was right in that necessarily. And people have argued from both perspectives, and I'm sure each of us could make a point. But my point is that he did take a stand, and he did take action when most others would not. But I understand it never became his driving focus. Because he was not a political figure, he was an evangelist, and he didn't want anything to obscure that was his singular goal - right or wrong - to preach the Gospel to as many people as he could.

That is, I don't think Graham fits the reference Fea is making, though is is possible he was influenced more than he should have been by those white evangelicals around him that do fit the reference Fea is making.

As for whether Fea would include Graham in his reference - I don't know the answer to that. I know the I personally was influenced by Graham to recognize that ALL men are equal before God. As was my Mother. And that separated us from the rest of her side of the family WRT the civil rights movement and racism in the south. So you are talking to one person that grew up in the 60's NOT a racist in part because of the stand Billy Graham took against racism.

[Mountain Man]

Yes there were many Christians in the civil rights movement. The one segment notably absent were white evangelicals. White evangelicals were present and prominent in opposition to civil rights, offering the political program of Massive Resistance.

Black evangelicals? The group which accepts CRT and accepts the group experience as opposed to the individualism condemned by white evangelicals!

So you're not making a case against evangelicals, you're making a case against white people.

Anyway, contrary to your premise, there were a lot of white people and white Christians who did agree with and support MLK.

[simplicio]

I am not sure I agree with your there simplicio. I know the man took some pretty big risks during those times in favor of integration, in support of the idea we are all equal before God. I would say your quote is not 'equivocation' but rather pessimism that humanity will be able to overcome its limitations. He was not advocating for racism, but lamenting the difficulty associated with overcoming it. He fundamentally believed the best way to solve the problem was to bring people to Christ and allow God to change them, and that kept him from participating in the more forceful declarations and demonstrations that came later.

This is not to say he was right in that necessarily. And people have argued from both perspectives, and I'm sure each of us could make a point. But my point is that he did take a stand, and he did take action when most others would not. But I understand it never became his driving focus. Because he was not a political figure, he was an evangelist, and he didn't want anything to obscure that was his singular goal - right or wrong - to preach the Gospel to as many people as he could.

That is, I don't think Graham fits the reference Fea is making, though is is possible he was influenced more than he should have been by those white evangelicals around him that do fit the reference Fea is making.

As for whether Fea would include Graham in his reference - I don't know the answer to that. I know the I personally was influenced by Graham to recognize that ALL men are equal before God. As was my Mother. And that separated us from the rest of her side of the family WRT the civil rights movement and racism in the south. So you are talking to one person that grew up in the 60's NOT a racist in part because of the stand Billy Graham took against racism.

Just what happens when people are brought to Christ? Serious question. The states which were overtly in support of segregation had many Christians, it was called the Bible Belt. And the states in the north not associated with segregation had informal segregation.

Bring racist people to Christ and you have racist Christians. That view of Christianity is flawed, although pervasive. The first step in setting aside sin is to recognize it to be wrong, if it is not wrong then it ought not be dropped.

MLK was an evangelist, but one who was thrust into the political limelight over his stance on racism. King was an evangelist who rejected the spirit of the age, Graham was an evangelist who did not reject the spirit of the age.

[simplicio]

So you're not making a case against evangelicals, you're making a case against white people.

Anyway, contrary to your premise, there were a lot of white people and white Christians who did agree with and support MLK.

Yes, there were a lot of white people and white Christians who agreed with MLK. However, the group being discussed are white evangelicals.

[oxmixmudd]

Just what happens when people are brought to Christ? Serious question. The states which were overtly in support of segregation had many Christians, it was called the Bible Belt. And the states in the north not associated with segregation had informal segregation.

I understand the paradox. But honestly, those I've known whose faith in Christ was all encompassing over and opposed to just a secondary aspect of who they were, have not been racist people - not for long anyway. I'm trying hard now to think of an exception, but I honestly can't. I will admit people for whom Christ is all encompassing are much rarer that the latter I mention - which is a big part of the problem.

Bring racist people to Christ and you have racist Christians. That view of Christianity is flawed, although pervasive. The first step in setting aside sin is to recognize it to be wrong, if it is not wrong then it ought not be dropped.

I understand what you are getting at. It is probably the flaw in Graham's argument, few come to Christ with the fervency and resolve to follow Him in all things that defined Graham's life. And so I think Graham believed that those that came to Christ would necessarily if not immediately eventually find the same position he did. Unfortunately it doesn't always work out like that. People accept Christ but cling to a lot of what they were before meeting Him.

MLK was an evangelist, but one who was thrust into the political limelight over his stance on racism. King was an evangelist who rejected the spirit of the age, Graham was an evangelist who did not reject the spirit of the age.

I don't think it is that simple simplicio. We have some evidence of Dr. King engaging in some bad activities that mar his image. I know on that front, Graham went far beyond most of his contemporaries in making sure he never found himself in any such situation, contrived or otherwise. He went to the extent that he never, ever entered a motel or hotel room alone or with an unknown entity, to be sure there was no possibility of what MLK is accused of - manufactured or not.

So Graham may have missed opportunities he should have taken wrt civil rights, but then again, maybe he was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing, helping people like myself that otherwise might have grown up racist to not grow up racist.

And I don't know Graham or MLK's histories to anywhere near the depth I could mount a vigorous comparison or analysis on that level. But I know I admire deeply both men in terms of the good they accomplished in this world.

[simplicio]

I understand the paradox. But honestly, those I've known whose faith in Christ was all encompassing over and opposed to just a secondary aspect of who they were, have not been racist people - not for long anyway. I'm trying hard now to think of an exception, but I honestly can't. I will admit people for whom Christ is all encompassing are much rarer that the latter I mention - which is a big part of the problem.



I understand what you are getting at. It is probably the flaw in Graham's argument, few come to Christ with the fervency and resolve to follow Him in all things that defined Graham's life. And so I think Graham believed that those that came to Christ would necessarily if not immediately eventually find the same position he did. Unfortunately it doesn't always work out like that. People accept Christ but cling to a lot of what they were before meeting Him.



I don't think it is that simple simplicio. We have some evidence of Dr. King engaging in some bad activities that mar his image. I know on that front, Graham went far beyond most of his contemporaries in making sure he never found himself in any such situation, contrived or otherwise. He went to the extent that he never, ever entered a motel or hotel room alone or with an unknown entity, to be sure there was no possibility of what MLK is accused of - manufactured or not.

So Graham may have missed opportunities he should have taken wrt civil rights, but then again, maybe he was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing, helping people like myself that otherwise might have grown up racist to not grow up racist.

And I don't know Graham or MLK's histories to anywhere near the depth I could mount a vigorous comparison or analysis on that level. But I know I admire deeply both men in terms of the good they accomplished in this world.

Saintly men don't always lead saintly lives. Graham was called, so was MLK. Which man embodied Christian values, represented Christ to the world (or even alter-christus?

It is easy for us today to look at Graham and MLK using different lens, differing values, seeing saintliness in Graham for not philandering. But if King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail has any value, Graham's stance is equally damning as Kings indiscretions.

Graham built a ministry into a business empire, King failed to build his ministry into a financially self sustaining enterprise.

[simplicio]

Messiah College historian John Fea, himself an Evangelical, has some rather interesting observations and thoughts about Evangelicals. A very interesting person. Here is a central quote:

John Fea: Imagine if "thoughts and prayers were offered up for abortion". https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...ea-imagine-if/

John Fea committed the unforgivable sin of diverging from the NRA line. Everything else I have seen points to Fea being an evangelical and an orthodox Christian. (but only if a real Christian can be opposed to Trump)

[Cow Poke]

John Fea: Imagine if "thoughts and prayers were offered up for abortion". https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...ea-imagine-if/

John Fea committed the unforgivable sin of diverging from the NRA line. Everything else I have seen points to Fea being an evangelical and an orthodox Christian. (but only if a real Christian can be opposed to Trump)

John Fea makes his living criticizing Evangelicals. With friends like him, who needs you?

[simplicio]

John Fea makes his living criticizing Evangelicals. With friends like him, who needs you?

Can one be an evangelical and a credible historian or scientist? I think the answer is obviously yes.

Unfortunately many evangelicals think no. If one enters the field of biology or history, he may run into things which are condemned on Sunday. That person can either remain silent and avoid the evidence and be a good Christian, or proceed on the evidence and be a good historian or scientist.

Fea looked at history and found some things which are unflattering to the ego and pride; he also did not lose his faith, from what I know. He also wrote and taught about those things.

A "real Christian" would remain silent on those things?