“Far from evangelicals being an embarrassment, we should think of ourselves as integral to God’s great news for our community, and tell ourselves again with a certain humility and confidence that we have a vital role to play as active Christians and active citizens in the public square.”
-
(Photo: Christian Today)Joel Edwards, general director of the Evangelical Alliance, speaks at the launch of his new book 'An Agenda for Change' in Central London, March 6, 2008.
Such were the words of the general director of the Evangelical Alliance, Joel Edwards, at the launch of his new book An Agenda for Change on Thursday.
The book, published by Zondervan, is Edwards’ contribution to an ongoing discussion among evangelicals worldwide on how to present Christ credibly and “rehabilitate” the term “evangelical” to mean “good news” again.
Earlier on Thursday, Edwards announced that he will step down as general director of the Evangelical Alliance, after 11 years as the organization’s head.
In a forward-looking address, he said the heart of the matter was not about advancing evangelicalism as a political or Christian system, but was instead about “how we help people understand that God is ultimately the God of Good News and is interested in people’s wellbeing.”
Turning to some of the challenges facing evangelicals, he pointed to the commonplace view that evangelicals are a U.S. export more interested in homosexuality than poverty, and a mascot for the Republican Party.
“Evangelicalism has a serious PR problem and it’s not hard to grasp why,” he said.
Referring to some of the recent angry protests from evangelical circles over “Jerry Springer: The Opera” musical and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, Edwards said that Evangelicals had gained a reputation as the “angry brigade.”
This week, the House of Lords in Britain rejected an appeal by an evangelical lobbying organization – Christian Voice – which sought to prosecute the BBC for blasphemy for broadcasting the Jerry Springer musical. The group argued that the satirical musical contained images that "vilify God and the Bible."
The show had recently been staged at New York's Carnegie Hall, with actor Harvey Keitel in the title role.
“We are known more for our anger than our anguish,” Edwards noted.
The evangelical head said that the responsibility to reverse evangelicalism’s bad reputation lays with evangelicals themselves.
“If people are going to think differently about evangelicals, the only people who can change their minds are evangelicals,” he stressed.
RSS
Chris333,
As I stated in my first,
"I'm not saying that we couldn't do better as seen by the amount of food we throw away, expensive cars, houses and other excesses we have as well."
we could do more, so I don't disagree on povety per se. To me, the article didn't come across that way.
He made this seem like a political fight and in a way it is. I dare say that generally Xians, who are normally conservative and Republican on the whole, give more towards ALL these issues. Conservatives 'generally' give more in tax dollars as well.
It's not govt's business to do this. When they do, they take away the mandate and give and GIVE an excuse for others not to do so. Whether Xian or not.
Can things be better? Sure, and ALL Xians could agree that government has no business taking (by theft and threat) tax dollars to redistribute it the way they see fit too.
<<Oh, of course abstinence works, IF PRACTICED, and I don't have any problem with a program that includes abstinence training along with providing the truth about other methods of birth and disease control.>>
But you told me it didn't work. Which are you saying Pete?
<<What I do have a big problem with is an orchestrated campaign of mis-information about condom use, especially in the developing world where people are even more naive about science and health then we are here.>>
It's not naive. The fact is that the rate of infection even while using condoms is higher than the pro-sex forces state.
<<What you tell your children is your own business, but one would hope that you would not discourage condom use in the event they chose to become sexually active, as it only makes good sense - and it could save their life.>>
Not having sex will CERTAINLY save their lives verses having sex.
<<Morals have nothing to do with what we are discussing anyway. Morals and ethics should be about the alleviation of human suffering, and how we treat one another, not about what some god or other might find "sinful." >>
If you don't have sex with someone other than your wife and/or husband, you don't get AIDS. That's moral and ethical.
"The Consitution does say LIFE, liberty and the pursuit. "
True.. my bust, but you DO get the picture.
<<BTW, if you were THAT concerned about people dying of AIDS, you would be pushing condoms, which work, rather then abstinence, which does not. Yes, the Christian churches are doing a great deal to combat AIDS, I just wish they would spend a little more wisely.>>
Not sure how I follow you there Pete.
There's NO way you can get AIDS if you don't have sex. Not having sex is abstinance.
“We are known more for our anger than our anguish,” Edwards noted.
It seems that this is connected to the role that courts and politics play today. Every single liberty that we have comes with responsibility. When that liberty is over-turned whether it be free speech (which has happened in Canada where the Bible is now deemed hate speech and where all public broadcasts are censored), hate crimes (when it is less severe to commit a crime against a little old lady than a homosexual) or something else which give way to a paradigm shift in rights to the detriment of other people's freedom.
I’m sure that there is some kind of a connection between our world of entitlements, the void of personal responsibility, the lack of moral and legal framework in the wake of postmodernism that is stripping our point of reference.
Oh, of course abstinence works, IF PRACTICED, and I don't have any problem with a program that includes abstinence training along with providing the truth about other methods of birth and disease control.
What I do have a big problem with is an orchestrated campaign of mis-information about condom use, especially in the developing world where people are even more naive about science and health then we are here.
What you tell your children is your own business, but one would hope that you would not discourage condom use in the event they chose to become sexually active, as it only makes good sense - and it could save their life.
Morals have nothing to do with what we are discussing anyway. Morals and ethics should be about the alleviation of human suffering, and how we treat one another, not about what some god or other might find "sinful."
Lewr,
I think this post was trying to say that we are simply perceived as those things, but in reality may or may not be. There are some legitimate concerns though, one is that if all of the "Christians" in America wanted to, we could eliminate world poverty, no sweat. We waste enough food each day to feed millions. And often times (whether or not the candidate is evangelical) the evangelical community most often votes for them. Homosexuality is wrong, we cannot compromise on that, and we do have to tell people that without Christ there is no hope for them, but we also have a large responsibility to the poor and needy that is simply not being met by most (there are some excellent Christians though, and I will be the first to say that we do more to help the poor and needy than anyone else in the world, but we are not doing enough).
Hampstead Pete,
I think you are a bit confused, abstinence prevents aids in 100% of the cases. Condoms, well we cannot even pretend that they are a good defense against aids, sure it helps, but compared to abstinence it fails.
If everyone practiced abstinence, and only had sex with their spouse, then aids and sexually transmitted diseases would be gone in a few generations. If everyone practices "safe" (used extremely liberally as it is not safe) sex, then aids and stds may be with us forever, and unwanted pregnancies will continue.
I am very confused how absitinence doesn't work, if practiced it is 100% effective. I suppose you are going to say, "We can't trust kids, their sexual urges are too powerful, all we can do is give them a condom and hope it doesn't break" But this doesn't solve anything, most kids who have sex may start off using condoms but they want to go all the way. If their urges couldn't stop them from having sex, then how do you expect them to be strong enough to resist a greater "pleasure".
Besides that, I am not going to tell my son, "Look son, the best thing to do is not have sex before marriage, but you are probably too stupid and cannot restrain yourself, so here is a condom" I suppose next we will be telling kids, "Look son, the best thing to do is not rob stores, but since you don't have everything you want and you want those things, and since you are too stupid and can't restrain yourself, becareful and make sure you don't get caught!"
Atheists amaze me when they try to talk about morals...
"The Consitution does say LIFE, liberty and the pursuit. "
Sorry, but it does not. I believe you have the constitution mixed up with the declaration of independence.
BTW, if you were THAT concerned about people dying of AIDS, you would be pushing condoms, which work, rather then abstinence, which does not. Yes, the Christian churches are doing a great deal to combat AIDS, I just wish they would spend a little more wisely.
I'm having a harder and harder time reading the articles on Christianpost.com these days.
To give the impression that evangs aren't involved, speak out against, motivated towards riding povety, human trafficking and any other issue outside of homosexuality and abortion is absolutely ludicrous.
Do we normally hold to the Republican/Conservative parties? Numbers bear that out of course! But why? I've always voted because one party was/is closer to the proper values than the other is.
The Consitution does say LIFE, liberty and the pursuit. Life is listed FIRST for a reason. One . five Million deaths per year on average is a life issue. People dying from AIDS/HIV because of homosexuality is a life issue. Povety where the CHURCH should be doing the lifting, is a LIFE issue.
Anyone who says that US evangicals aren't involved in that should take a look at Feed the Children, World Vision, VOM, etc..etc..etc... who is supporting those organizations?
Christ didn't say for the GOVT. to feed the people or specifically earmark monies toward CHRISTIAN programs. He said that His CHURCH (us) are supposed to earmark it through out tithes and offerings and that the Church would do the helping. It's not up to the church to lobby the govt. for more funds to do this.
I'm not saying that we couldn't do better as seen by the amount of food we throw away, expensive cars, houses and other excesses we have as well.
In response to Coffee, the Bible I read records Christ not once but twice cleaning out the Temple of the secular influence which had violated God's House. As for Paul I'd refer to the Book of Romans for a start. Granted we need to be both kind and tactful in our opposition, but no where do I read where we as the Church we are to roll over and play dead at the cost of not being an offense to the world. Calling sin, sin is what a lost and dying world needs to here.
Evangelical v Enlargement is that what brother Edwards is hinting at,, which side of the fence is he falling? Matt 24:24 comes to mind.
Why is it important for evangelicals to get others to think differently about them? Is the EA nieve or arrogant enough to think that a change in perception will equate to more people coming to faith in Christ?Or are the leaders of the EA looking for a change to equate to more publicity and more $$$? Isn't God Sovereign and able to draw all who He has called to faith in Christ?
Furthermore, how far have we wandered to ask the question, "How should we present Christ?"
How about presenting Christ the way the Bible does!!!
Where do we find that sort of angry response to the secular culture as a part of Christ's or St.aul's ministry?
The issue is less about a "PR" problem but more about the move away from discipleship within Evangelical circles. We have done a lousy job with holding fast to helping each other grow in Christ and to convey the Gospel in clear, understandable terms.
We also need to pay closer attention to the logs in our eyes while helping others with the specks in their eyes. We need to help people see their sinfulness (and need for a Savior) not as superiors but as co-conspirators.
Finally, history has taught us the lesson that Christian principles cannot be legislated, but does provide a great basis for legislation. God does not call upon us to outlaw evil, only to contain it.