•   Public Square   •  

Thomas Jefferson's Biblical Revisions

Screen Shot 2011-12-01 at 5.13.49 PM A decade after Thomas Jefferson left office, the nation's third President started working on a project compiling the four gospels of the Bible's New Testament into a book that removed supernatural parts Jesus' life. It came to be known as "The Jefferson Bible." The work was recently published by the Smithsonian Institution. NPR affiliate WMFE invited a panel of religious leaders and scholars to discuss the meaning and impact of Jefferson's biblical revisions. Here, Pastor Joel Hunter talks about what happens to Christianity if miracles like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are removed from the faith. CLICK TO LISTEN.

View Post

  •   Public Square   •  

Monster-in-law? Not in this family

Screen Shot 2011-11-15 at 7.25.46 PM As a pastor's wife, Becky Hunter has heard many lamentations over mothers-in-law — particularly as it applies to the relationship with a daughter-in-law.

As her three boys grew up and married, she never wanted to be the reason for any such grief. So Hunter, the wife of Joel C. Hunter, spiritual adviser to President Barack Obama and pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, outside Orlando, Fla., took what she learned from confidences shared and Scriptures read, and kept this cardinal truth in mind: The primary relationship is the one between son and wife.

"If the mother-in-law or son is not willing to see the primary relationship as the one between son and wife, the relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law will be messed up," she said. "The mother-in-law will constantly be feeling she's playing second fiddle."

And, she added: "Bottom line is, she is second fiddle."

Hunter and her daughters-in-law have gathered the lessons learned in a book, "Why Her? You, Your Mother-in-Law/Daughter-in-Law and the Big Picture" (Northland, A Church Distributed). Half of it is by Hunter, the second half by her daughters-in-law, Lisa, Rhonda and Elizabeth.

Hunter does not think of their book as a how-to as much as a why-to. It's never easy when two women love the same man, she acknowledged, albeit in different ways. The wife often sees her husband as protector; the mother thinks she is supposed to protect him. Being aware of those differences can make all the difference in the two women's relationship.

She offers some counsel for mothers-in-law, most of which daughters-in-law could follow too — not to mention sons-in-law and fathers-in-law:

Do not take sides — your child's or your spouse's. "You need to take the marriage's side," Hunter said.

Pray for your daughter-in-law and not about her. "There's the image of the mother-in-law praying, 'Please fix her. You know what she's like. I just want you to make her better.' As opposed to 'Lord, help her be her best. Help her move forward as a strong partner to her husband.'"

Phrase requests as invitations, not obligations. For example, a mother-in-law may be disappointed when her son's family declines to spend a holiday with her. Rather than pile on the guilt, she said, "You may build a closer family by just letting it go with no strings or grudges. That may set a tone that makes them want to be with you the next time."

Don't force a buddy-buddy relationship too soon. Instead, be willing to invest in the relationship in ways that the other woman would appreciate, and on her terms, not yours.

Relate to her as an equal. Avoid the temptation on either side to adopt a child or parent role.

Avoid setting her up for failure, intentionally or unintentionally. You wish she had a job? Or were home raising the kids? "It isn't like (they're) doing something wrong," Hunter said, "but there is an impression that they're failing" based on the mother-in-law's expectations.

wdonahue@tribune.com

Daughter-in-law offers some advice

Pressed for any momentary lapse of bliss, Elizabeth Hunter, who is married to Joel Hunter Jr., shared an initial struggle she had in relation to her mother-in-law.

"Early in my marriage, I noticed my husband turning to Becky a lot for encouragement. It was hard for me … and I had to take a step back and say, 'It's not her pulling him away from me. It's something I need to do in our marriage.'" So she worked on being more supportive of her husband. "I didn't want to allow any resentment to creep in."

— W.D.

View Post

  •   Poverty   •  

Children That Are Hurting

“Children that are hurting” is a phrase the Seminole county public school district’s board chair Dede Schaffner speaks to describe more than 1,700 homeless students served by the district. Joined by Brenda Carey, chairman of the board of Seminole county government, and Dr. Joel C. Hunter, they have formed a collaboration of faith-based organizations in the county to work side-by-side with the district to confront student homelessness, decrease it and, perhaps, if successful, apply that strategy in the future to address other categories of homeless people in Seminole county. This is the story of their first steps.

Produced, reported and edited by Stephen McKenney Steck at http://cmfmedia.org/2011/11/children-that-are-hurting/

View Post

  •   Creation Care   •  

Whatever Happened to the Evangelical-Environmental Alliance?

Screen Shot 2011-11-03 at 11.02.36 AM In the fall of 2005, Joel Hunter, the senior pastor of a 12,000-member megachurch in central Florida, signed on to the Evangelical Climate Initiative—a landmark public statement acknowledging that human actions were causing the Earth to warm. The central message—“creation care,” as it became known—was that the biblical commandment to protect God’s creation was relevant to modern-day environmental issues. Soon, Hunter had distributed 20,000 creation care pamphlets to pastors around the country, and his parishioners were sifting through garbage to see how much trash his church produced. At the time, a slew of news articles took Hunter’s commitment as a sign that environmentalism could become an ethical rather than a political issue. “Hunter and others like him,” wrote The Washington Post, “have begun to reshape the politics around climate change.” Today, with climate change skepticism hitting a new high, the same sentiment seems laughable. Whatever happened to the evangelical-environmental alliance?

Between 2006 to 2008, creation care seemed poised to transform evangelical politics. 86 evangelical leaders initially signed the Climate Initiative in 2006—it had more than 100 endorsers by the next year. Rod Dreher, a conservative columnist for The Dallas Morning News and a frequent National Review contributor, published a widely discussed book called Crunchy Cons in 2006; its lengthy subtitle celebrated “evangelical free-range farmers” among other conservative environmental types. In 2008, 45 members of the Southern Baptist Convention signed a statement saying they had been “too timid” on the issue of climate change, Pat Robertson appeared in a commercial about environmental issues with Al Sharpton, and Mike Huckabee—initially the favorite candidate of middle-America evangelicals in 2008—spoke openly about his global warming concerns.

The popularity of creation care was also taken as a sign that evangelicals cared about the environment andthat the GOP’s stranglehold on the evangelical vote might be loosening. Amy Sullivan argued this for The New Republic in 2006, and E.J. Dionne opined in 2007 that creation care was part of a larger reformation “disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine.” In The New Yorker, Frances Fitzgerald argued that creation care advocates might change the GOP “beyond the recognition of Karl Rove.” When Obama captured five points more than John Kerry of the white evangelical vote, it was seen as an additional sign of shifting allegiances.

However, in late 2008, creation care’s momentum slowed, and the evangelical-GOP alliance grew stronger. Perhaps the first sign that creation care was sputtering was the abrupt departure from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) of its chief lobbyist, Richard Cizik, the leading force behind the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Cizik was forced out after he voiced support for civil unions between gays and lesbians, but he and his critics both traced the roots of his ouster to his strident support of environmental issues. At the time, Cizik’s departure was regarded as a mere hiccup. But, in fact, it was a sign of a backlash that would be bolstered by the rise of the Tea Party, increased scientific skepticism, and the faltering economy.

The rise of the Tea Party after 2008 was detrimental to evangelical environmentalism for two main reasons: It commanded the attention of the Republican Partyand it made room for climate change skeptics. Although it’s impossible to say if politicians instigated or reacted to the increased climate change skepticism associated with the rise of the Tea Party, by late 2009 evangelical climate skeptics were out in full force—climate change denier Senator Jim Inhofe called it “the year of the skeptic.” Tea Party senate candidates Marco Rubio, Joe Miller, Ken Buck, Christine O’Donnell, Ron Johnson, and Sharron Angle—who called manmade climate change the “mantra of the left”—all proudly advertised their climate change skepticism in the 2010 GOP primaries. Meanwhile, moderate Republican candidates, such as Illinois’s Mark Kirk, renounced their votes for cap-and-trade or were booed by Tea Party throngs for defending them. Today, polls show Tea Partiers are markedly less likely than any voter group to believe that humans were causing global warming—or that the Earth is warming at all.

A new bout of skepticism over the actual science of climate change reinforced these political positions. Creationism and a “God is in charge” belief became prominent again, along with a sense that any attempt to take climate change seriously was somehow unfaithful—even unjust. At a December 2009 Heritage Foundation event, Craig Mitchell, a Southern Baptist theologian, derided cap-and-trade as “immoral,” while other evangelical leaders blasted the evidence for climate change. Measures to address climate change were disfavored for supposedly placing burdens on poorer nations. (Ironically, concern for poorer nations at risk due to climate change had been one of the main selling points for creation care.) The Cornwall Alliance (an influential evangelical group that bills its mission as “the Stewardship of Creation”) released a declaration that claimed the “Earth and its ecosystems … are robust, resilient, self-regulating. … Earth’s climate system is no exception.” A year later, the group put out “Resisting the Green Dragon,” a 12-part DVD series decrying the environmental movement. Scientific skepticism bled into cultural skepticism. Even among moderate evangelicals, creation care struggled against general ambivalence toward environment issues—rooted in opposition to the countercultural identity that American environmentalism gained in the 1970s. As David P. Gushee, one of the authors of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, put it: To them, “it’s Pocahontas talking to spirits in the trees,” and “flower-power.”

Finally, there was the economy. Once it nosedived, it became hard for anyone to talk about policy changes with significant up-front costs. Hunter points to it as one of the main reasons why his message didn’t take among members of his own church—parishioners were just too distracted by the downturn. The circa-2006 hope that pro-business evangelicals might get behind the cost-saving appeal of conservation disappeared in the face of arguments that environmental regulations would freeze economic growth. A recent Nature article points out that the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has spent millions of dollars on coordinated attacks on climate change science, mostly focuses on the economic costs of environmentalism. “I would argue that conservation … is not a luxury, but a moral imperative,” Rod Dreher, the Crunchy Cons author, wrote to me in an e-mail. “I would also get exactly nowhere with that argument among conservatives in this economy.”

It’s true that today the optimism of 2005 is nowhere to be found. The mood has shifted so far that GOP candidates must not only renounce any environmentally friendly policies, they must also explain their past support for them. As Grover Norquist recently put it, formerly environmentally-minded GOP candidates “better have an explanation, an excuse, or a mea culpa.” Despite all the theories that environmentalism might untie the GOP-evangelical alliance, most of the white evangelical vote, for now, remains inextricably linked to the Republican Party. A glum Hunter told me that he holds out hope for the next generation, conceding that his generation probably won’t be shaking up the climate change debate like they’d hoped. The old fault lines, which Cizik told The New Republic in 2006 were “no more,” are still very much alive.

Molly Redden is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.

Source URL: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97007/evangelical-climate-initiative-creation-care

View Post

  •   Public Square   •  

Evangelical Leaders Meet President at White House

Screen Shot 2011-10-13 at 12.11.11 PM Christian leaders at the first Evangelical Summit held at the White House Wednesday prayed for President Barack Obama and encouraged him to continue talking about his faith, said Joel C. Hunter, a spiritual adviser to the president.

Obama met with the executive committee of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches from 40 denominations across the United States, in the Roosevelt Room.

Religious freedom and the Christian stance on traditional marriage took center stage among the topics discussed, Hunter said. Immigration reform and global poverty were also presented as issues during the 30-minute meeting.

Hunter, who sat next to Obama during the meeting, told The Christian Post that the president also talked about his own faith. Although he did not want to quote the president's conversation on the matter, he said Obama “did bring up his faith and spoke from that perspective.”

At the conclusion of the meeting, Leith Anderson, the president of NAE, asked Obama if he would like the members present to pray for him, Hunter said.

“We prayed for him. Leith commended him on his expression of his faith in the Easter prayer gathering and at other times. We told him that we really do appreciate his being clear about his Christian faith at different events. So we just wanted to encourage him in that,” Hunter said.

Hunter, of Northland, A Church Distributed, near Orlando, Fla., was a member of the White House’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He told CP that he presently has a pastoral relationship with Obama.

“It was a very constructive meeting. Very honest,” Hunter described. “The president is very good at stuff like that. He wanted to hear our concerns and priorities, and he listened and responded to each one of them.”

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and a member of the contingent, told Charisma News that the meeting was "very much a conversation among friends. We had about 19 evangelical leaders – all an integral part and members of the NAE – and we had a great conversation with the president."

According to Rodriguez, "Although we may disagree with the president on certain issues, we did it with great deference and civility. Not only was the meeting cordial, it sounded like a conversation amongst believers. The meeting was edifying, to say the least."

Hunter said that members of the NAE wanted to make sure Obama was clear on their views on religious freedom and marriage.

“Certainly, the president’s attention was drawn to religious freedom and our strong advocacy for that. There is a bill in the Senate right now to extend the commission on international freedom,” he said. “We wanted to advocate that we continue that commission because it’s so important.”

Although it is not always clear cut, there appears to be a divide between Obama and many evangelicals on the issue of same-sex marriage. NAE leaders articulated a desire for military chaplains to be able to express opposition to homosexuality, coming on the heels of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I think the president was reminded how important the issue of marriage is to us,” Hunter said. “That we don’t ever want to be in a position that we feel like we are having to compromise what we believe because of federal policies.”

Hunter also said the NAE wanted to make sure that there is future cooperation with the White House in regards to immigration laws and that funding for international aid is not cut.

By Alex Murashko Christian Post Reporter

FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://www.christianpost.com/news/white-house-summit-christian-leaders-encourage-obama-to-share-faith-58133/

View Post

  •   Disabilities   •  

Congregations Benefit When People With Disabilities Participate

Screen Shot 2011-09-20 at 11.36.53 AM FOR WITTY, FAST-TALKING JEWS there are several marquee occupations: stand-up comic, radio talk show host, trial lawyer, and, arguably, rabbi. Lynne Landsberg (MTS '76) was already a witty, fast-talking Reform rabbi and budding political activist—another genetically programmed profession—on January 10, 1999. That day, her car crashed on an icy, Washington, D.C., street leaving her with traumatic brain injury, her life in the balance, and on the long road to becoming one of the nation's leading religious disability advocates.

Landsberg made a vivid impression on her fellow students at Harvard Divinity School, as well as on her faculty adviser, Harvey Cox. Although she was the first of his students headed for the rabbinate, she was avid in her study of New Testament. "Of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of students I have taught over more than four decades at Harvard, she stands out and is in a class of her own," he recalls. "She was a superb student and a real class act," he says, "dazzling everyone with her looks and her charm and her brains."

Landsberg credits her journey from a near-fatal collision and near-total incapacitation to a grueling regimen of therapy, and to an upbeat outlook. "Brain injury recovery comes in small steps," she says, "like the first time I smiled in two years, which made my family ecstatic. If you keep a positive attitude and work as hard as your therapist tells you to, things will get better—but in smidgens."

In sermons and speeches (which still require rehearsals with her speech therapist), she also emphasizes the role of her religious faith and the support of her Jewish community. The three elements of that process, she explains, are: prayer, attentive visits, and practical support from congregations. It is an approach that is applicable to all faith traditions. On the road a good deal these days for the Reform movement's Religious Action Center (RAC), Landsberg maintains an almost precrash schedule: advocating legislation at Capitol Hill briefings for new members and staffers ("Nothing about Us without Us"); publicizing Jewish Disability Awareness Month, an effort that involves all branches of Judaism; appearing on panels; and writing op-ed columns. The speed of her speech—which now comes in bursts, with asides for wisecracks—can test the ability of a telephone interviewer to keep pace.

Landsberg worked with a Jewish disability coalition to help pass the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, a more specific bill than the original 1990 landmark law, which deals with employment discrimination against people with disabilities. She is now busy—through the Interfaith Disability Advocacy Coalition (IDAC)—highlighting and defending those provisions of the 2010 Obama health care reform act that apply to people with disabilities. She is also campaigning to reform the way teachers can seclude and restrain children with disabilities through the proposed federal Keeping All Students Safe Act.

"I find her a model of courage, spirit, and humor," Cox says. "She laughs about her 'coma diet' in which she lost several pounds."

Like Landsberg, others have returned to ministry after devastating and debilitating injury and illness. If Chris Maxwell had lived in an earlier time, the viral encephalitis that wiped out his brain's capacity for short-term memory in 1996 would have effectively ended his pastorate. But with the assistance of modern medication and technology, the Assemblies of God pastor was able to return to the pulpit and the podium. In addition to traditional therapy, Maxwell can control his symptoms with drugs, and effectively outsource his memory to his Palm Pilot, which he downloads nightly to his computer's hard drive. Sermons and scriptural citations once delivered from memory are now made possible with the help of PowerPoint.

While technology enabled Maxwell to return to his congregation and most members welcomed him back and accepted his pastoral leadership, he acknowledges that he encountered another barrier. Some in his Pentecostal church thought less of him after he did not respond to healing by faith when hands were laid on him. So in 2006, Maxwell left the pulpit at Orlando's Evangel Assembly of God to become campus pastor and director of spiritual life at Emmanuel College in Franklin Springs, Georgia, his alma mater, and a motivational speaker and broadcaster.

As one blessed (thus far) with a reasonably unimpaired mind and body, I thought myself an unlikely choice to be asked to write a book about faith and disability, both physical and intellectual. But Richard Bass, head of the Alban Institute, the publisher, explained to me that funders wanted a book that would reach a general audience of clergy and people who may have no personal experience with disability, but who make the congregational decisions about accessibility and inclusion. And so I embarked on the research that led me to Landsberg, Maxwell, and many others, whose stories will be featured in the book Amazing Gifts: Stories of Faith, Disability and Inclusion, to be published later this year.

Although many religious leaders led the fight for the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, they also managed—for practical reasons, they said—to exempt houses of worship from most of its provisions. A majority of congregations have fewer than 125 members, making the cost of major architectural changes seem prohibitive. Negative attitudes toward people with disabilities create less visible but equally daunting barriers. If members of a small congregation see no one with an obvious disability, they may think there is no need to take action—not realizing who may have been left at home by the family in the next pew, or in a nearby group home, wanting to come if only they were made welcome. A 2010 survey by the Kessler Foundation and the National Organization on Disability found that people with disabilities are less likely to attend religious services at least once per month (50 percent compared to 57 percent for those without disabilities): the greater the disability, the less likely they are to attend.

"They can attend school, hold down jobs and turn the key in the door of their own apartments," wrote Erin R. DuBois in The Mennonite magazine. "They have won the legal battle for inclusion, but by the time they land in the pew at church, they may be too exhausted to fight for something more precious than their rights. Friendship is a gift the law can never guarantee to people with developmental disabilities. Churches across the United States, however, are reaping the rewards of building genuine relationships with those in their midst who are epitomized not by their disabilities but by their rare abilities to deepen the congregation's spiritual life."

Congregations have responded in a variety of ways. Some still wait until renovation or new construction enables them to make their facilities fully accessible. Others are like St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church in Levittown, which, with the backing of the parish priest and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, built a coalition of disability activists, seniors, and young families with strollers to raise more than $200,000 to build a new ramp to the sanctuary and an elevator to the basement social hall. At the other end of the spectrum, at East Goshen Mennonite Church in Indiana, all it took was a gifted woodworker to build a pull-out step for Barb Eiler, who was born with a bone disease that caused her short stature, which meant she couldn't be seen above the podium when she served as lector.

Sometimes no economic investment is necessary, and neither class nor race nor history is an insurmountable barrier. In the past year two accounts have appeared chronicling how young white men with disabilities in the South—one in the Mississippi Delta and another in Southside Virginia—found faith homes in black, working-class congregations.1 In each case, the young white men benefited from the African American tradition of accepting people in their brokenness, and the ecstatic Pentecostal worship tradition of people shouting, speaking in tongues, and falling to the floor after being "slain in the spirit." Despite their intellectual, emotional, and physical disabilities, they could fully participate without drawing disapproving stares.

In the course of my research, the biggest revelation has been that there are converging streams of demography, war, and science creating a wave of people in need, a wave that is about to break at the doors of our faith communities. Despite our never-ending efforts to beat the clock, my own huge cohort of Boomers is aging into infirmity—with all the attendant issues of hearing, vision, and mobility, not to mention mental acuity. At the same time, military veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with missing limbs, traumatic brain injury, and post-traumatic stress disorder. And advances in neonatal treatment mean that babies born with severe and multiple birth defects are—or soon will be—living into adulthood.

No faith tradition or denomination will be immune from these challenges. Increasingly, people with physical and intellectual disabilities are advocating for themselves and others, and asserting their rights to be full participants in every aspect of life, including their faith lives, with family, friends, and caregivers in support. Beyond a catalogue of congregational best practices, what is emerging from my interviews is a mosaic of stories that I hope will inform, instruct, and illustrate what can be done. At the same time, I am trying to focus at least as much on people who cope heroically as I do on those who conquer—as inspiring as those like Maxwell and Landsberg may be. One of the themes of these stories is that accessibility and acceptance have more to do with attitude and effort than with economics. I want people to read these stories and say: "We can do that in our congregation! I can do that!"

"Many religious organizations have yet to learn what many American families have learned," says the Reverend Joel Hunter, pastor of Northland Church, a large, nondenominational congregation in suburban Orlando with an extensive disabilities ministry. "That is, that the extra work it takes to accommodate those with obvious disabilities is the price of experiencing the kind of deep love and fulfillment that only comes with self-sacrifice."

There is a growing body of serious, theological considerations of disability.2 The same issues are also working their way into popular culture, reaching larger and broader audiences in the process. Inspiration is the preferred narrative. In 2000, the Disney Channel aired a made-for-TV movie, Miracle in Lane 2, starring Frankie Muniz. The heart-tugging feature, later released on DVD, is based on the true story of Justin Yoder, a thirteen-year-old boy with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, who prays for some way to triumph and, in the process of doing so, has a vision of heaven that includes people in winged wheel chairs.

Humor can be helpful, although it can also be disquieting. The late John Callahan, who was paralyzed from the neck down in a drunk-driving auto crash at the age of twenty-one, went on to a lengthy and successful career as a magazine cartoonist known for his exceptionally mordant view of life with a disability. He titled one of his collections What Kind of God Would Allow a Thing Like This to Happen?

The theological issue of disability was front and center in a two-part South Park episode titled "Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?" and "Probably." The show's four main characters are upset after hearing a fiery sermon in their Catholic church about hell "for those who do not accept Christ." Timmy, one of their friends, has severe cerebral palsy and is unable to say more than his first name. After consulting their clueless priest, the main characters fear Timmy will not be able to go to confession or participate in Holy Communion, and thus faces eternal damnation. "We can't let Timmy go to hell," says one of them. "We're going to have to do something," which in this case means baptizing their friend in a wintry front yard with a garden hose.

It is unlikely that when the prophet Isaiah wrote (11:6), "A little child will lead them," he had in mind one of South Park's pint-sized, potty-mouthed fourth graders. And yet, congregations may take the lesson about what caring friends can do to include people like Timmy in their faith communities.

Mark I. Pinsky, longtime religion writer for The Orlando Sentinel and the Los Angeles Times, is author of The Gospel According to The Simpsons and A Jew among the Evangelicals. His work appears in USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, and he reports for BBC Radio 4.

FIND THIS ARTICLE AT: http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-events/harvard-divinity-bulletin/articles/the-how-tos-of-accessibility

View Post

  •   Public Square   •  

USA TODAY: The Truth About Evangelicals

Screen Shot 2011-09-19 at 9.46.59 AM In 1976, skeptical Jews in the Northeast and on the West Coast had to be convinced by their Southern cousins that Jimmy Carter, a “born-again” Georgia Baptist, was not too strange to support as the Democratic nominee for president. For a time, Jews made their peace with this growing American phenomenon called evangelical Christianity.

A good deal has changed since then, especially after conservative evangelicals amassed unprecedented access and influence under President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, pushing a political and cultural agenda most Jews found uncomfortable.

As a result, beginning in 2006 and every two years since in the run-up to the presidential and off-year congressional elections, books and articles suddenly appear — often written by Jews — about the menace and weirdness of evangelical Christianity.

Though some of the writers hail from Brooklyn or Washington, D.C., the tone is what I’d call “Upper West Side hysteric,” a reference to the fabled New York City neighborhood. The thrust of the writing is that these exotic wackos — some escaped from a theological and ideological freak show — are coming to take our rights and freedom.

Connecting the dots

Chief among these are books such as Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Rabbi James Rudin’s The Baptizing of America, and several titles by Sara Diamond.

These days, it’s hard to turn to liberal websites, public radio or MSNBC without encountering some “investigation” or “exposé” of a splinter, marginal figure, such as David Barton or John Haggee, from the evangelical world — followed by some tenuous if not tortured connect-the-dots link to a presidential or congressional candidate. Most recently, Rachel Tabachnick’s Web piece on the New Apostolic Reformation has generated ink and air.

I’m as left wing a Democrat as they come, and I have lived among and reported on evangelicals for nearly 20 years. Let me tell you, this sensational, misleading mishegas has got to stop.

The truth is, the political center of gravity of American evangelicals is in the Sun Belt suburbs, not in rural Iowa, much less Wasilla, Alaska. Think Central Florida’s vaunted ‘I-4 Corridor,’ critical to carrying this swing state, where the last GOP presidential debate was held in Tampa and the next one will take place this week here in Orlando. These evangelicals are, by and large, middle-class, college-educated and corporate or entrepreneurial.

Yes, they tend to vote Republican and oppose gay marriage — although there is a growing generation gap on these issues among younger evangelicals, according to recent Pew Center studies.

“We evangelicals cringe like everyone else at the prominence given to marginal groups labeled with our name,” says the Rev. Joel Hunter, an influential megachurch pastor in Orlando and an ideological centrist. “We know their numbers are small and their influence is grossly exaggerated, but we are not surprised that the majority of common-sense believers are not given equal attention in a society fascinated by extremes.”

Most evangelicals accept some form of evolution and do not subscribe to arcane doctrines, such as “Christian Reconstructionism” and “Dominionism,” that Christians need to rule the world in order to bring about the Second Coming of Jesus. And, contrary to recent writing by some progressive Jews, most evangelicals are comfortable with the notion of theological tolerance and religious pluralism. “The media have been too eager to feature a simpleton image of evangelicals,” says Hunter. “Our part of the faith community is, on the whole, intelligent, accepting of diversity, and wanting the best practical solutions for the common good.

“When a majority of evangelicals hear about some of these theological oddities, it’s like our crazy Uncle Harry got out of the home and ran into city hall wearing a shirt with the family name,” the pastor. “We love him, but he misrepresents us.”

Not so sure Hunter is right? In 2008, analysis suggests enough evangelicals voted for Obama — or stayed home — for the Democrats to carry key swing states such as Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. They are as likely to vote for Republican women as liberals will vote for Democratic women. Evangelicals may be more likely to accept women in the pulpit of large congregations than those in mainline denominations.

Turning the tables

Ironically, the Jewish left is not alone in its self-serving myopia when it comes to evangelicals. Politically conservative, single-issue Jews embrace unquestioning evangelical support for Israel, brushing aside differences over reproductive and gay rights, stem cell research, and especially the separation of church and state. On the incendiary issue of evangelical support of Messianic Jews whose goal is converting the rest of us, including those in Israel, right-wing Jews put their fingers in their ears and shout, “LA-LA-LA!”

If, as Jews, we replace the old caricature of hayseed fundamentalist mobs carrying torches and pitchforks with one of dark conspirators trying to worm their way back into political power at the highest levels, we run the risk of accusing them of doing to others what we are doing to them: demonizing. We didn’t like it when people said we had horns and tails, ate the blood of Christian children and poisoned the wells of Europe with plague, much less conspired to rule the world through our Protocols.

“Evangelicals in the main want the same kind of common-sense solutions and moral integrity as other Americans,” Hunter says. “We do not want to use political means for our faith’s advancement; we just want to vote our values and leave it at that.”

Mark I. Pinsky, former religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel and Los Angeles Times, is author of A Jew Among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed.

READ THIS ARTICLE HERE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-18/evangelical-christians-republicans/50457192/1

View Post