“Covenantal Christians” November 18, 2007
Posted by Zack in Missouri , trackbackI know this sounds bad, but yesterday I listened in on the whole beginning of a first date between two young Christians. I was sitting in a coffee shop, staring at my laptop, hoping for inspiration for a blog post, and then the post sat right down at the table next to me.
Their conversation answered a question I’ve been walking around with for a long time: What is the essential difference between these progressive “evangelicals” (who are new to me and who I’ve been writing about on this blog) and liberal Christians (who I’ve known all my life)?
One would think the difference is theological—e.g. Bible as inerrant/inspired Word of God vs. Bible as literature to be taken with a grain of salt.
But that can’t be the essential difference because so many of the people we meet in churches differ in their personal beliefs from the official line of their church. So, what is attracting so many theological liberals, who believe the Bible is just some darn good literature, to churches that believe Jesus is coming back on a cloud with a sword coming out of him mouth?
At the table next to me in the coffee shop, a long round of small talk got me up to speed on where the two young Christians stood theologically and political. The man is a pastor (maybe a youth pastor) at a liberal mainline church. The woman attends a “theologically conservative” Emergent church. But actually, the woman was even more liberal theologically than the liberal pastor: for example, believes that everyone around the world is worshiping the same God in their own way. Mark Driscoll would have blown a gasket!
The liberal mainline pastor said he had visited her church once and was turned off a little by the preacher’s informal outfit of jeans and sandals over socks. But, worse, he was frustrated that the preacher delivered a sermon about marriage without giving a position on gay marriage. The man was pro-gay rights, and thought the preacher should have either come out for or against considering all the controversy. The woman, who I think said she also supported gay rights, seemed not to agree, perhaps thinking that church unity is more important.
The woman said she supports Hillary for president, saying, “I know it’s awful, but I support her because she’s a woman.” The guy was still weighing the candidates and it sounded like Obama had a good chance with him.
The woman talked about her sister, who is moving to what sounded like a Christian intentional community in a poor area of Kansas City (the kind I’ve been writing about recently).
OK. And then the big difference emerged. They started talking about a movie they both saw recently called Once. I’ve seen the movie—it’s awesome. It’s a tale of two people who fall in love, but don’t do anything about it because one of them is married (unhappily).
The first thing the woman said about the movie was, “I loved that they didn’t get together in the end.”
“Really?” the man said incredulously, “That’s so interesting that you feel that way…they were in love, and she was unhappy in her marriage!”
Now, this woman seemed really nice, and I shook my head with pity for this poor guy as he ploughed ahead, ruining any chance he had with her. But at least he was being honest.
“She was married!” said the woman.
“But she was in love with the other guy,” the man said, “Her heart was with him… Would you want to be married with someone who’s heart was with someone else?”
The last scene in that beautiful movie is the woman looking out her window, longingly, thinking of the life she could have had with the other guy (playing a piano the guy had given her). But there was more to it: her husband, apparently a bit reformed, was inside playing with their kid. She wasn’t exactly remorseful, she was going to make the best of her situation.
The woman said, “She didn’t leave her husband because she had made a commitment.”
“But she wasn’t happy,” said the guy.
The woman answered, “When you’re dating, and you’re not happy, then you just move on. But marriage is when you make a decision to be with someone no matter what. You make it work. You don’t change you mind on that kind of commitment.”
At that point, I almost stood up and shouted, “Eureka!” On display within this doomed first date was the essential difference between liberals and…this other kind of Christian: The difference is in the attitude toward selfless commitment to principals and traditions that could be considered by some to be arbitrary (and principals and traditions which happen to be spelled out in the Bible).
As I thought about it, I realized that every sermon I’ve ever heard at one of these Bible-based churches were about a sacrifice that you have to make for God. They’re about sacrificing for your kids, your spouse, your community, the poor…and to God. All those various sacrifices are all sacrifices you’re making to God, because, for example, by sacrificing for the poor, you’re obeying God’s commands.
It is that sacrificial attitude that unites all the Christians who might fall under these various overlapping labels: Emergent, Red-Letter, Evangelical, Born Again and even maybe Fundamentalist.
If you add up all those groups, they are massively diverse in their theological and political belief systems, but they pretty much all have one thing in common: they believe that a God who is actively engaged in humanity is inviting us into a new covenant with him—one aiming at peace and justice—and they are desperately trying to live up to this new covenant.
So from now on, I’m going to call these Christians “Covenantal Christians.” It’s a big relief to finally have a term that might describe everyone I’m writing about on this blog from extremely progressive Emergent or Red Letter Christians to very conservative Evangelical, Born Again or Fundamentalist Christians.
So…”Covenantal Christians.” Any reactions? I realize that a lot of the liberal churches that I’m leaving out of this label officially subscribe to “Covenantal Theology.” But I’m using this term to describe not official written-down doctrine of a church, but rather the stance in which people are striving to live today, in their own lives towards other people and towards God.
____
PS: If this blog post somehow makes it to one of those people I overheard…I’m sorry! But at least I’m not doing anything that hasn’t also happened to me…
Comments»
I think you have it.
any chance that dude had with that girl is now on thin ice to say the least. but there is hope, young padawan, i did the same boneheaded things and ended up marrying the girl.
it’s great that ‘Once’ was the impetus for your discovery, and the definition of ‘Conventional Christians’.
what do you say to a Christian who may share the same feelings of the girl (when you’re married, you’re committed and you don’t ‘give up’), but still leaves room for necessary freedom (e.g. an out for situations including abuse, infidelity, absent spouse, etc.)? are we quasi-conventional Christians?
[…] Zack Exley at “Revolution in Jesusland,” re: “progressive evangelicals” v. […]
Zack,
I think you’ve nailed an essential piece of it, but there’s more to it. Check out this presentation given by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt recently: http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt
It talks about the differing axiomatic ‘pillars’ of morality. He would call what you’re talking about ‘in-group loyalty’ but I think Covenantal is a fantastic expression in this context.
What’s great about focusing on the Covenant is that it eclipses the two foundations that cause so much of the friction between non-Christian liberals and evangelicals: authority respect and purity. If the one true authority is the covenant and purity boils down to being true to the covenant, then you’ve got a lot more wiggle room. Clearly it’s more complicated than that, does that make sense? Do you think Haidt gives you something to leaven your thesis with?
Gay rights are basic civil rights. Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Perhaps it will shed some light on the issue for you. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the topic: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
I curious if you explained any type of taxonomy in a previous post. Other than “Covenantal”, what other major categories of Christians do you find useful, when thinking about common principles, approaches, beliefs, practices, etc. If you’ve blogged about such a classification, wven a rough one, I’d be interested in reading it.
Thanks
If I understand your definition of “Convenantal Christians,” then the greatest of commandments perhaps are “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength. And we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 10:17-19; 12:28-31). In lockstep with this covenant, how do you account for the that which is unexpressed or acted upon (i.e. lust or love in the case of the film “Once”)? If the above commandments are the foundation of this “Covenant,” what about how we treat one another? What have you witnessed with regards to interracial dating? Are minorities seen as missions given the lack of diversity? Does segregation as a social construct impact these Christian communities?
[…] week over on Revolution in Jesusland, Zack Exley used the term covenantal Christians to describe a category that I instinctively identify […]
I like the term. I found this by way of Young Anabaptist Radicals.
Hey man I had no idea you had this blog until I checked my incoming links! This is some good stuff, I really dig your thoughts. I’m looking forward to reading more.
If you haven’t been there already, is a pretty good site. I’m currently doing a series there on anarchism and Christianity based on a session I gave at a conference in Evanston, Illinois earlier this month.
I doubt you remember me but we had a brief email exchange early in the summer about the article you wrote and about Colossians Remixed. I invited you to the Jesus Radicals conference.
Peace, love, and Irresistible Revolution,
Jason
One question: Are you including “liberal Christians” as part of “convenental Christians,”, or in contrast to them? If in contrast, I’m not so sure that “sacrifice” is such a good way to differentiate them.
I think one thing that unifies liberal Christians is the idea of shared sacrifice in order to even out power imbalances in society. This may express itself in advocacy for social policy more than for individual sacrifice. But, I think one thing that differentiates generic liberals from liberal Christians is that liberal Christians do seem to be more willing to personally sacrifice money, time and effort to make the world more an expression of God’s love. It may be that one’s willingness to sacrifice may have less to do with liberal/conservative/covenental designations than with how much wealth and comfort they have and have grown used to.
And of course, it may just be that our experiences with “liberal Christians” are just very different
I think you are on the right track in identifying the difference between some evangelicals and those from the mostly liberal mainline churches. My sense is that in all the hype about “red-letter Christians” and the discovery of “them” and “their progressive theology” that a big piece is overlooked.
Fundamentalist, as popularly defined in the media and on the left has never been as big a camp as was imagined. Evangelicals, well before the emergent church emerged were already quietly doing much that the media never reported. The TV evangelist’s can have all the hype and media attnetion. Most of the evangelical’s realize that God won’t share His glory with anyone. “He must increase, I must decrease” (John 3:30) has always been a better motto for true Christians that the health, wealth and prosperity nonsense that is the popular media driven picture of who we are.
For 16 years, our motto has been “Living passionately for and like Jesus.” And that is why we have quietly started a health clinic, a clothing pantry, a food pantry, housing counseling, job training, ESL classes. And yet, we believe the Bible and see it as the only sure guide for the direction of our lives.
Yes, to some in the fundamentalist camp, we would be accused of being liberal for the emphasis on so-called social issues in many of our ministries. But in our town, there are only 4-5 churches that would fall into the Fundamentalist church. But there are 40 churches in my town. 4-5 out of 40 is a pretty small number.
At the same time, some of my liberal friends in town think that our church is way too conservative theologically. Jesus doesn’t care either way. He isn’t liberal, progressive, or conservative. He is our Lord and master and he doesn’t want to be attached to any political agenda, right or left. If the NT makes anything clear it is that attaching Jesus to your already formed worldview is going to distort what he said and who he is. He wants to radically overturn everything that we thought about life, God, political power structures, right and wrong, men and women. That is as true for those who describe themselves as conservative as it is for those who describe themselves as liberal.
Jesus wants to open the eyes of both to radically new and different unseen vistas of knowledge and insight. That’s why Christians call him LORD. He tells us what to care about not some politician or special interest group. Jesus sets the agenda for Christians.