I'm leading a Christian doctrine cohort next semester for some AAIV and possibly some Greek IV leaders. The core book we'll probably use is Roger Olson's Mosaic of Christian Belief (Olson is a Baptist Arminian evangelical systematic theologian at Baylor/Truett).
One of the cohort's goals is to give the students a pretty good idea of the theological spectrum within present-day Protestantism to help them intelligently choose a church after college first on the basis of doctrine rather than more superficial criteria like worship style, demographics, charisma of leadership, quality of venue, etc., (not that pursuing excellence or compatibility/diversity in any of those areas is a bad thing). I couldn't find a decent 'map' of the Protestant theological spectrum along fundamentalist-evangelical-modernist lines so I decided to make my own. I'd really appreciate some feedback and I know I'm putting myself in a very risky position by making and posting this (one of the reasons why I didn't put InterVarsity on this). Yes I realize that there are many more theological spectra... many of them important.. and many other ways to choose a church.... I just wanted to map out this one as linear as possible... because I do think it continues to be the most important and defining spectrum within Protestantism.
I'm wondering whether it's fair to place 'young earth creationism' and 'King James only' on the spectrum... but I also know that a lot of AAIV students have a hard time placing the fundamentalist sign-holding King James only types who agitate on our campus ("are they really that different from us besides the fact that they use the King James and enjoy telling everyone they're going to hell?"). I also think it's helpful to point out how at some point, orthodoxy is at stake.
I had a hard time putting charismatic and pentecostal denominations on here -- you get a lot of Assemblies of God churches that are passionately in favor of women's ordination but adamantly defensive of young earth creationism and a very literal reading of apocalyptic literature.
I also realize that we're dealing with a different kind of conservatism with the Lutheran denominations... but still think having them on the spectrum is helpful, especially since I'm in historically German-Lutheran Wisconsin.
I couldn't fit the Baptist General Conference (BGC) on there because inerrantist open theism is just... very difficult to place on a spectrum.
Another question is where and how to fit the emergent movement or emerging church on here... and whether they fit somewhere on this spectrum and how important it is for an InterVarsity graduating senior to know about them...
Finally I'm not sure if dispensationalism belongs somewhere along the spectrum, as well... but it really depends on how you compare the conservatism of Westminster Seminary vs. the conservatism of Dallas... you can't compare an apple to an orange but if they're both chilled you can compare their temperature...
Feedback please!
EDIT: Methodology -- a few things I based the spectrum on:
Report from the early 2000s by the Association for Church Renewal that roughly 25% of members of the UCC, 30% of the United Methodist Church, and nearly half of the PCUSA could be identified as evangelical in their beliefs. I'm willing to project that this percentage has decreased in the UCC but remained fairly stable in the UMC and PCUSA.
Knowledge that the UCC and Episcopal Church have ordained multiple atheists and unitarians... and that these two denominations and more recently the ELCA practice denomination-wide gay ordination.
Statements of faith and public stances on infallibility, inerrancy, women in ministry, and creationism. The Evangelical Covenant Church is generally supportive of women at the pulpit and uses "perfect" instead of infallibility or inerrancy, which leans toward a slightly relaxed but present adherence to inerrancy. The Wesleyan Church takes a hard inerrantist stance but also takes a very affirming stance toward women's ordination. The Evangelical Free Church is explicitly inerrantist but is a conservative "tweener" on women's ordination because its churches can do it but the denomination won't. Dallas, Westminster, the PCA, and the SBC all take explicitly inerrantist and complementarian stances. The SBC takes an explicitly young earth creationist view and the PCA and CMA explicitly affirm a diversity of views.
Historically related denominations are grouped together: Reformed/Presbyterianism, Anglicans next to Methodists, CMA next to Presbyterianism, ECC and E-Free next to the Lutherans. I'm currently indecisive as to whether I'd like to group the forms of polity together... or group the Calvinist and Calvinist-ish denominations together... or just stick with the information I'm presenting and not try to overreach...
I wrote a list of suggested Do's and Don'ts for non-Asian (mostly white) speakers at AAIV large group meetings so that they can speak more appropriately to our context. Any thoughts, comments, or suggested additions?
Do define all biblical, theological, and technical terms (e.g., kingdom, covenant, justification, remnant, postmodern, eschatological) and don’t assume that the audience knows them.
Do feel free to “preach” with authority more than you would to a mostly white audience.Many Asian listeners respond well to being “called out” by a speaker.
Don’t be overly time-conscious (speak anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes!).
Do relate with plenty of anecdotal or personal stories and illustrations.
Don’t ask for short-response answers directly from the audience (you won’t get any and it will be awkward) but do feel free to provide group process or response time (e.g., “turn to the person next to you and discuss ____” or “get in groups of 3-4 and share ______” then, if desired or appropriate, ask for a few volunteers to share with the whole room).
Do spend more time on prayer and/or reflection at the end of your talk.Anywhere from 3-10 minutes is appropriate.Feel free to provide guidance or work with the worship leader during this time.
Don’t assume that lack of visual or verbal response means lack of attention or connection – many of us are quiet, passive listeners!
Submitted in response to this opinion from Tuesday. A bit late, but hopefully the Daily Cardinal publishes me. Thanks Goodie for the link!
(I'm curious for a few opinions of whether it was foolish of me to identify myself as Christian... whether a Christian should not take this type of tone, etc)
============ Dear Editor,
Two decades ago, my oldest cousin was one of only two students -- both Asian American -- in the top twenty of her northern California high school class denied admission to the University of California - Berkeley due to racial quotas. Immediately upon learning of this, her principal -- who was White -- called both students out of class, drove them straight to the Berkeley admissions office, and politely informed the receptionist that they would sit there until the students were admitted to the University. They were eventually admitted, although for the next decade many other Asian Americans -- including several of our other cousins -- were not as fortunate.
I wholeheartedly agree with the subtitle of your staff writer Andrew Carpenter's opinion piece, "UW should focus on more kinds of diversity than simply skin color." However, as a member of the racial-ethnic group -- East Asian American -- that suffers most from reverse discrimination in higher education and has much to gain from enactment of Mr. Carpenter's proposal, I am appalled by Mr. Carpenter's convoluted retread of all the cliche "colorblind" admissions arguments and ignorance that are likely products of an educational environment lacking in diversity.
Mr. Carpenter nobly advocates on behalf of the poor because "being poor is not an ethnicity." He then curiously aruges for "admission criteria... aimed at getting the best and brightest students." Relying solely on objective academic data for admissions would result in our University's demographics mirroring those of Mequon or Whitefish Bay. "On, Wisconsin!" for the ideals of higher education, defending the poor, and the Wisconsin Idea.
I must sympathize with the "mental obstacle for Caucasian students to overcome" of race-based admissions that he brings to our attention. Perhaps Mr. Carpenter's valiant efforts in overcoming this obstacle toward the ideal of colorblindness should serve as an inspiration to the 12.5% (on a very good day) of non-white students at the UW who daily experience displacement and racialization: sociologically and psychologically quantifiable phenomena telling them they are unwelcome outsiders who are less likely to succeed.
Five years ago in the New York Times, Professor Walter Benn Michaels at the University of Illinois-Chicago lamented "Diversity's False Solace." He arguedthat racial diversity provided a false sense of security and accomplishment for American academia; that despite improved minority admissions, retention, understanding, and inclusion we need continued improvement in socio-economic diversity and advancement for the disadvantaged regardless of race. Absolutely! Unfortunately, the UW -- and certainly Mr. Carpenter -- are not even there yet.
Calvin Chen Campus Advisor to the Asian American chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (AAIV) Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of InterVarsity or AAIV.
I received quite a lot of responses via email, gtalk, and facebook on the last entry but not a lot of comments... in any case I'd like to make two proposals in light of Regnerus's thoughts.
Marriage or Abstinence
I disagree with Regnerus that simply advocating for earlier marriage is a solution. I'm also wary of how Regnerus' approach may scapecoat biology instead of accomodationism, poor doctrine, or simple lack of discipleship/lordship.
Christian young adults -- including even college students or recent graduates -- need to make a conscious decision between marriage and abstention/continence/celibacy for the current season of their lives (see 1 Corinthians 7:9). This isn't super complicated hermeneutics -- both need to be realistic options since the alternative is compromise on multiple levels.
Our 21st century American evangelical theology has so distorted the idea of works-righteousness that we feel any prescription from any authority should either be intentionally broken or begrudgingly and half-heartedly obeyed. First, we all need to reject the self-serving, accomodationist mentality that says marriage is only for people already established in lucrative or prestigious careers. Likewise, we need to be able to reject or die to causes of unhealthy marriage pressure such as overbearing parents or self-imposed peer-pressure. Finally, we need to live like following Biblical instruction is a privilege. There is no single more tangible form of worship in this day and age: no praise songs, retreats, in-depth prayers, nothing. Following Biblical instruction, including on sexuality, honors God and others, and should strengthen identity and be a source of joy.
Sexual abstinence is a lifestyle seen by secular society as laughable, especially for men. What better way to follow Christ than one that simultaneously sets us apart, goes against expectations, and pictures the heart of God awaiting full consummation of his relationship with us? What a loss if we fail to cherish an opportunity that God has given us. Sure you get some collateral drama, failure, and angst... but can't the angst and the ridicule or awkwardness of nonconformity among society and friends be seen as thorns in our side for the glory of God and means by which to more deeply understand his heart? Let's desire rewarding, costly grace.
Odds Off...
There is blatant denial in American evangelicalism about the poor matchmaking odds for single devout Christian women. The 2:3 quantitative ratio of single male:female church attendance fails to capture the even wider qualitative divide. Many single Christian women are confronted with an almost continuous temptation to date or marry "down" or even "out" spiritually. Some hold out hope that, "God will provide the One for me as I wait patiently" while single men in Christian social environments enjoy attention they could scarcely dream of in a bar scene.
I'm going to propose a painfully obvious but potentially hurtful and offensive solution, especially coming from me as a male, for the sake of encouraging dialogue. I'm certainly open to the idea I could be completely wrong, but please respond directly by commenting.
Maybe cultural and societal pressure to marry and/or have kids is this generation's "Isaac" or "costly grace" for Christian women. Many women are raised to believe they will find true fulfillment, value, and affirmation solely as wives and mothers. Maybe single Christian women need to acknowledge and come to grips with possibly being in that 1/3 (or more). Maybe they must be prepared to choose between singleness and compromise, then emphatically reject the far worse alternative of competitive obsession of how to avoid being part of that 1/3. Sure, men may be called to singleness, too. However, culturally there's far more work to be done toward affirming women in singleness despite the numbers telling us they are and will be much more common than single men. I am not excusing men for our lack of leadership and growth in the Church, or the Church for failing to attract and disciple more men. We probably all need to reject and repent for many of the hierarchies that determine which women in churches are quickly "snatched up."
Shouldn't a maturing, non-conforming, transformative body of Christ work toward counter-culturally affirming women in singleness, encouraging them not to compromise, and helping them reject the lies of society -- often perpetuated within the Church -- that their only value is in marriage?
It's summer and marriage is in the air. I often complain about how living in semi-rural Wisconsin and hanging around a lot of evangelicals means I get to feel like a freak for being 26 and unmarried. "Goodness!" screams the transnational Asian American who lived in cities most of his life who was born when his dad was 40, "I grew up expecting to marry in my early to mid thirties!"
University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus makes the case in the latest Christianity Today for earlier marriage. He writes that Americans, including evangelicals, are damaging the institution of marriage by discouraging and delaying it. Some highlights:
"...over 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying. The percentage of evangelicals who do so is not much lower. In a nationally representative study of young adults, just under 80 percent of unmarried, church- going, conservative Protestants who are currently dating someone are having sex of some sort."
Regnerus: "I'm certainly not suggesting that they cannot abstain. I'm suggesting that in the domain of sex, most of them don't and won't."
"I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It's battling our Creator's reproductive designs."
"Among evangelical churchgoers, there are about three single women for every two single men. This is the elephant in the corner of almost every congregation—a shortage of young Christian men."
"If she decides to marry, one in three women has no choice but to marry down in terms of Christian maturity."... "the fact remains that there just aren't as many serious Christian young men as there are women, and the men know it."
..."a key developmental institution for men—marriage—is the very thing being postponed, thus perpetuating their adolescence."
"We buy, read, and pass along books about battling our sexual urges, when in fact we are battling them far longer than we were meant to."
..."the focus of 20-somethings has become less about building mature relationships and fulfilling responsibilities, and more about enjoying oneself, traveling, and trying on identities and relationships."
""So enough of the honeymoon banter: insiders know that a good marriage is hard work, and that its challenges often begin immediately. The abstinence industry perpetuates a blissful myth; too much is made of the explosively rewarding marital sex life awaiting abstainers."
I think just about anyone would agree with Regnerus' observations about prolonged adolescence and extended periods of trying different identities, professions, and so forth among twenty-somethings. Whether advocating for early marriage would actually combat this trend is highly debatable. While the statistics of sexual activity and also of unfavorable odds for Christian women -- and men who know it -- are disturbing, I don't see any solution for our scores of angsty, single Christian young adults any time soon...
