Former ELCA Presiding Bishop Herbert Chilstrom.
Originally posted March 6, 2012, in the Green Valley News Letters to the Editor section. Republished with permission of the editor.
If ever a word has been hijacked and politicized and changed from its original meaning it is the term “evangelical.” Ask most anyone on the street to define “evangelical” and they will tell you that it represents someone who is opposed to gun control, abortion and birth control; someone who favors tight immigration restrictions and prayer in the public schools. You get the picture. The press relentlessly speaks of the “Evangelical Bloc” when it writes and broadcasts items about some members of the Republican Party and other conservative movements.
This is sad for us in the Christian church who have a totally different understanding of what it means to be “evangelical.” We remember that the root meaning of the word goes back to the New Testament and the Greek language in which it was written. Its meaning is almost disarming in its simplicity. It describes one who believes the Good News about Jesus Christ. It centers in his death and resurrection that we will soon observe as the high points of our Christian year. We believe that at its heart the Bible is primarily about this unbelievable, incredible message of hope.
When the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was formed nearly 25 years ago, we deliberately included the word “Evangelical” in our name. We did so to make it known that anyone who embraces that fundamental focus on Jesus Christ is welcome to be a member of one of our congregations: old, young, Democrat, Republican, Independent, African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, straight, gay, single, married — yes, anyone. We are different; yet held together in Jesus Christ. What identifies us is not our position on a political issue or our stance on a complex moral question where we have inevitable differences of opinion. No, being “evangelical” is simply to trust completely in Jesus Christ.
Can we ever recapture the true meaning, the essence, of being “evangelical”? Probably not in the current election round. But those of us who hold to its true meaning must continue to remind our neighbors and friends and each other that being “evangelical” is something else, something different.
And that is why I write these words …
Herbert Chilstrom was presiding bishop of the ELCA from 1987 to 1995. He lives in Green Valley, Ariz.
You might also want to read:
Wanted: ‘evangelical’ Lutherans
Welcome the stranger
The many faces of American Lutheranism
There's one key point about 'evangelical' missing: what that Promise does to us and where it leads us. Through that Promise, we can live and proclaim and be evangelical.
As language evolves, and the mysteries of scripture unfold, words will naturally change their meaning over time. Just because we didn't define a word one way long ago doesn't mean the Spirit cannot lead us to redefine that word today. One must consider the trajectory of the tradition when using theological terms. Take marriage, for instance. Does it mean today what it once did? A truly inclusive church would also include those who define terms differently. A truly inclusive Christian community would include and even embrace those whose views some might think exclusive. A tolerant church even tolerates the intolerant. Hence, we must accept varying shades of meaning in the word "evangelical." One may hold one definition while others think about it differently and that is okay. There is room for many definitions in the "big tent" of Christianity. There are people who are very passionate and sincere in their beliefs that they term as Evangelical. Who are we to say they are wrong! It is not our place to judge them. We should not claim any term exclusively just for ourselves and those who think as we do. I suggest we spend more time listening to Evangelicals and getting to know them and their struggles before we reject them as unworthy of the name of the Good News of Christ.
Chemnitz,
This is a Gospel matter. Not so much deeming them 'unworthy' of the name of the Good News of Christ, but naming many of those beliefs and practices as false gospels. The problem is that they tend to burden consciences by adding extras to 'Christ alone and only'. The problem isn't that "evangelicals" tend to be anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-immigration, it's that 'Christ alone and only' is lost in the mix. At best it's 'Christ and no abortions' or 'Jesus and guns'. At worst it's 'no abortions, no immigrants, but lots of guns' and no Christ at all.
It happens on the other side, too. There are plenty of Christians who make social justice an extra with which to burden consciences. But both are false gospels that we must warn against
The ELCA is getting closer to admitting its support for abortion. I see a picture of a man with a collar who supports the murder of unborn children. Jesus says if you love me you will obey my commands. Is Herb Chilstrom a man of God? Why does the ELCA profess to be against abortion yet pay for an abortion for an employee who want a boy but is pregnant with a baby girl? Can someone please tell me?
Dear Chuck: Whereas I was invloved with a group about 15 years ago that questioned the ELCA about the issue you raise, I believe I can provide some factual information (and I am open to correction on the facts), while I do not necessarily agree with the policy/docrtine and its application. The ELCA social statement on abortion says that abortion may be a tragic but necessary option in certain exceptional cases: rape, incest, fetal abnormality, danger to the mother's life, etc. However, the insurance plan will provide abortion services to members with virtually no questions asked, i.e, it is practically abortion on demand. When we pressed the then-named Board of Pensions as to why abortions were not limted only to just the excpetions above, we were told that do so would violate the patient's privacy/confidentiality. Like I said, I do not agree, but that is my understanding of the situation. Personally, my journey has taken me from being radically Pro-abortion 25 years ago to being radically Pro-life today. I attribute that change to wrestling with the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Dear Chemnitz,
Thank- you for the explanation. Even as weak and indefensible as the "privacy" excuse is, I still think it is a red herring. Chilstom and dozens of ELCA leaders signed a declaration in support of abortion on demand. The ELCA leadership cannot stomach the idea of being on the opposite side of a liberal political position. The ELCA leadership is extreme left wing and this is represented in their moral core. Psalm 139 is the conscience to our selfish crime. As the song goes "40 million babies lost to God's great orphanage. it's a modern-day genocide and a modern day disgrace.". I have attended a ELCA church in Liberty MO for several years and have never head the pastor speak against abortion or even mention abortion. What is the secular world supposed to think when even people who wear the cloth support the killing of unborn babies? I hope the ELCA realizes that all the political social statements that it has written and nobody reads and nobody cares about is not worth the the killing of one baby, a killing that unfortunately, it sponsors by what it does and what it does not do. The Holy Spirit has changed you and that is encouraging. I hope He changes Bishop Hanson so he can provide some leadership and stop the ELCA from sponsoring these abortions.
it is not a red herring. I agree with the ELCA's official position, that abortion is tragic, and should only be a last resort.
As someone who was faced with a pregnancy I wanted, but the possibility I would have to have an abortion to save my own life (and thus allow my living child to have mother still), please, do not spout on without having sat there with the heartbreak. Those who rant are rarely the ones who have to deal with the reality of the sorrow and those who rant are rarely there to help women who need a shoulder to cry on. The ELCA position is needed in this world. The ELCA position understands that God did not create a world of simplistic black and white absolutes. Therefore, human response needs to recognize that life is lived in shades of grey. My pastor was there to pray with me, as he should have been. I would be happy for the secular world to see that.
And besides, you miss the whole point of the article. The point is to not distract from what we are to do as evangelicals - share the gospel, not get up in political arguments. So these comments are exactly what we (including me) shouldn't be doing.
Jen notes, "...share the gospel, not get up in political arguments." This is precisely the problem, as I see it. When the Gospel gets confused with various political stances, or equated with the same, we have lost our witness as the Body of Christ and are no more than a social/political activist agency with religious tendencies. After all, we are sealed and marked for ever with the Cross of Christ in Holy Baptism, not given a dry-erase placard or demonstration sign. When I know more about where a "Christian" or "church" stands on birth rights, contraception, human sexuality, immigration, marriage, etc., than where he/it stands on Jesus Christ and the good news of the forgiveness of our sins because of God's grace shown to us in Christ, I cannot help but wonder who is really setting the mission's agenda.
Abortion is not a political issue but a moral issue. I don't judge your decision and the circumstances. Can I only speak out about rape if I was a victim? Surely you don't believe only those who have had an abortion are allowed to discuss it. The ELCA supports abortion on demand for all. This is not a Christian position but it is one most of its members support.
Abortion is not a political issue but a moral issue. I don't judge your decision and the circumstances. Can I only speak out about rape if I was a victim? Surely you don't believe only those who have had an abortion are allowed to discuss it. The ELCA supports abortion on demand for all. This is not a Christian position but it is one most of its members support.
I wasn't going to comment further, but then I got a sincere communication from a dear friend who asked me to tell everyone that she had been in a situation similar to Jan's 31 years ago. Her doctor ordered her to have an abortion, but she and her husband decided to wait. They are the proud parents of a healthy 31 year old son today. Yes, I know, things don't always work out so well, but as a pastor I have counseled with many people (mothers and fathers) who have anger, guilt, and other powerfully negative emotions over abortions they consented to, both for medical and non-medical reasons. Few people consult their pastors when contemplating an abortion. I have also met adults who were concieved in instances of rape or incest who are glad their mothers chose not to abort them. This is not in any way to make light of the serious situations people face when pregnant and abortion seems like a good alternative. I do not judge them; God alone is our judge. My only agenda is to point people to God's Word and mercy.
No sure if we can get our cultural stereotypes to change, but one pastor in the Southeastern Minnesota Synod is trying. Read Rev. Emily Carson's (Zion, Stewartville, MN) article in Rochester, Minn.'s Post Bulletin.