This article requires no introduction or explanation, so I’ll shut up and let you read. Comments welcome. AGB
Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus
Phil Zuckerman. Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College in Claremont, CA. Dan Cady, assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno.
The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.
Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.
What’s the deal?
Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don’t exactly hate Jesus — as we’ve provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can’t stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself — his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill — most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.
And this is nothing new. At the end of World War I, the more rabid, and often less educated Evangelicals decried the influence of the Social Gospel amongst liberal churches. According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas such as German Rationalism, Soviet-style Communism, and, of course, atheistic Darwinism. In the 1950s, the anti-Social Gospel message piggybacked the rhetoric of anti-communism, which slashed and burned its way through the Old South and onward through the Sunbelt, turning liberal churches into vacant lots along the way. It was here that the spirit and the body collided, leaving us with a prototypical Christian nationalist, hell-bent on prosperity. Charity was thus rebranded as collectivism and self-denial gave way to the gospel of accumulation. Church-to-church, sermon-to-sermon, evangelical preachers grew less comfortable with the fish and loaves Jesus who lived on earth, and more committed to the angry Jesus of the future. By the 1990s, this divine Terminator gained “most-favored Jesus status” among America’s mega churches; and with that, even the mention of the former “social justice” Messiah drove the socially conscious from their larger, meaner flock.
In addition to such historical developments, there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition — its teachings, its creeds, its prophet’s proclamations — and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus’s message — a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.
Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. — it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow “Christian.” They aren’t.
Friends of Justice 
Aren’t all real Christians evangelical? I know in Canada the Churches with social justice in their mission have trouble with the “e” word as we say, but I think a frank sharing of one’s faith is neccessary for Christians in mainline and progressive congregations whenever it’s socially appropriate–some Evangelicals on TV or on-campus groups, etc., have a very loud voice, and drown out the Gospel with one-step personal salvation as the only message,
or mean, judgementalism as the good news of Jesus Christ.
Pew didn’t come up with results that said Evangelicals march in lockstep with the cost-cutting policies and other political views of the wealthy–I know the Gods Politics blog of Sojournor’s magazine has a link here and has a lot about progressive Evangelical Churches and emerging Church views, care of creation, and such, and they feature Eugene Cho’s blog, he’s near here, in Seattle, and had something to say about spreading the good news–lots of comments- “http://blog.sojo.net/2011/02/24/contend-for-the-gospel-but-please-dont-be-a-jerk/”
Sandra, thanks for your comment. We can oppose the mean-spiritedness of far right evangelicals without becoming mean-spirited ourselves. A couple of recent books, “Lost in the Middle,” and “Found in the Middle,” tout such a thing as an evangelical liberal. I would like to think that I am one. But I must confess that sometimes in reading those books I thought they might be misnamed: “Lost in the Muddle,” and “Found in the Muddle.”
Sometimes in our eagerness to be ecumenical, diverse, and interfaith, progressive Christians can neglect to include, love, and respect the Christians discussed in the article, whether identified as Evangelical or not, as their brothers and sisters in Christ. I think we can both do better.
The misinterpetation here of thousands of years of Biblical theology. Jesus did not come to earth soley as an advocate for the poor. A big part of his ministry yes. (And it should be pointed out that evangelicals spend millions of dollars on charties to the poor.)
They believe that charity in the hands of the Goverment does not effectivly serve the poor, as years of rampent waste and fraud in many of these programs clearly demonstrates.
Getting back to why Jesus came to earth in the first place, it was to save man from his sinful condition. Sin does still exist, even though theological revisionists constantly redifine it, to advance their own agendas. (Right and Left alike)
I have been reading N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian over the last few weeks, and I think that this article along with his writings speak to the wide spread of “easy-believism.” The thought that God is not concerned with our actions but instead just what ideas and beliefs we affirm with our thoughts and words is pervasive in many churches. But Jesus, Paul, and Peter all address belief without conformity to Christ’s standard… it is simply not the message that the church was designed to impart. Many of the student in the program I represent, the MA in Urban Studies, are passionate about reversing the teaching that acceptance-faith is what Jesus preached. The bible asks us to conform our lifestyles to that which God has commanded, which includes denying personal sin, community sin, and societal sin. We should be concerned with how our actions and buys in affect others. Loving one another is so loosely defined today, when the Old Testament clearly defines it to include bringing justice to the least… the poor, the widow and orphan. Wright talks about how Christians today have lost their understanding of how justice is integrated throughout the whole bible and their inheritance of justice from Israel and the Old Testament, which is evident today.
Jack, Jesus was faithful to all the law and prophets that we find in the Old Testament. There’s a clear imperative from God to stop taking advantage of widows and orphans in the courts, tax programs for the indigent like gleaning the leavings in the field after harvest, and the remission of all debts after 7 years, and other attempts to bring God’s type of justice, without bribes from the rich, to Israel. These didn’t completely succeed on Earth. of course. But the prophets God rose up in Israel didn’t stop calling out the sin of taking advantage of the poor, in the same way usurers in payday loan stores and criminal courts without enough public defenders take advantage of poor people today.
No one is stopping any Christian or Muslim or anyone else from doing their duty and giving charity to the poor to ease their suffering, when there are more poor than ever these days. But Jesus was poor by birth, as nearly everyone was then, and is in the world now, and if the trend continues, will be here soon. He talked about money more than any subject except the Kingdom of God, and to minimize Jesus’ message about justice here on earth takes away from his interactions with religious and political leaders before he was crucified, and is the earthly reason why he was crucified.
Of course sin exists, and of course Jesus is the path to new life and reconciliation with God, and forgiveness from sin. But I believe that Jesus offers new life now, and not just in heaven after we die, and that we can fight sin not just in ourselves, or by spreading the Gospel, but through our power as voters, consumers, and in other ways to help our neighbors not just for today, but in ways that stop systemic injustice.
The problem with what Zuckerman and Cady have written is that for the most part, it is based on grand ignorance of the Bible and the Jesus of it. These guys are not authorities on Christian doctrine, and it shows, especially for those who have spent the better part of their lives studying Greek, Hebrew and the Scriptures as a whole. These guys created straw man arguments and knocked them down. I’m not impressed. That’s why I blasted their ignorance in a web article response: http://www.gospelanswers1.com/TheGospel.php
This article was written by liberals for liberals and, as is generally the case with in-group jeremiads, there is little concern for strict accuracy. Much of the critique doesn’t apply to all, or even most, evangelicals, and the suggestion that conservative Christians only love Jesus because he holds the tickets to heaven is a crude over-simplification. The title was clearly designed to shock. On the other hand, the general thrust of Jesus’ kingdom teaching revolves around love for the outcast, radical hospitality and the stern rejection of hierachies, whether moral, social, or institutional. So there is a strong sense in which American Christians, conservative and liberal, turn a deaf ear to the teaching of their Savior. That (and a desire to see how readers would respond) is why I decided to print the piece.
Alan Bean
With all due respect, Alan, I disagree. In order to determine if American Christians turn a deaf ear to the teachings of Jesus, you FIRST have to know His teachings and know them accurately. Along with that, those teachings must be represented accurately. Zuckerman and Cady misrepresented the teachings of Jesus and evangelicals.
The true “general thrust” of the Gospel is that we are all sinners in need of salvation, and that Jesus, God incarnate, came from heaven to bring that salvation to change the human heart and soul. He did not come with a “social justice” agenda as defined by liberals. That much is clear from careful exegesis (not eisegesis) of Scripture.
Arthur:
That is certainly orthodox, classical Protestant theology, but does it represent what Jesus talked about? In the Gospel of John, perhaps; but in the Synoptic Gospels, the kingdom of God, not personal salvation, holds center stage, and salvation is always related to the life of the kingdom. True, Jesus didn’t come preaching about social justice; he had something far more radical in mind. Social justice is a faint echo of the kingdom of God, but it isn’t a bad translation of kingdom values into the categories of secular politics. If Christians ask themselves how their beliefs about discipleship and kingdom living impact politics, a social justice agenda, although hardly an adequate synonym for kingdom ethics, is about as far as you can go in a nation that values the separation of Church and state. Go any further in applying kingdom ethics to the political realm and you get too close to Theocracy. Within the life of the church, however, kingdom ethics should reign. In the political realm, a stout commitment to social justice is the political counterpart (I wouldn’t say “equivalent”). I realize this isn’t classical Protestant orthodoxy; but I think it’s what Jesus (and Paul) had in mind.
“This article was written by liberals for liberals and, as is generally the case with in-group jeremiads, there is little concern for strict accuracy.”
Sounds typical of this website….
No, sickofthis, this website is written by radicals for radicals. By “radical”, I mean those who go back to the root of things: constitutionally and theologically. Liberals, by and large, just want to be left alone and are willing to return the favor.
AGB
I’ve replied to “sickofthis” before. If this website makes you sick, stay away from it! On the other hand, I hope you keep coming back. You just might catch some of the radicality of the good news.
Article posted by: Alan Bean
Words I quoted written by: Alan Bean
When you radicals “go back to the root of things” it would be a good idea to base your journey on truth rather than words written to energize your base. You lose too much crediblity when you label groups of people as hatefully as this article and many others on your website do. I thought that was what you were fighting against. I guess it’s only groups who think as you do and all others are fair game to be characterized and insulted based on stereotypes?
Theologically, I’d advise going by the Bible rather men, whether they are Brian MacLaren or John Piper. Just my opinion, which probably isn’t welcomed here since I’m not a “radical.”
Jesus is the radical I look to first. Paul also was radical.
I agree with Charles. They were both executed by the Roman Empire because their teachings were extremely frightening to it. Radical equality between Christians, whether they were slaves or rich citizens before baptism, “guaranteed minimum income” communities or a commune in Jerusalem, radical pacifism and failure to worship the gods, especially the Emperor would shatter the Empire if they spread throughout the working classes (and wealthier people joined the Way, too).
Many issues Paul wrote to the Churches about in his letters, like circumcision for Gentile Christians, don’t concern us now–but his views on things like who makes our clothes, or mass incarceration, might be equally strong.
Sandra, you have nailed it! Kingdom teaching is radical teaching. The Lord’s Prayer is radical praying: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Paul was a radical egalitarian. In Christ religious differences are done away–no Jew nor Gentile; socio-economic differences are done away–no slave nor free; even gender differences–no longer male and female. All of this is/was upsetting to the powers of Empire, the kingdoms of this age. After Constantine the church became Christendom, and accomodated itself to the powers of Empire. That accomodation continues to this day, but Christendom is passing away, freeing the church to experience anew the radical freedom of the gospel of Jesus.
Arthur insinuates that Alan does not know the gospel teachings, except perhaps through eisegesis. Arthur does not know Alan. Alan does know the gospel. He recognizes the radicality of the teachings of Jesus.
Charles, I do not have to know Alan to be able to assess inaccurate teaching. The teachings of Jesus were not so much “radical” as they were spiritual. Jesus came as the Lamb of God (Old Testament imagery of animal sacrifices, nothing “radical” about that) who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). That was the main way He would bring people into the kingdom, by making it possible for sinners to become saints, for those born in sin to become born again from above. That is the main message of Jesus, not some liberal, “social justice” theory that is nothing but eisegesis based on personal feelings.
Yes, Alan, it does represent what Jesus talked about. I’ve been studying what Jesus taked about for over 20 years, and I’ve also taken the time to learn to read what Jesus talked about in the original Greek of the NT, and the original Hebrew of the OT.
John did not have a different view of salvation than the other Gospels. They complement each other and have different focus points, but you misread the Synoptics if you claim that personal salvation was taught within them. In Matthew Jesus starts out saying “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Repent from what? Sin. In Mark 1:15, again we have Jesus preaching that people should do what? Repent of SIN.
And in Luke 13:1-5, Jesus makes it very clear that all people need to repent of sin or perish. And then when you tie in what Luke also says in Acts 2:38 and 3:19, no rational person can argue that the kingdom of God and personal salvation from sin are somehow mutually exclusive. They’re not. What you have simply shown is that you do not, as I said before, understand or know the Gospel of Jesus. So what you “think” Jesus and Paul had in mind is not the issue. It’s what they actually had in mind from a careful examination of what they themselves said and did.
The reason why we have what’s called “classical Protestant orthodoxy” is because the Roman Catholic Church began to deviate from the teachings of the apostles, and thus Luther and his protest, and the rest is history. Deviation from the standard does not invalidate the standard. The kingdom of God is about people being changed by God through repentance of sin, which brings about the new birth into the new kingdom of God. Your conception of what the kingdom of God is appears to have no sound basis in the Scriptures but a gross misunderstanding of them. And of course, this is the same problem with Zuckerman and Cady.
You are no longer insinuating that Alan’s biblical interpretation is eisegisis. You are now stating it forthrightly, and that it is based on personal feelings. I have known Alan for more than 30 years. I expect his credentials in Biblical studies would match yours. You are not the only one who can read Greek and Hebrew. I have been doing that for more than fifty years. My facility in the Biblical languages does not make me a better interpreter of the gospel message. It might even make me a poorer one if I get puffed up about it. There have been divergent strains of biblical interpretation all through Christian history. Yours is one of them. It does not give you license to look down your nose at some of us who do not agree with your interpretation of Jesus’s teachings. But I do think he might not like it that we fuss with each other.
Charles Kiker, 77 years old
Ph. D. in Biblical studies with emphasis on both Hebrew and Greek
Bible teacher, retired pastor, and one who seeks to do justice, love chesed, and walk humbly with our God.
The humble walk is the hardest part. I have come to understand that we can walk humbly with God only when we walk humbly with the “least of these.” See Matthew 25:31-46
I’d probably like you if we could sit down over a cup of coffee. We’d probably leave still disagreeing, but hopefully respecting one another and accepting one another as brothers in the Lord.
True, Arthur, Jesus did tell people to repent, but the alternative was not hell-fire after death, the alternative to repentance was missing the at-hand kingdom. By the way, for our non-theologian readers, “exegesis” refers to the process of interpreting what the scripture is saying; “eisegesis” suggests reading things into the text that aren’t there. Brian McLaren suggests that we understand the teaching of Jesus better if we read him as a continuation or expansion of the ideas we find in traditions of Moses, David, Jeremiah and Isaiah as opposed to Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin. Nothing against the folks in the Christian tradition; but they read Hebrew thought patterns through Greco-Roman eyes and easily mistake the true import of what Jesus was saying.
Alan
Great article. Yes. I have attended “evangelitical” churches. The people, not all, but many are very cold hearted and uncaring concerning the plight of the poor and needy. They are highly political and their sermons rarely rock the boat. Repentance is rarely taught. Sin is rarely mentioned. That means you can own all your luxury cars and houses and not feel guilty. Money and pride are rarely viewed in any negative fashion, except, if money is donated to some liberal political organization. Aquiring vast amounts of wealth is rarely taught as worldly. And yes, many of these churches do not emphasize communion with Jesus. They just play music. Pastors tend to preach rhetorically from the Bible rather then preach a sermon. The deep truths of the Bible are turned into catch phrases. God bless.
The immediately preceding comment was not mine. Many of the sentiments expressed I can agree with, but I am not as negative and cynical as the Charles of the preceding post. Thus I have added my last name to my comment ID.
I realized that we have the same first name. Please refer to above comment as Charles M. I apoligize.
The above comment was from Charles M. Thanks.
Jack. Can you list the charities from evangelitical churches that help the poor? If someone needs money to pay for rent, food and clothing, and utilities, what church organizations are there that address these needs?
When salvation is a “one by one” concept, palatable to the society we live in today, it’s easy to put out of one’s mind any “socialist” or other foul-named concern about why there are so many poor, sick, homeless, and hungry people in a rich land like ours. Every Christian needs and wants to be closer to God through Jesus, and we’re all grateful for God’s unconditional love and forgiveness. Sometimes a focus on individual gratitude and “personal growth” in faith can take up all our attention and the individualistic, competitive, acquisitive culture we all live in, and know as normal closes our eyes to our neighbours. Anytime personal salvation and the great commission = adding converts (only), there is a big part of Jesus’ message missing. We have to love our neighbours, our enemies, and pray for them, but since we are in this society, but not of it, we have to try to “Make Poverty History”.
No problem! I’m just glad to know that no one is impersonating me. Charles is a pretty common name; henceforth I will identify myself first and last name.