Theology

Collin Hansen at CT writes about the very apparent “Left-Left” connection. The connection is there he says, but not “inevitable.” He names several who, as Mark Driscoll claims for himself, are (or were) theologically conservative and politically and socially liberal.

The subhead asks, “Does one lead the other?” I think the answer is yes, but it’s hard to say which. I’ve known quite a few people who held liberal views of society and politics, and felt uncomfortable with the conservative beliefs they’d held.  So they became emergent or progressive Christians.

I’ve only known a few who were really guided by their liberal theology. It seems too often that politics comes before Jesus.  I catch myself from time to time saying things in a political conversation that make me cringe as the sentences are still forming. At that moment I can choose to make my theology meet my politics, or make my politics meet my theology.  It’s a struggle.

H/T JT

In the middle of a seemingly strong sermon about shunning an attitude of victimhood in suffering, Rob Bells says,

“What kind of God needs someone to die so that he can lave? … God didn’t will Jesus’ death…[He] willed Jesus’ obedience, which has consequences.”

“Jesus chose to do the right thing, and then do the right thing, and then do the right thing; and it led to his death.”

I go back to Bell once in a while hoping that I’ve misunderstood him. I hope that I’m wrong. But every time I do, I come across something like this. Sometimes it’s a throwaway, only loosely related to the main theme, as it is here. Sometimes it is the main theme. But either way it’s serious business.

This implies that the cross was simply the inevitable result of event set into motion by Jesus’ ministry. If that’s true, then it empties the cross of its power, because it is no longer the historical turning point Paul said it was, it was simply a demonstration of Jesus’ willingness to accept the consequences of his actions.

Where does Gethsemane fall into this equation? What was Jesus talking about when he asked for another way, then submitted to God’s will, if his death wasn’t part of God’s will?

This line of reasoning hits some early logical and theological roadblocks, and I don’t think it recovers well.

A new study out of Baylor has some interesting things to say about secularism and superstition.  Mollie from GetReligion has a piece out in the Journal that looks at the data.

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

I’m trying to work through how to consider this. (continue reading…)

I’m contemplating heading down to Abilene in a few weeks for Lectureship, since I have some vacation days available (it’d be short notice for my boss, so I don’t know if it’s possible at this point).  I checked the speaker list today to see who would be there, and I found the name of my favorite writer and preacher: Brian McLaren.

Right now I’m not sure what to think.  I’ve resolved (more than once) over the last year to dig a little deeper into McLaren’s beliefs than the blurbs, blog postings, and sound bites I’ve typically seen.  I do remember actually liking More Ready Than You Realize.  So I bought A Generous Orthodoxy, and I’ve tried to listen to some lectures/sermons, with my mind as open as possible. (continue reading…)

Finally a post that isn’t in the Politics category:

But liberal religion has a dogma and it views the contemporary world through the eyes of this dogma. The dogma is all the more potent in coloring opinion because it is not known as a dogma. The dogma is that the world is gradually growing better and that the inevitability of gradualness guarantees our salvation.

Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Century, April 22, 1926

I’d say that the same applies to the dogma of “tolerance”.  The ironies of this dogma are that (a) its advocacy typically involves a caustic intolerance for conservative ideas; and (b) it ignores the fact that tolerance requires some disagreement.  It’s not really tolerance if I agree with you.  It’s only tolerance if I disagree with you, but tolerate you (not necessarily your ideas). I hear a great deal about this “tolerance” from friends who identify with Emergent strains (yes, “strains” - like a virus) of the emerging church.

But this idea of tolerance falls right in with the mistaken notion of progress. It moves contrary to the gospel, and the command to contend earnestly for the faith.

Next Page »