There’s a movement afoot (how often do you get to use that word?) whose leaders like to repeat a particular statistic over and over.  I’ll pause and let you try to figure it out, as you list everyone who fits this description in your head.  Okay. Here’s a smattering of statements from the group in question:

“…there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed.” Tony Campolo

“The religious right wants to say there is only one or two issues that reflect our values, but as Rick would say, I’m sure, poverty, if there is 2000 verses in the Bible about the poor, that becomes a religious issue, as well.”  Jim Wallis

“He [Rick Warren] became fond of repeating that the Bible has 2,000 verses dedicated to the poor…” Time Magazine, link via GetReligion.org

I’ve always been a bit skeptical about this.  I’ve heard this stat repeated dozens of times, but never have I found any references to accompany it.  I’ve actually been searching the internet for it periodically, with no luck.  If anyone has the list, let me know.

My issue isn’t that I don’t think caring for the poor is important.  It clearly is.  The problem I have is that these leaders are making care for the poor through politics the focus of the Christian mission. But that’s not what the Bible is about. As Gary DeMar said in The American Vision, the philosophy “takes verses that are directed at individuals and turns them on their head and gives them a political twist.” (continue reading…)

I just found this great bit from C.H. Spurgeon, about progressive theology.

My favorite parts? “Pan-indifferentism” and “Anythigarianism”

The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy.

Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?

Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one.

We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.

I’m in a pretty sour mood right now. At first it was because I’ve been hurting for that poor girl in Florida who got beat up for a YouTube video. Now I’m ticked off at her dad.

Her parents blamed the Internet for the incident.

“These Web sites are creating a space for criminal activity, beating, fights,” Patrick Lindsay said. [...]

“I’m very upset with these Internet sites,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, MySpace is the anti-Christ for children. I’m going to carry this as far as I can.”

Talk about tilting at windmills. How about blaming the girls that did this? How about blaming the people who watch the videos, thereby encouraging things like this? Even some indirect blame on the parents would have been acceptable…but blaming the internet and MySpace?

Granted, there’s plenty wrong with MySpace, which is why my profile still has a picture of my wife about 4 months pregnant. But when it comes to six people deciding to beat up an innocent person - Hell, even a guilty person - let’s place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the perpetrators.

Ok, now that I’m over that, here’s the real point of this post. There are some Christians who believe that the task of the Church is to restore the world, whether that be through service or control. The group who truly believes that we are to do it by control (Dominionism) is so small that it barely merits discussion. Sure, you’ll hear people, particularly those like Andrew Sullivan (though he prefers the term “christianist”), attribute these qualities to “many evangelicals”…that’s bollocks.

Those who believe that we are to do it through service and love have a larger following. They believe that as a result of the influence of Christians, and good people from other religions (or no religion), the world is getting better. Progress has been, is being, and will be made. They are Progressives. (continue reading…)

I’m not buying that Barack Obama has suddenly shed an uncommon and unprecedented light on the discussion of race in America. And I’m not buying that the racial views of Jeremiah Wright and others are at all justifiable.

On Thursday an article came out at AmericanThinker.com called “Obama’s Anger“. The whole article is worth reading. The author, Ed Kaitz spent quite a bit of time with the Vietnamese immigrants in New Orleans. He talks about how they came over after the war with no money, no friends, and no knowledge of English. They faced “a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population:

They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the “Audacity of Hope.” Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

He then recounts his conversation with a black prison psychologist he met on a plane:

asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.

(continue reading…)

I really do. I don’t like Emergent theology. At first I thought it was a good idea…Our world is changing, so we need to be prepared to address it in a different way. But once I started to understand the difference between Emergent and emerging, and saw the basics of Emergent theology, I’ve disagreed. But I refuse to disagree with something when I don’t understand it. So I read papers, blogs, and books written by Emergent leaders and those who consider themselves part of the “emergent conversation”.

I think I’m pretty informed on the subject, so I don’t shy away when I talk about it. I do, however, try my best to be cordial and polite, and avoid stereotypes, assumptions, and generalizations. I try to cite specific people and organizations when I talk about their theological position, and avoid blanket statements. But I’m not perfect. And I don’t mince words. (continue reading…)

Next Page »