If you’re a reader at GetReligion you’re aware of the tendency for journalists to see churches only in political terms. Last Monday’s opinion piece on the emerging church is no different. Tom Krattenmaker writes about the “growing movement of believers [for whom] an activist faith means more than proselytizing about Jesus and stoking the fires of our culture wars.”
There is almost no theological content in this article. He quotes Rick McKinley, leader of Portland’s Imago Dei Community, as saying, “We’d say ‘yes’ [to being 'evangelical'] in terms of what we think about the authority of Scripture and those things…What you have is evangelicalism defined doctrinally, which we’d agree with, and defined culturally, where we would disagree. Culturally, it has been hijacked by a right-wing political movement.”
Other than that it is an article on the politics of the “liberal” emerging church movement. It showcases the morally superior attitudes of the emerging leaders that were quoted, which - let’s be real - mirrors the morally superior attitudes of most on the other side of the aisle. So that’s a wash. (continue reading…)
Stephanie Simon of the LA Times wrote a piece the other day about Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s new homemaking concentration. I won’t go into all of the details of the article, because it’s pretty straightforward, with the expected liberal bias (since when is Jimmy Carter a “moderate”?). What is most interesting to me is the comment section. There are many, many misunderstandings and bullheaded refusals to see anything but male dominance and the devaluing of women, all aside from scattered comments likening this to the subjugation of women in Islam.
Many people simply reject the idea that there could be different roles for the sexes. Others say that gender roles are outdated, “50’s baptist culture.” Most seem offended by the idea that a woman should stay home. Below are some samples:
NEVER have I once thought that I am unequal to a man and should sacrifice my desire to have a career for marriage and children. There is no reason why a woman shouldn’t use the talents God gave her.
I could never marry any man who expected me to place my dreams and ambitions second to his. My parents raised me to be independent, to be able to take care of myself.
This seminary is teaching women that they are subservient to men’s desires and that’s not true. In this day and age women and girls learn and work alongside men and boys. It’s the norm and its accepted (as it should be). If a person enjoys being a homemaker, then I’m not disputing that they should pursue a life doing that, but women should NEVER limit themselves and their abilites based on how one group (a male dominated group) interprets scripture.
Submitted by: Brittany
(continue reading…)
As I mentioned in The Supremacy of Christ, Adam at Pomomusings has some issues with Mark Driscoll. In his own words, he ‘just [doesn't] get this guy.” I think there’s more to it than that. It looks to me like he just doesn’t get the Gospel.
He states three problems with Driscoll’s chapter. First, he cites too much Scripture:
Mark apparently thinks that the number of Biblical citations is directly proportional to how faithful his chapter actually is to scripture? Seriously, he has 176 footnotes, 174 of which are practically lists of Bible verses for a 14-pg chapter.
Why is that a problem? A Christian pastor who’s been asked to lay out his theology should be backing up everything he has to say with Scripture. Part of my problem with progressive Christian theology is that it is moving away from the Bible as its source. Beyond that, comments like this imply that, not only is it alright not to use much Scripture, but a person who uses a lot is somehow deficient.
His second problem, the one that inspired my earlier post (and the title of this one), is that Driscoll is overly concerned with showing that Jesus and “the Christian revelation of God [are] distinct from and superior to all other views of God†(26). Adam calls this an “unhealthy need for power” on Driscoll’s part. But whose power is he talking about? Christ’s.
That’s what the Apostles taught:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Colossians 1:15-20
Our purpose is to glorify Christ. How can we do that without pointing to him as superior to all? Should we pretend that we believe him to be equal to others, just a different choice? Of course not!
Adam’s third problem is that Driscoll calls Jesus’ death the most important part of his life:
There it is - Jesus’ life, ministry, care for the poor - nope. Let’s focus on the most important thing: Jesus’ death.
There’s an easy explanation for Adam’s emotional response to this: he doesn’t understand the Gospel. The Gospel is not about healing and caring for the poor. Not as a first tier priority. The Gospel is about us being reconciled to God. How does that happen? God tabernacles among us, lives a sinless life and goes to the cross to bear the burden of our sin. The good news is that we can now be reconciled, regardless of our past, through the death and resurrection of Christ.
I’m not the scholar to explicate this, but they’re out there. Driscoll is one of them, though he’s mainly drawing on the work of others (which is fine). The atonement is important. It was big in the OT and the NT, and should be to us. Many came before and after teaching and preaching good works and care for the poor and outcast. The Passion and Divinity of Christ is what separates him from the others.
Many progressives choose to ignore that, and I don’t really know why. Can’t you be progressive while still acknowledging the basics of the Gospel?
It isn’t Christ-following. I’m amazed at what passes for Christian theology today. The message is truly proving to be “foolishness to those who are perishing.” Check this out. The OP has its own issues, such as the “conversion” we may experience while evangelizing. Commenter Matt MC said this: “I think I’m a little unclear though, on your intentions with those last two quotes. Is the evangelist’s “conversion” in question a broadening of perspective, or a recognition that somehow he has been preaching the wrong gospel?”
But I want to focus on the comments. With the advent of the postmodern movement and the much talked about breakdown of modernity (something I don’t see nearly as much of as some say), some mindsets have been welcomed into the church in the name of tolerance or diversity. Try to imagine Jesus’ response to this:
“Do I or you have the ‘truth?’ Are we so arrogant to think our religion is the correct one?[...]I don’t think my religion is any more true than anyone else’s and I have no desire to participate in their ’so-called’ [Isn't the term so-called enough without the quotes?] salvation.”
I don’t think he’d applaud with the audience of The View, I think a parable would follow…one resembling the man who built his house upon the sand. But that’s just me. My question is this: Why would you want to be part of a religious group and follow a religious leader (this being Jesus himself) who claims to hold all truth if you don’t think that’s possible?
That comment was followed by this one:
The biblical text itself contains so many voices, so many angles, and was written in so many contexts, all removed from ours significantly if by nothing else than time, that using it to form a firm confidence in exactly what God is up to feels, well…honestly impossible.
I’d like to see her expound on this statement in some meaningful way. What about those times and cultures and writers is so different from those that we live in now? Are we not still human? Are we not seeking joy and fulfillment? Do we not have family, and enemies, and suffering, and fear, and work, and rest, and everything else? It’s tiring to constantly hear people say, “things were different back then,” and never supporting it with even an explanation. So tell us how the voices, angles, and contexts were different and what that means to how we read the narrative of Scripture.
I also get the impression that she wouldn’t care to look into it further. Maybe I’m wrong about this particular person…maybe she has a passion for historical and sociological study of the ancient Hebrews. Perhaps she has a deeper understanding than I can surmise from her post. But judging from the others I’ve read with similar opinions, they’re happy enough with the doubt cast by their assertions to leave it at that.
What that does, effectively, is take all the burden and worry off of a person…they no longer have to concern themselves with being right, because it’s not possible. Unfortunately, God revealed himself in Christ, and in so doing said that if anyone denied him, rejected him, or was ashamed of him, that Christ would deny, reject, and be ashamed of him on the day of judgment.
Both of these commenters’ statements - that we are arrogant for claiming we can know the truth - are, in essence, being ashamed of Jesus. Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life”, that he was God, that he’d be seated at the Father’s right hand, that all who followed him would live forever, and all who rejected him were condemned. He was exclusive. And in today’s world that’s a sin.
Much like Republicans are distancing themselves from the President to avoid any shame that may come from being linked to his policies, so these “Christians” are distancing themselves from the controversial claims of Christ, and trying to be something a little more palatable for the world today. For their sake I hope they hear the rooster crow and get their butts back to the Master’s feet.
I was just reading Brian McLaren’s latest post over at God’s Politics, and it had a link to his organization, Red Letter Christians. I’d heard of the group, but didn’t know much about it, so I checked it out. In the first paragraph we read this: “We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus.”
Two things about this bother me. First, it makes the letters in the Bible that aren’t in red less important. The Bible prioritizes itself; tell me what is more important: “You shall have no other gods before me,” or, “Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals, and greet no one on the road.” This is a ridiculous example, but one that is implied when you use this red-letter logic. (continue reading…)
Blogs4God
