Culture wars: For Our Names Sake

[Point ten of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

10. The culture war is carried out for our name’s sake, not Jesus’. I am not a fan of gay marriage or Roe v. Wade, and even though I would vote to outlaw the former and repeal the latter, neither of those actions in themselves will make a single unbeliever say “How wonderful Christ is!”

The bitter truth is that the Christian culture war is not carried out for Jesus’ glory and renown, but for ours. It makes “Judeo-Christian values” the end-game, the treasure of our mission. And that is idolatry. Nobody was ever legally or argumentatively or even culturally convinced to believe in Jesus. But millions have been loved and served and submitted to into believing.

Dying for somebody says a whole lot more than debating them.

Read more!

Culture wars: Missionally Challenged

[Point nine of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

9. It mangles mission. The culture war sets the Church above and against the world, rather than in but not of the world. It turns us into picketers and politicos. It makes us suspicious and speculative and sensationalist. It takes relationship completely out of the missional equation. It turns us from peaceful ambassadors for Christ into pontificating warriors for Christianity. It does not ask us to serve and sacrifice, which are non-negotiables for Christian mission, but to maneuver and argue.

Read more!

Culture wars: Fear and Comfort

[Point seven Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

7. It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety and power. The culture war is largely driven by fear. We’re afraid our public schools will ruin our children, we’re afraid gay people will ruin our families. We’re afraid a Democrat will ruin our country, we’re afraid liberals will ruin our neighborhoods. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect our family, and safety of course is not a bad thing. But neither is it a biblical virtue. Ditto comfort.

Read more!

Culture wars: Storing Up the Wrong Stuff

[Point six Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

6. Its treasure is temporary. I am not overly concerned with the culture war because it is a battle for something that doesn’t last. Culture is temporary. I am far more interested in the transformation of peoples through the transformation of people than I am in the subduing of culture through the modification of behavior. Nobody ever got into heaven by acting better.

Read more!

Evangelicalism, Politics, and the Gospel

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

In the discussions that is going on about the Roman Catholic Church, and its change, I made a comment (I will get there in a minute). Starwoman responded with:

Thanks for this very clear and helpful comment about what the strategy is wrt Evangelicals, theology, and civil marriage laws.

I'd be interested in a diary from you on the theology behind Evangelical (and other Reformed, maybe) attitudes towards the relationship between church and state.

I can try to do that - but it may not work out.

Read more!

Culture wars: Moralism is the Medium

[Point two of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
"
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.

Read more!

Culture wars: Foolish Expectations

[Point one of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

1. Its expectation is foolish. Whether you believe America was ever a Christian nation or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn’t be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won’t make anybody a Christian, much less make America “a Christian nation.”)

Read more!

Culture wars: Jared Wilson Enhanced

I mentioned how much I liked Jared Wilson's "Funny, I don't Feel Neoconnish" posted at Evangel. His ten points about why the "culture wars" are going to hell --

Read more!

"Christian Social Responsibility"

I have been chatting about Evangelicalism as a movement - and this section from the Lausanne Covenant seemed like something worthy of a good conversation.

A little background is in order: The Lausanne Movement formed the linked covenant in 1974; and also met in 1989 and agreed to the Manila Manifesto

The following is Part 5 of the Lausanne Covenant:

CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of oppression. Because men and women are made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he or she should be respected and served, not exploited. Here too we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.

Read more!

Frank Schaeffer's "Evangelicals Strike . . ." vs. Reality

I haven't "fisked" anything for a while - and I originally was going to ignore this. Looking around, folks I respect have either ignored it or not even noticed it - Huffington Post isn't a big read for them - and so perhaps my first inclination was right. However - I am not going to leave it alone because it raises some theological points - and some common misconceptions - about Evangelicalism (whatever that is). It also allows me to give some folks some means to research the movement a bit deeper and gain some insight.

The article is "God Against Obama: Dobson, Osteen, Corsi, [sic] the Evangelicals Strike Again" by Frank Schaeffer. In going through the article, I will try to stay out of the sewer Frank dives into whole-heartedly by ignoring these admonishments by Paul:

Ephesians 4:29 You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 You must put away every kind of bitterness, anger, wrath, quarreling, and evil, slanderous talk. 32 Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

First though, what section (yep, there are sections) of Evangelicalism were Frank, and his father Francis, a part of when they were leaders in the Evangelical movement (and Dobson, Osteen, Corsi ,etc. for that matter). These two analyses help dissect that:

1. Scot McKnight:

   Three groups today threaten to destroy the fabric of historic American evangelicalism:

   • The Religious Right, which seems to think all evangelicals have the same political views [a disease the critics of Evangelicalism often display];
   • The Neo-Reformed, who think Calvinism is the only faithful form of evangelicalism [this is where Frank Schaeffer "lived"]; and
   • The Political Progressives, who like the Religious Right think the faithful form of evangelicalism will be politically progressive.

   
   . . . Now a few words of explanation: Evangelicalism is essentially “gospel ecumenism” instead of “theological conformity.” Evangelicals unite around the gospel but tolerate all kinds of diversity theologically . . . evangelicalism has agreed to agree on the basics — the gospel — but has been willing to let theological confessions be what they are: church confessions for local congregations. Instead of haggling over theological confessions, evangelicals have agreed to agree on the gospel.

2. The Moody Handbook of Theology:

   DOCTRINAL AFFIRMATIONS OF NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM
   These fundamentalists shunned Billy Graham, not because he was a liberal but because he talked to liberals. Billy Graham was accused of destroying Scriptural mass evangelism through his "spirit of inclusivism."
   
   The neo-evangelical label on people, schools, or organizations meant disassociation; thus, neo-fundamentalists refused to cooperate with Billy Graham in his evangelistic campaigns, rejected the journal Christianity Today, and excoriated schools like Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary for inviting certain evangelical speakers.
   
   Other writers have identified the neo-fundamentalist movement with fundamentalist leaders like Jerry Falwell, Tim La Haye, Hal Lindsey, and Pat Robertson. These leaders have spoken out publicly,

   offering an answer for what many regarded as a supreme social, economic, moral, and religious crisis in America. They identified a new and more pervasive enemy, secular humanism, which they believed was responsible for eroding churches, schools, universities, the government, and above all families.They fought all enemies which they considered to be offspring of secular humanism—evolutionism, political and theological liberalism, loose personal morality, sexual perversion, socialism, communism, and any lessening of the absolute, inerrant authority of the Bible

   The Moral Majority, with its political action, is also seen as a further aspect of neo-fundamentalism. -- Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (619). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

Frank was an integral part of that pressure on Evangelicalism to become theologically focused, rather than gospel focused; and the neo-fundamentalist pressure to fight - including on a political level - the inroads of secular humanism into U.S. culture. In McKnight's view, Frank has gone from being part of group #1 and #2 - to standing outside of Evangelicalism with criticisms that again fall into a mirror of group #2 and support for group #3. Let's see if that comes through in his article:

Evangelicals [all of us?] have a problem: they want to involve themselves in politics -- for instance by praying that the Obama speech at the Democratic convention is rained out, as James Dobson of Focus On the Family called for. Some evangelicals are embarrassed by such antics. What can they do? Nothing because their theology acknowledges no central authority. Evangelicals don't "do" structure. They don't do government, or bishops or tradition. They just do "me" and "I" never we [actually we do "Body of Christ" alot]. So their individualistic and narcissistic village idiots - Dobson, Robertson, Osteen etc.- are in charge by default.

The entire underlying theme of Schaeffer's piece falls apart in the introductory paragraph:

1. Evangelicals acknowledge no authority - they do not do structure; yet
2. Some Evangelical leaders are put in charge by default

In charge of what, and put there by who? Those are self-contradictory claims. These leaders have no authority over Evangelicalism, and are leaders of no recognized structure with authority over Evangelicalism. That they may place themselves in the public spotlight (perhaps because they are "individualistic and narcissistic") really only makes them leaders to certain groups:

• The people who follow them because they grant them moral authority
• The news media that seeks those with big mouths when they need a "leader"
• The people who pick them out as a leader because they wish to bash Evangelicalism (they did have other choices after all)

He is right - as a movement we define ourselves by the Gospel - and not theological conformity; and not within a structure that requires bishops, liturgy, etc, but across denominational lines. It is the neo-Fundamentalists like Schaeffer that demanded, as the Moody article put it:

"secondary separation," — avoidance of other conservatives who associated with liberals.

Now, of course, he demands that the theological and/or political liberals within Evangelicalism engage in "secondary separation" from (at least) the political conservatives within the movement. Moving on:

. . . This is a departure from historical Christianity centered on a liturgical tradition that had to do with faith lived in community and beliefs defined by tradition,

Frank would be hard pressed to prove this contention from the life of the Apostolic 1st century church, or even the 2nd century church. Prior to the organization in the 2nd-3rd century of a structure of Bishops and the convening of whole church councils - the history of the church was indeed house-based churches focused on the Gospel with the evangelists traveling place to place attempting to keep the churches from devolving into splits based on non-Gospel liturgical and theological arguments. They were, as McKnight points out about the Evangelical movement now, focused on:

the Bible, the cross, conversion, and active Christian living.

Continuing with Frank:

Evangelicals reject all traditions and structures, other than their very own personalized interpretation of the Bible, so there is no there, there to appeal to. Evangelicals can't police themselves or call one of their own a nut . . . Each has a "personal relationship with Jesus." So maybe Jesus told that guy to put his pants on his head!

Of course, this is true to a large extent - encouraged by Jesus (he could only point to relationship with God) and then the Apostles - Paul particularly:

Romans 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But you who eat vegetables only – why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything – why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” 12 Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

and is a deep part of the traditions of the church until the 3rd and 4th centuries when theological and liturgical correctness began to overcome the simple message of grace and obedience to the Spirit and Word of God. Back to Frank:

Evangelicals get direct messages from God [Darn, how did I miss out?] . So who needs tradition, let alone government? [ooh, watch this little transition . . .] That is why Evangelicals are opposed to all structure. They hate government, and they hate the idea of bishops telling them what it means to be a Christian.. They hate the idea of health care for all [. . .church government to secular government . . . as if it just naturally follows] that might involve someone (other than voices in their heads [ooh, the Holy Spirit as schizophrenia]) telling them what to do. And they want the "right" to own guns [do you trust the U.S. government enough to let it remove your right (oh those silly courts) to own guns], raise kids on myths [. . . and decide what "myths" I get to raise my kids on] and own that SUV [. . . and government mandates on size of vehicles. Of course, this couldn't be enforced without limiting family size - ever crammed 6 people (or more) into an econo-box] and believe that more drilling for oil will bring down the price of gas [supply and demand - pffft].

Incidentally, I have never heard any of that preached in any church I attended; nor has Frank given any indication on how it follows from the four anchors of Evangelicalism. All he can do is point to the political positions of some folks who call themselves Evangelicals. Now, giving the government the right to direct whether I can own a gun, what myths I can teach my kids, what kind of vehicle is best to haul my family around in, etc. are ideas I hope do not appeal to "progressives" either -- especially since they are not very enamored right now to the motives of secular government; and that kind of government power has never worked out ANYWHERE. Frank goes back to church governance:

They also want God to speak directly to them, never mind a community of faith.

The idea of hearing God's voice, and will, in one's life is probably one of the dominating themes in scripture - and the idea that "communities of faith" lay burdens on their communities that God did not ask for or desire is a principle theme of the teachings of Christ and the rest of scripture. There is a reason the Catholic Church discouraged the reading of scripture by the laity for centuries. Frank:

. . . Look how big their churches are! They measure up to the only real Evangelical creed-the ability to make money and be successful in commercial terms.

First, in examining the (I suppose) unreal creeds [start here and here as examples] there is no mention of commercial success and the ability to make money. It hasn't occurred to Frank that the size of the churches is based on the lack of rigid liturgy and burdens placed on the community by the organizational structure of the church; and by attempting to "go and make disciples . . ." (again, that Christ guy talking). Of course, the next is a danger and can occur:

Evangelicalism is a series of personality cults masquerading as religion. (As I demonstrate in detail in my book CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All -- Or Almost All--Of It Back.)

By the way, notice that phrase - "the elect" - and remember McKnight's comment about the problems to Evangelicalism from the neo-Reformed (Calvinists) that are part of the movement: "the elect" is a Calvinist concept.

That's because Evangelicals say they believe in "sola scriptura" in other words the Bible only [actually there are four "solas"] . . . Each pastor and individual becomes their own pope.

Snark aside, that is correct: the earliest traditions of the church made it the responsibility of believers (not community) indwelt by the Spirit of God to read scripture guided by the Holy Spirit. Darn that "priesthood of the believer" stuff anyway -- and that whole darned reformation thingee. Then, another leap in logic . . .

That turns pastors into nothing but glorified entertainers, wherein the hottest ones pull the biggest congregations. Success-measured in attendance and dollars-becomes the metaphor for spiritual wisdom . . .

Notice that transition -- if you think it follows naturally from the "priesthood of the believer" to "glorified entertainers" . . .

The Historic Church by contrast never held the Bible up as a magic book that could solve all your problems but rather regarded the Bible as just one element of a liturgical tradition based on community, worship and participation.

I do not think the Apostolic church got this memo - I think it was written later by a church seeking to gain control of its membership. The 1st century church, and the Apostles, were very keen on the Word of God, both written and incarnate in the form of Christ, as a guide to action. Of course, the "magic book that could solve all your problems" line is just incendiary -- only some small splinter believed that now or then. Now comes his undisguised pitch for the post-Apostolic and pre-Reformation version of the church:

It never was about grandstanding entertainment, but about a liturgy that was the same wherever you went within Christendom; up until the church split in 1054, into Western and Eastern churches and then the later fracturing of the Reformation followed by the era of Protestant chaos and lastly American-style Evangelical every-man-for-himself insanity.

ooooh, the Protestant chaos. Darn them reformers once more. Now, Frank finally at least narrows the Evangelicals he is talking about (I think):

Since the Evangelical right wing movement cannot speak with a prophetic (let alone single) voice . . .

I know theologically liberal Christians, especially the politically liberal version, like this "speaking with a prophetic voice" language a lot - but Evangelicals don't use it much. That is primarily because Christ made it doubtful there would be any more real prophets - and being a prophet implied a person (not a community) with direct connection to God (not a "community of believers") hearing God's voice ("in their head") directly (not a church hierarchy). Only the "nutcases" among us claim that; and we do not largely trust that. For instance, Evangelicals are largely not charismatic - we do not believe in the "gifts of the spirit" such as speaking in tongues and prophecy.

The rest is pretty much just a politically motivated screed aimed at those Evangelicals who oppose Obama and support McCain - which is back to those two of those three forces tearing at the gospel-oriented core of Evangelicalism: folks on the political left and right who want to make the movement reflect their political ideology.

Read more!

Arrogance, Elitism, and Opiates for the Masses II

[Continued from Part I]

I left the Left (or at least activism) in the late 70's for one conscious reason: I came to believe the radical Left would NEVER reach the working class that they wished to organize. EVER. Barack Obama's San Francisco speech about workers in Pennsylvania clearly shows why: we just didn't get the "culture" - and our philosophical, sociological, and political explanations about why "they" [key word that] just couldn't see why we were right were just not right. We were indeed, as Spiro Agnew called us, "nattering nabobs of negativity" and "effete intellectual snobs".

I left the Left for some unconscious reasons as well. I - not by design - "immersed myself in the working class": I got married to a fellow activist with four children aged 9-12 and I had to pay attention to my family, my job, and my life. I would swing a hammer as a carpenter for the next 15 years until I got injured on the job.

As PastorDan pointed out in "Rural Voters, Values Voters, And The Bitterness Of The Elites":

Even setting those issues aside, working class people tend to be somewhat parochial. I don't mean that as a criticism: it's just that they're focused on what happens at the shop, or at church, or in the neighborhood. The town board is pushing a plan to build a park. They also have a reputation for being a good-old-boys club. Both issues are keeping our neighbors up at night: the friendly biker across the road is mulling a run for the board, which we're encouraging for no better reason than that we like him. He also hates the bar down the street as much as we do. That's a good thing. But the point is that the focus around here is definitely on around here.

It goes deeper yet in my mind: the family, the neighborhood, the shop, and the church are inherently conservative, and organic, structures. Organic in that they are not "organized" [except the shop - yet it can develop an organic culture] - they arise naturally out of human interaction. Conservative in a non-political sense that parallels the political sense spoken of by Russell Kirk:

1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality . . . cannot of itself satisfy human needs


2. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes . . . equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.


3. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked


4. Faith in prescription and distrust of "sophisters, calculators, and economists" . . . Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.


5. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a person must take Providence into his calculations, and a person's chief virtue . . . is prudence.

The shorter version: that family, tradition, land, and faith are the tap roots from which the vast majority of folks' in the world draw their strength and endurance - and not something they "cling to" [unless, of course, you think plants "cling to" their roots during draughts]: it is just part of what they are. As Rick Moran said - they are "embraced and welcomed into their lives". Even Moran, now an atheist, gets this:

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic – that’s me, alright. Despite the fact I have long since left the Church, God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost (changed to “Spirit” in my youth; so much for the immutability of the divine), organized religion, and the idea of the supernatural altogether, I am still a Catholic.

I think like a Catholic. My worldview has been shaped – though not dominated – by Catholicism. In this, the nuns, the priests, the brothers, and probably a monk or two have left their mark on my intellectual, social, and spiritual development. And I will thank them for it till my dying breath. There is great beauty to be found in the strands of logic and insightful, penetrating analysis of humanity by Catholic thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and other Catholic theologians and philosophers.

So, the Left in my day failed to touch the working class with their ideology because they could not step into and embrace their world - they could not stand in their shoes, or share their roots, long enough to show them the correct direction to walk in them [assuming, of course, we even actually knew the right direction].

When the Apostle Paul gave his famous speech on Mars Hill he understood that point: he did not start from a point of criticism but by understanding the roots of that audience and who they were:

So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.

Of course, political activism tends to run counter to a couple of important "beautiful attitudes" at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them."

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

There are some that it coincides with as well:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

That assumes that your politics are bringing true righteousness, justice and peace as God sees those terms.

True political activism also requires a servant's heart - the first will be last and the last will be first. If you want to lead, you must submit yourself to the needs of those you lead - and, of course, understand what those needs are. The Left has always thought that was economic - it isn't. That is why folks vote against their "economic interests".

However, I really have come to the threads of my current life: evangelical Christianity (and sales). Everything said above applies to that as well. Folks outside the Body of Christ have also put down their tap roots into sources of strength and endurance - and you simply cannot tell them the source of their strength is "wrong". You have to come into their world as Paul did above and lovingly serve them where they are: you have to be part of their community, job, traditions, etc. - and then show them by your fruit that your roots are planted in a better wellspring.

For the sales aspect, I will just leave you with this commercial from an automatic group:

Read more!

Weekly Faith Roundtable

[This has been crossposted from Street Prophets - where it was a joint contribution that was part of a weekly discussion of different faiths represented by folks who regularly post there]

This is the combined work of JCHFleetguy (Evangelical Christian), quarkstomper (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), and vesticular (Evangelical Christian). The final editing was done by JCHFleetguy.

Introduction

JCHFleetguy:

I think Evangelicals are one of the most diverse religious segments within Christianity - in certain ways. Within any given church that would consider itself part of this movement, what they believe and do is probably crystal clear - however there is huge diversity of doctrinal beliefs as a whole.

If you want to understand what I believe - ask me. If you want to understand Evangelicalism as a movement - study. I am hopefully going to give you the beginnings of that research project.

quarkstomper:

I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and I identify myself as a member of that church. In researching my answers to the questions, I found some points where I'm not exactly comfortable with my church's positions; but I believe in the doctrinal principles that led my church to arrive at those positions. Maybe that means I really belong in ELCA instead.

Nah. Lutherans are also stubborn.

vesticular:

It’s probably safe to say that most of the community, especially the long-time members, are familiar with Fleetguy’s beliefs, based on the sheer volume of conversation everyone has engaged in. To that I will add that I seldom find myself disagreeing with him on doctrinal positions.

It’s possible that I may lean more slightly toward affirming the five points of Calvinism, but I do so cautiously and with little certainty. Even that is based not on any extensive knowledge of the Scripture that the Arminians [JCHFleetguy: I would fall into the Arminian camp] and Calvinists have wrestled over—rather it is just based on my own subjective experiences. C.S. Lewis is my intellectual standard-bearer, so to speak, and he was not a Calvinist.

I know the previous paragraph probably bored everyone to tears, but I thought I’d piggyback on Uncle John to get the “What Doctrine I Hold” question out of the way if/until someone expresses more interest.

I. Where and when did we start?:

JCHFleetguy:

From "Defining Evangelicalism" [with a little structural revision]:

There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today as we enter the 21st-century.

1. to see as "evangelical" all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion:
   • conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
   • activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
   • Biblicism [a word I wouldn't use], a particular regard for the Bible;
   • crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross


2. to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. Within this context "evangelical" denotes a style as much as a set of beliefs. As a result, groups as disparate as black Baptists and Dutch Reformed Churches, Mennonites and Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics and Southern Baptists all come under the evangelical umbrella-demonstrating just how diverse the movement really is.



3. as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. Importantly, its core personalities (like Harold John Ockenga and Billy Graham), institutions (for instance, Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College), and organizations (such as the National Association of Evangelicals and Youth for Christ) have played a pivotal role in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion that extends beyond these "card-carrying" evangelicals.

For most non-Evangelicals reading this, it is the last group you consider to be "what Evangelicals are" - and more importantly, if you have a political orientation, it is probably more related to the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family (and their political arm - Family Research Council), or Sojourners, etc.

I would give some blended definition of #1 and #3. Number one is the closest to a theological definition of both Evangelicalism - and "theologically conservative" - and in my opinion is anchored right in the 1st century and pre-Nicene church. By that sense, we began at the Cross (or more accurately at Pentecost - which is when the followers of Christ was bathed in the spirit and became the Body of Christ).

Definition #3 really gives the only organizational anchor for Evangelicalism - and the only way to talk about its origins in any modern sense. From that: the split between the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists started in the mid-1900's - and exploded post-World War I. Evangelicalism really got going when the Scopes trial made Fundamentalists look foolish and they withdrew into the woodwork.

quarkstomper:

A 16th Century monk named Martin Luther was plagued by doubts about his own salvation and feelings of unworthiness before God. He found his answer in the writings of Paul, emphasizing salvation by Faith. But this doctrine was at odds with certain practices and teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably the selling of Indulgences. He criticized the Church, the Church pushed back and before you can say “excommunication” he was at the head of a theological revolt.

There had been other reform movements in the Middle Ages, most notably that of John Hus, but several factors helped Luther’s. For one thing, the invention of the printing press helped spread Luther’s ideas far beyond his native Saxony. For another, by Luther’s time German nationalism was beginning to take hold and the princes of the region had both the desire to gain some independence from Rome and the power to make it stick.

Other reformers arrived in Luther’s wake, some of whom Luther quarreled with as much as he quarreled with the Pope; and Christendom wasn’t reformed as much as it was shattered into dozens of different sects. In response, the Lutherans eventually compiled the Book of Concord, which set out the essential Lutheran teachings of doctrine.

Decades of bloody religious wars followed, resulting in a theological patchwork in which the official church of any given state, duchy or principality was determined by the religion of its ruler. It also resulted in the Enlightenment, which in many ways was a reaction against all religion.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod began, like many other groups, because some people were dissatisfied with the church in their home country and came to America to worship they way they wanted to. In this case, it was a group of German Lutherans in Saxony in the early 1800s that were unhappy with their state church. They felt that the church was becoming too influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and was bending towards non-Lutheran practices and teachings. So in 1847, a group of them came to America and settled in Perry County, Missouri. Under the leadership of C.F.W. Walther, they joined with other like-minded Lutherans to form “The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States” (later abbreviated to “Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod)

Many other American churches of the Nineteenth Century experienced a similar reaction against the Enlightenment and the series of documents known as The Fundamentals were written to express the core Christian beliefs they wanted to return to. The Lutherans already had their version of The Fundamentals : The Book of Concord .

The LCMS remained predominantly German until the First World War, when anti-German sentiment in America encouraged the church to switch to performing services in English. In the South Wisconsin District of the Synod, official business was still transacted in German as late as 1940.

In the mid-1970s the Synod underwent a crisis when Jacob Preus, the newly-elected Synod president, instituted a crackdown at its St. Louis seminary against teaching of “false doctrine”, specifically the historical-critical method of biblical scholarship and liberal theology. This resulted in a good chunk of the faculty and students walking out and establishing their own seminary: the “Concordia Seminary in Exile” or “Seminex”. Although Seminex lasted little more than a decade, the schism hardened the conservatism of an already conservative church and the more liberal theologians and pastors we lost eventually became a part of ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which was formed in 1988 from the mergers of the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. ELCA is now the largest Lutheran denomination in America. Not that we’re jealous. No, we’re not.

The commonality: the rejection of Enlightenment-inspired, antisupernaturalist biblical scholarship and the liberal theology that arose from it.


II. What are our basic tenets/dogma/creeds/etc?:

We all agree these things are central to both our beliefs and the beliefs of our churches:

• an orthodox Christology and emphasis on Christ's atoning work and bodily Resurrection;


• the belief that salvation is the result of God's grace through Christ rather than any human works;


• the authority and inspiration of Scripture, usually holding to the inerrancy of the original autographs [see "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"];


• an emphasis on biblical preaching and teaching; and


• an emphasis on evangelism and the importance of mission work.

quarkstomper:

• Lutherans confess the Triune God: the Father, Creator of all things; Jesus Christ the Son, who became human to walk among us, whose sufferings and death paid the ransom of sin for all people and whose resurrection opens the gate of life everlasting for all; and the Holy Spirit, who quickens faith in the hearts of people through God’s Word and the Sacraments.


• There are three core principles at the heart of Lutheran doctrine:
  
  
  • Sola Gratia - Grace Alone: The salvation and the blessings we receive from God are not due to any merit on our part but solely because of God’s undeserved love.
  
  
  • Sola Fide - Faith Alone: Christ did everything that was necessary to win our salvation. We don’t have to perform any additional actions to earn it. Faith in him is sufficient.
  
  
  • Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone: The Bible is God’s Word in which he reveals his Law and the Gospel of Salvation. It is the sole source of Christian teaching.
  
  
  • Oh yeah, we talk about that Luther guy a lot, but we emphasize those teachings of his that have grounding in the Scriptures.


• The central teachings of the Lutheran Church can be found in the Book of Concord, a compilation of creeds and doctrinal statements compiled shortly after Luther’s death to try to unify the various branches of Lutheranism. These are:
  
  
  • The Three Ecumenical Creeds: The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed
  
  
  • The Augsburg Confession and the Apology to (Defense of) the Augsburg Confession: intended to clarify the points of agreement between the Lutherans and the Catholic Church and to justify the points of disagreement
  
  
  • Luther’s Large and Small Catechism: Luther’s explanations of the core elements of Christian teaching: The Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostle’s Creed and the Sacraments. The Small Catechism is used to instruct the young in Lutheran teachings; the Large Catechism is an expanded version.
  
  
  • The Smalcald Articles: a document Luther wrote delineating Lutheran teachings for an ecumenical council of other Protestant groups
  
  
  • Treatise on the Power and the Primacy of the Pope: Because it just wouldn’t be Lutheran if we didn’t diss the Pope somewhere.
  
  
  • The Formulas of Concord: Restates and ties it all together.

JCHFleetguy:

• First, from quarkstomper's list
  
  
  • Trinity: check
  
  
  • The Solas: check . . . with a caveat. There is a division, reflected in this belief of my church

    We believe that some gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues and miraculous healings were temporary. We believe that speaking in tongues was never the common or necessary sign of the baptism nor of the filling of the Spirit, and that the deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection (Acts 4:8, 31; Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:8).

    on the ministry of the Holy Spirit that relates directly to "Scripture Alone". As my previous pastor pointed out, this standing away from the charismatic gifts of the spirit has led some to step away from the Spirit's ministry to the Body of Christ when it comes to scripture and revelation. I would re-word this:

    Scripture, as led by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, as checked against scripture.

    I am not sure even most Evangelicals would trust that phrasing.
  
  
  
  • Everything else, even the Creeds: not really. Not to say we do not believe in the content of the creeds - we just do not profess them.


• The other two Solas of the Reformation:
  
  
  • Sola Christus - Christ alone: Our sole mediator and intercessor before God.
  
  
  • Soli Deo gloria - to God alone the glory.


• an emphasis on the conversion experience, typically referred to as being "born again" or experiencing a "new birth". Both vesticular and myself know the dates of our "spiritual birthdays": his is May 11th , 2004 (he hadn't thought of it in those terms until I asked) and mine is today - April 9th, 1995



• So, what does a creedal statement look like for Evangelicalism of the third sort. So, my church's "short version":
  
  
  • Trinity: yep
  
  
  • Bible: inerrant
  
  
  • Man: By man, we mean male and female. Man is created in the image of God, which means that ALL persons have value. We were created innocent, but we have all sinned in Adam when he sinned at the Fall in the Garden of Eden. As such, we are naturally separated from God and need to be redeemed.
  
  
  • Salvation: Salvation is a free gift of God, offered by grace through the death of his only Son, Jesus Christ. Because man is fallen, we are unable to obtain salvation by our own merit. We believe that God first calls us to Himself, enabling us to respond in faith to Him. Our faith is in the risen Christ, who now lives in heaven with the Father.
  
  and the full expression. Note that the doctrinal statements reference no creeds - ancient or otherwise - and are intentionally rooted in scripture for their support.

III. Our view on other religions and on alternative viewpoints internal to Christianity:

The commonality is, that within Christianity itself, the Catholic Church still is the doctrinal opposite of conservative Protestant theology. That is interesting, since the Catholic church is equally conservative doctrinally - if not even more conservative. The short list of those differences:

• Hierarchal leadership - we have mostly congregational polities


• Position of the Pope


• Position of saints and Mary


• The usefulness of intercessors other than Christ


• Indeed, any of the five Solas are aimed at the Catholic Church

Outside of Christianity, Sola Christus - Christ alone - is a tough nut to crack. We all think he is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. C.S. Lewis softened this

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

as have the Catholics - a doctrine I can also follow - but we are thinking that, whoever Christ chooses to let into Heaven, He will indeed act as gatekeeper for everyone. However, we cannot in good conscience affirm to someone that their "alternate road to God" is going to bring them to a position of being "saved through Christ". We know what has been revealed to us as a sure way - everybody else is taking their chances. Oh, and we all believe both Heaven and Hell exist.

Quarkstomper:

They’re wrong and we’re right. That isn’t very helpful, is it.

We recognize other denominations that confess the Trinitarian Creeds as fellow Christians, although we may differ in other points of doctrine. Some of these points are:

• Baptism: Like other Lutheran churches, the LCMS follows the traditional practice of infant baptism. We cite a few proof passages from Scripture to justify this, but I think the real reason ties into our view of Justification. Faith is kindled by the Holy Spirit and is not dependent upon anything that we ourselves do; therefore it is not necessary for a person to make a conscious Decision for Jesus before he can experience the benefits of the Holy Spirit.
  
  Or maybe we kept the practice because the Catholic Church accused Luther of being a heretical Anabaptist and Luther said “No, I’m not!”



• The Lord’s Supper: We practice what is called Close Communion; (sometimes referred to as “Closed Communion”); meaning that we limit the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to those who share the same beliefs about it that we do. Which excludes practically everybody. But Lutheran understanding of Holy Communion differs from both Roman Catholic Doctrine and most mainline Protestant denominations. Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Sacrament are actually transformed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and the view that the Sacrament actually re-enacts Christ’s sacrifice on the cross; he also rejected the view of Zwingli and the Swiss reformers that the bread and the wine of Communion only symbolize the Body and Blood. Luther taught that “Bread is bread”, but that the communicant also receives the True Body and Blood “in, with, and under” the physical bread and wine of the Sacrament.
  
  LCMS goes further and excludes from Communion even other Lutheran churches if they do not follow our strict view of Close Communion. That’s the official policy, but I’ve never been in a church where visitors were required to state their views of the Sacrament before they were permitted to come to the altar. In every church I’ve been in, if a person comes to the Lord’s Table desiring the Sacrament, he gets it.



• Justification by Faith: Justification by Faith is a biggie. Not too long ago, the Catholic Church and several Lutheran Churches signed a joint statement of agreement on the subject of Justification that was hailed as some as a breakthrough between the two churches. The LCMS refused to sign the statement, on the grounds that the document never actually defined what the Catholics mean by Justification, therefore the agreement is meaningless. (And if you ask, no, I can’t give a good definition of Justification either).
  
  What it comes down to is that Salvation is not something we earn by saying enough Hail Mary’s or by Deciding to Let Christ into Our Life; rather it is a gift, freely given by God without any merit or worthiness on our part. This was important to Luther because he was acutely aware of his own unworthiness and struggled long and hard with feelings of guilt and despair.
  
  Our emphasis on Grace, that is, Undeserved Love, makes us suspicious of anything that smells like “Works Righteousness”, the doctrine that we have to do something before we can achieve Salvation. (Once in college I went ‘round and ‘round with an earnest Born Again on this issue; he kept talking about Letting Jesus into One’s Heart and my Lutheran instincts kept saying “Works Righteousness!”)



• Doctrinal conformity: The LCMS has a high regard for conformity. The word “synod” means “walking together” and the whole purpose of the Formula of Concord was to be a formal statement of what we all agree on; so it’s generally assumed that within our church body everybody’s going to be on the same page, doctrinally speaking. The church holds the power to excommunicate members who stray from orthodoxy, but stresses that this should be a rare action used as a last resort. And if a person differs with the church teaching that much, he generally quits on his own.
  
  The Synod insists that its pastors, and the teaching staff of its seminaries, subscribe to the church’s doctrines. (This insistence, as I mentioned, is what led to the Seminex split). Things are a little more relaxed at the parish level. We have a congregational rather than an episcopal structure, meaning that local churches are run by the congregations themselves rather than by a hierarchy of bishops. This isn’t a doctrinal thing; it’s just The Way We’ve Always Done It. The pastor is not the ruler of the congregation, but an employee hired to preach and perform other pastoral duties. To a certain extent this dilutes the Synod’s power to enforce Doctrinal Purity on its members, relying instead on deference to the pastor on matters spiritual and the inertia of tradition.
  
  I was once a member of a church whose pastor supported the idea of women in the clergy, contrary to official LCMS position. He retired about the same time as we joined, so I don’t know how outspoken he was on this subject or if he ever got into trouble because of it. That congregation was a fairly liberal one, for an LCMS church, so that might have had something to do with it.

JCHFleetguy:

Outside the general things above, there is not much more for me to say. There are some disagreements in this section between myself and Quarkstomper. I understand the idea that the Holy Spirit can inhabit who He wills to inhabit regardless of our decision, but infant baptism just doesn't cut it for my herd of ilk. Even then, that is a parental decision/action or a church decision/action - especially since there is no sign of a changed life in an infant. That idea of that the moment of rebirth will be an inward change that brings outward change is too central to us. Indeed, the conversion story, or testimony, where one shows the way they have changed in Christ are foundational. We have commitment ceremonies where the parents commit to raising their children in a Godly way. We do not see the "decision for Christ" as our action:

We believe that God first calls us to Himself, enabling us to respond in faith to Him.

Indeed, no sacrament imbues life - none is a "means of grace":

no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation,

Communion as well is simply, as Christ said, something we do in remembrance of Him until He comes again

IV. A few general social or political issues considered important by us and why?:

To deal with the social conservative hot buttons, all of our churches are pro-life. None of our churches would marry a gay couple; and we believe homosexuality is a sin. From our general practice at Street Prophets, it is clear that we all agree with this statement:

We should always approach judgment and/or condemnation of people based on scripture with "fear and trembling" - or better yet just leave this job to God. We think the wisest thing for Christians to do about homosexuality is to love the sinner; and hate the sin - but keep their mouth shut about the second part in most cases.

and this from C.S. Lewis:

The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

None of us are opposed to at least some form of state recognition of some kind of gay marriage and/or civil union, and we do not think the way to end abortion is by making it illegal. Our churchs of attendance do not take positions on what secular society should do on those issues; and, most likely, if they did would not agree with us as individuals.

quarkstomper:

When the LCMS was first formed, it declined to support the Abolitionists on the issue of Slavery because the Bible did not give a clear command, pro or con, on the matter. (Those of us who compare Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision might want to keep that in mind). Generally speaking, the LCMS does not make official doctrinal statements about political issues.

Most Lutheran Churches, especially in the LCMS, are Pro-Life. The LCMS’s official position condemns abortion, but recognizes that there are cases where it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Official policy permits forms of birth control that do not prevent the implantation of fertilized ova, (IUDs are recognized as a grey area), but prefers they be used by married couples who are already “fruitful” and admonishes against using birth control as an excuse for indiscriminate sex.

On the subject of war, the LCMS subscribes to the Just War Doctrine established by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Although a lot of us are politically conservative and have backed the Bush war, the LCMS has no official position as to whether the Iraq Invasion and Occupation meets the criteria for a Just War.

The LCMS officially endorses Creationism, which is not surprising given our emphasis on the infallibility of Scripture; but does not require acceptance of Creationism as a requirement for membership.

Like many other churches, the LCMS puts a lot of emphasis on social ministry like schools, counseling programs, and poverty and disaster relief, often working with other Lutheran churches. This isn’t preached from the pulpit, though, as much as it is performed through auxiliary organizations such as the LWML, the Lutheran Layman’s League and Lutheran World Relief.

JCHFleetguy:

From "Defining Evangelicals":

During most of the 20th-century, American evangelicalism as a movement was generally reticent about politics because its sights were focused on what seemed more important tasks: evangelism, missions, and nurturing the faithful. All that seemed to change, however, in the 1970s when evangelicals "re-entered" the national spotlight with the rise of Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, a devout Southern Baptist layman who unabashedly claimed to be "born again." But the most visible aspect of this new political sensibility was the appearance of right-wing organizations like the Moral Majority and Concerned Women for America. This new "Religious Right" was credited with playing a major role in the "Reagan Revolution" of 1980 (and the ironic ouster of the evangelical President Carter, for the much-less obviously pious Reagan). In retrospect, it now seems clear that the part these organizations played in this outcome was not as great as either the news media or conservative evangelicals once believed. Unarguably, however, there was a new evangelical interest in political participation, which subsequently gave birth to a new generation of "Religious Right" organizations, such as the Christian Coalition.

The reasons for this resurgence are many, including: a natural desire to have a positive impact on culture and society (a subtle indication, perhaps, of the decline of some types of evangelical prophetic interpretations that emphasized an imminent Second Coming); concern over abortion and changing sexual mores in society; and dissatisfaction with the content, direction and power of the mass media and popular culture. However, what seems to have been the single overarching factor has been the post-WWII expansion of the Federal Government into areas and responsibilities that were previously the domain of the state and local government, the individual, the family, and the church. Yet, it must be made clear that there is no monolithic consensus among evangelicals on politics, any more than there is on theological matters. While the movement is conservative in many regards, there are many evangelicals who would identify their political orientation as liberal and some, like the Sojourners community in Washington D.C., which are leftist in nature. In terms of party affiliation, the movement has been traditionally perceived as Republican. This impression, however, reflects a bias that centers on the Northern, midwestern evangelicals of the NAE "card-carrying" variety. When the huge numbers of Southern white and black evangelicals are factored in, it is probably more accurate to say that in the years before 1970 the "average" evangelical was more likely to be a Democrat. With the defection of large numbers of white Southerners to the Republicans in recent decades, the political make-up of evangelicalism has changed. Today the overall political tenor of the movement could be described as moderately conservative and predominantly Republican

Lately, of course, committees organized by the National Association of Evangelicals have been involved in environmental work and come out strongly against the use of torture by the US government. Also, it seems to be theologically conservative Christians in the forefront of the efforts to end the genocide in Darfur; and the international trafficking in slaves - the vast majority of which are children and women pressed into sexual bondage. Willow Creek Association and folks affiliated with Rick Warren have been very active recently in working on the AIDS epidemic and poverty in Africa.

My own churches have had strong social ministries: missions, the poor, community service, etc. My last church continues sending work crews, and providing money, to the Katrina area. They have not been political from the pulpit; and there has been the availability of politically-conservative voters' guides in the lobby. The churches have not been involved in anti-abortion demonstrations (although I know members probably are); and the church has supported positive organizations like Pregnancy Resource Centers.

V. What do you most like and most want to change?

Quarkstomper:

Most of all, I like the music. Unlike some of the Swiss reformers who felt that music in the church distracted from the Word of God, Luther loved music and considered it, along with flinging inkpots and the occasional fart, to be the best way to drive out the Devil. Luther left us a singing church and we are richer for it. (Oh, and J.S. Bach had a bit to do with it too).

As for what I’d change, I think I’d most like to moderate our knee-jerk antipathy towards ecumenicalism. I don’t think we should ignore the doctrinal differences we have with other denominations, but at the same time neither should we forget what we have in common, nor should we avoid opportunities to join with our fellow Christians from other parts of the Body of Christ.

I also wish we could be more flexible on gender issues. This is largely why my wife doesn’t go to church anymore. On the whole, I think our emphasis on the Bible as the true and faithful Word of God is one of our strengths, but our strict interpretation of certain verses about the role of women and about homosexuality clash with the greater message of the Gospel. I don’t know how this contradiction can be reconciled, but I want to believe it must be possible.

JCHFleetguy:

The big one is epitomized by this quote from A.W. Tozer from The Pursuit of God:

Current evangelicalism has (to change the figure) laid the altar and divided the sacrifice into parts, but now seems satisfied to count the stones and rearrange the pieces with never a care that there is not a sign of fire upon the top of lofty Carmel. [See 1 Kings 18 for the allusions.-ccp] But God be thanked that there are a few who care. They are those who, while they love the altar and delight in the sacrifice, are yet unable to reconcile themselves to the continued absence of fire. They desire God above all. They are athirst to taste for themselves the `piercing sweetness' of the love of Christ about Whom all the holy prophets did write and the psalmists did sing.
There is today no lack of Bible teachers to set forth correctly the principles of the doctrines of Christ, but too many of these seem satisfied to teach the fundamentals of the faith year after year, strangely unaware that there is in their ministry no manifest Presence, nor anything unusual in their personal lives.

All the little ones flow from there.

Read more!

Touring the Net

Here is my (sorta) weekly tour of the internet - and some things that struck me as interesting:

Christian Carnival CCXVII (217) is up (or soon will be) on the other side of the Cascade range from me in eastern Oregon at Diary of 1. The three that caught my attention this week:

1. "Can an Atheist be a good Person". Starving Econ Student researched what atheists mean by "good" in that question, found a couple of examples

   I googled around and saw two atheist answers:

   1. A person who does more good deeds than bad deeds
   2. A person who has empathy and compassion towards others.

   and then he addressed those well.



2. Translation does some funny things. "Do You Love Jesus?" - well there are some different words for "love" in scripture; and Chad examines the use of two of them in the same passage of scripture:

   John 21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. -- NET

   Read the notes to the NET Bible text - those translators disagree - but I am not sure what I think. How about you?



3. David at Boomer in the Pew talks about "Growing Up as a Disciple of Jesus Christ":

   Here was our opening question:
   
   Are you a sinner working on your salvation or are you a child of God (a disciple of Jesus) working on your sin? Talk amongst yourselves!

   and goes on to talk about the concepts of justification, sanctification, and glorification based on passages from Romans and 1 Corinthians

At Stand to Reason:

• As an apologist, I get to deal with the "shellfish" and "mixed fabric" questions with regularity. Here is a great answer to "Why Is It Okay to Wear Mixed Fibers?":

  To believe the Old Testament Law literally is to believe that this was the covenant God made with the ancient nation of Israel--a set of instructions for running their nation. To believe the New Testament literally along with the Old is to believe that when we were joined to Christ, we died with Him and were raised with Him, causing us to be released from the Law.

• Melinda points to a new book Why We're Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) :

  They explain why objective, propositional Truth (not just lower-case t truth) can be taught and preached and still communicate with Gen-Xers. Both speak from their practical ministry experience.

Last week I pointed to Scot McKnight's multi-part review of The Case for Civility by Os Guinness. This week had:

• "Civility 4" which

  could be called a “civil screed” against the Religious Right. It is not too harsh; it never falls for the uncivil, but the chp univocally calls the RR to the bar for a civil warning.

• and "Civility 5":

  If Os Guinness, in his attempt to call the nation to public civility, can call the Religious Right to task for its rhetoric, he can do the same to the Left . . . “We are closer,” Guinness states, “to the wild atheism of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, back to barnyard debating, with ungrounded assertions, irresponsible accusations, ad hominem arguments, and reasoning that repeatedly slumps into ranting”

Sarah at Intellectuelle in their "Apologetics 101" series talks about "Faith vs. Values?:

It's unfortunate that he has come to think of the Bible this way--as merely a handbook for morality. Do unto others should not be approached independently of no one comes to the Father except through me. But is he all that different from many Christians who regard the moral propositions of Scripture above the saving power of the gospel. Perhaps we could helpfully understand the gospel call as one of many moral appeals, yet is the one that lacks political correctness.

It is also the one theologically conservative Christians can ignore as they preach morality to non-Christians instead of bringing people to salvation in Christ.

Joe Carter's "Thirty-three Things (v.55)" series always has interesting stuff. Some highlights this week:

• "Designed for Sex", by J. Budziszewski:

  I said that we’re not designed for hooking up, that we’re designed for our bodies and hearts to work together. We human beings really do have a design, and I mean that literally—not just a biological design, but an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual design. The human design is the meaning of the ancient expression “human nature.” . . .

• An attack ad on Thomas Jefferson by the "Re-elect John Adams Committee":
  

• D.A. Carson, as quoted by Mark Driscoll in The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World:

  Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.
  
  To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

Jan at The View From Her is one of my favorite bloggers. She is an Evangelical woman who simply writes about some neat things. This week, besides saying nice things about McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy - she adds something to the complementarian vs. egalitarian discussion of men and women's roles in the Body of Christ. She reviews Saving Women From the Church: How Jesus Mends a Divide where she picks the story of the Samaritan woman at the well out to discuss.

WorldMagBlog had some interesting stuff:

• First, they have carved out a respectful community of differing opinions - and so their voting on the community's favorite movies is interesting. They have both top 5 category rankings and a top 25 overall. The top five overall:

  1. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
  2. The Princess Bride
  3. The Sound of Music
  4. Indiana Jones films
  5. The Incredibles

• "Pronounced dead, man takes ‘miraculous’ turn":

  Just before Thanksgiving, the 21-year-old was pronounced brain-dead following an ATV accident. As family members gathered to say good-bye before his organs were harvested, Dunlap’s grandmother, Naomi, began praying for “a miracle”–and that’s just what she got.

Jeremy Pierce at Parableman:

• pointed to a piece written by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly:

  for now I just want to make one comment: the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates really did seem to be making a few too many racially charged comments for it to be just a coincidence (though even then some of the accusations were bogus), but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped.
  
  But the accusations of racism haven't. They've just gotten more ridiculous.

• and deepened the discussion about "Racism Charges and the Clinton Campaign" as well:

  I had to take interest in the first two comments [to Kevin's piece] mentioning Geraldine Ferraro, who didn't come up in the post. What interested me most about their appearance is the assumption that that's a genuine case of racism that they must be taking to undermine his whole argument. First of all, if it's genuine racism that doesn't undermine his argument. His point is that many of the accusations of racism are going way too far. One case that is racism doesn't undermine that claim.
  
  Second, I don't think it's fair to describe that as racist.

Enjoy

Read more!

Prophecy and Literalism

I have often been confused by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists being accused of being "literalist'. I do not read that, see that, or get that from my ilk.

I have to thank Frank Cocozzelli for leading me to a possible answer and understanding of this brain cramp: prophecy in scripture. Frank's "Michael, Michael, Michael--Please Stop!" continued on his theme of the unenlightened, dispensationalist, literalist religious right vs. the Enlighted and reasoned Christianity elsewhere. I think that is actually bad analysis - but that is not what this is about.

Dispensationalism is the idea that God's history with humanity can be broken into different periods, or dispensations, which are both progressive and over-lapping:

• the dispensation of innocence (Gen 1:1–3:7), prior to Adam's fall,
• of conscience (Gen 3:8–8:22), Adam to Noah,
• of government (Gen 9:1–11:32), Noah to Abraham,
• of patriarchal rule (Gen 12:1–Exod 19:25), Abraham to Moses,
• of the Mosaic Law (Exod 20:1–Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ,
• of grace (Acts 2:4–Rev 20:3), the current church age, and
• of a literal, earthly 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom that has yet to come but soon will (Rev 20:4–20:6).

Another view listed in the Wiki article:

• the dispensation or age of Gentile Nations (Gen 1-11)[9], from Adam to Abraham’s Call;
• of Israel (Gen 12 – Acts 1), from Abraham’s Call to Pentecost in Acts 2;
• of The Church (Acts 2 – Rev. 2), from Pentecost in Acts 2 to the end of The Church Age;
• of The (missionary) Tribulation of Israel (Rev. 6-19), a yet-future Seven-year period;
• of a literal, earthly 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom (Rev 20:4–6) with a rebuilt temple and reinstituted animal sacrifices and O.T. rituals (Eze 40-48) that has yet to come but soon will.

Now, dispensationalism was a counter, in part, to

supersessionism, which teaches that the Christian Church has replaced the Jewish people as "God's People", and that there is only one people of God, joined in unity through Jesus Christ. It is maintained that, since the Jewish people have largely refused to accept Jesus as Christ, "the Messiah of Israel", and since He is their only means of salvation, those individual Jews that reject Him also reject his atoning sacrifice for sins, and have, in effect, rejected the only provision that God has offered for divine forgiveness. Consistent with this viewpoint, which is held by Amillennialists and the Catholic Church, they are no longer considered as the true Israel. Christians have, in effect, become the "New Israel". This teaching is also often referred to as "replacement theology", in that, according to this theology, the Church from its very inception has replaced the Jewish people as God's "chosen people" and "holy nation", now and forever.

Dispensationalism, in opposition to this

teaches that the Christian Church is a "parenthesis", that is, an interruption in God’s divine dealings with the Jewish people, when the Gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles, but that God’s continued care for the Jewish people will be revealed after the end of the Church Age (or Dispensation), when Israel will be restored to their land, and then they will accept Jesus as their Messiah, as is recorded in Zechariah 12:8-10 . . . Hence, dispensationalists typically believe in a Jewish restoration.

I do not know where I stand in the Covenant/replacement theology vs dispensationalist theology argument. I know a few things:

• dispensationalism explains why God's relationship with the human race has changed over the years
• it explains why it is stupid to ask me about shellfish, blended fabric, and stoning my daughter for disobediance
• it explains PD's error about Huckabee and Acts of God - that God acted through nature in the Old Testament doesnt mean he will do so in this particular Age or dispensation
• however, I do not believe that once Christ returns that animal sacrifices for atonement will continue at a rebuilt temple
• I think the church is more than a parenthesis in the history of God's relationship with Isreal
• and there are some other major issues

I took that side trip into describing dispensationalism because it is little understood - even by me - and misrepresented often.

What this post is really about is this paragraph from the Wiki article:

Dispensationalism hinges on three core tenets:

1. The Bible is to be taken literally. This is explained by John F. Walvoord, who, in his book, "Prophecy in the New Millennium" provides this explanation:

   "History answers the most important question in prophetic interpretation, that is, whether prophecy is to be interpreted literally, by giving five hundred examples of precise literal fulfillments. The commonly held belief that prophecy is not literal and should be interpreted nonliterally has no basis in scriptural revelation. Undoubtedly, a nonliteral viewpoint is one of the major causes of confusion in prophetic interpretation. Some prophecies that are in figurative language have to be interpreted, such as some in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation. But in many cases, the meaning is clearly understood and seldom is the symbol left unexplained in the Bible. A solid record emerges of fulfillment of prophecy in the past and an anticipation that each prophecy will have that same literal fulfillment in the future."

Even the Wiki author misses the point - Walvood doesn't say the Bible is to be taken literally. He says that Biblical prophecy is to be taken literally.

With that I tend to agree and would consider myself a literalist when it comes to Biblical prophecy:

• Whether prophecies in scripture were fulfilled or definitely not fulfilled was a major question in the canonization of scripture - a prophecy could have not happened yet but if it should have happened, and it didn't, then it wasn't inspired: Pat Robertson need not apply
• Many OT prophecies were seen in new light with their fulfillment by Christ
• there is no reason to suppose that prophecies which were definitely placed in the future which have not occurred will not occur
• As with those related to the advent, that fulfillment may make us see them in a new light

So, if you want to accuse my ilk of being literalist about prophecy - I cannot bitch.

Read more!