Church Voices

People like this make me really not want to be Christian.  Or at least not be associated with Christians. 

Ingrid has an idiotic hermeneutic, but worse yet she’s an extremely nasty person.

BTW, there another post in which says:

[Mark Driscoll claims] Seattle is the darkest place in the country to minister and tries to prove it by making the ridiculous claim that there are more dogs in Seattle than Christians (something that is even common to Wheaton, IL).

Which is only possible to write with a straight face if you re-define Christian as “people who agree completely with Ingrid’s and Steve-o’s retardedness”. Or import a 1/2 million dogs into Wheaton Illinois.

I’ll let you decide which one is going on here.

This is taken from a (non-instrumental) Church of Christ speaker who dropped the hammer on those of us who use instruments. This was written in 1939.

There is but one pathway to unity among God’s people; there is but one rule that can make us one in Christ Jesus; only one way that can bring salvation to the world. All must exalt the supremacy of the word of God and keep opinions private; no one should propagate his opinions in “the areas of silence,” but acknowledge the leadership of Christ and love each other as brethren in order to enjoy Christian unity.

Yow. There’s all kinds of wrong there. But for those of you who weren’t paying attention that translates to “shut the crap up and believe what I believe”. You can see why the Restoration Movement split.

So why did I bring this up? As a reminder that how a theological dispute is handled is just as much theology as what theology is held.

I. We ought to gain all we can gain but this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor at the expense of our health.

II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea.

III. Having, First, gained all you can, and, Secondly saved all you can, Then “give all you can.”

Points made by some upstart preacher that will probably never amount to anything.

In my last post there was a comment left by Ariah Fine which posed the question:

My problem is you seem to have relegated “Racial issues, Gender issues, and economic Justice” to the realm of politics. Those things are clearly Justice issues. Biblical Issues. Christian issues.

So what is the church doing about that?

What is your church doing about racism? Sexism? domestic abuse? red lining? oppression? sweatshops?

The very simple answer is spreading the gospel.

And another question. When has an activist oriented church ever grown, thrived or made a difference in a big, sustained way? Cause I can’t think of one right now, and all the demographics point to “churches” engaged in these activities as declining in a big way.

Its been proposed, from a blog I enjoy very much, that it can be useful when looking at a thorny issue or situation to ask the question “if I spent three years with Jesus what would I think about this”?

Can this question ever bring clarity? I suppose if someone is acting in a way they know is contrary to the teachings of Christ it could be useful. However, if there is truly a dilemma this question will only re-inforce whatever view was held before. It would only be by going back and re-examining the life of Christ, which in turn would involve turning to scripture (which is what this question was meant to bring clarity to in the first place), that any shift in perception would occur.

I’ve come to a conlusion about most any and every (but not all) arguments about the necessity of baptism. People get personally offended when somebody says that baptism is essential to salvation.

Now faith is a personal thing. And we all have our passions (even in faith). But if somebody were to say to me that repentence is not necessary to salvation, I wouldn’t be personally offended by that. I would try and show them the truth, but my feelings aren’t going to be hurt by it.

And yet, people get personally offended by statements that adult immersion is essential to salvation.

What is it about baptism that is so offensive?

I’ve just started to think on this question, and I would appreciate your views on it. But here are some raw thoughts.

Pride. Like Naaman and his leprosy (look up 2 Kings 5), we are to0 proud to physically, emotionally, and spiritually submit to God and His Word. We are willing to DO whatever it takes to be saved, but when we are told to go and wash in the water to let God heal us, we are too good for that. Despite an overfocus on “faith only” we still want to say “I’m good enough.” Or we want to think that we are right. I’ve believed something my whole life, it can’t be wrong.

Pride. Baptism isn’t a work or a good work (setting aside for the moment the argument that the works that don’t save that are referred to in Scripture are in reference to the Law) it is an act of submission. (Btw, obedience to the Law was always an act of submission, but not all acts of submission are a part of the law.) Submission is one of the hardest things for us as americans to grasp onto. We do not live in a culture of submission. In fact, we as Christians look at examples of other Christians in other parts of the world submitting to God’s word, or even submitting to their earthly masters as extreme and something we would never be able to do. Somehow we have equated submission to loss of life (emotional, mental, relational, and sometimes physical) when ironically Scripture tells us that the only way to gain life is by submitting to God. What God is asking of us goes against everything we think we should do.

That’s all I have so far, but let me leave you with this. Baptism is such a deep, intertwined, connecting event in the life of every believer that we can’t just let it go and we can’t ignore it. It is the beginning of life, obedience, relationship, wisdom, understanding, hope, and literal spiritual connection with the creator.

“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” - Romans 6:3-4

I’ve made no secret that I think Mark Driscoll has reached ninja level in the pantheon of coolness. But this latest writing makes me consider adding a level of coolness above ninja. I just can’t think of what that might be. From the story:

On one side is Prosperity Theology which essentially says that if you are a holy person with enough faith you will drive an Escalade with rims in Jesus’ name. But what appears to be even more popular among younger missionally minded Christians is an overreaction to Prosperity Theology, called Poverty Theology, where if you really love Jesus you will live very minimally because, like Bono, you believe that Jesus loves the poor, likely more than the rich.

The problem with both Prosperity Theology and Poverty Theology is that they are both half right and both half wrong. What they share is that they are both wrong to make money the issue. The real issue is not money, but righteousness. Therefore, there are not two kinds of people—rich and poor—but rather four kinds of people as categorized here:

I’ve long been lobbing rhetorical hand grenades at people like Rod Parsley and other health and wealthers. Unfortunately I find myself caught in the crossfire from those who equate poorness with holiness, and wealth with sin.

I think this focus on money may be a bit misguided. While there are a great many physical concerns that the church should be meeting, there’s (especially in the US) a greater spiritual concern that gets overlooked. Jesus also spent a good bit of his time including those who were excluded (ie women, Samaritans, children etc). Paul, in Ephesians 3 talks about the ultimate inclusion of the gentiles into the covenant from which they were defined as excluded.

So, who in our society is excluded? Who is the untouchable “other” that is held up as the anti-example of what not to be? Because, if we’re perfectly honest, the concept of helping the poor is as entrenched in our society as possible both inside and outside the church. Helping the poor is no more revolutionary or admirable as helping our relatives or friends (after all, even the pagans do that). So who would it be revolutionary to minister to?

How about child molestors? Would ministering to the Catholic priests found guilty of this crime scandalize all the right people? Or the guy who kicked off all of the Megan’s Laws with his heinous crime?

Or corporate criminals. Enron’s Ken Lay jumps to mind. But there have been others who have deliberately cooked the books and ripped off a lot of people.

Or your garden variety racists? There was a guy who lived about 30 minutes from my hometown who was a grand wizard in the KKK and had a huge confederate flag on his barn. WWJD?

Slopping some soup into a bowl and handing it to a homeless person is almost expected come Christmas time. Its so mainstream that you get tax deductions from the government for giving to organizations that help the poor. Now, many high schools require some sort of community service before graduation. While helping the poor is, and will continue to be a part of what the church does, it by no means isn’t all the church should be doing, and, in western cultures anyway, isn’t the revolutionary type of love that Jesus demonstrated.

The term fanboy is a slightly derisive term that is used when someone has become such a huge proponent (or fan) of someone or something that they are blind to the faults and shortcomings of that someone or something. Usually its used in reference to an element of pop-culture. For example, someone who describes Star Wars: The Phantom Menace as anything other than a “large pile of crap” would be a Star Wars fanboy. Well it seems that Brian McLaren has gotten his own fanboys with this latest dust up. Jim Nicholson of the BHT writes:

What I’m saying - and what I think Mclaren is saying, perhaps behind some posturing - is that we need to shut the hell up about “homosexuality” and start showing the same Christ-like compassion for homosexuals that we do with most other forms of sin. We need to drop the conspiracy model and start viewing those who are gay or lesbian as our neighbors.

That position sounds fairly reasonable. The problem is, that isn’t what McLaren wrote. What McLaren wrote was:

Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.”

and

If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

McLaren is being fairly straightforward here. He believes that on the issue of homosexuality scripture is unclear to the point where an agnostic position on the issue is a reasonable one. Which is a very different position from the one Nicholson outlines.

I just completely ignore emergents and thier churches now. I used to pay attention. Until I realized that emergents were either not interested in conforming to scripture or were really nothing new (and most fall into the second category). For a prime example of the first go here.

Earlier I posted a bit from William Lane Craig about how postmodernism is just the re-packaging of modernism. I’ve had doubts about that assessment. But this quote from McLaren has pretty much pushed me completely over into the Craig camp.

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements [about homosexuality]. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields.

Ah, so in order to know the proper response to homosexuality we should be consulting fields of study that were the direct result of modernism. You may agree or disagree with this methodology, but you can’t call it anything but modernism. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I already posted this on my blog, but this week’s NPR religion podcast is causing me to revisit the Pat Robertson remarks about Israeli PM Ariel Sharon.

The evangelical Christian community was quick to separate themselves from Uncle Pat’s ramblings. This leaves the media with a new dilemma. No self-respecting Christian wants to be identified with Robertson’s opinions; he’s just a lone-lunatic who represents only himself. So now, they need to find a new spokesman, someone to quote when something crazy happens in the world. Amy Sullivan at the Washington Monthly blog offered up her suggestions to replace Pat and also defunct blowhard Jerry Falwell. Her list frightens me more than a hairspray shortage at the TBN studios. Here’s the men she offers up [notice no females. Interesting?] and my immediate vote on their representation of the evangelical nation.

Ted Haggard- Not my President.
Rick Warren- The guy I [purposely] like best on this list.
Brian McLaren- Does he even know what he believes?
Joel Osteen- Um, no.
Rod Parsley- Um, seriously, no.
Franklin Graham- I’d rather have his dad.
Jim Wallis- Well intentioned, but a too liberal for even me.
Ron Sider- Call me ignorant but I really don’t know who he is.
Tony Campolo- I just can’t see it.
Herb Lusk- See Ron Sider.
TD Jakes- Sorry, but thou art loosed.

So with my almost unanimous rejection of this list I’m left to wonder a few things.
- Are my standards too high?
- Am I expecting these guys to be/do more than humanly possible?
- Is the problem with me, feeling caught in the middle of the conservative/liberal theological spectrum?
- I am just stuck up?

I’m still sorting through those questions but, in the meantime, who’s my choice to speak for American evangelicals?

No one.

That’s right, I’d prefer silence.

It’s an impossible task, so why even bother? No one would think of selecting one person to be the official spokesperson for all American Caucasians. And it’s the same thing with evangelicals. If you gathered that group above in a room, how many issues do you think they’d agree on? I’d be embarrassed to hold the theology of at least half the guys on that list so why would I want them answering spiritual/theological/cultural questions on my behalf? True, I share some of the same foundational beliefs as these guys- Jesus, Bible, etc. But when some of them open their mouths, it makes me want to hide . . . or hurl . . . or do both.

Obviously this whole debate hinges on whether or not I continue to identify myself as an evangelical. Of that I’m not too sure. I find myself drifting back to my Restoration Movement roots where just being a Christian was enough. This way, no one has to do the talking, and I can just let Jesus speak for me.

If only it were that simple.