Left Behind's Jenkins and Others Shatter Evangelical Stereotypes (by Brian McLaren)
In light of Pat Robertson's and Bob Jones III's recent presidential endorsements – shocking or predictable, depending on your cynicism factor – and in light of the recent New York Times article on the fragmentation of evangelicalism, I'm sure we'll be seeing a growing number of assessments regarding the status and future of the evangelical Christian community in the U.S. Those interested in the subject shouldn't miss the conversation that's been going on over at the Beliefnet roundtable on evangelicals in power. Beliefnet's Patton Dodd got things rolling, and was joined by writers Hannah Rosin and Jeff Sharlet, Left Behind novelist Jerry Jenkins, sociologist Michael Lindsay, and former Bush aide David Kuo.
All participants agreed on the need for civil and substantive discourse on the relation between faith and public life. Not only did they agree on the need for it, but they practiced it. Stark disagreement didn't give way to name-calling or vilification; civility didn't generate into a surfacey niceness that fogs up disagreement. I can only hope that future conversations on this topic will follow the civil and substantive tone of this one.
I especially appreciated the fresh tone struck by evangelicals David Kuo and Jerry Jenkins. Jenkins, in particular, shatters stereotypes by what he says and how he says it; one can only hope that those who loved his novels will follow his lead when he says things like this:
The true evangelical leaders, to me, are those serving Jesus (for He said that if you feed the hungry, help the poor, etc., doing this "unto the least of these," you're doing it unto Me) behind the scenes. Fortunately, I know many such servants - sadly, or perhaps encouragingly, most of them are young people. My son and his wife (in their early thirties with three young children) have helped started a church in Venice Beach, California, that largely serves minorities and the homeless. Just a few dozen gather Sunday mornings for a joyous celebration, but during the week they are also ministered to in concrete ways. My son and daughter-in-law, despite the fact that he's a movie director and she's a full-time mom, are in the process of adopting another child (and possibly two), believing that this is another way to put their faith into action.
One feels the center of gravity shifting in a statement like this from an evangelical leader like this. I share Jerry's hope when I look at many younger leaders in what is often called "the emerging church." Guided by "true evangelical leaders" like Karen Ward, Shane Claiborne, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Danielle Shroyer, Adam Taylor, Gabriel Salguero, and others, this new generation of Christian adults will not be driving their parents' generation's evangelical Buick. They'll be serving the least of these - planting churches in inner cities, adopting forgotten children, and working for justice.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair of Sojourners, and his most recent book is Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I agree that evangelical churches should have a strong grounding in service to the poor. I disagree, however, that we should dismiss the work of older generations, particularly as it relates to spreadng the gospel message and making God more relevant to more people.
Churches in general tend to have a particular component of the faith at which they excel. Some tend to have a strong theological grounding, and a passion for God's word. Others have a drive for social justice and service. Others are passionate about evangelism and spreading the gospel message to as many people as possible, while still others excel at training new leadership, creating fellowship, and building discipleship.
The tendency is for those who are passionate about one to lob rocks at those who are passionate about the other. Social justice types decry evangelically minded folks as putting butts in the seats at the expense of the poor. Theologians put down social justice types for lacking sound doctrine, etc...
When confronted with this reality, most groups simply respond in accordance with their own particular strengths. A social justice advocate will note that Jesus cared most about the poor, and that everything points to this emphasis.
A theological wonk will say that understanding God's word is the only possible way to understand God, and so we must dedicate ourselves to diligent study of the scripture, lest we fall victim to worshipping a false God.
An evangelically minded person will say that God gave his only son that we might be saved, and that we are commanded to, above all else, spread the gospel message.
A discipleship oriented person will cite Hebrews, noting that the worst thing we can do is give people a glimpse of Christ without cultivating a desire for God within them and equipping them for leadership.
The thing is, every one of them is right. You can parse the scripture any way you like, but we are left with the fact that a vital, functioning church must accomplish ALL of the above in equal measure. At present, our church is divided by those who would prioritize one over the other in defiance of scripture.
Thus, we have evangelical churches whose membership has never so much as donated to a non-profit, Calvinist churches where members have never even invited friends to join them at church, social gospel churches that don't even acknowledge that one must accept Christ into their heart in order to be saved, and churches with great community that are aging and dying for lack of having reached out to the world.
It's great that such disparate voices are sitting around the table to discuss the direction of the church. We should take some time to process why this is important, and what we can learn from it, instead of simply taking this event as validation of our own personal mission.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 12:30 PM
Brian McLaren wrote:
All participants agreed on the need for civil and substantive discourse on the relation between faith and public life. Not only did they agree on the need for it, but they practiced it. Stark disagreement didn't give way to name-calling or vilification...
So when Hanna Rosin described Rabbi Daniel Lapin as "the House Jew", that was civil. I take it then that Jeff Sharlett wouldn't mind being described as the Christian left's "House Jew"?
When David Kuo describes Hillary Clinton's critics as being motivated by "almost endless hate", without even a nod to real policy differences, that was civil.
And the choice of Jerry Jenkins, the author of the "Left Behind" series that is so beloved by Sojo, to be the sole voice of Christian conservatives -- that's not the least bit unusual. (Hey, if you want a second conservative voice I'll volunteer -- I might even drop my Nom de Guerre.)
And all that's without even touching on the comments section. To be fair, I've seen worse, but if McLaren is holding this up as the standard of what a civil debate should look like, he's defining civil down.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 26, 2007 12:48 PM
Hmmm... I should've followed the link. That's not a very interesting discussion at all. House Jew? PItiful.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 1:11 PM
You can parse the scripture any way you like, but we are left with the fact that a vital, functioning church must accomplish ALL of the above in equal measure. At present, our church is divided by those who would prioritize one over the other in defiance of scripture.
Sounds nice, but most Americans like their churches small, clubby and non-offensive because they see their church as a haven from the "world" and often don't want to be bothered with it. If there is to be any growth, whether spiritually or numerically the usual goal is to attract people just like themselves.
My own church is one of the few exceptions to that, and a seminary student in California whom I met there has mentioned that the four main groups of students -- those into evangelism, missions, discipleship and "social justice" respectively -- meet and pray together regularly. That's what needs to happen.
So when Hanna Rosin described Rabbi Daniel Lapin as "the House Jew", that was civil. I take it then that Jeff Sharlett wouldn't mind being described as the Christian left's "House Jew"?
That may sound offensive at first glance, but consider that most Jews of any cultural or religious stripe lean politically toward the left; thus finding one who openly supports "conservative, Republican" values would be very hard to find and Lapin probably makes a ton of money in the process -- thus the moniker, analagous to calling a black conservative a "house Negro."
When David Kuo describes Hillary Clinton's critics as being motivated by "almost endless hate", without even a nod to real policy differences, that was civil.
It's also very, very accurate -- Rich Lowry of National Review has written that, of the three major Democratic candidates, Hillary is the most conservative. In fact, that might be the reason they hate her so much -- she has the best chance to defeat them in an election and implement her program (and cut them out of power).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 1:17 PM
"Sounds nice, but most Americans like their churches small, clubby and non-offensive"
Most Americans who attend church aren't Christians, so who cares?
"That may sound offensive at first glance, but consider that most Jews of any cultural or religious stripe lean politically toward the left;"
Yeah, I know what she is saying. It doesn't make her statement any less offensive. Orthodox Jews, I would note, tend to be more politically conservative, not that this statement is excusable either way.
It isn't just that statement. The whole discussion sucks. Jenkins comes off as the voice of reason, for crying out loud.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 1:43 PM
Most Americans who attend church aren't Christians, so who cares?
That includes most evangelicals, real Christians.
Orthodox Jews, I would note, tend to be more politically conservative, not that this statement is excusable either way.
Irrelevant, because not even Lapin is Orthodox, otherwise he wouldn't be in cahoots with the religious right.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 2:07 PM
Posted by Rick Nowlin:
"Sounds nice, but most Americans like their churches small, clubby and non-offensive"
Posted by Kevin S.:
"Most Americans who attend church aren't Christians, so who cares?"
Rick and Kevin, are those opinions or do you have statistics? If you do, I'd like to see them. Those numbers are not my experience, but my experience may be limited because I'm in a relatively small denomination.
Thanks,
Jean
Posted by: Jean | November 26, 2007 2:25 PM
"Rick and Kevin, are those opinions or do you have statistics? If you do, I'd like to see them. Those numbers are not my experience, but my experience may be limited because I'm in a relatively small denomination."
I believe that one-third of Americans consider themselves born-again Christians, while some 80% attend church with some regularity. Moreso, I think all Christians tend to get painted with the same brush used to paint those who don't care at all about the faith.
I disagree that sincere Christians want their churches to be "clubby". Some probably do, but I tire of the arguments that all American Christians are this or that (generally followed by the assertion that ones own church is different, of course).
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 2:45 PM
... are those opinions or do you have statistics? If you do, I'd like to see them. Those numbers are not my experience, but my experience may be limited because I'm in a relatively small denomination.
I don't have hard numbers, but I do make observations. Check the phone book sometime; you'll find that most churches, even evangelical churches, aren't all that big. (I attend a large church, but most of the churches in that denomination are quite small.) What may skew the numbers large would be the presence of independent mega-churches; that said, however, they still represent a distinct minority.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 2:47 PM
Our "house neo-cons" (I don't find them genuinely conservative, say, with the nuanced intelligence of a Buckley or a Goldwater, or the genuine goodwill of a Reagan)
always are reliably knee-jerk in complete opposition and belittling. I feel they view things in such a Manichean distortion from their own perspective as "holy warriors" in word if not deed that it would be to show weakness to ever acknowledge anything from another perspective than their own - this is, after all, war, with the fate of western civilization hanging in the balance, and their ideology (such as it sis) represents the best, the highest! - if not the most refined distillation of it.
A moment's weakness - of empathy - and all would be lost?
Perhaps!
Posted by: Guerilla in the Midst | November 26, 2007 2:57 PM
"Our "house neo-cons" (I don't find them genuinely conservative, say, with the nuanced intelligence of a Buckley or a Goldwater, or the genuine goodwill of a Reagan)"
That's pretty much the tone of the round-table. Good synopsis.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 3:13 PM
I disagree that sincere Christians want their churches to be "clubby". Some probably do, but I tire of the arguments that all American Christians are this or that (generally followed by the assertion that ones own church is different, of course).
In my experience, however, this is indeed the case and it's one reason I attend only large churches. I'm single and childless and would feel out-of-place in assemblies with nothing but families raising children, which represents probably the majority of churches -- and that's where and why they become "clubby." About a decade ago a friend of mine who was then living in the Pacific Northwest -- I've since lost touch with her -- visited a number of tiny churches with her husband and they were never really welcomed; I suggested they attend a larger church because I recognized immediately that this church didn't want lots of people coming.
But that leads to my point. When you become "establishment" you tend to become exclusive or otherwise discriminatory -- that's why racism has been so rampant in churches, especially in conservative, evangelical ones. Only with the advent of independent, non-denominational mega-churches, which don't really have that much history to speak of; and (to a lesser extent) the overt anti-racist focus of the Promise Keepers, has that begun to change.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 3:17 PM
Brian,
much thanks for directing us to an interesting and important discussion by smart people who look (not always accurately, of course) at the broad picture.
The charges of incivility are interesting, given that the participating discussants don't seem to find the tone uncivil.
Posted by: carl copas | November 26, 2007 3:20 PM
To comment on the first commentator's comments: we do well to remember that 'the world lies in the power of the Evil One.' We do well before we lament the 'secularization of the world', to remember that the World is 'worldly.' We do well to rejoice, indeed, in the breakup of the ungodly coalition of the Radical Right and the Religious Right. The worst thing that ever happened to the Church was the Constantinian Establishment. The Church lost her power– her reliance on her Lord– with that secularization. 'Put not your trust in princes, neither in the son of man, inn whojm is no Salvation.' (Psalm 146:3)
I was personally committed to the (sidetracked and derailed) Black Civil Rights Movement, and am committed to the movement to restore the Constitution, the Republic, and the rule of law, but only insofar as I check in with my Lord Jesus frequently to make sure I'm still following him.
Among other egregious violations of the Constitution by the Cheney/Bush Administrattion was their effective success in the Establishment of the Religious Right as 'The Official American Religion'.
We must not erect an idolatrous 'Christian' Left Political Establishment! I don't think that's a possibility, but we must take no chances.
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | November 26, 2007 3:27 PM
I was and am personally committed to the (sidetracked and derailed) Black Civil Rights Movement,...
You have analyzed it correctly -- the civil-rights movement was indeed secularized and ultimately neutralized, basically by the "Black Power" movement.
We must not erect an idolatrous 'Christian' Left Political Establishment! I don't think that's a possibility, but we must take no chances.
It's not going to happen. The "left" always was more "grass-roots" than the right, which from the word go was tied to a secular infrastructure that used it only for the sake of votes.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 3:28 PM
Whether the "left" is more grassroots than the "right" all depends on how you define them and even whether you mean a rump contingent of either.
Liberalism was certainly establishment from the time of the late fifties on, with the intellectual and political heft of eastern establishment liberalism. The Democratic Party since FDR exemplified this ascendancy, until the time of Reagan when it began to be discredited at the polls. The reaction against establishment liberalism's failures certainly had a grass-roots aspect to it - which is why it culminated in 1994's congressional capture by conservatives. Recall that many of that political crop committed themselves to term limits - and the best of those small c conservative citizen legislators were gone by 2000 - leading us to the corporate ascendancy which is in no way grass-roots any longer.
As for liberals, when you're in the wilderness, that almost guarantees that you're reduced to "grassroots" status, being out of power. But like the children of Israel, it can provide a much needed perspective of humility and re-evaluation of principles and practices.
Posted by: Wandering Jew | November 26, 2007 3:57 PM
Wandering Jew -- That's not quite what happened.
What we now know as "conservatism" actually got started in the 1950s, specifically in response to the Army-McCarthy hearings, with just a few intellectuals but which caught the fancy of a number of rich folks who ended up bankrolling their endeavors -- think tanks, media, student groups etc. to make it look and sound popular; if you had a particular project that would promote the conservative agenda you could go to one of these guys and get seen money. (I know this for a fact -- one of those financiers lives in my city and publishes a competing newspaper.) Goldwater was their first presidential candidate; when he flamed out they recalibrated their message to resonate with much of America (thus Nixon's "Silent Majority" strategy) which later led to the "Reagan Reviolution." Through Moral Majority and similar organizations, white evangelical Christians came into the GOP fold.
But, because conservatism ultimately always had so little substance, it always had to be adversarial, so when the Soviet Union (its original target) disintegrated it fell on hard times -- it's easier to start a campaign against something than for something. The anti-Clinton campaign got it going full-bore again, but the war in Iraq finally exposed it for the sham that it always was, especially when it came to media coverage. That's why liberalism has resurged, but not to the point that conservatism had.
Bottom line, conservatism as we understand it always was "top-down," not "bottom-up" as its adherents would like everyone to believe.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 5:06 PM
Both political movement evolved in as a result of a nuanced response to McCarthy. Both Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey carried strong anti-Soviet sentiments to electoral victories for their respective parties beginning even in the late 1940s.
Far from being an empty ideology, conservatism was forged in strong opposition to new deal economics. To the extent that this plays into Rick's for/against narrative, it is fair enough to say that they formed in response to the status quo following the New Deal era.
Before the advent of Falwell and the Moral Majority, a large swath of conservatives advocated an adherence to social codes and all conservative movements are resistant to large-scale ideological changes happening too quickly.
The top-down/bottom-up thing is nonsense. There is grassroots advocacy on both side of virtually any issue.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 6:30 PM
Cleo of Corinth, daughter of Titus the potter and follower of Jesus Christ.
To my brothers in the faith
Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Brothers, it is almost 100 winters since our Lord ascended to the right hand of the father and peace dwells in our land. Yet, our prophets tremble with fear. They faint at the sound of voices ringing out across many moons, proclaiming a Great Book and a Number.
For the Number of the Great Book is 66.
And the voices of the latter days declare that the Great Book is God’s perfect Word, flawless and without error. The Number of the Great Book is the number of the lesser books. And the voices proclaim that no man may truly know the Lord lest he abide in the Great Book and believe in its Number.
Our strength deserts us at this news for we have neither seen nor heard of this Great Book or its Number. Indeed, we cry out to God as one:
“Lord, have you not given us the Law and the Prophets? And are not the three epistles of our dear friend Paul still read out to encourage and exhort us? So now, oh Lord, reveal to us the mystery of this Great Book and its Number.”
We struggle to understand. Have we who have lived so close to His majesty, believed in vain? Is perfect truth and understanding destined only for those who are far off; those who abide in the Great Book and believe in its Number?
Or have the seasons clouded your judgement? For how can any of us as weak, selfish, mortals, seeing through a glass darkly, possibly begin to comprehend perfection?
Brothers, we beseech you. What should we do about the Great Book and its Number? And to whom should we credit its perfection? For surely if God is its author we are already doomed. But if man has declared perfect that which God has not then truly your blasphemy is great.
May your voices ring clearly once more across the years that our prophets may discern and our faith be strengthened.
Grace be with you.
Posted by: Cleo of Corinth | November 26, 2007 7:14 PM
Cleo of Corinth, your post is -- how shall I put this -- Delphic.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 26, 2007 7:25 PM
I want Cleo of Corinth to join the roundtable.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 7:41 PM
The top-down/bottom-up thing is nonsense. There is grassroots advocacy on both side of virtually any issue.
Not this time, kevin -- you could never have such a disciplined movement unless only a few people at the top were calling the shots, and that's what happened on the right. Unfortunately, key constituencies enventually began to rebel -- libertarians against the Patriot Act; social conservatives wanted Bush to take stronger stands on "their" issues; the business community took a black eye when Enron and WorldCom -- both with evangelical Christian CEO's -- collapsed.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 7:46 PM
The kind of populist conservatism that resonated with grass-roots supporters of Reagan was nothing like that of Richard Nixon. Nixon wasn't even a conservative - he expanded welfare, environmental controls and slapped wage and price controls on the economy, anathema to conservatism after removing the dollar from the gold standard. How conservative was it to abandon Taiwan to open up relations with Red China? Kissinger and realpolitik were the order of the day. Nixon only looked appealing to the "silent majority" - not the Moral Majority, pointedly, with the failures in Viet Nam of Johnson which had turned his Great Society vision into a delusion. Nixon was Machiavellian and for an imperial if paranoiac style and the support for him was a perceived refuge from the social instability and rebellion of sixties counterculture. There was no coherence to Nixon's policy in terms of ideology. Just think of Elvis invited to the White House and given a gun and badge, made a Special Agent of J. Edgar in the War on Drugs.
Posted by: Rolfing Abernathy | November 26, 2007 8:19 PM
To clarify the whole:
"Most Americans who attend church aren't Christians" comment.
And if only 1/3 of those who call themselves "Born again" would be considered by some to be "real" Christians...
What would you call us who accept Christ as our Lord & Savior but don't believe in being "Born Again". I'm Catholic and we believe that you are "Born" at Baptism (often as an infant). Are you (and I'm just clarifying) assuming that those of us who DO attend Church weekly and don't believe we are "born again" are not "Christians".
Just clarifying...
Maria
Posted by: marialynn | November 26, 2007 8:28 PM
The "movement" isn't that disciplined. Any movement, grassroots, grasstops or otherwise, has people calling the shots. Conservatism has always been a collection of disparate movements, and libertarians, social conservatives et al.. have frequently rebelled against the interests of the party. You think Ross Perot appeared out of the ether?
The nature of the two party system is that the pendulum swings back and forth. It's swinging your way now, and we might well have Hillary for a president. Fortunately, she's not a bimbo like her chief rivals, which gives me some assurance that America will be relatively secure throughout a Hillary presidency.
Hillary will be forced to govern as a moderate. She will take a strong stand against Iran whether Jim Wallis likes it or not. She won't sign Kyoto. She will introduce a scaled-down version of her healthcare plan. She will likely suffer midterm losses in congress, and she'll be forced to run again as a moderate. If she does well, a more liberal candidate will have a shot (as Al Gore did) in 2016.
If not, the response will be strong and decisive. In the interim, she will have to contend with dailykos lunatics, peacenik Democrats, abortion rights and gay power groups, hawkish Democrats, Socialists, libertarian Democrats and the disparate interests that unify around any political party. That's politics.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 8:34 PM
Cleo of Corinth, daughter of Titus the potter and follower of Jesus Christ.
To my brothers in the faith, wolverine and kevin s.
Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
Brothers, our prophets are in despair at your response which is indeed no response. Forgive me for not speaking plainly to you in my previous letter but we are gripped by fear and urgently seek your wisdom in this matter.
We beseech you, speak plainly. Does the faith of the Church at Corinth rest upon your Great Book and its Number?
Grace be with you.
Posted by: Cleo of Corinth | November 26, 2007 9:13 PM
The "movement" isn't that disciplined. Any movement, grassroots, grasstops or otherwise, has people calling the shots. Conservatism has always been a collection of disparate movements, and libertarians, social conservatives et al.. have frequently rebelled against the interests of the party.
Not this time around. As I mentioned, it was always tightly-scripted with only a few folks (specifically Grover Norquist) calling the shots. It maintained that discipline by expanding its definition of conservatism beyond what its adherents say it is.
Fortunately, she's not a bimbo like her chief rivals, which gives me some assurance that America will be relatively secure throughout a Hillary presidency.
Which is why Lowry can accept her.
Hillary will be forced to govern as a moderate.
Duh -- compared to most of the Democratic field and almost all of the party's activists, Hillary is a moderate!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 26, 2007 9:19 PM
Hillary started as a wealthy "young Republican," all those years ago, back in Chicago. Who says you can't go home again, and as an eastern establishment country club republican - even if not in name!
Posted by: Bill Airy | November 26, 2007 10:39 PM
Hillary is the most Christian of all the candidates, IMHO, in her concern for the poor, the stranger, and the marginalized. Her politics are rooted in her Methodist social ethic. I am pro-life, and I plan to vote for the candidate whose policies will actually reduce the number of abortions. It's clear that when social programs are in place to help mothers and children, the abortion rate goes down. Right now, Hillary is the most pro-life candidate in that I think her policies will reduce abortions, as well as death by lack of health insurance, poverty, legal status, or unjust war.
My point is not so much about Hillary, it's about the fact that one can be a Christian and vote for someone with whom you may not always agree--witness Pat Robertson. If he and other evangelicals can vote for Rudy because they think his overall agenda is pro-life, then I and other Christians can use the same reasoning to vote for Hillary. And don't even get me started on character--only one of these two candidates has never been divorced.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 26, 2007 10:50 PM
Posted by: kevin s. | November 26, 2007 2:45 PM
"I believe that one-third of Americans consider themselves born-again Christians, while some 80% attend church with some regularity. Moreso, I think all Christians tend to get painted with the same brush used to paint those who don't care at all about the faith."
I have been wondering the very same thing. Could you clarify what you mean by this?
Are you really stating that only "Born Again" Christians are, as you say "real Christians?"
If so, what does the mean to you?
Posted by: Lonnie | November 26, 2007 11:14 PM
Being pro-war is not pro-life, though. I'd guess, then, her commitment to ending the war will be matched by her being pro-life in an anti-abortion sense. Which is to say, not hardly. Those corporate donors she's beholden to are neither anti-war nor anti-abortion - to them, it's all economy, stupid.
Posted by: Robert Rube | November 27, 2007 3:49 AM
"We beseech you, speak plainly. Does the faith of the Church at Corinth rest upon your Great Book and its Number?" Cleo, I'm guessing there is a serious point to your posts. I think you're suggesting that because the early church was not governed by the Bible as we know it why should the modern church? I'm no theologian but I would expect that there is some kind of evangelical dispensation to cover this. If there isn't, there's bound to be one along shortly. Just a thought: in future, you may wish to voice the concerns of your church in a more theologically-focused forum.
Posted by: Bruce | November 27, 2007 9:16 AM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
It may stick in your craw but that's the perception and, in the case of Thomas, pretty close to reality. It may stick in your craw but that's the perception and, in the case of Thomas, pretty close to reality. They may very well subscribe to that viewpoint personally, but we would never had heard of either of them were it not for the conservative infrastructure you often hear me refer to.
Thanks for conceding that Clarence Thomas and Daniel Lapin may have honest disagreements with the majority of their respective communities. that's a start. As for the infrastructure, well, so we have magazines and websites and think tanks and lobby groups. So does the left.
It actually is relevant because conservative leaders know full well that most blacks and Jews bitterly oppose their agenda on the merits and they figure that having black faces and Jewish voices in support might soften that opposition or, at the very least, divide each community so that they no longer speak with one voice in protest -- "divide-and-conquer," if you will.
What you call "divide and conquer" I call "free speech and debate". Hey, even if you're right, is it really so shocking that we might seek out spokesmen who might be more effective among the black and Jewish communities?
Consider Jim Wallis: I have long had the "perception" that Wallis serves as a mouthpiece of the Democratic party, even if his opinions are sincerely held. I also perceive that he has been useful to the left in general and his positions on a lot of issues put him at odds with most evangelicals. So I take it you would have no objections if I called Jim Wallis "the left's House Christian"?
That I wasn't aware of
(regarding Lapin's connections to Abramoff)
You're very welcome Rick. That's the great thing about information -- it aids rational debate. This is in contrast to insults, which only lead to hurt feelings if they work, or contempt if they don't.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 27, 2007 11:29 AM
What you call "divide and conquer" I call "free speech and debate". Hey, even if you're right, is it really so shocking that we might seek out spokesmen who might be more effective among the black and Jewish communities?
Not really, but if your goal is to denigrate the views of others in the process, which is the case here, those "spokesmen" ought to recognize that they're simply being used. J. C. Watts Sr. even said that to his namesake son when he ran for Congress as a Republican, and it was why he eventually left -- by then he had no real constitutency left.
I have long had the "perception" that Wallis serves as a mouthpiece of the Democratic party, even if his opinions are sincerely held. I also perceive that he has been useful to the left in general and his positions on a lot of issues put him at odds with most evangelicals. So I take it you would have no objections if I called Jim Wallis "the left's House Christian"?
I in fact would because it's simply not accurate. Wallis, though he is certainly hot right now, has always operated completely independently from any party or organization (as does Jesse Jackson, BTW). As such, Sojourners has never depended on funding or publicity from liberal or left-wing groups to stay afloat the same way, say, FOTF or MM needed to lean on the secular right. Remember, Sojo has existed since the early 1970s and there never has been a left-wing infrastructure to contrast with the right-wing infrastructure. (If there were one the conservatives would make sure everyone knew about it.)
And as for being "at odds with most evangelicals," that's now changing at a grass-roots level. I attend one of the leading evangelical churches (which is part of a staunchly conservative denomination) in my city and its political culture is leaning more to the left; I learned only recently about the existence of a "creation care team." The senior pastor of our church, a white conservative Republican who nevertheless does admire Wallis; and our then-worship pastor, who is African-American, went to Thailand some years ago to visit with our missionaries in that part of the world and, during his message, convicted them of their latent racism. Considering how far behind the times my city tends to be, I don't think that's an isolated case.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 12:20 PM
I forgot this:
As for the infrastructure, well, so we have magazines and websites and think tanks and lobby groups. So does the left.
The right, however, has since the 1950s had a bunch of "sugar daddies," one of whom lives in my city, supporting everything it does through various foundations. Not so with the left.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 12:27 PM
"The right, however, has since the 1950s had a bunch of "sugar daddies," one of whom lives in my city, supporting everything it does through various foundations. Not so with the left."
Right on, Rick.
Posted by: George Soros | November 27, 2007 12:35 PM
I smell sarcasm in that last post.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 12:56 PM
"Are you really stating that only "Born Again" Christians are, as you say "real Christians?"
If so, what does the mean to you?"
Yes, I am saying precisely that. I have no particular problem with baby baptism as a commitment to raise your child in the way of the Lord, but the acceptance of God's grace is a conscious choice of the heart.
I do not believe that the baptism itself is a saving event, so to speak. I don't know why or how it could be construed as such. The Bible literally calls us to be reborn in Christ. Doesn't mean you have to call yourself "born again" or use that terminology. It does mean that you have to commit your faith in Christ at some point in your life. Your parents can't do it for you.
"It may stick in your craw but that's the perception and, in the case of Thomas, pretty close to reality."
That he's a house negro? Yikes, but okay.
Regardless of whether what you say is true (and you might take some time to learn more about Justice Thomas), to call him a house negro is an attempt to belittle him, not an attempt at describing reality. it is cleary an insult. Similarly, calling Lapin a house Jew is an insult.
I know plenty of Jewish people who support conservative policies. They aren't "house Jews" either, irresepctive of their level of political engagement. Political disagreement, valid or not, does not abdicate us from common decency.
If calling someone a "house Jew" is not a transgression against civility, then there is no such thing as civility.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 27, 2007 12:59 PM
The Bible literally calls us to be reborn in Christ.
True. And the Bible clearly identifies the rebirth with Baptism and implies that the filling of the spirit is the same event:
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
(NIV: emphasis mine)
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 27, 2007 1:16 PM
"I in fact would because it's simply not accurate. "
How can someone who offers a radio address on behalf of a political party not be said to be a mouthpiece of that party?
Regardless of history, the left certainly has sugar daddies now.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 27, 2007 1:26 PM
Regardless of whether what you say is true (and you might take some time to learn more about Justice Thomas), to call him a house negro is an attempt to belittle him, not an attempt at describing reality. it is cleary an insult. Similarly, calling Lapin a house Jew is an insult.
I know quite a bit about Justice Thomas, and given the history of slavery, calling him a "house Negro," while derogatory, is indeed accurate -- because he is where he is for the exact same purpose. His recent book and the interviews that have surrounded it have only confirmed that his position exists only because of his connections to the conservative movement -- and we also know that, deep down, even he knows that.
I know plenty of Jewish people who support conservative policies. They aren't "house Jews" either, irresepctive of their level of political engagement. Political disagreement, valid or not, does not abdicate us from common decency.
They're not paid, either. Lapin has been -- and as Wolverine has shared, from a corrupt source at that. That makes a difference.
How can someone who offers a radio address on behalf of a political party not be said to be a mouthpiece of that party?
Was Wallis paid, and if so, how much? If he were that would certainly question his independence. And even if he weren't, how often does he do that? (He made, to my knowledge, just one address and probably questioned doing even that.) Contrast that with Christian conservatives' consistent, and often direct, ties to the GOP.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 1:54 PM
"True. And the Bible clearly identifies the rebirth with Baptism and implies that the filling of the spirit is the same event:"
It does no such thing, though the Bible commands baptism. It certainly does not support the idea that baptism can somehow supplant belief, and you can't argue that a baby somehow comes to believe by virtue of being baptized. I have not heard a proponent of infant baptism argue the latter point.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 27, 2007 3:30 PM
Don -- The "born again" phrase (better translated "born from above") has absolutely nothing to do with "salvation" -- it's about what God was doing in the here and now. A look at the rest of the conversation with Nicodemus should clear that up, as the Jewish people to this day don't emphasize the afterlife. Thus, baptism has nothing to do with salvation, either.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 3:38 PM
I love the shock and amazement Brian expresses in this post. "Wait, you mean evangelicals actually do care about the poor and oppressed? I can't believe this! What a phenomenon! Since I've just discovered this it must be something new!"
Or maybe evangelicals have always cared about helping the poor, it's just that propressives have chosen to ignore that fact in order to perpetuate their stereotypes of the so-called Religious Right and evangelicals. Perhaps it's the progressives' stereotype that's being shattered.
Posted by: Eric | November 27, 2007 4:19 PM
It certainly does not support the idea that baptism can somehow supplant belief...
I never said that.
...and you can't argue that a baby somehow comes to believe by virtue of being baptized.
I didn't say that either. I only said that the New Birth is clearly identified with Baptism, according to John 3.
The "born again" phrase (better translated "born from above") has absolutely nothing to do with "salvation".
I would agree. But if you asked me when I was 'saved,' I would have to answer, on the day of the crucifixion. We are saved because of what Christ did, not because of anything we do, including 'accepting Christ'. Grace working in our lives produces faith, which results in belief. Not the other way around. 'Accepting Christ' is a result of grace working in our lives.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 27, 2007 4:37 PM
Or maybe evangelicals have always cared about helping the poor, it's just that propressives have chosen to ignore that fact in order to perpetuate their stereotypes of the so-called Religious Right and evangelicals.
You would never have known that from their cultural and legislative agendas, especially in the 1980s -- which is why they became stereotypes in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 4:49 PM
"It certainly does not support the idea that baptism can somehow supplant belief...
I never said that."
But that is the question that was raised. If you are simply saying that Baptism is important, then we have no disagreement.
"We are saved because of what Christ did, not because of anything we do, including 'accepting Christ'."
That depends on what you believe about God's foreknowledge. A Calvinist will say that we do not accept Christ because God moves in those he chooses to be Christians. Others will say that we do, by our own free will, make a decision to accept Christ. There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 27, 2007 4:54 PM
Kevin,
You are going to have to help me out here. Are you trying to say that if someone was baptized as an infant, then grew up accepting the Christian message and living a Christian life; that if that person was not "born again" he or she is not a real Christian?
And most importantly, that person will not go to heaven?
Don't tell me that is actually what you believe....
Posted by: Lonnie | November 27, 2007 4:55 PM
Rick - Or, perhaps, all evangelicals weren't represented by the leaders of the "Religious Right". Maybe evangelicals are a little more diverse than progessives would like to make them out to be. But of course it's easier to denegrate people when you lump them all into one group. Pat Robertson = bad, Pat Robertson = evangelical, therefore, evangelical = bad.
But this also gets to the larger debate over whether Jesus' teaching compels Christians to promote Progessive policy solutions to help the poor. Without getting into that debate again, there's nothing in Jenkins' statement that leads me to believe he's a believer in the Progressive view. He merely talks about personal actions to help the poor. There is nothing inconsistent with that and what evangelicals have always believed, even in the evil, greed-filled 1980s when that awful Reagan guy was president. Brian's response though would leave one to believe this was a new phenomenon and he's responsible for bringing it to everyone's attention.
Posted by: Eric | November 27, 2007 5:02 PM
Posted by: Don | November 27, 2007 4:37 PM
"'Accepting Christ' is a result of grace working in our lives."
Spoken like a true Lutheran—and I absolutely agree. In fact, that is why many churches baptize infants: because of the conviction that God has to act first, and that our actions are a response.
I have had two major "born again" experiences in my life. The first was when I called on God myself, and it was followed by a brief period of spiritual high followed by a deep crash and burn. The second was when God backed me in a corner so that I had no choice but to relinquish the attempt to control things and let him take over. Guess which one has stuck.
The first of Luther's 95 theses reads "When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said 'Repent,' He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance." I'm with Luther here. It's no exaggeration to say that ever since that second experience I have continued to look for ways to let God back me into a corner so that I can continue to turn over more and more of my life. If it had just been a single episode, it would have been pretty meaningless.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 27, 2007 5:03 PM
That depends on what you believe about God's foreknowledge. A Calvinist will say...
The position I tried to outline is the traditional Lutheran position. I don't know that we worry too much about election vs. free will, though our understanding is probably closer to Calvin's: our salvation is an act of God, not a work we perform. We cannot 'accept Christ' if he hasn't already accepted us.
Luther wrote in his small Catechism:
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith...
This is the reason we can baptize infants. The infant does nothing on his/her own to 'earn' salvation. Salvation isn't based on anyone's 'decision'. It's a work of the Holy Spirit operating through the water and activated by the promise of God's word.
So, yes, according to Lutheran theology, Baptism gives salvation. But it's God's promise, based on his word--not our belief, decision, or anything else that we do--that does it.
Here's the link to Luther's explanation of Baptism:
http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#baptism
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 27, 2007 5:15 PM
Or, perhaps, all evangelicals weren't represented by the leaders of the "Religious Right". Maybe evangelicals are a little more diverse than progessives would like to make them out to be.
The conservatives themselves I dealt with back in the day didn't seem to think that way. A considerable number of them are still bashing people like Ron Sider and Tony Campolo -- and I mean today -- and a local guy who ran a group known as "Christians for Clinton" was slammed on a Christian talk radio show. (I was a regular guest on that same show and I got it good, too.)
But this also gets to the larger debate over whether Jesus' teaching compels Christians to promote Progessive policy solutions to help the poor. Without getting into that debate again, there's nothing in Jenkins' statement that leads me to believe he's a believer in the Progressive view. He merely talks about personal actions to help the poor.
The conservative view, however, has no real policy to help the poor, and by helping the poor I mean changing laws and encouraging institutions to do so (because the goal is to give them opportunities to escape poverty). We "progressives" have always known that personal involvement, while necessary, simply doesn't suffice, and if Jenkins continues down that path he will learn that as well.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 27, 2007 5:16 PM
Another nonymous:
Thanks for your comments. I think it's quite possible to have several 'conversion' experiences in one's lifetime. In fact, it might be more the norm rather than the exception for one to have more than one such experience. They're solid evidence that God isn't done working on us!
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 27, 2007 5:31 PM
"You are going to have to help me out here. Are you trying to say that if someone was baptized as an infant, then grew up accepting the Christian message and living a Christian life; that if that person was not "born again" he or she is not a real Christian?"
I don't think you can accept the message of Jesus and not be born again. The Bible tells us that we must repent before God and accept grace. I can't imagine anyone living a Christian life has not done that. That does not mean you have to use a certain terminology, or that there has to be some earthshattering event. God looks at the heart.
"So, yes, according to Lutheran theology, Baptism gives salvation"
Right, which is why I'm not a Lutheran.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 27, 2007 6:37 PM
I haven't been to BeliefNet for awhile, but there was a clip there once of Jerry Jenkins discussing his faith and he came across as a swell guy and not a zealot, which is not what I expected from the co-author of the abominable "Left Behind" series.
Posted by: El Petey | November 28, 2007 4:27 AM
Rick - You're missing my point. Of course the conservative evangelicals you knew didn't like Clinton and others with progressive policy prescriptions, that's what differentiates people between conservative and liberal; they don't agree with each other on public policy. The point I'm making is that Jenkins gives examples of how he and people he knows are helping the poor. Then Brian acts amazed as if this is some sort of revelation. As if he had never realized evangelicals actually did care about the poor, when, in fact, they always have. Just not in all the ways Brian and other Progessives would like them to.
Posted by: Eric | November 28, 2007 7:01 AM
Of course the conservative evangelicals you knew didn't like Clinton and others with progressive policy prescriptions, that's what differentiates people between conservative and liberal; they don't agree with each other on public policy.
No, what I said is that the conservatives have no consistent policy toward the poor and I stand by that. Anyway, much of the evangelical church -- especially in the 1980s, which is when I came of age -- was fixated almost exclusively on, say, legal abortion; indeed, my city is more evangelical-friendly than most, so I saw that up close. That evangelicals are turning away from that and "gay marriage" is probably what surprises McLaren.
Anyway, did you read "God's Politics"? For me, the most important part of the book was Wallis' reconciliation with the late Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, with whom he had a public falling out in the late 1970s that lasted quite some time. Bright said to Wallis that he finally discovered that caring for the poor was part of the Great Commission and realized that Wallis had been carrying that part out all along; as a result, toward the end of his life he was supporting Sojourners.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 11:17 AM
Rick - But there's no evidence in what Jenkins said that suggests he once believed that Christians shouldn't advocate for liberal policy solutions to poverty but now he does. This is what I'm trying to get at. There's no evidence Jenkins' views have changed at all, yet Brian acts as if this is some kind of major shift in thinking; as if conservative Christians are awakening to the needs of the poor by embracing liberal policy ideas. There's no evidence of this. All Jenkins said was he and his friends help the poor, which has always been a feature of evangelical belief. Yes, politicaly, evangelicals have focused on things like gay marriage and abortion, but those aren't the only things they focus on in their service to communities. It never was.
Posted by: Eric | November 28, 2007 4:27 PM
Yes, politicaly, evangelicals have focused on things like gay marriage and abortion, but those aren't the only things they focus on in their service to communities. It never was.
Diaconal issues, however, never raised money and passion. Remember that it's easier to get people riled up against something than for something -- after all, Cal Thomas quoted an activist saying, "You can't raise money on a positive." Consider just how much money political action groups raised in those days as opposed to World Vision.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 28, 2007 8:23 PM
Rick,
You're assuming that all that matters is money, a common error of materialists on both the right and left.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 28, 2007 11:37 PM
You're assuming that all that matters is money, a common error of materialists on both the right and left.
It's not so much about the money itself as priorities, which determine where the money goes.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 29, 2007 12:35 PM
Hi, I'm dropping in from TPMCafe where Brian has been blogging. Uh... you're defending Jenkins? The guy who allowed a Left Behind videogame that features Christian warriors shooting unbelievers in the endtimes? Wow.
Posted by: destor23 | December 5, 2007 6:01 PM
[forgive the pasted comment, www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com talk much on Jenkins sentiment, true servant leadership being Gods way of having authority. Hope you guys allow the blog to post. if not thats fine.God bless. I too am a liberal [at times] believer!
(626) EMERGENT STUFF. Let me explain ‘Emergent’ a little. Some of you guys have no idea what this is, in a nutshell that’s one of the ‘problems’. Not so much that all Christians need to know about this movement, but the movement has a tendency to be a little ‘ivory tower’ isolationist. A lot of theologizing among intellectuals while by passing the ‘nuts and bolts’ stuff. Grant it, they intend to do this on purpose to some degree, but I think they are getting a little too experimental for me. Now, when I first read on this movement I liked the trend towards simple church, the challenging of the ‘way we do church’. There are a whole bunch of radicals like me who see church as a real lived out thing as opposed to ‘going to the church house’ [UGHH!]. It was this part of ‘being Emergent’ that I liked. As I have read a bunch of stuff these last few months I have come to see the war raging in the blogasphere between the ‘Anti Emergent’ and Pro Emergent groups. As you read all the comments I have made you will see there are obvious times where I had to openly disagree with some of the trends. While I believe homosexuality is a lifestyle that scripture sees as sinful, I also do not believe we should discriminate against gays. I also see the point of being open and discussing the ‘pro gay’ side of whether or not gays should be ordained. I think if you are open and honest about it, you would see that they frankly shouldn’t be serving in positions of leadership in the church. We should recognize and not stigmatize people who struggle with this lifestyle. We should help those who struggle with this lifestyle. Those who have a radical agenda to promote it, well I think Christians should disagree and have the freedom to disagree! But when it comes down to it, there is enough scripture and church tradition [AND!] that should lead us into a view of what’s right or wrong. Some in the emergent debate seem to have all the characteristics of being open and willing to hear both sides, but then seem to never come to any firm conclusions. Hey, ultimately we do need some answers! That's where the other problem comes in. Some feel we really can’t know the answers! This is where you have the Chuck Colsons and others come out openly and fight the movement. I like Chuck, I have disagreed with him in the past. I kinda see Chuck as embracing the ‘pre evangelism’ philosophy that says ‘until you change society’s worldview, you can’t really present the gospel effectively’. Sort of like because we live in a postmodern culture, so we need to do battle on the field of ideas and establish the fact that there is ‘true truth’ [some have flipped over this statement] before we can present truth. I actually disagree with this. I think Paul nailed it down in Galatians [chapter 4?] when he said ‘after the fullness of times was come [what fullness?] God sent forth his Son’ if you read it carefully, you see the ‘fullness of time’ as describing the whole period of Old Testament law. God gave man an ‘age’ where he instituted, in humanity, a basic philosophical underpinning of right and wrong. This was law. Since Jesus [fullness of times] all mankind [postmodern, pre modern and every other group!] have been ‘victims’ to the power of the presentation of the gospel. It truly is the power of God unto salvation. You might think you need to go to great lengths to convince people of right and wrong and ‘true truth’ but according to Paul, the ‘pre evangelism’ stage is over! Now, there is some merit to Apologetics and dealing with stuff like this, but the point is God went out of his way to redeem man, the early church had a simple way to present the gospel in ‘a nutshell’ and we need to see it as the answer to peoples needs. We can’t get lost in thinking we have tons of ‘pre evangelizing’ to do before we present the truth [the real true truth- I hope you guys know I’m kidding a little here!]. So Colson fights the Emergents over knowable truth and to be honest the Emergents seem to be saying at times that you really can’t have the final answer. I commend their willingness to be open and invite everyone to the table of ideas, but ultimately we have to eventually come to conclusions. Like the guy in the movie ‘Office Space’ and his ‘jump to conclusions mat’. The debate on ‘penal substitution’ [whether or not God was punishing his Son in anger and wrath when Jesus died on the Cross]. Over the years while reading church history and theology, I have come to see how smart scholars have proposed different ‘ideas’ on Redemption. If I remember right C.S. Lewis, in his famous ‘Mere Christianity’ mentions the different ideas on this. I thought he said we know that Jesus death redeems us, but how it happens we don’t know. Hitting on this idea of differing views of Redemption. Some scholars say we really have multiple choices on the ‘theory’. I think scripture makes it plain. I think Penal Substitution is the plain answer. Isaiah 53 says ‘it pleased the Lord to bruise him’. Some say ‘this is an outrageous idea, how can God punish an innocent man for others crimes!’ some very influential scholars say this! Well, the answer is in the great mystery of the incarnation. God became man so he as man [Jesus] could bear the sins of man. In a mystery that is impossible to explain ‘God was just, and the justifier of those who believe’ [Romans]. At least Paul saw the ‘philosophical’ answer to how a just God could punish his own Son. I realize some great scholars have espoused different ideas like ‘God ransomed man back, as opposed to being the kidnapper’ and they show the ransom idea as opposed to the penalty idea. I see these as both true, not conflicting theories. God ransomed man back to himself, not from satan who now ‘owned them’ but Jesus death ‘saved man from God!’ [his own just wrath- as R.C. Sproul puts it]. So ransom and penal substitution go hand in hand. I don’t want to go on here, I just wanted to show you how we can be open to hearing all sides, but there are final truths that we need to know. We should help all people, we should not discriminate against gays any more than the good old bubba who cheats on his wife every now and than. They are both sinful! We need to be merciful to all sinners [after all we are very familiar with this camp!] but also tell them the truth in love. Contrary to Colsons ‘pre evangelism’ they are dieing to hear the gospel right now! Note; Let me explain my theory on why we do not need to do ‘pre evangelism’ to the extent that Colon sees it. When people reject truth, even as a whole society. That ‘rejecting’ in and of itself is actually sin. Thomas Aquinas [the great 13th century Doctor Angelicas of the Catholic church] said it was possible for man to come to the truth of God thru the study of the natural sciences, but it would take a very long time and only a few could attain it. Therefore God gave us revealed truth so we can quickly see the truth of God without going to great lengths to find it. If we live in a post modern society that rejects the basic premise of ‘knowable truth’ than we live in a willfully ignorant world, much like the world that Paul wrote about in Romans chapter 2. Willful ignorance of the truth of God is not some modern plight, it was around in 1st century Rome. Most adherents to the Colson doctrine seem to see post moderns willful ignorance as a different kind of willful ignorance. The kind that the simple preaching of the gospel can’t really undo! A sort of special class of rebels! My belief is the power of the gospel [Romans 1!] has the power to ‘undo’ this willful ignorance in a millisecond! Hey, you would be surprised at how powerful the gospel really is. It, my friend, is what I call TRUE TRUTH!
Posted by: john chiarello | December 22, 2007 8:19 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?