A Religious Landscape Ripe for Revival (by Jim Wallis)
But what most struck me about the Pew Study was that U.S. citizens are moving to places where faith is "personal." I bumped into one of the authors of the new study, John Green, at the Washington, D.C., CNN studios this afternoon where we were both doing commentary on the results. And John confirmed the conclusion about the attractiveness of more personal, dynamic, and vibrant faith communities. But, as I said to the CNN correspondent who, of course, asked about the political implications of all this, personal doesn't necessarily mean private, conservative, Republican, Religious Right, abortion, and gay marriage.
On the contrary, what I see rising up all around the country is a new evangelical agenda focusing on poverty, the environment and climate change, human rights, war and peace, and, yes, the sanctity of human life - but much more broadly applied to include places like Darfur and the 30,000 children who died again today globally of unnecessary poverty and disease. Why pit unborn children against poor children? Rather, let's see them all in the category of the vulnerable that Jesus calls us to defend. In fact, my observation is that a concern for social justice is breaking out precisely at the places and in the people where faith is more personal. After all, as I often preach on the road, "God is personal, but never private." Many people are now hungry for a faith that is powerful enough to change their lives, their relationships, their neighborhoods, their nation, and their world. Churches that just focus on doctrine or on principles will continue to lose people to churches that offer a personal faith that cares for the world. When faith is no longer restricted to just our private lives, but breaks out into the world, new things can happen. Like revival.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Once we have in place a constitutional amendment RE-defining marriage as a man and a woman, and then we, as a Christian people, dedicate ourselves to validating the family as important agian, then we will be back on the road to revival. Then. ALL children will be cared about and cared for.
Posted by: Psalm 51, me too. | February 26, 2008 6:15 PM
So if it's in the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman (which it already is) it's as good as done that all children will only then be cared for? Since it's already the case in fact, how come all children aren't cared for now in fact?
Seems that the focus can't be confined to mere legalisms, after all, but has to be acted on in relation to others.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 26, 2008 8:04 PM
me too,
I am not sure how an Amendment is needed for a move of God . I am pretty sure the Lord does not need the Constitution to prepare our hearts .
I don't Jim Wallis is either , but that is another subject .
Posted by: Mick | February 26, 2008 8:15 PM
I was shocked at this study- how incredibly irrelevant it was. Americans are switching religions it says- not true. They are switching denominations a lot. Catholics and Protestants are different kinds of Christians. Many are switching to unaffiliated churches. So? We are more likely to not be in the church of our parents. We are more likely to be in the undenominational churches. 'Cept, if you were following the trends, you knew this about 20 years ago. Show me that more Christians are converting to Islam and Buddhism, and more Buddhists to Christianity and Judaism, and I'll be interested- because that will be something new.
Posted by: Jedidiah | February 26, 2008 10:17 PM
I believe that what you describe here is the real thing when it comes to religion. And certainly there is a segment of people who are trending this way. Hope you're right and that it's the start of a larger groundswell.
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | February 26, 2008 11:05 PM
I'm not particularly surprised by the results of this study. However, it reminds me what a contrast exists between my life and faith and a lot of others.
I have determined long ago, to follow the Bible, and the Bible fully, not anything else. As such, I belong to a church that does just that.
I could no more change denominations than I could will myself a third arm. To leave would mean I reject the Bible and how I've come to know it. No other church follows the Bible as fully, rather than traditions.
Contrast this to many, who do not seek ultimate truth, but only a "comfortable" level of knowledge, and find that they move from place to place, where the ultimate understanding of the Bible matters far less than how comfortable you are where you are, or how you enjoy the people, the preacher/minister/priest. Thus, movement between denominations is easy.
Even if I chose to not be "churched" (I wasn't for quite a number of years in my early adulthood), the notion of even considering some other denomination is utterly out of the question.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 27, 2008 12:12 AM
This study doesn't surprise me since I switched from being a Christian to a Hindu. And you are right, it was because of a personal faith. It made it personal and at the same time Hinduism teaches us to reach out and care for those in the world while at the same time giving us guidance for ways to live our life. Hinduism isn't rigid, but is dynamic and flexible and it forces you to think for yourself about what the best course is for you to take. It never says "don't do" it says "take a look at this way of looking at it, do you agree? do you disagree? why? how do you look at it? Etc." Instead of Ten Commandments it has Ten Commitments, for examples. No commands, just asks you to take into consideration making commitments to... Social justice is a large subject in Hinduism. In Hinduism one of the things I have often found is the challenge to see God in all people and things and then treat them with the same respect and dignity we do God. That's a huge challenge and one I have definately implemented in my life and work on improving everyday. The study doesn't say much about people who did what I did about leaving one religion for another, it mainly focused on Christian denominations and switching between those. But I do know that it is happening since I have met plenty of people who have switched religions and not just denominations. The study proves what I have often told people for many years...that people take religion and spiritual matters personally and that they can think for themselves on this matter. Each have their own reasons for changing religions or denominations, but people are paying attention, they are exploring and searching. They're not just sitting idly by and accepting whatever religion they were born into. People are thinking and ultimately religion can shoot itself in the foot if it tries to impose itself on others and gets too close to the political scene or is felt to be impersonal and unattached from the real world. I'm not suggesting religions stop believing in this or that, I'm saying that they need to be conscious about their beliefs and cautious about those who would abuse them, and they need to make sure to have balance. I remember reading many months ago about an Atheist who was hired to go from church to church to church to church. It was a challenge offered up by a local pastor. The Atheist was then surveyed about the churches. Some he felt were sincere about their desire to reach out and help people or were sincere in their efforts towards social justice, but some he said either seemed impersonal or too political. Study after study after study seems to find what some already know is happening in America.
Posted by: Nate | February 27, 2008 5:49 AM
I think it's a nice study documenting the pretty obvious; and is being twisted as documenting a dramatic change so it makes the news and gets the hype.
And for everyone trying to promote a different public narrative about what is going on in American religious life--it will be worked to provide the evidence.
As for me and my house--I find Jesus quite compelling. Can't outgrow him. Can't find my way around him. Can't get over him. Somehow the Truth from outside time and space revealed in terms I can embrace and be overwhelmed by--is quite large enough for me.
I don't have a problem with folks jumping brands or leaving Christianity. I just don't think I know the Jesus who can be outgrown.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 27, 2008 6:35 AM
Nate, I notice that, when a person rejects Jesus and becomes a Hindu, a Muslim (a Humanist, a Progressive or whatever), that they do not have a death sentence pronounced on them and their children for doing so. I became a Christian because of Christ Jesus, and for no other reason. The Truth is sometimes hard to follow, but worth it.
Posted by: Psalm 51, me too. | February 27, 2008 7:51 AM
Why pit unborn children against poor children?
Who is doing that?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 27, 2008 8:37 AM
I have not had time to read the Pew study in total but I have heard some things about it. I do not think the news is that people are changing denominations or religions. That has happened through out time. It is more probably found in what the study has uncovered as to why it is happening today.
Wolverine
I am sure you know what the answer to your question is, since it has been discussed in great detail here many times. If you want to talk more about it just say so.
I will say that as a blanket statement it does seem to be false. If you asked someone if they were doing any such thing they would obviously respond with an emphatic NO! In reality though it is a description of what appears to be the out working of some peoples ideas and their zealous emphasis on them to the exclusion of anything else that can be done to help.
Psalm 51's response would be an example of such.
Posted by: wayne | February 27, 2008 9:45 AM
Once we have in place a constitutional amendment RE-defining marriage as a man and a woman, and then we, as a Christian people, dedicate ourselves to validating the family as important agian, then we will be back on the road to revival.
Not at all true, because a "marriage amendment" will not stop affairs or divorce, which are far more damaging to families that same-gender marriage. And let's bring materialism, which is worse than those, into this discussion as well.
Contrast this to many, who do not seek ultimate truth, but only a "comfortable" level of knowledge, and find that they move from place to place, where the ultimate understanding of the Bible matters far less than how comfortable you are where you are, or how you enjoy the people, the preacher/minister/priest. Thus, movement between denominations is easy.
That wasn't always the case. A couple of generations ago it took a quite a bit for people to move from one denomination to another because of a much greater emphasis on learning a certain theology; even today some hard-core Calvinists (my heritage) believe that only they have it "right." Catholics and Protestants were literally anathema to each other until a few decades ago, and as a non-Catholic it still irks me that I cannot take communion because, in the Catholic view, I'm part of a "bastard" church.
But in my own faith journey I have found that no denomination or theology gets it completely right; though I do come from a Reformed background I have found that it misses a few things and thus needed to gain insight from other sources. Really, it's usually a matter of emphasis. That said, I'm all for theological study and I'm a bit more conservative than the denomination I attend now. What's important is that you know God personally, and even theological study of the "good stuff" can take you only so far.
Why pit unborn children against poor children?
Who is doing that?
The political right has been doing just that for 30 years.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 27, 2008 10:12 AM
A just read an article in Newsweek (who knows how recent it was, since it was in the waiting room of the doctor's office--could have been 10 years old =)) which notes a very different trend. It showed how Christians are tending to move back towards more traditional denominations and approaches to spirituality with more of an emphasis on ritual.
On my own journey, I find myself this year back in a Lutheran church. It's been over 20 years--I was raised a Lutheran but moved into Charismatic circles in college. I'm learning to find meaning in the ritual, even though it is not easy after all those years in non-denominational churches. I've learned over the past 5-6 years that church is not so much about how church is done, but the community of believers and being part of that community. As such, I don't consider myself a Lutheran--just a Christian who happens to go to a Lutheran church (and probably will as long as I live in this town).
Posted by: squeaky | February 27, 2008 10:27 AM
Well, I understand the unborn vs. born points. But on this blog should we not all be able to move past that dispute. In the realms of personal, community, religious, public, and government realms, is there anyone here who would not affirm the value of the unborn, poor children, widows, disabled, ill, elders, etc?
Frankly, the place we are most likely to pit the interests of the strong against the weak is in the hearts of the strong. The stance of our lives and of the government must unequivocally be ones of guarding the dignity and well-being of the weak; and not using the well-being of weak persons as the battering ram to obtain political power. No side of the political spectrum has a corner on righteousness in this regards.
Sooner or later, we all arrive in the camp of the 'weak'--and at that point discover just how dismissive, abusive, dehumanizing, and unloving the 'world of the strong' can be.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 27, 2008 10:43 AM
"Contrast this to many, who do not seek ultimate truth, but only a "comfortable" level of knowledge, and find that they move from place to place, where the ultimate understanding of the Bible matters far less than how comfortable you are where you are, or how you enjoy the people, the preacher/minister/priest. Thus, movement between denominations is easy."
Interesting. I know of many churches of various denominations that "follow the Bible, and the Bible fully, not anything else." So how does one choose among them? It seems to me that then you go with things like "how comfortable you are where you are, or how you enjoy the people, the preacher/minister/priest." Heck, for that matter, who serves the better coffee between Sunday School and Worship Service.
Posted by: carl copas | February 27, 2008 1:07 PM
This is one of those stories that every Christian will read as a validation of their particular view of faith.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 27, 2008 1:35 PM
I too started out as a Southern Baptist, then American then God led me to a whole different understanding as a Christian mystic w/ Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic roots.
I think the biggest problem w/ the idea of revival and righteousness is that there is always an outgroup. Someone that won't measure up, someone that will screw up. we look to some perfect standard that is mythic but unrealistic. I wish we could just love each other and let God decide the standards that will work best for each faith community and individual.
I also think God can be private, personal, communal, practical, impractical... He can do whatever he wants and will. He is extremely personal when it comes to the private relationships that he cultivates but then he always leads those that are that intimate into sharing that within a community.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 27, 2008 1:42 PM
Carl... How do you choose?
To quote Bill Cosby: Read your Bible.
Then see who follows it. Who keeps the ten commandments? I can point out one that almost none of them honor.
Who recognizes the Gospel, and preaches at AS IT WAS PREACHED? Very few.
It's really not all that hard. But if I were to try to direct you, then it would by my word vs someone else's. That would be pointless. This is between you and God.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 27, 2008 2:00 PM
Then see who follows it. Who keeps the ten commandments? I can point out one that almost none of them honor.
And I know just which commandment you're talking about. But that misses the point.
God's intent, always, was to separate a people for Himself that will live at His command so that he could work through them to bring "shalom" to this world -- that is, "Here's how it's done." Ancient Israel, however, failed miserably in that task, in part because they didn't want that responsibility, so He gave the charge to us "Christ-followers."
That said, "keeping the law" is basically irrelevant. In fact, I no longer believe in keeping the Ten Commandments -- because Jesus superseded them with just two: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind; and your neighbor as yourself." Understanding the Gospel as it was really preached comes from an understanding of the Two.
And I think that revival is on its way precisely because a "new evangelicalism," for lack of a better term, gets that. It truly desires to worship God but recognizes that "doing for others" -- and not just works of mercy and service on a personal level -- is part of obeying Him.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 27, 2008 2:22 PM
Wolverine - You know very well who's pitting unborn children against poor children. Haven’t you been reading this blog?? It's Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Haggee, the Religious Right in general, Focus on the Family, that organization that likes Israel, the Israelis themselves, capitalists, Reagan worshipers(did you know the '80s is called the decade of greed?!), Halliburton, global warming skeptics, Biblists, conservatives, Republicans, people who don't agree that "everything must change", patriotic Americans, evangelicals who don't vote for Democrats, people who like to celebrate Thanksgiving, Christians who have qualms about gay marriage, war-mongers, people who want to “look beyond race”, orthodox Christians, non-Red Letter Christians, the Columbian government, the Bush Administration, and basically everyone who doesn’t believe that the times, they are a changin’ to a new revolution where Christians are going to start voting Democrat!
All of the above just want to keep the paternalistic, tradition-bound system that runs our culture alive by forcing woman to have children they don't want instead of working with us to create the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.
Posted by: Composite Evil | February 27, 2008 2:47 PM
Affirming anyone means more that saying it's OK for them to have some value. It means service in nursing homes, foster/adoption of children with, and without, special needs. It means supporting research on global warming for the sake of persons who already find their lifes and history in danger. It means investing time, prayer and money in supplies so that no photographer can find any more of those children with starved and bloated stomachs because we're feeding them.
I'm OK with denominations and their diversity; the Holy Spirit didn't quit speaking after the first century and seems to be leading folks who search to the places they need to be.
I won't judge your response to His call; the One who saves and loves us can handle that alone. I would ask for the freedom to be what God calls me to be, and to do whatever soul-searching is necessary to listen and allow others the same privilege.
By the way, I have a son who is gay/transgendered. I refuse to believe that my Savior would send this precious child to us, and then expect us to love him more than God does.
Posted by: openeyes | February 27, 2008 4:34 PM
"Carl... How do you choose?
To quote Bill Cosby: Read your Bible."
I read it every day.
"Then see who follows it. Who keeps the ten commandments? I can point out one that almost none of them honor."
Which one? The one about the Sabbath or the one about no graven images? Jesus gave us two commandments that he said summed up all the Law and the prophets.
"Who recognizes the Gospel, and preaches at AS IT WAS PREACHED? Very few."
Actually, I find that quite a few in my area preach the Gospel as it was preached, if in English or Spanish rather than Aramaic or Koine. So how do I decide among those churches? Now we're back to things like comfort, clergy, choir, and coffee.
"This is between you and God."
For which I'm extremely grateful.
I appreciate your thoughtful answer Watcher.
Posted by: carl copas | February 27, 2008 4:39 PM
"All of the above just want to keep the paternalistic, tradition-bound system that runs our culture alive by forcing woman to have children they don't want instead of working with us to create the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth."
Composite Evil
At first I thought you were kidding. Before I respond I wish to clarify if you wish to dialogue in language that entertains the possibility of an option other than A) Forcing women to have children or B)Working to create the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you are, maybe you could specify an example of how unborn children are pitted against poor children.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 27, 2008 5:56 PM
Psalm 51 me too wrote: "Once we have in place a constitutional amendment RE-defining marriage as a man and a woman ..."
To the extent that marriage is a religious sacrament, government has no business passing any law whatsoever about it, let alone a Constitutional amendment. That's what's known as "freedom of religion".
The only context in which government should "define" or regulate marriage is in the context of a "civil union", which is a legal contract between two individuals regarding shared property and other financial commitments. And since government-defined and government-regulated "civil unions" are by definition nothing more or less than a legal contract between consenting individuals, government cannot and should not discriminate against any individuals who want to enter into such a contract on the basis of gender, race or anything else.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | February 27, 2008 6:37 PM
"The only context in which government should "define" or regulate marriage is in the context of a "civil union", which is a legal contract between two individuals regarding shared property and other financial commitments."
Why? It should be all or nothing, yes?
"government cannot and should not discriminate against any individuals who want to enter into such a contract on the basis of gender, race or anything else."
Age?
Posted by: kevin s. | February 27, 2008 9:19 PM
SecularAnimist: "government cannot and should not discriminate against any individuals who want to enter into such a contract on the basis of gender, race or anything else."
kevin s: "Age?"
A legitimate point. And I would add sanity and mental health to age.
Posted by: carl copas | February 27, 2008 10:07 PM
I wish the folks who are adamant about an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would be just as concerned about the high rate of divorces among evangelicals. Our churches are full of such with nary a word really about it though the Scriptures have a good deal to say about divorce???
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 27, 2008 11:13 PM
That said, "keeping the law" is basically irrelevant. In fact, I no longer believe in keeping the Ten Commandments -- because Jesus superseded them with just two: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind; and your neighbor as yourself." Understanding the Gospel as it was really preached comes from an understanding of the Two.
So, do you consider it ok to covet your neighbor's wife?
The commandments weren't really "commandments". Sadly, our understanding of how they were written is a little fuzzy, but it's pretty clear... The first four are our duty to God and the last are our duty to each other...
Worship God, worship ONLY God, not idols,
Respect God's name as holy and keep His Sabbath (instituted at Creation).
That's the duty to God
Don't murder, don't steal, don't covet what someone else has, don't be sexually promiscuous, don't lie about others, honor your parents..
Nothing too mysterious here... but to say these are "outmoded" and acceptable after Christ's death is, well.. silly. Nothing has changed about God, and He hasn't suddenly granted us immunity from Law, so... I see no reason to think that anything significant has changed.
What, as has been pointed out several times, changed, is that the end of the Theocracy came, Israel rejected Christ and national salvation. All the temple ceremonies and rituals and sacrafices that were there to teach by demonstration about the future actions of the plan of salvation were also fulfilled, and those were nailed to the Cross in the form of Christ himself.
If you don't believe the Ten Commandments apply, please feel free to tell me which ones you can now break without sinning...
Posted by: The Watcher | February 28, 2008 4:26 AM
mark--
"If you don't believe the Ten Commandments apply, please feel free to tell me which ones you can now break without sinning..."
You misunderstand Rick.
"Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
These two commandments sum up the 10 commandments. You cannot break any of the 10 commandments without breaking both of these. So, the answer to the above question, is none of them.
Posted by: squeaky | February 28, 2008 8:37 AM
Markcher: "I have determined long ago, to follow the Bible, and the Bible fully, not anything else. As such, I belong to a church that does just that. I could no more change denominations than I could will myself a third arm. To leave would mean I reject the Bible..."
This is a little rigid, isn't it? Let me guess: General Association of Regular Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventist, WELS, or Plymouth Brethren?
Posted by: I and I | February 28, 2008 9:02 AM
So, do you consider it ok to covet your neighbor's wife?
If you love your neighbor -- that is, "do right" by him -- you won't even want to do that anyway.
Besides, do you remember Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler? He had "kept" all the commandments and yet his position and financial heft still had a hold on him, breaking the "spirit" of the law. The Pharisees didn't get that either, forgetting that the law existed not for itself but to maintain unity with God and harmony with fellow persons.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 9:15 AM
Worship God, worship ONLY God, not idols,
Respect God's name as holy and keep His Sabbath (instituted at Creation).
That's the duty to God
Don't murder, don't steal, don't covet what someone else has, don't be sexually promiscuous, don't lie about others, honor your parents..
Nothing too mysterious here... but to say these are "outmoded" and acceptable after Christ's death is, well.. silly. Nothing has changed about God, and He hasn't suddenly granted us immunity from Law, so... I see no reason to think that anything significant has changed.
Watcher,I think you miss the point of the previous post. These things are valid, however Jesus sums them up in the two: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. If we focus on these two commandments of our Lord all the rest will fall into place. In fact Jesus calls us to exceed the expectation of the law; i.e. " Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees", and "you have heard it said thou shall not kill, but I say to you he who is angry with his brother without cause is in danger of the judgement...." (Matthew chapter 5)
You speak of people finding churches where they are comfortable, and I heartily agree with that statement. However I think that perhaps you have found a church where you are comfortable with the strictly defined rules and regulations that you follow there. Jesus does not call us to be comfortable, whether it is the comfort of the lukewarm, the feel good or the legalist. He calls us out into the uncomfortable world around us.
Posted by: zoink | February 28, 2008 9:45 AM
Rick: "If you love your neighbor -- that is, "do right" by him -- you won't even want to do that anyway...the law existed not for itself but to maintain unity with God and harmony with fellow persons."
Rick, excellent response, and it dovetails very nicely with your quote from Augustine on another thread, that says all our actions must spring from the love and honor of God which is central in our lives. For this reason I always thought that the prattle about putting the Ten Commandments in the schools was theologically as well as politically suspect. It's really not about the commandments, after all, and I would rather have Christ's two commandments posted in my own home than those of Moses, precisely for the spirit vs. law reasons you cited..
Posted by: I and I | February 28, 2008 10:32 AM
Letjustice... Yes, my previous post was in jest. I thought I'd made it "over-the-top" enough for people to realize that. I guess not.
Posted by: Composite Evil | February 28, 2008 11:21 AM
For this reason I always thought that the prattle about putting the Ten Commandments in the schools was theologically as well as politically suspect.
In fact, strictly speaking, the Ten Commandments were only for Israel and, perhaps metaphorically, the church. Remember the preamble to the first commandment: "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
Lately I've been reading Jim Bakker's book "I Was Wrong," and he admits candidly that building the PTL ministry actually got in the way of his relationship with God. As I read his words I knew he had nailed it -- of course he went to prison because of the scandal but, similar to Charles Colson, when he came out he understood God and His purposes in a way he never had before.
This thread is on spiritual revival, and one thing I've always said is that "revival won't come when they get it -- it can come only when we realize we ain't got it." I said that in response to religious right types, many who believe that an emphasis on mere moral behavior was a sign of such and who often confuse revival with evangelism and related religious activity but which often takes the place of a Spirit-birthed movement.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 11:50 AM
As I occasionally skim over comments on this blog there seems to be a lot of talk about "God." I am curious if anyone cares to comment on how she/he defines her/his "god?"
Posted by: jackfate | February 28, 2008 12:28 PM
Rick, do you believe that your statement: "many who believe that an emphasis on mere moral behavior was a sign of such and who often confuse revival with evangelism and related religious activity but which often takes the place of a Spirit-birthed movement" applies only to those on the "religious right"?
Posted by: Eric | February 28, 2008 2:04 PM
"I wish the folks who are adamant about an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would be just as concerned about the high rate of divorces among evangelicals. Our churches are full of such with nary a word really about it though the Scriptures have a good deal to say about divorce???"
My pastor talks quite a bit more about divorce than gay marriage. As such, we have an extremely low divorce rate among our membership. Churches that disregard the issue are failing their membership.
To the rich young ruler, he refused a direct command from God, which violated the commandments, and his failure resulted from covetousness.
I don't tend to get worked up about having the Ten Commandments in public forums, but I also don't see why people are so anxious to take them down. Both sides are petty and obnoxious, generally.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2008 2:16 PM
Eric -- Basically, I do because the "left," standing for virtually nothing especially in those days, was so open-minded that its brains basically fell out. I attended such a church then and I often wonder just how many of my parishioners were actually "saved." (In fact, I wasn't when I started there.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 2:25 PM
My pastor talks quite a bit more about divorce than gay marriage. As such, we have an extremely low divorce rate among our membership. Churches that disregard the issue are failing their membership.
I would hope then that he talks about how we Christians should treat each other generally, as "brothers and sisters" -- most divorces, I'm told, happen because the couple is mismatched anyway, primarily due to "spiritualized lust," and take place because of financial issues. That's of course a function of Great Commandment No. 2.
I don't tend to get worked up about having the Ten Commandments in public forums, but I also don't see why people are so anxious to take them down.
Christianity in this country has often been used to maintain cultural authority for its own sake, not to worship God and love and serve others -- thus violating the commandments they seek to display. That's why I have no problem with their being removed.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 2:43 PM
To the rich young ruler, he refused a direct command from God, which violated the commandments, and his failure resulted from covetousness.
That's reading too much into it, as numerous of the commandments -- not necessarily the Ten -- required giving to the poor. He may have been born into that wealth and simply became comfortable in it without considering what it may have been doing to him spiritually. (BTW, legend holds that the rich young ruler was John Mark, author of the Gospel of Mark and part of the first party of missionaries.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 5:09 PM
Divorce.Homosexuality.
Growing up we made divorced persons 'second class' Christians. We have gone through great cultural change. I think, as Christians, we realized we needed to change attitudes towards divorce. We followed the world on that and many other matters related to family/marriage/sexuality/childbearing/parenting.
Now we come to the demand for change regarding attitudes/ethics/behavior/standards regarding homosexuality.
We know we remain profoundly broken in these other areas after going along with the world.
So we resist the world on the issue of homosexuality; while following it. This is fear-driven and will yield the same result.
Appreciate Rick's point about addressing divorce. We must look squarely at the brokenness across the board related to all these issues and in love, believe the Gospel can is truly the power unto salvation (an eternal and present shalom--well-being in all things); that churches can walk out healthy and whole models of maleness, femaleness, marriage, etc.
They will not be communities of perfection, but rather truly redemptive communities where we can relearn how to live healed and whole lives. This includes the ability to openly embrace persons with same-sex orientations, receiving them as our brothers and sisters (which they are), and working out loving models of how to walk out their sexuality in the context of a Body faithful to Jesus.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 28, 2008 7:02 PM
I must confess that I think your comments deserve to mention the serious flaws in the commission of this survey. The most significant error that Pew committed was distributing the survey in English and Spanish only. For shame. The serious bias this reflects in determining religious beliefs among a huge number of immigrant communities deserves serious attention. This would influence not only your comments about "personal" religion and revival, but also most certainly would have influenced the group's conclusions.
http://fatedplace.blogspot.com
Posted by: David McConeghy | March 7, 2008 5:35 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?