(For now, anyway.)
When evangelicals stop preaching sermons on Gran Torino and dropping iPods from helicopters on Easter, I’ll start caring about Fatima.
I mean, do I have a Spiritual aversion to the “ceremonies, vows, works, and merits” of my brothers and sisters across the Tiber? Yes, and it is strong, theological and visceral.
But we are Keystone Kops over here. We are the Million Stooges, the overflowing clown car.
I think one reason the Reformation was so brilliant, so powerful, so swift in its spread, and still such an anchor—honestly: Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, et.al., but especially Luther, make me feel sane—for many of us today is because as it was taking shape and rescuing hearts, there was no Protestant Church yet to discredit it.
I never even noticed the ad for the Pope’s book at the top of the page until someone pointed it out to me. But for the last two weeks I have been honestly chagrined to keep seeing the word Evangel with a post beneath it that had nothing explicitly (and usually not implicitly) to do with the gospel.
Related posts:
October 30th, 2009 | 12:01 am | #1
You sound like you’ve been spending time over at SliceOfLaodicea.
So maybe you need to tell us what the gospel actually is, if you don’t think you’re seeing it here.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:23 am | #2
Anthony – I’m not Jared, but I think I know where he’s coming from (Jared, correct me if I’m wrong).
A wise pastor-friend of mine is currently pastoring a church comprised of tons of home-schoolers and whose session has several Dobson, take-America-back-for-God types. What this pastor keeps telling his church is something like this: “It’s fine for you to have strong convictions about _______, but if you let it become our calling card, then you’re going to offend people with something other than the Gospel, and that’s something Christians can’t do.”
Likewise, here it’s all well and good for us to have discussions about a variety of issues related to politics, culture, and the church. But if we articulate our positions in such a way that they become our hallmarks, then we will offend people for our politics, or our artistic tastes, or cultural preferences. And then we’re no different than any other social group or political faction – with our list of distinctives that determine who is in the clique and who is out.
Obviously, we still need to discuss all those issues, but we need to understand that those issues are not the gospel and we can’t treat them with the same weight we do the Gospel. Our hallmark has to be preaching Jesus as suffering servant and conquering king, who triumphs over sin and death and gives us access to God’s kingdom through his work on the cross and resurrection. Otherwise, we’re no different than the Republican party, or the local Bridge club. (As far as defining “the gospel,” I think Tim Keller does a wonderful job of it here: http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/keller-explains-the-gospel/)
October 30th, 2009 | 7:10 am | #3
You sound like you’ve been spending time over at SliceOfLaodicea.
This is AWESOME.
We’re gonna let them be the ones known for pleas for gospel-centrality? Bravo.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:17 am | #4
Oh, and to answer the question:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is the headline of the good news story.
—
Jake, yes, sort of. My post last week on this site titled “Funny, I Don’t Feel Neoconnish” presents my position on that sort of thing.
But, yeah, I believe evangelicals have traded the gospel birthright for the gruel of culture war.
October 30th, 2009 | 8:14 am | #5
Evangelicals have traded the gospel birthright for the gruel of culture war.
What he said. Great line, so true.
October 30th, 2009 | 9:52 am | #6
I believe evangelicals have traded the gospel birthright for the gruel of culture war.
We have? Really?
I know this is a popular self-criticism of evangelicals but what’s the real evidence for this?
Most of the most ardent culture warriors I know are motivated by the Gospel. Perhaps they are wrong but they believe that the actual impact of the Gospel requires them to actually do stuff rather than to simply repeat the term “Gospel” as a mantra until it loses all meaning.
Perhaps the question it, “What happens when the Gospel has been accepted?” Does the Gospel not have an impact on culture? And if so, what would that look like?
Also, why is it always framed as the Gospel is being traded for a “culture war?” Why not “Group X is trading the Gospel by putting too much focus on Y”? Example: Doctors are trading the Gospel by putting too much focus on medicine.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:12 am | #7
I was just egging you on, Jared, to get a more thorough explanation out of you. And I was victorious.
I think I’m going to lean in Joe’s direction on this issue, but cautiously, because I do know for a fact that there are Christians out there who get way too caught up in social issues, to the point that the meat of the gospel sort of fades into oblivion.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:16 am | #8
Joe,
You’re right that we can’t look at all political activism and call it “trading the Gospel”; we have to be more discerning than that.
But doesn’t Jake’s comment answer your question?
October 30th, 2009 | 10:27 am | #9
Joe,
The problem is that Christians are known not so much for believing and teaching the good news of Christ as they are known for supporting the Republican Party, opposing abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. Being reduced to a voting block in the public square is damaging to the faith.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:40 am | #10
Were the Christians in Rome persecuted for preaching the gospel? Or for acting like Christians ought to act.
I think the latter.
That’s not to say that many haven’t been sucked too far into the culture wars, but isn’t that more a matter of emphasis than action?
That is, isn’t more that they forget (or avoid) stressing the truth of the gospel and making it plain that it’s that that drives them?
I suspect that the damage done by those too caught up in culture wars is more likely damage within the church than it is damage to the church’s reputation outside of the church. Or to damage their own faith, by forgetting that only Jesus saves, politics never can.
It’s a tricky balance I think. You can’t believe the gospel and not have it affect your dealings with the culture, nor can you shrink it down to a belief which is primarily intended to change culture. Both seem to me to be wrong.
October 30th, 2009 | 10:41 am | #11
Love Jared’s work but I think Joe is right. As for Adam’s point, true enough, but how is that to be avoided?
October 30th, 2009 | 10:57 am | #12
“What happens when the Gospel has been accepted?” Does the Gospel not have an impact on culture? And if so, what would that look like?
Of course it has an impact on culture. But it does not leverage culture into reflecting this impact. Nor does it ask culture to reflect an impact it hasn’t felt.
I would settle at this point for evangelicalism looking like the gospel has an impact on it.
Also: What Adam said.
I don’t feel like rehashing all the same answers to the same questions in the wake of my “Neoconnish” post. Everything I said there applies here.
Talking about the culture war is just as wearying to me as swimming in it.
It really does seem bizarre, though, when people ask for the evidence of the trade-off. I know I can’t be the only one who sees this, who sees it as a problem. I don’t live in Bizarro World.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:26 am | #13
Jugulum But doesn’t Jake’s comment answer your question?
I think Jake makes an excellent point, especially when he says, “But if we articulate our positions in such a way that they become our hallmarks, then we will offend people for our politics, or our artistic tastes, or cultural preferences.” In theory, I’m in complete agreement. But the problem is how we view the Gospel and how the world views it.
We tend to throw around the term Gospel without remembering what it is that offends people about it. If it were just “Jesus died so that you might have life” most people wouldn’t think that was very controversial. What bothers people is when you tell them that Christ died to save us from sin. That’s when they go nuts, particularly when you point out that certain behavior they love is, in fact, sin.
Far too often, we don’t connect those two. For example, Adam says, “The problem is that Christians are known not so much for believing and teaching the good news of Christ as they are known for supporting the Republican Party, opposing abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.” For the moment, let’s throw out the part about supporting the Republican Party since most evangelicals I know (like me) only support them when they support the issues that we deem essential for good polity (i.e., protecting innocent life.)
I think Adam’s statement could be reframed as, “The problem is that Christians are known not so much for believing and teaching the good news of Christ as they are known for defending human life and dignity, oppossing sin and standing up for God’s creational norms, and placing more faith in Scripture than in science.”
Framed that way, I think it becomes clear that the latter parts of the statement are simply an outworking of believing and teaching the good news of Christ.
The world doesn’t hate us because we love Jesus; the world hates us because we love Jesus enough to hate sin. How much sin will God tolerate? None. How much speaking out against sin will the world tolerate? None. The very moment that you say that certain behavior is sinful—a necessary part of preaching the Gospel—people will automatically associate Christianity with that denoucement. It’s inevitable. Christians could be the most generous loving people on the face of the earth and the moment that we say “homosexual behavior is sinful” we become hateful bigots in the eyes of the world.
Jared C. Wilson It really does seem bizarre, though, when people ask for the evidence of the trade-off. I know I can’t be the only one who sees this, who sees it as a problem. I don’t live in Bizarro World.
As I’ve said before, such people can certainly be found. But do they constitute a critical mass of evangelicals? I don’t see evidence that this is the case.
To me its a bit like Glenn Beck’s claim that the Obama Administration is full of socialists. Can you find someone on his staff—especially some low-level staffer—who has socialist tendencies? Yeah, probably so. But to make the inference that since someone with such sympathies can be found that the entire administrationis a hotbed of socialism is a leap in logic that is not supported by the evidence.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:57 am | #14
If you’re weary of something, maybe you shouldn’t bring it up. Just saying.
Look, if we’re known for something, the question is why are we known for it? And it seems possible that if we’re known for it, maybe that’s a good thing. I fail to see how offending someone for being opposed to the butchering of babies is a bad thing.
I’m sure lots of people were offended by William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, but I don’t hear too many people complaining about them.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:57 am | #15
When Christians are identified more with their politics and social issues than their faith, it is usually because the world has a certain unhealthy attitude, which is this: “Whatever you Christians believe is fine with us so long as it’s a personal thing that doesn’t affect the rest of us or impose truth upon us in any way, shape, or form.”
When people say they love Jesus but hate Christians, sometimes they have a good reason for this, but mostly it’s because they have no clue who Jesus really is. Jesus is not a pie-in-the-sky abstract feeling of love; he makes real demands on real people. The role of the Christian is to preach Christ and to live as Christ wants us to live. The world hates us because the world hates Christ.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:45 pm | #16
Out here in Calif. I can take you to churches that are more know for being anti-Obama than being pro-Christ.
Joe is right that we as Little Christs are called to do something but I am disheartened that Joe does not numerate what it is that we should do.
First and foremost the gospel is that Christ was sacrificed for us and rose again. Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of God, according to the Gospel of Mark, that is the Good News.
How best do we love people who have had abortions or are seeking to wed their homosexual partner? Tell them that they are bad and wrong and can’t do that, or love them and point them to a better way, which is love?
October 30th, 2009 | 12:51 pm | #17
I fail to see how offending someone for being opposed to the butchering of babies is a bad thing.
And here comes the “how else will we stop abortion?” and “you must not be very pro-life” insinuations.
The role of the Christian is to preach Christ and to live as Christ wants us to live. The world hates us because the world hates Christ.
This is an important point.
Hold on to it, because it reflects exactly where I’m coming from.
If our words and deeds related to abortion or anything else do not explicitly preach Christ and his gospel, and they hate us, is it Christ and his gospel they are hating?
do they constitute a critical mass of evangelicals? I don’t see evidence that this is the case.
I think the success of characters like Glenn Beck and Limbaugh among evangelicals is evidence.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:54 pm | #18
I know it’s really hard in these here parts to not jump on a culture war point, even if it’s one sentence in a comment thread and not the point of the post, but does anyone get what my original point was? Anyone agree?
Dealing with Catholic shenanigans is secondary to dealing with our shenanigans?
Anybody, anybody? Or do we just want to talk about politics instead?
October 30th, 2009 | 12:59 pm | #19
I agree with you Jared. The so-called “Evangel” title without the Gospel is something that people seem to be willfully ignoring. Or could that just be me?
October 30th, 2009 | 1:16 pm | #20
Jared Dealing with Catholic shenanigans is secondary to dealing with our shenanigans?
I’m in agreement with your point, but think that example you gave was slightly off the mark. While I naturally agree that the culture war can supplant the Gospel, I don’t think that’s our biggest concern.
If you had called us out on something like individualism or materialism as the primary shenanigans that we should be concerned with, I would have given you a standing ovation.
But I think the “evangelicals are too concerned with politics” meme is a bit played out. In fact, I think the corollary to the “evangelicals too concerned with politics” is the “evangelicals who are too concerned with evangelicals who are too concerned with politics.” ; )
October 30th, 2009 | 1:24 pm | #21
Jared – no insinuation was meant that you are less than anti-abortion. Not one bit. Point was simply that being pro-life as an extension of the Gospel is likely to offend, and that’s hard to avoid. Not much we can do about it.
But again, folks who worry about that seem not to be too concerned – in retrospect – with MLK or William Wilberforce. It seems out of balance.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:24 pm | #22
I didn’t give the example of the culture war until after Jake (sort of) asked about it.
The point of my post mainly has the laser light show of American Christianity as its concern. I bet most here would agree with that but the birthright/gruel thing in the comments was too sweet a bait, I s’pose. :-)
But, yes, in the last couple of lines of my post, I am saying that I’ve been chagrined about the gospel-absent and gospel-latent content in the last two weeks. I think the overwhelming concern of the blog’s contents do not reflect the title. Maybe we could be called something else? I know “God’s Politics” or “Christian Culture” are taken and lame . . .
October 30th, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #23
Albert Mohler wrote an excellent piece on this very topic and it is worth reading in its entirety:
Why Moralism Is Not the Gospel — And Why So Many Christians Think It Is
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/mohler/11608224/
We sin against Christ and we misrepresent the Gospel when we suggest to sinners that what God demands of them is moral improvement in accordance with the Law…
The Church must never evade, accommodate, revise, or hide the law of God. Indeed, it is the Law that shows us our sin and makes clear our inadequacy and our total lack of righteousness. The Law cannot impart life but, as Paul insists, it “has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” [Gal. 3:24]
The deadly danger of moralism has been a constant temptation to the church and an ever-convenient substitute for the Gospel. Clearly, millions of our neighbors believe that moralism is our message. Nothing less than the boldest preaching of the Gospel will suffice to correct this impression and to lead sinners to salvation in Christ.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #24
Jared- the site reflects the current situation in evangelicalism. The basically culture-war model of the evangelical mission. The longing for the simpler days of pre Vatican II evangelical/Catholic fighting. The criticism of “gospel-centrism” as somehow disconnecting from the Gospel. The rather eloquent and thoughtful voices from some quarters. The common and abiding concerns of the regular evangelical. The hopeful voices trying to sort through the politics and the polemics.
It’s all quite familiar to me. I’m just grateful that there are ads for a Fatima movie and not Fireproof. It’s easier to explain why I’m not interested :-)
We are the clown car. You are so right.
michael spencer
October 30th, 2009 | 1:47 pm | #25
Jared I think the overwhelming concern of the blog’s contents do not reflect the title.
To be fair, you were the first one to post about politics on this blog. ; )
I do see where you’re coming from, though, and there are times when I have seen people post and wonder how that relates to anything we’d want to talk about on this blog. I’m hoping that as this site matures, that will happen less frequently. I think there are far more interesting discussions we could be having than talking about politics.
But sometimes I get the sense from your post that you are drawing a very narrow circle around the term “Gospel.” I know that’s not your intent and I’ve know you long enough to be able to understand what you are really trying to get at. But I’m not sure it always comes across like you intent.
For instance, you are a preacher so you’re primary relation with the Gospel is proclamation. For some of the rest of us who have vocations and ministries that are outside the preaching/teaching role, our emphasis is on Gospel application.
Now obviously, we have a duty to proclaim the Gospel just as you have to apply it. But whereas your primary emphasis has been discussed, debated, and honed for almost 2,000 years, for many of us we’re still trying to figure out what it means to apply the Gospel in the jobs and roles we have in our lives.
Since how we apply the Gospel to politics affects us all—and affects us on a group level rather than as individuals—it gets a lot of attention. Too much attention. Yeah, probably so. And I’m hoping that we can use our platform here to discuss the application of the Gospel to areas outside of the political sphere.
But while we need balance and focus, I don’t think we want to become a place where we ignore certain areas of debate and discussion for fear that people might mistake us for Republicans.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #26
for many of us we’re still trying to figure out what it means to apply the Gospel in the jobs and roles we have in our lives.
I totally get that, and it’d be awesome to see that. I just think it happens as we explicitly wrestle with how the gospel applies, rather than assuming the gospel and talking about issues without bringing it into the conversation.
So I’m not saying evangelicals shouldn’t talk about abortion or health care or immigration or stem cell research or any other cotton pickin’ thing. Let’s just see some gospel of Jesus in it. All I’m saying.
My original post answering the original challenge to define evangelical actually, I think, drew the widest circle: people shaped by the gospel. Most everyone else had more defining ingredients (most of which I affirm), but I think my circle actually would involve more Christians talking about more things.
Just with the glorious center of the good news of Christ’s finished work.
Hope that makes sense.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:06 pm | #27
Michael I’m just grateful that there are ads for a Fatima movie and not Fireproof. It’s easier to explain why I’m not interested :-)
As someone who made fun of the Fireproof movie (I even refused to go to a private screening of it because I didn’t want to be one of those people) I can understand what you mean. But then I decided to watch it, if only to know why I hated it. Only . . . I didn’t hate it.
It turned out that the movie was rather charming and presented a clear presentation of the Gospel message (odd how people complain about a lack of Gospel-centricity and then mock such messages when they are presented). Sure it was a bit cheesy and there were plenty of eye-rolling moments of Christian-esque kitsch. But it also presented one of the most Christ-like displays of self-sacrifice that I had seen in a long time.
I’ll freely admit that I have a natural aversion to the Standard Evangelical Culture tropes. I am as prone to make fun of that stuff as anyone (I really hated “Facing the Giants”). But sometimes we should try being a bit more encouraging and a little less snarky.
By the way, when did snarky become the default mode of Christian engagement online? I don’t mind a bit of what Doug Wilson call “Trinitarian skylarking”—I do it myself quite often. But when did it become acceptable to look down on our fellow brothers and sisters because they were not as cool, hip, or Gospel-centric as we are?
October 30th, 2009 | 2:13 pm | #28
Jared,
I understand your concern, but realistically, how can two groups, with very different definitions of the gospel, write posts about it without the inevitable topic of who’s wrong coming up.
I think placing an emphasis on politics and such-like is the only way to safely do that.
I have no problem with posts on the gospel and gospel-related topics, but I don’t get the feeling that that’s what the owners of the blog had in mind.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:13 pm | #29
Joe,
In your last post to Jared I can’t tell if you are quoting someone or just writing in italics.
This is probably just a matter of semantics but we can’t “apply” the gospel. We apply to the gospel.
Is there REALLY anything worth arguing about outside of the Apostle’s Creed or Nicene Creed? Doesn’t arguing draw us away from what is foremost? Isn’t it chasing after smoke?
Why do we need balance? Where is the balance for Peter or Paul or any of the other disciples?
I don’t speak or write in a public forum and I know there is a need to keep things interesting. I also know there is a need to draw readers and commentators so perhaps only in the public forum is there a need for the balance you seem to be writing about in the post replying to Jared.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:49 pm | #30
Jared I just think it happens as we explicitly wrestle with how the gospel applies, rather than assuming the gospel and talking about issues without bringing it into the conversation.
I think I understand what you’re saying (though maybe not) but let me try to make the case for why we should not bring it into every conversation.
In my book (on sale now!) I talk about how Jesus used what logicians call enthymemes, a way of presenting a deductive argument in which one of the elements is left unstated. For example in John 5:17, Jesus answer the Pharisees by saying, “My father is working until now, and I am working.”
His abbreviated argument can be outlined as:
There are a number of reasons we should follow Jesus’ example in using enthymemes. But one of the best for our medium is that it shortens the content and makes it more likely to be read.
One of the reason’s I wanted to call this blog “Evangel” is because it should be the unstated major premise behind any claim or argument we make. Sometimes its necessary to connect the dots but if we have to spell it out everytime we’re likely to grow tiresome.
My original post answering the original challenge to define evangelical actually, I think, drew the widest circle: people shaped by the gospel.
I like that answer, though I’m not sure everyone will understand (or agree) on its meaning. For example, some people will think that being a people shaped by the Gospel requires putting a heavy emphasis on protecting innocent life. Others may think it requires us to avoid getting entagled with the culture for fear that it might dilute our message. I think that is a good starting point, but it merely kicks off the discussion, rather than merely underpins it.
Brian This is probably just a matter of semantics but we can’t “apply” the gospel. We apply to the gospel.
Here’s an example about what I mean when we toss around the word “Gospel.” I might be able to explain what it means to apply the Gospel (maybe). But I’m not even sure what it means to apply to the Gospel. I think until we can all come to a consensus on what the term means—at least as precisely as possible—I think we are going to be confused in our discussions.
Doesn’t arguing draw us away from what is foremost?
Personally, I don’t think so. Of course I wrote a book called “How to Argue Like Jesus” so I would think that. ; )
I think arguing gets a bad rap. Jesus argued all the time. What we need to avoid it being unnecessarily divisive.
October 30th, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #31
The Reformers were not “gospel-centric” they were Bible-centric, the whole Word for the whole of life.
The distinction between Rome and the Protestants is total, not just some “Gospel” thingy.
Get down to the details, and you will see that there is NOTHING we agree upon. NOTHING. Rome is wholly Aristotelean-Hellenic in its understanding of EVERYTHING.
When a man or women is born-again, they will leave Rome without exception.
Please, get a clue.
October 30th, 2009 | 3:27 pm | #32
some “Gospel” thingy
Words fail.
Please, get a clue.
I am heading over to Slice posthaste. :-)
October 30th, 2009 | 3:28 pm | #33
Jared,
Did you ever stop to consider that you might be part of the problem? Are you ordained? In a recognized ecclesiastical body which is both confessional and creedal? Are you an anabaptist or a paedo-baptist? If not the latter, all your claims to love the reformers are stupid, because they would have had you banished.
Quit your fomenting about American Protestants until you clean out your own shed!!
October 30th, 2009 | 3:34 pm | #34
Jared,
The creeds define the Gospel, so the church does not need you or anyone else reminding us about it. My pastor tells us the whole Gospel every week. In fact, the whole worship is shaped by the good news. But, the whole Bible is the Gospel, not just little parts.
Man, this whole blog is just a wasteland.
October 30th, 2009 | 3:39 pm | #35
Hey Chris,
Are you an anabaptist or a paedo-baptist?
We credobaptists are attempting to reform the Reformers. Just because they got it wrong doesn’t mean we have to also. ; )
(But I’ll let you in on a little secret: We Baptists dunk our babies soon after they’re born. We don’t believe in all that paedo-baptist stuff, of course. But you can never be too careful. . . )
October 30th, 2009 | 3:40 pm | #36
Chris, You have failed to make an cognitive argument about anything that Jared has said. All you have done is insult him. Yet you are the one who says, “Please, Get a clue”? This is a perfect example of the internet being a huge disservice to discourse. Anyone can have a voice.
You say he is fomenting while fomenting yourself. You tell him to clean out his own shed. Do you even know who Jared is?
October 30th, 2009 | 3:46 pm | #37
Did you ever stop to consider that you might be part of the problem?
Hey, my post does use “we” and “our.”
But, the whole Bible is the Gospel, not just little parts.
Chris, I’m curious. Why do you think I’d disagree with this?
Why would you assume I don’t preach the whole Gospel or pastor a church that is shaped by the gospel?
I’m trying to see beyond your anger here…
October 30th, 2009 | 5:21 pm | #38
Jared,
Umm, will you answer the questions I asked first?
What church body are you in communion with?
Are you ordained or self-appointed?
Are you associated with a larger ecclesiastical body? (Not just some amorphous thing).
Do you baptize the children of believing parents?
All of these questions were of massive importance to the Reformers, not just side-lights.
Yeah, perhaps I did insult, but it’s like the discussion that is taking place in America at the moment is being lead by a bunch of lawyers who never passed the bar. Would I want a surgeon cutting me open who is not recognized by the AMA? You guys posit yourselves as leaders, but where are you going?
Oh, yeah, to Rome.
October 30th, 2009 | 5:33 pm | #39
This whole blog seems dedicated to taking minor issues seriously and ham-handing on the major ones.
“Oh, yeah, those Reformers who we love so much, blah, blah, blah…” Lip-service.
But the ramifications of the über-independent spirit of most of the “ministers” is repugnant. You deny your children the covenant promises? Pox on your house. It is no wonder the church is so screwed.
October 30th, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #40
Chris, You are making unfounded irrational claims and statements. You are putting words in people’s mouths, people you don’t even know. I can only guess that you don’t wish to be taken seriously.
Besides, you wrote, “uber”!
October 30th, 2009 | 6:04 pm | #41
Chris, honest question: do you realize you’re being a colossal jerk? Do you normally talk to people you disagree with or don’t like this way? Does the grace afforded you by God in Christ have no bearing on how you speak to others?
I haven’t encountered a commenter as dripping in contempt and accusation as you in a long, long time, and most I encounter don’t know the gospel from a hole in the ground. Based on your posture in this thread, I can only conclude that your pastor is failing to preach the gospel every week as you said he does or that you have failed to grasp it.
Nevertheless, knowing full well it will be of zero benefit, I want to answer your questions as an act of the grace you can’t find it in yourself to demonstrate to me.
What church body are you in communion with?
I am the pastor of Middletown Church in Middletown Springs, VT, a non-denominational church founded in 1796 in the union of Baptist, Methodist, and Congregationalist congregations. We are non-denominational but our evangelical history stretches to the formative years of this nation.
Are you ordained or self-appointed?
Neither, actually. I was licensed for ministry by the church of my first office.
Are you associated with a larger ecclesiastical body? (Not just some amorphous thing).
No.
Do you baptize the children of believing parents?
I personally do not, but our church does. I am the credobaptist pastor of a church that practices both paedobaptism for families convinced by Scripture and conscience to believe that way and credobaptism for new believers.
Oh, yeah, to Rome.
No. For the same reason as my answers to the above questions: if Sola Scriptura is true, the rest is vows, ceremonies, works, and merits.
Pox on your house.
I’ll wear a pox from an anonymous viper like a badge of honor.
October 30th, 2009 | 6:31 pm | #42
Hold up. Is Chris trying to say that we Reformed Baptists aren’t reformed? Obviously, we are dealing with someone who doesn’t know their church history. Calvin’s congregation, for example, was in good standing with the Southern Baptist Convention.
And I don’t know about Luther but I suspect that even he would be attending Bethlehem Baptist if he was in Minnesota visiting his German relatives.
October 30th, 2009 | 6:36 pm | #43
At least I am jerk without a pulpit. Oh yeah, and an angry one too. Angry at the total ineptitude of people who are supposed to be speaking for me.
You are a professed leader, here on a blog that is spewing some of the most vile trash about Christian history. You are sending deeply mixed messages. Call me a jerk, fine, but take a look at where you are and what you are doing.
Timothy George, says that “Luther belongs to the whole Church.” Huh? Wha? HOw many more lies will this blog perpetuate?
October 30th, 2009 | 7:18 pm | #44
Timothy George (baptist dude) has his name on the ETC. You are all here on an RC blog trying to figure out where your heads should be. Confusing to many? I would think so.
The Reformation, contra Jared, was great because the Word was restored to its position of authority. NOT because there were no Protestants around to ruin it, as he said. Is everything just a joke to you all?
This is über-stupid.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:23 pm | #45
Oops,ECT. Although, etc. is good way to describe the level of discernment shown by the signers.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:23 pm | #46
Chris,
Please, just back away from the keyboard.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:28 pm | #47
Is there a blocking mechanism on this blog…?
October 30th, 2009 | 10:36 pm | #48
Chris,
We want to be welcoming on this blog to all kinds of people. We appreciate criticism and dissent and encourage people to speak their minds. But we also value civility and calm discourse.
This blog is still young but the commenters have already set an example for how everyone on the web should engage in conversation. I’m not going to let one person change that. I have no tolerance for the idea that people should be able to act like jerks (especially professed Christians) and that we have to accept it because that’s the way of the web. There are literally thousands of places on the Internet were your behavior would be welcomed; this is not one of them. If you continue to insult people you’ll be asked to leave.
You seem like you have a strong opinion and a perspective that is worthy of hearing. I hope you’ll take a deep breath, tone it down, and then continue on in a more polite manner. If not then I’ll have to ban you and delete all of your comments.
November 1st, 2009 | 10:37 pm | #49
Jared: “I haven’t encountered a commenter as dripping in contempt and accusation as you in a long, long time.”
Well, I did take the weekend off, but it’s only been two days!
November 2nd, 2009 | 8:02 pm | #50
[...] as an adult, I’ve some unfamiliarity with the ins and outs of Christian controversy. Jared points tangentially to one which has puzzled me quite a bit. So I thought I’d put the question to the chorus [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact