"I remember sitting in a “family” meeting about 2 years ago where the SGM debacle was being discussed. Ron Boomsma was doing his best (and using a diagram) to explain the “new” polity adopted by SGM. While he was very excited about it, the diagram and explanation provided little clarity. The floor was opened for questions. One woman asked very simply, “Who’s going to tell us what to do?” I knew my time there was quickly coming to an end."
(Done) Just Watching SGM Survivors Blog August 12, 2014
“I’ve seen many friends make bad choices in their 20s. For some, regular partying quickly turned into alcoholism; for others, prescription drugs led them into dark places. For me, it was religion.”
Mike Anderson, former Director of The Resurgence Mars Hill Seattle
Dee and I are so proud of our friend and brother-in-Christ Eagle. It has been such an incredible experience to see him struggle with his faith and then embrace it with such passion. In this post, he shares his constructive criticism of the Christian faith and encourages evangelicals to have discernment with regard to their churches, ministries, and leaders.
Eagle Discusses Evangelical Discernment
Christianity as a faith system was once known for its sacrifice and selfless service. When you look back at the history of Christianity, the way many Christians lived and showed love under adverse conditions is the love that touched and moved the world. Consider the case of Polycarp. Here was a man who, while facing death at the hands of the Romans, still expressed concern and love for those who came for his arrest.
They were amazed at his age and steadfastness, and some of them said, “Why did we go to so much trouble to capture a man like this?” Immediately he called for food and drink for them, and asked for an hour to pray uninterrupted. Amidst an angry mob, the Roman proconsul took pity on such a gentle old man and urged Polycarp to proclaim, "Caesar is Lord". If only Polycarp would make this declaration and offer a small pinch of incense to Caesar's statue he would escape torture and death. To this Polycarp responded, "Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" Steadfast in his stand for Christ, Polycarp refused to compromise his beliefs, and thus, was burned alive at the stake. Hundreds of years later, the known world was dealing with devastating plagues that were taking out massive populations in Europe. Despite the bubonic plagues and their near lethal rate, many Christians selflessly sacrificed in loving those who were sick, helping those dealing with illness, and giving themselves in such a sacrificial way that they put those sick with disease above their own needs. This was how Christianity spread in Europe….Christians were known for their love and great compassion. Christians also stood for the marginalized, whether it be rescuing babies alongside the road left for dead or looking out for women when ancient society didn’t respect or treat women with the dignity they deserved.
Compare what I wrote above to what the world sees today. The brutal reality is that many evangelicals needlessly create their own enemies. Christians are contributing to a rise in atheism and the secularization of the nation. Frankly, the death of Christian culture as it currently exists could be the single best thing that could happen to Christianity in the western hemisphere. If Christians lived their faith with selfless love and grace, then I don’t think we’d see the Richard Dawkins or Greta Christinas to the extent to which they exist because they would be disarmed by the love that Christians would show them.
Last Monday I wrote about my journey toward finding peace, the Lord, and a way forward out of the position in which I was stuck. My story dealt with atheism, Sovereign Grace, doubts, and a false accusation from a member at Eric Simmon’s Redeemer of Arlington, which turned my life upside down. I also discussed finding grace after hitting bottom. Going forward my personal commitment is to show love and grace. That’s how I want to be remembered.
That said, we need to have a long, hard, blunt talk about evangelicalism and its culture. Remember, I chose to walk back and loosely embrace evangelicalism, symbolized by my baptism on November 24, 2013. I am not writing this from the perspective of an atheist who is tossing a Molotov cocktail toward the faith. Furthermore, I am not trying to trash the Christian faith but am writing this constructive criticism as a means to help evangelical Christianity – which I view as a sick and dying movement – to become healthy. We really need to look inward and examine the issues coming from evangelicalism which are dragging down the faith and harming the Gospel message. Before we condemn, criticize, etc…I am proposing we evangelicals look at ourselves and remove the plank from our own eye.
Hands down, the biggest issue facing evangelical Christianity today in my opinion is the lack of discernment that exists in many camps of evangelicalism. To put it bluntly, many evangelicals need to learn how to process and practice discernment. They need to learn how to think critically and think for themselves. Many churches and ministries teach people what to think, not how to think. Why are evangelicals supporting ministry leaders who cover up child abuse, practice and/or defend cronyism, or teach a prosperity gospel? If Christians were discerning, many blogs such as the one publishing this article would not be needed. (And the Deebs could actually enjoy their vacation!) If evangelical Christians practiced discernment, they could bring to an end many of the problems that exist in Christianity. It would also put the Joel Olsteens and John Haggees on one side of the spectrum to the Mark Devers, Mark Driscolls, Jonathan Leemans and C.J. Mahaneys out of business. If Christians practiced discernment, many of the concerns I discuss below would not be an issue today.
1. Evangelicals need to leave their bubbles. Many evangelicals in churches and Christian ministries are operating in bubbles isolated from the world. They are often clueless as to what members of the congregation are dealing with. Some teach a faith system that implodes upon an individual when he/she decides to exit that bubble. I am currently in my 30s, and as I have aged I have noticed more situations where people I have known and done ministry with in the past have moved away from the faith. Why? The faith they were taught worked well in a bubble but did not work at all in the real world (outside the bubble). When a committed person who invests time in such a faith system finally discovers it doesn’t work, he/she lets it go and moves on. The reaction by those inside the bubble is that this person either fell away from the faith or never really had it to begin with. What those in the bubble don’t realize is that the “faith” they have taught them, is the issue. Since more and more evangelicals are retreating from society, I expect this issue to increase in the future.
2. What is it with some Christians and yelling? Andrew White and 9 Marks actually inspire this bullet point. Do you honestly think you can yell and scream a person into faith? I’ve been yelled at twice – not in an argument, but pre-planned, pre-conceived screaming – by 2 members I have known in a 9 Marks Church. Jonathan Leeman…my question to you is what value does yelling hold? Is yelling now a new 9 Mark? Andrew White if you’re reading this…what purpose did you have for yelling at me from across the table? You apologized for yelling at me, however on May 8, 2013 you also took all apologies back – so I am waiting to hear you take action for this one as well. And if the reason why members of 9 Marks churches yell is because Jonathan Edwards yelled…then Jonathan Leeman I expect you to advocate slavery since Jonathan Edwards also was a slave holder.
3. Christians need to take a strong stands against pedophilia. I honestly can’t believe I am even addressing this topic as this seems to be common sense, but Christians need to take strong stand against child sexual abuse. Christian churches and ministries need to train their staffs on child abuse, educate the flock on the recidivism rate of pedophiles, and make sure that churches are following local and state laws. Many Christian denominations need to create databases to track, monitor, and help sex offenders. Christians also need to understand that the Gospel is for everyone – even a sex offender with a criminal record. And churches need to find ways to help and serve sex offenders. I believe some sex offenders are repentant but have a difficult time living with that designation. Others are not and see churches as an opportunity to gain access to children and further their abuse. Many evangelical Christians need to be aware and not be naïve on this topic. I first learned about this issue at Elmbrook Church in the suburbs of Milwaukee. The scars caused by a popular youth minister who was a sexual predator in the late 90s lasted for years – long after he committed suicide in a West Baraboo, Wisconsin motel. But I would suggest that many evangelical Christians have not learned from the Roman Catholic child sex abuse scandal.
4. Christians need to hold their evangelical leaders accountable. Why is it when John Piper taught women to submit to domestic abuse in marriage that not many Christians called him out and publicly corrected him? Do many Christians believe that it’s okay for a man to commit battery on his wife? Do many Christians realize that that their silence condones domestic abuse? Why do Christian churches, conferences, and organizations like Cru push John Piper’s material or have him speak at conferences? Do organizations like Cru sanction his teaching on domestic abuse? Domestic abuse is one of the many sins that evangelicals turn a blind eye to….and frankly it’s an epidemic in society today. Furthermore, it’s also a crime, and yet many evangelicals don’t talk about it and promote leaders like John Piper whose teachings encourage domestic abuse. I don’t get this….what many evangelicals need to understand is that silence means it’s accepted practice. And even if there was push back behind the scenes to John Piper, does that really help a watching world? How will the leaders in New Atheism know that Christians are holding their leaders accountable if everything is hush, hush behind the scenes?
5. Christians need to repent of how they have treated gays and lesbians. You can still hold to a conservative theological belief that such behavior is a sin, but Christians need to repent of how they have treated gays for generations. Just because James Dobson has driven the bus over the cliff, why do so many evangelicals need to be like lemmings diving into the ocean after him? When you look at the divorce rate amongst evangelicals, why are so many evangelicals concerned about gay marriage being a threat to the family? I would suggest that many evangelicals need to focus on their internal problems.
6. Christians need to stop waging war against science. In the years to come, it’s going to make them less and less relevant to able to contribute to any credible scientific discussion. For example if Christians remain stuck on the topic of creationism and can’t move beyond that; when science starts to debate and look at issues such as human cloning many evangelicals are not going to be able to contribute to the ethics discussions because they are still stuck on creationism. And at a time when the world will need Christian guidance, ethics and participation they will not be there or taken seriously. In addition, the Vatican has an Observatory while evangelicals have the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Is a literal 6 day creation hill evangelicals want to die on? There are other explanations, and we need to create more Francis Collins.
7. Due to the Neo-reformed crowd, many parts of Evangelical Christianity more closely resemble Islam than Christianity. The sovereignty that John Piper or Mark Dever teaches belongs more in a Mosque in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, or Lahore, Pakistan than in a Baptist church in Texas, Minnesota or Virginia. But the Islamization of Christianity is contributing great harm and is also a new legalism that needs to be preached against.
8. Evangelical Christians need to understand that faith is about struggle. Life is hard and many aspects of evangelicalism deny this fact. I would challenge many evangelical pastors to be open about their anger, disappointment, and the times they believe God has let them down. All too often what exists in many evangelical churches is a faith system that shows a faith that is more “happy clappy” than real. This is so much in opposition to stories where Elijah yelled at God, John the Baptist doubted, and even Jesus himself felt that God had abandoned him. So why can’t evangelical pastors live more like that? I would only think it would help pastors like Mark Batterson, and others if they stood before their congregation and talked openly about their own personal disappointments in God. For those sitting in the pews or in the back of the church it could be a source of great comfort and empathy to know they are not struggling alone.
9. For those on the dispensational side of the church, they need to tone down – IF not drop their obsession with End Times theology. Here’s the problem that has developed…any event that takes place in the Middle East or Global Stage, (i.e. Syrian Civil War; Iranian Nuclear Program; Iraq War, Global Financial Crisis, Russia invading Georgia, etc…) becomes viewed through an End Times perspective. The constant failure rate that many Christians place these global events in is beyond ridiculous – it’s embarrassing. And when Christian pastors or leaders keep talking about these Middle East or Global events in an End Times perspective and nothing happens…how is that pastor or leader any different than Brigham Young or Joseph Smith? Also, it’s created a situation where its lead some Christians to look upon bad news as being “good” news because it is going to usher in End Times. One final point is that the United States of America is not Israel, and no such covenant exists between God and the United States. Christians need to remember this fact.
10. Many evangelical churches need to stop their obsession with growth. It’s faith – it’s not a business. It’s not being traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and last I heard Standard and Poors isn’t rating Mega churches; why must evangelicalism mirror American business practices? All that is being sold is the brand of a pastor. For example, when a mega-church launches a plan of “encircling” the Washington, D.C. area with multiple campuses, I must ask who exactly is being worshiped? Why is faith treated like a business franchise? In other words, when faith is treated like a business franchise is God being worshipped or Ray Kroc or Dave Thomas? One more thing….can you really measure spiritual growth by numbers? Are numbers indicative of spiritual maturity or discipleship? Do numbers measure where people will be in 5 years or more? Also when you look at mega churches that are consumed with growth, I have to ask the question….given how many mega churches can’t be good stewards of what they have, why do they want more?
11. In a mega church model, can we agree that the ‘Senior Pastor’ is NOT a pastor but rather an evangelist? Can we also agree that many mega churches lack bona fide accountability? One of the lessons from Mars Hill Seattle is what happens when you have a spiritual tyrant surrounded by an Elder Board comprised of nothing but ‘Yes Men’. Too many mega churches have wrapped up their identity in the ‘Senior Pastor’ instead of Jesus Christ.
12. Evangelicals need to abandon the dogma that has defined their faith. They need to abandon how they do evangelism. It’s cheap, shoddy, and I like to call more reflective of ‘spiritual ADD’ than anything else. Bonheoffer coined the term ‘cheap grace’. With evangelicals I would like to coin the term ‘cheap evangelism’. This ‘evangelism’ is just focusing on someone for a brief time and moving on. Christians need to love, serve, and brace themselves for serving their neighbors and communities for the long haul. I’m talking about months, even years. They need to approach the world and their neighbor with pure love. Anything less can be detected by those on the outside of the faith easily. With regard to tracting, the 4 Spiritual Laws, etc… needs to go as this only reinforces cheap evangelism and must be changed.
13. Prosperity Theology needs to end. Prosperity Theology as taught by Joel Osteen or Benny Hinn is easy to spot. What is difficult and more pervasive is that its broadly accepted in many churches across evangelicalism I’d argue unknowingly. When programs teach spiritual formulas, push AWANA, etc… there is a belief that can develop that if you do the right thing your child will turn out right; you won’t have another miscarriage or your marriage will be strengthened. Sorry, but life is not like that… The cold truth that evangelicals need to hear is that you can do all the right things as a parent, and your child still can become addicted to drugs. You can attend every marriage seminar and find out that you spouse is having an affair. And when life takes a turn for the worse, the evangelical church can be the cruelest place for someone experiencing suffering. Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism do not have this problem. And I would suggest that this is one of the only selling points of modern reformed theology – you don’t have to deal with prosperity theology. But I would suggest that about 90 to 95% of evangelical churches struggle with prosperity theology in some form.
14. Heresy comes from BOTH sides of the spectrum. Many conservative evangelicals have become so focused on the threat of emergent theology that they have continued to move to the right and brought into mainstream churches heresy from the extreme right. Patriarchy and extreme gender roles have no place in many mainstream evangelical churches. This is the reason why I would not explore Christianity in the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA). The EFCA that I knew in 1999 is not the EFCA that I see today, and when I see Evangelical Free Churches bringing in extreme reformed theology with extreme gender roles, I see a church that is needlessly being hijacked. Much of what John Piper and his minions teach are more reflective of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church; and they have no place in the Evangelical Free Church of America, or many other churches.
15. I’ve alluded to this already. But gender roles have become too extreme. One of my favorite questions that I loved to ask during my time in agnosticism is the following: What offends God more? The fact that there is a women teaching a man and leading him to faith or that an agnostic male will walk into hell, proud with their head held high? Many talented women have contributed greatly in evangelical history, and the strict gender roles are more about control and patriarchy than anything else. Women have a right to teach and work with men and when that door is shut so much is being denied to the Christian church. Think of what Corrie Ten Boom, Elizabeth Elliot, Lonnie Moon, Murril Burnham, offer to the modern evangelical church. Also to what extent is the gender role issue going to go? Are parts of Christianity going to develop a faith that prevents Elizabeth Elliot teaching men and talking about the death of her husband in Ecuador? Take John Piper’s teaching about how women can’t be drill sergeants in the US Army?
Does this restriction on women serving apply to all branches of the US military? Washington, D.C. is a military town. Let me make a hypothetical situation. Say you graduated from the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in 2005. You served in various capacities at different military bases, both domestically and abroad. Now if you’re a Captain in the USAF who drools to every word John Piper says but in your work environment you have a female in rank above you, are you going to refuse to submit to her authority because it’s not Biblical? What about the teachings of Romans and Titus of submitting to the state? What happens if that military officer is deployed in the US military to Baghdad or forward deployed to Khowst, Afghanistan? Are you still going to practice gender roles in a combat situation? True story as this happened to me…what would you do if you were pulled over by a local Police Officer who was a female who wanted to check your license and registration because you purchased a new car? Would you tell her “I’m sorry officer you’re a woman I am a man…I can’t listen to you or have you in a position of authority."
16. The fads in Christendom need to end. All they are doing is hurting people. When I started my faith journey in an Evangelical Free Church in 1999 the fad at the time was the Left Behind craze. That was followed by the Prayer of Jabez fad, followed by Seeker Sensitive Church movement, followed by the Purpose Driven Life fad, followed by Neo-Calvinism. Why do evangelicals need a fad every few years? Again, “Spiritual ADD?”
17. Evangelicalism is rife with idols. And many of these idols need to be let go, plus I would suggest that there are more idols in evangelicalism than in a faith system such as Roman Catholicism. Here are the idols I see, and this is just a sampling:
Emergent – Compromise, Brian McLaren, tolerating sin, and mysticism.
Mainstream Evangelicalism – Church pastors, growth, Willow Creek Model, nuclear family, “Family Values”, children, and marriage.
Charismatic Evangelicalism – Signs and wonders, tongues, spiritual gifts, miracles, and prophecy.
Neo-Reformed Evangelicalism – John Calvin, John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, ESV, Conferences, Celebrity Personalities, and Discipline.
There are two prominent idols that need to be discussed in detail as they pose a great danger to evangelicalism and cause deep harm. Those two idols are testimonies and the obsession with avoiding sin.
Each year Elmbrook Church in Brookfield, Wisconsin holds their annual men’s conference called No Regrets. It’s one of the largest Men’s conferences in the country, and Elmbrook is marketing it. In 2010 they featured the testimony of a United States Marine – Benjamin Sabena. In his testimony he spoke about his problem with anger, being in a combat zone and how he realized he needed to give his life to Christ. Two years later on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2012, Benjamin Sabena stalked and brutally murdered his wife – Police Officer Jennifer Lynn Sabena.
Since the time that the city of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin was chartered in 1897, Jennifer Sabena’s death is the only recorded death of a police officer being killed in the line of duty. During sentencing the judge remarked that it was one of the most brutal murders he had seen. Elmbrook quietly removed Benjamin Sabena’s testimony from YouTube. Milwaukee’s main newspaper (The Journal Sentinel), anticipating the removal, made a transcript of the video before it was removed.
Evangelicals need to have a brutal talk about testimonies. For many evangelicals testimonies are like ‘Spiritual Pornography’, meaning they can’t resist them. I would suggest that many evangelicals are in denial about how sinful, cruel and evil people can truly be. And testimonies, while popularized by ministries for fundraising, baptisms, etc., can cause a great deal of harm. First, they create guilt trips on members of the congregation or ministry. For those struggling with an issue or doubt, they can create a facade which leads evangelicals to be dishonest so that they can fit into the program or culture they are in. Third, people outside the faith know and can see through the facade. An alcoholic who is an atheist or those struggling in their marriage know that Christians have problems, and the lack of being forthright only feeds atheists, especially when the facade comes undone. So how can evangelicals find a way forward with this? Well…in my case knowing my brokenness and demons, I refuse to call what I wrote a testimony. My story is still unfolding, and the placing of evangelicals on a pedestal through testimony really needs to end. Why can’t evangelicals just say that this is a story and leave it at that and take off a lot of pressure off people?
The second major idol in modern evangelicalism is the obsession many Christians have with avoiding sin. Many evangelicals are too hard on themselves, deny grace to themselves and others and set the bar way too high. I learned this the hard way with Men’s Accountability, and what I discovered was a system that was cruel, legalistic and spiritually crushing. The problem with setting the bar too high is that when evangelicals do sin they don’t know how to deal with it. I would suggest that this is why some evangelicals commit spiritual suicide. They became so focused on avoiding sin that when they do sin, they don’t know how to recover. Now am I saying its okay to get drunk, look at porn, or pick up someone at a bar. No…what I am suggesting is that many evangelicals lower the expectations of themselves and others. If they do this they will show grace to themselves and others, and those on the outside will have a better understanding of what Christianity is. I will explore the issue of the problem evangelical Christians have with grace below.
18. The role of Pastor has changed. I thought a Pastor meant someone who made emergency calls, visited the sick at home, and labored effortlessly for his congregation. And to be fair there are many hard working pastors in the United States who do this. But I’m deeply concerned that many people view ministry as a means to success and growth – and financial wealth. I’m disturbed by the growth of churches who wrap their identity around the life of one man, and whose success rises and falls on such a person. When I look at megachurch pastors today I must ask the question…who exists for whom? Does the Pastor exist for the congregation or does the congregation exist for the Pastor? And can we agree that a pastor is not someone in a mega church who pops out on stage in front of 2,000 people, speaks for 30 minutes and then disappears. That’s more of an evangelist. The role and focus of pastor is in the process of being redefined, and not for the better I would suggest.
19. Words are being redefined today. And they are being redefined in ways that warp and twist theology. I have to give credit to many of the Neo-Reformed for creating this mess. Take the word ‘allow’. It used to be that allow meant that God let something happen. It didn’t mean that God sanctioned, approved OR wanted it to happen. It was something that just happened. Today due to many Neo-Reformed leaders, the word ‘allow’ has been redefined. Now it means that since God allows something to happen it's because he wants it to happen and has foreordained it to happen. This puts a total spin on issues such as child molestation, murder, rape, terrorism, etc… (For the record is this why Sovereign Grace protected child molesters while disciplining and shunning families and victims who reported the abuse of a child to local law enforcement?) If God foreordains evil then could one say that the molester is living out his faith and being obedient to the Lord while the victim or family who challenge and report to law enforcement are being sinful, pride-filled and rebelling against the Lord’s will? Just a thought…. ) Other words being redefined today include sovereignty, faith, fundamentalist, evangelical, gospel, etc…
20. Evangelicals need to be honest and open with doubt. Doubt is not trendy and its not cool. But for me it was terrifying. Doubt stripped away everything that I once believed, and I realize today that many churches are not havens for doubters. Christians are afraid of doubters. Furthermore, can I also suggest that doubt is not a sin and can also be healthy? How can a 25 or 30 year old grow in faith if they have all the answers and are 100% certain about everything in life? This mentality needs to change, and evangelicals must realize that doubt is a part of faith. Furthermore, in the grand scheme of things where do you thinks it healthiest for someone to deal with doubt…inside a church? Or after they walk away?
21. Evangelical churches need to stop being exclusionary. Two years ago when I visited Montana I caught up with a Catholic friend of mine from college who when discussing evangelicalism commented about how exclusionary the evangelical faith is. This is an accurate observation and ties into the issue of idols, which are rampant in evangelicalism. Christians need to make churches open to the disabled, mentally handicapped, immigrants, singles, people caught up in sin, gays, workaholics, elderly, divorced, sex offenders, chronically ill, etc… Currently, many evangelical churches cater to those who are married, have children and are Caucasian – in other words those who represent white, upper middle class America suburbia.
22. Evangelicals have one trump card, and it blows my mind as to how little they use it – It is grace. Can I be honest about this? The first things evangelicals need to acknowledge is that evangelicals have problems with grace. Many evangelicals gravitate toward legalism. Why? It’s easier to live by rules. Do this, don’t do that, avoid that, etc… And yet this way of living is the inspiration for many evangelicals today. Christianity for far too long has been nothing but sin management. And this is killing people. The way to reverse the trend and go forward is to live by grace and make it center. If it appears grace is being abused, then I would suggest that the church is moving in the right direction.
23. The shepherding movement needs to be kicked to the curb – PERMANENTLY! It needs to go into the dustbin of history. It keeps getting re-packaged, sold and becomes the nice new shiny object. When churches who have joined the shepherding movement start having members cranking out blogs like SGM Survivors, SGM Refuge, We Love Mars Hill, Mars Hill Refuge, Musings Under the Bus, The Elephant’s Debt, etc… you know you have a problem. Evangelicals need to repent of using abusive and questionable theology.
24. Fundamentalism needs to be checked and rolled back. I must ask…in a macro view what good has fundamentalism ever accomplished? How has it contributed to evangelicalism? Or bettered it? It hasn’t, as fundamentalism has marginalized and disenfranchised many segments of the population and faith. The damage, havoc and harm that are brought upon many will be deep. This is why Christian leaders should rebuke fundamentalism and challenge it. However, analytically thinking…my prediction will be that the atheist leaders of tomorrow will be those who follow the John Pipers and the Mark Driscolls of today. Furthermore, I would also suggest that fundamentalism has been redefined. Today it means toting an ESV Bible and forcing your wife to give you oral sex, while facing discipline and being kicked out of a church for not signing a membership covenant (which is not Biblical to begin with!)
25. Mark Noll is correct about a lack of evangelical intellect. The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind. Sadly, evangelical theology is a mile wide and an inch thick and lacks substance. And this issue deeply affects many seminaries and churches today. Why is it that in academia, humanities, science, engineering, and medicine there are people who challenge, argue, look at competing theories and expand a field of thought and contribute to its development? In evangelicalism just the opposite is true. Many people approach evangelical theology with a pre-determined conclusion (or a siege mentality), which closes any discussion or exploration. The lack of intellectual discussion is killing evangelicalism. The lack of intellectual discussion on many topics reveals evangelical insecurities. Plus I must ask…if you believe that faith is true and believe in the Lord…why be so afraid of difficult discussions or re-interpreting theories of faith? Lastly, I would say that when you take such a closed minded approach to theological training, I fail to see how seminaries such as SBTS or Trinity are any different than a radical Islamic madrassa on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I became aware of this issue when I discovered the lack of intellect as I was looking for deep answers and discussions on philosophical questions related to the problem of evil.
26. Churches and organizations need to be transparent about their money. There are way too many financial scandals playing out in evangelicalism today. And I would argue it’s getting worse. I think about Stephen Furtick building one of the most expensive houses in North Carolina or James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel purchasing a mansion from former Illinois U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald while demanding his churches do sacrificial tithing campaigns. I would propose that every church should allow its finances to be audited by a secular independent outside organization to make sure that financial abuse is not taking place. I would also suggest that each evangelical church be certified and part of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. (Though I think Mars Hill Seattle has showed how the EFCA lacks teeth…) To prevent fraud, I would also suggest that pastors make their salary transparent. Also, are Elders drawing a salary or paycheck from the church? This needs to be disclosed as well. This area of churches and finances is way too sensitive, and it needs to be reigned in.
27. I’ve already addressed mega church pastors but we also need to address celebrity pastors and their problems. The era of celebrity pastors needs to come to a close. Evangelical churches and seminaries need to adopt the same screening processes that the outside world has in the transportation industry, education, government, and financial world. You apply to work in the transportation industry and can go through psychological screening, a full background check, credit check, etc… By having screening standards in place, evangelicalism (which is a magnet for narcissists) would keep the CJ Mahaneys and Mark Driscolls out of ministry if this standard were adhered to. And speaking of celebrity pastors, though many people will dispute this…John Piper is not the 67th book of the Bible.
28. Evangelicals need to divorce politics from faith. Politics has no place in a pulpit or a church. It causes needless division and builds walls. By embracing the Republican or Democratic Party values, it forces people into camps and creates hindrances to the Gospel and those on the outside of the faith. The pulpit should never be used to push a political agenda.
29. God is oversold. Ask yourself….do you really need God to be a good father, husband, employee, or citizen? What about all the fine, upstanding, and ethical atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, etc…? The overselling of God creates problems. It sets up evangelicals for failure, and it belittles atheists and those on the outside. You can pick up on this theme in the L.A. Times article by William Lobdell. For me personally, the faith I was sold when I was in my late 20s turned out to be toxic. And I’ve interacted with others who feel like they were lied to about their need for God. When faith hits a road bump and people are pressing on in a career, they learn the hard way that a faith system needing God is not necessary. And much like the student in a Christian school who goes off to college and learns about evolution and believes they were lied to, the evangelical who leaves his sheltered life and interacts with kind, nice atheists or even American Indians are stunned to realize that much of what they were taught is not true.
I offer all these suggestions based on personal experiences and what I have observed both on the inside and outside of faith. So now that I have listed these criticisms, the million dollar question is why return to the evangelical faith? Quite simply, I learned that secular humanism/agnosticism/atheism etc… have flaws that can cripple it as well. I realized as flawed as Christianity is with its doubts and problems, atheism has even greater problems and doubts. That coupled with what I learned about grace and reconciliation helped me realize that evangelicalism is where I belong for now. I may be toward the peripheral edge….but I will believe in the Lord and to the best of my ability live a life of love and grace and hope that the issues I listed above about the evangelical culture can be tackled and changed to make evangelicalism healthier.
Wait a minute…could I actually be FIRST on this post?? Wow.
Thank you, Eagle, there is a year’s worth of topics to think about and discuss in this one post!
Eagle … thanks for your great insights and a superb birds-eye view of the landmined landscape we find ourselves in, in the North American Church. I could only spend time skimming through this, but I see you’ve basically given us a “daily discernment devotional” for the next 30 days — 29 + there’s a day of testing at the end, right? — so I’ll be able to come back and see about looking deeper into an issue a day.
Thanks for investing yourself for the betterment of our discernment and decision-making. That was a lotta work! But this is a test we absolutely need to do well on, if we want to be sustainable past two generations … so, thanks for laying out some points along the way.
I have appreciated your narrative. Don’t mess it up with Inaccuracy. Jonathan Edwards, love him or leave him, spoke in a monotone. He did not yell.
So much good stuff here – thanks.
I would add to it ‘evangelicals should seek after wisdom and seek to appoint wise leaders.’ I know this sounds so obvious and also wisdom is difficult to define.
In the UK, evangelical Christianity was influenced substantially be John Stott, who was widely respected for his wisdom. His influence reached out beyond evangelical churches and made people more receptive to the Gospel. I would see him a role model for a wise leader.
My issue with the celebrity reformed evangelicals is that they often behave like fools (I don’t mean low IQ) and then they misconstrue criticism or their actions as a form of persecution. They seem to get away with it a lot.
So if you appropriate funds from your church to con people into thinking you are a popular author, then this is not just moral corruption, but it demonstrates stupidity and ‘the world’ will not listen to what you have to say in future.
If as an American, with the Twin Tower as your cultural reference, you stand in front of a mega building in the middle east and say it is biblical that it will be razed to the ground, of course people in out there will think ‘what an idiot.’
We are encouraged to be wise, fools for the Gospel (Paul), but wise.
I heartily agree with everything here. I’m so much happier following God empowered by my own relationship with Him, through a mainstream Protestant church, than I was in my four years of Evangelical church. (At the time, Evangelical was better than nothing, but my mother apparently prayed for me on a regular basis throughout that season- very worried was she.)
Thing is, people want to belong. People want to have badges and cultural identities. People want to be part of a group, where you can say “We do this and we do not do that.” I think it’s another human perversion of the greater truth. We all are created to be part of the Kingdom of God, but we can’t see it yet, so we seek to recreate it by giving ourselves labels, seeking that sense of union that can only be truly fulfilled when the curtains roll back. But until then, we will continue to define ourselves by our labels. By being “not Evangelical” I have labeled myself as well. Human weakness.
Much of this speaks to my own religious tradition, Churches of Christ. Thank you.
Wow. Great synopsis of what’s gone wrong. Regarding #27, I had already come to the conclusion that every pastoral candidate should take the MMPI and a polygraph (the last one to verify that they actually believe what they say they believe). And regarding #25, delving into the original Greek (using only the biblical lexicon as an errant back-up) has been life-changing. We need to realize the only “Greek” seminarians learn are the translations that support the doctrine of the seminary’s denomination. We really have been treated like stupid sheep who have no need of the holy spirit to teach us because we have our “pastors” who are the “experts.”
I plan to go through this with my son, who I suspect struggles with the “church” rather than God. I love the idea of a 29-day discernment devotional, Brad. Seriously, this could turn into something publishable.
@ Godith:
If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected. I thought when Jonathan Edwards gave his “Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God” that he so yelled at the congregation that it made them physically tremble. Am I incorrect? I have no problem being told that I made a mistake. Actually I appreciate it. Thanks!!
Thanks for your kind comments everyone. My heart grieves for the Deebs and Julie Ann Smith. Writing these posts was a job outside of a job. I also told Dee that I needed to write one more as to how I resolved the doubts I wrote about in the first post. That way I can give them, and those who followed closure as to how I think.
Peter wrote:
If people view this kind of criticism as persecution -those in Harvest Bible Chapel, Mars Hill, or even those who have been reading these posts from Eric Simmons Redeemer of Arlington – then they have missed the entire point of the post. Furthermore its a mockery and a disgrace to those Christians being decapitated in Iraq by ISIS, or those interned in a concentration camp in North Korea, or those tortured in the Sudan for their faith. Eric Simmons and every single member (this includes Andrew White) at Redeemer of Arlington comes no where close to persecution. Many Christians in the United States and west have not. To me it seems as if its the loons (Ken Ham, CJ Mahaney, etc…) who proclaim persecution. I view CJ Mahaney as a modern day Brigham Young and if you think running from Gaithersburg, Maryland to Louisville, Kentucky is persecution (All in the confines of a Hilton conference room with complementary coffee 😛 )then the modern day church should disappear off the face of the earth. Because that is not persecution.
I love #22, Eagle
.
#23. I am with you 100% brother. That Sonlife trash was used in my youth group as a kid to spiritually abuse us and when the neo reformed garbage showed back up at my efree church my fight/flight response came up. It was what started me doubting and reading to figure out what happened to me in the past.
Great post, Eagle. And I agree with just about all of it, the points about fads and idols especially. I know a lot of Christians of various stripes, and for many if not most, their ‘faith’ seems to come across as superstition. “If I just do this, bad things won’t happen to me, and I’ll get more money, etc., etc.” Not-Christians just shake their heads and chuckle.
I, of course, do not know their hearts, or the real state of their faith, but that’s sure how it comes across sometimes.
And I totally agree with you about megachurches and celebrity ‘pastors’. I honestly don’t understand why people want to have anything to do with being a member of a megachurch. It sounds cold and horrible to me. But then, I grew up in a church that was warm and supporting, and where most people knew each other, and your friends’ parents were friends with your parents, and so on and so forth (the church was founded in 1638).
But it all circles around to something I brought up months ago – at the end of the day, the members of the congregation bear ultimate responsibility for the state of their church. They are not just inert blobs filling the pews – they need to push back, or walk out. I know – I’ve heard all the reasons why it’s so hard to walk away, and I get it. But we’re talking adult human beings here, not defenseless children.
There will be financial transparency, accountability for the leadership, awareness and proactive measures against child abuse and spiritual abuse, and so forth, when the congregations demand it, and not a minute before.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I believe you meant to say ‘eagle-eyed view’ 🙂
I haven’t even finished reading but just got to this:
“In a mega church model, can we agree that the ‘Senior Pastor’ is NOT a pastor but rather an evangelist?”
Good point! They’re people without a shepherd.
Loved the “cheap evangelism” discussion. I will have to start using this phrase myself, with due credit of course!
What a great overview of the evangelical wreckage. My only suggestion is that Eagle should rework it so it totals 40 points. Because 40 is so much more marketable and bibley. 40 Days of Discernment 🙂
Hope you do at least one thread on each one.
@ Gram3:
Kinda like 40 days of purpose? 😉
#13. I’ve seen the prosperity theology thing take the form of: if we just homeschool our kids, they will turn out okay. If the wife stays home and you tithe 10% of your gross income (not the net–thankyou Dave Ramsey and Larry Burkett), God will bless you financially.
“Does this restriction on women serving apply to all branches of the US military?”
In my old church, not only was this true but women ought not even serve in support, non-combat stateside positions. They still have to go through that dastardly basic training, after all.
The entire history of Christianity has included fads of all kinds. I largely ignore them. The same thing is true of struggling with the ongoing presence of sin in our lives this side of heaven. Just witness the recent neoreformed debates on sanctification. I’d rather go Lutheran on that issue.
#19 Regarding theodicy, is getting into some pretty deep theological weeds and probably deserves its own post.
Finally, the scandal of the evangelical mind (or lack thereof) is one of the biggest reasons I cannot bring myself to identify as one. At one time I thought the answers were in Reformed protestantism, with its strong intellectual component. I think that is a huge reason for conversions to Roman Catholicism for many burned-out reformed, as well as Eastern Orthodoxy. You still have the intellectual tradition, but also the authority, much older liturgy with a sense of mystery and transcendence (as long as you’re not using the Novus Ordo), and general lack of evangelical cheesiness.
We seem to occasionally have our intellectual lights like C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, but they have been the exception rather than the rule. Whatever you think of Ravi Zacharias, he has at least tried to carry that baton forward, along with Hugh Ross and Francis Collins on the scientific side. If the current crop of celebrity pastors remain the loudest voices however, I may just ditch the whole thing.
Godith
There are instances in the historcial narrative that state Edwards would become overwhelmed and start yelling for people to get saved. Just like Andrew, who did not yell all the time, neither did Edwards.
Eagle, thank you for your honesty, transparency and what is generally a pretty sound analysis of the state of modern American evangelicalism. I can’t help but notice that this post is running at the same time that the Internet Monk web site is re-posting the late Michael Spencer’s series on the coming evangelical collapse.
One area where I have some disagreement is the section on charismatic “idols.” I count myself among those who believe the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit – including healing, signs and wonders, tongues and prophecy – are still active today. However, you’ll also get no argument from me that some (not all) in the charismatic movement have been guilty of serious excesses; I left a couple of nondenominational charismatic churches as a result of said excesses.
There are some healing prayer ministers who are honest enough to admit that only some of the people they pray for are cured. I don’t want to see them lumped together with those who preach “name it, claim it” doctrine, engage in spiritual control or spiritual abuse, or used their positions to engage in predatory behavior.
Eagle wrote:
According to my writing partner (the burned-out preacher), just the opposite. Edwards actually read that sermon from his notes in a rather quiet voice, letting the words speak for themselves. Because of the fiery words, everyone thinks he was ranting at the top of his lungs and pounding the pulpit.
I’ve long suspected Edwards was bipolar and wrote that sermon during a serious “down” phase of the cycle. He was known to preach so depressing sometimes that a couple of his congregation commited suicide.
Although there were a few straw men sprinkled in the mix, overall this is an excellent analysis of evangelicalism. You are not alone in observing these things and this blog post is an encouragement to those who have seen these things and working to offer an alternative.
#18 really strikes close to home for me. I have yet to meet a pastor who actually goes to the hospital with members of his/her congregation. When my beloved neighbor, R, was in the hospital in the DFW area and terminally ill, not one person from his Sunday School class or pastor from his megachurch (and they had plenty of “pastors” on staff) visited him. Nobody took care of his wife, dogs, home or extended family save for my family. My best friend was a nurse on the same floor as R and she took it upon herself to arrange for staff chaplains to minister to R and his wife. Nobody even brought food over for his wife when she came back to town to work a couple days a week! Eventually I started stocking her fridge and freezer with individual portions of meals that she could reheat easily. I was and am disgusted by the lack of care shown for this wonderful family. I wish that the pastors at his church had stepped outside of their comfort zones for just one day and found the joy that comes through quiet actions.
Wow. Reading this was awesome. You have nailed it!
If or when the money dries up most (not all) of these problems will go away. :o)
Btw: The quote at the top with the woman asking, “Who is going to tell us what to do?” gave me chills.
singleman wrote:
I have to agree. I am now in a independent church that believes in the gifts. They believe everyone has them, allow everyone to use them. You don’t have to have letters behind your name, your gender or marital status has no bearing on your ability. the lead pastor (not sure if they even use that term) is not the only one who preaches, the have others from the church preach, and guests which is refreshing. It’s not all about the man with the power for the hour. Along with that, when prayer is offered we all pray for each other, instead of just the “Anointed One”. There is no formal membership either. It’s so good to find a place like this, it only took 13 years.
One more thing I will post here…I didn’t post it on last Monday’s post. When you read that I gave Andrew White my John Piper books there is actually a story behind that transcation. Previously earlier on in the relationship I gave Andrew White all my John Piper books and some others. It was when I was in my purge stage. Then…I regreted it and asked for them back. Andrew asked why? He said he could go out and buy these books himself. True…you can go to Crossway and buy them yourself. For me it was personal having been burned by some of this stuff I didn’t want to give it further life. I told Andrew that I thought adult pornograghy was healthier to be into than to read John Piper’s books. Yes I believe John Piper’s theology and material is that toxic. Though I don’t think Eric Simmons would agree….so be it.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/i-hate-porn
Eagle wrote:
First, Eagle, what a great to-do list for Christianity! Something definitely worth saving. Thank you.
On Jonathan Edwards, most discussion I’ve read paints him as speaking in a rather quiet voice, although I’ve not studied Edwards particularly closely and really has no bearing on your post. The only reason I bring it up is for the sake of trivia. Walt Disney had a tremendous impact on how we perceive Jonathan Edward’s sermon style. In the movie Pollyanna, the minister, played by Karl Malden, delivers a sermon that is essentially an excerpt of Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God in a booming and terrifying voice, when, by all accounts, Edwards seems to have delivered it in a calm and measured, but no less terrifying, delivery.
Again, thank you for your valuable words of wisdom.
I know a horrific situation that happened with the megachurch in the Washington, D.C. area – McLean Bible. One of the people I reconciled with in the post told me what happened with her mother. Her mother was dealing with terminal breast cancer and was bed ridden at home. She asked one of the Elders of McLean Bible to come and anoint her and pray for her mother. McLean Bible refused because her mother was not a member of the congregation. They told her she could bring her mother who was in pain and quite weak to church, and they could pray for her there. It caused her a great deal of turmoil. When I was in my atheist stage, I heard that and it just fueled my thinking of why Christianity is a cancer.
Eagle wrote:
Very neat list there Eagle, thanks for sharing. I am looking forward to reading how you resolved your doubts in your next missive. You brought up an excellent point in #6 there. Bioethics are something I am immensely interested in and you bring up an very important point. We need everyone at the table when we’re talking about bioethics. It is to important a conversation not to have the perspective and participation of everyone.
I know that there are some medical and social practices that I disagree with I would say most of you. But I recognize and want the passion and practice that I’ve seen Christians can bring to their fellow people. I want us to have that conversation, not the ones over whether creationism is valid. I think we’re all better when we have that conversation.
As to the greater state of American Evangelism, what you bring up lines up with a lot of what I’ve seen and read reported around the web. But never this wide ranging and frank! Well said. Some of it is inside baseball to me, but I thank you for all of it. I don’t envy you all the next few decades.
@ Peter:
Love John Stott!
@ dee:
I highly doubt it. I would welcome some evidence that Edwards even occasionally “yelled” while preaching.
My take: I don’t actually think church/religious leaders are any different NOW than they ever were. The “old sin nature” is at work now, was at work “back then” or even “way back then.”
*
There are real Godly men in church leadership, some less Godly men and there will forever be Elmer Gantrys fleecing the flock. Regardless, they all struggle with sin – as does their congregants. But Elmer Gantry isn’t a believer.
Excellent…
Regarding your #27, Eagle referencing celebrity pastors, might be at least one on the way out soon…
Mars Hill Abruptly Cancels 2014 Resurgence Conference
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/08/14/mars-hill-church-abruptly-cancels-big-resurgence-2014-conference/
@ Godith:
That’s how I’ve learned about Edwards as well. Apparently he delivered “Sinner in the hands of an angry God” in an almost monotone. My English teacher in High School read it to us that way and it is an extremely creepy and disturbing way to deliver that sermon.
#29. Eagle, can you please elaborate a bit more? I agree with all your points, but this one jumped out so much I had to comment. You say what Ive been thinking. Do you know of any other Christians who are saying this? ( articles, blogs). And, what IS the point of God then? John 15 comes to mind.. “Without me you can do nothing”. I’m not being argumentative!
It’s one thing to find at 30 you’re not equipped to deal with life because of the Christian bubble: it’s another at age 60! Thanks for writing.
Thank you for sharing this. I have felt much the same.
About #15. Elizabeth Elliot had some very conservative ideas about gender roles. Her book “Let Me Be A Woman” is still on Amazon, and a quick “look inside” at the chapter titles will illustrate what I am talking about.
I used to listen to her radio program. After one program about female submission I cut out of that day’s newspaper several incidences of women being abused in one way or another (maybe 3 or so cases), put them in an envelope with a note and mailed it off to her. That sort of behavior was totally not characteristic of me back then, but I just could not let stand what she had said without doing something. I can’t quote her, I just remember what I did and why.
On another program she mentioned that she had been asked to take a faculty position at (a name brand theological seminary) because the seminary had wanted to have woman? women? on the faculty. The way I remember it she declined based on her disagreement with having women on seminary faculties. After that I quit listening to what she had to say.
Elizabeth did a lot of good stuff, but in the area of gender roles she was playing for the seriously conservative team, as I “heard” her.
Hear, hear.
Thanks for the comments, Eagle. It’s very apparent that you speak out of sincere conviction but also in-depth, real life experience. Invaluable perspective. Appreciate you sharing with us.
“Heresy comes from BOTH sides of the spectrum. Many conservative evangelicals have become so focused on the threat of emergent theology that they have continued to move to the right and brought into mainstream churches heresy from the extreme right.”
Amen. A very important point that too few evangelicals seem to be unaware of. Too much black-and-white thinking. Not to get political, but this is the same sort of dangerous polarization that has gotten the US into difficult situations overseas. As in: “The Taliban hates Soviets. Soviets hate us. Let’s support the Taliban.” Or: “Saddam hates Iran. We hate Iran. Let’s support Saddam.”
“The EFCA that I knew in 1999 is not the EFCA that I see today, and when I see Evangelical Free Churches bringing in extreme reformed theology with extreme gender roles, I see a church that is needlessly being hijacked.”
I have quite a few contacts at TEDS, the official EFCA seminary in Illinois. My impression, from first- and second-hand reports, is that there is actually quite a bit of conflict within the administration and faculty regarding the growing presence of Neo-Reformed folks (profs and students alike). Two examples:
(a) there has been, and continues to be, significant disagreement over the current and future direction of Trinity’s “counseling” program. Most of the faculty are trained doctoral-level psychologists. However, some of Trinity’s “power faculty,” who happen to be Neo-Cal, advocate for a nouthetic-only approach. From what I hear, this tension is palpable in some of the classes. Additionally, the Neo-Cal nouthetic-only profs have hindered TEDS’ attempts to transition their Master’s counseling program into a full-fledged Doctor of Psychology program, akin to crosstown rival Wheaton’s PsyD program.
(b) There is a very vocal minority of Neo-Cal profs and students at TEDS who strongly and aggressively voice their displeasure at the fact that TEDS generally rejects the Neo-Cal hardcore complementarian position.
TEDS is a weird mix. Their famously strong academic reputation has become a double-edged sword, as it attracts the academic-obsessed Neo-Cal crowd. As a result, there are an increasing number of Neo-Cal students who attend solely for the “academic reputation” and to student at the feet of a few Neo-Cal “rockstar” profs, but who have absolutely no connection or commitment to the EFCA’s core beliefs and historical traditions. (And many are actually strongly opposed to some of the EFCA’s core beliefs and traditions!) In classic Neo-Cal style, they are infiltrating from the inside out and then once inside trying to change things around to their own personal preferences. Sound familiar? It should! There have been numerous reports of Neo-Cals doing this with “church plants” – especially within Acts 29.
The EFCA remains very protective of their famous “Significance of Silence” agreement – to require firm agreement on essentials, and to agree to remain “silent” on non-essentials. In my opinion, one of the main problems with this approach is that it favors the aggressive, the arrogant, and the dishonest. It’s like a large family gathering where 90% of the relatives are polite, socially appropriate folks, but 10% are rude, loud, and inappropriate. Because the 90% are kind, they are less likely to stand up to the 10%, who will probably be able to cause havoc at will.
There is an “open secret” at TEDS, regarding a well-known Neo-Cal professor. He is openly amillennial, despite the fact that the EFCA requires all professors to sign a document indicating that they are premillennial. Regardless of your eschatology, I think everyone would agree that it’s a major character/integrity issue to sign a doctrinal statement that you don’t actually agree with. Among students, there is much discussion about this, but the admin of the school and EFCA aren’t pushing the issue.
Eagle or anybody else – could you explain #29 for me? I guess I am not sure what you are referring to when you mean “God is oversold”.
Oh, and another thing, could somebody tell me the difference between “Evangelical”, “Protestant”, “Lutheran”, and “Reformed”. Growing up in Germany, we used a lot of those terms interchangeably, but I can see that here they are thought of as distinct things.
Appreciate it. 🙂 Oh, and Eagle, I really enjoyed this article, you have pointed out so many things that have been pet peeves of mine.
Nancy wrote:
She wrote a chapter in the odious and deceitfully titled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so that’s enough to say she plays for the wrong team.
@ SeanR:
SeanR you, and Janet, along with what I have seen in the DC area Evangelical Free Church could write a book called, “I Kissed the Evangelcial Free Church Goodbye” Many of the EFCA churches in the DC area have been hijacked and I will not explore faith there, despite my past history in the EFCA. One of the DC area EFCA churches is called Cornerstone in Annandale, and is headed up by Bill Keynes who sits on the Executive Board of the The Gospel Coalition. When TGC threw its weight behind Soverieng Grace I seriously thought about protesting and holding up a sign asking, “Hey Bill! Is it “The Gospel” to cover up the rape of a child?”
@ Gram3:
Well she also went down to Ecudor, and taught after her husband Jim was killed. This doesn’t seem to be as hardcore. I have read that the SBC has terminted comissions for female missionaries because they are women, and they don’t think they should teach.
Wow. Powerful and convicting, Eagle, and cannot have been easy to write!! I think, though, that #23 can and should be unpacked in more detail (not by you alone, and not today, but by us all at some point, whether observers of shepherding or those actually wounded by it…)
To be as “blunt” as we can be when discussing evangelical shepherding abuse and Christianity, we have to admit there are no blogs like “First United Methodist Survivors,” “Clovervale Presbyterian Survivors,” or “Christ Church Episcopal Survivors,” or “Redeemer UCC Survivors”…and ask ourselves why. Why is shepherding so attractive to specific (mostly conservative, patriarchal) denominations, subgroups within “mainstream” denominations (some neo-Calvinists within Southern Baptist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian denominations), splinter groups from “mainstream” denominations?
Answering this goes to how one experiences Christianity, what narratives one forms about one’s ultimate purpose in life, the lived theology of us all, etc. and would be helpful in healing some of the wounds brought about by the false shepherds. It would also be useful to combat mainstream denominational steeplejacking by “shepherds” or others whose motives aren’t what they seem.
Mr.H wrote:
Don Carson is also a contributor to RBMW and is a certified luminary among the Neo-Puritans. I got the impression he is amill from one of his sermons I heard. Who’s going to fire Carson over something as trivial as a statement of faith, since he’s such a big draw for the seminary?
Mr.H wrote:
I didn’t know TEDS was EFCA until recently. Listened to a fair amount of D.A. Carson and since he’s Reformed I just made the assumption that TEDS was reformed along the line of RTS. Makes sense now why I’ve been seeing more and more neo-Cal stuff from EFCA resources.
Eagle wrote:
I think there is an special dispensation in hardcore complementarian dogma so that women can teach non-white men in the non-Anglo world as long as they are under some “authority.” Maybe there was a man in the group to “cover” her. Or maybe all of the males were issued earplugs. 😉
Although SBTS has (or at least had) a touching exhibit honoring Lottie Moon, I wonder if she could do what she did then in today’s IMB. Of course, it is perfectly fine for the SBC to use her exemplary work for fundraising every year. That is definitely legal under comp dogma, but don’t even think about a woman teaching a mixed Bible study.
@ Mr.H:
Here’s the deal with TEDS….when DA Carson is diagnosed with colon cancer he should forgo any type of treatment, chemotheraphy, etc… Why? It shows DA Carson’s lacks faith. If he just prayed hard enough, and lived his life by Biblical principles then the cancer will go away. If you’re going to follow the nouthetic counseling movement, then really shouldn’t that also apply to all actual medicine? I mean I can make a strong, passionate, and convincing argument that Matt Chandler for all the rhetoric of the sovereingty of God doesn’t believe that the Lord is truly sovereign because he sought treatment for a brain tumor. My Dad had a stage 3 brain tumor and his theology supports medical intervention. Hyper-Cals believe in a sovereingty that is nothing more than determinism and Matt Chandler seeking medical help for his brain tumor showed that he rebelled against God, was sinful, and doesn’t believe that the Lord is soveriegn. If Matt Chandler believed the Lord is sovereign than he would have just submitted to the brain tumor and let it run its course, and take his life. Submitting to illness whatever it may be is the proper way for a Hyper-Calvinist to repsond to disease and suffering. Remember…cancer, brain tumor, cystic fibrosis, arthritis, etc… are all foreordained by God and his will. Why seek medical treatment? If you are going to follow noutheitc counseling shouldn’t that be followed in all parts of medicine? Just pray harder and apply scripture? Or better yet…maybe some of the hypr-reformed can join Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Scientist movement and just pray for any disease that befalls the body. Hey there’s a thought!
@ Gram3:
I would also suggest that DA Carons is largely a fraud, and that his teaching credentials should eb revoked. Here’s why…Carson basically looked the other way when Mark Driscoll plagirized his material for one of his gazillion plagiarized books. (I know what are friends for…to plagiarize material!) So Carson does nothing about the plagiarized material publically. Do you think a student in Carson’s class at TEDS could plagiarize a paper and turn it into Don and pass it off as original work? I’d love to know if there have been incidents at TEDS for stealing intellectual material and passing it off as your own. If Carson has cracked down on students for plagiarism while giving Driscoll a pass then his education credentials to teahc should be revoked. You can’t have it both ways. What would happen to a Cadet at the Air Force Academy if they plagiarized? I know a History professor at the Naval Academy lost tenure and had a huge reduction in pay for plagiairizng a book about the atomic bomb.
Godith
Now you are going to make me work.
I grew up not far from the place of Edwards participation in the revival of Northhampton, Massachusetts. We studied about him in school, along with other famous locals. If I remember correctly, which I may not, in the early days of the revival, Edwards would take to yelling when people were moaning and screaming in response to his sermons. He would yell at them to quiet down so he could finish his “encouraging” sermons. You are correct. He did speak in a monotone, quietly, whilst lancing them with threats of hell which led to an increase of suicidal ideations.
Of course, I may be wrongly recalling what I was taught in my high school history class. So, onwards to search. As an aside, I was give Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God to memorize and had to say it in front of the class. Since there were few, if any, evangelicals in my class (and I was not a believer at the time), it was taken as tongue in cheek.
Eagle wrote:
Regrettably, you can have it both ways provided you are important enough. Recent examples include Driscoll and Mahaney and Mohler and Patterson and Keller and ad nauseum.
I believe Carson kept quiet about Driscoll because he was trying to damp down the controversy at the time. Driscoll presents a dilemma for these guys because he brings in the money and influence among a desirable demographic (or at least he did up to that point.) BUT at the same time Driscoll himself is the best argument against their philosophy, as we are witnessing very recently.
I refuse to call their religion a faith, unless it is merely faith in themselves and their infallibility.
Thanks Eagle. I agree, and many are things I’ve seen myself. I can’t think of a single thing to add.
@ Dee & Deb – maybe you should get Eagle to write posts more often so you can get somewhat of a rest. 🙂
@ Gram3:
I get a good laugh today over Sovereign Grace. How Sovereign is the Lord? Enough to fight a lawsuit, hire a female attorney to defend a patriarchial organziation which enforces strict gender roles and resist churches leaving the movement. Oh yes the Lord is sovereing…..CJ Mahaney proves that!
Godith
What do you think about the comparison between Edwards’ revival and the Tornoto Blessing? It seems that there was a lot fo action going on during his revivals.
Dee!!!
If you want to be truly humble can I recommend the following? Shave your head. Blackmail Deb Martin. Flee to Capital Hill Baptist and hide behind Mark Dever. Flee to Louisville all while trying to hit the speaking circuit! What say you Mom! 😛
Eagle wrote:
Well, as soon as you realize that God’s inviolable laws on gender or anything else can be fudged if it benefits the right people, it all makes sense. What they do reveals what they value, just like it does for the rest of us.
Their view of God’s sovereignty is a selling point to distinguish their movement from “man-centered” theology. You don’t want to be man-centered, do you? Of course not! Salespeople don’t have to believe what they are saying; they are concerned with getting their target to believe what they are saying. Thus the multitude of inconsistencies between what they teach and what they do.
dee wrote:
Ah the Toronto Blessing. Some of the churches I went to were in to that. Is that still a thing?
@ NJ:
I understand that there is a movement of people away from evangelicalism towards the Orthodox faith, Anglican or Roman Catholic. I am aware of a few stories personally. Ryan who blogs at the “Back of the World” had to deal with a lot when his family left Sovereign Grace. For years his wife’s family shunned them. I’ve gotten to know him and what he endured and my heart breaks. I am glad that he is Catholic and that he finds, grace, peace, and nurturing in something which was denied him by Hyper Reformed theology.
@ Gram3:
I did marketing in the automotive industry and I recognize marketing when I see it. All Sovereing Grace does is market themselves. Its like Redeemer of Arlington…it’s nothing but a business franchise.
Eagle,
I have a little contribution on my favorite secondary issue, your 6), in email to Dee. Thanks for the work in creating the list.
OldJohnJ
Dee, please check your email.
Number 28 is so important and so many preachers today don’t ” get it.”
God is neither Republican nor Democrat.
When you basically start to support the issues of one party of another, the automatically lose half of the people you have the potential to minister to.
I am so sick and tired of the SBC being so alined with the GOP and their issues….and I vote Republican most of the time. But, if you’re a Democrat, will you seek Jesus in most SBC Churches?
This is very, very good. Thank you.
Albuquerque Blue
No, not so much. But Google Jonathan Edwards and Toronto Blessing. Apparently Susan Edwards would go into a trance and stare.
Eagle wrote:
SGM, Mars Hill, Joel Osteen, whatever. Selling people their own idealized vision of themselves. Or selling them protection from or an antidote for their worst fear.
dee wrote:
Nothing much to add here except that I’m clearly hungry: I read this as the “Tomato Blessing”
Hi Stan
There is no question in my mind that you are a fan of Noble and Furtick.
@ Gram3:
IMO all the SBC does is use Lottie Moon for fundraising. IMO she would never be allowed to be a missionary in modern times by those in charge of the SBC.
Stan Olsen wrote:
Why did you make this post? I mean, why bother posting to all of us losers?
Oh! Hah hah! I get it now… Silly me, feeding the lost trolls.
mot wrote:
Ding….ding…..ding…we have a winner….you are absolutely correct…
@ K.D.:
I love to read and have read extensively about WMU and can say unequivocally that women in the SBC when they were allowed to kept the SBC solvent. But the current leaders just want to ignore and exclude women from leadership and pastoral positions.
@ Stan Olsen:
Stan maybe just a gentle reminder= no pastor etc. saves people, it is Jesus. He is the one that should get the credit.
mot wrote:
Amen, and amen.
Stan Olsen, you are nothing like Jesus Christ. Would Jesus tell people they are a bunch of losers? You do a good job making Christians look heartless and hateful.
@ Stan Olsen:
Who’s trip-trapping across my bridge, eh?
Stan Olsen wrote:
Please folks, don’t feed the troll
This isn’t genuine, it isn’t Poe; it’s just low grade trolling. I’m sure you’ve all seen nearly identical comments to this before. Just ignore it – feed it and it will come back for more
JeffT wrote:
As the ancient text says:
“I’m a troll, folderoll, and I’ll eat you for supper”.
NOT.
and while I’m here, Eagle, awesome collection of posts mate. So glad you had the courage to write these
Eagle,
Wow, you have said quite a bit here. I know you have more, but it’s a good starter. 🙂
If I may, I’d like to add an issue: LOVE. You shall LOVE your neighbor as yourself. Evangelicals need to repent of the circus and love the members that make up their churches.
They need to honor the weakest members of their church with more honor than they honor their pastor (1 Cor 12:23-24). They need to have the same concern for one another. They need to actually weep with those that weep, instead of rebuking them by saying that Christianity is a religion of joy. They need to mourn with those who mourn. They need to use their worldly possessions to help their brothers in need. They need to repent of church budgets with seven figures going to the building, six figures going to staff salary, and a couple grand left over to support the needs of several hundred people. When somebody loses their job and home, a $25 Target gift card will not do. And a big one…they need to repent of loving with word and tongue instead of deed and truth (1 John 3:18)
Steve Scott wrote:
Well said, Brother.
Eagle, have you ever considered going to Seminary and becoming ordained? I think you’d make an excellent Pastor. One with a heart for the people and one whose efforts could go a long way in draining the fetid swamp that American Evangelicalism has become. I say this with all sincerity.
mot wrote:
I think it may be a combination of ideology and math. If you have a certain limited number of missionary slots and some of those slots are filled by women, then you have fewer slots for all of the male seminary graduates. I wonder what would happen to missions giving and mission effectiveness if missionaries held positions according to talents and training rather than gender. I think if the supply of young men dried up, the theology would be adjusted and women could assume a wider range of roles.
Wow, 29 points and I only sort of disagree with one… Well done.
My only quibble really is with the 29th. I’d argue that if one’s God is oversold one is following the wrong God in the wrong way.
If God is a God of grace, the source of *all* good things (as I think you and I would both affirm), then his spirit is at work wherever there is love, joy, peace, goodness, etc. Such a God cannot be oversold.
But if “knowing God” means “if you assent to a set of propositional truths that will make you a good person” (which is the effective theology of too many Christians, liberal or conservative) then you are right on target.
“Steven Furtick and Perry Noble” make bank who cares what type of “gospel” they preach, that is irrelevant, always has been. They generate income and develop product downline, that means Jesus loves them. I guess. At least that is what I walk away with from the American Religion. Besides I love Furticks hair.
roebuck wrote:
yes! your post reminds me of this scripture:
A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; 31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
Jer 5:30-31 (KJV)
the part about “and my people love to have it so” I pray that I can stay outside of the lure of mega church or church profit or church fame, etc. I want to say, wow I just don’t get it how those people could want to go to those kind of churches, but I remember that I also for a season got into churches like that for some reason. Thank you Jesus for getting me out, and please lead all your children out of bondage and into the liberty of a real relationship with You. Amen
@ Eagle:
thanks for writing this eagle, it’s what I believe also. Also the part about end times theology and rejoicing when bad things happen part reminds me of when I read the book of Jerimiah when he told the elders and rabbis and rich businessmen that were so hypocritical and self absorbed that God was going to send an enemy against THEM unless they repented. they didn’t give any heed to Jerimiah and probably sat around bemoaning the sins of THOSE PEOPLE over there> the gays, or the athiests, telling the sick people that if they only followed the law perfectly as they themselves did they wouldn’t be sick. telling them that God’s judgment was going to come upon them. and lamentations is so sad, because they wouldn’t hear that the Lord was calling THEM to repent. Its very sad to see the very people that are condemning publicly ‘sinners’ are like the false prophets of old. I am sick of hearing from famous pastors that the judgment of God is coming on america because of those gay people, while they cover child molesters, and prop up men that seem to only preach for dollars.
@ Steve Scott:
love your post, well said.
I wrote this a couple years ago and always wanted to say it publicly in a big church with a wealthy pastor but I’m gonna post it here instead.
If it was up to me and I went to a church where the pastor, bishop, or whatever he is called today, has a very nice suit, a nice ring on his finger, and a nice expensive car, I would tell him he ought to trade his nice car with the fellow in the congregation with the mud caked boots on, or the young woman that is a waitress and has children. Why? The pastors salary is guaranteed by the tithe of the congregation. The man with the mud caked boots works hard every day to put food on his families table and he is paying the pastors salary by his tithe, that man needs a reliable car to get to work. The pastor can get by with the mans car that is held together with kleenex and spit much easier. If the pastor can’t get to church on Sunday morning because his car is broken down, he can easily get a ride from anyone in the church. They would be honored to do that, perhaps fighting over the privalage of doing it. Jesus didn’t think it awful that the apostil paul had to ride in ships that were always sinking. As to the young mother with children, who would I rather have break down on the side of the road with car troubles? The pastor who is a grown man full of faith, or a young mother with children?
I am weighing in on political Christians etc.
(another of my paraphrases (based on Luke 18:9-14))
Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a pharisee, and the other a publican. The pharisee stood and prayed thus: God i thank you that i am not as other men are, homosexuals, wetbacks, or like this guy whose doctrine is not right like mine. I am a member of the right christian political party, i tithe 10% and thanks for my new car. I attend the largest church on the block, and i am fully armed, locked and loaded. Lord, please remember the starving children in africa, and have those people stop putting the ads about them on tv. they make me feel bad and then i can’t enjoy my football game. i told some more people today how much you hate them. Oh yeah i pray you would bomb all those ____ in ___country because they are killing people that they think don’t follow God right, they are so violent. As the pharisee passed him he said to the publican, “the judgement of God is coming because of you!”
the publican, wearing his protective mask of toughness and self assurance to protect himself, left the temple and went home praying by himself, and not able to look up to heaven he asked God to be merciful to him, a sinner, and resolved never to go to church again.
http://littlesanctuaryministries.org/christiannation.html
I also wrote a bit about Spiritual gifts a while back I hope its ok to share part of it. I have seen a lot of ministries in the “charismatic” movement recently use ‘the gifts of the Spirit’ as idols. its all about the healings and not about Jesus, its all about the Prophet and his prophesies and not about the Lords prophecies. Prophetic ministries that say their words are the new revelation even if they contradict sound scriptures, they have a huge following. I have heard churches that say if you don’t speak in tongues you aren’t saved, that in direct contradiction to the scripture. I have heard a lot of prosperity preachers but never a preacher that emphasized the fruit of the Spirit called longsuffering. anyway if its ok I would like to share a bit of what I wrote on Spiritual Gifts because I have also seen them used in the leading of Jesus through His Spirit and with true miracles following.
“Just because some have abused the things of God, it does not mean that we can deny God’s use of the Holy Spirit.
I think that we all have at times seen people doing things that they say the Holy Spirit is doing through them but it seems off somehow. For example a lot of us have prayed that a loved one would be healed, and God has at times granted that. Then we may see a person that has a “healing ministry” but that it seems to have an emphasis on people sending money to the ministry.
People get “slain in the Spirit” often in these ministries. People falling down in the presence of the Lord or His Spirit is actually scripturally true, it is written about several times in the bible. People helping the Lord knock someone down for a show of power or authority is not.
Also, no where in the bible have I read, “Jesus loves you, but if you’d send me $100 you would be the apple of His eye and then He would really be able to bless you!”
http://littlesanctuaryministries.org/spiritualgiftsdiscernment.html
being homebound because of injury I was watching a televangelist and thought:
Can you imagine if Jesus was in the middle of the sermon on the mount and suddenly a disciple stood up and said, hey folks we have to go to capernium now, but for only 79 denarius you can get the rest of the sermon on the mount by mail, if you don’t have 79 denarius we accept donkeys or sheep!
not trying to spam, that website will only be up for a few more days or weeks and I just wanted to share those few things. I was told by my neurologist that if I hit my head again, even a minor head injury, I will have much worse symptoms than I do now, which would mean I won’t be able to be online coherantly and eagles topics here have been things I have been dealing with constantly. my bucket list is to speak about these things while I can, thanks for letting me post.
Eagle, thank you for this exceptionally insightful article. I expect to re-read it in the near future.
And, Sam,my friend, I have appreciated each & every comment you have made to this discussion.
Gram3 wrote:
Ideology? Sure. Math? Sure. But also there are some very down to earth issues to be dealt with. As I have said before, I did a short term missions “project’ (pick a word) in Africa associated with SBC work in that place, “back in the day.” I was unmarried at the time, and I had a useful skill for a certain kind of missions. I was on track to possibly become a career missionary depending on how things worked out. While i was in Africa (I am omitting the name of the country) the missionary to whom I had been primarily assigned talked to me about the problems that single female missionaries faced on the field and also about some problems that having single female missionaries there caused for the other missionaries. She made some very good points. One of the big issues had to do with the indigenous people’s attitude toward single women and how they assumed certain erroneous conclusions about the single women. Anyhow, she advised against it in the strongest terms and indicated that her opinion was shared by most of the other missionaries there at the time.
As disappointed as I am in the direction of some SBC stuff going on now, I do not think that the issue of single women missionaries is a simple issue and much thought should go into any discussion of the issue.
@ zooey111:
thanks zooey, I always appreciate your posts too
@ Nancy:
very good point nancy, I have a female relative that did missionary work in that country also, (could have happened in any country though) who was brutally sexually assaulted because some parts of some areas had a very bad view of both Christianity and women. The incidence of men having that happen to them is usually lower, not because women are inferior.
@ dee:
Dee, ditto for me (growing up near and going to college near as well). Plus I have read 99% of what’s available–not counting what is only at Yale. In 2003 Mark Dever repreached this sermon for the 300th anniversary of Edwards birth. For a real extreme take try reading the sermon by Edwards’ – Wicked Men Useful in Their Destruction Only. Ugh!
Edwards wrote Religious Affections to explain that feelings, emotions , crying, etc are not signs of true religious experience. The book is readily available and well worth the read.
Back to #22, Eagle. You touched mt heart when you said that it’s so much easier to live by rules, as that’s how my fund. Methodist church was when I was young. It took me years to realize what it means to be a Christian. Legalism, IMO, produces aridity, a lack of assurance. How can we live in grace, Eagle. Old ways die hard.
Godith
Yet many of his meetings were characterized by “Toronto Blessing” like behavior. I read that his own wife was into some of the manifestations. He also permitted this to go on at his meetings. He could have stopped it by merely walking out of the meeting. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Edwards continued on in a quiet monotone while people were screaming and hitting the ground all around the church. If he did, it would make for a funny SNL routine.(Cut the crapeth!)
I guess you could say that I am not a fan of celebrity pastors, especially of the “movement” kind from any generation. They were sinners, just like the rest of us. For a man so in touch with the spirit, he held slaves. Others: Calvin and his infernal rules/Servetus, the Puritans and their land grabs, witches, and intolerance those who thought diffferently like Roger Williams-hardly a heathen. I have set the timer in my kitchen, awaiting for the arrival of Calvin defenders who will tell me that Calvin had nothing to do with Servetus’ death which I contend is bunkum.
I think part of the problem with evagelicalism/Calvinism/whatever is our tendency to gloss over history instead of presenting the truth. By presenting the truth, we see more clearly the reason why Jesus came.
I have followed this site for a number of months and find it very enlightening. I am particularly interested in the mentions of the changes to the Evangelical Free denomination. I am a founding member of a 28 year old EFCA church. Over the last 2-3 years I have seen the theology change. We began as a group of people from spiritually abusive or at least legalist churches but most of those folks are gone. The deacon board, make up of men and women put together a new constitution essentially putting all power in the hands of the pastor and 3 handpicked elders. Then they added a positional statement that anyone who wants any ministerial role (teacher/group leaders/etc) had to sign. Of course the appropriate proof verses were included in each.
Due to being a female and not signing the positional statement I went from being the church treasurer to someone who cannot even teach kids or set up ladies social. It is like watch a slow motion train wreck. It is discouraging to know that this it throughout the denomination.
Nancy wrote:
I agree that where a female missionary serves is a matter of wisdom and must take into account all kinds of circumstances. And females should not insist as a matter of “rights” that they be permitted to minister in places or functions where they would subject themselves or their fellow missionaries to more danger or difficulty than they otherwise face. I would say the same about single males or married couples. IOW who serves where should be a matter of who can contribute the most toward an effective mission.
Kathryn
We want to discuss some of these issues in the EFC. The minute you put the church’s decision making power into the hands of the pastor and the handpicked elders, the game was over. Unfortunately, it is very rare, once such a decision is made, to go back. The church, as you knew it, is gone. You were smart not to sign anything. Those statement primariy exist for the benefit of the leaders who use it to enforce their “authority.”
I have taken to telling folks that there are excellent parachurch ministries that would love talented men and women. Also, many of these groups provide hands on ministry which, in many ways, is far more fulfilling than supporting exorbitant salaries, fancy sound systems, etc.
dee wrote:
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . . Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.
John Calvin, Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus
Eagle…my son and I debate and love to dialog about our faith, and we have taken multiple journeys, some we agree with each other, others we disagree. He is currently in a foreign country and here were his comments on your insights…wanted to share.
Very interesting.
One thing I find interesting that I can relate to in my early journey into Anglicanism, is that he is trying to purge something that cannot be purged. Because of the divisions in the church, there is no authority or grounds for getting stuff out. We couldn’t have a “council” nowadays because everyman is for his own, with minimal accountability within his/her “denomination”. Which is why his letter will receive little attention except a few “amens”.
My take is that this guy is hungry for the true catholic Church, but doesn’t know where to get it. Pretty much EVERY point he makes was a reason for me turning Anglican. No doubt we have some issues, but there are outside a lot of that petty heretical crap (well, I am not speaking of the American Episcopal Church obviously ….) and we don’t have most of the things he lists.
There is so much that became whole for me and removed me freely from the Evangelical bubble and culture all the while remaining “evangelical”.
There is structure.
Accountability.
Authority.
Sacraments.
Sound doctrine.
catholicity.
I feel, just a feeling and opinion, but I feel, that people like him will remain restless until they can find their home in the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”. (but hey, what does that even mean right??)
I think Calvin’s own words landed me in moderation 🙂
I wish this wasn’t a blog comment, I’d love to express my outrage after seeing this clip from the late Propaganda Minister from Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis. (edited) This kind of garbage is what happens when you are in the bubble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hymbiJ-qUZg
Now if Mark Driscoll talked about a pussyified nation I have a question…why doesn’t Driscoll talk about pussyified Neo-Reformed pastors who hide behind the pulpit and attack female members of the Armed Service? THAT IS A DISGRACE!! And if John Piper actually believes the crap he spews…why doesn’t he grow some balls, sign up for the Marine Corp and deploy to Afghanistan so that women don’t have to. How convenient to attack women from a pulpit and hide behind it when you yourself are benefiting from their service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1VIf5lGKpM
Speaking of women in the military and US Military Academies I have a question. What do organizations like Cru, or the Navigators do at the Air Force Academy. Does the Navigators team tell a female cadet, “I’m sorry you shouldn’t be here…John Piper says you shouldn’t serve….here’s what we want you to do. Go home, get married and we expect you to pop out 5 kids before the end of the year. Also you will be chained to the stove, you can’t work and remember your intellectually inferior to men and God created it like that…” Is that how some Christian ministries interact with female Cadets at the Air Force Academy, West Point, or Naval Academy?
@ Kathryn:
Kathyrn- I hear you, I am familiar with the Evangelical Free Church and was involved in the EFCA in California, and briefly in Wisconsin. I had my faith crisis but several of the EFCA churches in the Washington, D.C. area have been hijacked by hyper-Calvinism. And after seeing what a mess the EFCA has become I will not explore faith there. One of the EFCA Churches I looked at was toting Mark Driscoll’s material. I was disgusted, and the lack of discernment in the EFCA is profound. No one asks questions, no one investigates, etc… The EFCA is being downgraded and torn apart. On this blog there are some disturbing stories about the Evangelical Free in Kansas, California and elsewhere. There is a whopper of a story as to what an Evangelical Free did to a mother and her special needs son in California. Dee hopes that maybe that can get posted in the next couple of weeks. Its disturbing…but you will find that you are not alone.
@ dee:
Yea, I am pretty sure we are not going back. At some point the church may totally crash and burn, but who know what will grow out of it. I am still attending from a combination of inertia, some good friends and also due to extended travel and medical issues over the last 15 months. I live in a small town with limited church options and haven’t had the motivation to travel to check out other churches. And, on the petty side, it is nice after 25 plus years to not have any responsibility and I think my presence irks the pastor. After some initial conversations I don’t argue or dispute, but he knows I am there and disagreeing with him. It’s a small church, went from 180 to 125 members during this transition.
I would be interested in hearing more about parachurch ministries. I think it might be time to get back in the saddle.
@ Gram3:
Sincere question does the SBC allow single female missionaries to serve as Home Missionaries or Foreign Missionaries?
Kathryn wrote:
This is commonly called “a Coup from Within”.
And when it’s combined with Comp/Patrio, it lets the little boys strut around boasting what Manly Men they are. (All the way to the MMA cage fight.)
sam h wrote:
Remember Pope Francis and the Bishop of Bling.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I wish these posts had like buttons HUG! 🙂
@ dee:
Cuttest thou the shenanigans speedily, Goody Parsons!
😉
I have to admit that Piper is a bit over the top in this one. As for the middle of the night-my hubsand wakes up first and goes to check but I do not lay in bed. I always grab an implement with which to attack in case things do not go well. And, to look at Piper, my guess is that his wife would be wise to do the same.
PS He gave up trying to get me to stay in my room.
mot wrote:
The people I know who have that info would favor the no-female-teachers-of-men view and thus probably not appreciate the inquiry. Others I know may have no objection to females in those roles, but they value their ministry opportunity so don’t make an issue of it. 😉
The last I knew personally was several years ago when there were single females serving as part of teams consisting of male and/or female singles serving with married couples. Same with SIM many years ago. I don’t know about NAMB at all.
dee wrote:
Surely the pugs would savage any intruders Dee? Your only job would be shovelling bones into the bin 🙂
Beakerj wrote:
If they’re anything like my old pup, they would simply lick the intruders to death. I mean, really, don’t all visitors exist to play with the old pup?!?
@Eagle & Kathryn – I am in an Efree church that seems pretty healthy. I am always on the watch, however, and if I see red flags, I will be either talking to them or running. I now know what the warning signs are.
dee wrote:
I agree. I think also, like in the veterans example that eagle used, that if we could live honestly in the present and not be afraid to ask for help or be transparent about our failures we would be much more blessed and see Jesus more clearly in the things of our lives. several years ago I read a missionary’s story, and it was some non famous missionary to some south somewhere country, the thing that struck me and resonated with me and really gave me hope, was that the missionary told of the conversions yes, but he spoke about the endless hours and days of nothingness. he spoke of being discouraged and sad, and sometimes bored in the jungle. he spoke of the hardship and to that I could really relate. I think when we make people that are deceased into perfect people we make them useless, no one could ever attain to perfection and people trying to emulate them only turn into dry irritating legalistic preachers.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The mistake I made was thinking “This can’t be that because it can’t happen here” plus being vulnerable due to personal circumstances. I saw the yellow flags, some of which were nearly dark orange, but I didn’t want to see them so I refused to recognize them as warning flags. And it’s not like I haven’t seen just about every kind of church dysfunction either personally or via close relationships. I’m a slow learner.
@ Eagle:
A black belt? What a doofus. That would be a break in/ home invasion? and Piper thinks a black belt might be some kind of answer? Bless his heart, somebody needs to help him before he does something really goofy and fails to survive such an encounter.
@ JeffT:
“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . . Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.
John Calvin, Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus”
Dude! John Calvin wrote that? and there is all these churches that are called Calvinism or Calvinistic, and they follow this dude who says that God wants us to kill heretics? and that God himself is speaking and making it perpetual? Dude, that is exactly what I keep hearing in the calvinista crap today–not killing people, but I bet that’s not far off, but the “I read the bible and God told me to tell you to…..” and then they say something that is totally unscriptural! John calvin should have been killed as a heritic for that very thing he wrote if people took it seriously. wow the things you learn by visiting blog sites!
I never read anything by that calvin guy before.
Nancy wrote:
You and I can’t help him, poor soul. Apparently he can only receive instruction from a man. A woman might be exercising authority over him if she tries to teach him something. I hope he has some wise, man friends or he might be doomed to extinction.
Bridget wrote:
Pretty sure he wouldn’t mind a woman officer showing up to handle the situation. Or would he? Would it be wrong for the female officer to exercise authority over a male perp? These gender rules are so confusing!
Godith wrote:
I cant read books anymore to see Edwards view on the subject, so please excuse this post if its not relevant.
I think emotions is a very big thing that christians are stumbling over.
have none, just sit in that pew and do what I say without showing any true emotion.
or have too many, oh dude, I got so high in the spirit I cant even talk and then the guy laughs really loud and falls down at the podium.
the bible is written in such a way that without a real personal relationship with its author, people attribute their own ideas and interpretations.
like how some read the bible and see Jesus as the embodiement of God’s wrath and judgment, legalists who try to do everything correctly lest they fall into wrath. or how some abuse grace and miss the mark of dying to self, they read it as everything is ok, its covered by believing in Jesus and His dying at the cross, “we can do whatever we want! Lets stay happy and high, doesn’t matter if we screw over anyone that disagrees with us, (like that first wife that we destroyed by sleeping with our secretary),they just don’t matter anyway, we live on happy island with only our happy friends!”
Jesus was emotional and had several experiences that were marked by emotions, I could argue that it was a sign of Him experiencing God at those moments, whether in anger at the temple clearing or weeping at lazarus’ tomb.
I have heard several sides of the emotions issue. I have heard christians say you must not be emotional or follow your emotions. I have heard non christians say that christians are uncaring, boring, and well, unemotional. We must certainly go by the Word of God to know who we are and our value in Jesus, that we have great promises and are children of God no matter if we feel like it or not. When we are having times of difficulty it is easy to live in discouragement and depression or doubt, I am not suggesting we should do that. Having emotions and feeling them and expressing them is not the same as that though. In therepy I learned that people can live on either end of a spectrum between their rational mind and their emotional mind. If I live in my rational mind only I become very annalytical and rational and have little or no emotions. If I live in my emotional mind I am not balanced either, often carried about with every wind of emotion. In the middle of these two extremes, my therepest calls a place called wise mind. It is a place where we use our rational and our emotional together and it is very balanced. Hearing that reminded me of Jesus, who is very wise and emotional also. The scriptures say things like: exceeding sorrowful, great rejoicing, a man aquainted with sorrow and grief, and exceeding great joy. Jesus wept, if it were wrong to cry God wouldn’t have given us tear ducts, and Jesus certainly wouldn’t have done it.
mot wrote:
Many years ago (22) when I felt the Lord wanted me to serve as a foreign missionary, I did some research and found out that yes indeedy the SBC had single women missionaries. At that time over 200. However, due to the fact that SBC missionaries were paid a salary instead of having to raise their own support a single female candidate had to practically swear on a stack of Bibles she had no desire to get married. Seems there was a “problem” with singles females abandoning the field and coming home in search of a husband.
Maybe there are too many seminaries out there trying a to make $and educate people who really ought not to be pastors. Also, I have noticed a lot of pastors tend to be narcissistic. I guess they choose that profession so they can boss others around.
Gram3 wrote:
Well, if he lives out his doctrine to its logical conclusion, he WOULD mind. He might reluctantly accept her authority over the male intruder though, if she did it so as not to make the male intruder ‘feel’ usurped 🙂
JeffT wrote:
rofl!
Eagle wrote:
the abuse of women in the military is evidence that a lot of people give credence to men and or theories like John Pipers, so probably yes to your question.
@ Gram3:
Gram3 said: “Pretty sure he wouldn’t mind a woman officer showing up to handle the situation. Or would he? Would it be wrong for the female officer to exercise authority over a male perp? These gender rules are so confusing!”
hehehe, what if a female cop did respond to some crisis that piper called about and said, “Sir, I have read your books, and I cant help you because I am female, sorry!”
Gram3 wrote:
I personally heard a fundy male preacher rail against the fact that there was a woman working with a road repair crew. She was standing out in the hot sun holding one of the stop/ go signs. He was incensed that she had “man’s job.” Shame on her.
sam h wrote:
I think one of these guys actually preached that if he was stopped by a female cop he would be “Gnashing His Teeth” over HER having authority over HIM. The massmind’s response would be “I’d pay to see that! (And the aftermath…)”
@ Bridget:
bridget said: Well, if he lives out his doctrine to its logical conclusion, he WOULD mind. He might reluctantly accept her authority over the male intruder though, if she did it so as not to make the male intruder ‘feel’ usurped 🙂
hilarious, thanks!
Gram3 wrote:
In the 1930s (as Fascism swept across Europe as the Wave of the Future), Upton Sinclair wrote a novel about a Fascist takeover of the USA, using German Fascism as his model. The title?
It’ Can’t Happen Here.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sigh. I’m already reading a book on Baptist history (Vedder 1907) because of a comment Lydia made, and now you bring this up. Look, I don’t have student assistants to help me work through my impressive book stack, so please, give me a break. 😉
BeakerJ
Between me screaming and swinging bats and the pugs barking along with my husband with his protective devices and alarms blaring to high hell, intruders would rue the day they picked on our house.
@ JeffT, dee, & sam h on Calvin:
Aren’t you guys glad that the Founders of our Nation were products of the Enlightenment and took sound measures to ensure that men like Calvin, Lootare (Luther), and the potentates of Rome could never enlist the King’s horses and the King’s men to achieve their aims?
OOPS! sorry about the all bolds, the bolds were meant only for the folks addressed.
Nancy wrote:
When I was in Jr High (Middle School for you younger ones), I play the trombone in band. I knew it was unusual for girls to play this instrument, but it was what I wanted to play. I was pretty good (music runs in my family) and thou sat in 1st chair most of the time.
One day when we were on a field trip for a marching competition, one of the other t-bone players (male) and I were sitting in the shade eating lunch when his mother came up and said to me, “Why don’t you play a girl’s instrument and let the boys play their instruments?” Honestly, at the ripe old age of 13, I was speechless….no one had ever suggested such a thing before. The boy was mortified….
Gender issues permeate our society and the last place we should have to fight them is in the church……sigh.
Eagle, your list thoroughly explains why I am a ‘none’…..probably permanently.
sam h wrote:
Yes!
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Amen, Jeannette! Amen! The church should be in the forefront demonstrating respect for and freedom for the differences in individuals regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity.
I should add that when I was about 13 yrs. old and playing with the school basketball team, the bishop of the parish turned off the heat in the gym because he didn’t believe girls should play basketball.
When I got divorced (some 30 yrs. ago) I went to a hardware store to buy a part for my lawnmower. The owner asked me if my husband knew the lawnmower was broken. I said that I was there to purchase the needed part and asked if he could help me find it. He looked at me with hatred in his eyes and said, “you G-D women are all the same…ever since you got the vote!!!”
I left the store but his words were never forgotten. Those are just a sample of the ways I’ve been treated for simply having been born female. So sad.
@ Victorious:
Good gracious, that is a terrible story.
Eagle, this is a thought-provoking article, thanks.
Re: #14 — my church is EFCA — can you elaborate on the changes you have seen in the EFCA since 1999? I joined my church in 2003. I have had some concerns, but thought they were related more to our previous (bad/abusive) pastor & his opinions. We have a new, younger pastor who is very open to women in leadership positions — in fact, he campaigned for our new (female) Director of Ministries, who is currently completing coursework to become a pastor.
Muff Potter wrote:
YES, YES, YES!!!!~ Let us keep it that way.
@ Muff Potter:
Absolutely. What’s ironic is that the neo-Fundies rail against the Enlightenment like it was the beginning of the fall of the Western world but it was the enlightenment that saved their sorry butts. Just one example. In the Colonial period and early years of the country, the Anglican Church was the official church of Virginia. Anyone else needed a license to preach, which was nearly impossible to obtain. As a result, many Baptist ministers were thrown in jail for preaching without a license. It was James Madison, a giant of the American Enlightenment, that fought for the Baptists and every other denomination in Virginia and later the entire country as a drafter of the Constitution.
According to Mr. Troll, “Steven Furtick and Perry Noble have won more people to Christ while they are on vacation then YOU have in your lifetime.”
I’ve never liked the term “soul winner,” including all of its associated phrases and variants.
As far as I understand it, God is in charge of drawing people to himself. He uses humans to do this, certainly, but no human being (with the exception of Jesus!) has ever “won” a soul.
Not to mention, to speak of “winning” is to imply that the eternal destinies of our fellow humans can be chalked up to some sort of simplistic game or competition.
Eagle wrote:
I’m right there with you, brother. Completely agree. Nouthetics is horrible. In many ways, it is a living fossil – a relic of a particular time and place (fundamentalist Christianity circa 1960s-70s). Modern adherents try to dress it up (“biblical counseling?” seriously?) but it’s pretty much the same. As you say, it’s most basic principles are: (a) all psychological problems are actually sin problems, and (b) if your psychological problems aren’t being healed, you must be stuck in some sort of sin. Which, as you pointed out, isn’t much different from the “prosperity gospel” that the Neo-Cals hate so much.
Horrible! It’s like something from medieval Europe. I’m astonished that something like this even exists in 2014.
I still have not heard any Nouthetics supporter give me a good answer to your question: “If you don’t go to a PhD or PsyD for your mental health, why do you go to an MD for your cancer?” The main thing I’ve heard in response to this is: “Cancer is a real disease, mental illness is not scientifically proven.” Ha!
@ Margaret:
Here’s what’s going on. The EFCA is cranking out Hyper-Cals out of Trinity. Many people who are members of EFCA churches unknowingly will bring on a Hyper-reformed pastor or have Elders who remove people that are opposed to Hyper-Calvinism. The church gets hi-jacked in the process. Women are told that they can’t teach, serve, etc and given the boot. People in leadership positions who disagree are “disciplined” for not having “correct doctrine”. Ordinary members of the congregation can’t leave if they are members and if they ask questions they too can face discipline for “gossip” and “slander” Nouthetic counseling is embraced and people in AA programs or other programs are given the boot. If you believe in Jesus you’ll have no more problems. Secondary issues become primary. Some EFCA churches use the Sovereign Grace model for small groups, teaching, and embrace the shepherding movement. Other parts of the EFCA have partnered with Mark Driscoll’s ministries and use his crap in the church. That is what I saw with one here in the DC area. This can happen at your church…don’t think it cant.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I had to laugh at this….I had four female cousins….All trombone players….one even has a Bachelor of Music, that’s right in trombone….she’s now a high school band director….BTW all four married with kids…
Ron Grant
What a hoot.
@ Muff Potter:
Have I considered becoming a Pastor!?! Good God! 😯 Would they be ready for me? 😛 Personally I don’t think I should…but consider if you have someone who practiced “Gospel Centered Blackmail” who forced his pregnant wife to vomit in the “Gospel Centered Toilet” and then demanded “Gospel Centered Sex” then yeah…I guess I could be a Pastor. I just wouldn’t blackmail someone as part of my ministry credentials!
K.D. wrote:
Shoot, even worse….my wife played euphonium ( looks like a small tuba)….as do I and my son also a high school band director has his degree in euphonium….
PS
Ron-Will you quit making up fake IDs. Surely you have something better to do with your time. I comment deleted.
@ Ron Grant:
Ron so is your wife chained to the stove and pop out kids between cooking breakfast, lunch and dinner? 😛 Inquiring minds want to know! 😯
Dee…is that “Gospel Centered Meatloaf” 😛
Gram3 wrote:
Don Carson holds to the Historic (Classical) Premillennial position. I’ve listened to his lectures on Revelation.
I witnessed a friend’s wife who started dressing very distinctively. She had gone to a home schoolers convention and became convicted her dress wasn’t modest enough. She covered her hair and wore a shirt down to her wrists and a dress below the knees. Her dress could have fulfilled hijab or Haredi Jewish standards. If I saw her and didn’t know she was my friend’s wife I would have presumed she wasn’t a Christian. We have seen female education frowned upon by untra conservative fundamentalists. Hope we don’t see that women can’t drive cars, though I understand this stricture exists in insular fundamentalist communions.
JP wrote:
Thanks for that info. I’ll check the one I heard or possibly misheard. Do you know of any amils at TEDS?
Eagle wrote:
HUMBLY, of course. (chuckle chuckle)
@ Sally:
Sally commented on #29, as did Hannah. I, too, am interested in some clarification.
+++++++++++++++
Eagle, you say,
“29. God is oversold. Ask yourself….do you really need God to be a good father, husband, employee, or citizen? What about all the fine, upstanding, and ethical atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, etc…? The overselling of God creates problems. It sets up evangelicals for failure, and it belittles atheists and those on the outside.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
these are my thoughts (not sure how entirely they relate, hence my request for clarification, Eagle):
The kindest, most gracious, generous self-sacrificing people are… guess what…. expressly NOT Christians. They are a Buddhist, some muslims, some hindus, and some people who are agnostic and some who are atheist.
the people doing the most work with those who are suffering and who are underprivileged are… NOT Christians. They do NOT go to church.
if you ask me, “Christian”, “Christianity”, and most of all “church” are what is oversold.
I know God is real, I know he is powerful beyond the theoretical and moving into the experiential, he responds to prayers.
But I think he is bursting at the seams and is just about ready to bust out of the silly little box called “the Christian church” and it’s ridiculous culture.
maybe this happened long ago, though, and “Christians” are too full of ourselves to even realize.
so, that’s what I think. Eagle, please clarify what YOU think.
Gram3 wrote:
No, I don’t. I highly recommend the lectures, though.
elastigirl wrote:
I find that too. By far the kindest people in my extended family are two aunts, neither of whom are Christian. I know two other kind people and they are Christians.
Sometimes I think the lines are drawn differently than we think.
Headless Unicorn Guy:
“I think one of these guys actually preached that if he was stopped by a female cop he would be “Gnashing His Teeth” over HER having authority over HIM. The massmind’s response would be “I’d pay to see that! (And the aftermath…)”
That would be Tim Bayly. What he once said on Baylyblog was that if ever pulled over by a female cop for speeding or something like that, he wouldn’t say anything about her authority to her face, but would be gnashing his teeth inwardly.
NJ wrote:
I’d still pay to see him try it with a cop.
When you reach that stage, You Just Hate Wimmen. It’s pathological by that point.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is the way I see it. It bothers me that so many times people do not seem to have a sense of how far is too far. They will listen to some preacher and just follow him off some cliff. Or they will take up with some ideology and not seem to have a good feel for the limitations of that ideology. Or maybe align with some cause to the neglect of other things which are also important. There is such a thing as too far and/ or too much, and there is such a thing as pathology (which I think I may see in some of the celebrity folks in the pulpit) and there is such a thing as plain old sin (again–guess who). Where to draw the line is crucial, and in our culture, IMO, with our idolization of tolerance, we have a potential problem with knowing where to draw some lines.
Under item 6) Eagle included “when science starts to debate and look at issues such as human cloning” a topic that also believe is much more significant to us than YEC.
Dust off your Christianity Today archives and look for the Feb 7, 1986 issue. On page 22 you will find the start of “Genetic Engineering: Promise & Threat” by Dennis Chamberland an article that discusses a topic that should increasingly provoke spiritual and moral questions. The computing and communication revolution of the last 50 years changed our toys, The genomics revolution has the potential for changing us or more likely some of our descendants by modifying our DNA. While the science discussed by Chamberland is dated his consideration of the moral issues about genetic engineering is still relevant. While so many of our conservative theologians are still fighting about the age of the Earth we are about to be blindsided by a much more significant and dangerous development.
Deebs. Chamberland has a website: http://dennischamberland.com/ I sent him an email a while ago that he did not reply to. Perhaps if the one of the proprietors of a famous blog contacted him he would be willing to write a guest post.
I’ve scanned and OCRed the article from my old CT issue and could provide a copy via email if you so desire. Please indicate what word processor format is most suitable. The cover art for this issue relates to the Chamberland article in a curious way. I can send a copy of it also. If you can deal with all the copyright issues the original article would still make a useful addition to TWW.
Nancy wrote:
When you go that far, you need to GET HELP.
And Nouthetics and Dianetics don’t count.
I think the issue of celebrity pastors is not going away. Not directly related, but a part of all of this, is how the internet has created a whole new paradigm where fame and influence can be created virtually over night. Did you know Kim Kardashian is set to make over 100 million dollars from her her smart phone app? Can you imagine 30 years ago someone like Kim K becoming a multi-millionaire celebrity that gets interviewed on the major tv networks?
In the same way the tried and true process of building influence in the Christian world has been circumvented. 50 years ago the influential leaders were those who had worked for decades faithfully serving in local congregations. For instance, think of AW Tozer…a virtual unknown while he was a pastor, and today is growing in influence decades after his passing.
All it takes is a couple of viral posts that scratch the right itches and suddenly we have the next “big thing” and many people are willing to defend them even though they know virtually nothing about them….except that one “post” that they agreed with.
The burden on the rest of us is to keep leaders accountable. In the same way that the internet can grow a false sense of importance quickly, it can also be used as a check and balance.
@ elastigirl:
I think you’re very right. It’s not about church, it’s about living out beliefs and ethics. Kindness and compassion aren’t the property of any single group or set of beliefs. Some of the most compassionate people I’ve ever met are Muslims. Also true of many of the Jewish people in the neighborhood where I grew up. And some of the most thoughtful and loving people I’ve known have no religion at all (literally non-religious or are atheists).
Conscience and ethics are innate to humankind, which is, imo, some of what Paul talks about in the opening chapters of Romans, when he mentions gentiles who follow God’s commands w/out ever having heard of the God of Judaism or of Christ. As for Jesus himself, look at how some people reacted to his kindness (claiming that he was godless, evasn a “devil” in human form). Others “got” him right off the bat.
I think most evangelicals are so invested in a Church vs. the World paradigm that they have no idea about the wider world around them. That kind of fortress, Us against Them mentality is often there even when people think it’s not. (I can say that because it’s been true in my own life and experience.) It’s no way to live, imo.
Hey, get a load of this:
Mark Driscoll’s True God to be Revealed
“In the coming months Mark Driscoll will face a choice. He has a wonderful opportunity to step away from his high-profile life and complete the journey of submission.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2014/08/mark-driscolls-true-god-to-be-revealed/
@ Hanna: Hanna, I think “evangelical” can mean many different things, depending on context. I grew up here, in a Lutheran church that is part of the ELCA (the E stands for “evangelical”), and in this case, it means something quite different than what it means in the actual evangelical movement in the US and in American churches that are (or have been) part of that movement.
The best thing I can suggest is to check out sites and books that deal with the history of religion in America, especially as it pertains to evangelicalism and its history. I’m using my phone now, so posting links is a bit difficult, but I’ll try to get some up later in the day.
Of course, I am not certain what Eagle means by these terms, and am interested in understanding, too. Am sure he will get back to this thread as time permits.
@ numo:
I meant to say that the ELCA is a synod; one of several different groups of Lutherans in the US. My synod is often perceived as “liberal,” but that does no justice to the variety of people and churches within the synod itself. The approach is similar to the “big tent” of the Anglican Communion, but on a far smaller scale.
@ Hanna:
This site has a very brief, general overview that you might find helpful –
http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining-evangelicalism
Mark wrote:
In the fundamentalist/patriarchal homeschooling community I left, I often heard discussions of the need for rescinding women’s suffrage, equal rights for women in the workplace and even women’s inheritance rights so that men can take back their God-ordained positions of authority in society. Sometimes, though, it sounded like the homeschool moms just wanted an easy way out of jury duty.
@ numo:
Numo…many evangeiclas wouldn’t consider Luthernism to be Christian. Its part of the fundagelical mindset that permeates parts of it. I consider Lutherans to be Christians but as I said words have been redefined. “Christian” is one of those words that have been redefined whihc I didin’t add to my list but should have.
@ Eagle:
Yeah – I’ve certainly run into people who think that! But their definition of xtianity is so narrow as to exclude all but themselves and others like them. Very much the Us vs. Them mentality.
For us, I suspect that the term “evangelical” means of/pertaining to the Gospel. That has little to do with revivalism or many other characteristics of what I’ll refer to as capital-E Evangelicalism. There’s no “decision theology”; no altar calls, no emphasis on the so-called ” sinner’s prayer” or “asking Jesus into your heart.” If anything, I think that the last two things are viewed as an integral, almost seamless part of life, not as specific events in the way they’re understood in Evangelicalism. It’s a very different approach and difficult for those who’ve only ever been in Evangelical churches to understand.
@ numo: I think the links to the Wheaton site that I posted just above are very helpful in clarifying terms as well as history.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Very helpful observations. Could you elaborate on why you think this is so? Is it a generational thing or something else? How does one counteract this non-kingdom way of thinking? Truly I do not understand why so many see this as a good thing.
@ roebuck:
Thanks for this link, roebs – it’s an interesting piece, and I think describes very well what “happened” with Park Fiscal. I heard RT Kendall preaching on (among other things) patience a while back, and he observed (as accurately as I can remember his words) that “one of the worst thing that can happen to a man is to succeed before he’s ready”. That, and the fact that he (as a gifted leader) assumed the role of a “pastor” (which he is not).
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
… er – “he” being Fiscal, not RT Kendall; thought I’d better clarify that one!
@ oldJohnJ:
I do agree that genetic engineering, bioengineering and other disciplines will certainly bring significant challenges, especially to law and ethics as new scientific discoveries and engineering developments are being done at a faster rate than legislations and way of thinking can adapt.
Additionally, it is my impression that certain Christian circles aren’t particularly good at grasping the significance of those discoveries and at transmitting their implications to the normal Christian in their pews in an accurate way… I grew up in a church that was strongly anti-evolution, to say the least, and it was frustrating to see that, in arguing against it, they used really old ideas which aren’t accepted by evolutionary science any longer. The outdatedness of the knowledge used was pretty appalling. If you’re going to be against something, at least know really well what that something stands for.
Thankfully not all are like that, and some people within Christianity try to develop more informed approaches and resources. For example, here in the UK you have the Christian Medical Fellowship, which has prepared publications covering various topics of great interest.
In my opinion, one of the issues that may bring the greatest challenges to Christianity in the future is transhumanism.
In case you’re not familiar with it, transhumanism is a movement that aims to transcend the current human condition using any available technological resource, including genetic engineering, bioengineering, electronics… That way we may overcome the limitations of our finite bodies and enhance all our capabilities, becoming something more ‘elevated’ than a mere human. Ultimately, for transhumanism there is no inherent value in the human body since it could be manipulated for any particular purpose as desired, even becoming disposable if it were possible to do so… But where may this lead? Where is our worth as humans? Would those who can change themselves in order to become better be worth more than those who cannot?
In any case, from a Christian perspective the human body is not worthless. It is an integral part of what we are as humans, and even more it was ultimately endorsed by both the incarnation and resurrection of Christ in such a limited body.
I find this topic very interesting as I work in biomaterials and tissue engineering, both areas that may be associated with the improvement of the human body through artificial or synthetic means. I would recommend to read the following publication by the Christian Medical Fellowship if you want to know a bit more:
http://admin.cmf.org.uk/pdf/cmffiles/31_transhumanism.pdf
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Got it. Yes, an interesting piece. Have you noticed that all the pieces about MD start out with an encomium to how much the author admires him, etc.?
Totally And Utterly Off-topic: I have not acquired the salmon I want in order to test your lemon/cheese sauce. My lady has been out of town, and I don’t cook for myself much. But she’s back, and soon, we’ll give it a whirl!
Gram3 wrote:
I think it’s the result of human nature and the ease and speed of which we are now exposed to new people, ideas and movements. We can look to the past of seeing people joining huge fads (Great Awakening, Spiritualism, Flagpole sitting), just perhaps not as much. But on the other hand how hard is it for anyone to plug into any sort of interest nowadays? Google will feed you results catered around your interests, Amazon knows what you like to read, and Target knows you’re pregnant before you do (true here http://onforb.es/18UkfEM). It’s easier now to find, follow and then forget about a fad then ever before.
Gram3 wrote:
While I don’t share with you the concerns of “kingdom” thinking (not quite sure what you mean, I’m guessing Christian thinking?), I totally share your frustration with the myriad distractions people seem to follow. The Kardashians and other pop culture stuff drives me insane, though to be fair I geek out on Sci-Fi and fantasy so fairs fair. But on the stuff I’m passionate about, like I’m guessing your passionate about “kingdom” thinking, I wish wasn’t so easy to distract people from.
I think people just have to want to be involved, or see someone who is involved or is concerned and be inspired by what they see, be intrigued. Hope I was right on your definition of “kingdom” thinking.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Thanks for that, ABQ. Sorry for lapsing into Christianese. By kingdom thinking, I mean thinking that incorporates the values of the kingdom introduced by Christ.
What I see in the organized church looks to me more like baptized worldly values of fame, wealth, influence, power, etc. than it does anything remotely Christ-like. He was concerned with lifting up the little people and instructing his people expressly not to be like the powerful of that time, whether it was the Romans or those who ran and benefited from the Temple system.
I had not thought of The Great Awakening from that perspective, so thanks for that. We all want to part of something big, but it seems to me that those who claim to belong to Christ are already part of something big. Why chase after things which merely seem big?
Gram3 wrote:
I figured, but my Christianese phrasebook is about 17 years out of date so just had to make sure. ^_^
Gram3 wrote:
But now you can be an even bigger part of something big! Be one of the Elect! Have the gift of prophecy! Fight demons! Change the politics of your nation! Bring back the mullet! Also, at least in most traditionally heavily Christian countries, Christianity isn’t big in an exciting sense, it’s big as in its so everywhere it’s ubiquitous. I don’t blame people for wanting to make the ordinary something bigger. I’m an absurdist, I empathize with that longing. I know I always struggle to find the amazing in the everyday. To do something good, even though its same stuff, different day.
What are your thoughts? How do you think you can get your Christians interested and excited in what you see as Jesus’ concerns?
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Hmm. Well, on a human level, I think these values need to be modeled by people who are more mature in the faith. I have been blessed to have those close to me exemplify kingdom values. The Big Names who should be modeling a kingdom life don’t seem to be doing so. For me, the SGM thing was a huge wake-up call along with the non-reactions or wrong reactions from people which I did not expect. It was a moment of clarity.
Ultimately, I think that the Holy Spirit works within a willing heart. Not a perfect heart, but one that is bent toward God and not bent toward desiring the things of this world. Of course, I desire the things of this world, and I’m thankful for them. I hope I desire the Lord more. Actually, one of the blessings that goes along with the curse of getting older is that the Lord gradually, or not so gradually, removes things from your life that you value more than him.
I have many more questions than answers. It is interesting that you say that Christianity is ubiquitous. I suppose it is in a cultural sense, in the West. But is the Spirit here in the organized church? I wonder if what we see isn’t more due to Constantine than to Christ.
I’ve found one of the best ways to see the amazing in the everyday is to scale your vision either up or down and take a good look around at creation, including the things created by God’s creatures. That’s one reason I like to read about history and science (not that I understand either.)
Historically speaking, life in the West today is pretty amazing, too. So there’s that to stimulate gratitude, which I think is the fundamental posture of a person who is bent toward God the Giver rather than the World and his Gifts.
What do you mean by being an absurdist?
@ Gram3:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Gram3. I appreciate the insight.
Gram3 wrote:
Well I can’t speak to the “Spirit” but I’d say Constantine gets both less and more credit then he deserves. He certainly gave it the cultural leg up in a big way which I’m sure drove growth, but we can look at some of the eldest Christian sects and find a pretty startling array of diversity still present today. It is ubiquitous, I mean heck the KJV is one of the foundational pieces of English prose. It is never jarring to see a cross if not more explicit symbol of faith in most of the Christian world. But in a way it’s kind of like water for a fish, the fish doesn’t really see it or notice it, it just is.
Gram3 wrote:
I share your interest. I recently read Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages. If you can I think you’d enjoy it, it’s really amazing how technology flowed around the world. Trying to get through the elegant universe, but string theory hurts my brain.
Gram3 wrote:
Ah, absurdism is a branch of existentialism. Allow me to wiki quote a good quick explanation.
Personally I’m an absurdist in outlook on life and existence, so I was just referencing that I can empathize with people trying to find deeper meaning or purpose, even in the face of futility. Such as when you reference they’re already part of something big, that being their faith, allegiance and belief in Christ. Kind of a off kilter response to toss in there, sorry. It’s been a whimsical weird day.
Adam Borsay wrote:
very wise post!
Martos wrote:
Thank you for a very thoughtful comment. Still, I feel in the immediate future, 10-20 years or so, genomics interacting with the reproductive process will bring the greatest moral conflict. Full genome sequencing has dropped into the few thousand $US range. Genes and their functions are being cataloged. Gene replacement in a single cell is an accomplished procedure. Significant genetic engineering and modification is now within the financial range of an increasing number of people.
What is to become of a genetically modified infant that doesn’t meet the expectations of the parents? We have more than enough of a problem with abortion now. Many modification failures might not be evident until approaching adult age.
Thanks for the website reference. There is a lot more on it than the transhuman article you cited.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I see your point with that illustration. By dragging Constantine into this, I was attempting to distinguish between the church as organization and the church as organism. As you point out, there was diversity before Constantine, but he needed to corral that diversity under an organizational system so that it became useful to him and not a threat. What was initially a relatively flat structure became hierarchical, and of course those at the top benefit from the hierarchy.
Contrary to many, I do not believe that Constantine was a believer in anything other than Constantine, and it was strategically brilliant for him to legitimize Christianity. By foregoing formal worship of himself by the Christians as other emperors had demanded, he was able, practically speaking, to co-opt the church into serving his empire in ways much more beneficial to him than formal worship. This is what I see today, or so it seems to me. Men who desire to build and consolidate an empire for themselves use the church and the language of faith as the means to that end.
I need to think more about the absurdism. It seems to me that the Incarnation and the Cross are both instances of absurdity, colloquially speaking.
@ Gram3:
That’s a pretty good run down of what Constantine did, as far as I know. My scholarship though of that time is pretty thin and eclectic, so grain of salt and all that. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Look into Kierkegaard then and Christian Existentialism would be my recommendation. In fact with your interest in going back to a more primitive version of the church, he’d be right up your alley. A quote from Wiki might be helpful in your thoughts. “The absurd” in absurdism refers to the struggle of a human to find inherent meaning and value in existence, matched against their inability to find any.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Same thing that already happens to millions (not an exaggeration) of infants and children world wide. That is how I got two of my grandchildren. The only difference would be that it would be happening in my back yard, in full view, with societal approval.
Nancy wrote:
We added two daughters to our family via the international adoption route.
However, I was thinking in a more troublesome direction. Suppose your teenager who was custom designed to your specification as an infant doesn’t have the looks/intelligence/athleticism you paid big bucks for. What now? Where is the liability? I trust you can see some of the worst case scenarios from such activities.
Your “with societal approval” phrase highlights how difficult such thing could become.
oldJohnJ wrote:
ESPECIALLY for the human being created that now finds that they are a disappointment to their parents — sickening! And beyond belief. The big problem being that now we would have parents demanding perfect (to their standards) offspring (because they paid their good money) for a designer kid. Wouldn’t this be considered slavery of some sort? Money becomes the ultimate god as I see it.
This was just a general rant — not at you oldJohnJ.
Bridget wrote:
I understand. However, I’m pleased there are, hopefully many, others that see the problem looming here. I cited the Christianity Today article from 1986 to show that there was at least one individual nearly 30 years ago that perceived the coming problems. It’s not clear that the CT editors really understood given what they put on the issue cover.
Also, my primary objection to what goes under the term YEC pretty much removes we Christians from a serious debate on deeper issues like, for lack of a better term, designer babies.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Don’t know anything about transhumanism, but the ability to edit genetic information could be a tremendous blessing to people with debilitating or fatal diseases who could be cured. But, like lots of technology, there are downsides or ethical dilemmas that need to be addressed. It’s hard to think about abuses if you have a child with cystic fibrosis or a parent with Parkinson’s who would benefit from that technology. Life is just not black and white. As Bridget says, there are horrible things that could result from this capability as well, but that is all the more reason for Christians to be forward-looking and not merely defensive in the face of change.
It seems to me that underlying the fear of genetic modification is an unstated presupposition that being human is possessing a particular configuration of genetic information–that our humanness resides in our genes. That may or may not be true.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Actually, in my freshman philosophy class, K was the topic of my seminar paper. I honestly did not think about it very much because it was a required course, and I was 18, not the best age to be considering deep questions. Or at least it wasn’t for me, although I’ve always been a “why” person.
Now that I am some multiple of 18, questions regarding the meaning of existence come from an entirely different place. Believe me, I have been in a place more than once when I have contemplated the absurdity of everything along with the terminal solution for that absurdity. I keep coming back to the Incarnation and the Cross.
Thanks for engaging in an interesting discussion. I’ll see if I can find some K hidden among my books.
@ Gram3:
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the ethical use of genetic technology to help those suffering. But I can also see where the misuse of such technology can do more harm than good.
@ OldJohnJ:
Yes, I can definitely see the potential problems with designer babies, etc. Many parents can’t even cope if their children have disappointing results in school, sports, etc. I can’t even imagine what the response would be if they paid tens of thousands of $$$ to have, say, a gifted athlete who ended up hating sports. I also know many people who, as soon as their car, house, etc. requires any work at all, trade it in or buy a new house. You can’t exactly do that with a child who’s not performing as expected.
I also imagine that the suicide rates among such “disappointing” adult designer children, would be huge.
Gram3 wrote:
I currently feel that genetic correction of existing defects in an at least partially grown individual is going to be a much more difficult problem to solve. Changing the genome in all existing body cells, or even of a single organ, seems unlikely now. Of course, unforeseen breakthroughs could change this. This is one reason I feel the “designer baby” which only requires the editing of a single cell’s DNA is coming first. All the technology for this has been demonstrated.
oldJohnJ wrote:
I see what you are saying, but I am not entirely certain that it would be much different from what we have now in place, ethics wise. In my state there is already a procedure in place for child abandonment. Not that it happens a lot, but I can see where it might, given bad enough circumstances. We already have in vitro which costs a lot, especially after multiple unsuccessful attempts. We already have blood tests which can identify a host of genetic variants early in the pregnancy with the option of abortion of a defective fetus. Granted, there might be a surge in the definition of “defective” but since there is abortion for any reason and no reason that would be legal. Then there is surrogacy and there are donor eggs and donor sperm. I am not saying that I think all these things are good ideas, merely that these things are already in place. And of course we transplant body part from one human to another and then there is always the pig with his useful body parts to transplant. Did I not read that they were mixing human DNA with some pigs to help with the problem of transplant rejection. Then there was something I think about some animal (was it sheep?) used for vaccine and something about human DNA? I am not sure about the last one, but it is floating around in the periphery of my thinking.
And, of course, there is the very common experience where hoards of people give birth to their own biological offspring and then live to regret it when those offspring get to be teen agers. There is a support group at SBC mega here for parents of “problem” children.
I am thinking, though, that Gram3’s mentioning of the good that could come from this might outweigh the problems.
And is it not being said that Homo sapiens is probably? possibly? a transitional species of the genus Homo? like the ones that went before. One example I think would be something about an increasing number in the population who are not susceptible to certain diseases-such things like that. The development of lactase persistence is interesting. We are already and right on changing is what I am saying.
What we need, I think, is a sound theology of the body and a sound theology of life (as in being alive) and we need to decide what is man. Then we would have a starting place for addressing all these other issues.
Bridget wrote:
I think it is good to point out the horrible uses so that we can think through what might happen. But we can’t stop there, because technology will happen, and we also want to give due consideration to the good that may result. I was trying to commend your concerns which I share. I also have personal concerns arising from genetic diseases. I just want Christians to think through the issues which will inevitably arise.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes it will. One bad thing that might happen is for Christians to fight one more culture war entirely unprepared to act like they have any understanding of the applicable variables. We don’t need to be making public spectacles of ourselves any more than necessary. OJJ and you both seem to be saying think it through. I am so on board with that!
oldJohnJ wrote:
Perhaps this is moving into the absurdist, but the Resident Evil series (thriller/horror) comes to mind. I’m guessing HUG would have seen some. There’s a strong female lead, Alice, who fights against the evil genetic-modifying company, ‘The Umbrella Corporation’. In the third film, “Resident Evil: Extinction” there is a shocking moment at the beginning when all the Alice clones who have been killed are shown to be dumped in a pit. Probably don’t watch if you have a weak heart. I re-watched the series again recently and still scared myself, it’s a three-dog type of movie (ie snuggle up on the couch with good dog, bad dog and spare dog).
@ Nancy:
I’m thinking that maybe you and I are the only ones old enough to remember the controversy over human organ transplantation. For the young ones a recap:
Some said it is immoral to have parts of another person’s body in your body. Others said that people would start having children in order to assure an organ supply. Some said that if you donate your own organs, then you are destroying the integrity of your own body which should be preserved for the resurrection. Or there would be markets in organs with people killing others to sell their organs, etc.
All of these needed to be considered, but ultimately ethical distinctions were drawn and boundaries established by thinking carefully and by considering various perspectives. And now, I think that there is little controversy over transplants.
Totally agree that we need to have a more robust theology of the body. And the soul/spirit/consciousness.
Gram3 wrote:
Well, I should have at least mentioned the problem of the extreme disparity between demand and supply of organs and ethical concerns regarding how the limited supply is allocated. That is a thicket of its own in which inequities will arise. and we need to keep working on that system to improve it.
@ oldJohnJ:
Some things are best not messed with. We were once taken with the idea that splitting the atom would be a pinnacle achievement and a great boon to humankind. Oppenheimer recognized only too late that it was a dangerous Chimera. Hopefully we can learn from the past and no longer head down its primrose paths. The following you tube vid is a segment from Disney’s Fantasia. I think it’s as instructive now as it was in 1940:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHTnJNGvQcA
@ Gram3:
There are some issue with organ transplants. There is the illegal sale of organs. And periodically we see that some people have been kidnapped and had a kidney removed without their knowledge or consent, because of the market for kidneys. There has also been some talk about how much organs may deteriorate between the time of death and the actual harvesting of the organs, and some folks want to move up the harvesting time. The problem is, how does one define death, and at what point in the process can one actually start removing organs. That can get scary.
Adam Borsay wrote:
This from Psalm 127:
This is in response to the question people have asked about God being oversold. What I am saying is that many evangelicals have bought into this faith system that almost has a psychological component (while many attack psychologist and psychiatry) that emphasizes how much a person needs God. The reality of the situation is that you really don’t need God for a lot of things. You can be a model citizen and be an atheist. You can vote, pay your taxes, drink responsibility, and not hit the bar scene. Christians don’t own the morality part like many think. There are many fine upstanding members of society who function, thrive, and do well without a belief system in God. When someone buys into that system and their faith fails I think that’s why some people commit spiritual suicide. Ask me questions guys…does that help?
@ Nancy:
I think there will be a much different dynamic with gene replacement than organ transplants. A description of a gene can be obtained without harm to an individual. A gene is defined by a couple of kilobytes string of characters. It can be preserved indefinitely in a computer memory. As with any computer description making a copy doesn’t consume the original. A physical copy can be prepared when needed. However ownership in the form of copyright and perhaps new intellectual property rules will apply. Significant enhancements may be subject to patent protection. Use of a particular gene will be subject to a purchase agreement. Passing a purchased gene to an offspring will no doubt keep lawyers busy.
Identifying desirable genes is just beginning. Muff’s observation that there may be unforeseen consequences is apt.
Nancy wrote:
I know personally of just such a case with the death of a young person whose parent had to make that ultimate decision–when to begin the harvesting of organs. That is very serious and scary, as you said. While these kinds of issues remain, I don’t think that the concept of using organs from one person in another person’s body is itself controversial anymore.
Eagle wrote:
Not sure about that. While it is possible for an atheist to live a life according to ethical standards, that isn’t quite the same thing as saying one does not need God. The atheist does not need the “god” sold by the church because that god is really just an idol which the worshiper seeks to appease or manipulate to change unpleasant circumstances.
If you are saying that God should not be reduced to a product marketed as meeting a felt need, then that’s an excellent point.
Muff Potter wrote:
My understanding is that German scientists were working on a nuclear fission weapon at the same time as the Manhattan Project. So, there was no practical way of unilaterally preventing the development of nuclear weapons. The least bad outcome in that case was developing a counter-weapon which could be used pre-emptively, as was the case at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as retribution, or preventatively.
Whether Truman should have done a demonstration detonation before bombing Japan is, to me, a separate issue from whether the weapons should have been developed. Since there was no way that anyone could have known the future at the time, the most prudent course was to get the technology first and maintain an favorable option position.
During the Cold War, including the proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, Mutual Assured Destruction worked (so far) because we were dealing with rational enemies that also possessed that technology. The Cuban Missile Crisis was not hypothetical for me and a lot of other folks who were pretty sure it was just a matter of time before we became just so much fallout.
So, actually, I think that weaponized nuclear fission is a good example of technology which was inevitable. The questions were who would have access to the technology, how would it be used, and how could the negatives be minimized.
Choices are not always between good and better but may well be between degrees of truly awful.
Gram3 wrote:
That is part of what I am saying. God is marketed and sold like a product. Perhaps that is the infleunce of liivng in a commericalized country. But odes a person really need God to raise a child, raise a family, be an onest employee? etc…
Eagle,
Recently, I saw some of the dark side or Evangelical Christianity and the Culture Wars. At a Sunday School class, the topic of Robin William’s tragic death came up, and several categorically condemned him, saying he was a horrible person and of a ‘worldview’ that was hostile to Christianity. The compassion that should have been expressed was obvious by its total absence.
I was struck dumb, torn between crying and screaming. This was an opportunity for compassion, opening the subject Christians don’t want to express, that of depression and suicide, and the reality of it. But they wanted to pat themselves on the back that they were of the right ‘worldview.’
Jesus would weep over this, like he wept over Jerusalem. Even Focus on the Family, Dobson’s organization, took something positive about this, alerting us to the reality of mental illness:
http://jimdaly.focusonthefamily.com/could-robin-williams-faith-have-prevented-his-suicide/
How I wanted to react in sarcasm, saying “Be sure and join up with the Phelps crew when they picket his funeral!”
Christians suffer from depression and suicidal tendencies every bit as much as non-Christians, and the response shouldn’t be condemnation, but compassion. And that is another place where that “nouthetic counseling,” which is merely another form of prosperity theology with a veneer of orthodox theology to make it look respectable, misses the mark. It has unleashed a horde of Job’s counselors on the Christian world, telling them if they’re suffering, they must be terrible sinners, or they would be happy.
It makes me want to scream!
Marc
It seems to overlook the fact that many people of faith have committed suicide.
Gram3 wrote:
Agreed, good chat. 🙂
Hi Eagle,
I have enjoyed reading your articles.
My background is Pentecostalism 10 years, Conservative Protestant 2 years and now Eastern Orthodox 3 years.
I admire your wanting to correct the evangelical movement.
However I fear you may be banging your head against a brick wall.
My observation is that some people in the more Charismatic side of evangelical are extrovert, emotional people who are unable to have an intellectual discussion.
So people with emotional attachments to “their” churches will not see the logic of your arguments. (i.e they just take it as a personal attack and get defensive)
Although I agree with all your issues and have many of my own – in order to keep my sanity and maintain my peace – rather than address all the points one by one – I came up with a personal response which is – “if you like it go, if you don’t like it don’t go”.
Now that I have converted to Greek Orthodox many of the issues you addressed have disappeared. No fads, no begging for money etc.
Also the teaching in my opinion is more spiritual – as opposed to being intellectual or emotional.
With so many thousands of evangelical churches – including independents and family run groups that are accountable to no one but themselves – wouldn’t it be easier for you to jump ship to Catholic/ Orthodox or Mainline and solve 90% of your issues?
Then you can devote more time and energy into following the liturgical cycle of the church.
@ oldJohnJ:
Oh, yes, I do certainly believe that some issues will become challenging earlier than others as they begin to affect larger parts of the population in a significant way. Practical genetic engineering has been going for a longish time, while issues like transhumanism have been more in the realm of philosophy and science than in ‘real life’.
As @ Gram3 said, in genetic engineering there’s great potential for good, finding potential cures for multiple conditions. I am certainly not against it, considering the field I work in and that, in my opinion, Christians should encourage the relief of pain and suffering in this world, as a taster of the world to come. However, there’s also great potential for abuse… What if you go further than simply solving some problems?
Designer babies is one potential case. As yourself, I wonder how will people react against those that do not suit that particular society’s definition of the ideal baby… I remember the case of a lady who adopted a boy from Russia and, after deciding that she didn’t wish to parent that child, she put him in a plane back to Moscow on his own with a note attached to his backpack. Sure, that is probably a very extreme case and, probably, the kid may have been really hard work. However, I think her way of thinking is even more problematic: probably modelled by materialistic principles, the boy didn’t satisfy her rights as a consumer and simply returned him, as any other good.
The challenges that genetic engineering may bring to society have been illustrated in various works of fiction, such as the book ‘Brave New World’ and the film ‘Gattaca’… An ethical issue to explore is the potential of creating two-tier societies, in which those who can afford those modifications or who were born using them are considered ‘superior’ to those who couldn’t afford it or were born through natural means.
And, obviously, massive changes like these will bring great challenges to Christianity… Not the least because many are more reactive than proactive, and often not even very good at that. However, I wonder how different would that situation be from, let’s say, that faced by Christians in a society like that of the ancient Roman empire, where there were deep social divisions and some classes didn’t have many rights. In that environment the Gospel flourished.
One of the things we often talk about in sites like TWW is how modern Evangelicalism, most probably along with other traditions in Christianity, is sort of stagnant, drowning in its own vices and blindness. Some also talk of the imminent decline and collapse of Evangelicalism as we know it… How possible is it that massive changes in society may accelerate this process of decline? But, I wonder, could that actually be good?
Maybe one of the main problems of Christianity, especially in places like the USA, is that it’s been comfortable for too long. It could be very disturbing to be brought down to a position of weakness after decades of strength, but it may actually prove to be beneficial for the whole of the faith.
Davidll wrote:
That has been the solution to the “evangelical problem” that I have found to be best for me. Doing that, however, is not easy because it is not only a religious shift but also a cultural shift. There is a learning curve and an adjustment time, something one might even call a cooling off period. Also, it is easy to get “homesick” for the intensity that seems to thrive in evangelicalism. I walked away about five years ago, and I still find myself caring what goes on in “the other camp.” But I had gotten to the place that I thought that to stay, in and of itself–the staying, was to aid and abet and enable things I had come to believe to be just plain wrong. Without that level of motivation to leave, and the motivation to find something else, I would just have dropped out and shrugged and walked off.
Immigrating to a new place, geographically or culturally or religiously, is seriously difficult.
I’ve just finished writing a brief history of an evangelical college, a process that–inevitably–involved tracing the history of the evangelical movement through the 20th and 21st centuries. So I read here with great interest, wondering what will become of a movement that seems to have reached so many dead ends.
@ marc and dee
Since the issue of suicide is extremely personal to me (I have already mentioned about my mother and her maybe/maybe not death cause) I would like to say something from that perspective only.
When somebody commits suicide (or they never know for sure sort of thing) there can be some roads that one goes down that are not helpful. It is not true that one has to always believe only the best about the dead. If the deceased instantly becomes a saint and a martyr or even a totally helpless victim, then some issues do not get addressed and resolved enough for the living to go on living adequately.
They may have been people of faith, for instance, but the faith may have been toxic. Regarding Marc’s comment, they may have not had a healthy worldview, for instance, or they may, but the issue does not go away when the deceased breathes his/her last breath. They may have been depressed, for instance, but depression is not a cure all for other issues, and the issue of how much can be attributed to the issue of depression and how much to other circumstances (perhaps circumstances which the deceased could have but did not solve themselves) also does not go away. There are issues that hang around.
For the public the best thing to say is “what a pity” and just keep their ideas to themselves. In my case there was blame to be considered, but how much to whom, whether the dead mother or the surviving father. Being dead did not automatically absolve her of any and all other malfunction which may have contributed to it. And coming along and saying “depression” as the only variable is not always the answer either. Robin Williams had apparently emotional and medical and circumstantial problems. Let him alone. It is all such a shame and a pity. But let us not get too caught up too much in any overarching opinion about suicide is an entity which immediately clears the deceased of any and all responsibility for their entire life’s decisions. Either way, for good or ill, that sort of decision making (judgment) is up to God.
Nancy wrote:
That did not say what I tried to say. That sounded like it was address to Marc and Dee. What I am saying is that the “public” (first sentence in that paragraph) needs to leave poor old Robin alone at this point.
Sorry about that.
Eagle, Thanks for taking the time and energy to articulate what many of us have observed, lived, or left over the last 30+ years. Let me suggest that your #22 is related to your #19.
19. Words are being redefined today. And they are being redefined in ways that warp and twist theology . . .
22. Evangelicals have one trump card, and it blows my mind as to how little they use it – It is grace . . .
“Grace” is little used because it also is a word and concept that has been redefined in ways that warp and twist. (And why author Philip Yancey and others are discredited by segments.)
Patricia Hanlon wrote:
Indeed. Along that line, and I am not saying that you meant this at all, I think the roller coaster has already started on some massive world events (if the media is to be believed) and evangelicalism as well as most everything else may be seriously put to the test of how it can stand up in the face of the really terrible.
Gram3 wrote:
I believe I am correct that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) still expects any missionary (married or single; male or female) and SBC seminary faculty to sign a Statement of Faith that was revised in 2000 to include defined gender roles for the first time in SBC history.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp
Section VI and XVIII
Several years ago I personally met a female (married) missionary/pastor who had been ordained and supported many years by the SBC, but subsequently fired by the SBC because she would not sign the revised 2000 “Statement” in regards to gender roles and the family. The firing occurred after she and her husband jointly communicated with the SBC as to why and on what (biblical) basis they objected. As I understood from this couple and others in the SBC, other missionary colleagues objected also, but they signed so they would not lose their overseas jobs in the SBC. (Other fall-out occurred also in the U.S. in regards to the 2000 revisions—particularly for SBC female pastors or military chaplains—since the revision stated only men could serve as pastors.) But she and her husband followed their conscience and did not sign. Ironically, and in God’s grace, after the SBC fired her, the Baptist Association in the foreign country where she served the SBC for many years then hired both she and her husband (a licensed counselor) directly. The Baptists in this Asian country had no problem with her gender in using the gifts God gave her!
Thanks for that information. Very sad that ideology on secondary or tertiary issues trumps ministry effectiveness.
@ DebWilli:
Wade Burleson wrote about this on his blog. It may be of interest to you.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+2000+Statement+of+Faith
Gram3 wrote:
On this blog:
Driscoll, Acts 29 Deny Haiti Relief Because of a Female Pastor
thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/20/mark-driscoll-acts-29-haiti-relief-denied-because-of-a-woman-preacher/
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, but. It is not just the convention or the various agencies of the convention that emphasize certain ideologies. It is often the people themselves who take up a particular thing and try to use it as a weapon against other people. That link to Wade’s articles is excellent. Also, the analysis by Boyd Luter of whether cessationists and continuationists can co-exist in the convention is a good illustration of what I am saying. In that area of “conflict” it seems that not many people want to make peace, and Dr. Luter explains it well.
The convention may be somewhat betwixt and between in trying to hold it all together. For example, in the recent past there have been the issues of tithing, beverage alcohol, “making a profession of faith” and the ever ongoing issue of whether there are any at all grounds for divorce/ remarriage after divorce. And apparently for some YEC and comp-ism and who knows what else. Some of the people take up some position on one or more of these issues and will not scoot over on the pew and make room for somebody who disagrees with them on such or such issue, not matter how many bible verses anybody quotes.
I so agree with Patricia Hanlon in her comment above. It is hard to see what may become of evangelicalism, IMO including the SBC.
Marc wrote:
I was discussing these topics in a post about two threads ago, about a week ago.
JD Hall and Me: Discussions and a Statement on Brokenness and Repentance”
(my post in that thread was regarding how Christians and Non Christians mistreat or misunderstand the depression-afflicted, you can read it here):
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/08/12/jd-hall-and-me-discussions-and-a-statement-on-brokenness-and-repentance/#comment-154855
dee wrote:
I used to work with a lady who took karate classes for fun. She signed her kids up for classes, too. (This was years before she worked with me.)
Years later, after taking all the karate, she and her husband took the kids to a trip, I think it was in Europe.
For whatever reasons, her husband was not with her and the kids (who were teens at this point) when they was out sight-seeing in this other country. I think he was back sick in their hotel room or whatever.
While she was out, a couple of thugs tried to mug her, take her purse, and IIRC, they were scuffling with her teens, beating them up because they were trying to help their mom.
Because she and her teen children knew karate, they fended off the thugs, and the bad guys ran away defeated. (She and her kids used the karate moves they had learned to defend themselves.)
In John Piper’s world, that’s probably bad. He probably would have expected her to stand there and be mugged and wait for her husband to run by and rescue her.
As a woman who’s never married, I don’t even have a husband who could run and rescue me from a mugger or kidnapper, even if I needed it.
These gender complementarian guys really need to reconsider their gender role views, since they are not applicable equally to all women at all times and all stages of life. (Even the married ladies will be single again some day, assuming their husband passes away before they do.)
Previously I wrote,
“when they was out sight-seeing in this other country”
That should be, “when they WERE out..”
Nancy wrote:
Holding a sign up is a “man’s job?” Seems like a pretty gender neutral activity to me.
Maybe she is single, and that was the only employment she could get. Maybe she had to take that job to pay her rent or pay for groceries.
Would that fundy male preacher offer to pay all her bills for her, so she could sit at home rather than hold the sign? Probably not.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is one of several problems I have with complementarian views as taught by some. They take the “wife submit to the husband” verse and then insist all women every where, even the un-married ones, must submit to all men.
The Bible does not even say that.
They just pull this stuff out of their posteriors to justify their sexism and thirst for control over women.
Mr.H wrote:
You could remove the word “psychological” and it would still apply.
I don’t care what your problem is, if you have a stubbed toe, paper cut, you were just laid off from your job not now knowing how you’re going to pay your bills, your mother is dying of cancer, your spouse of X years just divorced you to run off with a younger person, whatever it is you are going through…
The average Christian response is to somehow tell you that you are at fault in some way. You must have some personal sin, unforgiveness, or something else you did wrong, so you deserve the pain you find yourself in.
You might get the cliches, the ‘pray more,’ ‘turn it over to God,’ ‘serve others,’ ‘have more faith,’ etc
Eagle wrote:
Yep, that belief is common in a lot of varieties of Christianity in the USA.
And in spite of the fact Jesus himself said, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
Interesting how “discernment blogs” can often become bigger pools of ignorance and confusion than the very problems folks are seeking individually to address within the blogs.
Cyberspace is now also a religious enigma.
Scott Shaver wrote:
I have no idea what this means, but that probably just means I’m confused by the enigma of ignorance problems. Or something.
[This discovered web bit should keep the pot boiling (or at least simmering).]
USA Now Headless !
Obama seems to think we’re on the cutting edge of history. Does he have in mind the predicted beheadings (Rev. 20:4) that are increasing? Obama may feel he’d never be targeted by ISIS. But isn’t he afraid they’ll soon conclude he doesn’t have a good head on his shoulders? (For more on you-know-who, Google “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)
The quote attributed to me at the top of this post has an error that I must correct. I entered the time frame of the meeting as about 2 years ago when, in fact, it was more like 15 months ago. I am sorry for the error.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, not sure if you spotted this:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mental-illness-church-amy-simpson?utm_content=buffer65941&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Still looking forward to the final installment Eagle! And now I’ve put this response in the correct post lol.
Coming next Monday AB!! 🙂
Groovy. 🙂