Young people today tend toward the "radical" in many instances. While the "Establishment" goes to work every day to earn a living, they're "occupying Wall Street". While the middle class expects a business to pay a wage that will keep you employed while they make a profit (because, after all, it's their money they're investing and they expect to make a profit from it), the young are protesting and demanding a $15/hour minimum wage. While typical America believes that a nation has the right to police its borders, younger Americans are calling for "Immigration Reform" by which they mean open borders and the right of people everywhere to come here at will. While "normal" people wear "normal clothes", those cutting edge kids are cutting and marking themselves for decoration and wearing whatever might be deemed outrageous at the moment. We're kind of used to the idea that kids tend toward the radical. It's perhaps amusing at best and a nuisance at worst. It will pass.
When it comes to "radical Christianity", however, the term isn't one that engenders interest. It is not a good thing. It is generally considered a bad thing. Avoid it. Ban it if you can. It's not a good thing. It's a blight on society and an embarrassment to us all. Worst of all, it is not cool. But ... just what is "radical Christianity"?
The first "radical" in Christianity was, of course, Jesus Christ. While the rest of His world was following along, He was going a different way. While they read the Bible and looked for the Messiah, He claimed to be the Messiah. While they bowed to the religious leaders of their day, He berated these same leaders that they were hypocrites and blind. While those around Him sought a political leader to free them, He refused the offer. Instead of following anyone, He opted to do the works and words of His Father. Very radical. It was one of the surface reasons they killed Him.
"Radical" Christianity after that, however, shifted to those who were "outside". Most of the New Testament is letters written to address the radicals. Legalism, Gnosticism, and so much more are all addressed in the pages of Scripture as radical, not right. The history of the Church is one of addressing and correcting the radicals, from the Arian Heresy that denied the Deity of Christ to the Docetists that argued that Jesus's physical body was an illusion. The Church battled anti-Trinitarian forces, monophysites, Sabellians, Manichaeism, antinomianism, the Pelagian Heresy, the Ebionites, the Monatists, the Marcionites ... it goes on and on. These were radicals, rejecting orthodoxy and Scripture and picking up deviations from the core of Christianity.
Who are the "radicals" today? It's those darn Calvinists, for instance. They're claiming that God is Sovereign and Man is not and declaring all sorts of stuff ... declared by Reformers hundreds of years ago taken from the pages of Scripture. It's those "conservative Christians" who are standing boldly and daringly on a traditional understanding of the Bible and, therefore, who declare that "marriage" has a definition that does not include "same-sex" and that life is valuable and abortion is, therefore, wrong, and that sex is only moral in the marriage relationship, not outside. These radicals are standing firm on Substitutionary Atonement, the reliability of Scripture, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the historical fact of the Resurrection, and on and on. They hold the historical view of God as Holy, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Immutable, and more. They believe in a God who hates sin and in a hell in which those who reject Him will pay eternally for it. They are conserving historical Christianity while the rest of Christendom has moved on to a "kinder, gentler" Christianity.
As it turns out, then, the "radical Christians" these days are the biblical ones. They're the ones that stand with Scripture and the history of the Church on a position that was once known as "Orthodoxy". The outlandish Christians these days are the ones that side with what was once considered "mainstream Christianity". The radical today is the one who believes what every genuine Christian from Christ on believed. Odd how we've redefined the word "radical" in this case to mean "just like all Christians before them."
9 comments:
Considering kinder and gentler are both fruits of the spirit, I am convinced this can not be a bad thing.
Second, I don't know of one person that calls the modern Christians you speak of "radicals"(besides you I guess). I think the term most used to describe these Christians is "conservative evangelical". Everyone knows these values have been in place, and have been taught for years.
It is funny how fast we can fall into the same pattern as the religious leaders of Jesus' day. We bow and pledge allegiance to our respective nations and we seek political leaders to lead and free us. Jesus is our one and only Lord, and our allegiance it to be to him. As soon as evangelical started being used as a political term instead of a Christian term we should have seen the error in our ways.We should have seen that we have fallen into the same pattern of Israel seeking a king when God wanted to be their king, and the pharisee's seeking a political leader instead of the true messiah.
You would argue, then, that the world that speaks negatively of "conservative evangelicals" do not see the views of this group as "radical"? And you see a difference between "conservative evangelical" and "biblical Christianity"? (I see differences between the broader use of "Evangelicals" these days, but you referenced "conservative evangelicals".)
And if "kinder and gentler" means "no more reference to sin", "accepting sin without judgment", and the like, then it cannot be Christian since Christ didn't do it. It's the wrong kind of "kinder and gentler" where it is neither kind nor gentle, preferring to soothe feelings rather than aid them in avoiding Hell.
However Christ lived, the sinners were drawn to him. His strongest words were for the Pharisee's and religious leaders. Those supposedly speaking for God.
In my experience when you want to help someone avoid hell, you must soothe feelings first. Calling out sin and calling them to repent without a great deal of love rarely works.
Most churches would be a lot better off if they were just as willing to confront the sins in the pews, as they are confronting the sins outside the walls. It is obviously more comfortable to preach against homosexuality and abortion, because there is less people in the church to offend. I haven't heard many sermons on the power of greed and its implications on capitalism. Or The idol of nationalism or patriotism. Or how obesity and gluttony are church issues. Greed, gluttony, and idolatry are all sins that separate us from God as much as being a homosexual does. They also might ruffle a few more feathers.
We live in a culture where certain sins are put on the pedestal (You mentioned a few, and coincidentally they are also hot button political topics). We justify our judgement of these sins by saying cliches like "love the sinner hate the sin." We can and should hate the sin, but our love for the person better come off a lot lot lot stronger than our hate for their sin.
Maybe it is time that "Radical" began to mean Love God with all your heart, and Love everyone else too.
Jesus's message wasn't vague. He repeatedly told everyone, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." That was His standard message. It wasn't the religious leaders that He threw forceably out of the Temple. He didn't tell the woman caught in adultery, "It's okay; if it feels good, do it. I'm not here to judge." He told her "Go and sin no more." His harshest word was to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan."
I'm not sure what you mean by "soothing" sinners, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't very "soothing" when He told people, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate (the fall of the tower of Siloam)? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). That's not ... soothing. And making people feel it's okay to sin in order to save them from ... sin doesn't make sense.
You're falling into the same trap as the largest portion of the world. It is not, somehow, love to warn people about dangers if those dangers are due to the wrath of God against sin. That's not love? So we'll have to disagree on this point, too.
Just a note, with the woman caught in adultery Jesus just saved her from being stoned, so there is that to keep in mind. On top of that, Jesus even says he doesn't condemn her.
Also, I never said that we should tell people their sin is okay. On the contrary I said the opposite, we should address all sin in a loving way, not just the sins we aren't guilty of. If we continue to speak out disproportionately against certain sins, how are we going to make disciples of them and work together to further our faith together?
Everyone should feel welcomed unconditionally at Church, regardless of their background and lifestyle. The message should consistently be, we are all sinners saved by grace. This does not mean that they aren't expected to repent and change once they become a Christian.
The point of the Jesus' message in your second paragraph is God wasn't punishing these people that died in the tower for their sin, in fact all people are sinners of equal standing and all will perish because of it.
I have read your third paragraph 5 times, and I can't figure out what you are trying to say.
What is the Gospel? It is the good news. What is the good news? It is salvation from sin to Christ. Now, if we're going to offer good news by soothing feelings first (your words), we're not going to have anything to offer. Without the massive bad news of the wrath of God against sin, there is no good news. So Paul, when he wrote to the church he had never visited, started out with the sin problem, not pleasant, soothing words.. Reading Romans 1:18-3:19 is anything but soothing. That's what I was trying to say in my third paragraph.
Where you got the idea that abortion and homosexual behavior are the only two things of any concern is beyond me. You won't find that in my writings. Yes, they are issues that need to be addressed (because in today's society they aren't merely tolerated; they are condoned and encouraged), but I address all sorts of sin, both in and out of the church, including my own.
In Scripture there is an imagery tool used where the writers will give us a picture of a walled city. The city is under attack and parts of the wall are broken. The instructions are to stand in the breach. The Church is under attack from lots of places, inside and out. In some places the walls are holding and the need for attention in those places is less. When Christians are calling on us to dismantle marriage, set aside the very large problem of sexual immorality, and consider murdering babies as a "women's health issue", there is a breach in which to stand. That's why you'll see these topics addressed right now more than others. "Soothing feelings" doesn't seem to appear in the biblical instructions or accounts, so I will not likely affirm that as a priority in standing firm in the Gospel. And when the Bible says "X", whatever that is, I will have to stand on that side of the question even if it gets me labeled "radical".
The Gospel must be presented with the consequence of sin. Agreed.
I am not saying that homosexuality and abortion are the only two sins you talk about, but I was saying these two get discussed disproportionately more on Christian blogs and in a lot of Churches.
I am just curious what your view on violence is. I think the New Testament teaches pretty radical non-violence. What is your view on violence?
Interesting. Throw out Sovereignty and Omniscience, but keep non-violence. Okay.
I did a piece on that back here. It should answer your question.
(I've asked other pacifist types before. If you believe that the Bible in general requires non-violence, would you defend your family with violence? Every one was honest enough to tell me, "Well, yes, I probably would.")
As for me, I can't even begin to go to a biblically-mandated absolute pacifist position. If violence by definition is sin, then God committed sin in the Old Testament, ordered His people to commit sin, and His Son committed sin in the Temple with the moneychangers. I just can't go there.
Thanks for the link to you previous post. The comments there brought up all the points I would have made, probably better than I would have made them. It was quite a back and forth.
Post a Comment