Meet the Reformation Project. This is a "Bible-based, gospel-centered approach to inclusion" for LGBTLMNOP's. (I know that acronym seems disrespectful, but they keep adding letters and I don't want to leave anyone out.) Founded and presided over by Matthew Vines, self-proclaimed "gay Christian" who argues that the Bible does not say what it says about homosexual activity, the organization is aimed at going beyond "God did not say ..." and on into "The Holy Spirit failed." I know, they say no such thing. But here's why I say it. While touting "The inspiration of the Bible, the Word of God", they deny that the Word says what the whole Church has always believed it says and deny that the Holy Spirit ever led His disciples into all truth ... until Vines showed up.
Vines (the Reformation Project) is comparing it to the Reformation of Martin Luther's day (and beyond). He's suggesting that the Church needs to be reformed. He understands that this is a big job--a really big job--because the Church has never gotten this right. What Vines (and the rest) misunderstand is that the Reformation was not about "making changes in order to improve something", but about the most literal sense of the word--to form again. The Reformers weren't aiming at improving the Church; they were aiming at returning it to its original configuration. And this highlights the fundamental difference between the Reformation and the Reformation Project. The Reformers believed God got it right and the Holy Spirit did His job and the starting point was right--"Now, let's get back to that."--and the Reformation Project believes it was never right, the texts never meant what the texts have always been understood to mean, and they are out now to improve the original. Not the same thing.
The mission of the Project is "to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people." Ah, now, see? Something we can agree on. We need to support these people with issues of sexual sin. We need to embrace them and call them to Christ. We need to understand that they are dealing with temptations and desires that are hard to manage and stand alongside to help them fight the good fight. We need to care enough about them to help them see the deceit (James 1:16) they've been handed, as if "how I feel" defines "what is good" and indulging one's lust is morally upright (James 1:14-15). We need to bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2) as fellow sinners in need of Christ. We need to protect them against misguided folk who seem to think that the sin of the same-sex-tempted individual is somehow worse than the sin of those misguided people. But, of course, I don't suppose those would be classified as "support and affirm", would they? So they'll seek a "reformation" by which they mean "an improvement on the Church that God has never managed before", and it's hard to figure out how that is a good reflection on God or His Church. You know, the one that Jesus said He would build (Matt 16:18).
15 comments:
The Reformers weren't aiming at improving the Church; they were aiming at returning it to its original configuration.
True, they aimed at returning it to its original configuration. But they didn't succeed, at least entirely. They accepted the Platonic creep introduced with all the councils (4C - 8C, and most of that was good stuff, but not all), they sinfully accepted the rabid antisemitism of the early church fathers (which was not part of the early church), the misogynistic practices (again, totally in contrast to Jesus model, Paul's acts, and early church), the sanctioning of violence (early Christians forbid followers to serve in military or swear oaths), etc.
Since I consider no man (including Calvin, Luther, or John MacArthur--just to jump to modern times) to be perfect, I would assume that no movement executed by man would be perfect. But it's good that you agree that the fundamental difference between the Reformation and the Reformation Project is that the former sought (successfully or not) to return the Church to its origins while the latter seeks to "make the Church better than it has been", so to speak.
I wonder what the drive is to usurp Christianity. In most any other context, of you disagree with the theology of a religion, you are free to no longer be of that religion. Thousands have some so in the past, why not continue. If you disagree with all religions, make your own.
The concept "It has always been wrong and I'm here to fix that" confuses me. The idea "It has shifted away from the truth and we need to return" is biblical. I don't understand the former.
But it's good that you agree that the fundamental difference between the Reformation and the Reformation Project is that the former sought (successfully or not) to return the Church to its origins while the latter seeks to "make the Church better than it has been", so to speak.
Eh, your words, not mine.
The Reformation Project seeks to go back to the true way of Jesus, just as Reformers did. And, while you may disagree, they seek just Jesus, not at the point where the sinful baggage of post 4C church became tradition.
You're right. My words. Wrong assumption on my part. The fact that they don't claim to want to "go back to the true way of Jesus", but to try to improve the existing Church recognizing that all former believers disagree with them on the texts in question doesn't appear to deter you from your position on what they aim for. My mistake.
I am curious, though.
"the sinful baggage of post 4C church"
Is that a reference to the Bible as God's Word, or to the doctrine of the Trinity or ...? Because if you're referring to the canonization of Scripture, that would make perfect sense in light of the rest of your dismissal of the Bible as God's Word. It would, of course, make Christianity a pointless exercise based on each individual opinion without any real binding basis, but, hey, that's not the issue, is it?
Is that a reference to the Bible as God's Word, or to the doctrine of the Trinity or ...? Because if you're referring to the canonization of Scripture, that would make perfect sense in light of the rest of your dismissal of the Bible as God's Word. It would, of course, make Christianity a pointless exercise based on each individual opinion without any real binding basis, but, hey, that's not the issue, is it?
1. In the Orthodox church (up to 16C), the Bible was never viewed as "God's Word". As it says it the Gospel of John, Jesus is the eternal Word (Logos). Even Orthodox theology circa 21C does not view the Bible as "God's word" but more as a sacred witness to Jesus truth. Jesus is "God's Word", not the Bible, and when one makes holy scripture the equivalent of God, it is idolatry, not faithful worship.
2. What was being referred to was (a) rabid anti-semitism, (b) misogyny, (c) "us v. them" tribalism, (d) etc.… that was not in any shape or essence part of the deeds and model of Jesus, and goes entirely against what he said and what he did. Yet after 4C, it was a defining rubric of the church.
Thanks for the clarification. The "sinful baggage of post 4C church" is a God-breathed Bible that is reliable, understandable, and true. Too much baggage. Got it. That goes a long way toward explaining your resistance to any historical orthodoxy or standard reading of Scripture as truth. It's every man for himself based on whatever you might think Jesus would have thought. Of course, no one can know that because the only source material we have is not necessarily reliable, understandable, or true.
The problem, of course, is that now you have no grounds on which to critique my views on any of this. I base mine on the Bible as the Word of God, and you claim no such thing exists, so arguing the meaning is pointless, isn't it?
As for your second point, every human endeavor has sin mixed in. Well, as I understand the Bible to teach, it does. So "anti-semitism", "mysogyny", "tribalism", and "etc" would likely be found in most human endeavors (including those protesting such things, such as your own). My point is that the existence of these errors doesn't invalidate the Church after the 4th century. (These defined the Church? Quite a statement. Especially the "etc".) (In case you missed it, that last "especially" was intended as humor.)
The "sinful baggage of post 4C church" is a God-breathed Bible that is reliable, understandable, and true. Too much baggage. Got it.
Come on @Stan -- that's not what I stated at all.
It's not "the Bible" that carries the "sinful baggage" -- it's the interpretation from flawed and broken men, who miss seeing and hearing Jesus in its sacred words.
You act as if a text simply offers up a static, ironclad message. But if that is true, why have since the beginning of canonization, have good Christians argued about it, now for two millennium and counting? And the arrogance of some who proclaim their way of reading (which would be totally befuddling to someone 5C, 10C, 15C earlier) is the *one true* way.
I said, "I base mine on the Bible as the Word of God, and you claim no such thing exists, so arguing the meaning is pointless, isn't it?" You argue that my position is "arrogance". It looks as if you've proved my point, that you agree.
So if there is either no right way or, at least, no way to know, why would you argue the meanings of texts with me?
I wonder, Naum, would you say that there are any static, ironclad passages, or they all vague and open to interpretation?
Where the Bible speaks, i speak. Where the Bible is silent, I am silent. :)
@Stan, again, your words, not mine.
The Bible is a sacred witness to the Word of God (which is Jesus, as Scripture declares).
So, if the Bible is not the Word of God, what does it mean that all Scripture is God-breathed?
Post a Comment