Some of you may have heard of John Loftus. His first book was Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity. That was followed by The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. And now he has produced another, The End of Christianity, which should, by all accounts, spell the end of Christianity. Well, not all accounts. Just those who, you know, would like to see the end of Christianity.
Loftus isn't alone in that thinking. At the turn of the century the Barna Group, a marketing organization aiming to serve Christian ministries, warned that if the Christian church didn't change, it would vanish. And Barna isn't alone. All along the front lines the alarm is being sounded. "You're losing your youth!" "Churches are declining!" "If you don't change, you will become irrelevant!" So, like the atheist antagonist, Loftus, those "within" are sounding the death knell. So I thought I'd offer some thoughts on that.
First, the Church is not ours. We didn't make it. We don't sustain it. Jesus said, "I will build My Church" and ended that "and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). While people I know and love may become worried about the Church -- "Will it collapse? Will it disappear? Oh, my, look at the state of the Church today!" -- let me just say, "It ain't gonna happen." Regardless of the anti-theists without and the antichrists within, the Church is not a human institution and, as such, is not subject to collapse.
Second, the stories of losses are greatly exaggerated. It is true that mainline denominations are declining. As it turns out, the reason they are declining is because they are so all-encompassing. Their message of "Can't we all just get along" coupled with the "social gospel" is warm and inviting and ... completely unnecessary. What I mean is that if there is nothing about the message of a church that makes it stand out, there is no reason to stay there. If a church is preaching that we're all loved by God and all accepted and all under grace, then why should the young people stay there? On the other hand, there is something about the "hardline" that keeps people there. On the phenomenon that conservative churches were growing despite the odds, David Brooks wrote, "Rigorous theology provides believers with a map of reality ... Rigorous theology allows believers to examine the world intellectually as well as emotionally ... Rigorous theology helps people avoid mindless conformity ... Rigorous theology delves into mysteries in ways that are beyond most of us ... Rigorous codes of conduct allow people to build their character." He writes of "religions that thrive" as possessing "communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth." (Emphasis mine) So while mainline denominations try to be all-inclusive and end up losing their numbers, it turns out that conservative churches with their rigorous theology and doctrines and codes of conduct are actually growing.
One other thought. Let's say that none of this was the case. The Church could vanish. Let's say that taking the hard line for Scripture and for truth might push people away. I know, I know, none of that is reality, but let's just say that it is. Here's the next question. Do we amend our message in order to draw in people? Do we stop speaking the truth if we are on edge of becoming "irrelevant"? If young people are leaving, do we shift our stance on "marriage equity" in order to draw them back? "Oh, no, I suppose we don't really need to stand where we thought the Bible said we were to stand. Here, let's stand somewhere you'd be more comfortable." Is that the course we should take? Do we surrender the truth stated plainly in order to become more acceptable?
Some have said so. Many have done so. Jesus wasn't one of them. He didn't soft-pedal His words in dealing with the scribes and Pharisees. Peter wasn't one of them. He didn't say, "Yeah, you're right, guys. Maybe we should stop sharing the Gospel if it is so offensive to you and illegal to boot." He said, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard" (Act 4:19-20). Bad move, Peter. That's not going to help you get along in your culture. Paul wasn't one of them. His harsh "You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5) wouldn't fly in most conservative churches today. Assuming that Christ is not sustaining His own Church, and assuming that the myth that the Church is declining and becoming irrelevant is not a myth, I don't think the correct choice would be to compromise the message or the Truth. If, for instance, in the next decade society has determined that the Christian definition of marriage is no longer applicable, that will not change the Christian definition of marriage just like society's current acceptance of sex for whatever or no reason whatsoever as moral has not changed God's condemnation of all sex outside of marriage. And in all cases standing outside of God's Truth is a dangerous place to stand. I'd much rather become irrelevant than to oppose God.
40 comments:
Barna & Co. have a very man-centric and U.S.-centric view of the world and the Bible. They lack confidence in God's word. If they had stronger faith they would do what it says, as you noted, and preach the word in season and out of season and not worry about all the itching ears.
Stan, did you read any of the Barna findings? If you had, you'd see that their research shows (you're not opposed to research or studies are you?) that young folk are leaving the church because, among other reasons...
1. The church feels "unfriendly" to those who doubt (as I mentioned in my first note to you: it's not about the church believing in its truths, but in how they express that belief - if it comes across as arrogant and impatient and antagonistic towards those who doubut or disagree, that is a negative about the church's APPROACH, not to their Truths);
2. Churches come across as "antogonistic" towards science (see above) - churches come across as too confident they "know all the answers" (ie, lacking in biblical humility and awareness of our own limitations as finite, fallible creatures), churches are "out of step with the scientific world..." (ie, holding to "facts" that are fairly rationally not solidly factual, as opposed to Truths that are eternal), and churches appear to be "anti-science." This has nothing to do with churches teaching Truths, but rather, a generally anti-knowledge approach to dealing with Truths;
3. Churches come across as "demonizing everything outside of church..." (see above)
4. Churches appear to "ignore the problems of the real world..." (this in hypocritical contradiction to biblical Truths, not because of Biblical truths;
5. For many, churches appear to leave God out ("God appears to be missing from my experience of church..."). I'd suggest this is representative of the feeling that churches appear to be about condemning sin (appeals to harsh law-abiding) rather than embracing grace (ie, that OF God, by which we are saved);
6. Churches are "boring..." (how a dynamic cutting-edge organism like the first century church could devolve into something considered boring, I don't know, but that is not an indicator that its being left behind because it teaches Truths - unless you consider Truth to be boring);
7. Interestingly, some good numbers (1/5) left the church because they felt Church got in the way of their following God! - church was a place to have a comfortable little unchallenging, timid faith that assured one of heaven and cultural traditions they were comfortable with, as opposed to a place where God's great compassion meets the great need of the world. Sad...
And so on. If you look at the actual research and listen to what "leavers" are saying, it has very little to do (it seems to me) with churches trying to teach Truth and more to do with the WAY churches have done this and what "truths" they are choosing to teach.
Even if you don't agree with everything Barna does or says (and I hold no opinion about them one way or the other), this research is telling and churches would be wise not to close their ears to these facts and, instead, find "news" that tickles their ears instead.
Rather than killing the bearer of bad news (Barna), I'd think a post where you look and prayerfully consider and engage in dialog about the findings would be more helpful.
No, you're absolutely right. If the Church doesn't present a message that people like in a way that people like, it will vanish. Oh, wait ... that's not what JESUS said. That is what BARNA said. Barna and Dan Trabue. Barna was/is a marketing organization. It researches the market and tries to figure out "what will work". It examines numbers and evaluates trends. It does not take into account the Founder of the Church, the Builder of the Church, or the Sustainer of the Church. It assumes that "the Church" is a human organization that needs to have human methods to produce human results. It assumes, for instance, that "they went out from us" is a bad thing. The Bible doesn't. And, oh, by the way, you've happily jumped on the "Barna" bandwagon while ignoring the studies that are confounding Barna -- that liberal churches are declining while conservative churches are not. And judging the success of a church by marketing methods does not line up with any sort of biblical judgment.
As I indicated in the post, Jesus did not come across as "friendly" when He pronounced woes upon Capernaum or the Pharisees. Paul was certainly "antagonistic" when he berated Peter for succumbing to legalism and when he told the Corinthians to turn the man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. Is the Church opposed to science? Only when science proposes to tell the Church that God is not God. And it does ... often and loudly. When Paul said, "There is none good, no, not one", was he "demonizing everything outside the Church" or was he tickling ears? Did he tell Timothy to "preach the word in season, but when it's out of season, ease up, man"? The Bible is full of people who are considered "unfriendly", "antagonistic", "know all the answers", "out of step", "demonizing", "ignoring the real problems", and even "boring". The biblical title for these folks is "prophet" and "apostle".
Are there problems with presentation? Yes, of course. Are there those (like, say, the Westboro Baptist nutjobs) who are are wrong and divisive? Absolutely. Do we need to be aware of how we're saying what we're saying? Without a doubt. But when the message gets moderated by the marketeers, we've surrendered to the tide of public opinion, and that cannot work. If our goal is to make friends with the world, we stand in opposition to God (1 John 2:15). So if the Bible says "X" and science says "not X", we will have to come across as "out of step with science". When the Bible says "Y is an abomination" and culture says, "Y is perfectly acceptable", we're going to have to appear "unfriendly" and "demonizing" not because we are either but because the truth is the truth. (You cannot, in today's world, say, for instance, "Homosexual behavior is a sin" without being called a "homophobe", not because you are, but because it is the only possible response. "You're demonizing everything outside the Church!") When "real world problems" are not the same as the biblical accounts, are we ignoring them or are we defining them as the Bible does?
Look, the facts as Barna states them are not the facts as they are. And your concern that it is only "approach" isn't accurate either. Nor does it take into account the approaches taken by people in Scripture directed by God. Mitigating the approach will also mitigate the message. We need to consider the listener when we speak, but we must first be true to the Messenger who gave us the message. And while you (plural) may be concerned about the numbers, I'm concerned about the souls and counting on the Master to reach them with the truth.
I can't help but think that you anticipated a response like Dan T's.
I also can't help but think that those who take the church as "unfriendly" are those who wish to engage in that which the church opposes. When rules or beliefs clash with desires, the rules and beliefs will seem unfriendly because, hey, they are unfriendly to sinful behaviors.
And what kind of church is it that fails to regard its message as truth, but instead timidly preaches as one who cannot be sure of anything due to the human imperfection of its preachers? This is not Biblical humility at all, but spiritual cowardice lacking confidence in what God has clearly revealed in Scripture.
Marshall, without commenting at all about Dan T or "unfriendly forces", there really is a problem here with presentation. What I mean is that it is not possible to say "I disagree with you" on some of these issues without being labeled as "unfriendly" or "pushy" or "narrow-minded" or "out of touch". As I indicated to Dan, you cannot say, "Homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Bible" without being called a "homophobe". Then the accusation is floated that we're out of touch and not friendly and judgmental. So simply stating the position will get us labeled. No form of presentation for things like that will be regarded as "friendly" or "polite". Our options, then, are "get in touch with the real world" and "be tolerant" by agreeing with the opposing viewpoint or be "marginalized". That is, surrender the truth or stand for it. (I think, then, that I'm agreeing with your general point.)
Stan,
"And in all cases standing outside of God's Truth is a dangerous place to stand. I'd much rather become irrelevant than to oppose God."
What's the Church to do? I'd say you summed it up pretty well.
One side note. I know what you meant, but standing with the Truth will ever be relevant. That is, we may be marginalized, neglected, persecuted for standing for the Truth, but we will never be irrelevant. The fact that so much notice is taken, and ire raised testifies to the absolute nature of the Truth and its relevance to all situations (the marginalization, discrediting and neglect is a fight against the Truth that is relevant and cuts to the heart of the matter).
Again, I know what you meant, maybe a last sentence like "I'd much rather be relegated as a cast out by society than oppose God." Others may label us as irrelevant but we need not latch on to that label because so long as we hold to the Truth we will always be relevant.
Thanks, Stan.
Yes, Jeremy, truth is always relevant. I, of course, meant that we would be classified as irrelevant. It's like those who say, "Church is boring." Really?! You come into the presence of God and are bored? Could it be that you're not coming into the presence of God? If not, why is that?
This is a good example of what I meant by jumping out of the airplane. We (Barna) are prone to look at what appears to be the best course from a fleshy materialistic perspective, and then we become torn and ask "what to do?". We must jump and trust that God's Word is dependable and trustworthy. If God's word is not trustworthy then really, in the end, it doesn't really matter either way does it?
For 2000 years men now forgotten have heralded the end of the Church. All the while She was not sustained by man's wisdom but rather by God's providence. To participate in that providence, and the manifold joy that accompanies being a part of what God is doing, we must have faith in God's Word rather than in man's supposed wisdom which is narrowly focused on his own age and infected by his short peep of consciousness. I'll admit that these are not always the easiest decisions to make, for many times there is much of our materially, and perhaps socially, comfortable lives put at stake. We begin to ask the question, perhaps in our gut beyond the reach of our conscious thought: "hath God said?". I am convinced that these answers have to be resolved in our minds long before the fork in the road demands our next step.
Furthermore, I am convinced that such a resolution is a life long process brought about a diligent study and a thorough understanding of sound doctrine. This might explain why "Church" in a western sense, and certainly in a liberal sense (which seems to thrive in affluent societies) is now stumbling over the question of "what to do?". Such questions, at least in the context of how it is ask in this age, might well be the result of unresolved and dotrine-less minds.
But the Church lives on, and it will live on. The question I ask myself today is, have I counted the cost, and am I willing to participate in God's providence?
Am I satisfied with God's Providence? Am I willing to count the cost? Really, really tough questions. As Christians who have never really had to do that, absolutely necessary questions.
Love it, Stan. This is one of the only blogs I read regularly and this very issue was on my mind this morning. I'll be attending divinity school next year for my M. Div. ultimately looking towards a PhD program and I'm noticing a trend specifically in many of the interdenominational seminaries as well as the mainline Protestant seminaries of focusing on issues of social justice and equality at the expense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and therefore hostility to "conservative" thinkers like myself). We're bombarded culturally with the idea that we should embrace who we are and the actions of those around us when the overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that we are not as we should be and we should look to the person of Jesus Christ as our model and what we are to conform to. This is only possible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, people are all into inclusivity, by which I mean they ignore the fact that Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life.
Malcolm, I pray you do well in your educational endeavors. I think it's quite difficult these days to find an M. Div. and PhD program that doesn't deconstruct good, rational, biblical thinking, but it sounds like you're aware of that and prepared.
And it is quite true that while we are told that we should all be inclusive and tolerant, we are excluded and not tolerated for not complying by embracing their sins. What's up with that? (Rhetorical question, of course.)
@Stan,
Church is boring. Yeah i've heard that one before as well. And today to be bored is the ultimate evil, all entertainment all the time, right? Bringing your own worship to a building to join corporately with a mass of fellow believers bringing their worship to lift up praises together in an interaction with the living and Holy God of all creation - yeah, how could that hold a candle to a couple hours on X-box?!?
@Malcolm,
I also pray that you would be successful in your academic endeavors. Stand firm in your faith in the One True God and persevere in the gospel of Christ Jesus for His glory. There is a great need in this nation for leaders who will stand for Truth, may you be of good courage and bolstered by the Holy Spirit in pursuing godliness through rigorous study of the scriptures. Blessings.
Stan,
Interesting question. I think that most would agree that the mainline protestant churches are withering. The decline however seems almost directly linked to how far from the basics of the gospel they stray. As someone mentioned, there is growth in the conservative churches.
The question then seems to be what can the church do in terms of style to adapt to cultural changes, without altering or compromising on the substance. I've seen a wide spectrum of approaches and the cool thing is that they all can work. The correlary, is that I'm now seeing a potentially unhealthy attachment to individual local congregations. It seems like we get so caught up in "well I've been attening this church all my life" that we don't want to let God tell us that it might be time to move on.
While it is sometimes heartbraking to see people leave the Church, it's not our job to make them stay. God's in control, some will come back, some won't.
Ultimately you nailed it. It's not our Church it's Christ's.
The best part is that in a few days I'll be worshipping with a bunch of folks who put our version (white, American,etc.) of church to shame.
Craig: "The best part is that in a few days I'll be worshipping with a bunch of folks who put our version (white, American,etc.) of church to shame."
Haitian? Whatever it is, it's amazing to me how vibrant "worship" looks among folks who have so little of this world as opposed to how often stale it looks among us who have so much. Seems odd, doesn't it? As a woman in Ghana said, "Maybe Americans just don't need Jesus as much as we do." Ouch!
Stan,
Yeah, Haitian. There is something about how Hatian Christians live lives and worship, that indeed calls into question how much we think we need Jesus. It's really humbling to get to be a part of some really amazing things that God is doing there.
It has always seemed to me that Christians with "less" -- with more needs and weaknesses -- always have a more genuine relationship with Christ. Kind of like Paul's "'My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Cor 12:9). Well, not "kind of like". Just like.
Stan,
I think that there is something that we miss out on in our 1% world. That Christians in the rest of the world have a better grasp of. I wish I could distill it down or somehow get a grip on it, in order to transplant a little of whatever it is here. Anyway, for now it's my little glimpse of what heaven might be like right here on earth.
Isn't it ironic (right, but ironic) that your "little glimpse of what heaven might be like right here on earth" is less, not more comfort?
Stan,
Actually the level of comfort never entered my mind. I'm always struck by how hundreds of people from totally different cultures can gather in one place and worship God in complete solidarity. The culture difference, the language difference, the difference in style, the degree of comfort, all that goes out the window. At that point none of the comfort stuff matters that much.
I just re read Dan's comment summarizing Barna's findings, and noticed something.
Items 1-5 on his list all revolve around what people FEEL or what things APPEAR to be, not what actually IS. This seems to reinforce Neil's point that Barna is a man centered organization. Further that anyone would place so much emphasis on how things FEEL and what things APPEAR to be seems to indicate where their priorities lay.
#6 is interesting in that it assumes that the fault lies with the church, not with the attender. Don't get me wrong I've been to some churches that sucked the joy and life right out of you. But, in general, it seems that a Christian should be able to put aside personal preference and truly worship under any circumstances.
#7 is also interesting in that it assumes that it is possible to have a fulfilling Christian life outside of some sort of community. Or it speaks to peoples desire for personal satisfaction. (I don't like THIS church so I'll just go off on my own) It seems a stretch for someone to say that they are unable to find a church where they are unchallenged. It seems even more of a stretch to say that the right answer to not finding the "right" church, is to leave the church entirely. Personally it sounds quite a bit like the consumerist mentality we keep seeing more of these days.
All in all it seems to be a sort of
All in all it seems to be a sort of ... comment cut short.
Without referencing Barna or Dan T., I think you have your finger on the problem. American Independence has reached adulthood. It focuses attention on ME. What I want, what I feel, what I need. At this point in our society the notion that anyone should have the right to tell me I cannot have what I want is not merely narrow-minded or unkind, but evil and controlling. Freedom means I get whatever I want. Thus, the things in which I engage ought to give me what I want. I want to be entertained. If this church doesn't do it, I'll try one that does. If none of them do it, I'll do it on my own. Because, you see, I am INDEPENDENT. Biblical concepts of submission, obedience, and community don't fit well in this "adult" version of American Independence.
I talked to someone a couple of years ago who joined the rally cry against Prop 8 in California and asked her why. Why was she opposed? The people had spoken. Why did she want to oppose the people? She said, "I think if I wanted to marry someone and they told me I couldn't I'd be sad." "So," I probed further, "you believe that if people want to do something that will make them feel happy, they should be allowed to do it?" "Yes, of course!" No thought. No examination. No principles beyond "ME".
Indeed, if the Church is to be the Church as the Bible indicates, it cannot feed that kind of thinking. We know where that kind of thinking comes from. It's the thinking that comes from, "I will be like the Most High." It is the very thinking to which Christ and the Church are opposed.
All in all it seems to be a sort of...
Derailing of my train of thought.
Stan,
Amen to your comment.
For a great example of what happens when this me centered theology goes to an extreme, check this out.
http://www.shuckandjive.org/
Been there, seen that, don't like going back.
Oh, man, and still I went and looked ... again. Where's the eye bleach when I need it? I don't need to see that kind of heresy floating around from a "pastor in good standing" from a "Christian" denomination. Only lends credence to Barna et al. And again I'm so glad that it is not our Church, but Christ's.
It's like a car wreck, you just can't keep from looking. It's stuff like this that makes me glad that our church is on the way out of PCUSA.
Craig...
Items 1-5 on his list all revolve around what people FEEL or what things APPEAR to be, not what actually IS... Further that anyone would place so much emphasis on how things FEEL and what things APPEAR to be seems to indicate where their priorities lay.
I don't see anything nefarious in saying these churches "appear" this way. If I went to a church where the minister was espousing negative commentary about "the homosexual agenda," for instance - and being met with loud "amens..." I would say that that church appears to be quite evidently not welcoming to gay folk, because they are using inflammatory, demonizing language.
If I went to a church where they quietly believed the world was probably created in six days, that would be one thing. But if they believed that AND they condemned any who disagreed as "worldly" and suggesting that they "reject God's Word," I would say that that church appears to be quite hostile towards those with a different belief.
Appearances MEAN something, at least sometimes. You may recall, the Bible warns against presenting even the "appearance of evil," and it's not for no reason, seems to me. At least sometimes, chuches APPEAR hostile, hateful and/or negatively confrontational/defensive because they ARE.
Three points, Dan.
1) The concern, then, is how we make people feel?
2) You've brought up another passage I should have included in my Bible Abuse post -- the "appearance of evil". Thanks. Good example of abuse.
3) You must have been to some doozies of churches. I've been to a lot in my life and I've never heard of any where "the minister was espousing negative commentary about 'the homosexual agenda,' for instance - and being met with loud 'amens.'" I know there is the very rare crazy church out there (like Westboro Baptist), but I wouldn't classify them as Christian.
Those were my three points (which, by the way, means that the first had a question mark but was not a question).
One question. If the pastor reads his Bible and concludes like most who read their Bibles and how all of Christendom since the beginning has concluded that homosexual behavior is a sin and he says so from the pulpit, is that "not welcoming to gay folk, because they are using inflammatory, demonizing language"? If so, do you see that this is the dilemma I was addressing? If stating what is in Scripture is "inflammatory" and "demonizing", then we are faced with a choice: Stop being "inflammatory" and "demonizing" by rejecting Scripture, or continue with Scripture.
Silly Stan and your "either/or" statements. That pastor could also say, "I believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin (add references and bullet points), but we should just be accepting their sin, because you know that's just how they are, and people can't change how they are." *all read with deep, deep sarcasm*
That way he can be much more welcoming to homosexuals or any other sinners. Just tell what the Bible says, but don't try to tell them to let it change their lives.
Stan-
2) You've brought up another passage I should have included in my Bible Abuse post -- the "appearance of evil". Thanks. Good example of abuse.
Wouldn't that also fall under your other post about the "Ultimate Sin"? The misconception that vehemently opposing sin is one of those types of sins about which you were talking?
No, I'm not speaking of a sermon or a church that says, "You know, we love gay folk and totally welcome them here, along with straight folk and other sinners. At our church, we DO believe (as Christian churches have traditionally believed) that gay sexual activity outside of marriage - like straight sexual activity outside of marriage - is bad for you and just wrong/not part of God's will for our lives. Not unlike other sinful behavior. That's just what seems clear to us from Scripture. We still welcome folk and will love them, but we believe that behavior is wrong and we may say so from time to time, just like we might condemn greed or oppression of the poor or other things we think are wrong..."
I'm NOT talking about that sort of sermonizing. While I think such an opinion is not Godly nor biblical, I don't consider that to be demonizing.
On the other hand, folk who say things like references to some mysterious/evil gay agenda like this mainstream-looking church...
http://www.bibleanswer.com/agenda.htm
or this Baptist group in Virginia...
http://www.baptistbanner.org/Subarchive_4/499%20Tentacles%20of%20Homosexuality.htm
Or many of the churches I attended growing up - all mainstream Baptist, Nazarene, Methodist, etc churches. Demonizing terminology and ideas have been expressed in sermons that I have personally heard and read. At least in Kentucky, it's not enough to politely note that Christians disagree with gay behavior, but love gay folk, there must be mentions of the "gay agenda" or conflations of gay folk and pedophiles or bestiality. It happens all the time in mainstream churches with which I'm familiar.
Are you saying you are unfamiliar with such demonizing talk? Google it, man, it's all over the place, and not just at Westboro.
I know, I've seen/heard/spoke it firsthand.
Perhaps you know some of the names? Al Mohler? Jerry Fallwell? Robert Jeffries, the pastor at First Baptist in Dallas? I could go on.
So, you've mentioned Mohler by name. Got it. Since I know Dr. Mohler and am aware of both is beliefs and his presentation, I can say that my "faulty" understanding of what you've been saying up 'til now has been actually accurate. If it does not come across to you as open and friendly and accepting, then it's "demonizing". If I believe there is a "gay agenda", I am "demonizing". If I don't do the dance that you did ("We DO believe (as Christian churches have traditionally believed) that gay sexual activity outside of marriage - like straight sexual activity outside of marriage - is bad for you and just wrong/not part of God's will for our lives." -- not actually allowing for "We DO believe that all homosexual behavior is sin".).
Look, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I just believe that in your mind there are certain things that cannot be placed side by side. I do not believe it is possible in your mind for someone to love another about whom he/she is saying, "You're actions are an abomination to God." That just can't be. You can't see any way that a parent can love their child and spank them. That's not possible. (I know; I've been told that multiple times, not just by you.) I cannot believe there is a "gay agenda" or that "marriage is defined by God as the union of a man and a woman" without being homophobic, bigoted, demonizing. And to you words like "not godly nor biblical" are not demonizing.
I know that there are churches like you describe. In my long life attending churches all around the country (and beyond), I've never once run into one. But, then, we're promised tares among wheat, right? And I'm always concerned about "mainstream churches" anyway. But, look, you keep implying that I am engaged in this kind of thing and it just isn't so.
Stan...
I just believe that in your mind there are certain things that cannot be placed side by side. I do not believe it is possible in your mind for someone to love another about whom he/she is saying, "You're actions are an abomination to God." That just can't be. You can't see any way that a parent can love their child and spank them.
I absolutely think that parents can love their child and spank them. My parents both loved and spanked me. But certain terms are beyond respectful dialog.
Comparing Stan's bedroom activity to bestiality or to slavery or to sadism or whatever, that sort of language is disrespectful and offensive, even if I think Stan's bedroom behavior is sinful.
I'm saying there is a right way and a bad way to disagree. Comparing "the gays" to bestiality or pedophiles is ugly and disrespectful and negatively stereotypical. It's the sort of negative judgmentalism and disrespect that the bible condemns, as opposed to healthy, respectful judgement making of which the Bible speaks.
You do recognize that the Bible offers both examples of GOOD judgment making, but ALSO negative judgmentalism.
For many conservatives, they simply don't recognize how ugly their words sound. I know for myself, I did not INTEND to be disrespectful or unloving when I made comparisons to bestiality or called behavior an abomination or others said something about "the gays" or "the gay agenda." And yet, it all was disrespectful and a bad way to disagree. That is clear, now.
May God grant us insight and compassion and wisdom.
Dan,
Unfortunately, I'll have to comment and run on this one as I'll be away from internet access for the next 10 days or so.
But, I'll restate my point.
Feelings and appearances are NOT reality.
Just because someone APPEARS to demonize, or you feel like someone is "unfriendly" or "antagonistic" doesn't mean they actually are.
For example, just because you (or someone of your ilk on this issue) calls someone they disagree with a(n) "evil hate filled homophobe" doesn't mean that that is actually the case.
Further, just because some one has cherry picked some (possibly) out of context sound bites, it doesn't mean that what little bit you've heard from pastor X,Y, or Z actually represents the fullness of their theology.
I think we can all agree that Phelps and his tribe (of democrats BTW, I've got a great picture of him hanging with Al Gore) are nut jobs and don't in any way represent actual Christians. Yet, strangely enough, there are those on your side who quite freely suggest that any who don't agree with their opinions are just like the Phelps.
I find it a bit curious that you have been using the "XYZ with which I am familiar" line quite a bit recently. This is a meaningless rhetorical trick that doesn't move the conversation forward at all. You seem willing to base your views on what folks in thousands of churches across the world believe based on your opinion of what you feel like some folks appear to believe based on your limited personal experience with some unquantified number of allegedly "conservative" churches you may or may not have actually attended regularly enough to form a reasonably accurate opinion of. So why not drop this as some measure of proof of your opinions.
As I close this out (I may get to stop back before I lose access), I'd just like to say that you are free to live in the world of feelings, appearances, and opinion. Just don't conflate that world with reality.
The fact that God listed "adultery" with "bestiality" and "homosexual sex" all in the same list would, I suppose, make God sound negatively judgmental.
Again, I know that there are those out there that express these things in a bad way. I have attempted to never speak disrespectfully of sinners while still maintaining that sin is sin. You find me judgmental and offensive. Either my stand itself is judgmental and offensive (even though I'm simply standing on what I see in Scripture) or you're just not being honest. And while I agree that there are those who express this stuff poorly (although I don't see it nearly as much as you do, apparently), you don't seem to see that it is nearly impossible for someone like me to state "This is a sin" without being labeled as judgmental, intolerant, and homophobic from your side. You know, like you do. That's okay?
Craig...
Feelings and appearances are NOT reality
It would appear you are missing my point, Craig. I'm not saying that feelings or appearances ARE reality, BUT that sometimes, we can see by appearances what is actually true. That is, it is WRONG to say that appearances are not reality. You would be correct in saying, "appearances MAY NOT be reality," but you can't state that appearances AREN'T reality.
If a group of folk were meeting in white robes with pointy hats and talking about white pride, they MAY NOT actually be racists, but they DO give the appearance of being racist and, in reality, they likely ARE racist.
Sometimes, appearances are just what they appear to be.
I'm not living in a world "of feelings" but rather, responsibly looking at the evidence and making a judgment based on real world evidence.
You aren't of the camp that believes that we ought not make judgments or be discerning, are you?
I find it interesting that, when you all WANT to infer something about someone, you freely do so, regardless of their actual words and statements of what they ACTUALLY believe. For instance, many here regularly suggest that I and my kin are "false teachers" and "not Christian" and "socialists" and all sorts of false charges - in SPITE of my words. Many here make false inferences about what I have said and said, "Well, you MUST believe this because I listened to your words and now I KNOW what you think..." You do this with great abandon on these pages here.
In spite of clarifications from folk like me that you, in fact, are misrepresenting me.
BUT, as soon as someone looks at the actual evidence and finds churches that say things like "the gay agenda" or "the gays" or compare homosexuals to pedophiles or those who engage in bestiality and point out that this sort of language turns people away NOT because of their opinion, but because of the ugly way they present those opinions, THEN you want to suggest NOT using discernment and judgment?
You can't have it both ways, my brothers. Are we supposed to be discerning or not?
Dan T., I wrestled with it and finally let it go through. As in any debate, you've had your say. I see no need to let it go on forever. If Craig chooses to respond to it, I'll let him, but then it's done. Just a heads up.
Dan,
NOT in SPITE of your words, but BECAUSE of your words...
No Dan,
It would appear that you are missing my point. Your "evidence" to support your original comment was how things appeared to people and how those things made them feel.
Appearance and feelings are not (necessarily) reality. You seem willing to accept and broad brush based on appearances and feelings. Your words clearly suggest (if not outright say) this.
We all agree that there are those who go to far. You seem to be willing to give those on your side more of a pass than we do, but nonetheless they are there.
Despite that, once can't accurately make judgments based on appearance or feelings. The fact that you seem to be suggesting that it is OK to do so raises questions about your judgment.
You talk about how you are misrepresented here, yet you do the same thing. At your own blog I and others have been called things equally as reprehensible as what you complain about, yet more often than not you let it slide. You've claimed that my using your own words, is misrepresenting what you say. Suffice it to say that I/we've read enough of your actual words to be able to make judgments about your opinions. Or are you one of those who don't think we should make judgments?
Your silly question ("Are we supposed to be discerning or not?"), implies that someone here has suggested that we not be discerning. Yet that is not the case.
Look, if you want to uncritically buy Barna, go for it. No one is stopping you. But to suggest that appearances and feelings are the basis to make significant changes in how church is done, is a very shallow way of approaching the question.
Even if I wasn't leaving I'd still be done. Or at least get cut off by Stan.
Post a Comment