The Final Word

Tags

Authority, Bible, Biblical Interpretation, Christianity, Church, Church of England, Faithfulness, God, Homosexuality, Humility, Liberalism, Progressive Christianity, Same-Sex Marriage, Scripture, Sexual Immorality, Sexual Revolution, Theology

This week’s Tuesday Tea-ology focused on the finality of Scripture; the relevance of this aspect of the authority of God’s Word is easy to illustrate.  Consider, for instance, the current convulsions in the Church of England.

            The C of E has seen tragic theological degeneration over the years—though, like many liberalizing Christian bodies, they have remnants of orthodoxy in the ranks.  And, like other liberalizing bodies, the temptation to compromise with the world is very strong in the area of sexual morality.

            At the beginning of 2020, I saw with some surprise that the C of E managed even the banal statement that “Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purpose for human beings”—a notably anemic statement compared to the strong words Scripture has for homosexual relationships, but more orthodox than I would have expected from the Church of England.

            But the pleasant surprise of orthodox theological anthropology coming from the C of E was short-lived.  The archbishops of Canterbury and York swiftly apologized for having been so insensitive as to maintain basic Christian moral teaching.  Such a move, they hold, was inappropriate, considering that the C of E is presently engaged in deciding whether or not they still hold to Christian sexual ethics—these matters are being re-evaluated in something called “the Living in Love and Faith project.”

            That is the setup.  The other day, news came that this project has yielded up its fruits, and the C of E will now, according to the Christian Post, “begin a formal ‘discernment and decision-making’ process ‘about a way forward for the church’ in regards to its teachings on sex, sexuality and marriage.”  Though the description is broad, and apparently does consider the issues generally, same-sex marriage appears to be the focal point.

            Considerable sophistry can be involved in these situations.  A discernment process sounds careful, perhaps even reverent; but, when what you are trying to discern is whether or not to obey God, it turns out to be a process of deliberate rebellion.  Engaging in a thorough discernment process to decide whether or not to declare stealing or adultery valid, to offer a parallel example, signals not wisdom but moral frailty.  Even considering redefining marriage to accommodate sexual immorality is a denial of God’s authority, of the finality of God’s Word.

            From the description, this discernment process is based on a three-year study “to help people participate in honest discussions, listen to life stories and understand each other’s views.”  Honest discussions are good (much better than dishonest discussions!); listening to people’s stories is important; understanding one another’s views is valuable.  But none of that has any bearing on the church’s doctrine regarding human sexuality.

            That is the application of the finality of Scripture.  God’s Word is final.  The authority of Scripture overrules human experience, and declares us in the wrong when we attempt to contradict God.  The Bible also overrules human rationalizing, theorizing, moralizing, philosophizing, obfuscating, and platituding—any and all reasoning and rhetoric that goes against what God has spoken.  God is God, and what He says goes.

            God created human beings, He knows what is best for us, and what He says goes.  He designed man and marriage; they are not ours to redesign or redefine.  To re-evaluate marriage in light of honest discussions, life experiences, and our views is to reject God’s authority as Maker and Master, Lord of life.  God has spoken very clearly about these matters.

            And God’s Word is final.

Ultimate Authority

Tags

America, Authority, Christianity, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Freedom, God, Government, Pandemic, Progressive Christianity, Secularism, Truth

Back in August, RNS ran an article entitled, “John MacArthur believes the Bible trumps COVID-19 public health orders. Legal scholars say no.” Here, in a case study of church-state relations, we see the basic failure of a secular worldview.

RNS is, after all, a basically secular organization. “Wait a minute. RNS stands for Religion News Service. How can that be a secular organization?” Because it uses “religion” in the generic sense, various religions, without any conviction as to which religion is true; it is a secular platform for liberal religious views from various traditions, and thus represents a secular society’s approach to religion.

In a secular society’s approach to religion, there is an implicit relativism on spiritual truth, and an elevation of the authority of the state above the church. The separation of church and state becomes one-sided; it is invoked when there is an attempt to bring the church into the state, but ignored when the time comes to bring the state into the church.

A secular approach to religion is not the same thing as religious freedom. Religious freedom is a Christian idea, and happily coexists with the public acknowledgment of Christian truth–as was the case in America for most of its history. A secular society, we are beginning to see, actually impinges upon religious freedom, as atheistic ideologies become public orthodoxy.

We see this in the hypocrisy of certain government officials as they select which gatherings are essential and which are not during the pandemic. Thus we come back around to RNS and their assumption of secular authority: ‘Does the Bible trump COVID-19 public health orders? Let’s ask the experts on government orders.’ That is begging the question.

Of course, the opinions of legal scholars may vary. There is a legal tradition, evidenced in the founding of our nation, that rooted human rights in the authority of God. Then there’s the opinion of one scholar quoted in the RNS article:

“We have rights from the Constitution, not the Bible,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State. “Biblical duties don’t trump our laws. Period. Full stop.”

When confronted with that kind of attitude, what can a Christian say but “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29, ESV)? God, not government, is the highest authority. Jesus Christ is Lord.

Legal experts cannot tell us whether the Bible has authority over legal pronouncements–though, if a legal expert is a Christian, he might know the answer. The most legal experts are equipped to tell us is whether or not the law acknowledges the authority of Scripture. If it does not–as is often the case–that tells us nothing about the authority of Scripture vis-à-vis human government. All that tells us is that human government claims to be the ultimate authority.

That is the case in a secular or secularizing society. But that doesn’t make it right.

In this pandemic, Christians have had to wrestle with how the church should respond to public health orders; in particular, we have had to wrestle with how the Bible’s command to submit to governing authorities does or does not apply in these situations. That is a valid and sometimes complex question to work through. But that is not the question RNS is asking; RNS is asking whether God or the government has ultimate authority in these matters–and that is an exceptionally easy question to answer.

The Bible is the Word of God. Of course God’s Word has authority over the word of the state. The state’s opinion on this matter makes no difference, except that it is a potent reminder that what our nation needs most is to return to an acknowledgment of the ultimate authority of God–an acknowledgment expressed at our nation’s beginning: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Sojourners and Slander

Tags

Christianity, Justice, Liberalism, Progressive Christianity, Righteousness, Truth

I was first exposed to Sojourners at college, and my impression of them has always been negative. It was the obvious disingenuousness of the whole thing that irked me; why should such an overtly leftist publication pretend to be bipartisan? Were they fooling anyone? What had such messaging to do with the Christian faith, and why should it be promoted at a Christian college? Maybe the fact that I was studying rhetoric made me especially attuned to the duplicity of ‘GOD IS NOT A REPUBLICAN…or a Democrat.’

Sojourners is still around, and nothing on their website suggests a Christian centrism. They seem quite sold to the left; maybe they don’t pretend otherwise anymore. As such, they present a compelling picture of how putting politics in the center makes us vulnerable to buying into the culture’s lies.

Case in point, an article that caught my eye a little while back: “#DEFUNDTHEPOLICE BECAUSE THEY WON’T REFORM THEMSELVES“, by Chanequa Walker-Barnes. It addresses issues of police brutality and reform, with the headlined perspective of supporting the defunding (possibly even abolition) of police. A careful analysis might draw attention to the one-sided argumentation about a complex issue, and a theological analysis might address the basic naivete of thinking that fallen humans can do without law enforcement (as an aside, the writer is a professor at McAffee School of theology, for whatever that may indicate about that institution).

But I will highlight a single statement, and the point that can be drawn from it: “We live in a militarized police state wherein law enforcement officers view themselves as our overlords and conquerors rather than as servants and protectors of the public.” Unless Walker-Barnes is utterly ignorant of the diverse reality of American police, that statement is slander. Even if Walker-Barnes is ignorant of the American police forces, it is difficult to believe that the editorial team at Sojourners is so ignorant; and, barring this vast ignorance of reality, they have willingly published a slanderous accusation against the police force. But perhaps the editors can defend themselves with a ‘the views in this commentary do not necessarily represent the views of Sojourners‘ disclaimer? No. They highlighted this very statement of Walker-Barnes’ article on the sidebar so that readers could tweet it.

What place has slander in a Christian publication? None. But that is what happens when worldly ideologies infiltrate and influence your thinking.

An instructive warning for Christian institutions, and even churches, in America today.

Really Urgent

Tags

America, Christianity, Culture, Episcopal Church, Faith, God, Gospel, Humanity, Jesus Christ, Liberalism, Life, Progressive Christianity, Redemption, Salvation, Theology, Truth

Writing a couple days ago about the call of the gospel involved expressing that the gospel call is urgent.  It matters whether or not people hear the message of Christ, and whether or not those who hear believe; it matters because there is judgment to come, and where you stand in the day of judgment depends entirely on whether or not you are in Christ.

This is the perennial scandal of the Christian faith.  True Christianity will always be scandalous to the world, though different aspects of the faith will be scandalous in different times and places and cultures.  But the exclusivity of the gospel message is a perennial scandal, because it stands against every worldly ideology and religion, and because it is at the irreducible core of the Christian message: eternal life is found in Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Christ alone.  You have to place your faith in Him if you are to be saved.

This claim is denied not only by avowed secularists, but by some who claim to be Christians.  I came upon the website of a liberal Episcopalian church in San Francisco, noteworthy (among other things) for how they use their sanctuary for a popular yoga program–the sentence “Colorful mats cover the labyrinth, the aisles and even the altar” has a certain resonance with 2 Kings 16.  I saw that they had sermons online, audio and transcripts; I wanted to see what their preaching was like, but didn’t want to give it a lot of time.  I needn’t have been concerned; my sampling suggests that, in keeping with typical liberal practice, their sermons range from fairly brief to very brief.  Given their beliefs, brief is probably for the best.

So here is a sermon from “The Very Rev. Dr. Malcolm Clements Young.”  He’s the dean of the cathedral and has a Doctorate of Theology from Harvard, so no one can say I’ve chosen a straw man.  His text is John 3:16-17…and if you say, ‘Why just through verse 17? …aha, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

John 3:16 is quite understandable a beloved passage, a one-verse encapsulation of the gospel.  Dr. Young, in his short message, says a number of things, some of them good.  But things get particularly suspicious about halfway through–manuscript page 3, that is–when he turns to examine Jesus’ reference to the bronze serpent, a story detailed in Numbers 21.

The Israelites were complaining against God, and the text says, “Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them” (Num. 21:6, NIV), but Dr. Young says “God allows poisonous snakes to come among them”; perhaps the change from God’s direct action to divine permission is unintentional.  But stranger is Dr. Young’s assertion that “In both this exodus story and the Gospel of John sin is less a punishment from God than it is a self-destructive human choice.”  Well, yes, the sin of the Israelites is a self-destructive choice–and if that’s all he meant, that’s one thing, but we’re still going to have to grapple with Romans 1–but the punishment from God is clearly present: they chose to grumble against God, but God sent the venomous snakes.

Dr. Young brings this back to John 3, which is good, and Jesus’ statement that “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14).  But this is Dr. Young’s comment:

“In this world which is poisoned by envy, greed, fear, betrayal and death – Jesus promises that we can be healed by experiencing him near to us in our suffering, and the hope that we have for the resurrection”.

Is that all Jesus promised, His nearness in our suffering?  Why no mention of the atoning significance of His death upon the cross?

After this suspicious beating-about-the-bush about the wrath of God and atoning work of Christ, Dr. Young makes his last point quite clearly:

“My last point has to do with what my friend Matt Boulton calls the “anti-Gospel.” Gospel means good news and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is really good news for all people, not just Christians. It is the message that God does not condemn the world, but always reaches out to save us even when our choices have led us disastrously astray. But somehow many Christians warp Jesus’ words into an anti-gospel which is a message of contempt and exclusion.”

The Gospel, for Dr. Young, appears to be a message of universal salvation.  Faith in Christ is not necessary, and those who say that it is are guilty of promoting “an anti-gospel which is a message of contempt and exclusion.”  This is the rhetoric of the religious left, where ‘inclusion’ is good and ‘exclusion’ is bad, and where the other side is regarded as showing hatred or contempt.  But how does this message square with the very text of Scripture being expounded?  Dr. Young quotes John 3:16 in its entirety, so he has right there before him that the verse says “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”  It does not say that Christ gives life to everyone; it says He gives life to those who believe in Him.

How does Dr. Young deal with this?  He doesn’t, really.  He emphasizes that the text is saying this is a demonstration of the way God has shown His love:

“The Greek doesn’t mean to emphasize “how much” God loves us but instead shows us the character of God’s love, that God loves us in this way, through not even withholding his own son. The point is not that Jesus only saves the few who believe, but like the Israelites looking at the snake, everyone is healed by God through Jesus.”

Like the Israelites looking at the snake?  But it wasn’t all of the Israelites who were healed by the bronze serpent–it was only those who looked at it.  In the same way, it isn’t all people who are saved by Jesus, but only those who believe in Him.  The parallel seems to work rather against Dr. Young than for him.  Can he really justify such a shaky interpretation in the face of the clear teaching of the biblical text?

He can try.  Here’s the clincher:

John confirms this interpretation and writes, “God did not send his son to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (Jn. 3).

He’s quoting John 3:17, a wonderful verse about God’s love.  Jesus came to save.  God sent His Son to be our Savior.  And, if this verse was all we had to work with, we might conclude that it teaches a universal salvation, regardless of whether people know Jesus or not.

But this verse doesn’t stand alone, and a basic principle of biblical interpretation is that verses must be interpreted in context.  The verse before it, verse 16, says that it is those who believe who are saved.  What about the verse that follows?

And this is why it is so interesting that Dr. Young stopped with verse 17.  Now, I can’t read his mind.  Maybe he forgot what verse 18 said.  Maybe he just didn’t have time to bring it up.  But it is awfully interesting that he didn’t mention the verse that says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (Jn. 3:18).

So we have an Old Testament parallel and two clear assertions that a response of faith is required in order to receive the life Christ offers, sandwiching the ambiguous verse that Dr. Young tries to use to nullify the clear message.  It is overwhelmingly obvious that Dr. Young has misinterpreted the Scripture, and has done so in a way that shows either a remarkably careless disregard for the context or a deliberate desire to twist the message of the gospel.

He wants to do away with the exclusivity of the gospel.  In the process, he has thrown out the urgency of the gospel, for a message of universal salvation is not a message that anyone needs to hear; and, if heard, it is a message that perfectly suits the individualistic self-determination of the (post)modern west, because it means that how you choose to live your life doesn’t really matter in the end.

Can Dr. Young’s own charge be reversed?  Is he guilty of teaching an anti-gospel?  I think so.  Maybe he teaches that people should repent of their sins and place their faith in Jesus, but he doesn’t preach that such is necessary in order to be forgiven and receive eternal life.

The true gospel is urgent, because it proclaims that God’s gracious offer of life is found exclusively in Jesus Christ, is received exclusively by faith in Jesus Christ.  You need this gospel, and you need it now.

And you may have it, no matter who you are, no matter what you have done.  Turn from your sins and place your trust in Jesus Christ, who died for your sins and rose from the dead to bring you life.  Accept His mighty hand reaching down to draw you to Himself.  Be cleansed, forgiven, made whole, adopted as a child of the Most High.

The time is now.

 

What Church Is For

Tags

Christianity, Church, Cultural Engagement, Culture, God, Gospel, Jesus Christ, Liberalism, Progressive Christianity, Salvation, Sin, Society, Truth

I was struck by the tragic verisimilitude of a bit of poetry today:

“And ev’ry old cathedral that you enter / By then will be an Area Culture Centre. / Instead of nonsense about Death and Heaven / Lectures on civic duty will be given; / Eurhythmic classes dancing round the spire, / And economics courses in the choir.”

These lines come towards the end of John Betjeman’s satirical poem “The Town Clerk’s Views”, published sometime towards the mid-20th century.

But it is hardly satire, when you compare it to the (post)modern liberal vision for the church.  The true church has a profoundly spiritual vision, with inescapable implications for life in this world.  The ‘progressive’ church too often loses sight of the otherworldliness of Christianity and becomes utterly pre-occupied with social matters unmoored from the doctrines of sin, salvation, and eternity.  As a result, even their social agenda comes to be guided by the pagan impulses of (post)modern culture.

It is tragic to see historic churches become little more than cultural centers, that teach not the atoning death and saving resurrection of Jesus Christ, but social justice (as defined by American culture) and yoga classes.

However, it is not (yet) “ev’ry old cathedral”.  Many are the faithful churches that care for the vulnerable and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And it is for each generation of believers to hold forth and pass on the faith, to keep the church the church, for the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom.

It’s about Jesus

Tags

Advent, Christmas, Homosexuality, Hope, Jesus Christ, LGBTQ+, Liberalism, Nativity, Progressive Christianity, Truth, United Methodists

“You’ve got to call out evil and lift up justice,” said one of the ministers in defense Claremont UMC’s nativity scene that pictures Joseph, Mary, and Jesus as a separated immigrant family.

The hypocrisy of such a statement coming from a church that has traded courageous defense of God’s righteous law for promoting popular immorality is noteworthy.

But more specifically to the point, Christmas is not about social agendas.  Yes, the gospel has social implications of all sorts.  But the implications follow from the gospel.  We dare not make the gospel message subservient to social issues.

The great message of Christmas is that God has reached down to us in our darkness and given us light; He has sent His Son to become man, in order to be the Savior of the world.  Christmas should always be a season of giving and generosity, of caring for the poor and oppressed and the stranger; but it is such a season because on that first Christmas our Savior was born.

Let the nativity be about Jesus.

Speaking Truly About Mary

Tags

Advent, Angels, Christianity, Christmas, Discipleship, God, Jesus Christ, Liberalism, Life, Mary, Progressive Christianity, Truth

The Patheos Progressive (i.e., liberal) channel has, for some bizarre reason, highlighted an article written in 2015 by Nancy Rockwell entitled “No More Lying About Mary.”  It’s hard to think how they could more effectively show that they needn’t be taken seriously; the article is one of the most striking demonstrations of bad biblical scholarship I have ever encountered.

Rockwell brings an aggressively feminist reinterpretation of the story of the Annunciation, accusing more standard (and faithful) accounts of lying about Mary.  The irony, of course, is that Rockwell’s account is full of untruths; I do not accuse her of lying, for lying requires that one know what one is saying to be untrue.  That distinction is one she would do well to bear in mind, but slandering Christian interpreters is among the least of her offenses.

On Rockwell’s read, the Annunciation as traditionally understood, with its picture of Mary humbly submitting to God’s will, is a piece of patriarchal propaganda that has resulted in a millennium (why only one?) of “female subjugation.”  Rockwell, on the other hand, sees a very feminist Mary:

there is nothing submissive nor immature about her.

Already the problems in Rockwell’s preconceptions emerge.  Submission to God is connected with immaturity?  The biblical picture is quite the opposite.  Mature believers, men and women alike, submit wholeheartedly to God, whereas submission is a great struggle for the immature and worldly.  It is precisely in her ready submission to God’s plan that Mary’s deep and beautiful spirituality shines.

Rockwell proceeds to badly misread Gabriel’s approach.  Instead of recognizing that Gabriel’s message is that God has favored Mary, Rockwell understands the message to be that God has been impressed with Mary because of “the grace that is distinctly hers.”  In Rockwell’s eyes, “This is a courtship scene.  The angel is wooing her, on bended knee, a suitor–not a constable bringing a decree.”  Maybe in some artistic renderings, but Scripture paints no such picture.

It is Mary’s grace that has attracted God’s attention.  And what is this grace?  It is what Luke shows us in her conversation and her actions–courage, boldness, grit, ringing convictions about justice.  Not submissive meekness.  Grace is not submission.  And the power of God is never meek.

It takes some pretty serious eisegesis to arrive at all that.  But, more importantly, our willingness to submit to God is indeed a work of His grace; and Christmas is all about God showing His power in meekness.  Such might also be said about the cross.  Rockwell’s misreading of Mary ends up showing the profound contrast between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel of feminism: the former is about submission to the will of God and God’s power paradoxically displayed in the cross; the latter, in its normative contemporary expression, is about refusal to submit even to God.

Rockwell follows with an assertion of Mary’s boldness and the odd conjecture that she should be associated with adventure rather than domesticity.  Having mislabeled the Magnificat a “political manifesto,” Rockwell goes on to deny that the text claims Mary is a virgin–despite the fact that this is the unmistable meaning of Mary’s response to Gabriel.

Probably the most misguided element in the whole piece is Rockwell’s umbrage at the idea that Mary was in her early teens.  The text does not give her age, but biblical scholars usually suggest that she was around the typical marriage age for Jewish girls at the time; and when your life expectancy is in your 30s-40s, it makes sense to marry young.  But to this standard impression, Rockwell says,

Luke does not assign her a specific age.  And to insist she is under sixteen is to ascribe to God a pedophilic attraction to underage women.

This badly misconstrues not only the situation, but the nature of God.  God is not attracted to Mary–not in that way.  There is nothing sexual about the Incarnation.  But, once again, the feminist impulse appears to underline this gross misinterpretation:

Such details twist Mary’s story and burden Christian women with a sense of selfishness if they postpone childbearing, a psychic demand to put childbearing first in their hearts, for God who seems to want nothing from them but pregnancy.

The anachronism and eisegesis continues apace:

Mary is unmarried when the angel comes.  The angel’s invitation and her independent decision tell us Mary does not need permission of clergy–or her parents–to become pregnant.  God knows Mary owns her own body.  And there is no shame in her decision.  Mary is good news for unwed mothers everywhere.

Questions of clergy and parental permission really have no place in the story.  But probably the most telling statement is “God knows Mary owns her own body”–as though women are independent of even God; but isn’t that the overarching theme?

In the story as actually presented, Gabriel is making an announcement, not a request.  Mary does assent, but there’s no suggestion that she could have really refused; it was a question of her attitude, not of whether or not God’s plan would go forward.

You may read the end if you wish.  It is as sacrilegious as the rest.

This whole piece is a strong example of what can happen when we let our own ideology guide our interpretation instead of listening to God’s Word.  Mary became a feminist, and God became something much less than God.  That is the nature of sin–an effort to dethrone God and take His place.

But all such efforts are doomed to failure.  God cannot be thwarted.  His plan will unfold, and His reign will come in its fullness.  Maranatha.

In the meantime, when we refuse to hear His Word, we lose the opportunity to take His gracious message to heart.  The saddest thing about this article is that the Annunciation is a beautiful story with much to teach us, and if you manipulate it you miss out.  The true Mary is not the feminist icon of Rockwell’s imagination; she is, instead, a shining example of submission to God that all Christians should imitate.  It is in the very submissiveness that Rockwell so denounces that Mary has and will continue to point true Christians to the path of obedient discipleship and devoted allegiance to God.

May we aspire to such faithful submission before the Almighty.

The Path of the Prodigal

Tags

Adoption, Christianity, Father, God, Gospel, Grace, Liberalism, Progressive Christianity, Truth

In yesterday’s Briefing, Al Mohler was describing an excessively liberal church that had been featured in The New York Times, and among the interesting elements in that congregation’s worship was the removal of masculine names for God.  They still wish to call on God, but not to call Him Father.

This is not an isolated or surprising feature for a liberal church.  Masculine language for God is increasingly regarded by the left as an artifact of oppressive patriarchy.  For a more direct example, near the beginning of last year the Washington D.C. Episcopal diocese decided to remove such masculine references to God when they update their Book of Common Prayer.

There’s a lot that could be said about this move: the basic irreverence towards God, the self-reflective idolatry, the studied disregard for Scripture, and so on.  But I want to draw attention to the tragic way in which this undermines one of the most precious blessings of salvation–adoption as a child of God.

We have a strange capacity for regarding blessings as curses.  A comparatively trivial example is our ability to twist the gift of freedom and leisure into boredom.  But the present case is far more serious.  God’s Fatherhood is not a curse, a relic of oppression to be thrown off by those sufficiently enlightened through feminist theory.  Fatherhood is a facet of the divine identity, and it marks a relationship into which we are wondrously invited.

For Jesus Christ, the one and only son of the Father, has given Himself for us; united with Him by faith, we are offered adoption as children of God.  “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” (1 Jn. 3:1).  We may call on God as our Father, as Jesus instructed His disciples to do (Matt. 6:9).  God the Father becomes our Father.  We come to know His Fatherly love and care, we come to have that priceless privilege of adoptive sonship in the Son.

The desire to be free of the Fatherhood of God leads, like the way of the prodigal son (Lk. 15), into the far country of disappointment and loss.  Freedom from God is slavery to sin.  But the gospel remains; for those prodigals who wish to come home, the loving welcome of the heavenly Father waits.

Roads Lead Places

Tags

Christianity, Evangelicalism, Faith, Orthodoxy, Progressive Christianity, Truth

…which should be obvious to everyone, but apparently is not.

The other day I saw a post on the Patheos “Progressive Christianity” channel of blogs.  Patheos is a hub of religious blogs categorized in channels, and by the happy foreordination of the English language, the “Progressive Christianity” channel is listed right next to the “Pagan” channel.  This is simply an alphabetic necessity, but it is fortuitous nonetheless.

The unfortunate blog post in question was the tragic announcement of the blogger that she no longer considered herself any kind of Christian, and would soon be moving her blog elsewhere.  I do not know this blogger or her beliefs, but reading the post connected with my theory that departure from the faith is where so-called “progressive” Christianity leads.

After all, the very notion of progress suggests motion.  Progress is a word with positive connotations, and calls us to look towards the bright future we are supposedly moving towards.  But whenever you move towards something you are moving away from where you started; and the basis of “progressive Christianity” is a departure from Christianity as they knew it–traditional, confessional, evangelical (or, in what is I think the favorite derogatory label in that set, “fundamentalist”) Christianity.  It is usually a progression away from orthodoxy, though not necessarily at first.

Not necessarily at first–that is the key.  Embrace of “progressive” Christianity may begin simply as a distaste for certain features of evangelicalism.  Fair enough.  Evangelicalism has its share of house-cleaning to do.  But it almost always seems to involve, either immediately or very shortly, a move away from the truthfulness and authority of Scripture.  And, having derailed from the authority of divine revelation, it moves further and further from the contours of historic Christian faith.

If it’s moving away from God’s (written) Word, how long can it hold onto God’s (incarnate) Word?  If it’s “progressing” away from the revelation of the faith, what can it be “progressing” towards but denial of the faith?

That is why it is not surprising when someone who has identified themselves as a “progressive” Christian ceases to identify as a Christian at all.  That’s where the road of “progressive” Christianity leads.

I will gladly grant that not everyone who calls themselves a “progressive” Christian has departed from orthodoxy, and that most of them never outright denounce the faith.  By the grace of God, we often stop short of following a road to its end.  But why travel that road if the best thing that can be said about it is that it started someplace good and most people don’t follow it all the way to the end?