Christianity and Liberalism
I am becomming more of a MacArthur fan the more I see him be bold with the Gospel in the face of the pluralist rhetoric. The most significant part of this I thought was the exchange between MacArthur and "Bishop" Talbert. This is a perfect example of Christianity and Liberalism.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"We are called to see that the Church does not adapt its thinking to the horizons that modernity prescribes for it but rather that it brings to those horizons the powerful antidote of God's truth. It is not the Word of God but rather modernity that stands in need of being demythologised." -David F. Wells
About this guy:
"We are called to see that the Church does not adapt its thinking to the horizons that modernity prescribes for it but rather that it brings to those horizons the powerful antidote of God's truth. It is not the Word of God but rather modernity that stands in need of being demythologised." -David F. Wells
Blogs I Linger At
Excellent Rescource Pages
Politico Links
16 comments:
wow. that was really interesting. i liked how much voice time larry king gave to all the christians. but that bishop guy was just trying to be way too inclusive. sounds like he didn't want to appear judgmental or exclusivist, but you have to draw a line in the sand between truth and falsehood.
Bob -- word to that. Bishop Talbert (and unfortunately many Methodists) are full of crap. I do wish MacArthur would have addressed God's desire for all nations to stream towards him, how he waits at the door and knocks.
And PS to Talbert, ISLAM believes it is the only way. So does Judaism. So does Buddhism. It's not looking so good that the Talbert doesn't have the gumption or belief in his own religion to be able to stand up for it. Shoot, Osama has more guts than that.
Booby-
i thought you might find this quote from Tony Blair in today's "San Jose Mercury News" interesting:
"Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it- or don't come here."
Somehow, that doesn't sound like a very tolerant statement to me.
And I also have to wonder what tolerance Blair is referring to. Can he cite a long list of attitudes of tolerance displayed throughout Britain's history? Actions and morality that are so pervasive that they are what makes Britain, Britain?
I'm no historian, but I do remember the reason why the Pilgrims to America became Pilgrims- religious intolerance in England.
And, as far as I know, Britain hasn't shown a great history of tolerance in Northern Ireland. But, please, correct me if I'm wrong.
In any event, the article goes on to state that Blair said, "money allocated to religious groups would now be tightly controlled."
I am assuming he would control it based on how inclusive that religious group is of other viewpoints. In which case, British Christian groups could soon be in for serious financial hurt, unless they become more inclusive.
"He (Blair) also called on all religious schools to partner with institutions teaching a different religion."
This is clearly aimed at radical Islamist groups, but it makes you go, "hmmmm."
oops, bob-
i really didn't mean to write "booby"- it was a typo I overlooked- sorry.
Hey Marc!
Good to hear from you! Larry King seems to like MacArthur, because MacArthur is VERY upfront about what he thinks even if its in the words that automatically gets you pegged as "arrogant". Yeah "Bishop" Talbert is a perfect example of a type of Christianity that licks its finger and puts it in the air to see where the wind of culture is blowing and conforms to it. He is saying what every secular humanist wants to hear, "Christianity is true for me...but maybe not for you. And that's ok God accepts you."
You cited a quote from Tony Blair saying:
""Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it- or don't come here."
Somehow, that doesn't sound like a very tolerant statement to me."
Yeah, that's the funny thing about all this "tolerance" rhetoric, it never seems too tolerant! I said on the other thread that the word has been tossed around so much that people really don't even know what it means anymore...it has come to mean (in the context of homosexuality) unchallanged acceptance. When really historically it means challanged acceptance.
I don't know all the ins and outs of what Blair is doing but from what I think I know, he is cutting funding to Christian schools (As Atheist Richard Dawkins has been advising) because they are well intolerant of other Religions and wont teach Islam as being just as true as Christianity. Bye bye money. Isn't this a double standard?
-your friend
Booby
Melissa-
Yeah I tend to agree, I think there is going to be a split in the United Methodist denomination soon. Half of the denomination think that the man pastor who decided to have a sex change into a women is ok to continue to lead. When things are that bad it's time to cut n run...or have a study group advise you on what to do...Lol.
But you are right, every religion by its nature makes exclusive claims. Now there are these pluralists who want to revamp all religions to be this sort of blah mush goopy warm Im ok your ok junk. I just don't understand why these guys insist on calling themselves Christians at this point! Just stop calling your church a church and call it a spiritual temple or something.
Micheal-
I don't understand what it is that you are saying we have done wrong. I think that this Bishiop is not a Christian because he denies what the Bible says about Christ's exclusivity as Lord.
So when you said in your original comment that doctor Talbert is right I don't know in what sense this guy is right in anything. The guy is telling people who are dead in sins and trespasses that they are alright with God. I'm sorry but when someones Christianity has become so hollowed out that they can no longer make a distinction between saved and unsaved and define Christianities "truth" as being something relative to them (true for them but not for everyone) they really have NO MESSAGE for the world. They have no gospel.
Talbert has NO GOSPEL. All he has is the message of the spirit of the age.
There's certainly a place for MacArthur's critique, but the quote that I posted here from what Bishop Talbert said at the end of the video is true and follows the gospel of Jesus.
"Salvation in Jesus Christ is the way. And what I try to do as a Christian is to live that example. My responsibility is not to convert all other religions, but to live the Christian faith in the face of those religions."
Jesus calls us to love God and love others. He calls us to go forth and make disciples. We don't make disciples by criticism, intellectual debate, and preaching. We do it by following Jesus, being a "neighbor", by letting our light shine before men, by being Jesus to the least.
Talbert is right that it is God's place to judge others. If he condemns someone to hell by his words, he has made the road harder for that person to see the love that God has for that person. It is our calling to love, to follow the Christian faith. It is the fruit of that faith, God's pruning of us and harvesting of that fruit, that will be light to others. It is the God's Spirit who reveals judgment of their sins, not us.
Now I didn't see the whole show, only this clip. Talbert could have said a lot of foolish things. But what he said above, he got right. In that regard, the church could use a lot more action like Talbert's quote than MacArthur's ranting of scriptural "evidence."
Talbert...Pheh
Well, I stick by my guns I don't think the Jesus/God Talbert talks about is the God of the Bible. Talbert couches all his speach in relativistic terms...this is true for me...and its not my job to convert others.
Now Tim, I agree we are to live Christlike lives...however, living a loving life without the gospel to give to sinners is the failure of liberal theology. They focused so much on humanitarian works and doing the sermon on the mount that that became their gospel. There is not cross (in a salvific sense) in guys like Talbert's theology, that was just an example to live by...this really is modern day Pelagianism.
If we are going to believe the Bible Muslims are going to hell. And NO that's not my judgement its God's and its in the Bible. That's what gets me so hot about these liberal theologians, they use all these relativistic pluralistic phrases couched in Christianese and the unconverted lap it up like manna from heaven.
"Its not my job to convert other" Only a person who doesn't think that their neighbor is in danger of hell fire will say that. Now of course technically WE don't convert others the Spirit does but I don't think that's what Talbert meant...he meant Muslims are fine with God, Buddhists are fine with God so I don't feel any need to tell them they need to repent and come to Jesus for forgiveness.
I think that's what he means. This talk is just an echo of our pluralistic/relativistic culture.
Bob, you said ...however, living a loving life without the gospel to give to sinners is the failure of liberal theology. Living a loving life IS the gospel, most concretely summed up by Francis of Assisi. The gospel is not preaching at people that Christianity is right and every thing else is wrong. No, the gospel is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and our lives are to reflect the gospel in love.
I'm not trying to defend Talbert. I know nothing about him. I agree that we are not responsible for converting people. What we are called to do is indeed "live the Christian life", which is the gospel of Jesus, which includes picking up our cross, serving the least of our communities, being salt and light to the all men. It is not about telling people that they are wrong.
Let's look at it another way. Muslims think they are right and Christians are wrong, correct? They are faithful to their scriptures as we are discussing being faithful to ours. A intellectual debate of who's right and who's wrong is going to bring nothing but continued conflict. Heck, God prophecied that in Genesis in the story of Ishmael and Isaac.
My point is that the Church needs to stop it's preaching on people that their way is wrong, and start loving people as Jesus did, dine with them, bring them into their circles, and show Jesus to them. Here's a perfect example of how that is working today:
In the midst and aftermath of the Israeli/Hezbollah war, Lebanese Christians setup shelters in their churches and in their homes to take in a multitude of displaced Shi'ite Muslims. They dined with them, they slept on cots next to each other, they entertained each other. In a Christianity Today article entitled
"They Know We Are Christians", a Muslim father, who saw his child killed by an Israeli missile, asks his Christian host why they are taking all of them in. The Christian host retells Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, and asks the father who is being a good neighbor in the story? The Muslim father replies, "The one who shows mercy." He continues, "We have many Christian friends, but I never knew that your faith had these kinds of teachings."
These hosts lived the Christian life of love, which includes the cross, losing their own selves, to show the mercy and grace of Jesus to their enemy, as both groups of people are still taught the other is the enemy in the public arena.
These Christians are living out the gospel. They are not preaching at them that they are wrong. They are not merely being "humanitarian." They are living out the gospel that Jesus preached and Jesus lived and died and lives still. Did that Muslim become a Christian? The article doesn't say. But one thing is clear, he did meet Jesus, and that's exactly what the gospel is about.
"Living a loving life IS the gospel, most concretely summed up by Francis of Assisi."
Yeah well he was wrong. The gospel is the proclaimed message that Jesus died for sinners and that by faith in His work we are reconciled to a holy God. The message should be accompannied by a living life, but a loving life doesn't save anyone. Liberal theologians make a false dillema (and nix proclamation), and it seems like you are too here. I am saying we should have both proclamation and example, but example alone does not save anybody, its just salt on the meat.
"It is not about telling people that they are wrong."
I wonder if Peter in his sermons in the book of Acts agrees with you Tim, I don't think so.
To call sinners to repentance WILL to some degree be adverserial...we do want to call people to repentance right? And I also just wonder why the world will hate us as Jesus and Paul said if all we are doing is doing humanitarian works and not telling people they need to turn from their idols to Christ?
"My point is that the Church needs to stop it's preaching on people that their way is wrong, and start loving people as Jesus did, dine with them, bring them into their circles, and show Jesus to them. "
I completely disagree. What you say sounds good and I agree with doing what you say But not without proclamation. Time this is why I have beef with the Emergent stuff...it seems to be leading to the same error of liberalism just in a POMO package. God has ordained that the message of the gospel be spread through the proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus to sinners.
Paul insists that preaching is how people get saved:
" But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Rom 10:14-17)
I would also argue that the "they shall know you are My disciple by your love" is not in the context of evangelism (people being converted by Christians "DOing the gospel" but that is really talking about how to discern true from false disciples. See the entire book of 1 John that is a major theme, true disciples love one another. The context is NOT primarily missional. So NO, NO, NO, this is NOT how the gospel is spread.
I think humanitarian works should accompany the proclamation, But they are not the message! Again faith comes by hearing.
Now Tim, The story you tell is great but I don't think it really serves the point you want to make of it. Note:
"The Christian host retells Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, and asks the father who is being a good neighbor in the story?"
There is Proclamation here! That's my point. I don't think we need to be all confrontation all the time. But there is a message to proclaim with WORDS. And part of that message calls sinners to repentance, and that is in direct conflict with the fallen nature. And Tim if you believe the Bible you know that it teaches that without Christ no one will inherit the kingdom. If you don't want to tell people that are going to hell that there is a remedy for their disease to be in step with the "I'm ok your ok culture" then really you are out of step with the men who penned the Bible, because that's what they did.
Michael-
I just don't understand what it is you are disagreeing with me about. You seem take by Talbert's PC rhetoric, I mean the guy flat out contradicted what you just said when you said that all other religions are "illegal". Talbert seems to think that all roads lead to God, and that one man's religion is just as good as his. Jesus is true for him but not for everyone and God is ok with that.
Bob - as someone who works and lives among the disabled, I am curious as to how you understand inviting those with severe intellectual disabilities into the life of Christ. Would you say that because they are unable to "hear" the message of Jesus or to rationalize it that they are not saved? I'm wondering this because of what you've just shared about the necessity of hearing and, I am assuming, comprehending the Word of salvation.
And while we're here, I would be careful whenever using the words "all ____ will go to hell" (Muslims, Catholic, JWs, Mormons, whatever). If for no other reason than that God and only God will judge the hearts and thoughts of men, it's a good phrase to get out of the habit of saying.
Melissa-
Interesting point, nonetheless my point with Time is that there is an intelligible message that needs to be proclaimed about a Man called Jesus, we are to do MORE than just live lives of love. There are a lot of flase religions set on "living lives of love" the difference is that we have a gospel to go with our love.
Now the point isn't so much on audible hearing instruments bringing faith as the message heard. So for a deaf person we use whatever means possible to convey the gospel message to him...my point was that there is a message that we need to get across, preach, to unbelievers. The gospel is a message NOT a lifestyle. The gospel will produce a loving lifestyle BUT the loving lifestyle is NOT the gospel. That was my beef with Tim, the Emergent movement and classic Liberal theology.
Now as for those who have no mental capabilities whatsoever to comprehend a message of any sort, I don't think they are hopeless or anything like that. I am a Calvinist so I don't think salvation is a decision we make out of mental assent to data. I believe in infant regeneration, and on the same token those who are mentally incapable of percieving the message can be regenerated by a soveriegn work of God, not human decision.
So how does the faith comes by hearing fit into what I just said? Well preaching the message that through death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are reconciled to a holy God (whatever form), is the God ordained means for bringing about faith in sinners. God has ordained in His Providence that preaching would be the means by which He would save sinners.
People generally presuppose that if people are saved by hearing that means mental assent and decision. Well the Bible says that men preach and God opens hearts to recieve the things preached. (See Acts 13:48) So if regenration (opening of hearts) preceeds recieving (decision) then what hinders God from regenerating people incapable of mental comprehension (babies, or mentally handicapped)? Nothing.
That's a problem decisionistic regeneration has to wrestle with, and Arminians got all sorts of extra-Biblical loop holes to get around these problems (Like: age of accountability).
Bob -- yeah, I didn't totally follow that. I definitely feel the tension on this one. I can't totally work it out myself except to say that the folks in l'Arche are my teachers and partners in faith even though their faith is often that of a child.
I've been thinking about the whole "gospel of love" bit a lot lately as I just preached a sermon from Mark. Mark is more of a "gospel of obedience" which I really appreciate. It's a contrast to say, John where there's a lot of love talk.
I think there needs to be a balance, but there is a great lesson for me in Mark's attention to obedience. It's practice BEFORE belief (which is a good Emergent theological point, I hear). You don't say the creed because you intellectually assent to the whole thing, but that one day, if you say them enough times, engage in the practices of the body of believers, come to church, submit to your neighbor and confess your sins, you will become a disciple. We say the creed because we can HARDLY believe it!
All this to say, I guess I'm still caught up on this question of "lifestyle." Aren't we just talking about discipleship in the life of Christ? I certainly hope that no one believes being a Christian means "doing good things." If they do, then there's no basis for even having a conversation, we are so far from a common base. But bearing the brokenhearted and binding the wounds of the sick as acts of mercy and love are our acts of obedience. Isn't acting in this way implicit in the Gospel-trained life of a believer?
Hey Melissa-
I'm not ignoring what you brought up, I just think it deserves a whole post. (the stuff on the Emergent church) I'll get too it soon.
I'm sorry that I've disappeared from this conversation for a week. I was on vacation. But I wanted to follow up some. First off, I'm glad that Michael and I seem to agree about what Talbert actually said in the sound bite. And like Michael, I was only agreeing with his sound bite because that's all I know about the bishop.
But Bob, I'm afraid that you are missing my central point. You seem to be stuck on the words - the speaking part of the gospel. And in that, you are missing the majority of the gospel, and most importantly a whole other level. Talk is cheap, and words fall on the floor daily without being heard.
My point is that proclamation of the gospel is all well and good in certain times and places. But those certain times and places have requirements like credibility, meaningfulness, and commonalities so that the one hearing can understand, interpret, or put together what is being spoken. But as Paul eloquently put it, without love it is just like a clanging gong.
In the world, which is pluralistic, a proclamation won't mean squat without either fool-proof logic, which the gospel of Jesus has not as Paul also pointed out in that it is the "foolishness of men," or you need to have credibility, meaningfulness, and commonalities. Those are all accomplished by love, not just any love, but the gospel love that Jesus lived, died, and lived again in calling us to follow.
Francis of Assisi said to preach the gospel at all times when necessary use words. That is indeed true today as it was then and before. Words are not required to preach the gospel. But love is. As John wrote Love is of God and everyone who is born of love is born of God. The context of this statement in his epistles is clearly still pointing to Jesus as being the true love of God, so please don't mistake me for being liberal again.
As for the reported story I included, this story does indeed fit my statements. The words of the Christian were received because of the love shown to the Muslim by the following of Christ. Those words may very well not have been received at all without first the love of God being shown to him. You cannot discount the call of Jesus to love our neighbors as something minor to the verbal proclamation or proselytizing of Jesus.
Finally, in as much love as I can express with typed words over the Internet, I would like ask that you try not to lump me with the Emergent crowd or teachings. I cannot say enough that I don't go to an Emergent church nor am I actively trying to suck in all of the Emergent teachings so I can follow them. That said, I'm also not necessarily trying to follow any particular denomination's teachings, for there are too many to choose from and just as importantly too many that don't agree.
So I am very carefully trying to follow Jesus, the God of the Bible, and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide my interpretations of the scriptures. I bounce what I am grasping around with other Christians, here being one of those places, and seeking to find a relatively permanent and local Christian community. I'm sure I've picked up things from my Bapist days, my Presbyterian days, my non-denominational days, my InterVarsity days, etc, etc, that get mixed in. But in the end, I'm trying to follow Jesus and His gospel, not push some Emergent or any denominational spin of it. Thanks.
Post a Comment