Lots of loose ends to gather up and blog about today. I'm writing this post piecemeal, so if it lacks coherence or seems to jump from topic to topic, that's a perfect metaphor for the kind of day this has been. At the end of this rambling post, I'll include some BlogSpotting entries.First, I want to answer a few questions and respond to a couple of remarks that have come up in comments. These are in random order.
Let's see... I need a heading:
Assorted pleas, rebuttals, statements of self-vindication, a few insults, and other off-the-cuff reactions to the Barbarian hordes and home-school moms who frequent my blog:
- EdwardsFan asks: "no one just joins the blogosphere with a blog so fancy pantsy. I've tried and tried . . . lament . . . and still can't figure out this template stuff. Who's helping you on the side Phil? " No one is helping me yet. But I have been able to take advantage of many years' experience of barely cobbling together webpages. I used that meager knowledge to cut through the Gordian knot of blogdesign mystery and tweak one of the templates I found at Blogspot.com. But the whole thing still just barely makes sense to me. The graphics I likewise do by myself, usually hurriedly. Those with skilled eyes for design will notice that I have very limited artistic and design capability, so I've tried to keep it very simple and functional. My only goal is to look better than Triablogue.
- Kim said, "I'm sorry if our dictionaries frighten you. Would slide rulers be less daunting?" Not really. The thought of suffering the wrath of a home-school mom, not merely her weaponry, is what terrifies me.
- To all who comment: Please remember the rules—especially the rule about Christian civility. And please don't use my comments as a forum to debate issues that arise in other contexts. If you're disturbed with something Fred Butler posted on his blog, leave a comment there. If you're angry about something that was posted at the Boar's Head, leave a comment there. Oh, wait. Scratch that. If the BHT guys annoy you, join the club. But you'll have to start your own blog to answer them. Don't import fights from other forums into my blogcomments. We have enough to fight about here already.
- Scott Nichols thinks we should just leave the fads alone and see what becomes of them. He writes: "I've always taken the Gamaliel approach to these things." Well, see this. Also, it seems to me that any one of Paul's commands in Titus 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:5; and 2 Timothy 4:2-5 would trump Gamaliel's advice when it comes to the issue of dealing with creeping worldliness and doctrinal decline in the church.
- Jonathan Felt asks, What does it take for something to be "downright destructive to the core distinctives of evangelical doctrine"? How does one 'destroy' doctrine in the first place? Well, it's not the doctrine that is destroyed, of course, but the evangelical distinctives—i.e., the evangelical commitment to certain biblical truths that are fundamental and essential. When in order to increase their clout and visibility evangelicals move the boundaries of their movement so that even non-Trinitarians (T. D. Jakes, or Phillips, Craig, and Dean) are counted as "evangelicals"; when evangelicals link up in spiritual campaigns with members of sects and denominations where justification by faith in Christ alone is flatly denied; or when they count among their closest friends and allies religious leaders who deny essential doctrines—they have sacrificed evangelical distinctives for political expediency.
Jonathan further asks, "If I decide to team up with someone on a legislative initiative, how does it follow that my core evangelical distinctives are in danger of being destroyed?" It depends, of course, on how much of your message or your testimony you have to stifle in order to "team up." If your allies are Jewish and you hold back from declaring the exclusivity of Christ in order to hold your coalition together; or if your allies are Roman Catholic and you carefully avoid any discussion of sola fide or sola Scriptura—then you are sacrificing your distinctives for a lesser cause than the proclamation of the gospel. It happens all the time.
Jonathan then opines: "It looks to me like the culture war stuff is the odd man out in your list, since by definition it does threaten people's comfort zone, rebukes people's sin, and so on." Perhaps, but it does so very selectively, focusing on what is peripheral, not what is central. And that is the point. The pattern has been that those who invest the most in "the culture war stuff" are often the last ones to press the actual claims of the gospel, declare the truth of redemption through Christ's atoning work, proclaim the exclusivity of Christ, and preach the full and unadulterated gospel. They become obsessed with issues like getting prayer back in schools, ignoring the fact that any prayer ever sanctioned by the American government would have to be a prayer that implicitly denies Christ's rightful lordship.
Face it: the evangelical thrust for political activism has (historically, not just theoretically) had an ecumenical tendency. That's what I mean when I say culture wars undermine evangelical distinctives.
By the way, if you want to see this principle in action, tune into "Focus on the Family" for six months and keep a record of how many times the gospel is clearly affirmed on that broadcast, compared to the number times you are exhorted to write your senator or participate in this or that boycott, campaign, or protest. Or ask yourself how Jerry Falwell got to be so friendly with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and why, when they appear together, Falwell often (but not even always) confronts Jackson's political ideas, but he (almost?) never challenges his false theology.
I'll have much more to say about this issue in the coming weeks. It's one that is very important to me, because I was up to my eyebrows in conservative political activism before I became a Christian. I had many friends and political allies who, as it turns out, were Christians all along and ought to have realized that I did not know the Lord. But not one of them ever spoke to me about Christ or tried to give me the gospel message. I am convinced that the kind of political activism they were involved with is incompatible with the true calling and priorities of the gospel ministry.
And the rationale for mobilizing the church to political activism is extremely muddy and without any clear biblical warrant. Even Steve Hays has not been very convincing on this issue. - Several commenters echoed the request of Puritanicoal: "It would be great if you would devote a day or two blogtificating on what the everyday Christian should do when their Sunday School class decides to go through the latest Fad-Driven Sludge or a friend recommends reading the latest Freudian psychoBABEL they bought in the local Christian bookstore." Stay tuned. (And if I forget to do this, remind me in a couple of weeks.)
- Tyler Wallick says, "I'm not sure I can define what isn't timeless truth - if something does not stand the test of time, was it ever really true?" No, but notice that the contrast I made was between "timeless truth [and] passing fashions." Truth versus fashion, not "timeless truth" versus "temporary truth." Truth by definition is timeless.
- Mike Russell thinks "all the blogspotting and gimmicky things" at PyroManiac are "quite faddish."
Ouch. You talkin' 'bout my graphics? What is it with all the people who hate the graphics? Should I go to THIS kind of thing as a blogformat? Maybe I could get Steve Hays to design the blog layout for me.
Seriously, mere popularity—even temporary popularity—doesn't define what is wrong with faddism. The error of the fad mentality I'm describing is that it uses popularity and fashion as gauges and yardsticks for measuring truth. If you catch me doing that, slap me around. No, on second thought, just shoot me. Until then, humor me while I make my blog suit my own aesthetic preferences, and if you seriously suspect that I'm driven chiefly by a motive to court people's favor, I have a list of postmodernists, theonomists, charismatics, Arminians, drunken group-bloggers, Harry Potter-haters, Rick Warren aficionados, and home-school moms to whom I'll refer you for a more objective opinion.
(By the way, if I inject a note of humor or post what you call "frivolous posts," it's not designed for anyone's benefit but mine. I'm not trying to tickle other people's ears—and oddly enough, until now, no one has ever suggested my style of humor serves such a purpose. Sorry if you don't like it. Lots of people don't. But my approach to writing a weblog is more like journaling than journalism. If you don't like it, you don't have to read over my shoulder.) - Steve Camp said, "I believe biblically (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Tim. 6:1-6; 3 John 5-9) that anything less than that kind of "dramatic action" is just more evangelical spin and politics." Fundamentalist.
- Steve commented: "Advertising is marketing. Unless the advertising is done in poor taste or is pushy, we don't have any problem with such, do we?" (By the way, Steve had several interesting observations. You ought to read his comment.) No, I don't object to marketing per se. What I have objected to is a market-driven approach to ministry, where every aspect of our message and the style of its expression is filtered through a marketing plan designed to appeal to "felt needs," opinion polls, special-interest groups and whatnot. Market-driven ministry and marketing aren't necessarily the same thing. I will have more to say about this in future posts, but all my posts are too long as it is.
- Brian Adams at "Christendom Blogosis" thinks my attitude toward secularism is too lax.
- Frank Martens dared me to answer a question. So I did.
- Adrian Warnock recalls his meeting with me in London on July 7, punctuated by the terrorist attacks. Neither of us had much time that day to blog about our meeting, but his account is absolutely correct: we talked about the stealth tactics—terrorist maneuvers—being used by people at the fringes of evangelicalism to confuse young Christians about the gospel message and the meaning of the atonement. Adrian notes that the atonement controversy needs to be addressed with rigor and passion. He is right. I intend to make that a topic in some future blogposts.
- Peter Bogert reminds us that in contrast to all the fads, God's Word endures forever.
- Keith Plummer was disturbed.
- Carla Rolfe asks, "Does this make me look faddy?"
- Eddie at "reformatus sum" marvels that Bruce Wilkinson fell from the radar faster than you can pray the prayer of Jabez.
- Laura at "Words Behind Me" makes a good point: It's much easier to be a critic than to offer solutions. And the solutions are never as quick and easy as the schemes that create the problems in the first place.
- William Dicks is amazed (as I am) that people who deny the Trinity are so widely accepted by evangelicals.
- Brian at "Doctrine, Theology And All That Jazz" doesn't think the term evangelical is worth keeping.
- Eric Rung notes that the slow encroachment of heresy has made evangelicals oblivious to what is happening around them.
17 comments:
Phil, are you sure your fear of wrath isn't some lingering fear from having been a bad boy in school? Maybe it's fear of teachers in general. I recommend Tiger Balm for that.
RE: Point #5 (response to Jonathan Felt)
I guess it's clear now where you stand on the issue of "evangelical co-belligerence." But I'd still like to get your opinion on my favorite newsmagazine, the magazine which made me dream of joining them as a pavement-pounding reporter: World Magazine. What do you think of them? As you may know, they have teamed up with Roman Catholics and others to fight the culture war.
This is not to say that they don't say not-nice things about their "team mates." For instance, they wrote this about Roman Catholicism:
"But though the pope was eulogized for all of his good works, the prayers begged God to let him into heaven, calling on Mary and the saints to intercede for him. Sadly missing was the liberating gospel of salvation through faith in the free forgiveness won by Christ alone."
"Scott Nichols thinks we should just leave the fads alone and see what becomes of them. He writes: "I've always taken the Gamaliel approach to these things." Well, see this. Also, it seems to me that any one of Paul's commands in Titus 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:5; and 2 Timothy 4:2-5 would trump Gamaliel's advice when it comes to the issue of dealing with creeping worldliness and doctrinal decline in the church."
Ouch Phil,I stand properly rebuked. And to use the Mormons to do it...I repent in sackcloth and ashes.
Sorry for bringing up the "truth" thing again, but is all truth by definition "timeless"? I mentioned two passages yesterday:
"Exodus 21:28-32 (goring ox owner gets death for the death of a man, but the death of a slave is only worth 30 shekels) or Exodus 21:20-21 (death of servant only gets punishment, but if beaten servant lives for 1-2 days there will be no punishment because he is 'property')."
Phil, would you say God's commands here were "passing fashions" or "fads"? I tend to think that they were true then, but not true today. Of course this would mean that not all truth is timeless. Oh boy . . .
Cute is fun, though.. Besides, when it comes to finding all these interesting new blogs, I'd rather Phil did the leg-work for me. I consider it a public service, he he.
Yeah: I appreciate having been blogspotted, but have had that same question about getting on your blogroll.
I have an orange belt, and a son who's about to earn a black belt in karate. Does that count? I can break boards with my head. Well, probably could do.....
bibchr.blogspot.com
Jonathan Moorhead:
I hope you don't think that just because the Old Covenant gave way to the New, the old ceased being true. Certain laws and ceremonies may no longer be applicable under a new covenant, but they are nonetheless true. I think you are failing to make a proper dstinction, and it's going to get you into serious trouble, if you start to think of truth itself as fluid and changeable.
Agreed with Libbie - the blogspotting has been a source of some great new blogs for me. I appreciate Phil doing all the work, and me enjoying all the benefits. I suggest he continue, and often.
:-}
Jonathan Morehead:
Here's how I think this quandry can be solved. We all know, or should know, that the wages of sin is death (Rom.6:23). All sin merits death. Even lying merits death, or dwelling on lustful thoughts, or clicking on disgusting internet pages.
The law as God gave it did not prescribe the death penalty for all sin, even though all sin merits only death. Though the punishments of the past may be changed, they are still good and true punishments. Grace was active then because not all sin was immediately and justly punished. (God left room for repentance, among other things.)
So, keep your gate locked and your dog on a leash. If you are careless with an biting dog, and it mauls your neighbor, you sin. And though the government may not bring the sword of judgment against you in this case, we would still be liable to the second death for such a sin if we are not found in Christ.
This is, a very short apologetic I know, but I believe that it is sound.
Phil writes, “I think you are failing to make a proper dstinction [sic], and it's going to get you into serious trouble, if you start to think of truth itself as fluid and changeable.”
I was actually thinking the same thing about your post: “the contrast I made was between ‘timeless truth [and] passing fashions.’ Truth versus fashion, not ‘timeless truth’ versus ‘temporary truth.’ Truth by definition is timeless."
I think there is a fear (and rightly so) that if truth is in any way “fluid and changeable” then we are on the proverbial slippery slope to liberalism. Make no mistake, I believe in absolute truth, but I also believe that we have to allow that there is a category (here is a distinction) of truth that is fluid. If you scan God’s commands through the OT and NT vis-à-vis slavery, you will see that the commands change in relation to culture – it happened piecemeal. Of course God could have implanted our infallible 21st century understanding of slavery to ancient Israel, but for some reason He did not.
Example: when Jedidiah was a wee lad, I suppose you had to tell him, “Now Jedi, do not touch the buttons in the Pyromobile.” In his advance wisdom he would have asked, “Daddy, is it true that you do not want me to touch the buttons in the car?” Answer: yes it is true. Fast forward to 2005, is it still true that Jedi cannot touch the buttons in the car? Answer: no it is no longer true.
Phil’s logic: because the original command is no longer true, then it could not have been true when Jedi was a youngin’. After all, “truth by definition is timeless.” Yes Phil, I agree that we must make proper distinctions.
Jonathan: You describe a change in circumstances, and treat it as a change in truth itself.
I'm speaking of truth and falsehood as something that applies to propositions. I know it's not very pomo of me, but I still believe truth is propositional, and I still accept the classic laws of thought.
In the example you give, the subject of your proposition at start (young Jedidiah) is different from the subject of your proposition at the end (adult Jedidiah).
I.e., your argument hinges on an equivocation and is therefore false.
Hey Jus,
That was a long post! Time to open a blog, ya think? :-0
Phil and Mike,
Thanks to both of you for continuing the debate. I admit that I am struggling to work through these things and I do not even know if I agree with myself yet! However, Phil, as I read your response I wonder if you are trivializing the truth of the historical narrative into just “circumstances.” Are you willing to say that the OT commands were “true?” If you refuse to use the word “true,” how do you describe it?
Also, to say that I commit the fallacy of equivocation is exactly the point. The subject (or culture) changes, and so does the nature of what is true for them (slavery again is an excellent example). As a person (or culture) matures, God accommodates Himself to them, moving them toward the Divine standard. Yes, circumstances changed and so did God’s commands for behavior. What was once true is no longer true.
The DANGER in all of this talk is William Webb’s “redemptive hermeneutic” that wants to go beyond the NT ethic in order to, for example, free women up to teach. Since our culture accepts women teachers (unlike the culture of Paul), then we can now accommodate for women teachers in our churches. As the super conservative that I am (who believes that women should still wear head coverings) I disagree with this concept - it is farther down the slope of slipperiness than I care to go.
I still call for a definition of truth.
Brian,
I honestly don't care for the dynamic translations. However, the point comes across in 1 Cor 11 fairly clear.
I have to echo Chris Pixley here:
Going on about Al Mohler is a prime example. As Jus admits, we know about Dr. Mohler's stand on these issues...but what Jus leaves out is the way Dobson hangs Al out to dry in public on some of those issues, and says (paraphrase) "see Mohler defies your standard." However, Phil's standard is specifically a sliding scale, not a blanket assertion about every individual involved the movement. He very clearly states that "It depends, of course, on how much of your message or your testimony you have to stifle in order to "team up..."
For every Mohler, there's a Dobson or, worse, a Parsley or a T.D. Jakes, or a denominational editor who will write openly about those that "prattle on about the separation of church and state," in the July 3 church bulletin, even though the confession he signed says under no uncertain terms, "The church and state are separate," waiting in the wings. That's one of the problems. The very name that is being used, "ECB" must be redefined in order to accomodate Catholics, Word of Faith teachers, and Sabellians. We know what "co-belligerent" means, but what about "evangelical?" What about some consistency here?
Likewise comparisons between tooth decay and evangelical distincitives don't really work either, and analogies between ecumenism and car repair are completely improper. Dental hygiene isn't doctrine. Christians and non-Christians working together as mechanics or doctors, etc. isn't the issue. These people aren't trying to change the value system of the US. The issue is whether or not the church is called to this kind of activism at the expense of the gospel in some cases, that is to say, in a manner in which the E in evangelical means nothing at all.
>>>The "culture war stuff" (in this case, legislative and judicial change) _is not the gospel_. It's something else.
But nobody ever actually defines what that "something else" is for us from anything that these organizations have produced to tell us, from Scripture. The best anybody else can do is take a guess, unless you can point us to some printed literature on the subject.
>>>Since you're not _appealing to_ soteriological distinctives in order to accomplish the task at hand, why are they at all _relevant_ to the cooperative endeavor?
Wilberforce did not fail to highlight the actual problem in Britain. He said that all the spiritual and practical errors of the nominal Christians of his day "result from the mistaken conception entertained of the fundamental principles of Christianity" They consider not that Christianity is a scheme 'for justifying the ungodly' (Romans 4:5), by Christ dying for them 'when yet sinners' (Romans 5:6-8), a scheme 'for reconciling us to God-when enemies' (Romans 5:10); and for making the fruits of holiness the effects, not the cause, of our being justified and reconciled."
When describing the moral decay of Great Britain of that era, he wrote:
"The fatal habit of considering Christian morals as distinct from Christian doctrines insensibly gained strength. Thus the popular doctrines of Christianity went more and more out of sight, and as might naturally have been expected, the moral system itself began to wither and decay, being robbed of that which should have supplied it with life and nourishment" (A Practical View of Christianity).
In other words, by creating a tidy dichotomy here between "gospel ministry" and "activism," the tendency, since it is the tendency of human nature to do it, is to rob the ends of the one means that can nurture it and grow it. Opposing gay rights and gay marriage does nothing about homosexuality itself. Passing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage does nothing if we're not planting churches in gay ghettos. As I've said before, I'm not altogether opposed to ECB...as long as it is undergirded with the spiritual equipment and means to make such work last. Simply foisting it on the churches while the ECB organizations do their own thing simply isn't acceptable. The churches have to deal with the fallout from the ECBO's (ECB Organizations), and, honestly, it is painfully apparent they're not that responsive to the churches.
In the Christian community at large, doctrine DOES matter, because these ECBO's also endorse each other, and the people that work with them trade on their association with ECBO's. Recently, I and a handful of others in my area had a run-in with our local radio station and the largest SBC church here, which I and one of the others I was with, concerning Phillips, Craig, and Dean. This church has a reputation for being a sound doctrinal church. It's retired pastor is very well known and respected in the state and national convention. The current pastor and many staffers are in key SBC positions of leadership, and the Christian community at large looks to them for guidance and sound teaching. The local radio station and they decided to have this concert, so, being good stewards of doctrine, a group of us lobbied both groups extremely hard to try and convince them to at least ask PCD directly about their modalistic theology when they arrived, preferably to cancel the concert, since nobody these days seems able to get a straight answer from them.
We tried five times, responding to each attempt by both the church and the radio station to tell us PCD are Trinitarians in detail. We would take every argument from them and walk them through the issues carefully and explain the way that PCD talks around the issue. We even gave them the addresses and phone numbers of the Oneness churches these men serve and told them to call them and ask for their doctrinal statements. All to no avail. Why? Because, in the end, they produced for us a set of documents from PCD saying "the group was “grilled” by both Focus on the Family and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association." (direct quote)
That was, it seems of greater weight than any reputable apologetics ministry had written or could say, not even two former staff members and the leader of local Rescue Mission and two other local pastors who had even obtained the doctrinal statements of their churches and given the source material, walked through it with them, and all sorts of interaction. What mattered was Focus on the Family's and the BGEA's 'investigation' and continued use of PCD. So, we were left with a concert to raise money for the radio station and a prime chance to take a stand for sound doctrine was missed by a beloved church, in part, due to an endorsement. All this is to say, an ECBO's word carries so much weight, groups like PCD can use them to continue their ministries under the noses of people that should know better, while the rest of us work to sort out the fallout.
>>>What ECBers are attempting to do _is_ threatening to a great many people. It _does_ threaten their comfort zone and rebuke their sin.
A. It is threatening their comfort zone. Agreed.
B. By your own admission here: "ECB work isn't the gospel. It doesn't effect regeneration. It doesn't even proclaim the law of God in all of its depth, so that its fullest demands -- which cut to the very heart -- are not on the civil lawbooks. But, once again, _that's not its purpose." How then is it rebuking their sin apart from the gospel since , by your own yardstick its not gospel ministry? At a minimum it would have to be an "extension" of the gospel to be said to rebuke sin, but that would then put ECB into the category of "gospel ministry" wouldn't it? If not, why not? Where is there conviction of sin as sin apart from special revelation?
ECB is also making us potential enemies to the gospel itself in the long run. Many of the folks on the other side of the political aisle, particularly in the gay community are unregenerate. Granted, they're already in rebellion against God and find the gospel foolish, but do we really want to give them further reason to turn away? These organizations need to realize, if they are going to continue their work that this is just one more complaint, one more arrow that the children of the enemy have to shoot, and, honestly, it gets very frustrating. I like what John Hendryx wrote in one of his articles at monergism.com:
____________________
I think it is clear that Scripture does not conceive of the church's primary role in the world as one of opposing public immorality through political means. The early first and second century Christians lived in an extremely diverse, corrupt and immoral society where they did not have any access to political power or influence in public policy other than through persuading people to believe the gospel. These early Christians did not waste their time picketing or protesting, as we now see some doing. Shouting matches were not their calling. They witnessed to the historic fact of the resurrection, they prayed, worshiped, and lived pious & holy lives. Indeed this witness, in many cases, influenced society, but in many other cases, society went on in its paganism. These Christians knew that if there were to be a vast change of public ideas of morals, it would have to come through the grace of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by an imperial edict or judicial ruling. Laws do very little to change people's thinking or heart's disposition on such matters. And there is no evidence that Jesus went out of his way to take on any political causes, probably because, in themselves, they do have any power to change hearts.
Of course, many wanted Jesus to be a political organizer but that wasn't His interest (except in an eschatological sense). But that does not automatically mean He approved of the status quo. On the contrary, it simply means that the path of Jesus Christ is not identical with the path of political activism. I think Jesus' view of society really tended to grow out of his view of our individual and corporate alienation from God. He gave a diversity of responses to our alienation, but He did not mistake any symptomatic aspect of our lost condition--sexual depravity, greed, poverty, war, ignorance--from the root cause and remedy of that alienation: the gospel.
Jesus lived His life submerged in a culture of social problems and sympathetically tended to those problems, yet he never held out any hope for the substantial eradication of those problems apart from the gospel. The first century Christians, as revealed in the Scriptures, exemplified radical kinds of love and service, but none of these manifested itself as a stress on political activism. So there is great hope in the difference in the way Jesus views the actions of a Christian from the romantic possibilities for a political utopia, which may restrain some evil but itself really has no power to transform anyone.
Frankly, I have always viewed moralizing crusades with great suspicion. It appears to me to commit the church to such a course of action, which was never part of its original purpose, and is an attempt to accomplish something that must ultimately fail. The ultimate effect of merely attempting to focus on legal change might very well be to impede the hearing of the Gospel by those who need it most. To put it in other terms, we cannot minister to people if they perceive us primarily as their political enemies.
____________
Was the fight over the filibuster really necessary? For that entire debacle, I kept saying to myself..."The other party is going to get voted back into power one day, and, if this push goes too far, then the first thing they're going to do is have an up or down vote on every liberal judge in the nation to undo what they perceive as harm, and the party no longer in power will be powerless to stop them, and it will be their own doing. I was once a lobbyist in the NC General Assembly. I know how legislators think, and that is very likely what would have happened. All we did was make more enemies, and we almost cut our hands off to spite our faces. It's this kind of OTT behavior that needs to end.
As a word of testimony here, I was on the opposite end of the political activism as Phil when an unbeliever. Whereas he was on the conservative side, I was on the liberal side. I can't tell you how many "dialogues" I would attend with some of these ECBer's where not one time would they ever share the gospel with a person. Some were people that would be friendly to you, but they wanted you to sign onto their agenda, not their gospel, and that was, and remains to this day, offensive to me. Here were the people with "the truth" and they wouldn't share it with "those people." I have seen the way some of these organizations needlessly and careless make enemies of unbelievers because in threatening their value system, they do so in a less than Christlike manner. Over time, this problem has gotten worse, as the voices have become more shrill on both sides.
Jus, I haven't time to answer your post in detail, so I'll just make a few points:
1. "Christian mechanics working with non-Christian mechanics" don't call it "ministry" and aggressively raise money from evangelical donors to support it. More importantly, they don't try to make the case that it is every Christian's duty to support their work financially and make car-mechanic work one of our own personal priorities.
2. You, not me, applied my statements about Dobson's "culture war" strategy to all forms of "evangelical co-belligerence" and dragged Al Mohler's name into it into it (while conveniently leaving Dobson's name out, I noticed). I seriously doubt that even you honestly believe Dr. Mohler is typical of the leading evangelical figures who have served as generals the culture war. More typical would be Chuck Colson, who has explicitly called for the kind of compromise I was criticizing. He regularly urges evangelicals to cease their opposition against Romanism and embrace Catholics as our true brothers and sisters in Christ. Colson himself suggests this would be advantageous for increasing our clout in the culture war. (See also his endorsement of Kreeft's Ecumenical Jihad.) Dobson has repeatedly expressed agreement with Colson's opinion on Catholic-Protestant rapprochement, and Dobson makes it clear that he believes Romanism is authentic Christianity almost every time he has a Catholic guest on his broadcast. It was clever of you to defend what Al Mohler is doing, because it's certainly easier to defend than Colson's or Dobson's agendas, but in point of fact, I made no criticism of (not even a reference to) Mohler.
3. Morality is a spiritual issue.
4. Laws passed by a government not committed to the lordship of Christ will never accomplish what is needed to reverse moral decline in our society.
5. I did not "speculat[e] about what ECBers do or not do with respect to their non-Christian friends." I observed what has happened in several evangelical ministries, and what several evangelical leaders, starting with Colson, have expressly advocated, and what Dobson practices in his "ministry" (which is not dentistry or brake-pad replacement). See also Blinded by Might, by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson for a couple of former culture-warrior insiders' perspectives on the same thing. It's not "speculation" to say that sort of compromise happens all the time. I suspect you would indeed admit that in a context where it didn't damage your argument.
Unfortunately, this is about all the time I have to interact with you on this subject at the moment. As I said, I intend to post on the subject in the weeks to come. But for now, I'll let you have the last word, if you want to post once more. I have only one request: be brief and succinct. The full-length Steve-Hays-style comments aren't really "comments"; they are more like term papers. They're pretty well-written term papers, but despite your skill at weaving detailed and long-winded jeremiads, I don't see where you have refuted any point I was making. You'd actually do better with me if you could stay with the point I actually made, and stop arguing against what Steve Camp posted on his blog two weeks ago. :-)
I would like to address GeneMBridges briefly.
What in the world was that all about?
Post a Comment