I had hoped to get a post up about evangelicalism today, a third in our series, but I’m still sorting an idea or two out so I’m delaying that post. But …
With one of our routine commenters and sometimes blogger, David Opderbeck, we routinely encounter that rare combination of an evangelical thinker who embraces the powerhouse theologians in the mainlines. He’s as likely to quote Brueggemann or Barth as Stott or CT.
Many evangelicals run around with stereotypes of mainliners, and I suspect mainliners do the same.
What stereotype did you grow up with about either Mainliners or Evangelicals that you found simply to be untrue? Or simpler: what were those stereotypes?
What can we do to bring these groups together? Is their enough common ground to work together? And I don’t mean we can all go to Haiti together and build a school. Can we work together in a local community outside of social justice projects? What are the challenges? What are the opportunities?
From a blog post I read recently, hosted by Jeff Lehn, I saw this paragraph and thought — here’s the beginning of a good conversation:
I have observed and participated in caricature on both sides. When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I heard students and professors vilify “liberal seminaries” for obscuring the gospel and harming the church. What they (and I) did not realize is that there were many godly and generous “liberal Christians” who simply held different convictions than we did. We would have done well to hear their reasons. Then, a few years later, when I was a student at the University of Chicago Divinity School, I heard students and professors pan “conservative seminaries” as hopelessly fundamentalist and unfaithful to the gospel. What they (and I) did not realize is that there were many godly and generous “conservative Christians” who simply held different convictions than we did. Again, we would have done well to hear their reasons.
It’s really interesting that you make that observation. I’m doing a degree in theology at St Andrews, and many of the faculty here (and many of the students) come from the Evangelical wings of their respective churches, yet there is a broad appreciation within them of ‘mainline’ thinkers such as Barth et al. Certainly, the criticism of other sections of the church without reading them and truly engaging with their ideas is firmly frowned upon – one thing we are never permitted (quite rightly) to get away is attacking strawmen of other positions.
“…many godly and generous “liberal Christians” who simply held different convictions …”
I guess the questions would be, are “godly and generous” the main criteria for deciding who we should align with as Christians?
And what are the “different convictions”?. It is not a stereotype to acknowledge the fact that many leading figures in the mainline deny essential Christian doctrines (such as the Trinity and the Resurrection) and remain leaders in those denominations. The reasons for the huge battles in the ELCA, EC, UMC, PCUSA, etc. over sexual morality ultimately stems from a blurring of the authority of scripture and a blurring of lines of even basic orthodoxy, not a disagreement about non-essentials (like mode of baptism).
As much as I dislike certain cultural trappings of conservative evangelicalism, I found, after several years of searching, that I could find no home in the mainline, even though I know good people from those bodies.
John Franke, who until recently was a full time theology prof at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, PA, frequently references Barth. It never struck me that Barth was “mainline” and not evangelical.
My experience speaking in mainline churches, and I’ve spoken in American Episcopalian, Methodist and Presbyterian settings, is that the pastors are mostly in the moderate to liberal camp while I’ve found the congregants to be a mixture of quite conservative evangelical to the other end of the (theological) spectrum.
Robert, it’s hard for me to call Barth a “mainliner.” He’s a European. Now, no doubt, had he been in the USA he would have been a mainliner.
I’ve always wondered how evangelicals can speak authoritatively about the hearts and minds of mainliners when our forbears simply walked away so long ago.
I was handed lies (not just stereotypes) that all mainline churches were just filled with people who wanted a country club religion of social respectability, their pastors may be well intentioned but were all either “God is Dead” Altizer-types or simply wolves who really hated the Bible, the preaching of their churches was always just lectures on Wellhausen style historicism, and the list could go on and on and on. Of course, it was never always put so bluntly, we were evangelicals, not our fundamentalist parents and grandparents, but if the discussion went really to specifics this was basically the understanding.
All I can say is that it took so-called “Bible-hating, godless, apostate, liberal, mainline” theologians at Vanderbilt Divinity to challenge me with love (and sometimes chiding) to not be so hard on my evangelical upbringing and to embrace the resources that come from it, regardless of where my journey takes me.
I found that, especially my mentors, were anything but the image I was raised with. Instead I found people who were struggling just a hard as any evangelical pastor I’ve known to really come to terms with who God is, what the Scriptures are really teaching us, and how to articulate a vision of Christian life and faith that is of benefit and blessing to the world.
It seems to me that evangelicals and mainliners need to actually get to know each other first.
@Robert and Scot:
RE: Barth
but didn’t Barth have to be kind of “rehabilitated” in evangelical circles?
(I wish we’d do that with Tillich too)
The framing of this question is interesting, in that most mainline churches I know (including my own) have plenty of “evangelical” members within them, often including the pastors, leadership, or even a majority of members. Where your question seems to come from, then, is the reality that there is a kind of institutionalized evangelicalism, whether formal denominationally or not, where doctrinal statements have been drawn up, networks have been forged, and sub-cultures created and nurtured. Usually in these institutional forms, there is great mistrust of mainline churches, stereotyping them as “liberal,” which generally means in the mind of many evangelicals “non-Christian.” [I think Machen's classic book, "Christianity and Liberalism," really messed up the logic of this situation. I reread it recently with more grown-up eyes, and was surprised how shallow the reasoning was, and then how massively influential it was on the evangelical/fundamentalist landscape. But I digress...]
You asked about the local level…in our town, most of the evangelicals don’t actively participate in our ministerium, which is kind of boring and tends to be run by mainline churches. There is a parallel evangelical body, but their idea of events includes anti-evolution seminars and such, so mainline folks aren’t going to go for that. Now a third informal prayer group has formed, open to anybody…but as a practical matter, whoever wants to get together can, but it just requires some sort of energy or shared purpose and leadership. Practically, most of the niches are already pretty full. But there is some general cooperation with food banks, housing services, and stuff like that.
What I have experienced is that mainliners usually have their hands open to evangelicals, but conservative evangelicals generally don’t want to take it. Moderate evangelicals who are comfortable with not trying to take over the structures or ethos of others can definitely work together with or in the mainline. But when evangelicals have the real and often hidden goal of making evangelicalism the prevailing ethos, or taking over mainline ministries or structures, equating evangelicalism with the Christian gospel–mainline leaders will rightly get suspicious. I think those are some of the dynamics that make it difficult. So in my mind, it has to do with whether the “evangelicals” are really stealth fundamentalists, or whether they can graciously view themselves as a subset of a broader authentic Christianity. There is hope for charity and cooperation within the latter, but not so much the former.
One of my takes on the matter is that thinkers such as Barth, Pannenberg, Bonhoeffer etc allow us as Evangelicals to say many of the things we want to say (about God talk being because of God’s self-revelation, not our deduction, centrality of Jesus, importance of the Revelation) because they give a strong theological background within which such statements fit in a coherent way. Maybe things aren’t so far apart as we like to think.
First, in line with the conversation about evangelicalism this week, I think the growing exploration and acceptance of the gospel of the kingdom on the evangelical side, and the divides that are now happening in many (all?) of the mainline denoms over homosexuality (the straw that broke the camel’s back?) is going to give opportunity for much more unity b/n many evangelicals and conservative/moderate mainliners.
I certainly grew up and was taught to seriously question whether most mainliners were really Christians at all. George Bush (Sr.) was a perfect example of how stumbling over the “born again” question/experience was the ultimate red flag to evangelicals. I’m grateful that the born again experience no longer eclipses all other evidences of following Christ for me and for many evangelicals. As we broaden our vision there, relations will improve.
On challenges, as the evangelicals’ gospel becomes more robust, they’ll find more and more brotherhood and even wonderful teaching with mainliners. And as more mainliners distinguish themselves (out loud) on issues like a bodily resurrection and sexual ethics from their more liberal churchmen, they will find the same among evangelicals.
But the challenge to unity that I don’t think should go away center on the bodily resurrection of Christ and some kind of functioning theism. But those are two points of common ground that is already there for many in both camps.
Scot, my own journey has led me into the “post-evangelical wilderness.” No longer comfortable in the system of non-denominational evangelicalism, we have set out in search of something more theologically profound, historically informed, and liturgically shaped. We find ourselves in a mainline congregation—ELCA Lutheran. I don’t know yet if we have found a home forever, but for now it is an oasis. I am mining the riches of a heritage that is profoundly evangelical and was so before “evangelical” came to be associated with revivalistic religion.
I have considered pursuing ordination, but am cautious about some of the theological commitments I might be required to embrace. I’m still exploring.
As for mainlines and evangelicals worshiping, having fellowship, and working together, I know that John Armstrong is making an effort to promote and encourage this in the Chicago area, and his book, Your Church Is Too Small gives a Biblical and theological basis for “missional ecumenism.” He too worships in a Lutheran congregation.
I don’t see it here in Indianapolis. Far too much suspicion between the groups, and far too much “doing my own thing” when it comes to ministry.
Great to be having this discussion. Thanks, Scot.
In my post, I talk about a dear friend I’ve stayed in touch with from my days at TEDS. He’s a PCA pastor. I’m (almost) a pastor in the PCUSA. Our relationship keeps me (mostly) from caricature and arrogance. He too strives to be faithful to the gospel. He too seeks to love God and love others. He too prays that I’ll one day see the light and change my mind.
I suppose this is the way forward for Evangelicals and Mainliners–in this unglamorous way, with ordinary relationships. Seeing the faces and hearing the voices of those with whom I disagree keeps me from dehumanizing them.
Maybe we need to pull a Galatians 2 and give each other the right hand of fellowship, acknowledging our ministries are different but not in conflict. And yet I think there is great opportunity for this “coming together.” Maybe I’m young and naive, but I pray it’s not just that.
I think a “mission” can bring cooperation. I am a red-blooded Calvinist and I attend a church that is probably 80-20 arminian. I attend primarily because of our focus on doing ministry in the local community, the ministry is very heavily shaped by Francis Chan and Tim Keller. That said, even though we might disagree on TULIP, we still agree on the authority of scripture, baptism, and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
If there was a mainline congregation that held to the historicity of the virgin birth and resurrection, that viewed all of scripture as authoritative (not just a community library), and was firmly planted in a reformation view of salvation, then I don’t care what their views are on homosexual ordination, gay marriage, social justice, or anything else is, I could worship with them. I care about core motivations, not end outcomes.
Abortion might be one sticking point, it would just be hard to fellowship with someone that supported abortion on demand or partial birth abortion. They might still be my brothers, but it would be hard. I imagine that in Bonhoeffers churches there were hard feelings between those that supported the SS and those that didn’t, even if they had the same theology and both loved Christ.
Before it comes up, I’m really not trying to compare pro-choicers to Nazis. I’m just saying that it is an issue that is deeply emotional and important to me.
A better analogy might be radical tree-higging hippies in a congregation with lots of farmers that used pesticides. One side sees the action as inherently immoral and inexcusable, the other side says “meh”
Scot, I’m just curious if Jesus every considered a question like this with his own disciples. He drew followers from many different groups and then told them to love. There was no recognition for how they believed before they came (other than they were Jews). He simply saw them as human beings. Seems like a great rallying cry for evangelicals and mainliners to gather together under.
Just a thought: what about engaging in sister church relationships? Having a pulpit exchange once in a while?
Jonathan, in fact, he did. Though we need to be careful in our reading of the text, Jesus said “He who is not against me is for me.” Enough to make us all squirm.
Maybe we need to stop judging others as acceptable or non-acceptable to God and to us, and instead focus on simply loving God and loving one another. Maybe that’s too simplistic for some, but having worked in an interdenominational ministry for about 20 years, I’ve found that the prayers of my Catholic sister bring heaven to earth just as effectively as the prayers of my Pentecostal brother! A little more humility would do us all good, I think. And maybe we could learn a little something from one another.
To me Character is far more important than professed beliefs. And the only way to know someone’s character is to know them personally. I’m reminded of the disciples asking Jesus if they should rebuke a man ministering in the name of Jesus but not part of their group. To which Jesus replied in essence, no, just be busy about what I give you to do and let me deal with him.
I believe that our pride and self-rightness is much more the source of our divisions and strife than any doctrinal differences we may have.
I finished high school in 1994, to put a timeframe on this. Good upstanding churchgoing family, attended church schools for grades 1-12.
So I was a kid during the time that “born again Christian” was the big phrase. I don’t know how many times I heard church leaders, teachers, etc., about how insane and impossible it was for any intelligent person to base their whole religion on one verse wrenched entirely out of context — I don’t know how many times I heard that but it was a lot. A lot of people who show up in Jim Wallis or Ron Sider books talk about “I studied the Bible my whole life but I never knew it had so much to say about the poor!” I ALWAYS knew the Bible had a lot to say about the poor. It was the surprise of my life when I realized it also had a whole whole lot to say about sin and redemption.
Ecumenism was celebrated, but always talking about nice normal mainliners, not THEM. I would have assumed that evangelicalism was some sort of fringe movement, that the mainline/evangelical division was about 95% mainline/5% evangelical. And maybe if you get below the Mason-Dixon line things get all wacky and it might get up to 10% evangelical or so. So I was just chock full of misconceptions.
In the spring of our senior year of high school, as everybody is getting ready to go off to college, we were warned against the fundamentalists lurking on college campuses. They were talking about Intervarsity and the like.
So, going to college, finding out that the “Christian” fellowship basically meant “evangelical” AND meeting a (self-described) fundamentalist who is both kinder and smarter than I am, that did not compute. It was a bit of a bumpy road. To put things mildly.
And now I go to a centrist-to-evangelical church. Middle of the road in a lot of ways, but definitely identifying with the conservative spectrum rather than the liberal one.
AND YET, I absolutely consider myself to have been a “true believer” before I stumbled in amongst the evangelicals. My faith has grown and changed in many ways, as should we all I’m sure, but it was the liberals who nurtured me and taught me to love Jesus, and there was something real and powerful and good and graced there and it cannot be dismissed.
Also, I remember taking an intro to the Old Testament class at an evangelical (not fundamentalist but evangelical) seminary, which held to Mosaic authorship, etc. and was constantly deriding “liberal secular scholars” advancing a documentary hypothesis.
My reaction was basically: “Okay, I learned that JEDP model from a nun. So unless and until YOU take lifetime vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in order to help you serve Jesus better, you sir can stuff it.”
Now maybe the documentary hypothesis is incorrect and there actually is a lot of reason to hold to traditional understandings of authorship. Maybe so. But the tone made it really really hard for me to even consider that possibility.
It might be helpful if we could at least ask whether there are any doctrinal differences at all that create obstacles to fellowship; and if there are, it might be worth asking what those are.
I’m now working on the staff at a mainline church (PCUSA) doing regular teaching on Sunday mornings and during the week. One of the things that I’ve noticed (and enjoyed) is that, in terms of theology and ideology, from conservative to liberal, everyone is in the room. I think this is one of the great strengths of mainline churches and it provides a context for the development of an alternative imagination to the polarizing Left/Right impasse that so often plagues the church (as well as North American culture). If the church is to be faithful to its calling to be a provisional demonstration of God’s will for all people, the cultivation of this imagination is of considerable importance. Liberals and conservatives are called to participate together in the mission of God for the sake of Gospel and the sake of the world.
Robin, for once I disagree strongly with you. I do think that stances towards homosexuality are first-order issues, and whether or not a church affirms the virgin birth, etc. would not make it better. Although I wonder how many “affirming” churches hold to those things you mentioned…
But to the broader questions:
I really don’t see any way for evangelicals and mainliners institutionally to get together. Conservative mainliners are naturally welcome in broader evangelical para-church organizations. There are quite a few conservative mainliners, of course, and with them (and only them) evangelicals can (and do) have fellowship. But here’s the problem: the mainline institutions have endorsed public stances on issues like homosexuality and the atonement that are heretical. Many in their leadership are in desperate need of church discipline (i.e. excommunication), and so long as this is not done I don’t see how any God-honouring Christian, much less evangelical, would want to have anything to do with them officially. False teachers are anathema.
Or to put it in more practical terms, defrock and excommunicate Jefforts-Schori and then we’ll talk.
Can anyone tell me what is the beef is that Conservatives have with Barth? He seems to be very committed to the centrality of Christ!
When I entered public university in 1983, the evangelical pastor of my home church warned me strongly about the liberal higher criticism taught there that led many to abandon their faith (in his view anyway). It sounds kind of ridiculous now, considering that Tuebingen has one of the most conservative faculties in all of Germany. I missed out on so much because of the defensive posture throughout my studies that considered anyone an unbeliever and heretic who didn’t embrace my belief in inerrancy of the Scriptures.
The pattern continued in Canada where my evangelical peers consistently badmouthed the United Church of Canada as a faithless bunch who embraced such evils as a Christless social gospel and gay people (the ultimate tabu – still for many evangelicals today).
I would still be in my evangelical/fundamentalist bubble and well defended fortress today if God had not graciously intervened and helped me to get to know the human beings behind the labels. To recognize how many love and follow the Lord from different backgrounds and walks of life and different insights into the Bible helped me to see how narrow my world view and hermeneutical self-immunization was and to begin to love and connect the way Jesus wanted me to love.
Ben,
Here is my basic approach, it is rooted in pre-suppositionalism. If someone agrees regarding the authority of scripture, and holds to salvation by grace, a real virgin birth, and a real resurrection…then we can dig into texts, and exegesis and try to find out what the bible says about issues like baptism, gifts, sexuality, etc. If someone really holds to the things I listed above, then they are going to have to have compelling, biblical reasons for advocating things like gay marriage. If someone really holds strongly to the authority of scripture and can make that case convincingly I can call them brother and worship with them.
But there is no room for me to dialogue on an issue like that with someone who doesn’t believe scripture is authoritative or that they shouldn’t subordinate their beliefs to their interpretation of scripture. For that matter, there is no reason for me to dialogue with someone that holds the same moral positions that I do, but holds them for entirely different reasons. If a Christian could care less what the bible has to say about sexual ethics, but supports my positions because of ingrained prejudice then it would be incredible difficult to worship with them.
Just to throw more bombs…
I’m sure there were German Christians that supported the Hitler regime because they looked at scripture, to the commands to respect their leaders, to give what was owed to Caesar…and they concluded that being faithful Christians meant supporting the elected government.
I’m sure there were other Christians that supported the government just because of their hatred of outsiders or Jews.
And then there were Christians like Bonhoeffer who also took scripture seriously but came to different conclusions. I could fellowship with both Bonhoeffer and the first group; I would not call the 2nd group Christians.
One of my pet peeves is stereotyping, particularly when it comes from people who are ill-informed about the other. They are usually using someone else’s stereotype or limited information to form their own stereotypes. Thus, all (fill in the blank) are/do (fill in the blank). Sigh…..
Of course, stereotyping is easy. I don’t have to take the time to get to know you. I can just write you off as being (fill in the blank) and never have to deal with the fact that I may be wrong.
Scot,
I don’t know how I feel about (25) and (26). If you think they are too hyperbolic or take the conversation to unwanted places feel free to delete them.
Sorry, (26) and (27)
Aaron #24:
Barth was not an inerrantist. And he talked about the Word of God as something we receive as we listen to Scripture with the Holy Spirit’s help, rather than just modernist objective black/white written propositions.
In many conservative evangelical circles, any mention of Barth will inevitably also contain the phrase “low view of Scripture”.
To get to Scot’s question, I think cooperation and reconciliation will need to come through “mainliners” who affirm basic orthodoxy (Barth, Hauerwas, Wright, John Ortberg, Asbury, Princeton) and evangelicals who refuse to fall into the “us versus them” battling mode and instead seek constructive engagement (Keller, McKnight, Campolo, Fuller seminary).
I think the un-orthodox within the mainline (Spong et al., as pointed out by Ben #23) and the us/them fundamentalist-leaning side of evangelicalism (Mohler, Westminster Seminary) are unlikely to be a part of any such “together” that happens.
AHH,
And I will happily side with those whom you tar with the brush of “fundamentalist.” Spong is just the extreme representation of the element of the broader, dominant tendency in the mainline churches towards heresy. Few go as far as him, yet they are just as guilty. Mohler is a gift to the Church; Spong is an agent of the devil.
I think Jeff is dead on. As soon as we label each other as Calvinist, neo-orthodox, liberal, fundamentalist, etc we deny our essential Christianity. I have had the same experience where I heard a Pastor was a Calvinist and immediately was suspicious of his theology. But when I met him and we actually talked he was a wonderful Christian! Boy did I feel like a jerk. This doesn’t mean we don’t disagree, but we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
I read a book probably a decade ago called “Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation.” I remember thinking — that’s me! And since then I’ve been blessed to have teachers like John Franke (#22) who continued to expose me to the best of the Christian tradition.
Like I said in my post earlier this week, I think we really need to ask whether the fundamentalist-modernist controversy is over — or at least to move forward as if it’s over.
“Mohler is a gift to the Church; Spong is an agent of the devil.”
I’m no fan of Spong by any stretch of the imagination but it’s these kind of statements that have brought evangelicalism into disrepute and decline in the first place.
Nonsense, Josh. If these words are too harsh for you, then I would advise avoiding the Bible like the plague.
Spong denies the essence of our faith, and blasphemes God. How is he not doing the Devil’s work?
Ben #33,
You think “fundamentalist” is an inappropriate label, but you tar whole denominations with “heresy”???
Good example of the sort of caricature Scot is decrying.
I’d agree with the H-word in Spong’s case, but I assure you that heresy is not “dominant” by any means in the mainline denominations with which I’m most familiar (PCUSA and UMC). Theological liberalism is pretty influential, and the heretical fringe is tolerated more than I would wish, but I’d also like to see evangelicalism stop tolerating Answers in Genesis and I don’t see that happening either.
AHH,
I’m not tarring whole denominations with a heresy. I acknowledged before that there are many orthodox mainliners. But I think that we disagree what “heresy” is. You say that, “theological liberalism is pretty influential.” Well, that’s what I was referring to. Theological liberalism is heresy. And if it’s not dominant, then how come PCUSA recently allowed openly gay elders? I agree that UMC isn’t as bad. But what about the UCC and TEC?
There is, to my mind, no comparison between AIG and theological liberalism. AIG, while misguided, does not deny any core elements of the faith; liberalism denies many core elements of the faith. If forced to choose between them, I would go without a moment’s thought with AIG.
Ben,
I have no problem with your language or passion for orthodoxy of the faith.
What I am having a problem with is personal attacks on people because of their belief (or lack thereof).
If I used this kind of approach (and I have zero desire to do so), I could just as well say: How is Ben Wheaton not doing the devil’s work in the way he sides with the accuser of the brethren?
I know, I know, in your mind Spong is not a “brother” to begin with. The same is true for every fringe Christian out there who thinks he’s finally found the true, 100 % biblical, New Testament church and everyone else is just a heretic. I’m not saying that this your opinion. But the approach is the same nonetheless. Maybe we need to listen to James more who knew exactly the ones who were 100% orthodox: demons!
And John had quite a bit to say about false belief on the demonic end as much as the “Church insiders” end. Belief without the evidence of love is not faith, no matter how accurate in its affirmations about God it may be.
That should read “demonically inspired end”.
Well Josh, I myself was dinged for this on this site, but it seems to me that you’re using slippery-slope logic. Some weirdos call everyone else heretics, so if I call someone a heretic I’m only one step away from them! Nonsense. And how is it a “personal attack?” I’m not calling Spong petty names, I’m identifying his teaching for what it is.
I agree, faith without works is dead. But I don’t think that AIG is without works to show their faith. I don’t doubt Ken Ham’s salvation, but I do doubt Spong’s. And others’…
Ben #39,
Yes, we must be operating under different definitions of “heresy.” And I think of “theological liberalism” — many whom I would put in that category do not “deny many core elements of the faith.” Maybe different definitions of “core elements of the faith” also.
You seem to be equating heresy with “bad doctrine”. I would say that there is a lot of bad (IMO) doctrine that is not in and of itself heresy, whether it is minimizing the inspiration of Scripture (part of most theological liberalism), or straying from Biblical norms of sexual morality, or destroying our witness to the scientifically literate by insisting that Genesis must be read as a science text.
By the way, please note that “PCUSA recently allowed openly gay Elders” is false.
This policy has NOT changed. The General Assembly (which tends to be more liberal than the center of gravity of the denomination) recommended changing an ordination standard in a way that would open the door for practicing homosexuals. But it does not take effect unless it is ratified by a majority of the Presbyteries. Similar efforts have lost at this stage 3 or 4 times in recent years, usually by large margins. Even if the outcome is different this time, I would be disappointed but would strongly disagree with calling it “heresy”.
Ben,
“Agent of the devil” to me is much worse than calling someone petty names. I mean, what could possibly be worse that anyone could say about a person? Think about it!
Matthew 7:1 comes to mind when the focus of judging is on the person rather than the teaching itself. Our fight is not with flesh and blood, and I maintain that your original statement does not focus on the devil but the one whom you call his agent.
@Ben,
I’m curious as to what your religious background is…
No argument about Spong, but he’s not really taken that seriously, nor does he have as wide an influence as people would like to think. But he’s an excellent resource if we’re looking for something to wring our hands over.
And, as far as the TEC goes, the national polity there is much more nuanced than most evangelicals understand. (Not saying they “can’t”, just say’n…) It’s very easy to write the whole thing off because of New Hampshire, and the PB…but that kind of clucking really communicates to me a lack of understanding about the polity.
Given the fact that you think Al Mohler is a gift to the church, is it fair of me to assume that most of your understanding of TEC comes from his consistent writings as an outsider about the turmoil in the church and the wider communion? Whatever one can say about Mohler, he’s not really a good source on Anglicanism in North America. If you want to see and hear conservative Episcopal voices, I’d recommend reading Kendall Harmon’s blog.
My husband grew up in a PC-USA and I in a Southern Baptist denomination. We both went to the same liberal arts college, studied evolution as chemistry majors, and were exposed to higher biblical criticism. He went on into medicine, I in the basic sciences. He still retains strong faith. Mine is characterized by doubt and agnosticism. As I reflect on my childhood, I certainly feel that the fundamentalist nature of my childhood exposure to Christianity paved the way to the intensity of my doubts.
continued: Thus, our lives give evidence to the fact that the faith of mainliners might be more robust than that of fundamentalist. Ironically, I was taught that mainliners were not Christians, meanwhile I am evidence of the damage that fundamentalism can do.
I grew up in a mainline church, mostly ignorant and unaware of differences among Christians until my senior year of high school. Though I’d been a church attender all my life (at least when it was convenient), I didn’t come to explicit faith in Christ until my senior year. Coincidentally, my class was selling magazines as a fundraiser about that time. Thinking I ought to look for something Christian, I found something called “The Sword of the Lord” on the list and subscribed. If you don’t know about them, they’re the outfit that used to think of folks like Jerry Falwell & Billy Graham as compromising liberals.
My mainline church attendance was very different from that. I don’t remember hearing so much “liberal” sermons, as non-substantial sermons. Lots of stories, lots of (attempted) jokes. Encouragement to be a nice person. While I’m sure there was more than that, that’s my memory.
I went off to college at a school of my denomination. I received a great education there, partly because I had to argue with my professors. Though we had chapel services weekly, the messages seemed often to propound Buddhism and Marxism as often as anything vaguely Christian.
Thinking merely having a polemical edge wasn’t very healthy for my spiritual development, I went to Asbury Seminary for my MDiv work. The advantage of Asbury was that it was solidly evangelical (if you’re willing to admit that non-Calvinists CAN be evangelical) yet insistent on teaching students the full spectrum of theology that was out there.
After more than twenty years of pastoring (and a further degree at Fuller), I consider myself an Evangelical Wesleyan in theology. Some folks aren’t willing to admit me to the Evangelical camp because I don’t have a theory of inerrancy (if “scripture is inerrant” is analytic for Christianity, it’s no problem, but if I have to give credence to foundationalist epistemology it strikes me as incoherent), while some of my fellow United Methodists think me batty for not having a theory of errancy.
All that said, institutionally speaking, I feel somewhat homeless.
Well, nathan, I like Kendall Harmon’s blog, and don’t read Al Mohler nearly as much as I do Dr. Harmon’s. I lived in a conservative Anglican seminary in Toronto for a year, went to Morning Prayer quite a bit, and talked with the students there–so I’m quite aware of the conservatives within Anglicanism.
I’m well aware that there are many (though declining in number) conservative voices in TEC. But they are not dominant. If my use of Spong as a totem offends you, what about Chane of D.C., or Ingham of New Westminster? I’m not even referring to the extreme denials of Spong when I speak of the heresy of TEC, but the universalism of Chane, Jefforts-Schori, et al., the denial of penal substitution, hell, etc.
Josh, if I were to say that “Spong’s doctrine is of the devil” would that satisfy you?
AHH,I agree that most bad doctrine is not heresy. But I do think we disagree about what the core doctrines of the faith are. Denying the inspiration of Scripture, diverging from sexual morality, and other things intrinsic to theological liberalism are, in my opinion, heretical.
I’m aware that PCUSA didn’t ratify the policy, but there’s a good chance of that happening, and if it does, then it’s heresy. The time would be ripe for excommunications.
Ben,
Satifying me is not the issue. If God’s entire will is summed up in the love command, the real question for me is: Do I express love towards John Shelby Spong the best by associating Him in one way or another with the devil? My answer is: there are better ways to engage, even when we have firm convictions.
I think even Spong would agree that he’s not orthodox. But using your kind of rhetoric only reinforces his own picture of conservative Christians and of those who may not share his extreme views but have similar criticism of the fundamentalist tendencies within evangelicalism.
Fundies keep insisting that biblical love includes confronting false teachers with the truth. Well, then confront in love and with thoughtful debate and interaction, instead of projecting a total disregard for the person himself. If you have a heartfelt concern for Spong’s salvation, I’m having great difficulties detecting that from your words. But maybe that’s just my skewed perception. Help me out if I read something into them that is not really there.
@Ben,
Thanks.
I don’t deny that there are problems with the theology of some that find themselves in the House of Bishops. I think my point is that Spong is an easy/inflammatory target who really has no bearing or relevance any more. the PB can be infuriating, but it’s not like she’s actually a pope.
At the same time too, nobody seems to care or see the necessary nuance that must rise in our thinking when we hear of very public rejections by TEC Bishops of things like the priest who claimed she was muslim AND christian (she was deposed), the overwhelming rejection by the House and the Standing committees of the candidate for Bishop of northern michigan for his buddhist ordination and his tampering with the theological content of the baptismal covenant (i.e. the Nicene Creed).
There’s much that people don’t understand about the contours of the American episcopal structure/experience. It differs greatly even from the Canadian experience. (I mean, if you want to talk about rogue Bishops…our friends up North take the cake.)
nathan,
But my point is that the heresy found in the House of Bishops (in all of North America) extends to a majority of the clergy as well. Spong is a totem for this broader problem. As for your examples of “nuance,” sure, TEC still has boundaries, but those boundaries have very little in common with the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. Just because they defrock Buddhists doesn’t mean they’re suddenly all right.
Well, Josh, I don’t think that God’s entire will is summed up in the “love” command. I think God’s entire will is summed up both “love the LORD your God…” and in “love your neighbour…”
Part of loving God is calling sin what it is. People like Spong need to be called out. If that be fundamentalism, then I avow the fundamentalism.
Ben,
I figured you’d know that when I refered to the love command both dimensions are obviously included. They are also intimately connected.
And when it comes to sin needing to be called out, none of us is in the position to throw stones. If you had a civil personal conversation with Spong, you may be surprised and actually learn something from him – and I would hope he from you as well!
But it’s so much easier criticizing from a distance without looking the person in the eye and giving him a chance to explain where he is coming from and why he believes what he believes, isn’t it? Kind of reminds me of what Tony Jones said about the book reviewer today and his way of evaluating emerging church thinkers.