Consistency or bust
I had to agree with Charlotte Allen's Op-Ed piece in the L.A. Times: shttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-allen9jul09,0,2668973.story?coll=la-home-commentary
If, for a moment, we can take the hierarchical politics out of religion - specifically Christianity - we have to admit that the thinking pew sitter just wants something that's real. Can you blame them? People need consistency. Really, you can't claim to be Christian and then dismiss it's basic tenets (Well, you can do that if you really want to, but then why call yourself Christian? Why not just say, I'm a member of the Episcopalian religion, or I'm a member of the Presbyterian religion). If you claim to be Christian and then start dismantling the religion, then you have an inconsistent worldview - because, let's face it, one's worldview (whether seen through the lens of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism) must either be consistent or fail. And who wants to claim to be a part of something that completely dismisses it's own basic tenets. You end up looking silly in the end, don't you think? To me, it's sort of like saying, "I'm an U.S. citizen, but I'm not an American," or "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat meat." How does that work? So, when you say you're a Christian, but deny the divinity of Jesus or move toward beliefs that don't seem to line up with Christian teaching, can you really say, "I'm a Christian?"
And this could be why people are leaving what they perceive to be "liberal" churches - people are finding that they're part of something that's inconsistent and so are moving on to places where their religion follows it's own basic tenets.
If, for a moment, we can take the hierarchical politics out of religion - specifically Christianity - we have to admit that the thinking pew sitter just wants something that's real. Can you blame them? People need consistency. Really, you can't claim to be Christian and then dismiss it's basic tenets (Well, you can do that if you really want to, but then why call yourself Christian? Why not just say, I'm a member of the Episcopalian religion, or I'm a member of the Presbyterian religion). If you claim to be Christian and then start dismantling the religion, then you have an inconsistent worldview - because, let's face it, one's worldview (whether seen through the lens of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism) must either be consistent or fail. And who wants to claim to be a part of something that completely dismisses it's own basic tenets. You end up looking silly in the end, don't you think? To me, it's sort of like saying, "I'm an U.S. citizen, but I'm not an American," or "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat meat." How does that work? So, when you say you're a Christian, but deny the divinity of Jesus or move toward beliefs that don't seem to line up with Christian teaching, can you really say, "I'm a Christian?"
And this could be why people are leaving what they perceive to be "liberal" churches - people are finding that they're part of something that's inconsistent and so are moving on to places where their religion follows it's own basic tenets.
posted by Jeno at
4:54 PM
3 Comments:
What you've written is true. However, a large majority of people are heard saying, "oh, I believe there's a God, but all this religion stuff is too much for me." Go back and read the book of Acts where the teaching of Jesus was without a choreographed sing-a-long before the beginning of service for instance. Heck, one man fell asleep during Paul's lengthy exhortation and fell from the window in which he was sitting. These are people who were being fed the meat of Jesus. By the way, for those who don't know: Maybe Paul felt guilty for speaking so long, who knows. But, he went to him, layed on him and brought him back to life. What'd he do after? He went on preaching. This is the kind of teachers we need. The kind that'll roll up their sleeves and get down to business. How can the Spirit move through all the choregraphy going on, the extra events, etc. People can only embody oneness with God and religion when we allow His Spirit into our churches.
By
Anonymous, at 11:40 AM
What you've written is true. However, a large majority of people are heard saying, "oh, I believe there's a God, but all this religion stuff is too much for me." Go back and read the book of Acts where the teaching of Jesus was without a choreographed sing-a-long before the beginning of service for instance. Heck, one man fell asleep during Paul's lengthy exhortation and fell from the window in which he was sitting. These are people who were being fed the meat of Jesus. By the way, for those who don't know: Maybe Paul felt guilty for speaking so long, who knows. But, he went to him, layed on him and brought him back to life. What'd he do after? He went on preaching. This is the kind of teachers we need. The kind that'll roll up their sleeves and get down to business. How can the Spirit move through all the choregraphy going on, the extra events, etc. People can only embody oneness with God and religion when we allow His Spirit into our churches.
By
Anonymous, at 11:41 AM
Preach it! This post reminds me of a book review I read in a recent issue of "Christian Research Journal." The review, entitled "A Summary Critique: The Gospel according to Borg," critically reviwed Marcus Borg's latest book, "The Heart of Christianity." As some of you may know (or, perhaps you don't) Borg is a memeber of the Jesus Seminar -- a radical fringe group of NT scholars whose claimed purpose is to find the "historical Jesus." The reviewer develops what he calls "the emerging paradigm" of the Jesus Seminar and other like minded scholars and pastors who are denying or redefining most every fundamental doctrine of the historic Christian faith, yet they continue to maintain that they are Christians! All of the members of the Jesus Seminar consider themsevles to be Christians, indeed, perhaps even devout Christians. There's just one problem, though. None of them actually believe any of the things that Christians are supposed to believe. Things like Jesus was God incarnate, was crucified, buried, and rose again on the third day in order to provide atonement for our sins, are seen as simply myths to them. Or, they may go out on a limb and say there is some sort of religious significane to believing these things, but there is no chance they were real, historical events. Furthermore, they certainly do not believe that the Bible is in any sense the Word of God. But if they don't believe these basic tenets, how in the world can they legitimately call themselves Christians? I quote at length the reviewer of Borg's book because I think he makes an excellent point: "'The 'emerging paradigm' believes in a non-Jewish, non-Christian view of God. it denies that the Bible is a revelation from God. It denies that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for our sins and rose again, and that He is the only way to salvation. Imgine a professor who claimed to be teaching Islam but denied that the Qur'an is the revelation of God, denied that Muhammad is God's prophet, and taught that people can be saved apart from Allah. Muslims would rightly protest that such teaching is no Islam (and, by the way, they would be right!),; yet Borg and mainline ministers of the 'emerging paradigm' have denied or redefined virtually every fundamental doctrine of Christianity and nontheless continue to call this view 'Christian.' They have a right to believe what they want ... but to attempt to persuade other that this 'emerging paradigm' is Christianity is both desceptive and intellectually dishonest" (CRJ, vol 28, no 6, pg 46).
By
Anonymous, at 10:01 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home