Thursday, December 13, 2007

How We Should Have Done It

IMO the central problem confronting the evangelical movement today is what to believe happened at the cross, which by the way, is a historical event, not a make-believe fantasy. We have eye witnesses outside of Jesus' disciples. Sadly, the evangelical movement as a whole is trending toward liberal Protestantism with a few of us non-trending Protestant evangelicals trying to hold substitutionary atonement (how penal you want to get is up to you) as the center. And no, emergents, I am NOT a fundamentalist. But nice try. I've studied postmodern philosophy - like you many of you - and I understand the "language games" too.

I said as early as 1980 that the Christian Right was on the wrong track. I said this as a conservative Republican and evangelical. The reason for this is what the law can accomplish - or to be exact -what it can't. Laws do NOT change people. Conversion does. While I understand and readily accept that not everyone will be converted, even if some do, geographical areas change. And if they change, countries will change. I read a good article in a denominational magazine a few years ago about a missionary to the southern Chiapas area of Mexico. What happens often in impoverished countries is the men have given up finding work and drink all day. The women do the best they can to hold families together. The missionary was able to convert quite a few people in a certain town in the Chiapas area. Because of this, there was a renewal of spirit and a teaching from the missionary that prayer can work. Soon, people were praying as what type of work they COULD do. Rain came and the crops began to grow. Soon the whole town became more prosperous with most of the men working, mostas farmers. Other nearby towns saw this and inquired about it. The townspeople were able to be a witness to the goodness and power of God to them and told the other towns the gospel message of salvation through Christ. Soon some of the people in the other towns were converting. This is how you change a society.

I am now reading my 16th book by an emergent authior and I find the same old tired liberal Protestant stuff I heard growing up in my liberal Protestant church. But no conversion mentioned thus far in the majortiy of the books, and I have the sneaky feeling I won't be seeing it much in any other books I will read. The "New Christian Left" and the emergents will make the same mistakes as the liberal Protestants made earlier in the last century, and also the same mistakes the Christian Right made in trying to change society through laws, rules and throwing money at unconverted people.

I read two recent posts on this subject at Internet Monk and also at Jollyblogger. They are excellent and I hope you will take the time to read them too.

1) C.S. Lewis and Christian Morality with SomeThoughts on the Culture War

2) Self-Righteousness

4 comments:

Onward, Forward, Toward… said...

I love that quote of "Laws do NOT change people. Conversion does".

I noticed that you have alot of books on your shelfari shelf. Another one that you need to read in relation to this topic is :

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back (Hardcover)
by Frank Schaeffer

In fact, Schaeffer was on BookTV this past weekend and if you have broadband access and Real Player, you can see the presentation at

http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8836&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

and click on the "watch" button in the upper right hand corner.

Diane R said...

Well, frankly, I have heard Franky boy uses a lot of foul speech in the book, so that is a turn off for me. Also, I'm not into Francis Schaeffer so I don't care. And since I didnt grow up in an evangelical church, I double don't care. But eventually I might read it. THanks thought for the recommendation..:)

Headless Unicorn Guy said...

The "New Christian Left" and the emergents will make the same mistakes as the liberal Protestants made earlier in the last century, and also the same mistakes the Christian Right made in trying to change society through laws, rules and throwing money at unconverted people.

What happened was (according to a book review in Wall Street Journal a couple months ago) the mainstream Protestant churches went into "The Social Gospel" as a response to the problems of their time and ended up with a Gospel without personal salvation.

The review didn't mention that the response was Fundamentalism (now Evangelicalism): a Gospel of Personal Salvation and ONLY Personal Salvation.

Diane R said...

Headless guy,

Exactly. In fact, it was 100 years ago that W. Rauschenbusch wrote "Christianity And The Social Crisis." This was the book that launched the social gospel. In another post I wrote on Dec. 14 (2007), entitled, "Can't We Do Both? Yes, We Can," I asked the question why we can't have BOTH the social gospel AND the gospel of substitutionary atonement. I am glad that at least someone (Tim Keller, pastor of Reedemer Presbyterian Church in NYC) is also asking that question. There is absolutely NO REASON we can't have both. In fact, we really cannot have a good social gospel of outreach unless we DO have a cogent gospel of salvation.

Oh..I do have a request. Please don't call us evangelicals fundamentalists. Thanks.