Posted on 04/10/2015 5:34:35 AM PDT by xzins
Whenever people today say that Christianity needs to update and adapt its moral standards for the 21st century, I hear echoes from 100 years ago. Back then, the calls for change had less to do with morality and more to do with miracles. But the motivation was similar, and the results are instructive.
What rocked the early 20th century was the call of many church leaders to adapt the Christian faith to the scientific age of discovery. One could not expect thinking men and women to accept at face value all the miracles in the Bible, the thinking went. The biblical testimony of the miraculous was embarrassing to an educated mindset.
In order to rescue Christianity from superstitious irrelevance, many church leaders sought to distinguish the kernel of Christianity (the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man) from the shell of Christianity (miracle stories that came from another cultural vantage point). One could still maintain the moral center of Christianity while disregarding the events that required suspension of disbelief.
As this adaptation spread, belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was reinterpreted and given a solely spiritual meaning (he is alive in the hearts of good people). Miracle stories such as Jesus feeding the 5,000 were given a moral twist (the true miracle is that suddenly everyone shared). The Virgin Birth was rejected altogether.
Meanwhile, churches outside the West were appalled to hear Christians reject the clear testimony of Scripture and what the church had always believed. In North America, the rise of the evangelical movement was due, in part, to a desire to reclaim the center of Christianity and refuse to allow contemporary sensibilities to alter the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Presbyterian minister and theologian J. Gresham Machen made the case that this refashioning of Christianity was no longer Christianity at all, but a substitute religion with a Christian veneer.
Over time, the effort to save the kernel of Christianity and leave aside its shell had the opposite effect. The distinctiveness of Christian teaching disappeared, and the shell of church rituals was all that remained. This is why, even today in some denominations, bishops and pastors and parishioners openly reject the core tenets of the faith but continue to attend worship and go through certain rites. The denominations that followed this course have since entered a sharp and steady decline.
One hundred years later, the church is once again being rocked. This time, many Christians are calling for us to rethink the embarrassing parts of Christianity specifically, our distinctive sexual ethic. After all, many of the moral guidelines we read in the New Testament were written from another cultural vantage point and are no longer authoritative or relevant today. If Christianity is to survive and thrive in the next century, many of our ancient prohibitions (sex outside of marriage, homosexual practice, the significance of gender, etc.) must be set aside.
Outside the West, this enthusiasm for rejecting Christian moral precepts that have been accepted by all Christians, everywhere, for 2,000 years is mind-boggling.
Churches that accept societys dogma on marriage and sexuality may think of themselves as affirming, but the global church sees them as apostate. Meanwhile, it is the height of imperialistic narrowness for a rapidly shrinking subset of white churches in the West to lecture the rest of the world including those places where Christianity is exploding in growth or where Christians are being martyred on why they are wrong and how everyone else in Christian history has misread Scripture regarding the meaning of marriage.
Nestled within our own times, it is easy to think the trajectory of history will lead to an inevitable change within the global Christian church. But historys lesson is the opposite. A century ago, the modernists believed that the triumph of naturalism would lead to the total transformation of Christianity.
It must have seemed thrilling for these leaders to think they were at the vanguard of reformation, that they were the pivot point of Christianitys inevitable future. But such was not the case. Traditional stalwarts like Machen and G.K. Chesterton (who were criticized as hopelessly backward back then) still have books in print. The names of most of their once-fashionable opponents are largely unrecognizable.
Its commonplace to assume that contemporary societys redefinition of marriage, gender and the purpose for sexuality will eventually persuade the church to follow along. But if we were to jump forward into the 22nd century, I wonder what we would see.
Most likely, we would see a world in which the explosive growth of Christians in South America, China and Africa has dwarfed the churches of North America and Europe. And the lesson we learn from a century ago will probably still be true: The churches that thrived were those that offered their world something more than the echo of the times.
(Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project and author of multiple books, including Clear Winter Nights: A Journey Into Truth, Doubt and What Comes After.)
**I recently spoke with someone at Ligonier Ministries, a parachurch organization. Their publications are being prepared for distribution in China, along with John MacArthur’s study Bible.**
They also send broadcasts by shortwave radio into Muslim countries.
I think your assessment is right. There will be a greater divide between happy-clappy churches with those who follow sound doctrine. The latter will persecuted, the former will thrive, until they stop being useful to the culture that is.
The physician should be in good health when treating the patient. Allowing a homosexual priest to minister to the flock is like allowing a surgeon with malaria to perform open heart surgery.
Some “homosexual offenders” became Christians in Paul’s time, but their homosexual offenses (sins) were described in the past tense. I very much doubt they went around proclaiming they were homosexuals. Nevertheless, the fact that they were forgiven didn’t mean they needed to be elevated into leadership positions.
The standards for Christian leaders should be exceptionally stringent as Paul advised. Why should the church be led by anyone but the best of the best, i.e. the most knowledgeable, self sacrificing, morally upright people with long track records as such?
People, even Christians, make a large presumptuous mistake when they assume God to be a maker of arbitrary, restrictive rules by which we are to prove ourselves worthy of heaven. Not so.
The world we live in is not the world God created, it is the world into which creation has fallen. A loving God gave us instructions on how to navigate this fallen world.
In the case of sex, God realized that the wonderful gift he gave the innocent Adam and Eve was a powerful and dangerous force in the fallen world. Use it wisely, because abuse leads to despair, destruction and chaos. Keep it within the bounds of a sanctified, committed marriage and it is a wonderful thing. Toss it around casually and it will destroy somebody.
Parents tell their children NOT to play on the freeway - not because they want to take all the fun out of life, but because they want their children to live safe and happy lives. As does God.
Good parents don’t teach their children that guns are bad, unsafe and evil...Good parents teach their children that guns are a tool to be respected, used properly and handled carefully - but wonderful in their proper place.
This is what God teaches us about sex. Many children are throwing tantrums - stamping their feet and screaming, “I hate you! You never let me do anything fun.” And the freeways of life are strewn with their mangled bodies.
How utterly foolish are the churches and pastors that say, in effect, “It’s OK, if you enjoy playing on the freeway, go ahead. We want to be inclusive and let everyone enjoy their fun.”
It’s only a matter of time before they will be in church telling them how and what they can preach or face jail and/or financial penalties or lose your job. You already see reports of these events around the country.
take this disagreement to your own thread. This thread is about cultural pressure on Christianity to change its message about faithfulness to God.
It is easy enough for you all to post your own threads. Try not to disrupt those of others.
At just the time a little unity would benefit the culture, what exactly do conservatives gain with their circular firing squads?
Yes it appears from my brief search to be true.
title is so far removed from fact as to be beyond laughable,
is suspect that those willing to ignore the contents of the book would not have much trouble tn ignoring the reason its called the King James Bible.
yep its vile...but its even more TACKY!
You know, they can simply bite me.
This perspective simply amazes me. First, I have a great deal of respect for our all-powerful, all-knowing God. I assume He got these things right the first time, on His own, without our help. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I have enough fear/respect/love/trust in God to gain the easy wisdom that says "make the right choice - follow God".
Second, even without that really big hint that the Bible should be trusted, I find it obvious that marriage exists to protect children, and that sex outside marriage endangers any resulting children (whether through abortion, neglect, or poverty).
find it obvious that infidelity destabilizes marriages, which puts children at risk if there are children in those marriages.
I find it obvious that homosexual acts pose a huge risk of spreading serious diseases because the body is not designed for those actions.
I find it obvious that "gender" is nonsense, that sex is determined by chromosomes, and details like whether a girl is more prissy or more of a tomboy (or whether a guy is manly or more of a metrosexual pajamaboy Obama close) do not mean that a person has to surgically mutilate a healthy body.
Thats falling for the lefts victory through victimhood framing.
A countless number of martyrs, as well as our Lord, might have a different take on that.
Homosexuality just happens to be THEIR club to be USED ON the righteous.
We were warned
Matthew 5:11-12King James Version (KJV)
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Christianity cannot change and remain Christianity. Our Founder does not change He is day to day the same.
Disruption? How so? Is post 8 a disruption? That is what prompted my comment. Why are you calling me and bb out?
ping
I said my piece to xzins in freepmail.
Don-o, I have always considered you a dear FRiend. I hope you know I meant no disrespect, and I took no offense at anything you said here. (Or anywhere else, for that matter).
The original sin in the Garden of Eden involved not only disobedience to God, but it was a response to Satan’s temptation to “be like God”. That is the fundamental nature of humans: it is our desire to be our own God, set our own rules, our own moral code, and do whatever our heart desires. That also is the crux of rejection of God . . . in favor of self. Is our current culture not obsessed with self over the well being of all others?
If the church changes its teaching on sexual issues to be consistent with current culture, that is in fact rejection of God to favor man’s “opinion of the week” on the issues. But in so doing, if God permits that to happen, isn’t he “giving us over to our sinful desires”? That troubles me greatly.
Can we not look around us and see the destruction of the traditional family? Can we not see the devastating impact it has had on our children? Can we not see the conflict between young men and women? Can we not see the despair of young men and women from the absence of meaningful, committed and loving relationships? Is it not abundantly clear that our culture’s attempt to “improve” on God’s counsel already has been shown to be an abysmal and complete failure? I trust God over man; we are proven failures without Him.
The Catholic Church was the perfect place for a homosexual to join.
- no questions asked of a young man as to why he isn’t married or have a girlfriend
- receive a great amount of respect from the community
- have access to young people
- have authority and position, both of which would bring about protection for a certain amount of time
Not allowing priests to marry has set this up. If I wanted to remain in the closet, but have access to children, and do so with admiration and respect and no questions asked, this is the perfect answer.
We have a 501c3 online Bible ministry. We received our C3 tax status through an organization called StartChurch. They recently sent my husband an email about what our rights were if asked to perform a marriage for homosexuals. They said, generally if you have a C3 tax status, have already stated what kind of church you are, the homosexuals cannot sue. I am sorry I did not read the letter, just know the gist of it, which is without a C3 status you are more vulnerable to lawsuits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.