Posted on 02/14/2008 4:28:15 PM PST by Terriergal
The Religious Left is successfully redefining what it means to be a conservative evangelical by misrepresenting what it means to be a conservative evangelical. In a recent conference call hosted by Faith in Public Life, one of the emerging voices of the Religious Left, Dr. Joel Hunter, said:
There’s also a change in the voices that are defining what is conservative now, and what is evangelical. In the past couple of decades you’ve had some very loud voices on both sides – hard right, hard left – and when those were the only choices, then of course many evangelicals are going to go with the hard right because, well, that’s kind of where we mostly are. Now there are many more voices that are expanding the agenda, and so those people that have always had kind of a holistic approach, rather than just a one or two issue approach, are now feeling permission and given permission to be more nuanced and more sophisticated in their approach, rather than just going in a very bifurcated system. And so, what you’re hearing now is that the old voices that appointed themselves as the definers of what was evangelical or what was conservative are not holding sway with the majority of evangelicals anymore.
By convincing America that conservative evangelicals are concerned only with two issues, stopping abortion and preserving traditional marriage, these new voices of evangelicalism are effectively making the case that conservative evangelicals ignore poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. The history of evangelicalism tells a different story.
Evangelicals have set the standard throughout history for social action which continues into the present through numerous humanitarian relief organizations. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations claim 64 such organizations as members, including World Vision, Compassion International, Samaritan’s Purse, and Mercy Ships.
One of the largest humanitarian relief organizations in the world is the Salvation Army. It defines its commitment to social services as “…an outward visible expression of the Army's strong religious principles.” Those social services include disaster relief, services for the aging, AIDS education, medical facilities, and shelters for battered women. The Salvation Army impacts 30 million people a year in the United States alone. The founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, was a Methodist minister. On its website the Salvation Army defines itself as an “evangelical group.”
To these readily recognizable evangelical organizations add the innumerable evangelical churches across America that in very quiet and unrecognized ways minister to the needs of the poor and suffering every day. In my own community a local evangelical church runs the oldest and largest homeless shelter in our county. Grace Gospel Fellowship in Pontiac, Michigan serves 127,000 meals a year, provides rehabilitation services and housing for drug addicts and single mothers, and creates jobs. It accomplishes its mission without one dime of government funding, and is “dedicated to recovery through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The Religious Left’s appeal for the Religious Right to “broaden its agenda” to include poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment ignores the fact that conservative evangelicals have always had a strong commitment to these issues. So if conservative evangelicals are already leading the efforts to relieve poverty and disease, what’s behind the call to “broaden the agenda”? Another agenda altogether.
What’s really happening here is an attempt by the Left to define evangelicalism down by moving it away from its emphasis on the power of the gospel to change lives. The church’s ability to affect social and cultural change, bringing relief to the poor and suffering, is rooted first and foremost in its commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what the gospel says about the condition of man in sin which results in the symptoms of poverty and disease.
The Religious Left invalidates the conservative evangelical commitment to humanitarian relief because we are achieving our ends in the name of Jesus Christ through the gospel, without the assistance of government funding. The fundamental tenant of modern liberalism is that a government program funded by redistributed wealth is the preferred method of humanitarian relief rather than what the church is accomplishing by faith through compassionate hearts.
The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The argument for this reprioritizing is a convincing one, suggesting the new priorities for evangelicals ought to be determined by asking, “How would Jesus respond to (fill in your favorite social cause here)?” The implied answer is that Jesus would be more concerned about the treatment of the poor (especially illegal immigrants) and, at best, neutral on the questions of abortion and homosexual marriage because Jesus never spoke against abortion or homosexual marriage.
These new voices of evangelicalism wear the label “red letter Christians,” but they are in reality “white space Christians,” determining Jesus’ view of abortion and homosexual marriage by focusing on what he didn’t say rather than on what he did say. In Matthew 5 Jesus upholds the standard of the Mosaic Law, which is clear in its call for punishing anyone responsible for killing a child in the womb (Exodus 21:22-25). When Jesus wanted to illustrate true greatness, he set a child in the midst of the disciples and said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In Matthew 19 Jesus clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman by validating the story of Adam and Eve, holding it up as the standard for marriage. As for the question of how Jesus would respond to illegal immigrants, I’m pretty sure he would tell them to obey the law (cf. Matthew 22:21).
The new voices of evangelicalism sound eerily similar to the old voices of the social gospel movement who moved their churches away from the priority of the gospel in the early 20th Century, focusing instead on positive thinking and welfare as a solution to social ills. The result was empty pews and even emptier hearts. I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, then I’ll get down on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again (with apologies to Pete Townshend).
You would like a gray area, but apparently you don’t really see any balance in scripture. If you are calling Ehud a murderer, when scripture clearly indicates he was brought forward in answer to a prayer to God, we don’t really have any common ground, HarleyD. By this logic, Jesus was a sabbath-breaker for defying the Pharisees, who were, after all, in authority over Him. We know Christ was without sin, so defying man’s law to honor God’s, is not sin, except in the pharisaical technical sense of the term, not in God’s sense of the transaction.
Earlier you stated that MacArthur would have made a good "jew-killing Nazi Lutheran" (post 20). Tell me what MacArthur is asking the people to do that is "objectively evil"? Fact is there isn't anything. The only thing you're criticizing him for is that he is stating that we should obey authority and he's using Romans 13 as his text.
I would say the number of times I have seen MacArthur on television, he has ALWAYS defended the gospel and stated honestly and openly what the gospel is. This is far more than I can say for people like Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and, yes, even Billy Graham.
Earlier you seemed to admit that there are occasions when higher laws are obeyed over lower ones. Don't let your defense of a mere man--John MacArthur--cloud your defense of scripture.
The ONLY time we are to obey the "higher laws" are when they conflict with our relationship with God. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were willing to serve King Nebuchadnezzar and act as his advisors carrying out his laws-as reprehensible as they were. However, they were not willing to bow down to a golden statue he had made. There are limits but they have to do with spiritual limits-not legal ones. Like abortion in the US, we can (and should) vote against it, but that is where our authority ends. The responsibility rest with those who carry it out.
God executes His will in all sorts of ways. David murdered Uriah. That doesn't make what David did right, it simply happened. Uriah's time to die was appointed to him by God and that is the method that God chose for Uriah.
Ehud murdered the king. So? All men are sinners and all men do bad things-even Christians. Sometimes we do those bad things in the name of the Lord. So what? Peter tells us "let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer, or a meddler in the affairs of others" (1 Pet 4:15) Peter felt that being a murderer was just as bad as meddling in the affairs of others.
By this logic, Jesus was a sabbath-breaker for defying the Pharisees, who were, after all, in authority over Him.
Your premise is wrong. The Pharisees were NOT in authority over Christ. He made that perfectly clear on several occasions.
Of course she doesn't owe me obedience. That, like the midwives, is what the higher and lower laws are all about. As with the Egyptian midwives they didn't obey Pharaoh and God blessed them. I would also venture to guess the same would happen with my wife for refusing to go through with my scheming murder plot. That doesn't mean they are not committing sin. They're in fact are by refusing to obey authority. It's just that it isn't as high of a sin.
You, and MacArthur, can't hide behind a coward's absolutist interpretation of Romans 13.
There is nothing absolutist about it. Romans 13 plainly states that we should obey authority. 1 Tim 2 says we should pray for those in authority. You have offer no plausible counter interpretation except simply to say this refers to church authority. No commentator that I can find would agree with your interpretation.
David had a high regard for authority. On several occasions he had an opportunity to kill Saul, yet refused. Keep in mind that Saul was running around the country killing the priest of God, yet David did nothing. Finally when someone lied to him saying that he killed King Saul, he had him executed for putting his hand to the "Lord's anointed". By your logic David was irresponsible and culpable.
There is not a single trace of divine judgement towards Ehud anywhere in scripture, or towards Rahab, or towards the midwives, or towards Jesus for overturning the money changers' tables.
Who said anything about judgment against Ehud, etc.? Sin does bring consequences as David found out, but if you're a believer it does not bring divine judgment. There is a difference between consequences and judgment. Even though David's sin was reprehensible, God still loved him.
The definition of heresy is literally to lift one truth out of the whole and make it your gospel hobby. That is precisely what John MacArthur is doing,
Keep in mind that John MacArthur has a whole group of historical commentators to back him up. Unless you can offer a plausible explanation to Romans 13, I'd be careful about who I'd be saying is "lifting one truth".
If I recall properly, our Lord Jesus told them they had made "His Father's house" a den of thieves. Since the house belong to His Father, I would say He had authority over it.
You can't "obey" authority without defining it--as Romans 13 clearly does. Unless you want to call God a liar (do you?)
And how is it defined? I believe I have stated many times now that the commentators all agree that Paul is talking about obeying government bodies. There is no need to say that God is a liar. He is rather clear on the subject.
someone who is not a "rewarder of those who do good" is not in authority.
I would call to your attention Pilate who was given the authority to execute our Lord Jesus by God. At least that is what our Lord stated.
That God raised up someone who would deliver them. It doesn't mean any more than that.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:Rulers "are not" by definition a "terror to good works." If a ruler is a terror unto those who do good he is not a Ruler. You don't need a "commentator" on that, unless you want to be willfully blind.
What verse tells us to transform the culture?
A transformed culture is the natural outcome of people living Christian faith in loving God and others as ourselves, but I don’t see any call in the bible to transform culture.
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.