I have often said that what happens in politics is what is happening in "Christian" circles. Remember the arguement over whether the Constitution of the United States was a "living and breathing document" or whether it was unchangeable, with the writers writing "in stone" if you will, what they saw as necessary? It was during the impeachment of President Clinton.
Those arguements used for and against the Constitution sounded just like those used regarding the Bible: what did God mean in Scripture? Is Scripture changing with the times and cultures? Can we say dogmatically what the authors meant?
I often see the parallels between the two arenas, and found it again in the following statement in regard to the Homeland Security report on 'Right Wing Extremists' who are considered a risk to our security. Apparently I along with millions are risks to the very country we love:
Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee responded:
"The report purports to analyze 'rightwing extremism' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the report, 'rightwing extremists' could include groups dedicated to opposing abortion or illegal immigration as well as those who may not agree with the new administration's 'perceived' stance on several issues including illegal immigration and restrictions on firearm ownership.
"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted administration policy – in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote.
Source here.
This is the same issue in regard to Tim Challies' recent sweeping rejection of all online discernment websites as having "no value" and encourage ungodly behavior in their reporting of commonplace or increasing commonplace theology and practices of churches and pastors around America. He refused to give any specifics at all. I'll just switch a few words around and you'll see just how similar the problem with liberalism is:
"The blog purports to analyze 'online discernment ministries' without defining the term or specifying by name a single group that falls into this category," he said. "According to the imprecise analysis contained in the commentary, 'online Discernment ministries' could include groups dedicated to opposing Roman Catholicism, or the Occult, as well as those who may not agree with the popular "reformed" 'perceived' stance on several issues including unbiblical baptisms, works salvation, homosexuality acceptance, Creation, cussing pastors, the Emergent Church, Arminian pastors, or the use of Eastern Mysticism .
"On their face, these statements may appear to cast legitimate viewpoints – in fact some viewpoints that recently constituted other well-known pastor's views --in a suspicious light. Without any specific reporting to support such vague statements it is easy to see how they are offensive to many people," he wrote. "
**Update**
I just came across an old post at Slice of Laodicea that shows the hypocrisy and liberalism of Challies:
Quote:
If you read Tim Challies’ weak treatment of Mark Driscoll’s foul mouth in his review of Driscoll’s latest book, read Steve Camp’s excellent assessment of the problems with Mark Driscoll and the whole cult of personality that grows up around these emerging church celebrities. Steve Camp decided to try a test. He went to the comment section on Challies’ Driscoll piece, and using some of the same speech and phraseology that Driscoll had used about Jesus, he directed it toward Driscoll. Predictably, his comments were deleted as Driscoll fans waxed hot in anger that anyone could say such things about their guy....
And by the way, Tim Challies, Driscoll’s talk is not wrong because it violates good taste but because it violates Scripture’s commands against coarse jesting, filthy talk, and corrupt communication. Weak-kneed responses from Christian men are allowing this kind of thing to worsen. At one time even secular men would have seen a woman in their presence and told a foul-mouthed colleague to watch their talk. Now “pastors” spew this filth from pulpits and their books, and the best Christian men bloggers can do is to say it’s in “poor taste”. No, actually it’s sin, and as a Christian female, I’m sick of hearing it from Christian pastors and having to write about it, frankly. Calling all Christian men (especally bloggers)–take a stand! Thank you so much, Steve, for standing up for what is right. Christian decency is not dead yet.
End quote.
Amen Ingrid. And all the more true today with Challies' feined "shock" with Driscoll's teaching on the Song of Solomon.
No comments:
Post a Comment