March 19, 2012
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?%2Fsf%2Fpage%2F28532#.T2sgYI3DesM.facebook
How Revisionist Activists Subvert the Church
One of the things we’re intentionally setting out to do now that we’ve broadened Stand Firm’s scope of coverage is to shine a spotlight on those troubled areas where revisionist activists are beginning to eat away at the Body of Christ.
Theological liberalism is parasitic. It survives and thrives by attaching itself to a healthy orthodox Christian denomination or communion, and subverting its weakest members—namely, those who are insufficiently grounded in scripture, those nursing past hurts and resentments, those who want desperately to be seen as “smart”, and those looking to make a name for themselves by playing the maverick.
The pattern usually plays out as follows:
1. A small group of revisionist activists embrace an unbiblical but culturally popular idea.
2. Orthodox leaders respond by reasserting the Faith.
3. Those styling themselves “moderate” (who often don’t quite grasp the theological issues at stake) emphasize the need for unity and patience. Three of the most common moderate templates are: an appeal to the “Gamaliel model” from Acts 5; an attempt to re-cast the conflict as adiaphora—a dispute over “non-essential” issues; and/or an argument from Jesus’ command not to “judge”.
4. The theological liberals congratulate and fawn over “moderates” for their “open-mindedness”, feeding the moderates’ need to be liked/admired.
5. At some point the secular media (perhaps alerted by the revisionist activists) is attracted to the conflict and various outlets report on the “growing controversy”. The media portrays orthodox leaders as stodgy reactionaries. Theological liberals are showcased as cutting edge enlightened thinkers, courageously challenging the powers-that-be on behalf of the downtrodden. “Moderates” who hold traditional views but counsel “dialog” are featured as the “voices of reason” in the troubled denomination.
6. What had been a tiny group of relatively harmless revisionists now begins to gain steam as members of the denomination uninformed and unprepared for the controversy are exposed to revisionist arguments for the first time via the media alongside gentle calls for moderation, patience and open-mindedness.
7. Well-meaning, conflict-averse orthodox pastors hope to shield their flock by “focusing on mission” and avoiding the topic.
8. Having leveraged the moderates and the press, the tiny group of revisionist activists now has the political clout to influence the direction of the entire denomination. They “put facts on the ground” and initiate legislative action.
9. Many otherwise orthodox leaders do not speak forcefully against these measures because those who have already done so have been successfully characterized as “angry zealots”, “fundementalists” and “rabble rousers.”
At this point it is generally only a matter of time before “facts on the ground” become legislative facts and the denomination begins to crumble. Traditional-minded members quietly leave for other churches. Others hole up in “safe” ghettos hoping to ride out the storm. The vast majority seek desperately to continue on as if nothing has happened. But as traditionalists leave the revisionists gain power and a vicious cycle picks up steam.
This process, or one like it, is working itself out in the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Episcopal Church (TEC), the Lutheran Church (ECLA), the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), and the United Methodist Church (UMC). It looks to be gaining steam in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). And revisionists like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are busy exporting theological liberalism from the mainlines into the wider evangelical realm.
Key to building an effective response, I believe, is recognizing that the fight in the Episcopal Church is the very same fight playing out in the PCUSA, the UMC, the ECLA, the RCA, the wider evangelical world and, increasingly, within Catholicism. The revisionist activists use different tools determined by differing denominational structures but the process is almost always the same as is the result—a once healthy body gutted and corrupt.
Identifying disputes over human sexuality, the truthfulness of scripture, the uniqueness of Christ, the existence of hell and judgment, the relationship between “social justice” and evangelism as part of a larger single conflict extending across many different denominational fronts, will make it easier to recognize the process revisionist activists use and identify effective means of undermining it.
How do orthodox Christians in a given denomination stop and roll back the cycle? I wish I had definitive answers to that question. I do have some initial thoughts below. None of them are new, unique, or especially creative but I do want to get the conversation going.
1. Produce biblically literate orthodox, theologically discerning congregations that understand the need both for prayer and political involvement; congregations that are prepared to endure both scorn and loss for the sake of biblical fidelity.
2. Promote and support politically astute strategic minded orthodox leaders prepared to use the media, the church courts, and legislative action to defend and implement orthodoxy.
3. Organize politically minded orthodox groups committed to working locally, regionally, and nationally to thwart theological liberalism and create denominational structures and laws that prevent further revisionist incursions.
4. Create online orthodox communication hubs—places where the words and deeds of revisionist activists can be publicly exposed and disparate orthodox leaders and people can network and strategize.
5. Follow the Apostolic model and contend zealously for the faith. Publicly identify, name, and critique and criticize ideas and leaders who challenge orthodoxy. Do it early and often from the pulpit, in print, and online.
6. Make a practice of ignoring calls for “patience”, “moderation” and do not allow those who make such calls to set the tone of the debate.
7. Habitually eschew the spiritual sounding advice from well-meaning allies who suggest political involvement and action is unworthy of the Christian.
So what would you add to this list?
No comments:
Post a Comment