Moral Contradictions

Monday, July 25, 2005

Mohler whacks his ax for more liberal attacks

Jesus Politics links to a Baptist Press article "Book examines conservative resurgence, demise of liberal churches".

First of all, the article proves that the Baptist Press is simply a tool of the Southern Baptist Convention's propaganda machine.

But Nathan, you're just attacking the SBC yet again... so typical of you... pfft.

I wouldn't go after the SBC if it didn't give me so much material. The article pre-supposes to review the book "Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity", but merely quotes Richard Land and Al Mohler over and over while the author Daniel Shifflet, is barely able to poke his head through. The article claims Shifflet "crisscrossed America interviewing both conservatives and liberals to find the reasons behind what is happening within American Christianity". Unfortunately the writer of the article did not do the same.

It's the Al and Dick show. No alternative view... none. Journalism has surrendered.

But Nathan, our society's morality is declining... you at least can agree to that?

Yes, but we need to have an open discourse to come up with solutions, instead of presenting just one opinion as the One True Way.

I came across another instance which made me say "Whaaa?". As I continued to read a huge red flag sprung because I remembered several articles reporting baptisms were down in the SBC. Why? According to the linked article, it could be because people are flocking to the non-denominational mega churches, could be because families are having less children, could be for reasons my two sisters-in-law left with one Catholic and the other Pentecostal... could be anything. Yet... they're still down, not up.

The red flag flew because simple logic is missing: If your denomination has less than positive numbers, how can you strut around and wag fingers at other churches with a similar problem? Instead of honestly focusing on what's really happening, Land and Mohler just trumpet their way as the only way, all facts ignored. Instead of seeking common Christian bonds to help work towards solutions... instead of agreeing to disagree in some areas in light of our Lord and Savior, Land and Mohler decided to take the low road of divisiveness and say "sucks to be you!".

Nathan, I think you're reading this article all wrong.


Great! I hope I am. I'd love for someone to rebut the arrogance, willful ignorance of facts, unbalanced presentation, and lack of journalism basics.

Ostensibly none of the above-mentioned reasons entered Al Mohler's mind for why other churches are declining. General Mohler is too preoccupied with sex to sort out logic or self-examine his own denomination's problems. The article mentions sex six times and each instance is attributed to him. Perhaps declining births or defections to non-denominational churches may explain the SBC's numbers, but not the "liberal churches"! It's the sex. All about the sex.

Then, in more proof that the article is simply a tool, the only other issues mentioned are homosexuality and abortion. "We're better than you, and the world will be a better place once people stop fornicating and having abortions" is how I read the article. Why all this sexual focus? Why can't the church focus on other issues as well? I passed a homeless person on the interstate today... I'm sure he cares about the latest update on John Robert's nomination to the Supreme Court. Really.

This article and its quotes reeks of arrogance. Absolute arrogance. Personally, you may disagree with me, but I don't believe arrogance should come anywhere near our faith. Ever. This whole "we're right/you're wrong" has got to stop. I'm guilty of it. I'm not perfect... When I started this blog angerness rose within me as I typed out entries, but now a spirit of love for our Church and a sense of sadness has crept in. We as a united church have so much potential, but I'm saddened because besting each other, power struggles, and our seemingly single focus on all things sexual are what non-believers think we're all about. How can we project the love of Christ in this type of atmosphere?

Well Nathan, at the end of the day, these are still the most important issues and I stand by the SBC's representation of liberal churches.

At the end of the day, Jesus is going to ask how we advanced His Kingdom, and when that day comes, I don't think the use of politics or arrogance will be welcomed.

Stereotyping all churches other than yours as "liberal" and sex-obsessed and then gloating about it is utterly shameful and goes against everything I was brought up to believe. Perhaps the unfriendly spirit and arrogant tone of articles such as this one is the reason why SBC baptisms are down.

6 Comments:

  • Well said, Nathan. I couldn't agree more.

    I especially agree with your statement, "At the end of the day, Jesus is going to ask how we advanced His Kingdom, and when that day comes, I don't think the use of politics or arrogance will be welcomed."

    Somewhere, somehow, USAmerican Churchianity has missed the main points of the Kingdom. That is something we will have to answer for one day.

    Peace,

    Mike

    By Blogger Dr. Mike Kear, at Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:21:00 AM  

  • Mike,

    USAmerican Churchianity... very interesting term... I'll have to remember that.

    I apologize you had to read that w/ the typos. I just re-read it after a nice night of sleep and can't believe all I missed. :)

    Thanks for reading!

    Nathan

    By Blogger Nathan, at Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:46:00 AM  

  • Nathan,

    At the end of the day, Jesus is going to ask how we advanced His Kingdom, and when that day comes, I don't think the use of politics or arrogance will be welcomed.

    Does this involve gay marriage?

    Does this involve gay pastors?

    Does this involve embracing liberal theology?

    Does this involve gossip about fellow Christians?

    Did you suggest a different solution?

    After all, where exactly do you stand on the issues above? The answer to these questions will show how serious you are to Kingdom Advancement.

    Josh Buice

    By Blogger Josh Buice, at Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:11:00 PM  

  • Josh,

    I think you may be surprised where I stand on these issues.

    My question to you is: Does this involve condemning people and excluding them?

    The solutions that have been implemented have been full of politics and arrogance. The spirit of love is lost. So many like to portray themselves as holier than thou, and that goes against the Bible.

    I stand by that statement... Jesus reached out to "sinners", hung out with "sinners" and condemened the "righteous" Pharisees. We as Christians can get so wrought up with the law and politics that we lose the love and grace from the example of Jesus.

    By Blogger Nathan, at Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:18:00 AM  

  • Josh,

    It's been a couple of hours since I replied to your post. Now that what you wrote has kind of sunk in, I'm quite offended.

    Are you not putting yourself and your particular ways for "Kingdom Advancement" above me? Even if you didn't like my answers to the questions you posed, how dare you judge whether that's in line with your view of "Kingdom Advancement".

    Perhaps there's other ways to achieve "Kindgom Advancement" that don't line up with your ways? Perhaps those ways are correct too?

    Perhaps there's more than one way or solution to problems, which may or may not fall in line with your beliefs?

    Maybe you didn't really mean it, but that sort of arrogance really gets to me.

    By Blogger Nathan, at Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:01:00 PM  

  • Furthermore, you proved the point of my post... how do those questions stand up compared to the questions Jesus asks us in Matthew 25:34-40?

    The questions you ask are valid, but the whole point was to illustrate how they too often get elevated above our Biblically-based mission and focus.

    By Blogger Nathan, at Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home