Close the Church of Christian Criticism

Jan 28, 2009

A guest post by Will Halloren

The Internet has been a real blessing to me. It has enabled me to continue my education, expand my Christian contacts [like you, I hope, dear reader], entertain myself with youtube and blog-reading and even help me to witness the Truth in love and minister to those in need. It also drives me right out of my mind.

In the past I could ignore those groups of people who say they are Christian, and may well be , yet practice something I find disturbing, like snake handling, or legalism. Now I am exposed to things I formerly was able to ignore. At the top of my personal Ignorance list was the existence of a cottage industry full of vehemence and bile, that group of people who say they are Christian and spend their lives criticizing everything that happens in a building with a cross on the roof. Don’t get me wrong, there are some loose wingnuts on the wheels of modern Christianity, and pointing out the insanity is healthy! I am not talking about those of us [me] who desire to point out wackos and frauds; I mean people who take on whole denominations, entire -faith-groups of mainstream believers, or really well known figureheads of the faith.

Is there any point in declaring Billy Graham to be anathema? All right he is old and says some odd things today, but have you read his stuff? Did you see his track record? If we were all anathema like Graham there would be a lot more Christians. Is it necessary for the Kingdom to declare John Macarthur a heretic? I have problems with dispensationalism, the whole Jesus just making a touch and go but not really landing is odd to me; I don’t own a Scofield, but MacArthur preaches the gospel! If you do a little googleing you can find somebody against anybody! It is not only individuals that get the indictment of heresy, the Southern Baptist Convention is working for the devil if you listen to some. Now I have been in the SBC tent for 12 years, there are issues. Are they apostasy? Are they anathema? Again, if you look you will find some group nailing away at another group as if they get paid a quarter a word.

Has the discernment of God’s people so decreased that we can not tell a Todd Bentley from a Ravi Zacharias? We can’t perceive a difference in message from Benny Hinn to Tim Keller? We can’t see a change in group dynamic from C.M.A. to the K.K.K.?

We need to read and follow Paul’s advise to the Philippians, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.” I listen to a lot of sermons. I am not seeking an error in another’s ways, I am seeking to be fed on the word of God. If there is something on the plate I do not like, I don’t throw the whole dish to the ground and condemn the cook, I take what I like and praise the meal.

Please look out of the box you live in. Look at Europe. Can you call it Christian? Have you seen England? Do you think we live in an age where we can pick each other apart without serving the Enemy? It just can’t be that hard to separate the wheat from the tares. People my age will remember the Supreme Court decision on pornography. In attempting to define it one judge said, “you know it when you see it.” That definition did not stick, but come on, you know it when you see it. I do not think you need a PhD in theology to know good doctrine from false. Good doctrine may not be perfect doctrine, but it is not purposely false. As for false doctrine, you know it when you see it, it is a lot like porn.


Choose your mess

Dec 22, 2008

By Nigel Barham (Originally posted at nigelbarham.com Used with permission.)

So:

-I have issues
-You have issues
-Those we work with have issues
-Those we interact with have issues

Add it all up and you get one big mess.

But a mess is what Jesus chose to be born into when he arrived on this planet. 12 messes were what he chose for 12 disciples. The Kingdom of God emerging from the mess was what he preached. Eventually he died for the mess.

Today, he is merciful enough to save messes like me; gracious enough to work in messes like me; generous enough to work through messes like me; and patient enough to stick with messes like me (despite frequent royal screw-ups).

Whatever you choose to do in the Kingdom of God, expect a mess. Remember that you are part of the mess. Be gracious with the messes (people) around you. While you’re at it, have fun. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Be a pleasure to be around. Avoid the ‘spiritual gift’ of speck-spotting (Matthew 7:3). Work hard. Do stuff when you don’t feel like it. Smile.

The alternatives to not being in a mess are: (1) another mess, (2) pulling out altogether. Since the latter is not an option biblically…

Choose your mess.


An Ideal Evangelicalism?

Dec 15, 2008

By Michael Spencer (iMonk)

Moderators note:  Michael has graciously allowed us to repost this article at Eclectic Christian.

Somewhere in the previous orgy of comments I’ve had this week, someone asked me to write about “What do you see as the ideal evangelicalism?”

There is no ideal evangelicalism and there’s not going to be. It’s certainly not going to be ideal if I am the architect. So let’s not get out of hand here. I’m a blogger, which tells you about all you need to know on the subject of my credibility.

But that won’t stop me from answering the question in a slightly different form: “What would make for a much better evangelicalism?”

I promise the answers are going to be short.

Read the rest of this entry »


Miracle on 34th Street Ecumenism

Oct 27, 2008

By Michael Spencer

Moderators note:  This post was previously published by Michael Spencer at Internet Monk.  I believe it captures a good part of the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish at Eclectic Christian and so asked Michael Spencer’s permission to republish it here. – Michael Bell

I love Christmas movies. We have many great family memories of watching Emmet Otter’s Jug Band Christmas or singing “Sisters” and “Snow” with the cast of White Christmas. I have some personal favorites like almost any version of A Christmas Carol, the original Tim Allen Santa Clause and the strangely dark and mysterious Prancer.

I’m not a fan of the popular Christmas film Miracle on 34th Street. I’ve watched it 3 or 4 times, and maybe I just wasn’t quite in that particular frame of mind where a Christmas movie really appeals to me, but it’s never been a favorite of mine.

But there is something about “Miracle” that does appeal to me. We can call it “Miracle on 34th Street Ecumenism.”

In the story, the supposedly insane Kris Kringle (Santa to the unintitated) is inspired with a plan. The two large downtown New York department stores can change the way they compete with one another. Instead of making the other store the enemy, they could each take a more gracious view of one another. (At least at Christmas.)

How did that work? Each store did what stores do: they tried to offer the best products at the best prices to the most customers. But when the other store had a better product at a better price, you cheerfully sent the customer to the other store, with best wishes and the simple recognition that your store couldn’t do everything.

This change in behavior and attitude sparks a revolution in the retail jungle. Long time competitors treating one another with respect? With grace? With generosity? Actually recommending that someone go to the other store? And spend money?

Isn’t that unthinkable?

No…it actually sounds like Jesus and his upside down Kingdom. (It actually sounds like St. Nicholas, too. But that’s another story.)

What if Kris Kringle’s crazy idea became the model for ecumenism?

What if we all recognized that we get some things right, but we also get a lot of things wrong? And what if we recognized that some other traditions get the things right that we get wrong?
Read the rest of this entry »


The History of Halloween

Oct 23, 2008

By Father Augustine Thompson, O.P., Associate professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.

(Moderator’s note: I found this article over five years ago, and have kept it on my computer ever since. Update: I believe my source was beliefnet which in turn was an excerpt from Catholic Parent Magazine in 2000.)

We’ve all heard the allegations: Halloween is a pagan rite dating back to some pre-Christian festival among the Celtic Druids that escaped church suppression. Even today modern pagans and witches continue to celebrate this ancient festival. If you let your kids go trick-or-treating, they will be worshiping the devil and pagan gods.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of Halloween are, in fact, very Christian and rather American. Halloween falls on October 31 because of a pope, and its observances are the result of medieval Catholic piety.
It’s true that the ancient Celts of Ireland and Britain celebrated a minor festival on October 31–as they did on the last day of most other months of the year. However, Halloween falls on the last day of October because the Feast of All Saints, or “All Hallows,” falls on November 1. The feast in honor of all the saints in heaven used to be celebrated on May 13, but Pope Gregory III (d. 741) moved it to November 1, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter’s at Rome. Later, in the 840s, Pope Gregory IV commanded that All Saints be observed everywhere. And so the holy day spread to Ireland.
The day before was the feast’s evening vigil, “All Hallows Even,” or “Hallowe’en.” In those days Halloween didn’t have any special significance for Christians or for long-dead Celtic pagans.
In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in southern France, added a celebration on November 2. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. This feast, called All Souls Day, spread from France to the rest of Europe.
So now the Church had feasts for all those in heaven and all those in purgatory. What about those in the other place? It seems Irish Catholic peasants wondered about the unfortunate souls in hell. After all, if the souls in hell are left out when we celebrate those in heaven and purgatory, they might be unhappy enough to cause trouble. So it became customary to bang pots and pans on All Hallows Even to let the damned know they were not forgotten. Thus, in Ireland at least, all the dead came to be remembered–even if the clergy were not terribly sympathetic to Halloween and never allowed All Damned Day into the church calendar.
But that still isn’t our celebration of Halloween. Our traditions on this holiday center on dressing up in fanciful costumes, which isn’t Irish at all. Rather, this custom arose in France during the 14th and 15th centuries. Late medieval Europe was hit by repeated outbreaks of the bubonic plague–the Black Death–and it lost about half its population. It is not surprising that Catholics became more concerned about the afterlife.
More Masses were said on All Souls Day, and artistic representations were devised to remind everyone of their own mortality. We know these representations as the danse macabre, or “dance of death,” which was commonly painted on the walls of cemeteries and shows the devil leading a daisy chain of people–popes, kings, ladies, knights, monks, peasants, lepers, etc.–into the tomb. Sometimes the dance was presented on All Souls Day itself as a living tableau with people dressed up in the garb of various states of life.

But the French dressed up on All Souls, not Halloween; and the Irish, who had Halloween, did not dress up. How the two became mingled probably happened first in the British colonies of North America during the 1700s, when Irish and French Catholics began to intermarry. The Irish focus on hell gave the French masquerades an even more macabre twist.
But as every young ghoul knows, dressing up isn’t the point; the point is getting as many goodies as possible. Where on earth did “trick or treat” come in?
“Treat or treat” is perhaps the oddest and most American addition to Halloween and is the unwilling contribution of English Catholics.
During the penal period of the 1500s to the 1700s in England, Catholics had no legal rights. They could not hold office and were subject to fines, jail and heavy taxes. It was a capital offense to say Mass, and hundreds of priests were martyred.
Occasionally, English Catholics resisted, sometimes foolishly. One of the most foolish acts of resistance was a plot to blow up the Protestant King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. This was supposed to trigger a Catholic uprising against the oppressors. The ill-conceived Gunpowder Plot was foiled on November 5, 1605, when the man guarding the gunpowder, a reckless convert named Guy Fawkes, was captured and arrested. He was hanged; the plot fizzled.
November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, became a great celebration in England, and so it remains. During the penal periods, bands of revelers would put on masks and visit local Catholics in the dead of night, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration: trick or treat!
Guy Fawkes Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. But by the time of the American Revolution, old King James and Guy Fawkes had pretty much been forgotten. Trick or treat, though, was too much fun to give up, so eventually it moved to October 31, the day of the Irish-French masquerade. And in America, trick or treat wasn’t limited to Catholics.
The mixture of various immigrant traditions we know as Halloween had become a fixture in the Unites States by the early 1800s. To this day, it remains unknown in Europe, even in the countries from which some of the customs originated.
But what about witches? Well, they are one of the last additions. The greeting card industry added them in the late 1800s. Halloween was already “ghoulish,” so why not give witches a place on greeting cards? The Halloween card failed (although it has seen a recent resurgence in popularity), but the witches stayed.
So too, in the late 1800s, ill-informed folklorists introduced the jack-o’-lantern. They thought that Halloween was Druidic and pagan in origin. Lamps made from turnips (not pumpkins) had been part of ancient Celtic harvest festivals, so they were translated to the American Halloween celebration.
The next time someone claims that Halloween is a cruel trick to lure your children into devil worship, I suggest you tell them the real origin of All Hallows Even and invite them to discover its Christian significance, along with the two greater and more important Catholic festivals that follow it.

Father Augustine Thompson, O.P., is an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.


An Evangelical Revolution?

Sep 2, 2008

E. J. Dionne Jr.  has an excellent article on The New Evangelical Politics. He writes:

Anyone who still doubts that the evangelical Christian world is going through a political revolution was not watching Pastor Rick Warren’s presidential forum this weekend. The era of reducing Christianity to a narrow set of ideological commitments is over.

Just a few years ago, who would have imagined that Barack Obama and John McCain would hold a discussion of this sort in a church? Who would have thought that the session would be moderated by an evangelical pastor who was emphatic in counting both the Democrat and the Republican as his “friends”? Who would have predicted that in such a setting, the issues of abortion and gay marriage would not dominate the pastor’s queries? …

In 2004, Warren took the view that Christians should vote on a short list of “nonnegotiable” issues, including abortion. But in 2006, on Fox News, of all places, Warren declared: “Jesus’s agenda is far bigger than just one or two issues. . . . We have to care about poverty, we have to care about disease, we have to care about illiteracy, we have to care about corruption in government, sex trafficking.” That is the new politics of evangelical Christianity.

Read the article then come back and let Eclectic Christian know what you think.


Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God

Aug 8, 2008

A Guest Blog by ~ C Michael Patton ~

The following is a posting by C Michael Patton from Parchment and Pen that he has graciously allowed Eclectic Christian to repost here. I feel as if his “Centralist” position is one that really underlies that of being an Eclectic Christian. Emphasis has been added by Eclectic Christian for the purpose of clarity. (Thanks to Michael Spencer for pointing out this article.)

Being in ministry—being in theological ministry—the passions run high. You are going to say some wrong things and you are going to have some wrong things said about you. Such is ministry. One needs to develop some thick skin if they seek to surf these waters.

As a consequence of being misunderstood, you get mislabeled. One label that has been recently tapped on my back with red crayon is “minimalist.” What does that mean to be a minimalist?

Minimalist

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in Pop Evangelicalism, the Emerging Church, and the Emergent church take this perspective.

From the standpoint of those who call me a minimalist, I represent a branch of Evangelicalism that compromises truth for conciliation in the name of ecclesiastical unity.

Stepping back and looking at this criticism, I can see where it comes from. I understand how people would get this impression. I do tend to encourage people to focus on the things that unite. I do tend to plead with people about the danger of talking past each other. I am even sometimes critical of militant apologetic methods that seem to deepen chasms, hardening others in an apologetic position that only focuses on what they are against, thereby losing perspective. However, I would not classify myself as a minimalist.

Let me introduce some similar terms that will help get a grasp on this issue.

Maximalist

One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. Any disagreement, no matter how small it is perceived to be, does not take away from its importance. All issues are equal, or at least close to it.

Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective.

Centrist

One who seeks unity by finding areas of compromise. Taking the dialectical method, opposing positions are rarely correct, but the truth is found in a compromised center.

Many in the Emergent and liberal Church share this perspective.

Centralist

One who starts with the center of Christianity and believes that it provides the anchor from which all other conversation will find its ground. A centralist is focused on the most important elements of the faith so that the other issues can be seen in light of the perspective it provides.

Most in the Historic Evangelical church, some emergers, and some Eastern Orthodox hold this perspective.

It is in this camp that I can be found roasting marshmallows.

What is the “center” of the faith?

The doctrine of the Scripture? The doctrine of truth? Helping those in need? Social action? No. None of these in my opinion are the center of the faith. The center of our faith is Christ. If you want to say “the doctrine of Christ,” that is good as well. It is the person and work of Christ that is the center of Christianity. “Who do men say that I am?” is the most important theological question there is. If you get this wrong, all else will not only come undone, but it will be meaningless. If you get this right, there is a foundational unifying factor that we must recognize and in light of which all other issue must find their place.

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.