May 14, 2008

From Useful Idiots to Political Misfits

What is an “evangelical”? According to almost 80 prominent pastors, theologians, and activists, the word “evangelical" has become “a term that, in recent years, has often been used politically, culturally, socially—and even as a marketing demographic."

The group signed and released a 19 page “Evangelical Manifesto” last week in Washington D.C. The goal of the document is to “reclaim the definition of what it means to be an Evangelical.” They believe that theological, rather than political, principles should define evangelicalism, and they offer a strong rebuke to those who would equate the word with either end of the political spectrum. When evangelicalism is politically defined, they say, it makes Christians “useful idiots” for politicians and parties.

The manifesto’s signers are a diverse bunch including Timothy George, dean, Beeson Divinity School; Os Guinness; Richard Mouw, president, Fuller Theological Seminary; David Neff, editor in chief of Christianity Today; and Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine. Absent are some high profile Religious Right folks like James Dobson. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has written about why he won’t sign the manifesto even though he agrees with 90 percent of its content.

One commentator has noted that the manifesto represents a divide between the “old-style populist evangelicals” (think Religious Right, Moral Majority, pro-life, anti-gay marriage) and what he calls the increasing ranks of “cosmopolitan evangelicals” (think global awareness, social justice, poverty, AIDS). He says this bunch (shall we call them Cosmo-Christians?) are “the new public face of the evangelical movement.”

Continue reading "From Useful Idiots to Political Misfits"

Posted by UrL at  May 14, 2008 | Comments (11)

May 13, 2008

Gordon MacDonald: Is Wright Really Wrong?

In Gordon MacDonald's monthly column at LeadershipJournal.net, he asks this provocative question:

Is there a significant difference between Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” and the comment so oft-quoted in evangelical pulpits (attributed to a well known preacher who shall go unnamed): “If God does not judge America for its sins, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Don’t quibble about word-choice; think substance. Is there a significant difference?

I figure Out of Ur is as good a place as any to answer MacDonald's question. Have at it.

Share this:

Posted by UrL at  May 13, 2008 | Comments (26)

May 9, 2008

The Emerging Synagogue?

While following a relatively uninteresting trail of research recently (which I won't retrace here), I happened upon Synagogue 3000 (S3K). This consortium of rabbis and other Jewish leaders is committed to offering “challenging and promising alternatives to traditional synagogue structures.” They call themselves "Jewish Emergents," and their understanding of their mission is, in some ways, very similar to that of the Christian Emergent movement.

They are concerned, for example, with communicating authentic faith in a postmodern idiom, which has compelled them to move worship beyond the synagogue. So, they are meeting in homes, bars, and coffee houses, among other places. They are resurrecting some ancient practices, such as worshiping in Hebrew, while ignoring others. And they are reconsidering the qualifications for participation and leadership.

There are also significant differences between Jewish Emergents and Christian Emergents, of course. Along with Synagogue 3000, Jewish Emergents seem more concerned with updating the style and format of Jewish observation and worship than with questioning or reformulating orthodox Jewish theology. Also, while the Jewish Emergents are eager to reconcile younger non-practicing Jews to the faith, they are not concerned with proselytizing.

Continue reading "The Emerging Synagogue?"

Posted by UrL at  May 9, 2008 | Comments (13)

May 8, 2008

Out of Context: Dave Terpstra

"I think our generation is approaching ministry more as an art than a science. Since the Enlightenment, 'doing church' has been seen as a science, and it was seen as linear, organized, with clearcut leadership principles. Our generation doesn't see things that way anymore. We approach things more creatively, more organically."

-Dave Terpstra is teaching pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver. Taken from "Next & Level" in the Spring 2008 issue of Leadership journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL at  May 8, 2008 | Comments (15)

May 6, 2008

John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics

Anybody but me notice that this is an election year? I have loved politics since I was a kid; one of my first and favorite books was a little Cold War classic called Being an American Can Be Fun.

But it’s an odd thing. The church—where we’re supposed to be fearless; where we’re supposed to challenge people on sin, and be prophetic, and face martyrdom—the church is also the place where we’re told, “Don’t talk about politics!” Or at least we’re told that in the kind of churches where I grew up. Other traditions are different. In the African-American church, for instance, for decades church was the one place where politics could be safely talked about; leaving a legacy that is reverberating pretty loudly this year.

Here’s the problem: politics is an important sphere of human activity, and as such God is keenly interested in it. It was the Dutch theologian and politician (why don’t we have more of those?) Abraham Kuyper who famously said, “There is not one inch of creation about which Jesus Christ does not say: ‘This is mine!’”

However, as soon as human beings (including church leaders) start assuming they are in a position to pronounce God’s political leanings, things get a little dicey.

Continue reading "John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics"

Posted by UrL at  May 6, 2008 | Comments (16)