Skip to main content
What is an "evangelical," anyway? You can only read so many seminary texts before you realize that, in context, it means, "People I agree with." It's the opposite of "fundamentalist." Which is why it's actually quite funny when some irreligious "progressive" is sputtering about how the "fundamentalist evangelicals" have thwarted some plan of theirs that would cause misery, poverty, and doom to millions. Anyway, I don't even think "conservative Protestant" covers it anymore. Was Lewis a conservative Protestant? [Sort of.--ed.] Yeah, I don't think he could be marshalled for the litany of sociopolitical causes (many of which, granted, I share) with which faithful Christianity is enmeshed. Let me yell in the direction of First Things: Why do you have a political blog (The Anchoress) sponsored on your site? Look, I understand: Abortion is a huge problem; the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality is a huge problem. For those two reasons, the Democrats (and half the Republicans) deserve to lose every election from now until Kingdom Come. That said, my political convictions are not religious in nature; I believe what Jesus and the Church teach with a thousand times more fervor, and that's even granting the fact that mistakes in economic and foreign policy (Keynesianism and neoconservatism, for example) cost human lives every day. And, in fact, most things are highly debatable. All I'm saying is, if it were me, and I came to realize that your 'gospel' meant I had to hate Obama, etc. I'd want no part of it.
That's not to say I'm a Donald Miller evangelical; I'm not a hipster, I don't read Sojourners, and I don't believe in 'fair trade.' I'm not overly burdened by my affluence; I rather want to know why it's not spreading all over. I think Jim Wallis should put down the mic, and pick up a Bible. And just stick with that. Maybe you can spend a couple years reading some economics or political history on the side before you talk again. I'd rather hear you say, "You don't have to be estranged from God" than, "You don't have to be Republican." Why is everything political? I love politics, but I'd rather not be in a fight all the time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un