06.21.05
Posted in faith at 10:05 am by
I’ve adopted a new litmus test as to whether or not something is ‘blogworthy.’ What I do is I poke around the internets a touch and whenever something makes my blood boil: It’s blogworthy.
Today, the Christian Worldview Network has knocked it out of the park.
This article by Todd Friel is a barn burner:
So, you are an evangelical? Are you sure? Are you sure you want to be?
Twenty years ago, evangelicals had a born again experience, held the Bible in high esteem and attempted to evangelize. By 1995, a Gallup poll revealed only 19% claimed to meet all three criteria.
Today the broad tent of evangelicalism embraces everyone from John MacArthur to Brian MacLaren. The evangelical tent is growing wider every day with disastrous results in three arenas.
I wasn’t aware there was a laundry list of qualifications for evangelicals. The funniest thing about his claim here is that I’m not sure that by most standards the writer would even fall into the category of evangelical. If he wants to talk about hijacking evangelicalism, Mr. Friel needs to look no further than his own fundamentalist roots.
Politics
President Bush won the ’04 election with 78% of the white evangelical vote. Democrats realized they had to get a piece of that demographic or they would only see the White House when the president summoned them. What is the strategy to capture more evangelical votes? Redefinition.
After the election, John Kerry proclaimed he is reading the Bible again and he’s eager to take up the debate about voter values. “I am sick and tired of them saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo Christian ethic, of values … Show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich in this country.”
Now, doesn’t this really just display how very brainwashed the religious right is? John Kerry, for all his shortcomings, makes a pretty good point. Jesus talked about poverty, reconciliation, etc. Jesus would not have been a political pawn that enacted a massive redistribution of wealth to the richest citizens of a country. However, this wacko isn’t interested in faith anymore. He’s created his god: Conservatism. He’ll worship that god till the bitter end.
Tony Campolo, who believes that “evangelical Christianity has been hijacked,” recently said, “Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible?”
What once defined an evangelical is being re-written before our very eyes. With its roots deeply planted in liberation theology, the new evangelical has the following priorities:
>social programs for the poor
>health care for everyone
>no war
>love at all costs
>protect the environment
>do not judge other’s morals
So what the hell is wrong with this? Conservatives don’t like it because it’s a political theology that’s CONSISTENT with scripture’s commands to act with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?
You can argue till you’re blue in the face about biblical ideas being hijacked, but for fuck’s sake, when the ideas that you’re arguing aren’t Biblical are in the Bible to begin with–you don’t really have a leg to stand on. That just makes you look stupid.
Consider this:
> God’s Politics is Jim Wallis’ effort to help liberal Christians redefine what voter values are. “How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American?” It has been on the NY Times best seller list for months.
>Hillary Clinton recently proclaimed to Holy Flame Pentecostal Church in Little Rock, “As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative.” Really? a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage conservative evangelical? Did you know there was such a thing? There is now.
Why belittle my faith? By all standards, I’m a conservative Christian. I just can’t fathom how you can come to the conclusion that my faith is completely inconsistent with my political views.
>Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry have all fired the salvo, “We must make OUR values the nation’s Christian values.” Yikes.
Perhaps you are thinking, “No, that can’t be. The foundation of evangelicalism is Christ and Him crucified. Salvation is the source of our compassion.” Not for long. The new evangelical is being redefined and love without salvation is the foundation.
While the bumper sticker that reads, “Jesus was a Liberal” are not many, they will be multiplying once the media jumps on board.
USA Today just reported that 33% of conservatives are prepared to vote for Hillary, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage evangelical. If we do not define and defend evangelicalism as being “born again”, then say hello to Hillary in ’08 as she siphons off un-saved and undiscerning evangelicals.
So, what Dean, Carter, and Kerry are saying is that democratic views must be adjusted and reenvisioned and respoken so that the American populous hears a Democratic party that truly cares about faith, Christian and otherwise.
Oh, and Jesus WAS a liberal by any standards. In fact, he was so liberal he was issued the death penalty for being a liberal.
Morality
When love for loves sake replaces Christ and Him crucified as the foundation of the faith, evangelicals are going to come up with a different set of moral priorities. While “life” may be on their list, it won’t be number one, nor will it mean life at conception.
The new evangelical will love the person in a wheelchair more than the life in a petri-dish. The new evangelical will consider saving the invalid’s savings account for the grandchildren instead of saving the grandma. The new evangelical will not condemn the practicing homosexual as that would not be loving. Love when not rightly grounded will result in a love gone astray.
Ah, the moral issues…both of them. I’m glad there’s just two, or, shit, we could get overwhelmed being nice.
Another thing, the word ‘condemn.’ Pretty strong word for a sinner, no?
Eternity
Finally, evangelicalism stands at the door of work righteousness and knocks. If the new evangelical cornerstone is love and not Christ and Him crucified, we are just a stone’s throw from attempting to inherit the Kingdom by our own efforts.
The new-evangelical believes in the gospel of love, not of repentance and trust. While love is certainly a Biblical attribute, loving one’s neighbors will not save on the day of judgment. Many will cry out, “Lord, we did many wonderful things in your name.”
Losing an election to Hillary is painful to ponder. The thought of losing souls to the new evangelical gospel is unbearable.
Wow. Did you really just shit on the second commandment, “and the second is like it, love your neighbor?” As Christians we were given two key commandments: Love God, Love your neighbors. Keeping these commandments doesn’t save us, but it doesn’t make them obsolete either.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/06/21/a_slippery_slope/trackback/
Posted in faith at 10:05 am by
I’ve adopted a new litmus test as to whether or not something is ‘blogworthy.’ What I do is I poke around the internets a touch and whenever something makes my blood boil: It’s blogworthy.
Today, the Christian Worldview Network has knocked it out of the park.
This article by Todd Friel is a barn burner:
So, you are an evangelical? Are you sure? Are you sure you want to be?
Twenty years ago, evangelicals had a born again experience, held the Bible in high esteem and attempted to evangelize. By 1995, a Gallup poll revealed only 19% claimed to meet all three criteria.
Today the broad tent of evangelicalism embraces everyone from John MacArthur to Brian MacLaren. The evangelical tent is growing wider every day with disastrous results in three arenas.
I wasn’t aware there was a laundry list of qualifications for evangelicals. The funniest thing about his claim here is that I’m not sure that by most standards the writer would even fall into the category of evangelical. If he wants to talk about hijacking evangelicalism, Mr. Friel needs to look no further than his own fundamentalist roots.
Politics
President Bush won the ’04 election with 78% of the white evangelical vote. Democrats realized they had to get a piece of that demographic or they would only see the White House when the president summoned them. What is the strategy to capture more evangelical votes? Redefinition.
After the election, John Kerry proclaimed he is reading the Bible again and he’s eager to take up the debate about voter values. “I am sick and tired of them saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo Christian ethic, of values … Show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich in this country.”
Now, doesn’t this really just display how very brainwashed the religious right is? John Kerry, for all his shortcomings, makes a pretty good point. Jesus talked about poverty, reconciliation, etc. Jesus would not have been a political pawn that enacted a massive redistribution of wealth to the richest citizens of a country. However, this wacko isn’t interested in faith anymore. He’s created his god: Conservatism. He’ll worship that god till the bitter end.
Tony Campolo, who believes that “evangelical Christianity has been hijacked,” recently said, “Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible?”
What once defined an evangelical is being re-written before our very eyes. With its roots deeply planted in liberation theology, the new evangelical has the following priorities:
>social programs for the poor
>health care for everyone
>no war
>love at all costs
>protect the environment
>do not judge other’s morals
So what the hell is wrong with this? Conservatives don’t like it because it’s a political theology that’s CONSISTENT with scripture’s commands to act with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?
You can argue till you’re blue in the face about biblical ideas being hijacked, but for fuck’s sake, when the ideas that you’re arguing aren’t Biblical are in the Bible to begin with–you don’t really have a leg to stand on. That just makes you look stupid.
Consider this:
> God’s Politics is Jim Wallis’ effort to help liberal Christians redefine what voter values are. “How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American?” It has been on the NY Times best seller list for months.
>Hillary Clinton recently proclaimed to Holy Flame Pentecostal Church in Little Rock, “As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative.” Really? a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage conservative evangelical? Did you know there was such a thing? There is now.
Why belittle my faith? By all standards, I’m a conservative Christian. I just can’t fathom how you can come to the conclusion that my faith is completely inconsistent with my political views.
>Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry have all fired the salvo, “We must make OUR values the nation’s Christian values.” Yikes.
Perhaps you are thinking, “No, that can’t be. The foundation of evangelicalism is Christ and Him crucified. Salvation is the source of our compassion.” Not for long. The new evangelical is being redefined and love without salvation is the foundation.
While the bumper sticker that reads, “Jesus was a Liberal” are not many, they will be multiplying once the media jumps on board.
USA Today just reported that 33% of conservatives are prepared to vote for Hillary, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage evangelical. If we do not define and defend evangelicalism as being “born again”, then say hello to Hillary in ’08 as she siphons off un-saved and undiscerning evangelicals.
So, what Dean, Carter, and Kerry are saying is that democratic views must be adjusted and reenvisioned and respoken so that the American populous hears a Democratic party that truly cares about faith, Christian and otherwise.
Oh, and Jesus WAS a liberal by any standards. In fact, he was so liberal he was issued the death penalty for being a liberal.
Morality
When love for loves sake replaces Christ and Him crucified as the foundation of the faith, evangelicals are going to come up with a different set of moral priorities. While “life” may be on their list, it won’t be number one, nor will it mean life at conception.
The new evangelical will love the person in a wheelchair more than the life in a petri-dish. The new evangelical will consider saving the invalid’s savings account for the grandchildren instead of saving the grandma. The new evangelical will not condemn the practicing homosexual as that would not be loving. Love when not rightly grounded will result in a love gone astray.
Ah, the moral issues…both of them. I’m glad there’s just two, or, shit, we could get overwhelmed being nice.
Another thing, the word ‘condemn.’ Pretty strong word for a sinner, no?
Eternity
Finally, evangelicalism stands at the door of work righteousness and knocks. If the new evangelical cornerstone is love and not Christ and Him crucified, we are just a stone’s throw from attempting to inherit the Kingdom by our own efforts.
The new-evangelical believes in the gospel of love, not of repentance and trust. While love is certainly a Biblical attribute, loving one’s neighbors will not save on the day of judgment. Many will cry out, “Lord, we did many wonderful things in your name.”
Losing an election to Hillary is painful to ponder. The thought of losing souls to the new evangelical gospel is unbearable.
Wow. Did you really just shit on the second commandment, “and the second is like it, love your neighbor?” As Christians we were given two key commandments: Love God, Love your neighbors. Keeping these commandments doesn’t save us, but it doesn’t make them obsolete either.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/06/21/a_slippery_slope/trackback/
Jim said,
June 21, 2005 at 11:10 am
Speaking of commandments, what about John 13:34-35? The only gospel there is, is a gospel of love. This guy better get used to it or he may find himself choosing a place outside the party, a la (slef) righteous older brother.
Jim said,
June 21, 2005 at 11:11 am
and, um, I meant self. Self righteous. So there.
zalm said,
June 21, 2005 at 11:56 am
What? Mr. Friel and his buddies have become so ideologically conditioned to fight for anything that even resembles life before birth that somehow it is wrong to care for someone who (a) is actually born, and (b) is sick/lame/in need of care?
Of course, since neither the Jews nor the Romans had the technology to bring about “life in the petri dish” (and I’m assuming that we’re talking human life, here), we never got the chance to see Jesus knocking over the cripples and pushing the paralytics out of the way as he rushed to — um, just how exactly does one love life in a petri dish?
And this isn’t even really an issue of abortion. The argument has gotten to the point where an artificially fertilized egg (and statistically speaking, this “life” is probably not going to make it) must be considered just as important as bringing relief to crushing need in a living, breathing human?
It’s nice to have you back, Brandon.
steve d said,
June 21, 2005 at 1:20 pm
What amazes me is the credit people give politicians…as if Christianity doesn’t stand a chance if Ms. Clinton is in office. What are these people really saying about God? That He’s not big or real enough to last through a presidential term?
I’m so distracted these days by people limiting God that I don’t even get a chance to argue politics anymore. I’m guilty of it myself, too. I’m so frustrated with Bush’s disregard for the sanctity of life (pro-life is much more than being pro-birth pardner!) and sometimes I wonder how Christians will truly be able to bring the Gospel message (which include both out and out preaching the word AND taking care of the wheel-chair bound)…then I catch myself and remind myself that God will not be bound by the idiocy of any political leader.
That’s the beauty of it to me. Christ’s freedom is so huge. And while I feel it’s good to vent and discuss…it’s encouraging to know that God is a lot smarter than W, Hilary, you, me, and this idiot who dares lump taking care of the sick with “un-christian” acts.
So, I’m not even sure if the point is arguing for or against love for loves sake. If these people want to skip over passages like Zaccheaus and the adulterous woman Jesus saved from being stoned or the woman at the well…then that’s their problem. What they shouldn’t get away with is making up some weakling god who is powerless next to a president…that, as far as I can tell, is heresy.
rsjm said,
June 21, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Okay brandon, I have my disagreements with you but with this one, I’m with you 100%. Now, I have to decide if I am supposed to love and pray for this Todd Friel (hard) or if I’m allowed to say he’s a Pharisee and treat him as such (easy).
rick said,
June 21, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Hey stud, nice post. keep the fire burning.
The only place Jesus mentions who gets in and who gets left out is in MT 25 when he talks about how we treat the “least of these.” So often folks want to talk about what they believe. Faith is an ACTION… it is not something we possess, it is something we LIVE.
Keep ‘em flowing
Brandon said,
June 21, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I have an easy answer to your question, rjsm.
You’re to love this character. Though the answer is easy, the practice sucks ass.
ol cranky said,
June 21, 2005 at 7:00 pm
I don’t know about you but I happened to notice your blog is called “a bad christian blog” hmmmmm
Adam 7 said,
June 21, 2005 at 9:53 pm
As a wheelchair user myself, I’m pretty upset by this guy’s misunderstanding and intentional twisting of Jesus’ intent. However, I also would urge the more progressive among Christ’s followers to stop thinking of us cripples as being “bound” by our lack of mobility. I know that you probably don’t meet too many of us IRL, but we’re out there and we’re fighting for our independence and acceptance by society. We’re not only hamstrung by asshole “Christians” like Mr. Worldview here, but also by the misplaced pity of the well-meaning. Believe me, I live a life that is meaningful, and I pray pleases God. All I ask is that people can accept this possibilty, and come alongside and partner with the disabled community instead of condescending to us with pity and/or paternal language when referring to us.
I hope this didn’t take too combative a tone, because I value the community that forms here and elsewhere on this here Interweb we all share.
Salaam,
Adam
Brandon said,
June 21, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Great point, thanks for the reminder, Adam.
zalm said,
June 21, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Adam,
I think your comment is directed mostly at me, and rightly so. In my pre-coffee haste to score a rhetorical point this morning, I painted with a pretty broad brush and made unfair generalizations about wheelchair users. It’s particularly shameful in my case, because I work with several bright, talented, highly accomplished people who are wheelchair-bound. And I should know better.
We talk a lot in these parts about how racism is often hidden and subconscious. And that’s just as true of other discrimination as well. Thanks for reminding us of that with such civility.
Peace,
zalm
Jason said,
June 22, 2005 at 1:07 am
I always thought that there were three commandments in that statement…
Love God
Love yourself
Love your neighbor
in that order as well. Not the narcissistic stuff that most self-occupied Christians banter around, but the love that comes from being made in the image of the Creator…
As for the other stuff, I do not consider myself an evangelical, nor do I come out of that tradition. However, I do understand your outrage, and encourage it, as this relates to the public theology that has been handed down by the recorders of Jesus’ life…
grace and peace
Allison said,
June 22, 2005 at 1:19 am
Oh. My. God.
Wow, is about all I can say right now. Well, wow and YES.
Coming back to reread this tomorrow.
Jim said,
June 23, 2005 at 10:38 pm
“but for fuck’s sake,” With language like this and some of the other words you threw in, you call yourself a conservative christian? Better do some examining of yourself, first.
Brandon said,
June 24, 2005 at 9:35 am
Dearest Jim,
Though I doubt you’ll be by to read this, can you tell me what makes ‘fuck’ a word that a conservative christian shouldn’t use? And while you’re at it, perhaps you could ellucidate the term ’shit’ for me?
Brandon
Allison said,
June 24, 2005 at 11:31 am
Well, damn. When did you ever say you were a conservative christian? Maybe I’m reading the wrong blog. (pffffft!)
Mojo Turbo said,
June 25, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Thanks for the tip
http://theway.blog.com
me said,
June 26, 2005 at 3:36 am
yep… i think it might be a good idea to go back into the bible and read how many times in the new testament that anything regarding “politics” is mentioned. What did Jesus say about war? What did Jesus say about abortion? What did Jesus say about homosexual marriage? Interestingly the answer to all of these questions is exactly the same. It leaves both conservatives and liberals with the same ground to stand on when it comes to political quotes from Jesus… none.
Scott Muir said,
July 2, 2005 at 7:31 am
I am a video manager for a website, where I posted an interview with Todd Friel and Marie Castle (our communications director). She, as an atheist, made him look pretty silly and self rightious.
Kevin said,
July 3, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Jim,
It’s arguable that words like fuck and shit are present in the original text of the Bible.
Jaret said,
October 23, 2005 at 3:56 pm
You appear to have missed Mr. Friel’s point that Jesus was not on a political mission but a sacrificial mission. If His intent was to rescue people from poverty and oppression He could have healed everyone, blessed them with crops and wealth and overthrown the Roman Empire. However, His mission was to pay the penalty for mans sins. In any court of law, justice is served when the sentence is handed down and carried out. Humans cannot repay for how they have disobeyed their creator and thus Christ satisfied judgment on the cross. That’s what he means by preaching Christ and Him crucified. Todd would agree that we must live out the gift of faith, given to us by our gracious God, by upholding the commandments to love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. But he would not preach them as a means of salvation but a resulting outward expression of God’s saving love within the born again believer. If the words of the Bible are true then we all face judgment and all will fall short on that day. Thus, like Jesus, Mr. Friel is showing compassion by warning his fellow man of the coming judgment. As for Jesus not being pro-life or against gay marriage, perhaps you should read the rest of your Bible and take note of the fact that all scripture is God breathed. If Jesus was God then He also wrote those passages that condemn homosexuality and the killing of children in the womb. If we are truly all brothers and sisters in Christ we must ask ourselves why Jesus didn’t just make the poor rich remove all the moral laws. Instead, He came to fulfill the law and preached that we must repent and put our trust in Him for the forgiveness of our sins, liberal or republican. Please read your Bible for all it’s worth and God bless!!!
Stacey said,
April 22, 2007 at 9:10 am
I agree alot with Todd Friel. God said He doe not change, He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God did kick some butt in the OT.
Love you Todd.
ps. I can love even the life in the petri-dish, (for those who can’t… this shows racisim, and I’m no even one to want to use the word racism as it’s way oversued) it only takes the faith of a mustard seed.