Posted on 04/19/2015 1:56:33 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Churches that accept society’s dogma on marriage and sexuality may think of themselves as “affirming,” but the global church sees them as “apostate.” Meanwhile, it is the height of imperialistic narrowness for a rapidly shrinking subset of white churches in the West to lecture the rest of the world — including those places where Christianity is exploding in growth or where Christians are being martyred — on why they are wrong and how everyone else in Christian history has misread Scripture regarding the meaning of marriage.
(RNS) Whenever people today say that Christianity needs to update and adapt its moral standards for the 21st century, I hear echoes from 100 years ago. Back then, the calls for change had less to do with morality and more to do with miracles. But the motivation was similar, and the results are instructive.
What rocked the early 20th century was the call of many church leaders to adapt the Christian faith to the scientific age of discovery. One could not expect thinking men and women to accept at face value all the miracles in the Bible, the thinking went. The biblical testimony of the miraculous was embarrassing to an educated mindset.
In order to rescue Christianity from superstitious irrelevance, many church leaders sought to distinguish the kernel of Christianity (the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man) from the shell of Christianity (miracle stories that came from another cultural vantage point). One could still maintain the moral center of Christianity while disregarding the events that required suspension of disbelief.
As this adaptation spread, belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was reinterpreted and given a solely spiritual meaning (he is alive in the hearts of good people). Miracle stories such as Jesus’ feeding the 5,000 were given a moral twist (the true miracle is that suddenly everyone shared). The Virgin Birth was rejected altogether.
Meanwhile, churches outside the West were appalled to hear “Christians” reject the clear testimony of Scripture and what the church had always believed. In North America, the rise of the evangelical movement was due, in part, to a desire to reclaim the center of Christianity and refuse to allow contemporary sensibilities to alter the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”
Presbyterian minister and theologian J. Gresham Machen made the case that this refashioning of Christianity was no longer Christianity at all, but a substitute religion with a Christian veneer.
Over time, the effort to save the kernel of Christianity and leave aside its shell had the opposite effect. The distinctiveness of Christian teaching disappeared, and the shell of church rituals was all that remained. This is why, even today in some denominations, bishops and pastors and parishioners openly reject the core tenets of the faith but continue to attend worship and go through certain rites. The denominations that followed this course have since entered a sharp and steady decline.
One hundred years later, the church is once again being rocked. This time, many Christians are calling for us to rethink the “embarrassing” parts of Christianity — specifically, our distinctive sexual ethic. After all, many of the moral guidelines we read in the New Testament were written from another cultural vantage point and are no longer authoritative or relevant today. If Christianity is to survive and thrive in the next century, many of our ancient prohibitions (sex outside of marriage, homosexual practice, the significance of gender, etc.) must be set aside.
Outside the West, this enthusiasm for rejecting Christian moral precepts that have been accepted by all Christians, everywhere, for 2,000 years is mind-boggling.
Churches that accept society’s dogma on marriage and sexuality may think of themselves as “affirming,” but the global church sees them as “apostate.” Meanwhile, it is the height of imperialistic narrowness for a rapidly shrinking subset of white churches in the West to lecture the rest of the world — including those places where Christianity is exploding in growth or where Christians are being martyred — on why they are wrong and how everyone else in Christian history has misread Scripture regarding the meaning of marriage.
Nestled within our own times, it is easy to think the trajectory of history will lead to an inevitable change within the global Christian church. But history’s lesson is the opposite. A century ago, the modernists believed that the triumph of naturalism would lead to the total transformation of Christianity.
It must have seemed thrilling for these leaders to think they were at the vanguard of reformation, that they were the pivot point of Christianity’s inevitable future. But such was not the case. Traditional stalwarts like Machen and G.K. Chesterton (who were criticized as hopelessly “backward” back then) still have books in print. The names of most of their once-fashionable opponents are largely unrecognizable.
It’s commonplace to assume that contemporary society’s redefinition of marriage, gender and the purpose for sexuality will eventually persuade the church to follow along. But if we were to jump forward into the 22nd century, I wonder what we would see.
Most likely, we would see a world in which the explosive growth of Christians in South America, China and Africa has dwarfed the churches of North America and Europe. And the lesson we learn from a century ago will probably still be true: The churches that thrived were those that offered their world something more than the echo of the times.
(Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project and author of multiple books, including “Clear Winter Nights: A Journey Into Truth, Doubt and What Comes After.”)
It boils down to, ‘is God the Author of Life? Or is He not?’
Stupid question.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Simple answer: the Bible is the word of God. It is right. Local perversions are a passing fad, a filthy fad, but nothing with any future.
my words too.
What a dumb question.
Why is that a stupid question?
A passing fad? You mean like the mob lost in egypt? Yeah we haven’t seen their behavior since God led them out.
It’s a stupid question because it’s empirically demonstrable that Christian “sexual ethics” (or the same principles with another or no religion) produce a functional society, while alternatives do not. We’re talking about ideas like observance of contract, delayed gratification, financial responsibility, respect for life ... without those, you get chaos.
Nope sorry, those things are important but immaterial in the question of following God’s law.
Either the Bible is true and sufficient or its merely a historical book.
Yes.
the Church exists to preach and teach the Bible
not
what some of us modern day people might think “should” be taught because we, or others, or society, or the world, might be “better off”...or have a “easier time” with it
The Church can (and I’d argue should) be open, respectful, considerate, pastoral to the max.....welcoming always....
but the Church cannot change “its” teachings with each new fad or season
the Church is not an automobile manufacturer
No, no and no. Just look at where America is today. On the way to hell and not many seem to care. We are a decaying nation. We should be telling everyone every day that Christianity is the only way to a decent, loving and caring world.
Well, yes, but that’s a different question, imo. Really, the original question, “Must Christianity change ...?” implies that there’s a possibility of extermination. I don’t think that makes a difference, though. Death is just a materialist obfuscation.
It boils down to whether the scholars will accept the logic of of their criticism and try to understand what the writers of the books of the Bible meant when they wrote and be willing to change their views when the evidence shows that their research is driven by a blind faith in the scientific method. Trying to reconstruct the ancient world is a bit like trying to reconstruct the lives of the inhabitants of a grave yard by studying their bones and their tombstones. Buried in the text of the Bible is more information than can ever be decoded by science. If we could bring Ezra back to life, and “debrief” him we would probably discover that what we know about, say the life of the Persian world, is as fabulous as the average person’s knowledge of China in the 19th century. He might over a period of time be able to converse with an Orthodox Rabbi and convey to him his frustration at the inability of the scientist to understand the world in which EZRA actually lived.
The modernist mindset is anchored in the delusion of the Enlightenment that everything that happens is measurable and reducible to mathematical forms.
Christians need to stop publicly beheading homosexuals...oh, wait!
Well, it is a historical book, both in his composition and in its applications in societies that call themselves Christian.
Being any of those things pretty much wrecks society.
Do I think God thinks sex is bad? Nope. But if you are stepping out on your family, that doesn’t end well.
If sex wasn’t fun, people would not make babies. Duh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.