Subscribe to Posts
conscientious objectors to the evangelical culture war
Something’s happening in American Evangelicalism. We are waking up from a stupor. We are attempting to fear our founder more than we fear our movement’s group think. Because He is asserting his proprietary rights over His brand–a brand which has been the subject of trademark infringement for too long. We are standing up to be counted as conscientious objectors to the evangelical culture war that has been distracting us from the evangelical mission.
a jesus follower, not a culture warrior
I’m a pastor, not a politician. I’m a Jesus follower not a culture warrior. And like many pastors my age (57), I came to faith during the Jesus movement of the late ’60’s early ’70’s. Before the Religious Right had coalesced. The Jesus movement back then was marked by a preoccupation with Jesus, the Jesus of the gospels, a.k.a. Jesus of Nazareth. Not Republican Jesus. Not Karl Marx Jesus. Not Adam Smith Jesus. Jesus Jesus.
Like the frog in the pan of tepid water brought slowly to a boil, we baby boomer Jesus freaks, who naively hopped into the pan for a little swim, are saying “Wait a minute! What have we become!?” A commenter on my recent post on Darwin said, “I am not an evangelical. This is more a political category than it is a religious or theological characterization. But I do attend a church that does characterize itself that way. I do so because I can’t find one I like that doesn’t.”
I happen to know this guy. He’s my age. Like me, he’s digging for the treasure buried in the field of religion. He’s taken with Jesus. And he wishes to follow Jesus. And he’s landed in a church that characterizes itself as evangelical, but he thinks it’s a political characterization. He thinks it’s a word that has nothing to do with the gospel. I can hardly blame him.
This guy is me, minus 38 years of Christian identity and attempted practice. If I were coming to faith at the same time he came to faith–in 2009 rather than 1971–I’d be posting the same comment.
what has evangelicalism become?
I’d be looking at the American evangelical landscape saying, “What has this become?” In order to be a card carrying American evangelical it’s not enough to assert that abortion is a moral hazard. You must also object to government funding for contraception. Because that has to do with sex. You would need to put a stop to funding for condoms, say in Africa. You wouldn’t want men with HIV using condoms. That’s because you’re “pro-life.”
You need to look at the institution of marriage and say, “The greatest threat to this institution is the fact that maybe four percent of the population who are attracted to the same sex want to get married.” That’s the greatest threat to marriage? That’s what we need to organize to stop? That’s what we need to place at the end of the spear by which we bring down the monster trying to devour our way of life? Not domestic violence. Not no-fault divorce. Not heterosexual married people–many of them church-goers–divorcing like it’s going out of style.
Oh. And you need to cancel your subscription to National Geographic and Discover, and Scientific American. Because those publications promote a heresy. They promote the dangerous idea that species are not immutable. That over time, a species of creatures drifts toward the genetic composition of the individuals who breed the most. Species adapt to new environmental challenges that way. They survive that way. And one species may, in time, branch into two different species. That’s the evil doctrine. That’s the kryptonite to your super-powers as a Christian. So when someone says the word, “evolution” you have to put out your pricklies like a porcupine until they take it back. Don’t cuss around us!
Y2K is real but climate change is fake?
To be a card carrying evangelicals you have to be skeptical about those scientists who are warning us about climate change. Those lemmings, those caught-up-in-mass hysteria environmental whacko scientists who say that the globe is warming because of our CO2 emissions! What a crock! We humans aren’t that powerful! Flooding in low lying areas? Tell the people to move to higher ground! Droughts? Not where I live! This is a plot by liberals to seize power, raise our taxes, increase government, that’s what it is. Chicken little, that’s what it is! (Y2K, on the other hand, that was a real threat. By the way, do want to buy some nine-year old bulgar wheat that I’ve got stored in my basement. I can cut you a deal.)
See there, I’m ranting. And ranting is reactive. But that’s what frogs do when they finally notice that the water in the pan is starting to boil.
settle down, mr. frog
So, I must calm down. I must remind myself that the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. I must pray. I must get in touch with the Spirit who brings peace.
And I must take heart. I must take heart in my fellow evangelicals, especially these young ones. The ones that practically brought me to tears when I saw their comments on my post. The ones who made me bust with tribal pride because of their humility. As if they have taken to heart the words of the prophet Isaiah, whose suffering servant did not raise his voice in the streets and did not quench the smoldering wick.
This one is my favorite, a comment that came yesterday. I snooped around and figured out who this guy might be. It’s a young evangelical who gave himself the tag line “another Mark” when he left his comment about my Darwin post: “I am sorry for being mean and not always giving science the chance to speak and tell the story the way science tells the story… As an evangelical I want to learn more about our mother earth and care for it scientifically and spiritually. It matters. It is part of the story. I am listening…”
I am listening too, Mark–to you. I hope others are listening to you. I hope that this is the end of the evangelical culture war and the beginning of the evangelical mission. To be and to bring good news.
after the stupor, back to who we are
The evangelical movement is, at it’s truest, good. It is people coming to grips with their need for God. It is people who are capable of shedding a tear over their own sins. Who feel that they are getting what they don’t deserve: mercy from a just God. It is the movement that gave birth to Alcoholics Anonymous.
Evangelicals are people who gather together with others to form churches that in turn care for other people. You’re not a number there. You’re a name. They tend the wounds of the heart-sick. They give their money to the cause like few others do. They give up their time–sometimes their lives–to go on mission to faraway places. Nicholas Kristof, from the New York Times, calls them, “the new internationalists.” They fund an army of volunteers at work in the developing world that dwarfs the Peace Corps by multiple factors of ten.
Let’s get back to the business of becoming who we are.
Evangelical conscientious objectors to the culture war: if we don’t speak up none of this is going to change. Don’t be afraid.
Tags: abortion, Adam Smith, apology, birth control, bulbar wheat, climate change, conscientious objectors, culture war, culture warriors, darwin, domestic violence, environment, environmental whacko, evangelical, evangelicalism, gay marriage, good news, gospel, Jesus Movement, Karl Marx, missionaries, missions, no-fault divorce, religious right, Y2K
February 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Been thinking a lot of PT’s idea of a new reformation that she mentioned at her visit to Vineyard years ago (and BTW–did you read her Sojo’s blurb?) Anyhow, I wanted to let you know I’m am a conscientious objector to the culture war, liberated and mostly at peace, but saddened that the people we work hardest to convince are within our own ranks.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Count me in, but please be patient if I sometimes get tempted to fight the war.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Jesus’s two commandments were to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. I feel that we have gotten away from the love your neighbor part. This means loving someone that might not have the same thoughts or positions as you. It means listening and trying to understand. Let’s try to love instead of fighting.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:51 am
From my observing perspective, evangelicalism’s current weakness is that it got focused on teaching the following rather than following the teaching.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
I think trying to get Evangelicals to give up what is essentially a political identity and exchange that for something that is essentially a spiritual identity is a lost cause. Yes, some people will agree, but they are already on the fringes.
Evangelicalism has always had a very strong political component. What happened in the latter portion of the 20th century wasn’t a fundamental change. It was a flowering of Evangelical political power.
I am not a conscientious objector. I have chosen to live and work and worship in an entirely different non-locative place. Even in the midst of people who like to think of themselves as Evangelicals.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Ken, I read this blog with hope, but in reality I feel that this “war”, divide, whatever it is will not end anytime soon. People are too eager to promote their selfish and political will by attaching it to religion. This has been going on for thousands of years and I don’t know if there is light at the end of this tunnel. Why do Christians have to have a “war” to fight anyway? I don’t understand the need for a war. War seems to be so important to these people. Always looking for the next fight. Didn’t Jesus come to promote peace? War, what is it good for? Absolutly NOTHING!
Maybe the fever pitch of the “evangelical-politica” is showing that society as a whole is turning from their message. I just hope voices like yours can fill the void.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
California Kid, Well trust your hope California; it’s more real than that other thing. There are so many who feel as you do but have been content to be strangers in the strange land of our tribe. If you just keep speaking up, calmly and whenever it pertains, others will do likewise. This culture war mentality WILL disperse. It’s just a shadow. It’s the phantom projected from below over American Evangelicalism–like Batman over Gotham, just a stencil laid over a spotlight. Ever hear of the big bad wolf?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Please clarify exactly what I’d be agreeing to if I join the conscientious objectors to the culture war. Can I be a conscientious objector if I continue to speak up for the rights of the unborn and speak against acceptance of same-sex marriage? Can I be in the conscientious objector group if I happen to believe that abortion, not poverty, is the moral issue of our time? Or do these views relegate me to ‘culture warrior’ status? Does it disquality me from being a conscientious objector if I happen to get a little upset over 123,000 unborn children having their lives terminated each and every day internationally?
There are members of the congregation I lead that work for international pro-life organizations and local pro-life pregnancy centers. They aren’t shrill, they aren’t mean, but they are uncompromising on pro-life issues.
Does seeing pro-life issues in black and white instead of gray disquality one from being able to be a consientious objector?
Can I be uncompromising on these issues and be a conscientious objector? That’s my question. Or do I need to be happy about ‘common ground solutions’ like not rolling back the Mexico City policy on the annivesary of Roe v. Wade (but instead waiting until the next day) in order to be a conscientious objector?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Brian, You can be a conscientious objector if you conscientiously object to the culture war as the metaphor that we Christians are called to adopt to describe our engagement with the culture. I would expect that the good people in your church aren’t shrill or mean and that there are probably many issues about which they are uncompromising. It’s my opinion that some in the pro-life cause have compromised good sense and principle by hindering efforts to reduce abortions by reducing the number of pregnancies among people who are tempted to have them. Or who object to the distribution of condoms to men in Africa who have HIV. These policies lead to death not life. In the case of Roman Catholics they are driven by conviction that contraception is evil. But there are many evangelicals myself included who don’t agree, yet the pro-life movement as a whole supports these policies. I think “abstinence only” sex education leads to more teenagers getting pregnant and indirectly to more abortions. It’s a compromise in my view to do that. Also I think it’s a mistake to posit one and only one “moral issue of our time,” especially abortion vs. poverty. Those who are in poverty are in circumstances that make it easier for them to consider abortion, for example. Why place those concerns at odds? I just don’t understand the idea that one issue is THE moral concern of our time. I can see it being THE passion of a particular person. I’d be especially concerned from a biblical point of view to see poverty as a secondary concern when it is so prominent in the Bible. I think this idea that abortion is THE moral issue of our time serves a particular political agenda. I’m not saying that you or anyone you know is politically motivated, but I do think it’s a factor.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I think that abortion is a symptom of poverty and a lack of community connectedness in our culture, not an initial cause of it. I feel as if we evangelicals spend a lot of time battling the symptoms of the great cultural Unraveling we’ve lived through over the past 30 years than we have looking at the underlying disease, which is “lovelessness”. “The love of many will grow cold.” This lovelessness has manifested itself in many different ways throughout the world.
I am a recovering cultural warrior. I was a trained pro-life women’s pregnancy center counselor at age 21. While I would never have an abortion (and as a young woman in my childbearing years, those having abortions are my demographic peers), since I have backed away from active confrontation, God has brought repentant Christian women into my life who have had abortions… and need prayer and care.
Then again, I try to maintain a consistent pro-life position. I also disagree with state-sponsored murder (i.e. capital punishment and political assassinations), which many pro-life activists support. However, I realize that in all cases, the world needs the kingdom, not a smackdown. That’s a big difference and change in my walk with God — when I came to Christ, I was in favor of the smackdown.
“Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and its righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” More kingdom, better culture, better world, God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. Works for me!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I personally think that abortion is wrong, but as a political issue it’s worse. That issue gives one political party carteblanche to “do no wrong” while doing right by opposing abortion. I feel that the issue is so political now that people don’t even consider the factors that lead up to a woman or girl to even consider aborting their pregnancy. There is even this attitude of “well you should suffer for the sins you committed you evil harlet!” And so we wonder why so many people turn from the church in times of need….so much judgement, so little results. Abortion, yes is wrong. The causes of abortion, the apathy, the judgement is worse.
For the first time in my life I see a church doing the right thing by helping single mom’s in one of the most relevant and affective missionary efforts. It brings tears to my eyes even now as I think of all that it stands for. Women, single moms, hard working, caring, humbled, women who have chosen to take the long narrow road, who have shurgged off judgement, sought help, and found it. God bless the Single Mom’s Ministry!!!
Abstain from the culture war and “BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD”!!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Ken,
While I do believe abortion is ‘the moral issue of our time’ I can agree with your point about not pitting one moral issue against another. I would point out that Jim Wallis and others have identified poverty as ‘the moral issue of our time.’ They don’t really need to do that either, do they?
February 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Brian, I’m not that in touch with Jim Wallis to know how he frames it. I just don’t think as Christians we want to be criticizing each other over various efforts to end suffering. I appreciate your efforts to reduce abortions, care for single moms, serve the poor, care for creation, keep marriages together. Keep it all up, dude!
February 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I object to Christ’s church being a war room and His people a fixed political bayonet.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
While I am not an Evangelical, I do believe we Christians (whatever else we like to call ourselves) should be making a conscientious effort to bring forward the spirit of love and not of war, of healing and not of wounding, of peace and not of contentiousness, of life and not of death. Each of us has a hierarchy of evils in mind, but disputes about the order of this heirarchy should not distract us from our main mission: love God and love one another. It is difficult to love someone while you are trying to make that person out to be depraved, stupid, contemptuous, evil, naive, misguided, or unorthodox and therefore belonging to outer darkness. It is difficult to love someone who you are focused on proving wrong, no matter the cost.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Ken,I am barely surviving as an evangelical. I am under suspicion from my fellow evangelicals because I voted for Obama and believe he is a Christian.I have been on this evangelical road for 22 years never quite feeling part of the family mostly because I don’t go along with the status quo politically and sometimes I leave room for mystery in biblical truths that I can’t quite see as black and white. I and have always tried to love Jesus and Love people but for me the hardest people for me to love are those within my own tribe.I don’t mind be the stray dog but it gets a little sad and lonely.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
my fellow evangelical pastors: please read the above post from “commonman.” I’ll bet commonman is a good man and the kind of man most pastors would LOVE to have in their church. People like commonman are all over the evangelical church movement, but they are hiding out, and many of them don’t hang out for long. They leave. Imagine those who are not as clear in their Christian identity–will they even bother to VISIT most evangelical churches? Evangelicals who are concerned to make a place for the commonman, continue to speak up gently but clearly so that this need not continue to be the case.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” Heb 11:1. But if your faith is built upon evidence, then it’s not your faith that is the evidence of things not seen, it’s the evidence upon which your faith is based that is the evidence of things not seen. And that’s faith within any endeavor, any inquiry, any science or any theology. So Heb 11:1 must be a mistake, then… Do I hear an ‘Amen!’ from anyone out there?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Archie, I think it’s highly likely that the author of “Faith is the evidence of things not seen” was quite aware of what he was saying there–i.e. aware that evidence is ordinarily something seen. Despite what some of my fundamentalists friends sometimes suggest, the Bible was not written in a scientific-precise mindset. Things are stated paradoxically at times, irony is used, shocking metaphors (if your hand is your undoing cut it of and throw it away)etc. But we’re off topic here as I’m just giving my evangelical friends a chance to stand up and be counted as conscientious objectors to the culture war approach. Let’s give ‘em space to do that.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:18 am
It strikes me that, rather than become a conscientious objector to the evangelical culture war…
…you’ve joined the other side
March 1st, 2009 at 6:56 am
BD, Yes, I just heard the other day from a English friend of mine that during WWI, the British government lined up the conscientious objectors to that war and shot ‘em. When there’s investment in a war, there are objections to the whole C.O. thing. But we’re trying to be faithful to Jesus, right? Not a “side.” “Whose side are you on?” said Joshua to the commander before him. “Neither! Take off your shoes!” All depends on what the commander is saying right now. [Later addition: the British did that to those suffering from PTSD, not conscientious objectors; they were made into medics. Ah well, it was a good story, until I confirmed my facts with my source]
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Brilliant response, Ken. I appreciate your ability to respond in a gentle manner while being firm.
It’s kind of like what’s happened in the Iraq war these past years. If one is against it, one is not considered ‘patriotic’ by some.
I guess that’s part of the reason why Jesus was almost thrown off a cliff by his contemporaries (as I learned in your sermon yesterday, thanks!)… because of his statements of kindness towards the Syrian guy being taken as Him ‘going to the other side’.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“Ah well, it was a good story, until I confirmed my facts with my source”
Sadly, I think that will ultimately be the postscript of your entire line of reasoning here…
BD
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Ken,
I don’t want to get in a tit for tat with you. That would be WAY too easy for me, even if you had a DOZEN more members of your ‘club’ reminding you how of ‘brilliant’ you are. Of course, that MIGHT at least make it a fair fight. lol
Let me cut to the chase…
You’re getting old.
Usually, one of two things happen to old dudes fortunate enough to make it to your age.
If they’ve led a rather profligate life, they TEND to get more religious. Either that or they off themselves. See Hoffman, Abbie for details!
If, like you, they’ve led a…shall we say more…ummm…cautious…life, then they tend to get naughty.
That’s why we’re getting all this acting out.
Hey! Look at me, I’m an ‘evangelical pastor’ and I’m not upset about Obama, Abortion or even Gay Marriage! Woot! Woot! And, for an encore, I’m gonna burn all my Michael W Smith records and don’t you THINK about trying to stop me…I mean it!!! lol
So yeah, it’s much ado about nothing.
You’ve taken a MYRIAD of reckless CHEAP shots against evangelicals and then hid in the C.O. bushes. Big Deal. It’s pretty clear to those with a bit of introspection what forces are really at play here.
Face it…You Da Man!
Whooo Hoo!
BD
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 am
It is not unspiritual to use your vote and your influence in a democratic society to try to promote biblical values. Your societal influence (and personal influence) are all part of your stewardship, and you will answer to Jesus on how you handled your opportunities to promote His interests, privately and publicly. I reject the notion that I am somehow unloving if I don’t buy Africans condoms to use while engaging in gay sex. Listen to yourself. Would Jesus tell Peter to go catch the fish then take the coin to go buy condoms for gay nonbelievers as a demonstration of “love”? Get real. Just remember, the bully pulpit you enjoy could not exist if those who went before you were not willing to take the trouble to create societal structures embodying values they were conviced were Biblical and necessary for everyone, even the unconverted. All people benefit when God’s principles are put into practice in a culture, which is a good argument for the so-called “culture war”. Don’t take it for granted, we need to engage the culture personally and legislatively and we need to reflect Jesus personally and legislatively. It doesn’t matter if it will never be a perfect world, we are going to be judged by the degree to which we were willing to try. It was the servant who did not put his talents “into play” that was judged unfaithful, so let’s not bury our resources but rather employ them to further the estate of our Master — personally and legislatively. Jesus did not come to bring peace…..
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
Kevin, I was objecting to the fact that the evangelical lobby in concert with others has put a stop to distribution of condoms as a public health policy in Africa. The vast majority of condoms are used for heterosexual sex and much of that is with a spouse. The policy that forbids the distribution of condoms means that men with HIV have unprotected sex with their wives, who then get HIV and both parents die leaving the children as orphans. Is that what you want? That’s what we were getting with this policy. If a person is to have sex with someone other than his wife, do you want that person to use a condom or not? Do you want HIV to spread or not? This is the question. If your daughter makes the unwise decision to have sex before marriage (or after for that maatter) and her partner (married or not) has HIV, do you want him to use a condom or not?
I’m completely baffled by this thinking.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 am
Kevin,I’m not posting diatribes on what Darwin has wrought on my earlier post (as I indicated in the post). Next time I post on science you can comment then. I put one such post up as an example and commented on it. But I’ll leave it there. This was a post to offer apology, not to further the thing I and others were apologizing for.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
BD, It’s like you’re reading my mail! I’m busted before your penetrating insight. I didn’t realize how pathetic I truly am, but now I know. This truth is painful, but with God’s help, I’ll face it. Thanks so much for loving me enough to take the risk of being brutally honest.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
BD, I wonder if this is B– D—-.
Anyway, are you interested in an issue discussion without personal attacks?
What are your concerns about the idea of engaging the culture in a non combative manner?
I think the whole idea here is to remove as many distractions from the core message of Jesus without stripping the essentials. I have always longed to share about the complete full life Jesus promises to those may reject it now because of a road block that really should not exist.
For example, I have heard the following requirements of those who would follow Jesus that I believe have nothing to do with what the Bible calls the cost of discipleship:
1- Must only read KJ version of the Bible.
2- Must vote Republican
3- Must reject evolution
4- Must not smoke, drink, dance or go to movies
5- Must not listen to rock and roll
6- Must dress in a particular way
7- Must not wear long hair
8- Must not wear makeup
9- Must speak in tongues
10- Must only listen to Christian artists
11- Must not own a sports car (I kid you not!)
Sure, if one, after looking at Jesus’s claims of Godhood and His call to primacy in one’s life, chooses to reject Him, then fine, that is a true obstacle to faith, and who knows how many of us don’t struggle with those claims even if we claim to accept the from one time to another.
But I think it is a tragedy for someone to reject Jesus because they are scientists and they would have to basically remove their brain and reject their entire education and research in order to embrace a literal view of a 7 day world creation time line. Even if it is true, and all science is wrong, is it really necessary to know the perfect truth of how God created the world in order to have a vibrant, growing, saving relationship with Jesus? How much did the thief on the cross have to embrace before being the 1st to see the risen Jesus in paradise?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“Thanks so much for loving me enough to take the risk of being brutally honest.”
Dear Ken,
That’s what I’m here for!
Love,
BD
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Joao asks:
“BD, I wonder if this is B– D—-.”
Hmmm…Online Hangman? Cool!
Does guessing a vowel cost more?
“Are you interested in an issue discussion without personal attacks?”
You mean personal attacks like:
American Evangelicals…
are caught up in a distracted stupor. They fear group think more than God who’s name they are guilty of ‘infringing’ on as they spend their days objecting to government funding for contraception & obsessing over the threat of gay marriage while simultaneously cancelling their subscriptions to National Geographic, Discover, and Scientific American to make room for all the bulgar wheat they’ve got stored in their basement????
Sure. Why do you ask?
BD
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
BD
Sorry I asked.
Everyone else,
I wonder how discussions like this develop between N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. I understand they are friends and often discuss their takes on the historical Jesus, which I know are vastly different.
It would be neat to learn from them how to discuss without sarcasm.
I have an agnostic friend and have found that we are able to sometimes have deep, interesting discussions on spiritual matters even though we completely disagree on basics like the existence of a personal God and the nature of sin. Somehow that seems to be easier between a Christian and an Agnostic than between 2 Christians of slightly different viewpoints.
How odd.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“It would be neat to learn from them how to discuss without sarcasm.”
And Ken’s response to me was NOT sarcastic?
Wow! I guess only people you DISAGREE with are capable of making personal attacks and engaging in sarcasm, huh?
“Sorry I asked.”
Perhaps a better question would be how do people see past their own blind spots…
BD
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I’ve seen Ken grow as a loving & caring minister for many years. From his days as a part of the Word of God community, to the Free Church to when he hooked up with Wimber and the Vineyard (which I believe was several years after that amazing Wimber event at Chrysler sponsored by WOG) to the establishing of the Milan Vineyard to the morphing of the former roller rink/community theatre to what we now call the Ann Arbor Vineyard. I’ve been to the church when it went through it’s shaking & quaking ‘Toronto Blessing’ phase and now it’s lurch to the left.
Nothing will shake my respect for Ken Wilson’s ministry.
Yet, it doesn’t mean we always agree. In fact, I would encourage those of you who can to get your hands on a Jewish book called the Mishna which celebrates the various Rabbi’s debating each other on the finer points of scripture as well as God’s nature and ultimately his will. They seemed to revel in the process. And yes, sometimes it got heated. Whether it’s the Socratic method or the Talmudic process, it seems that men come up with some of their best ideas within the crucible of conflict and when forced to defend them from those who vehemently disagree.
BD
BD
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
“It is not unspiritual to use your vote and your influence in a democratic society to try to promote biblical values.”
Kevin, I would agree that we have been given a great opportunity to influence who our leaders are in America, but I think my struggle is what people consider “Biblical Values” and understanding how that translates into policy and moreover politics.
For example, I have noticed that one party seems to care more about the environment, which I tend to think is a biblical value that has been overlooked by evangelicals. Early on in my journey in pursuit of Jesus I was misled to think that republican values more align to “biblical values”. I now think that it’s all just politics and possibly a waste of time. The rule of Jesus comes in a form this world is not aware of. Its through His mysterious love that beckons us to love our flawed selves, love of neighbors, die for our friends and even love our enemies. I am sure you have tasted that same love that I too would like to spread. And I am with you on the “perfect world” thingy….I have hope that the Kingdom of God will come….on earth..as it is in Heaven.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:32 am
i just wanna know how to get my hands on that bulgar wheat….
March 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Perhaps a better question would be how do people see past their own blind spots…
You can start by looking at your own.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
It’s funny how easy it is to get worked up in these forums. BD really got my eye twitching. I will not continue responding in kind.
I think what went on in my heart is exactly how the battle lines are drawn in a culture war.
What starts as an attempt to discuss a controversial issue quickly devolves as sarcasm and disrespect encroach into the discussion.
Since it is a public forum, egos are at stake and they get bruised and inflamed.
I noticed Ken’s silence these last couple volleys. I think he has been there before and already knows what I am realizing now. Dunno.
My dad also seems to avoid these conflicts. I think most folks tend to just get turned off and go elsewhere for their needs and questions and leave the culture wars for the few, loud ones to fight, like talk show hosts and others.
Sorry if I started something negative.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Good God Ken,
First you get BUSTED taking CHEAP shots at other Christians then hiding in the CO Bushes.
You responded with a tantrum.
Your parishoner with an eye twitch.
And finally, you CENSOR all my fair & reasonable comments.
Am I dealing with mature Christians or…
Inspector Clouseau and Inspector Dreyfus??
haha
BD
March 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
BD,
I think Ken is pretty wise and I do really appreciate the thoughts he puts on his blog but I do think referring to him as “Good God Ken” is probably taking things a little to far in your admiration…
March 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Thanks Joao, for post #38. I think of myself as a person not prone to rants, but inside my head I have rants with the best of them at times. There are two circumstances which which tend to promote ranting in me. Joao articulated one scenario. Ken’s analogy of the frog who woke to find the temperature had been heating up without him recognizing it hints at the other. Whenever I feel like I’ve been trying to say something important (i.e. “the water’s getting hot–wake up!”)and I’m not heard or I’m censored–I feel like ranting! And that happens on both sides of the culture war where there are issues or points–in my opinion often legitimate–that the “other side” just can’t see or hear. But ranting doesn’t help the listening process or loving or the gospel. Lord help us!
March 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“Referring to him as “Good God Ken” is probably taking things a little to far in your admiration.”
lol
I do try to add a little SUGAR to the spice…
Love,
BD
March 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
BD.
Please deactivate the sarcasm, it may work to your advantage in making your points more relevant.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
This marks the end of the BD/Joao back and forth. Too much like an old married couple
March 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I am an opinion page editor here in pasadena, california. I rec’d Ken’s oped on repenting about evangelical’s feelings regarding Darwin. I am publishing it on Sunday March 8. I thought it was excellent. As an evangelical Christian myslef, i could not have said it better. Here’s the the beginning of the end of the culture wars…
Thanks.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:48 am
An old married couple?? Ouch!
Que horror, Ken, be nice!
March 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Joao, I can tell you’re a wonderful human being, someone I’d love to have as a good friend. Watching you suffer all the many moods that near-trolls cause in thoughtful, kind, self-examining people like you has been inspiring.
The person isn’t technically a troll but knows the troll-buttons very well. The best thing to do in these cases is to refrain from response! Let those who don’t fall into self-recrimination handle those posts if you can manage it.
It’s hardest to refrain when this type of poster could make some very good opposing points if only he/she were someone like YOU. But this isn’t the case. This near-troll feeds off of people’s insecurities in order to feed his or her own.
Truly gracious people who also have strong beliefs needlessly suffer when they encounter these types, who in some ways ruin any good conversation they enter but who sometimes serve a useful purpose as devil’s advocate. But again, leave those types to the less sensitive!
March 9th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
“Near-trolls”
That’s like saying Jack SPIT.
You know… “Christian” swearing. lol
Christians JUSTIFYING their HATRED of other Christians they don’t agree with by playing semantic games.
Pretty sad…
BD
March 10th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Thank you, Leah, that was a very sweet thing to say and you hit it on the button about the sensitive part.
Some of the responses I received affected me in a surprisingly hurtful way, and triggered a level of anger on my part that I would describe as sinful.
So I will abstain from counterattacks. It’s not worth it.
Thanks, you made my day
If you attend the vineyard, I’d like to meet you in person.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:20 am
***An Important Message From the Culture Wars***
by BD
Having exposed this blog entry as nothing more than a post middle-aged crisis cry for meaning from someone who’s ridden the wave of Christianity all the way from hard core DerekPrince-Discipleship to Trembling Babbling Toronto Blessing Charismania and back again, it’s time to address the REAL Cultural War.
The culture. That’s right… The culture.
Christians should NOT be imbibing the secular culture – it’s music, movies nor TV shows.
At the very least you should YouTube your cultural intake – only ingest it in 3-4 minute sound bites until you’re largely weaned off the stuff.
Most people think I’m clueless when I tell them to ‘fast’ the culture. They think I’m out of touch & want to deprive people of real genuine entertaining diversions.
But…If THEY only knew the hatred, contempt & hostility for Christianity that literally oozes out of the producers, directors & writers from MOST of their favorite shows, movies & secular songs, they’d realize that they are the clueless.
When I say ‘fast’ this stuff, I mean it the same way as you would fast food. Only since you DON’T need it to live, you ultimately want to permanently fast all but a little bit now and then.
When people fast from food, they’re not saying food isn’t good or tasty or desirable to eat. They are saying that a GREATER good can be worked in THEM by abstaining for a season.
After I became a believer in college, I decided to no longer drink or smoke pot. I didn’t make this call on the basis that it wasn’t fun or enjoyable. I just saw a greater good. And I don’t miss it a bit.
To be fair, I do enjoy alcohol at communion,
and I invariably get a contact high when picking up food at The Fleetwood, which of course
is where the now universally known expression
‘Fleetin’ Ain’t Cheatin’ arose.
But I digress…
I urge you to TRULY engage in The Culture Wars by FASTING from virtually all secular programming – be it music, tv or movies. Sure, you can enjoy bits & pieces now & then. I sure do – watching funny clips from The Pink Panther like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfLji5oW2mE
But don’t get too caught up. I cringe when I hear ANY Christian say their favorite show is ‘The Office’ or 24 or whatever.
Again, I’m not saying these are bad shows (don’t know – never watched) anymore than I’m saying when fasting that the melt-in-your-mouth Prime from Carson’s isn’t tasty.
What I AM saying is that the culture is out to DESTROY Christians. It is LARGELY hostile and created primarily by insidious people with the intent of SEPARATING you from the Blessings of God.
The energy you’re currently spending to to marginalize right wing Christians would be better spent encouraging one another to turn off the crude, gross & often mind-numbing secular culture.
Besides, everyone knows when folks at the Vineyard declare “I now think that all politics is possibly a waste of time” you only mean CONSERVATIVE politics.
LEFT WING politics are the new cool!
BD
And Naughty too…
March 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
BD,
You have exposed nothing, except the high regard you have for your own wisdom.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
BD,
You had me for 99% of your post and then you gave me a curve ball at the end when you said: “Besides, everyone knows when folks at the Vineyard declare “I now think that all politics is possibly a waste of time” you only mean CONSERVATIVE politics. LEFT WING politics are the new cool!”
In post #35 I stated: “I now think that it’s all just politics and possibly a waste of time.”
I don’t know what lines you are reading between, but I am a 20 Something with a whole brew of evangelical peers who don’t associate with a party line. For me personally, I consider myself a-political b/c the more I read the Gospels, the more I feel convicted that Jesus wasn’t about voting for the Caesar who most aligned with His convictions, rather he allowed the world to carry on with its business as He sought out to change the hearts and minds of the “least of these” in His time.
Israel wanted a king so they got David, God wanted a son/Christ so He sent Jesus. I am not looking to find another worldly king who more closely aligns to my belief system. Plus, if there is one out there worthy of the title he is probably living in a ghetto somewhere and we have yet to hear his/her name.
I agree that it is healthy to dial down on the trappings of the american culture, but what’s your take on dialing down on the political engagement for one party? I think what makes things tough is that the majority of evangelical camp’s baby boomer members got in bed with one party and instead of an openness to certain issues like environmental degradation being a sin, the focus has been placed on issues that are more closely related to people outside of the camp. It’s a lot easier to point the finger outward than inward. In the end we are talking about the kingdom and its king…..which is here and is coming….
Lastly, let’s try to step away from binary thought that assumes if one isn’t into conservative politics, that they are into liberal politics. This world is much too complex and more about tensions and balance than left or right…..just an opinion.
Keep killing the t.v., I am with you! Now I just have to stop reading every single comment posted to Ken’s blog…hahahaha
March 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Correction: I just realized that Saul was the first king…not David. I think I got a little mixed up b/c David was the first Republican king to take rule….hahahahaha
March 12th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Phil,
Yeah, that last bit WAS for you. Good catch. haha Nothing personal, but I do believe that a unilateral disarming of conservative POLITICAL principles, or at the very least letting go of a wholehearted effort to pragmatically influence our society with what are typically considered conservative principles – making abortion illegal, pushing back the homosexual agenda etc, will leave a vacuum that WILL be filled by the left.
So, yeah. It is binary.
Just like Christianity…
BD
March 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
BD, good luck pushing Jesus’s message through a political platform (right, left or libertarian). It still seems pretty contrary to Jesus’s approach in my mind, but I’ll keep grappling with it every four years.
Politics are messy and I think they distract us, or maybe just me, from listening to the needs of my loved ones and shoveling the old lady’s driveway across the street. I suggest we consider a bottom up approach to seeing the kingdom unfold, not by by forcing public policy down the throat of the world. If you want to “push back the homosexual agenda” (whatever that means), how about you start hanging out with homosexuals. Seems like something Jesus would do.
I still don’t see the binary…and I have been in IT and software for 5 years now (many may miss that joke); maybe finally my western mind is starting to integrate!
Go Blue! PB
March 13th, 2009 at 9:26 am
“If you want to“push back the homosexual agenda” (whatever that means), how about you start hanging out with homosexuals.”
I do.
I go to the Vineyard…
BD
March 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
California Kid, in #6, says, “Didn’t Jesus come to promote peace? War, what is it good for? Absolutely NOTHING!” Really now, did Jesus come to promote peace? “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man’s worst enemies will be the members of his own family.” –Jesus in Matthew 10:34-39. Or how about, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I keep telling it that its ways are bad.” — Jesus in John 7:7. I am not saying that these verses in any way support the culture war, but I do get tired of people trying to paint Jesus as some namby-pamby marshmallow who just wanted to love people and bring peace and quiet to the world and now everybody will be happy and sing and dance together. It completely ignores the fact that we are in serious spiritual warfare–yes, this is an entirely Biblical concept–and the dark forces want to bring humans down. Before I go on, let me reiterate that I believe it is a distortion to say that Jesus came to promote peace.
But on to Ken’s article and the concept of war. Ken, I understand where you are coming from, and I too am a little tired of the only thing that the society at large sees of Christians is their opposition to a particular set of issues. Your posting here doesn’t get into what should be done about important issues, but only focuses on what has gone wrong attitude-wise. Maybe later you’ll get to the what-to-do part, but in the meantime, I’d like to point out these things.
We are definitely in spiritual warfare. The heart of the warfare is the individual, with Satan and his minions trying to mess up Christians (and prevent others from finding Christ). And from this perspective, he has apparently done a good job of getting many evangelicals to puff up with pride and look down on others.
But we as Christians are also called to be the salt of the earth. If we lose our saltiness that we provide to society, who will be the salt? Satan wants to bring down humans collectively, also, and by getting the message through the whole culture that certain things are acceptable is a way of destroying humans. By getting the culture to accept abortion, millions of babies, humans made by God’s loving creativity, have been ruthlessly murdered. Time and time again in the Old Testament, God is angry with Israel when murder is rampant and when the defenseless are ignored. In the books of the prophets, this theme shows up repeatedly. God cares for the defenseless, and calls on his people to stand up for them. This is warfare–Satan is out to destroy as many of God’s creations as he can, and if we get quiet about it, so that we don’t seem so “negative,” then we are in effect abetting the Destroyer.
This goes back to the comment of Jesus: “The world hates me because I keep telling it that its ways are bad.” It is prudent to use wisdom in denouncing evil, but I do not think we should shrink back from doing it.
If we make abortion into only a political issue, then who is left to denounce it? The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter! What a horrible thought! We need people of faith standing up and proclaiming from a standpoint of love for God’s created ones the sanctity of life, and not leave it to sanctimonious unspiritual moralizers like Limbaugh and Coulter.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter! What a horrible thought!”
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (along w/Bill O’Reilly) have done more to bless the Body of Christ than you will in a THOUSAND lifetimes, pal.
BD
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Bless the body of Christ? How? I don’t think Limbaugh or Coulter even claim to be believers.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Ken, I have just stumbled upon this website and your blog, and I find your idea of being a conscientious objector from the culture war to be very refreshing and exciting! So many times it seems that people are more interested in pointing fingers and asessing blame than on loving their neighbors and their enemies. I find it frustrating that many evangelicals are solely focused on a few hot-button issues and they ignore many others. Where’s the outrage over the thousands of children in this country who are horribly abused and neglected by their parents? Why doesn’t anyone talk about the rising level of addiction to pornography in the church? It seems to me that satan has gotten so many Christians distracted into focusing very intensely on certain issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, that he has been able to plant his evil seeds of destruction in other areas where no one is looking.
Please keep up your writing Ken! You have an interesting and refreshing perspective. Thanks,
Elaine
April 7th, 2009 at 12:57 am
I’m not an evangelical, but I just read the comments to this post, and it seems that cultural / moral issues predominate even after the author wrote about them being a problem. I dont see Christ mentioned in these comments except for a tiny bit here or there. Where did he go?
Perhaps thats part of the issue with the churches you are trying to fill. The focus on culture and morality are such a big deal, that Jesus gets hidden away in a corner somewhere? Far enough away, such that those who seek him cannot find him?
I know I’d never go to a church that focused on culture and morality. If I wanted that, I’d go to a mosque with a friend of mine. They have morality rock solid, more so than the most legalistic church I’ve attended.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I think what internet trawler has said above is worthy of attention and consideration