Comments on: The Church as “salt shaker”

By: davidgoss

davidgoss — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:55:54 +0000

sounds good. This is fun.

By: reformedfred

reformedfred — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:33:09 +0000

Yep. Love it. You can be transformed and I can call it deluded. And we can both say the other’s opinion is “completely inaccurate”. Been fun chatting with you- I’ll pop back another time…

By: David Goss

David Goss — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:01:11 +0000

OK. Well, there you have it. Your opinion is completely inaccurate (I can say that because I myself have been transformed), but you are welcome to believe whatever you believe.

Don’t we live in a great country?

By: reformedfred

reformedfred — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:20:39 +0000

I don’t propose a version of “enlightened” Christianity. I submit that there is no such thing. I also don’t think Christianity transforms individuals/communities, but rather mesmerizes them into becoming robotic followers.

By: davidgoss

davidgoss — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:38:07 +0000

Ok. So here’s the bottom line question in my mind…What does your version of Christianity have to offer? Does your version of “enlightened” Christianity promise and deliver joy, peace, life transformation, a real tangible help to relational difficulties (His name is the Holy Spirit), personal and social healing, justice for the oppressed? How does your version of church and Christianity transform individuals and communities?

By: reformedfred

reformedfred — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:23:53 +0000

Christianity seems to always claim historical(and popular)figures/ideas as their own long after those who would argue differently are dead and gone. Copernicus? A Roman Catholic afraid to publish his discoveries for fear of criticism from the church(and at that time in history, criticism wasn’t a mere ding on one’s record). His heliocentric ideas not only were taking on the Catholic church/authority of the day, but the Bible itself (which promotes that the sun stands still and the earth moves about it).

I bet 200 years from now, Christians will be saying that they championed gay rights, stem cell research, and Bishop Spong as their hero.

Actually, 200 years from now, the only surviving churches will be those who ditched the infallibe/inspired/inerrant scripture bit and realized that being “liberal”(the churches you say can’t survive a century, i.e. the Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, (Free Methodists excluded)Presbyterian, churches) was the key to at least trying to remain relevant- where we began this discourse. Something evangelical/conservative/bible-believing churches lack. Greatly.

By: David Goss

David Goss — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:31:55 +0000

I don’t want to bicker. The point I was making is that wherever Christianity has grown, the “brand” of Christianity has always been a Bible-centered one…one that sees the Bible as inspired and spirit-breathed (infallible is difficult to define for most evangelicals). In sharp contrast, the liberal brand of Christianity hardly ever lives out the century. That is what we have seen in Europe and are seeing in much of the US. The church declines rapidly when it loses its emphasis on the authority of Scripture. That is just the facts. Show me one bustling, vibrant, growing liberal church anywhere and I will show you an anomaly.
Finally, to say that this brand of Christianity is only for illiterate and uneducated is again to forget history. It was a vibrant Christian culture that birthed the Enlightenment and gave us such minds as Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, etc.
Christianity has never been simply for the uninformed, illiterate, and uneducated. It has actually helped BIRTH education for the masses more effectively than any other religion or movement in history.

By: reformed

reformed — Sat, 09 May 2009 03:02:54 +0000

Firstly, there is nothing “proud” in what I wrote- it was merely an observation, and if you read some level of “snobbery” in that, it speaks more of you than it does of me.

Secondly, I do not call “over-medicated, discontented, complaining, lawsuit-happy people” an example of social well-being. You were the one bringing in 3rd world countries, and the growth of the Christian church within, as an example of biblical relevance. I don’t see the point; it’s comparing apples to oranges.

If you are inclined to think of 3rd world peoples as being happy (and what is your standard, might I ask?) and those of us in North America as privileged whiners, than perhaps you should move your ministry to those geographical areas that best fit your paradigm of social well-being(?).

Meanwhile, you are tasked with serving the likes of Southern California, and the question is (as it was to begin with) that of relevancy. I state now, as I did to begin with, that you cannot hope to remain relevant, in an educated forum of enlightened individuals, by maintaining the inerrancy of scripture. Only uninformed, ill-educated, and/or deluded people will continue to accept the bible as word-for-word, spirit-breathed, infallible, inspired, communication between God and man.

By: davidgoss

davidgoss — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:02:15 +0000

Please don’t take offense, but that sounds very, very proud. I wonder if you have done any traveling in the third world yourself. My experience is that most people who do not have all of the trappings of material goods and services that we do are much, much happier. Look at all of the over-medicated, discontented, complaining, lawsuit-happy people our culture has produced. Do you call this social well-being?
In answer to the poor and uneducated flocking to the gospel, YES! The gospel is good news for the poor and disenfranchised. Always has been and always will be. Those who do not believe they need a savior will not accept one. This is not an extension of an advanced society as much as it is of pride, selfishness and the wisdom of this world, not the wisdom that is from above.
Finally, when the gospel is received and does its work in individuals and communities, it brings social well-being, such as equality for women, social services, and education. To the extent that the gospel is dismissed, these benefits become institutionalized and lose their mission/vision and slowly dissipate. We desperately need the full embracing of the gospel. All of society benefits as a result.

By: reformed

reformed — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:29:22 +0000

By Dr. Lee Won-gue (Methodist Theological Seminary:
“During the past 20th century, there was a remarkable growth in Christianity in the Third World such as Africa, Asia and Latin America, and a serious decline in Europe and North America, which were the center of Christianity. The mode of decline in Christianity differs from country to country. This mode is affected by some social variables, especially by the levels of economic affluence, social well-being, and sexual equality. According to my study about 188 countries throughout the world, during the 100 years from 1900 to 2000, Christianity declined in the countries which have high level of economy, and prospered in the ones which have low level of economy. In other words, Christianity faded in advanced countries which have high level of income per capita, and thrived in developing or under-developed counties which have low level of income per capita. With respect to social wellbeing, Christianity declined in the so called wellbeing countries that have low level of illiteracy and the better conditions for long, healthy and enjoyable life. On the contrary, Christi-anity prospered in the countries that have low level of social well-being. Finally, Christianity faded in the countries which have accomplished high level of sexual equality and in which woman has great power.”

I think this says it well- the poor, disadvantaged, uneducated, etc., always flock to relgion. It gives them hope in a seemingly hopeless world.
And in answer to your second question: you cannot be science-friendly, culturally-accomodating, etc. all the while maintaining a “Biblical world-view”. Can’t.