On challies.com, one of my favorite evangelical sites, I have recently been defending Rick Warren, it seems that many of the readers think his approach unbiblical, echoing the sentiments often shared on neofundie site Slice. A few people bristle at my slinging use of the term neo-fundie, and want to know exactly what I mean by it. However, Jesus Creed recently ran a nice two-part series called The Rise of Neo-fundamentalism (Part II), which I want to quote, since Scot did a good job of it.
1. What characteristics may be found in the older “Fundamentalist” Christianity?
We were strident, largely uneducated (even dismissive of education), theologically censorious, separatistic, intolerant, and accusatory of every smidgeon of slight alteration. There were no questions; there were answers – and we had them. We saw our abrasiveness as a sign that the rest of the world couldn’t count the cost; rejection proved we were right. I’m embarrassed today mostly about what we were like as humans, we were ungracious if not unchristian.
2. What neo-fundamentalism will look like (or does look like)
There is a conviction among Neo-Fundamentalists that one can’t err if one gets too conservative, but that is the sin of what I called ‘zealotry.’ It will…
- become insular and separatistic,
- become divisive and accusatory from within,
- lack grace,
- create Christians who are not free in the Spirit but who will be rigid and intolerant,
- become socially withdrawn,
- lose a prophetic voice because it will lose contact with culture,
- attract angry, defensive, and mean-spirited individuals
3. The “Remnant” mentality of neo fundamentalism
Here’s my thesis: the core driving force of Neo-Fundamentalism (like the old) is a remnant mentality. That is, it believes the following:
- That it alone remains true to the fullness of the gospel and the orthodox faith.
- That the Church worldwide is hanging on a precipice and will soon, if it doesn’t wake up, fall from the faith.
- That the solution to this nearly-apocalyptic church situation is to tighten up theological stands and clarify what is most central and most important for the Church today.
- That the major problems are theological drift, church laxity, and evangelical compromise with either modernity and/or postmodernity.
- That it is ‘Neo’ because it arises within Evangelicalism today and will either break from it or seek its widespread reform – and therefore its particular characteristics are determined by contemporary Evangelicalism. E.g., it isn’t really concerned about dancing and movies and ‘mixed bathing.’
4. My definition of neo-fundie
I believe that neo-fundies are similar to the original Christians Fundamentalists in that they are trying to defend orthodoxy against the threats of modern culture and changes in the church. In some ways, they are right to do so. However, like the original CFs, the NFs make some of the same errors:
- they reject modern culture and its vehicles of communication
- they are biblicists and reject valid disciplines of truth outside of scripture, because “everything we need to know is in the bible.”
- they reject cultural reformation because trying to transform culture is really just “polishing brass on a sinking ship,” especially since Jesus is coming soon
- they develop a “remnant” identity, thinking themselves the last of the faithful, the few devoted to “the whole truth” before the “great falling away”
- they often cling to only one translation of the Bible as the authoritative one
5. What specific activities are neo-fundies involved in today? (again, my opinion)
- Attacking the seeker-sensitive movement
- Attacking Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity
- Attacking Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven approach
- Attacking contemporary worship and “rock and roll”
- Attacking mega churches
- Attacking contemplative spirituality
- Attacking the “emergent church”
6. What “watchdog” activities do I think are not necessarily neo-fundie?
- Criticizing some of the newer, sloppy translations of the bible, including many of the gender neutral ones (TNIV, TNLB, the Message)
- Drawing a firm line regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality (though our approach to gays could be much more compassionate)
- Criticizing obvious Christless positivism (like Schuller and Osteen). I don’t think that Warren falls into this same category, though he leans that way, his church’s web site still holds to the fundamentals of the faith.
- Criticizing some aspects of the emergent church (though, they are asking some very good questions and coming up with some very good alternatives to stale fundamentalism)
- Questioning whether women should be in leadership in churches
Now, I know that some will ask “what’s the difference between attacking and criticizing? Aren’t you saying that in some cases it is wrong, while in others, it is good? Aren’t you just picking and choosing? What principles do you apply to make these decisions?”
Mostly, it is the tone of the criticisms, and whether or not the criticizers recognize *anything* good in the movements they criticize, or whether they show a complete lack of self-examination, and are busy globally condemning their opponents.
7. Selected comments from the two articles
Jesus came ‘full of grace and truth’ and these folks delete the grace(fullness) and bore down on ‘truth.’ With log-filled eyes they become masters at saw-dust detection in everyone else’s eyes, and, as you noted, in our past they slandered Billy Graham, demonized Martin Luther King, Jr., and everybody was ‘liberal’ but them. 1
There seems to be a resurgence of fundamentalisms globally, conservative Christian, liberal Christian, Islamist, Buddhist, Hindu, and even secularist. Samuel P Huntingtion alerted me to nascent neo-fundamentalisms 2, and sadly it seems an integral part of negative and populist reactions against disenchanted modernism. Those who derive their security and power from the prevailing but declining paradigm can only be expected to do increasingly desperate and dangerous things.
I intentionally carry a copy of the TNIV into church, openly displaying it in Sunday School and as I sit in the worship service just to see what the reaction may be. It’s a little way to gauge the fundy in the people around me.
Fundamentalism, according to Tim Weber (paraphrased by Scot McKnight) is
A movement organized to defend orthodoxy against challengers who somehow or in some way who deny or corrupt orthodoxy. It is concerned with ideas that will corrupt orthodoxy. What we have then are two things: threat and defense. The combative and defensive posture are inherent to fundamentalism. 3
But when we respond by trying to gauge the ‘errors’ and opinions of our neighbors, and by using derogatory terms in public forums or even amongst ourselves it doesn’t help matters.
I agree that fundamentalism sees itself as defending orthodoxy against corruption, but one thing I see is that fundamentalism always seems to have an extremely narrow definition of orthodoxy.
The Narrow Orthodoxy of Fundamentalism
When I think of orthodoxy, I think of the ancient Christian creeds. These affirm certain truths as nonnegotiable, but also leave a lot of room for diverse views and practices in many areas. It seems to me that most people who self identify as Christians and seek to live as disciples of Jesus will affirm and defend orthodoxy in the broad creedal sense, but most Christians will also allow that there are areas of legitimate disagreement.
Fundamentalism, to me, usually sees orthodoxy in the narrowest possible terms both theologically and morally/culturally, so that anyone who disagrees with me on any significant theological matter or who engages in cultural or moral practices that I consider sinful is therefore, automatically excluded from the faith (or is at least pretty suspect). It’s extreme black and white thinking, with no room for nuance or anything in between.
I guess the danger is that you get so used to throwing punches you start landing them on friends and family as well.
Fundamentalism is as much about fear as faith
Knowing why people engage in fundamentalism or neo-fundamentalism is probably of more value than deconstructing it and finding its faults. They are afraid. And they are so easily manipulated through their fear that it is actually somewhat frightening.
I hope that you don’t fall into the trap of calling all theological opinion to the right of yours ‘fundamentalist.’ The term becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since it’s a tag nobody wants, when you call someone a ‘fundamentalist’ you automatically put them in a defensive posture, thus making it easier to point to them and say ‘see, I told you there were reactionary, defensive types.
Fundamentalism in this usage, refers to a discernible pattern of religious militancy by which self-styled ‘true believers’ attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors.
Things like music, cultural engagement/participation, eschatology, and a number of other peripheral issues are often treated like fundamentals of the faith.
Its difficult when you are coming out of a movement and have no connections to the larger body of Christ and credentials that are less than desirable for engagement in the larger evangelical world. Our tradition has or soon will disown us, and most of us don’t know anyone outside of our own circles. Nevertheless, when you’re persuaded what youre doing is right, you count the cost and go forward trusting Jesus.
Where does the transformation from fidelity to fundamentalism occur for post-modern Christians?
If these folks are ever questioned or if there is reasoned argument at all, or if exception is taken to some stand that is staked out, this is taken as ‘persecution,’ which excuses the person from having to shape or modify their position, and which, oddly, further serves to prove that they are on Gods side in the matter.
Some of the characteristics of this legalism are:
- One-upping (my behavior can be more holy than yours if I do X)
- Scrutinizing (I examine your behavior for lack of commitment and decide if you are a good or bad influence on me and mine)
- Proof-texting (using Scripture to support current practices, even if those are not mentioned in the Bible, applying perceived meanings)
- Withdrawing and bonding (withdrawing from larger culture, forming your own community of like-minded people)
- Hiding (protecting failures and weaknesses from on-lookers and compensating for failures with greater commitments, more holy behavior, more proof texting, more Christian ritual practices and so on)
- The need for certainty, reductionism, and a division between us and them is a sign of immaturity. Breaking off of relationships because you don’t agree with is not a sign of maturing discipleship. [] Fundamentalism, neo or otherwise has a need to define the enemy, and more often than not this enemy is found within their ranks, those who will not agree with them. There is an anger and a fear that you just do not see in the gospels. Having seen the statements of faith of some of the fundamentalist organizations (neo or otherwise)it is the detail that grabs your attention. They cover every point, far beyond the classic creeds of the church.
The vast array of ex-fundamentalist websites, books, support groups and discussion groups reveal commonalities of mistreatment that these now-adults find unconscionable.
The biggest danger it poses is that it hides the eschatological relevance of the presence of God’s Kingdom from the rest of the world. Neo-fundamentalism continues this perpetual apocalyptic and rapturist mentality and creates a vicious religious circle in which one is required to reject an unwanted reality in order to be accepted by it. [] Scare tactics (hell-bound preaching), perpetual near-apocalypse living, and escapism are key characteristics of fundamentalism. If this is not causing believers to become irrelevant socially and culturally, then what positive things can we find in it?
Notes:
- The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism (patheos.com) ↩
- The Clash of Civilizations? (Foreign Affairs) ↩
- The Bible in America: Proof-Texting and the Cultural Divide ↩
nice to have a summary like this. thanks
It seems that as soon as you actually start to do something, you're fair game for criticism, and just as with the pro-life movement, there seems to be a lot of Christians who are happy to make a fuss but don't want to bother to help people.
Most of the time, I've found, when brainy folks are arguing themselves blue in the face, they're doing it with the folks on their own side (it's safer that way), and aren't even discussing the real issue.
I'm generally supportive of Rick Warren, though I don't know a whole lot about him. I ran into the discussion on Challies today, too, and wrote about it on my blog RealCurrents. A lot of folks arguing don't really even know what they're arguing about, because they don't know the background to the whole "purpose-driven" mindset that comes out of management.
That's not a criticism – I too am a fan of Peter Drucker for the most part. Some of the problems churches face are common to all organizations, and leaders needs to understand that.
A lot of folks arguing don't really even know what they're arguing about, because they don't know the background to the whole "purpose-driven" mindset that comes out of management.
That is a good point. Warren detractors argue that such "worldly wisdom" or "marketing savvy" is worldly and not God's way. However, they are, in my mind, ignoring common wisdom. It's like saying "we shouldn't use accounting best practices because the world uses them." Jesus never published any books, nor marketed them, nor did he use the internet. Maybe the hyper fundies should also stop using these wordly methods.
Although your article is hard to follow, I believe you are saying that it is bad to be a – now what were all the names you used? – a biblicist, fundamentalist, and I believe you mentioned legalist and "watchdog" as well.
And you are critical of people who "reject valid disciplines of truth outside of scripture, because "everything we need to know is in the bible." "
I would just like to know how many valid disciplines of truth there are outside the Bible, and who validates them?
I must be a fundamentalist, biblicist, legalist, watchdog?
"they are biblicists and reject valid disciplines of truth outside of scripture, because "everything we need to know is in the bible."
Would you please share a list of the valid disciplines of truth outside of Scripture?
Thank you.
(Oh, and I suppose the reason I had a hard time following your article was because it is morning, and I am NOT a morning person) I didnt mean to say something mean about your writing, sorry.
As to the individuals involved, Warren I can stand. Osteen I will leave.
Sir Valour, I think you misjudge seeker. I'll let him speak for himself, but I will answer for myself and my views.
Scripture teaches that you can see God, the Biblical God, in places other than Scripture. Romans 1 says that the unbelievers are without excuse because God has shown Himself to them through nature (creation) and within them (moral code). This truth outside of Scripture leads them to find God within the Truth of Scripture.
Truth being outside of Scripture does not mean truth opposed to Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible do you find 2+2=4, yet that is a true statement. It doesn't conflict with Bible. It is simply a truth of God that He did not place in the revealed Word of God. It is possible to find the Bible as innerrant and as our standard and acknoledge that things can be true without being mentioned specifically in the Bible.
None of this means you are downplaying Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life. This does not mean that He is anything less than the only way to be saved and get to Heaven. None of this means that the Bible is not the complete Word of God and is entirely relevant for today, yesterday and forever.
All Truth is God's Truth, no matter where we find it – Truth comes from God. Do you not believe this? Can Satan or someone else generate Truth? From Scripture, I see that he can only pervert it. Only God can establish Truth. So God established the Truth of 2+2=4 as well as the Truth that Jesus is the only way to salvation. One is infinitely more important, but they are both true and both from God.
Would you please share a list of the valid disciplines of truth outside of Scripture?
Sure, just make a list of the sciences. Does the bible tell you how to do medicine? How about chemistry or physics? We all depend on these disciplines of truth every day.
But those are the hard sciences. Biblicists are more likely to disregard the "soft" sciences like psychology because they are more likely to have their data warped by a secular world view. However, you can look at psychological data through a world view that is consistent with the bible.
I'll give you another discipline. Organizational efficiency. I mean, besides the organizational structure outlined to Moses, and perhaps ecclesiastical structures outlined in the bible, are we willing to learn about such things from the Peter Druckers of the world?
Again, this type of "soft science" could be polluted by worldly perspectives like the love of money or selfish ambition, but there is plenty of wisdom in these books that lines up with, or fails to openly contradict, biblical principle.
So what if Rick Warren is using wisdom from organizational or marketing gurus? Sure, there are risks of watering down or losing the gospel along the way, but you can guard against that if you are aware of it.
The bible points us to the *living* God. Yes, his word is living and active, but so is his spirit. His wisdom is also abundantly clear in creation, and there are many who, like the philosophers that Paul addressed on Mars Hill, who have gained much wisdom from observing God's creation, and merely need to be introduced to the God behind it.
However, those of us who know this God ought to also humble ourselves and learn the wisdom that those who have earnestly sought truth have garnered, even if they have yet to find the God of truth. When we fail to acknowledge the truths that they have found, or in our pride refuse to learn from them because they don't know Him yet, we deny the truth, and push them away from God, and we also push truth away from ourselves.
Don't forget, God can even speak through a donkey, and he will if we are too hardened to listen to His spirit. That new-ager might just the donkey that God uses to wake you up. ;)
Seeker, your entire post is chock-full of New-Agey, postmodern universalism. It suggests your position is one that sees many paths to God. It suggests a position does not see Holy Scripture as authoritative and definitive. It is liberal and watered-down.
Sir Velour ;), perhaps you could give some specifics and criticize specific statements. That might help me.
I was under the impression we were talking about disciplines to base our morals and daily living principles on. I do not base whether or not I assemble with a church on Sunday on the facts of Biology. Nor Chemisty or Calculus.
I was under the impression we were talking about disciplines to base our morals and daily living principles on.
We've had a LONG discussion(s) about this very topic. Is morality subjective or objective? I think subjective, theists, the ones I've spoken with, say objective.
Ok, first, the original post is speaking of Fundamental Christianity, in which seeker said his/her definition of "…neo-fundie is – they are biblicists and reject valid disciplines of truth outside of scripture, because "everything we need to know is in the bible.""
My impression was therefore that we were speaking of religious "truths" not sciences.
So (under my impression now) he thinks the moral decisions we make on a daily basis, such as "will I conduct myself calmly or violently when my two year old throws all the socks into the toilet" or "will I make sure and teach my children about Jesus and his word", could be acted upon after meditating on …. Chemistry?
Anyway, about morality being subjective or objective, is anything really subjective? I thought it (morality) was all about living together on the planet. Maybe I am too fundamental.
Perhaps we need to define "truth." Believe it or not, you can learn moral truths without the bible. Yep. You know that whole sowing and reaping thing? Somehow the buddhists have learned it. Almost all of the non-revelatory wisdom in proverbs can be found outside of Christianity because it is common truth, not revealed truth.
And the fact is, there is a lot of common moral truth, as well as practical truth outside of the bible. And we need to be humble enough to realize that.
Neo-fundies, sometimes also called hyper fundies, go beyond emphasizing the fundamentals of the faith, and engage in such activities as:
– rejecting modernity as worldly
– confusing modern styles with modern content and values (like rejecting movies because many movies are immoral)
– taking non-essential truths (like your eschatology, or speaking in tongues, or whatever non-central doctrine they love) and making them part of the essentials of the faith, and condemning those who don't agree
– condeming the latest move of the Spirit, whether it be Charismatic or Emergent (or the initial coming of Jesus) and rejecting it because it doesn't meet their understanding of scripture.
– They also have no tolerance serious questioning of the faith, nor of exploring new ways to reach the lost, nor of experimental methods of evangelizing and meeting as a body of believers.
I understand that scripture is our guide, but it is a guide – it shows us some non-negotiable truths, some limits, and other things, well, they are just left to our own consciences.
I suppose that I might opine, here, that it is important to realize that the far right (hyper fundamentalists) call more moderate fundamentalists, "neofundamentalists." It also seems that the Emerging guys label conservative evangelicals, "NeoFundamentalist." Since I fit squarely between the majority of evangelicals and the majority of fundamentalists, I have taken the name for my blog.
Hey Neo, I see you are nearby in Fremont. We should get together for lunch sometime, since i am an aspiring pastor. Send a ntoe to twoorthreeblog at gmail dot com and let's have lunch.
I did not realize that HFs call less extreme righties "neo-fundamentalists." And it's not only Emerging guys who label conservative evangelicals "NF", it's regular evangelicals like me who call the John McCarthur's of our day "NFs". (BTW, I really like John McCarthur despite his stands against the Charismatic church and pscyhology).
So what you are saying is that the FAR RIGHTIES call *us* neo-fundies, and we call *them* neo fundies. Now that is just plain funny. So if they think we are neo-fundies, what do they think they are? The original fundies? Hmf.
Also, there are two uses for the word "fundamentalist" – the secular version, which means "extremist" and the evangelical one, which refers to the historical label. In fact, those in the Christian right who come from that stream wear the label with pride, which makes them seem very backwards to outsiders because it looks like they wear the label "extremist" with pride.
So apparently you are NOT saying that there is more than one discipline of *spiritual* truth…
(sorry, there's that objectivity thing that I forgot to apply, when *I* think of my morals and principles, I automatically include spirituality as well. Hard to remember that other people may not. Hence my confusion.)
I would love to meet you…let me know. There is an interesting trend developing, and I look forward to seeing what God will do.
This conversation is fascinating.
So God established the Truth of 2+2=4
Aaron, wouldn't this be true even without God?
Anyway, about morality being subjective or objective, is anything really subjective?
I would say, yes. Many people in other times and places thought slavery, for example, acceptable, even good; while most today view it as a great evil. My question: "Is any morality really objective?"
If you think their (Warren, Osteen) new "gospel" can save you, good luck! You'll need it.
I'm so confused. Is Sir Valor saying that Seeker and Aaron are going to Hell if the follow the new "gospel?"
Cineaste: So the way people view something makes it the way they view it then? I dont see that holding true at all. This old world keeps on moving no matter how I view it. Even if I am in a dark room for weeks and cant tell, or dont want to admit it. There's objectivity for you, isnt it? :)
I guess my point is that a man's view can be flawed (mostly because a man's view is subjective) but God's view isnt. This is why we need his book. So our flawed views can become more like his. Although we are still going to make mistakes, being that we really cannot escape subjectivity. Well, I'd say we will in Heaven.
s Sir Valor saying that Seeker and Aaron are going to Hell if the follow the new "gospel?"
No, he is saying that the content of what those guys preach does not contain the gospel, and no one listening to it could become saved because they necessary information is left out.
I guess my point is that a man's view can be flawed (mostly because a man's view is subjective) but God's view isnt.
Here is my confusion: Is slavery objectively morally right or wrong by God? Is slavery a sin by God? I would think it is and certainly we see slavery as immoral today but:
These passages were once cited by Christian slave holders arguing that slavery was objectively morally right by God. Should I believe this? My rationality tells me NO but my belief "slavery is wrong" seems to be in conflict with scripture itself. This is just one example of why I am having such a difficult time understanding Christianity. I honestly want to understand because I see good people who are Christians yet their rational eludes me.
No, he is saying that the content of what those guys preach does not contain the gospel, and no one listening to it could become saved because they necessary information is left out.
Ah! Okay I understand this.
I always find it curious encountering these sorts of arguments that all we need is the Bible. I believe in Biblical inerrancy, but I also believe in dominion. "Reformed" is not just an adjective to be applied to theology or denominations.
Indeed, we may very well be entering an era where we're going to see the Church get serious about reforming every field/discipline, every area of life, whether economics, psychology or other soft sciences, or law, business, etc.
As an aerospace engineer, I wonder how many of the folks arguing that we only need the Bible would be willing to fly in an airplane designed with that philosophy (they'd probably only have to do it once)?
Christians need to stop being satisfied with such small thinking, and get on with the task of discipling the world, which will require setting goals and actually measuring results, rather than just saying "100 got saved last week", "200 got saved in the meeting before", etc.!
Christians need to stop being satisfied with such small thinking, and get on with the task of discipling the world.
God does not want you to do this. Discipline is solely God's domain when he judges us. We are His children to discipline as He sees fit, not yours or anyone else's. Leave it to God to discipline his children: do not take matters into your own hands.
He wrote *discipling" not "disciplining".
He wrote *discipling" not "disciplining".
Your right, but this is how I took it…
Cineaste: I believe that the Israelite people wanted a King to rule over them and God let them have that. I don't think I see anywhere in there that God approves of slavery. Just that it seems an inescapable part of human behavior (that he will judge, btw)
In the New Testament references especially, I see nothing stating that slavery is objectively morally right or wrong by God. Just that it is something people have to deal with. I know that Paul begged Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother.
I also know that people who were truly "stuck" in that caste system had a hard time freeing themselves from it. Slaves and Masters alike. I think God shows his wisdom in saying that "godliness with contentment is great gain" and Paul showed as such a good example of contentment under dire circumstances.
In a manner of speaking we are all slaves. The whole religion of christianity is about serving others….
I see nothing stating that slavery is objectively morally right or wrong by God. Just that it is something people have to deal with.
But Lawanda, if the above is so, is slavery a sin?
Oh, and if someone is a slave to a man who is truly determined to treat the slave like a brother, and the slave asks to be set free (or even desires it without asking) then the master WILL give the slave his freedom. Right? :)
Cineaste: Let us define our terms. I believe you mean to ask if the oppression of or cruelty to slaves (as in #4 below) is a sin.
No, by slavery I meant the institution of human beings owning other human beings as property.
but – I think this is because if a person treats a slave as a brother, he will be treated correctly even if the slave still calls him master. And neither of you is sinning. Does that make any sense?
Honestly, I am totally confused.
…we should base our relationship with others on what God and Jesus said/did.
I believe this is the core of Christianity. My understanding was that the character of Jesus was "love." I liked reading the Sermon on the Mount.
It would seem to me that slavery is a sin, considering what I read in the sermon. Speaking subjectively, I find slavery morally wrong. Yet, the bible does not denounce slavery, it even regulates it as an institution.
I'm sorry about that, it was confusing! That is why I posted my little ammendment there ^. I do get to rambling, sorry.
I find slavery (as an institution) horrible, myself. But I still see in human nature that there are strong and there are weak. Slavery will always be. Until we are all the same in heaven. It is regulated in the word of God just as marriage is – because there are male and female and there will always be.
Back to my question though, is slavery a sin?
I am a slave of Christ. That is obviously not a sin. I am a slave of chocolate, well that might be a sin… My children are slaves if you wanna get right down to it, because they are under my control. Do I "treat them like slaves" as I think you are referring to (oppression, etc) NO! Not by any means. Because I love them.
You are speaking of slavery as an institution? So you are asking if a nation is sinning which allows slavery?
You are speaking of slavery as an institution?
Is the institution of slavery, humans owning other humans as property, a sin?
If a person buys another person in order to hurt them yes. If a person buys another person to help them, no.
When you say "as property" you infer that the person who is bought will be treated wrongly (like a dog as the saying goes), so I would say:
Is the institution of slavery, humans owning other humans as property, a sin? in that instance yes.
Slavery in the United States was mostly of the first instance, people bought slaves to work them into the ground, for their own profit. If you read history though, people don't have to be literally owned for this to happen (read Irish history).
And also, I think that slavery leads people to this non-Christian behavior, which is why God "regulates" it as you said. I think he doesn't say STOP ALL SLAVERY IT IS A SIN, because of the points I have brought up.
So is a "sin" to you something that is morally wrong?
Is the institution of slavery, humans owning other humans as property, a sin? in that instance yes.
This is all I wanted to know. The next logical question would be, why do you think so? Thank you for being so patient with my questions too.
So is a "sin" to you something that is morally wrong?
This is something that I can't answer well because I am not sure if there is a God or not and sin by definition, is a transgression of divine law. I know this is a poor answer, but I don't know.
The next logical question would be, why do you think so?
Well, in addition to all my previous theorizing, Jesus did say "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven"
I think it is because of his attitude toward his fellows. See a poor man cant own a slave can he? It has to be a rich man. It is harder for a rich man to enter Heaven, because well, he doesnt treat others as Christ has told him to, in most cases, because he cares more for the comforts and "things" of this world than he does for his fellow man.
~~~~~~~~~
It is ok, poor answers just need enriching study to become good ones ;)
But why do you "personally" think slavery is a sin? Is there any rational outside of scripture that convinces you that slavery (humans owning other humans as property) is immoral or a sin? For example, Thomas Jefferson said, "All men are created equal."
It is ok, poor answers just need enriching study to become good ones ;)
I am studying now. Your answering my questions is very helpful to my study of Christianity. I'm very curious about Christianity.
I am studying too. :)
Well, the Bible was penned and put together long before Thomas Jefferson was born. God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit is the oldest – and most reliable – author of truths in my opinion.
That is not to say that Thomas Jefferson isnt important, but the leaders of our country largely got their ideas from the Bible.
This sort of leads us back to the whole reason for our discussion in the form of the original post. I largely take my ideas for everything from the Bible as well. (this is why it is called "religion" you do it religiously ;) )
I do believe in "sticking to the scripture" for all my religious work and belief (and I include morality in my spirituality). I also try and use what I call common sense with application thereof. :)
I largely take my ideas for everything from the Bible as well.
I understand. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me!
That is not to say that Thomas Jefferson isnt important, but the leaders of our country largely got their ideas from the Bible.
Interesting.
Great article. Lots of valid criticisms here. I am not sure if I would classify Mac Arthur or other pretty conservative evangelicals as neo fundies, though. But in some ways I guess I can see your point.
I'll have to think through this further.
God bless,
Bob Hayton
John 17:23
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Romans 15:5
May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus,
Ephesians 4:1
[ Unity in the Body of Christ ] As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.
Ephesians 4:3
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Ephesians 4:13
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Colossians 3:14
And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
Seems like such a waste of time to meticulously pick apart believers, categorize them, define them, etc. Unity in the fundamentals, grace in the gray areas, love in all things. Pray for your brothers and sisters and use the Word to teach, correct, rebuke, etc. Showing disunity to the world weakens the body.