Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Liberalism Denies Clear Doctrinal Teachings Of Bible

I discovered an article written by Harvey Cox of the Boston Globe that attempts to state that the so-called "new generation of evangelical leaders who are rediscovering their progressive roots" are taking the place of "old time religion" in evangelical circles.

I do see this progressive movement happening in the liberal-left-leaning churches. Evidence of such differences can be seen every day through the comments of disagreement posted by liberal-left Christian bloggers which are in sharp contrast to the comments posted by conservative Christian bloggers.

However, by no means do I agree with the author of the article when he assumes that such churches (and their followers) are about to "take over" in the evangelical world. The way I see it is that such liberal ideas are typical of what the book of Jude warns us about; namely, that heresy and apostasy will increasingly infiltrate those denominations that choose to adhere to more "worldly" doctrines within their churches the closer we get to the End Times. The good news is that there will always be that remnant of the faithful who will hold steadfast and contend for the faith.

Jude 3,4 - Contend for the Faith
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord *God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

In fact, if we look at the Top Ten Stupid Leftist Ideals, (sorry, but that's the name of the post!) we find that many "progressive ideas" are in stark contrast to what the Bible instructs and even further, some of the "ideas" listed are downright abhorrent (e.g. abortion) and anathema to what conservative, evangelical Christians believe that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ would approve of.

Focusing just on #3 (where the author labeled abortion as a "sacrament") and #1 (which is the obvious liberal left loonie idea that appeasing evil will somehow ensure peace) we can vividly see the hypocrisy of their thinking. Chapter 4 of Ann Coulter's new book points this out as well. She states:

"To a liberal, 2,200 military deaths [Note: amount of brave men and women who gave their lives for our freedom at time of publication] in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate."

I was going to type out an analysis of the article, but Larry R. Lawton posts an excellent reply over at SharperIron called, Harvey Cox's Fatal Assumption. Here's what Lawton stated:

Thanks for posting this article. Surprisingly, the author, Harvey Cox, is at least familiar with evangelicalism that is starkly non-existent with the 'news media'. The problem with his analysis is his 'fatal assumption' by equating liberal/moderate evangelicals as being more serious with their faith than those who are conservative. Nearing the conclusion with his article, he states this,

"One reason the future may belong to these new evangelicals is that they take the life and teaching of Jesus more seriously than the religious right, which bases its positions not on the gospels, but on what they call ``traditional values" and ``family values." But Jesus himself had little to say about family values; rather, he emphasized love of neighbor, and even of the enemy. And he often criticized the ``traditional values" of his own time so harshly that the anxious guardians of those traditions viewed him as a menace."

I've boldened the section that I thought was obviously a swipe at conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Cox states that evangelical conservatives have a political agenda, yet doesn't realize that he himself possesses just the same: a liberal, modernistic political agenda that is more 'progressive', hence more biblical, than that of conservative/fundamentalist evangelicals. This assumption smacks of the kind of self-absorbed superficial religiousity that he condemns conservative evangelicals of being: Pharasaical and corrupt. What he doesn't propose, even hint at, is why his brand of evangelicalism is more biblical. He equates progressive (liberal) evangelicals as having a better understanding of who Jesus is and what Jesus said, and that conservative evangelicals are actually heretical in their beliefs of who Jesus is. Even worse is Cox's understanding (rather ignorance) of what a political agenda really is. He accuses conservative evangelicals as possessing an unbiblical political agenda, but doesn't realize that his own liberal/progressive ideas are as equally politically driven. In the end, Cox assumes something about progressive evangelicalism that cannot be substantiated: liberalism denies the clear doctrinal teachings that the Bible states and cannot be made to look more spiritual or biblical than the beliefs that true Bible believing conservative evangelical Christians hold dearly to and have historically held to. His analysis of evangelicals in history shows his ignorance of what is biblical versus what is 'progressive'. I'm sure that William Jennings Bryan wouldn't want to be associated with the liberal progressive evangelicals of today. Liberalism of today isn't the same kind of progressive evangelical thought that it was in the nineteenth or early twentieth century. The evils of slavery were fought by those who believed in the principles from the Scriptures, and fought it because it was wrong. Associating modern progressive liberalism of today to the progressive thought back then distorts the beliefs of evangelicals of that time. Secondly, Cox ignores the implosion of new evangelicalism which has spun off into his camp of unbelieving 'progressive' Christianity. Fundamentalists and evangelical conservatives have held onto Biblical Christianity, and this is why so-called evangelical progressives will fall to the wayside of liberalism and die off just as much as mainline denominations have.
Larry R. Lawton
"Standing on the Shoulders of Giants" -- Inscription on the edge of the British 2 Pound Coin, 2000.

HT: SharperIron


Christinewjc said...

Liberal Christianity Is Paying For It's Sins

Christinewjc said...

Wow! Read this paragraph from the above former comment link:

"You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests."

A "Christian" denying Christ's divinity? The term Christian means "Christ in one." If Schori denies that Christ was (and is) God in the flesh, then she's guilty of not only preaching "another gospel," but more like preaching no gospel whatsoever!

And, she associates with that heretic Spong? Sheesh!! How far into the pit could she go?