A few things have come to mind of late after surfing the Internet and noticing different things. For starters, Dusman has a recent post about street evangelism over at Triablogue.
However, there are other things going on in blogosphere and in the world at large. For instance, there still seems to be no substantive rejoinder to the recent claim elsewhere that Ergun Caner of Liberty Theological Seminary either is a liar or has some explaining to do.
Meanwhile, I just checked up on the history of the congregation of 55 Washington Square South, NYC since, unbeknownst to them, our paths have crossed lately. It’s yet another liberal church, to be sure, but it is worse than that: if you’re actually proud to proclaim how you took time out of your busy schedule to protest Glenn Beck (of all people and things) for his alleged race-baiting and fear-mongering, you need help.
In the meantime, you have recent comments from Michael Horton surrounding Rick Warren’s theology and sub-liberalism, and finally I’m reminded of my own recent comments (for whatever they’re worth) about church-goers who don’t even come close to walking the Christian walk. So my question is this: Doesn’t the body of Christ have little or no business trying to preach any sort of supposed gospel or good news until it first cleans house and gets its affairs and basic theology in order?
After all, it could well be that something has gone wrong in “evangelism” nowadays to produce a world with many people having merely a semblance of saving faith in the gospel of Christ. Likewise, if your “evangelism” produces a disciple who turns sound biblical exegesis on its head and uses an unduly discriminatory reading of the New Testament as a license for ungodly, unrighteous sexual practices--as in the case of any liberal church that would progress from a love of the sinner to a love of the sin--do you really think the apostle Paul is lying when he speaks of such a person in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10? Or if the Muslims you are trying to reach with the supposed gospel of Christ are busy pointing out that your autobiographical details appear to be bogus, is there a possibility that your story might reflect badly on the doctrine and word of God (vis-à-vis what can be gleaned from the likes of 1 Timothy 6.1 and Titus 2.5, 10) and that you need to do some explaining?
However, there are other things going on in blogosphere and in the world at large. For instance, there still seems to be no substantive rejoinder to the recent claim elsewhere that Ergun Caner of Liberty Theological Seminary either is a liar or has some explaining to do.
Meanwhile, I just checked up on the history of the congregation of 55 Washington Square South, NYC since, unbeknownst to them, our paths have crossed lately. It’s yet another liberal church, to be sure, but it is worse than that: if you’re actually proud to proclaim how you took time out of your busy schedule to protest Glenn Beck (of all people and things) for his alleged race-baiting and fear-mongering, you need help.
In the meantime, you have recent comments from Michael Horton surrounding Rick Warren’s theology and sub-liberalism, and finally I’m reminded of my own recent comments (for whatever they’re worth) about church-goers who don’t even come close to walking the Christian walk. So my question is this: Doesn’t the body of Christ have little or no business trying to preach any sort of supposed gospel or good news until it first cleans house and gets its affairs and basic theology in order?
After all, it could well be that something has gone wrong in “evangelism” nowadays to produce a world with many people having merely a semblance of saving faith in the gospel of Christ. Likewise, if your “evangelism” produces a disciple who turns sound biblical exegesis on its head and uses an unduly discriminatory reading of the New Testament as a license for ungodly, unrighteous sexual practices--as in the case of any liberal church that would progress from a love of the sinner to a love of the sin--do you really think the apostle Paul is lying when he speaks of such a person in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10? Or if the Muslims you are trying to reach with the supposed gospel of Christ are busy pointing out that your autobiographical details appear to be bogus, is there a possibility that your story might reflect badly on the doctrine and word of God (vis-à-vis what can be gleaned from the likes of 1 Timothy 6.1 and Titus 2.5, 10) and that you need to do some explaining?
1 comment:
MK, thanks for posting. I don't know much about the specifics of the Ergun Caner issue, but it seems to me there are different aspects to consider.
1) The controversy of his biography lends itself to great concern to his credibility. I would say this applies to any who are unfriendly to Christianity, as well.
2) His personal life has little to do with the merits of his concerns or problems with Islam. While tied to his general credibility, the arguments he makes against Islam must be dealt with individually.
Do you have any specific examples of lies or filth against Islam?
Post a Comment