I think what you’ve said here is deeper than I can respond to. At least in what I know about Chandler’s statement. I really enjoy other talks from Chandler. I still need to listen through this whole discussion of his.

I also think that we could argue who was liberal or not. The reality is that most often the title does not fit the action. In either case we need to engage, let’s do it as well as we can.

I disagree with Chandler’s premise, and I haven’t listened to the sermon and won’t due to time, and I don’t know the actual context of what he was speaking to.

However, historically, the quote is rather inaccurate and largely presumptive. It makes the assumption that all “liberal” theology was bad and all “fundamentalist” theology was good, which at the turn on the 20th Century just wasn’t the case. The Fundamentalists weren’t torch bearers any more than the Liberals were barn burners. As a matter of historical perspective, asking questions about the Bible, examining it through a literary/historical/social/academic (ie. non-literal) lens was deemed “liberal.” The fundamentalist retreat was in large part a response to the threat to the traditional literalist approach to Scripture. One result was an intense “prophetic” movement to reinterpret the OT/NT apocalyptic texts which led to Bible conferences, Bible schools, Left Behind-ology and the Scofield Bible. If you consider those things valuable, then of course, fundamentalists did us great service.

Without meaning to condescend, I’m afraid that my read of history is to say that smart, thinking Christians, both faithful and irreverent, were called “liberal,” while unquestioning and uncritical Christians, both faithful and irreverent, claimed the “fundamentalist” position. After all, it was Biblical Criticism — which we have to thank for our modern commentaries, language studies, contextual preaching and application, etc — that led conservative Christians to retreat into what they optimistically viewed as the “fundamentals.” Of course, that’s not the whole reason, but the danger of “thinking” about the Bible was real then, as real as not thinking about it is now.

Both groups have done much to help the church and push us forward, however, both fueled separation and legitimized disunity.

To Love’s credit, and the myopic American worldview would have no way to relate, the UK, France and Canada experienced similar religious phenomena, merely earlier. What makes us different in this country is how we interpret the religious libertarianism contained in the constitutional language of the founding fathers. In many ways, those countries should give us hope for the current spreading renewal and revival which we will need to see here in the future…if not now.

Baggage…it goes with the journey. Everybody’s got it and everyone thinks their’s is lighter than the next guys.

Sorry for the dissertation.

Chris´s last blog post…World Communion Setlist

His way was to go out into the world – healing and ministering according ot the Will of His Father, visiting also the orphaned (Father-less) and the widowed (those who had lost their Husband/Groom)

Retreating away from and withdrawing from the world is not Christian – we are to be in it, just not of it.

So yes ‘you’ would have made much more of an impact had you not retreated (although Christ Himself withdrew from danger until His Time was come!)

Assuming of course that ‘you’ did not, like so many periods throughout History, become greatly perverted away From His very simple Truth.

How to get rid of the baggage? Going back to the ‘basics’ perhaps? better learning the lessons He brought back to us all?

Sometimes you have to take a step or two ‘back’ before you can move further forward along the straight and narrow path.

<B

love´s last blog post…Seven Deadly Sins: Part 6 – Pride.

…I should have said “Matt Chandler and whomever he may be speaking for” not “quote.” Probably I should have added that when one assigns blame, not only is responsibility ignored, but identity is forsaken as well.

…Hasn’t fundamentalism “filtered down” the Teachings of Christ? For instance, why fight for prayer in school when Jesus said to pray in private–or, more specifically, don’t make a spectacle of it. For instance, a fundamentalist–the ones I’ve known, mind you–will say, “Make sure your heart is right with God because your actions cannot save you” but then tell you “Everyone must say ‘Merry Christmas’ instead of ‘Seasons Greetings’,” even though the intent of the heart when stating the latter is oftentimes just as good as when one is stating the former. (Don’t get me started on Starbucks coffee logos!)

…In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes it very clear that God wants authenticity over publicity. “False saints” was a harsh choice of words on my part, I confess. But the more I listen to what Jesus had to say, the more I realize that His greatest criticisms were directed at religious leaders–not sinners. The religious leaders during the time of Christ favored publicity over authenticity. And that infuriated Jesus. So I guard my heart and my soul from falling into that same trap, where I’m doing something wrong and I don’t even know I’m doing something wrong (like the Pharisees didn’t believe they were wrong). And, honestly, I really am more comfortable in a bar full of drunks than I am around Christians who raise their hands and close their eyes at a Christian concert. What can I say? That sort of thing has always made me uneasy–and suspicious.

…the dog made quite a mess of things out there.

“Several problems with the quote:
1. It assigns blame for the bubble of fundamentalism instead of accepting responsibility for it.”

How can a quote accept responsibility? I’m confused.

Responding to you #2. the point the speaker is making is that “truth” won out. Nothing was filtered or watered down when “liberalism” stepped in. The use of “Fundamentalists” makes sense in this perspective. Not saying I agree, just clarifying.

Responding to your #3…Ouch. You know all these so called “false saints” and your certain that Christian concerts are filled with them? What’s your secret?

Responding to #4 How did the dog do

1. It assigns blame for the bubble of fundamentalism instead of accepting responsibility for it.

2. God is not limited to the human point of view of Christianity and it would be a mistake to assume that our point of view is His point of view when we should be making an enormous effort to make His point of view our point of view–and religious fundamentalism often does not know the difference. But God is, in fact, light years beyond petty human politics. Because of that, I am quite confident that I would be as secure in my salvation had fundamentalism taken a different course. However, “what-if” living…is not living.

3. I don’t live in the bubble. I am more comfortable spending the night at a bar with honest sinners instead of, say, going to Christian concert filled with false saints who, all too often, make a spectacle out of worship.

4. I have to let my dog out.

I haven’t had a lot of time, so I haven’t been able to listen to this speakers talk. So, I can’t really say where he is coming from completely. Not sure how he set this up.

France, Canada and England are known to be religious but hardly fundamental. So, I can understand where some of this comes from.

But where my thoughts lie are, why did we withdraw? Did we just choose our battles and those battles in politics and education were not important enough? Makes sense, but also asks a lot more questions.

In getting “back into society” are we looking to exist in it, differently? Or are we looking to reclaim it? If we are looking to reclaim it, baggage is the least of our issues. I do believe that we desperately need to learn to exist in it in every way. The “Church” has been in it’s own bubble for far too long. We need to get out and rub shoulders in anyway possible.

That said, “the church retreated” and “the church is dead” are, by definition, oxymorons.

I suspect the Church stood for Christ and not for higher-education (ala Princeton, Harvard…).

What would have happened had we not retreated [from preserving higher-education]? Maybe we would have saved the institutions …while losing all the people.

Ric’s last blog post…weakend

kim’s last blog post…Worship Reflections 09.21.08