The Daily Offload #2

Yeah, this is too long for a “Daily Offload.” I’ll make future installments much shorter.

1. Megan Basham’s criticism of Gavin Ortlund. Basham is a Christian conservative who wrote a book published three days ago that I haven’t read, Shepherds for Sale. I know Ortlund through his YouTube videos defending Protestantism against Catholic and Orthodox criticisms (and criticizing right back). It was entirely news to me that Ortlund ever went to bat for global warming science, but apparently he did, arguing that as Christians we bear a responsibility to care about such things. (I would agree that if the climate were warming and if this warming were caused by human activity and if it could somehow be rolled back safely, then we should care about such things.) This provoked Basham, apparently in the first chapter, to criticize Ortlund.—And here I thought Ortland was a fairly typical conservative himself. He’s not? I mean, I only ever saw his theological videos.

Anyway, unlike Basham, I myself can certainly make common (religious) cause with people with whom I disagree on some political issues. If Ortland has been taken in by the climate cult, that suggests imperfect judgment, but nobody’s perfect. I still like his videos on theological issues that I’ve seen. I will say this, before having read Basham’s book (if I ever will): on the one hand, she’s certainly right that there is abundant cause for serious concern about the takeover of the church by the left. Many of us have observed the political creep within what goes under the name “evangelicalism,” after “mainline” Protestantism has almost completely fallen to deeply heretical forces, led by academia, beginning about 100 years ago (depending on the denomination), and greatly radicalizing in the 60s and 70s.

In their march through the institutions, the left was not content to have taken over what once were (and for the most part no longer are) the dominant denominations. They have infiltrated and begun to (try to) swing even once reliably devout, traditional, or conservative institutions leftward, such as, most famously, the Southern Baptist Convention, and more generally with the McChurch movement (as I’ll call it)—you know, the giant boxy megachurches without denominational affiliations and big “worship teams” with earsplitting rock music and messages of self-help inspiration which are frequently vague and light on actual scripture or doctrine. And Basham is right to be concerned: they have made some successes. The worst of the rot can be found in once reliably conservative seminaries, where, increasingly, skeptical scholars set the agenda.

I simply wasn’t aware that Ortlund was—or that anyone had accused him of being—a liberal. Is he? Look, I get along well with old-fashioned liberals (like my Dad; hi, Dad!). And I don’t like seeing unnecessary infighting in the Church. For example, I really appreciate the Orthodox acquaintances I’ve met online. Similarly the Calvinists and Baptists I know. I think we are not saved based on our score on a theology exam. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the “mere Christianity” Christians all came together in one big tent, which excluded those who would politicize the Church, attack scripture, and undermine the Trinity. That was true of the early church.

2. Various distinctives and where I currently stand on them. A very quick brain dump on points of disagreement among the various denominations, in a stream of consciousness order:

• Mariology: Mary was greatly blessed; but she was also a sinner, because we are told we are all sinners. She is not to be venerated or prayed to, as is common in Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The focus should remain solely on Christ.
• Baptism: Frankly, I have not really made up my mind on this. I see scriptural support for both believer’s baptism and infant baptism.
• Eucharist: The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice. The ideas of transubstantiation (Catholic) or consubstantiation (Lutheran) are concerning for reasons I go into here.
• Salvation: While I believe in sola fide, I reject the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” as it seems to overlook the necessity of ongoing faith and repentance: what if we lose our faith and stop repenting? Perhaps then we were not truly saved in that case, indeed, but what good does the principle of “once saved, always saved” do us if we and our loved ones think we are saved, and we can turn out to be mistaken? The faith that is saving is faith in the Lord, not faith in a body of doctrine (though acceptance of the latter is pretty important).
• Free will: Yeah, dawg, we have it. That’s why there’s sin; but it’s also closely associated with intelligence and creativity. I get along with Calvinists but I am closer to Arminianism.
• Scripture: Sola scriptura is a foundational principle. The Bible alone is the ultimate authority. I respect some traditions, when they have a foundation in scripture. And the principle does not mean we should not philosophize about religious matters (we should strive to do so well).
• Creation: I neither believe Young Earth creationism is essential to, necessary to, defend the faith. I lean to Old Earth creationism but actually keep an open mind because such things are inherently speculative.
• Sanctification: I find the Wesleyan doctrine of Entire Sanctification problematic if understood as a permanent state free from sin. Sanctification is an ongoing process of growth in holiness, not a one-time event.
• Eschatology: On pre-, post-, and amillenialism, I’m undecided. I study and know the issues reasonably well but it seems unnecessary for me to make up my mind for now.
• Music in church: I prefer traditional hymns and reverent worship over contemporary rock-style worship. Singing should be participatory and corporate, not passive entertainment. Having instruments is quite OK with me, but drum kit and screaming guitars I can do without.
• Governance: For a while I thought I preferred congregational governance, allowing each local church autonomy. But if there were Presbyterian or Episcopal systems that would actually impose necessary discipline and prevent the slide of the church away from true doctrine, I might be OK with that.
• Women pastors: The Bible is clearly complementarian, reserving pastoral roles for men. Women have vital roles within the church but should not be in positions of elder or pastor.
• Social issues: I oppose abortion, divorce (except in cases of unfaithfulness), and although I love my homosexual friends, whom I’ve had through the years, I must admit that the Bible is clear here as well. The church should clearly uphold these views in teaching and practice. I also think the Bible is very clear on the Church’s essential role of supporting the poor, widows, orphans, etc.—the people who really do have no where else to turn to. Finally, the Church’s primary social mission is evangelism.
• Alcohol: I respect abstinence as a choice and think drunkenness (especially alcoholism) is a sin, but I also disagree with those who would use church discipline to monitor social drinking.
• Tithing: Membership should not depend on strict tithing requirements. The Bible specifies that giving should be voluntary and done out of a cheerful heart, not compulsion.
• Bible study: I value a church that engages deeply and intellectually with Scripture. Anti-intellectualism and superficial teaching, which are rife in the American church, will keep me away from a church.
• Anti-continuationism: While I believe the Lord can do miracles even in this age, I think miraculous “gifts of the Spirit” are relatively rare, not to be expected, and above all not to be made a membership requirement and not to be regularly encouraged in such a way as to undermine the faith of those who (as inevitably happens) fail to see adequate evidence of their reality.
• Ecumenism: I like the idea of church unity, but not at the expense of doctrinal correctness. The approach of the Evangelical Free Church (which deliberately leaves many issues to individual conscience) seems like the way forward to me. The approach of the Catholic Church (We love ecumenism! So, everybody, come back to Holy Mother Church!) is not.
• Exclusivism: I’ll say it again: we are not saved based on our score on a theology exam, nor do I think membership in some particular denomination is required for salvation. There is neither Biblical nor theological (or logical) basis for this view. I think the Lord might well surprise us with regard to who is in his Holy City in the New Creation.
• Supersessionism: The notion that the Jews, understood as the exclusive ethnic group that goes under that name, continue to be God’s exclusive chosen people is not a notion that finds adequate support in the NT. Gentile Christians have been grafted into the tree of life; we are the children of Abraham who were once mere rocks, as John suggested. The true Israel are God’s faithful regardless of ethnic origin. Similarly I firmly reject the modern tendency in some circles to Judaize—Jewish roots is unbiblical and unnecessary.

Well? Where do you reckon I belong?