There is an interesting article by Fleming Rutledge at ChristianityToday.com, entitled, "When God Disturbs the Peace."
Rutledge accurately diagnosis the problem with the old liberal theology: "The divide between the liberal, revisionist project and the apostolic, biblical faith is not characterized primarily by the distinction between the individual and the social. The liberal-orthodox gap is most acute when we talk of "the power of God." The biblical proclamation ofthe triune Creator God who, when his good creation rebels, recaptures it from an occupying Enemy through the invasion of his Son, is not the central operating system for liberal theology. The belief that an "experiential," humanistic perspective on the Christian story is more accessible and appealing is proving not to be the case; several decades of this thin gruel have left us without any transcendent dimension to draw upon, either for social action or for individual regeneration."
But she is also right to point to the evangelical church's tendency to be anemic in its understanding of the community of God's people as a divinely ordained force for change:
"The emphasis on the individual's redemption is deeply embedded in our culture, and has been set over against communal understanding in a way that suggests the two views are mutually exclusive. In the mainline churches, social action has edged out evangelism and spiritual
vitality; in evangelical churches, there is ignorance and confusion about what social action actually is."
She concludes with this challenge: "A new social-action hero like William Wilberforce would indeed bring honor to God. But it may be that God will use numbers of more ordinary Christians, banding together to bring down more fortresses of the Enemy—racial injustice, poverty, pollution, inferior education, sex trafficking, inadequate health care, prison recidivism, political
corruption, and yes, terrorism—but without terror on our part, for this would truly be to doubt the cruciform power of God, who in his Son has already undone the Enemy once and for all."
Rutledge accurately diagnosis the problem with the old liberal theology: "The divide between the liberal, revisionist project and the apostolic, biblical faith is not characterized primarily by the distinction between the individual and the social. The liberal-orthodox gap is most acute when we talk of "the power of God." The biblical proclamation ofthe triune Creator God who, when his good creation rebels, recaptures it from an occupying Enemy through the invasion of his Son, is not the central operating system for liberal theology. The belief that an "experiential," humanistic perspective on the Christian story is more accessible and appealing is proving not to be the case; several decades of this thin gruel have left us without any transcendent dimension to draw upon, either for social action or for individual regeneration."
But she is also right to point to the evangelical church's tendency to be anemic in its understanding of the community of God's people as a divinely ordained force for change:
"The emphasis on the individual's redemption is deeply embedded in our culture, and has been set over against communal understanding in a way that suggests the two views are mutually exclusive. In the mainline churches, social action has edged out evangelism and spiritual
vitality; in evangelical churches, there is ignorance and confusion about what social action actually is."
She concludes with this challenge: "A new social-action hero like William Wilberforce would indeed bring honor to God. But it may be that God will use numbers of more ordinary Christians, banding together to bring down more fortresses of the Enemy—racial injustice, poverty, pollution, inferior education, sex trafficking, inadequate health care, prison recidivism, political
corruption, and yes, terrorism—but without terror on our part, for this would truly be to doubt the cruciform power of God, who in his Son has already undone the Enemy once and for all."
No comments:
Post a Comment