Do we have a PR problem?

[Christusregnat]

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%

By the way, it should be mentioned that the reason that such things are put into print is because God's Word threatens wicked men in such areas. In other words, Satan wants Christians to accept sin (in themselves and others), he does not want them to expose the evil deeds of darkness, he wants to rule over the state as well as the church, he wants them to have a false "love" which does not exercise church discipline, and wants Christians to keep up with contemporary trends so that we forget our calling.

We should see Christ's people as Christ sees them: His sheep, growing in grace, struggling against sin, etc. When we listen to Satan's false accusations, we begin to view saints in the wrong light. That is the problem I have wich such surveys, among other things.

Cheers,

 

[Puritan Sailor]

This is true. But besides other points made about specific things like the half presentation we often put forward about homosexuality, one is sometimes drawn up short in wonder at the gracelessness in the conversation of many Christians, esp when compared to some of those I have known with merely common grace. It makes me realize that God does indeed choose for Himself us weak and foolish people. But that isn't an excuse for us. I would think we had a PR problem regardless of what the poll said; because I have seen firsthand the way, as Timothy Williams said above, we speak about one another, and the personal animosity that enters into our dealings with unbelievers. I have seen them firsthand in myself.

It should be noted that many of those who would hold Christianity in disdain would do so on the basis of reading Scripture alone. I have heard enough atheists, feminists, and that whole crew making angry assaults upon God's word using the same nomenclature of "homophobic, out of touch with *my* reality, bigoted, oppressive, old-fashioned (regarding men and women's roles, sexual boundaries, etc), and intolerant/insensitive" to take any sort of poll like this with a grain of salt. God haters will go on hating God, whether they take it out on His word or His people.

Remember that the second Psalm is clear in pointing us to the fact that God's antagonists hate Him, His rule, and His people. However, God doesn't sit in a corner somewhere, fretting over His loss of public esteem. Rather, He leans back in derision, and laughs at them (v.4, also Psalm 59:8), a term which has no "nice" angle to it if you trace its use throughout the OT.

Of course, as agents of His inter-Advental mercy, we are to approach them with pity and with grace, knowing that God holds his wrath in check until the final day, but make no mistake about it that most of those who polled negatively would do so regardless of the Christians whom they had met - they poll in such a manner, because in their unconverted hearts they hate God, which is something upon which the Psalms do not equivocate.

This is exactly why I believe that the popularity in recent years of affirming a commitment to expository preaching in our churches is insufficient. Lives will not be changed in the way needed unless the Gospel of grace is at the center of our sermons (expository, or otherwise), and as a result, in the center of the thoughts of our people as they subsequently interact with one another, and with the world.

You could also argue that if the gospel of grace is not at the center of your sermons, then you are not doing proper expository preaching.

 

[kvanlaan]

Anti-homosexual: I think that sometimes we deliver only part of the scriptural judgment of homosexuality and in doing so fail to deliver the message that homosexuality isn't the unforgiveable sin. I pray that God, in his mercy, has elected some that are currently identifying themselves as homosexuals to salvation.

Thing is, most of the time starting with repentance and the forgiveness that lies therein is when it all hits the fan. The very idea that homosexuality could be anything but an alternative lifestyle is what gets blood boiling.

 

[ericfromcowtown]

Anti-homosexual: I think that sometimes we deliver only part of the scriptural judgment of homosexuality and in doing so fail to deliver the message that homosexuality isn't the unforgiveable sin. I pray that God, in his mercy, has elected some that are currently identifying themselves as homosexuals to salvation.

Thing is, most of the time starting with repentance and the forgiveness that lies therein is when it all hits the fan. The very idea that homosexuality could be anything but an alternative lifestyle is what gets blood boiling.

Agreed. I suspect that even if we approached homosexuality "correctly," we'd still be attacked as judgemental by most of the people who took part in the poll. That's not to say that a double-check to make sure that we're preaching the whole gospel to those engaged in homosexuality isn't in order.

I read the question not to be asking whether the non-Christians polled were right in their judgment of Christianity, and not what we could do to alleviate their concerns, but rather is there any truth to their perceptions.

 

[py3ak]

Before we get too outraged at those impertinent unbelievers, or congratulate ourselves too much on the blessedness of being persecuted for righteousness' sake, we do well to consider this. A godly kind of Judah was rebuked by the heathen king of Egypt: should he have listened to that rebuke? (2 Chronicles 35:21) The sequel seems to indicate that he should have.
Again, the father of the faithful was rebuked by an unbelieving king for the actions taken because of a lapse of faith. Was that rebuke to be written off?

People's opinions are irrelevant, as we stand or fall to our own master, and certainly seeking popularity or even to have a PR machine are compromises of the Gospel. BUT, it is by no means inconceivable that we suffer from priggishness, self-righteousness, uncharity, bitterness and stupidity, and that we refuse to accept criticism on those points on the feeble excuse that we are the Lord's people and therefore can anticipate hatred. If men will hate us for our heavenly character, let them have at it: we will go on loving them. But we can't assume that our character is heavenly yet.

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

I think back to what the Romans might have thought of Christians in the times of the Apostles. Here are some reasons they might not like them

* anti-orgies and pagan frolic fests 91%
* judgmental 87% - how dare they judge Roman citizens.
* old-fashioned/uneducated 78% - uneducated jews and gentiles coming out with silly incomprehensible arguments.
* too political 75% - "king" what king? Is there another king but caesar?
* out of touch with reality 72% - "eat drink for tomorrow we die" Christians did not meet the Roman reality therefore they were "out of touch".
* insensitive to others 70% - how dare the Christians denounce people who sleep with their mothers, or take little boys or capture slaves or have orgies etc....
* boring 68% - even in Roman times they liked to party it up.

 

[Dwimble]

...If real Christianity came to the airwaves & it was explained about homosexuality for example from a truly biblical perspective there would be no grounds for arguing. The problem comes in when someone starts attacking homosexuals rather than homosexuality if you get my point
The same applies to the other points.

The problem with that reasoning is that the bible doesn't just talk about "homosexuality" but about "homosexuals." Similarly, it talks about fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, the greedy, and so on. I would certainly agree that "attacking" a homosexual (or anyone else for that matter) isn't appropriate, but trying to focus purely on specific sins to the exclusion of those who practice and endorse those sins is no more biblical than doing the reverse. After all, it is not "homosexuality" that is marching in the streets, lobbying Congress, or influencing schools, children, the media, churches, and so on. It is "homosexuals" who are doing all that.

Many "Christians" are full of hate. You'll find the most loving and most hateful people inside churches. However, those who love the Lord should always endeavor to love both their neighbors and their enemies, and as much as is possible be at peace with all men. But nevertheless the world will always find an excuse to hate Christians. My goal is simply not to cause them to hate me due to my own sinfulness or meanness. If they are going to hate or accuse me, it should be because I love Christ, do the right thing, and won't participate in or endorse their sins. Let it never be because I am hateful, cruel, an accuser, or a hypocrite.

 

[py3ak]

We should remember as well the Proverb, When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7). While this does not contradict our Lord's words about being hated, it does show us that being disliked by men is not necessarily a sign of God's favor.

 

[Dwimble]

We should remember as well the Proverb, When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7). While this does not contradict our Lord's words about being hated, it does show us that being disliked by men is not necessarily a sign of God's favor.

Very good point. That's why I was making the point that if someone hates me, I want it to be because I love Christ, not because I have given them cause to hate me by my own sinfulness or hate.

Here are a couple of verses that regularly come to mind when I think about these subjects:

1 Thessalonians 4:9-12
9Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, 10for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, 11and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.


Hebrews 12:14-15
14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Consider this qualification of an elder:

1 Timothy 3:
1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

 

[cih1355]

If a professing Christian is actually a hypocrite, then he should be concerned about that.

 

[Theognome]

It is all well and good if people hate us for the Cross....but,


Amazon.com: Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters: David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons: Books



According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


Should we worry about these perceptions? What should we do about them? Are they problems of Biblical theology that make us this way? How do we move forward and self-correct so that only the Cross makes people stumble and not us?

Are you sure this poll wasn't taken during Jeremiah's time? Or Samuel's? Or Ezra's? Or Paul's?

Theognome

 

[asc]

It is all well and good if people hate us for the Cross....but,


Amazon.com: Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters: David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons: Books



According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


Should we worry about these perceptions? What should we do about them? Are they problems of Biblical theology that make us this way? How do we move forward and self-correct so that only the Cross makes people stumble and not us?

I think it's helpful to know what current perceptions are, but i don't think it's anything we should "worry" about. i think it may be beneficial sometimes to help us understand where the culture is and how to engage it, while still being faithful to God's truth.

I agree with other people's statements that much of these perceptions are based on popular "evangelicals" who are in the news; pastors who's churches we would never attend or associate with. I'd agree that many of these "evangelicals" are judgemental, hypocritical, old-fashioned, and too political.

 

[Pergamum]

We should remember as well the Proverb, When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him (Proverbs 16:7). While this does not contradict our Lord's words about being hated, it does show us that being disliked by men is not necessarily a sign of God's favor.

Isn't a qualification of a church leader also is that a church leader must have a "good reputation with those that are without.." i.e. a good reputation even from those outside the church? I need to relook at this passage but isn't that the meaning of it?

 

[Pergamum]

Consider this qualification of an elder:

1 Timothy 3:
1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Thanks Patrick, you beat me to this quote....

 

[Pergamum]

It is all well and good if people hate us for the Cross....but,


Amazon.com: Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters: David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons: Books



According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


Should we worry about these perceptions? What should we do about them? Are they problems of Biblical theology that make us this way? How do we move forward and self-correct so that only the Cross makes people stumble and not us?

Are you sure this poll wasn't taken during Jeremiah's time? Or Samuel's? Or Ezra's? Or Paul's?

Theognome

I think that this thread is about PR but not merely about PR.

As a poster above said, the unbelieving world watches us closely and I think how we interact with them is also watched very closely as well, and I think that we actually do come up lacking sometimes and can benefit from hearing the perceptions of us made by even unbelievers...


Do any of these things have merit:

antihomosexual - Are we condemning instead of loving primarily to homosexuals who need God's grace?

* judgmental - Are we judgmental and do we often forget to speak the truth IN LOVE to the unbelieving world that needs God's grace?

* hypocritical - Are we doing things that appear hypocritical to the unbeliving world who needs God's grace?

etc...

* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


If unbelievers say all of these things about us, how much is it because they hate the Cross without cause and how much is it because they dislike us...myabe with some cause?


EXAMPLE: Fred Phelps says many technically correct things. He loves Jonathan Edwards and I believe that he is a Calvinist from the little I have read. He often speaks the truth, but it seems not to be in love. We can be "right" and still go about it wrongly.... how do we avoid this? How do we show grace in a gracious manner?


ON OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR POSTING THIS: The West is losing its faith. As we seek to reach the US and the West again with the Gospel, it is important to study our target population is it not?



As someone said above:


Part of being a good missionary to our own culture is knowing how to communicate the true gospel to them. Of course the gospel will offend people and many will hate us, but we should not add to the offense of the Bible by our own unwillingness to accept legitimate criticism. Unbelievers are not stupid. They can detect true hypocrisy and sin.

 

[MW]

I'm surprised "boring" doesn't rate higher.

 

[Theognome]

It is all well and good if people hate us for the Cross....but,


Amazon.com: Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters: David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons: Books



According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


Should we worry about these perceptions? What should we do about them? Are they problems of Biblical theology that make us this way? How do we move forward and self-correct so that only the Cross makes people stumble and not us?

Are you sure this poll wasn't taken during Jeremiah's time? Or Samuel's? Or Ezra's? Or Paul's?

Theognome

I think that this thread is about PR but not merely about PR.

As a poster above said, the unbelieving world watches us closely and I think how we interact with them is also watched very closely as well, and I think that we actually do come up lacking sometimes and can benefit from hearing the perceptions of us made by even unbelievers...


Do any of these things have merit:

antihomosexual - Are we condemning instead of loving primarily to homosexuals who need God's grace?

* judgmental - Are we judgmental and do we often forget to speak the truth IN LOVE to the unbelieving world that needs God's grace?

* hypocritical - Are we doing things that appear hypocritical to the unbeliving world who needs God's grace?

etc...

* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


If unbelievers say all of these things about us, how much is it because they hate the Cross without cause and how much is it because they dislike us...myabe with some cause?


EXAMPLE: Fred Phelps says many technically correct things. He loves Jonathan Edwards and I believe that he is a Calvinist from the little I have read. He often speaks the truth, but it seems not to be in love. We can be "right" and still go about it wrongly.... how do we avoid this? How do we show grace in a gracious manner?


ON OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR POSTING THIS: The West is losing its faith. As we seek to reach the US and the West again with the Gospel, it is important to study our target population is it not?



As someone said above:


Part of being a good missionary to our own culture is knowing how to communicate the true gospel to them. Of course the gospel will offend people and many will hate us, but we should not add to the offense of the Bible by our own unwillingness to accept legitimate criticism. Unbelievers are not stupid. They can detect true hypocrisy and sin.

And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' Matthew 22:39

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, Beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another with love, endeavoring to keep unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Ephesians 4:1-3

Even during the height of Roman persecution, the pagans couldn't deny that the Church was typified by a loving and forgiving nature. Eventually, the whole empire fell to this love and forgiveness.

Why should we, as a Church Universal, strive to comprehensively know our opposition when we do not demonstrate (as a Church catholic) the bonds of love and forgiveness? Reformation of a culture proceeds from the Church- to change the people of the land, change the fellowship of the land's churches. It's easy for the ungodly to speak ill of the Church at large- nearly identical rates of divorce, bickering and divisiveness amongst the brethren, quick to judge and slow to grant compassion, poor stewardship of family and Church resources, greed... all of these things can be readily seen just by surfing the web or tuning to TBN.

The population at large is no different than any other- there's nothing new under the sun. What lacks is a faithful, loving and gracious Church in the land. Let the Churches repent, and the land will naturally follow.

Theognome

 

[AThornquist]

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%

If I had the opportunity to vote, I would vote that "Christians" are indeed antihomosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, sometimes old-fashioned, too political, out of touch with reality, insensitive to others, and sometimes boring, although the last isn't really important to me. NOTE that I typed "Christians" and not Christians.

What unbelievers don't do is separate nominal Christians, immature Christians, and Bible-LIVING Christians; therefore, I voted from their perspective. INDEED, those who live according to the Word will be hated because of the Cross and their proclamation of the entire counsel of God's Word. However, to deny that by far most Christians do not live as commanded (or even wholeheartedly try to do so) only proves that Christians are "out of touch with reality!" It sickens me how so-called Christians act and live because it fuels the negative perception of our true God and His ways!

Love has been abandoned. As has this principle: "Have no fear of [persecutors], nor be troubled, but in yours hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." 1 Pet. 3:14b-17

My point: just because we are persecuted or characterized in certain ways for being Christians does not mean those things have occurred because we have acted righteously in the sight of God.

This poll does not represent me or my church; however, it surely represents the group of people who call themselves Christians. That worries me some, but saddens me more.

 

[Scott1]

I'm not sure we can base much on a poll. Polls are often selected to secure certain results, sometimes even to generate news in themselves.

This poll is way out of line with other polls I have seen, and out of line with my personal experience also.

Do you have any information about the poll so we could look at this in a more informed way (e.g. the text of poll questions, who sponsored, how they selected respondents)?

 

[AThornquist]

Do you have any information about the poll so we could look at this in a more informed way (e.g. the text of poll questions, who sponsored, how they selected respondents)?

Good point. These results look like they came from an LGBT community center questionnaire...

 

[tellville]

It is all well and good if people hate us for the Cross....but,


Amazon.com: Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters: David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons: Books



According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


Should we worry about these perceptions? What should we do about them? Are they problems of Biblical theology that make us this way? How do we move forward and self-correct so that only the Cross makes people stumble and not us?

I haven't read the thread so I don't know what other people have said. But I would say that we definitely should be worried about these stats. As Christians, we should be known by none of those things. Notice how not one of these things is "preaching some stupid message about some guy dying on a cross for my sins"!! Now if the list said we were known for that I would be all for it. But since when have we been called to be the face of antihomosexual bigotry? As Christians should we be the face of anti-intellectualism? As Christians should we be the face of the insensitive like the Pharisee was towards the injured man or should we be the face of God's love like the Samaritan was?

How awesome would it be if the list said stuff like this:

* preaching some stupid message about some guy dying on a cross for my sins 91%
* Knows some old book of myths called the Bible inside and out 87%
* Ridiculous moral code that they follow completely 85%
* Always trying to show culture how Jesus is relevant to them as opposed to making Jesus relevant to culture 78%
* Heavily involved in the political sphere 75%
* Firm grasp of reality 72%
* Sensitive to others while totally disagreeing with most everybody 70%
* I wish I knew what made them tick 68%

Now that's a list I would be proud of.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Little perspective:

John 15:19
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

1 John 3:1
See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

John 17:14
I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

1 John 3:13
Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.

 

[Scott1]

Not to make light of this but this recent average of polls shows Congress has a 75.3 disapproval rating:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval

How could an average of polls (many polls) show 75% disapproval when 80% are re-elected on average? It doesn't make sense but that is what the consensus of polls is showing.

From this, we might "we" (however that is defined) might conclude we are about as popular as elected officials who represent us on the federal level.

One also wonders how this particular poll defines "Christians" and how respondents understand who are classified as "Christians."

In the end, how valuable is speculating on information like this?

 

[Webservant]

If our actions are causing others to believe these things about us, it's our fault.

• We are not anti-homosexual (or, at least we shouldn't be); we are anti-sin (and rightly so). The problem is, we often spend so much time telling others to behave that we fail to tell them that even if they do "behave" they'll still end up in hell (and why, and Who came to save His own from this).

• We are judgmental because we spend too much time looking at the speck in our brothers eye.

• We are hypocrites If we look at the 10 Commandments and see them as anything other than a reflection of what we'd all really like to do if we only could get away with it.

• We are old fashioned if we think that Gods word can only be communicated using English that hasn't been spoken in 500 years.

• We are too political because we frequently think McCain's stump speech supersedes 2 Chronicles 7:14.

• We are insensitive to others when we fail to remember that sin is fun, and that letting go of a pet sin is something none of us has ever done through our own strength.

• We are boring when we fail to understand that appreciation of music is largely cultural, and that even applies to church music (not the words people, I said music).

• We are out of touch with reality when we wonder why people aren't breaking down our doors to experience all the above bullet points.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is all well and good if people hate us for the Cross....but,


Amazon.com: Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters: David Kinnaman, Gabe Lyons: Books



According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%


Should we worry about these perceptions? What should we do about them? Are they problems of Biblical theology that make us this way? How do we move forward and self-correct so that only the Cross makes people stumble and not us?

I think most people think of the typical American Evangelical today and I would generally agree with the above statistics. Ironically, I think that the statistics are pretty accurate when describing those who call themselves "committed Christians". Most who claim that name today are profoundly ignorant of the Gospel and, for many years, ignorance has been viewed as a badge of honor for many Christians. To be "spiritual" is prized over doctrine and, in the void of good doctrine, has crept legalism and a baptized form of patriotism that passes itself off as true Christianity.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Michael Horton has some very apt words in the most recent edition of Modern Reformation

...It is not a particularly "postmodern" reaction that finds talk of orthodoxy arrogant and narrow-minded. Chesterton speaks of the "dislocation of humility" in modern thought:

By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small....But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled on the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert-himself. Today what we doubt is not ourselves but God's Word. (7)

The new humility para-lyzes people from actually moving in any direction, despite all the talk of progress, innovation, and forward-looking excite-ment. "We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table....Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced." (8) Chesterton adds, "An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another....You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays." (9)

Therefore, when orthodoxy is defined by its particular convictions, it is seen to be more open and free, not less. In fact, "It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite indefensible compliments to Christianity," Chesterton observes.

They talk as if there had never been any piety until Christianity came, a point on which any medieval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk. (10)

It is not Christian orthodoxy but moralistic liberalism that reduces the surprising news of the gospel to the bland repetition of what people already know.

Chesterton refers to an article he had recently read arguing that "Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light....Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer the truth." (11) The Romans of the first century (especially the Stoics) were advocates of the Inner Light,

[Yet] of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within....Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners. (12)

The identification of orthodoxy with mere conservatism cannot explain how Christianity (unlike liberal "pro-gressivism") has brought perpetual shock and disruption to the status quo. "Some fall back simply on the clock: they talk as if mere passage through time brought some superiority; so that even a man of the first mental caliber carelessly uses the phrase that human morality is never up to date. How can anything be up to date?-a date has no character." (13) A heresy in the second, fourth, or twelfth century is still a heresy in the twenty-first. There is nothing "postmodern" about the suggestion that the faith has to be constantly conformed to the spirit of the age; this is the unassailable modern dogma of progress. With the whole world being divided between progressives and conservatives, Chesterton quipped, "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." (14)

Today, orthodoxy is often confused with a cultural and even political conservatism. This has not always been so (and still is not in other parts of the world). Frequently, America's culture wars are identified by sociologists in terms of "orthodox" versus "progressive," which is to define orthodoxy again in terms other than Christian doctrine.

Setting its sights on the plotline of God's mighty acts in history "for us and for our salvation," orthodoxy defines faithfulness by how well we not only conserve this faith but by how well we correct our faith and practice to conform to its rule. That's why orthodoxy has given rise as often to reformations as to conservations. It is a living faith-in fact, the only part of what calls itself Christianity that is actually alive. From this Archimedean point, William Wilberforce was able to stand almost alone in bringing down the British slave trade. Christian orthodoxy has no personal stake in progressivism or conservatism; its instincts are evangelical in the deepest sense: oriented to the gospel that creates and sustains the church in all times and places.

Heterodoxy is easy; orthodoxy is the challenge. Orthodoxy forces us to set sail for ever new and distant harbors, beyond the comfort of our cherished assumptions and practices. It is orthodoxy that is adventuresome, refusing to allow us to stew in our own juices. We are not allowed to reduce our horizon to the dimensions of our own experience in our own time and place but must become "catholic" creatures: opened up to the church in all times and places.

 

[MW]

We are not allowed to reduce our horizon to the dimensions of our own experience in our own time and place but must become "catholic" creatures: opened up to the church in all times and places.

Very good!

At College we were taught the first rule of public relations is that the customer is always right; at Seminary we were taught the first rule of ministry is that the hearer is always a sinner. Clearly the antithetical starting points lead to divergent methodologies.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We are not allowed to reduce our horizon to the dimensions of our own experience in our own time and place but must become "catholic" creatures: opened up to the church in all times and places.

Very good!

At College we were taught the first rule of public relations is that the customer is always right; at Seminary we were taught the first rule of ministry is that the hearer is always a sinner. Clearly the antithetical starting points lead to divergent methodologies.

I was just reading this article on my flight home today. It occurred to me that Semper Reformanda is often thrown around by Reformed folk when they want to challenge some catholic doctrine that has withstood the test of time. They assume it means that our doctrines ought to be progressing from a point of what they appear to be stagnation. Certainly, our doctrines need to always be tested against the sure foundation of the Scriptures but, if they are true, then they are stable and never stagnant.

It occurred to me, however, that Semper Reformanda is more of a Reform of the self and the Church, which tends to lose its footing and needs to be called back and challenged to resist the tides that pull us back into heterodoxy and extremely worn grooves of heresy. It is not the doctrines of Scripture that need to be Reformed but we who don't humble ourselves enough to realize that we're prone to wander and not the Lord.

I love how you turned a phrase from Amazing Grace in a recent thread. Indeed, when we've been there ten thousand years, basking in His light and see Him for who He truly is, we will not be so foolish as to be wrestling with His Truth to suit the folly of a world that constantly wishes to pull away from it.

 

[Greg]

Should we worry about these perceptions?

I'll just add that, yes we should, proportional only to the degree that we are truly being obedient to God by loving Him with all that we are and loving our neighbor as ourselves as revealed to us in Scripture.

That may sound a bit simplistic to some, but that's how Christ summed up the Law and our duty to both God and man. If I'm genuinely loving God out of a heart of reverence and gratitude because of His wonderful mercy shown me in Christ, and I'm loving those around me realizing that the only difference between me and them is Christ, then I should be living a life of truth, holiness and humility.

If this is the case then the accusations of the ungodly should not sway or disturb me. However, if I'm inconsistent in any of those two areas, then yes, it should concern me very much as I would be misrepresenting the holy name of my Lord causing His name to be 'blasphemed among the Gentiles'.