Written by: gfesadmin on February 14, 2013

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Ross Douthat’s book, “Bad Religion” is an analysis of why the US church has been in decline since the sexual revolution of the 60’s.  In the book, he places much of the blame on the accommodationist beliefs of theological liberals and the entanglement in partisanship politics by theological conservatives.  The result is that Christianity is in decline. As a result, we don’t have public theologians like C.S. Lewis and W.H. Auden, heavyweight intellectuals that influence the culture.  Furthermore, our religious institutions don’t have the creditability of years past and our churches are becoming more and more empty.  Christendom is dead and Christianity is in decline.

There are two topics that arise from “Bad Religion” that I want to ponder and both are connected to accommodationist theology and practice. Douthat argues that issues related to sex (abortion, procreation, etc.) created a wedge between the culture-at-large and the church’s teachings. This wedge exists today, particularly with the issue of abortion. This might be surprising to many who know me, but I actually support the traditional teachings of the church on abortion. (I do believe in some exceptions).  I believe that God created us in his image and that the Imago Dei supersedes a woman’s right to choose.  Lest I be considered a raging fundamentalist, I also believe that those who are traditionally considered pro-life aren’t pro-life. They’re pro-birth. Traditional pro-lifers often are, stereotypically, the ones who advocate for capital punishment and are more willing to use military force.  In my opinion, their ethic is inconsistent. If life is sacred because it is created in God’s image, then that sacredness doesn’t stop once a baby leaves the birth canal, no matter the circumstances. Furthermore, so called ‘pro-lifers’ should be the first in line to foster and adopt the many children in foster care, but that doesn’t seem to be happening in large numbers. In my opinion, this is one issue where traditional church teachings shouldn’t try to be accommodationist but remain faithful to the Christian tradition of the Imago Dei and its implications.

My second critique is for those generally considered theologically liberal.  I think Douthat makes a compelling argument about why liberal mainline denominations have declined the fastest and furthest. Episcopalian Dianna Butler Bass argues that mainline denominations have realized in the past they accommodated too far and are now self-correcting, and I hope she’s right. By attempting to make Jesus look like a modern human with a modern worldview he ceases to be worthy of worship. If Jesus never turned the water to wine or didn’t rise from the dead, is he really worthy of worship? Why would I want to follow and serve him? Why show up at church on a Sunday morning when I could be on the golf course or watching football? Why give 10% of my income to an institution that’s no better than the Rotary? Accommodating on the central beliefs of Jesus is the quickest way for a church to die.

Though I’ve critiqued two contemporary accommodationist issues (abortion and Jesus), I do think there’s room to change views and to accommodate, just not on Jesus or the implications of the Imago Dei. Certainly it wasn’t easy for Jews to break from cultural and religious tradition and to no longer require circumcision or dietary laws. Neither was it easy for many churches to allow women in the pulpits, but that is something I believe God has called us towards and that the culture embraced before the church did. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20 and discerning in the moment is often difficult, especially when we’re faced with centuries of church teaching and biblical interpretation contrasted with modern experience. What I struggle with is discerning when the Spirit is calling us to accommodate (because at some level we have to accommodate because the Gospel is culturally expressed) and when the Holy Spirit is calling us to stay firm in our beliefs and reject the latest cultural idea.

Some questions:

How do you discern the work of the Spirit in your church?

How do we allow for differences in what the Spirit might be telling people?

What are the issues today that require discernment and possible accommodation?

About the Author

gfesadmin