I am a Fundamentalist in the theological sense, but I am not a Fundamentalist in the modern socio-political sense. I find the blending of politics and religion rather disgusting, whether Conservative or Liberal. In my view, people should not be so quick to use the name of Jesus in a political context. Jesus is holy; his name is holy, and politics is often very base and carnal. The fact that someone would even adopt a political affiliation like “Christian Conservative” is troubling to me. I am a Christian, and in some respects may be considered conservative, but my political identity does not have a “Christian” label on it; this is compromise at its worst. Many a minister has been corrupted by this sort of thing, and it has tarnished the reputation of the Holy One who was sent from God to pay for the sins of the whole world. Something is definitely wrong when people automatically assume they know your politics because you say you are a Christian.

That’s not historically true. Conferring personhood on the unborn is not universal among Christians, especially not if you look back a few hundred years. The pro-life movement is not the only worldview that is compatible with biblical Christianity.

But even on the pro-life stance, there is a gray area where politics is concerned. If you are pro-life, does that necessarily mean you want Roe v. Wade overturned? Probably. But do you think states have the right to make their own laws concerning the issue? Should there be a Constitutional amendment banning abortions nationwide? Should all abortion doctors be killed to avenge the deaths of the unborn? The latter question may seem a bit extreme, but you know there are people who believe that this sort of thing is justified.

So I this as potentially being a healthy purge so-to-speak. However, it must be noted that excesses always exist in these situations; that is a given. These excesses can be manifested in a variety of different ways. Suppose rather than legalism, you adopt a policy of lawlessness. Or suppose your distaste for theological rigidity causes you to become relativistic, etc.

The excesses notwithstanding, I think much of what is taking place is good. I don’t consider myself as part of the “Emerging Church.” Honestly I only became familiar with that term after reading threads on this web site. But I think these trends transcend whatever EC is.

I could say a number of good things about my visit (maybe I should put them on my personal blog instead of here) but I did object to one thing. When it came time for the scripture reading, the pastor actually read from The Voice of Luke: Not Even Sandals by Brian McLaren. Apparently this book is some kind of retelling of the gospel of Luke. I have no general objections to paraphrases or Bible storying, but somehow it seemed like it would have been intellectually a bit more honest to explain that fact.

Here’s a link with info about McLaren’s book: http://www.precipicemagazine.com/brian-mclaren-conversation.html

As for Christians today and our better understanding of the human body, there is NO room for any Biblical position EXCEPT pro-life (unless you get into a scenario when the mother’s health is at risk; then I can see potential gray area).

From what little I’ve read, it seems that even when Christians believe abortion is not murder, they still view it as evil or at least undesirable. ReligiousTolerance.org has a brief overview that lists the views of various people in church history. Historical abortion beliefs of the Christian church

I think the idea that we can pinpoint the ensoulment of the fetus as occurring at 40 days or 80 days is absurd, so I don’t agree with the church authorities who promoted those views. On the other hand, I think someone could believe those ideas and still live a committed Christian life. It’s not a critical doctrine.

However, those who contend that a fetus (Latin for baby) is not a human life, they are just wrong. Remember what God told Rebekah:

“And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23).

God not only saw these “fetuses” as human beings, he identified them as “nations.” Such is the foreknowledge of God. He told Jeremiah that He knew him before he was formed in the womb, and had already determined that he would be a prophet.

Personally, I believe that the moment that a baby is conceived is when it should become protected. If you don’t do that, then you have this arbitrary “ensoulment” line that can move back and forth as people choose or science leads us. There should be only two lines that can be chosen, any other distinctions are too arbitrary. The first is conception, the other birth. The latter is very easily shown to be wrong, so that only leaves us conception.

Well, that certainly is a humble perspective, doncha know!

@Darius: “What IS a critical doctrine is that a Christian defend human life”

What I find so exasperating is how Christians are so focused on the “unborn” and how there is very little that seems to motivate Christians more than to fight against abortion yet so many are willing to cheer on efforts that kill hundreds of thousands of the “born” when the efforts are wrapped in their own nation’s flag, especially when those being killed are of a different ethnicity and/or religion.

I am a secular humanist which means to me that I value all life, not just those in my own country or of my own race. These “True Christian’s” support of these most egregious actions infuriate me, and frankly Christianity lately seems to be used to justify atrocities against other nations and other races. And yes I am talking about the religious right in the USA and the war in IRAQ and potential war with IRAN. I think we secular humanists have far greater morals than the typical Christian, at least in my experience.

For those Christians that truly practice what Jesus preached I can respect and admire them. But the more “Christians” want to impose their own world view on the rest of us (i.e. abortion views, etc.) and the more they want to oppress other peoples (i.e. war in IRAQ) the more I want to rescue “impressionable children” from Christianity and fight against the goals of the religious right. If I have the choice between saving an “unborn” and saving a “born” (i.e. not seeing them killed by my fellow countrymen), I’ll save the already born any day.

Simply put, pro-life vs. pro-choice should be an individual’s choice, not a choice enshrined in law. Doing the latter *for biblical reasons* tears down the way between church and state and that is probably the most dangerous thing that could happen in the USA. As long as we have secular laws, nobody’s religion gets special preference. As laws that favor a specific religion are enacted more and more, those of other faiths are disenfranched. And if you want to see the results of religious disenfranchment just look at IRAQ, or practically any war torn region today or in the past. Religion has been and continues to be used to justify the most horrific of atrocities. When a religious group is truly oppressed they fight back, violently more often than not (except for Budhists; God love them!) The USA was founded because of a desire for religious freedom, it’s so very short sighted that people today are trying to tear down that great foundation of the USA.

The irony is that the church leaders and right-leaning politicians would never get rid of abortion because if they did they would loose their most reliable and effective fund-raising tool. Just say “abortion” around pro-lifers and watch the money roll in. I would find it amusing how manipulated pro-lifers are on this issue, when really it’s all about money and power. It’s not about
“saving the unborn”, at least not for religious and political leaders, and if you think it is you are kidding yourselves. You (and pro-choicers too) are just acting like lemmings.

One final point about abortion; it you Christians manage to get it outlawed in the USA then be sure to prepare yourself in 10 to 20 years for a crime wave like nothing you’ve ever experienced. When the unwanted babies grow up as unwanted children of uncaring parents into teenage poverty their only real choice in life will be to turn to crime. You may not like this view of things but it is reality; just spend some time learning about a perfect test case if you don’t believe me. Learn about what happened in Romania one to two decades after the borders were closed and all abortion were outlawed. Hint: it wasn’t pretty.

Bottom line Christians: Live and let live or watch your cherished religion become a target.

I agree with this statement.

This is the most retarded, ignorant statement of many. Pre Roe v. Wade, we really had lots of unwanted children who turned to crime, didn’t we??? Seriously, did you even think before you wrote this paragraph? Since Roe V. Wade, families have gotten worse, not better. There are more unwanted kids now than in the 60’s. Read this column by the author of Freedomnomics: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010227

It’s called responsibility, require it of the people and they will (for the most part) live up to it.

I basically agree with you on this, Darius. But lets not forget there have been 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Some have said this estimate is too high. I actually listened to the original conference call when these numbers were released to the press (don’t ask me how this is possible). At any rate, assuming the estimate is double the actual number, that’s still a lot of dead people.

At some point Americans have to count the cost of U.S. involvement in wars like this. The U.S. started this war by choice, and I don’t think any honest person believes the outcome would have been different if the intelligence was more reliable. The United States government has to take responsibility for every casualty that happens as a result of our involvement in this war, because those deaths are the direct result of the U.S. decision to go to war in the first place.

Does anyone else remember the petition by the American Center for Law and Justice, which urged congress to support the president in his attempt to force “regime change” in Iraq? I remember hearing their pleas on Christian radio. For those of you who don’t know, ACLJ is a nonprofit law firm established by Pat Robertson in defense of Christian liberties, prayer in school, etc. It is headed by Jay Sekulow.

But I’m interested to hear some examples of what you’re objecting to. So far you’ve identified only two items in your 650 word rant: abortion, and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has not been justified on Christian religious grounds, so I’m unclear why you equate it with a Christian worldview. The rhetoric surrounding the Iraq war is about terrorists, WMDs, and oil, which aren’t religious concepts at all. Unless you are equating George W. Bush and the Neoconservative wing of the Republican party with Christianity, I don’t see how you can blame Christians for the war.

There is no comparison between unborn deaths and US led deaths in Iraq. That is ridiculous. I agree that there is hypocrisy in promoting “life” for the innocent unborn and then not promoting it for innocent civilians in other countries - you don’t have to be a secular humanist to come to that view.

One final point about abortion; it you Christians manage to get it outlawed in the USA then be sure to prepare yourself in 10 to 20 years for a crime wave like nothing you’ve ever experienced.

This is just poor logic. It’s like saying, if we don’t ban gay marriage there will be a rampant crime wave in 10 or 20 years.

It sounds like you are more interested in using abortion as population control and societal engineering then considering the weighty and serious ethical considerations of taking human life. I have a lot more respect for the pro-choice person who can at least back themselves up with some kind of moral argument. Your tyrannical and casually tribal views on human life reduce individuals to cogs in the wheels of the collective.

“The President has put forth a sound and reasonable strategy for dealing with Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. We support the President’s call for a regime change in Iraq and applaud his efforts to challenge the United Nations to enforce numerous resolutions that have been ignored by Iraq. The President presented a clear and compelling case of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, engage in international terrorism, and are responsible for egregious human rights violations.

“Iraq represents a real threat to freedom and security - not only to America - but to our friends around the world. Without question, President Bush is justified in pursuing a strategy that protects America and our freedoms. At a time when we are engaged in a global war against terrorism, we cannot stand by and watch Iraq and Saddam Hussein continue to ignore U.N. resolutions. We encourage President Bush to take whatever action is necessary to protect the United States.”

I’m still not clear on why the ACLJ, whose specialty is constitutional law, needs to express opinions on US foreign policy. It seems out of scope. But I am heartened that the support is not predicated or justified on religious principles.

It is true that the support was not predicated or justified on religious principles. But to the uninformed, there is an implication of religious support. Its true that not everything on Christian radio is necessarily “Christian”, most people can’t distinguish the baby from the bathwater. I’m not just assuming this; you can tell by the kinds of calls you hear on the radio program.

I brought this up to underscore the point about why some people are rejecting fundamentalism. There has been such a blurring of the lines that most people aren’t sure how to separate church from state (God from Caesar).

I would say both are religious if I understand your question correctly.

I have to say, although I think the tone of this page is somewhat misguided, there are some very important principles to be explored in the scriptures referenced: James 4:4 and 2 Corinthians 6:17. We can’t just pretend those scriptures aren’t in the Bible.

There is, in every religious movement, to become overly-reactionary and lay aside something important in favor of something more palatable. Its the proverbial baby and bathwater scenario. Does the New Testament teach separation from the world? Absolutely. But the question is: what does that mean exactly? I think if we allow scripture to interpret scripture we will get a clearer point of view. First John 2:15-17 says:

15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

So then we could define worldliness in terms of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life or pride in your lifestyle. I think the problem with the traditional Fundamentalist interpretation of these verses is that it naturally leads to legalism. People can interpret the “unclean thing” as anything they want to: cigarettes, alcohol, television (hellivision), movies, dancing, etc.

Great dialog going on here!

I just wanted to offer my own two cents worth. Someone wrote: “… what concerns me the most, (is) the apparent replacement of Scripture as the highest authority. The EC (SP, McLaren, Pagitt) don’t like authority structures, but they replace the authority of the Bible with their own.”

I know a couple of these guys personally and am deeply involved in the EC conversation and I’d say this is statement demonstrates a misguided understanding of EC’ers understanding of biblical authority.

EC’ers (such as McLaren, Jones, etc.) don’t reject the authority of the Bible, but rather, draw attention to the fact that what people are often defending is not the Bible, but a interpretive, systematic superstructure projected onto it.

In other words, the concern is that biblical authority be considered in light of our subjective, limited capabilities as finite creatures. We must acknowledge that the interpretation of the Scriptures always involves contextualization. Bible reading, interpretation, and application never happens in a vacuum.

That is NOT equivalent to saying that “anything goes” or that you can get anything you want out of scripture. This would be Reader Response Criticism- and that’s definitely not a main thrust within Emergent or the emerging church in general.