Sometimes You Gotta Take a Stand

All right, getting of the isms for now I have decided that there comes a time where you have to just say enough is enough, period.

There is a sect inside the Church today that aims to rock the very principles upon which the Church is built. They want to redefine Christianity, they want us to be "politically correct", they want to take what the Church has been for two thousand years and make it into something else. They want a modern, progressive, backboneless Church.

Well, that sounds pretty good; a nice new progressive Church. Really? It does? Is that your final answer? I must say I have my doubts.

Going into this there are several issues that need to be addressed and understood.
First, many of these "progressives" come from liberal denominations. I don't mean liberal as in politically (even though the two often coincide). This being the case I'm going to be using that term several times in this post, if you're offended deal with it; you are in the blogosphere now. Now let me give you Robert Frost's definition of liberal: "a man to broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." I think this definition fits rather nicely.

Second, I'm conservative; the cold hard truth. Now I know if your last name is Pelosi, Clinton, or Kerry you need an inhaler to deal with that but that's the way it is.

Third, I'm am dealing with this from a Biblical standpoint. I mean the whole Bible, I don't take the Gospels and make them more important then the rest. Likewise what Paul wrote isn't any more authoritative then what James or John or Peter or Habbakuk or David wrote. If you try to make an argument by saying "well Jesus never said anything about ___________" and that issue is found elsewhere in the Bible I'm going to delete your comment. Don't try that type of flawed reasoning on my blog.

Alright, now I'm ready to begin. Let's take a group known as The Center for Progressive Christianity head on (anything I claim as one of their points can be found on their website, www.tcpc.org).

Now the question I want to look at first is if progressivism is always a good thing. One time someone presented the argument to me that we should be progressive in order to not be traditional. Well, should we raise woolless sheep just because we traditionally raised sheep with wool? Should we not wear clothes just because we traditionally did wear clothes? Try that in America, you'll get arrested. That argument is flawed to the core. For that argument to be valid the first thing you have to establish is that traditionalism is bad. Then you'd have to prove progressivism is better. Next The Bible says in Hebrews 13:8 that "Jesus is the same yesterday, and to day, and forever." If Jesus is someway once, or says something, even if it was 2,000 years ago it is still practicle and is still very relevant.

Now I intend to look at the beliefs of this progressive movement, and one by one expose them for what they really are.

Progressive belief 1: (beliefs taken from www.tcpc.org)
"By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus."
Now I must admit that on first glance this doesn't appear bad, or anything the Church hasn't taught for two thousand years; no, you look at that and there isn't much cause for concern. But read what they go on to say.
"Rather than assuming that Jesus is a sacrificial savior, or "The Savior," this first statement suggests that one can be a Christian by considering oneself a follower of Jesus' teachings and using his life, as we know it, as a model. It can also be implied that for those Christians Jesus and Jesus' teaching provide a way to experience, relate to or approach that Energy, that Force or that Presence we choose to call God."
These people want to take all the power out of the Ressurection, they want to eliminate the sacrifice Jesus made. Let me ask them something, what seperates Jesus from any other man if He wasn't the Savior? If He didn't Ressurect? Let me tell you, Paul is very clear that the main belief of Christianity is Christ's ressurection (Romans I think). And God is not some energy or force or presence that we choose. God is God regardless of what man wants to make Him to be. God created this world, God made a covenant with Abraham, God sent His only Son to die for humanity, God raised His Son from the dead after three days; and when Jesus came out of that tomb death, hell, and the grave were all defeated! If your god didn't do all those things then your god and my God are not the same! This isn't a gray area, the Bible leaves no room to doubt about who the One True Lord of the universe is.

Point 2: "Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us."
This goes back to what I was just saying. There are not many ways to God, at least there aren't if you are a Christian. Jesus said that He is the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). In this area there is no room for compromise. There are multiple Scriptures that discuss Salvation, and none of them work without Jesus. For example Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (KJV). Or Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (KJV). And for those of you who thing the KJV is to "traditionalist" let me cite the New Living Translation, Romans 6:23 according the the NLT "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Salvation is God's free gift through (and only through) Jesus Christ. Period.

Point 3: "Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples".

Well this one is rather simple. I Corinthians 11:27 "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." The original word for unworthily is "anaxios"; literally meaning "irreverently:--unworthily" (Quickverse). So the way I see it is one has to have accepted Christ, otherwise they are not reverent towards Him. But that's just my opinion; at any rate it seems to me that communion is a Christian practice.

Point 4: "invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):

* believers and agnostics,
* conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
* women and men,
* those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
* those of all races and cultures,
* those of all classes and abilities,
* those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope;
* without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us."

Well, I really would like for more people to come to church period, regardless of race, gender, etc... I couldn't agree more with inviting all people to come join us. However what you often see is people who don't agree with everything the Bible says (such as an agnostic, or homosexual) leave the Church. Now I would love for those people to find and accept Jesus, I really would, but that feeling is contradictory to the TCPC's point here. They don't believe it is necessary to have Jesus in order to be a Christian. I believe that there is no Christianity outside of Christ and Christ is the only way to God and Heaven. That's what the Bible says, don't expect everyone to agree with me; but if you are a real Bible believeing Christian you can not disregard what the Bible says.

There are more points that I'll discuss later, as this post is already rather lengthy. God bless!!

Let me know what you think.