« What it means to grow spiritually by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Travis Dickinson on Doubt »

Jan 14, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Todd

Hello Peter,

A few clarifying questions. What constitutes McKnight as post-Evangelical? How would your analysis have been altered by a consideration that McKnight is a thorough-going Anabaptist thereby setting the context for his take on the matter? How is your reference to Paul not an egregious reach for a Biblical comparison in this matter? Is it possible you simply hold a different position on how we interact in the world as the People of God than does Scot which could easily constitute in others' eyes the laying of your own rotten egg?

lydia

I do not really understand this thinking that the government is separate as in a "political" domain in this discussion. We are not Rome in the 1st Century. We ARE the government, right? Granted there are many different views and it gets sticky. Welcome to a democratic republic.

There was a situation a few years back with the National Day of Prayer when Ravi Zacharias agreed not to mention the Name of Jesus in his prayer so as to not offend the Jewish folks attending. The Dobsons went along. I was a bit surprised there was not more of an outcry on that one.

Ryan Abernathy

Peter,

I don't think Paul had any political reason to go to room and I din't think there is any textual evidence to support such a claim. Rome was the center of the world in Paul's time and I would imagine Paul wanted to go to Rome to help establish the Church in the center of the known universe, since he had already helped to establish the church all over the fringes of said universe.

I would also add that while I don't agree with McKnight that Giglio should have turned down the invite, I do agree that all such events are political. Further, I agree with his assessment that marrying the Gospel with politics sullies the Gospel. We are reaping that whirlwind right now in our country with conservative churches being almost unilaterlly linked with the Republican party. That creates a huge evangelistic hurdle for reaching people who are opposed to much of the Republican party's agenda but still in need of Christ.

peter lumpkins

Ryan,

"I don't think Paul had any political reason to go to room [sic] and I din't [sic] think there is any textual evidence to support such a claim." Nor I. Nor did I claim such, Ryan. In fact, my assumption concerning his going to Rome very much matches yours...

Todd,

"Is it possible you simply hold a different position on how we interact in the world as the People of God than does Scot which could easily constitute in others' eyes the laying of your own rotten egg?" Most certainly. I have no reason at all to believe that...for many, I've failed to both lay and throw my own hen's share of rotten eggs. Thanks for asking!

Lydia,

Nor do I get the 'government is separate as in a "political" domain in this discussion' if I get your meaning. The way I read McKnight, the idea that because Washington is "all politics"--an assertion with which I fully agree but apparently Ryan wrongly thought I contested--we'd do well to stay out of Washington since we risk "sullying the gospel." My point was and remains, Paul left us no literary evidence he wanted to stay out of Rome because a) in Rome, all was political; or, b) he'd risk sullying the gospel...

lydia

In fact, Paul used his Roman citizenship to advantage.

Todd

Peter,
What criterion are you using to categorize Scot as post-Evangelical?

peter lumpkins

Todd,

You seem to be making more out of my passing descriptive adjective than it actually warrants, since I obviously used 'post-evangelical' in a very loose way (note the second usage was even in parenthesis). Nor did I have disparagement in mind as I used it, particularly toward Dr. McKnight, whom I happen to regard as one of evangelicalism's (or, if I may be so brash, post-evangelicalism's) preeminent scholars--unless it would be my inclination about the collapse of evangelicalism as a whole is concerned. Those who follow me carefully are aware of my theological suspicions toward modern/postmodern evangelicalism and consequently is a theological identity from which Southern Baptists should distance themselves.

Hope this helps. Thanks for logging on and have a great day...

Max

I've listened carefully to inaugural prayers for several years. Most have been diluted too ecumenically and sanitized with political-correctness. The last "real" inaugural invocation I heard was offered in 1993 by Billy Graham for President Clinton. When he prayed the following words, Clinton looked up from bowed head and stared at Brother Graham as if wondering “what in the world are you doing?!” Graham’s prayer:

“We thank you for the moral and spiritual foundations which our forefathers gave us and which are rooted deeply in scripture. Those principles nourished and guided us as a nation in the past, but we cannot say that we are a righteous people. We’ve sinned against you. We’ve sown to the wind and are reaping the whirlwind of crime, drug abuse, racism, immorality, and social injustice. We need to repent of our sins and turn by faith to you.”

Twenty years later, America continues to sow to the wind and reap the whirlwind ... and we need faithful preachers of the Gospel to remind of us of that in all arenas. These cute generic "God bless America" prayers we throw up on public platforms aren't scaring the devil much.

The comments to this entry are closed.