(Lisa Robinson)
Well, its happened again, rumors of liberalism infiltrating the church. This is bad, very bad and nothing to be remotely associated with. It is a sure sign that you have one foot out the door of orthodoxy and will soon abandon the tenets of the faith. So I’ve come up with a list of sure-fire ways you can stay as far away from a liberal classification as possible and avoid any slippery slopes.
1) Never question the parameters of inerrancy. You may have tons of questions related to perceived gaps but it is best to keep that to yourself. Raising questions will definitely raise eyebrows.
2) Never refer to the entirety of God’s word as “narrative” regardless of how much you want to show the grand story that sweeps across all 66 books. It’s probably wise not to use the word “story”.
3) Never place an adjective with the word “hermeneutics”, unless it’s “Evangelical”
4) Don’t cite sources from those marked as even possibly liberal, unless its to levy criticisms at their disastrous consequences. Neither say anything nice about their books or blogs. It does not matter if they actually have something valuable to contribute. Any alliance will make you guilty by association.
5) Don’t capitulate to the culture through means that might actually connect with people where they are. They need to know the word of God. Period.
6) Never use the word “culture”, unless it is something you are against.
7) Make sure that when an evangelical figure is publicly chastised for maybe possibly going down a slippery slope (possibly because they used the aforementioned words), that you quickly hop on the band wagon. Don’t bother with actual facts or taking time to do some evaluation. Hesitation will only raise suspicion.
8.) Never question the validity of women’s participation in leadership or contribution to the body at large. That is a sure sign to show you are headed down a slippery slope and destroying inerrancy. They should know their place anyway.
9) Don’t support a church catering to seekers (see also #s 5 and 7). They can find their way with a good sermon.
10) Don’t contaminate evangelism with “good works” or anything remotely associated with meeting tangible needs. The four spiritual laws is all anyone needs and “good works” is something liberals do.
11) The only “mission” you should be on is stocking your library with MacArthur resources and warning others against liberal infiltration.
12) Never, ever use the word “emerging” in any context.
Well folks, I hope this helps. Follow these 12 easy steps and it will keep you firmly planted from rolling down any slippery slopes so that no one can ever accuse you of being liberal.
56 replies to "12 Ways to Guarantee You’ll Never Be Called “Liberal”"
Charles, I think you have missed what I’m trying to do here. It’s not about the thing but the reaction to the thing. It’s not like I’m supporting liberalism but am addressing a reaction. Sometimes we allow the fear of it to produce unwarranted reactions. And I’ve already explained why I used a name because just saying “conservative” would not have had the same impact in context of the humor I was going for. So yeah, I could go through each one and give you an accounting of reactions I’ve seen that have prompted these pithy points expressed in jest such as reactions against narrative theology (#2) to demonstrate my knowledge to your satisfaction but I won’t. It wasn’t that kind of post.
Thanks.
“So yeah, I could go through each one and give you an accounting of reactions I’ve seen that have prompted these pithy points ”
Perhaps you might be missing a point; I don’t dispute your point about what you’re trying to do; I’m saying be more helpful not in the sense of ‘giving an accounting’ but how when such an issue comes up, how a person wise in the ways of apologetics and gentle with the naive and troubled, a guide to the ignorant , would approach such a situation in a helpful way. I didn’t ask for another clarification of why you used a name; but asked what’s wrong with using specifics to illustrate a resolution to such a problem.
This work is funny in a drunk lying in vomit kind of a way; (to borrow you colleague CMP’s new vocabulary). It is not worthy of your ability or training or aspirations.
Thanks also.
Charles. If I was looking for people I could correct on non-essentials, why would I a Preterist have attended a dispensational seminary? Why would I have married a dispensationalist? I’m Old-Earth and she’s young-Earth. We’ve had zero arguments over it. In fact, when she has a question I’ll say “Well this is what someone from your perspective would say and this is what someone from mine would say” and seek to give the fairest example.
My point was too many Christians make non-essentials essentials and when you start questioning those you’re denying the faith.
“Hi Scott, please be mindful of blog rules and steer from disrespectful comments directed towards people personally. Thanks.”
Lisa, you could set a good example here by retracting your reference to MacArthur. You are old enough and wise enough to understand that his name is so widely used in this domain as a foil for holding up ‘fundies’ and ‘heresy hunters’ and wotnot, to ridicule, that it has almost become a self explanatory meme.
Despite your protestations, I think you know exactly what you are doing. Is John MacArthur a fellow-soldier in the gospel, a colleague in ministry, or is he someone whose name you can throw out for a laugh because, when you set out to ridicule, for some reason it just seems to be right there, waiting for you, saying, “Pick me!” “Who will go for us, and whom shall I send?” (Is.6)
Nick, re: “Christianity hangs on only one proposition”
Please, yes or no, does that not leave a lot of non-essentials?
What seminary taught you that?
As to non-essentials, again; you started out by adding to Lisa Robinson’s list, with “here’s another one”; correcting people who are touchy about certain non-essentials. You now have four posts, sarcastic and otherwise, all of them about non-essentials.
Frankly, your claim to have no dog in the non-essential fight does not have the ring of truth.
Charles. I’ve made my case. My whole point was people make non-essentials into essentials and it leads to chaos. I’ve said this is problematic and why. You instead wish to argue with me about that as if I believe otherwise.
I’m done wasting my time with you.