And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.
Whether it is called a Public Forum, or a "Public Sphere" , or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America's earliest decades.
In fact, our first self-expression as a nation - "We the People" - made it clear where the ultimate source of authority lay. It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where the people held the government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government.
What Gore doesn't address is how the free marketplace for ideas relates to religion. When this country was founded, Baptists were eager to have an opportunity to compete in a free marketplace of ideas. We were confident that that was all that the gospel needed to be able to flourish.
Indeed, American history is the history of the growth and expansion of the Baptist understanding of the gospel. In 200 years, we became the dominant Protestant expression of faith.
Then we lost our nerve. Fundamentalists have decided they no longer want to compete with new ideas and with the world religions that commerce and immigration are bringing on our shores. Now they want a monopoly, a "Christian Nation," and they want to use the power of the government to enforce it.
The power of the gospel to transform and redeem lives is as strong as it ever was. It's fundamentalist Baptists and other evangelical Christians who have grown intellectually weak and spiritually flabby. They no longer have what it takes to compete in a free marketplace of ideas.
27 comments:
Bruce: The power of the gospel to transform and redeem lives is as strong as it ever was. It's fundamentalist Baptists and other evangelical Christians who have grown intellectually weak and spiritually flabby. They no longer have what it takes to compete in a free marketplace of ideas.
Amen!
I might part some way with you here, Bruce. I do think it necessary for Christianity to compete in the marketplace of ideas. I'm all with you there, brother. It's why I'm still baptist (though it is clear that the Baptist ethos is changing and folks like you and me are holding onto an older, fading version of the Baptist faith).
But I'm not sure the free marketplace is a guarentee that the gospel will flourish. In fact, I think that is where this compulsion to create a religious state comes from. The far right wants to see Christianity "flourish" unilateraly. My sense of what Jesus said was that it would always be a few who would be interested. Following the authentic way of Jesus just will never be unilateraly popular, no matter how many laws you pass.
That is, unless you change (spin) the gospel to make it appealing to the a mass of people. I think that is what the far right is guilty of--creating an entire new religion that has little to do with the way of Jesus.
Which takes me back to Gore excerpt--this "strangeness that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together." The definition of what is considered true has changed. Politcal discourse plays by new inverted rules. Truth is what Is ay is true, let facts and reason be damned. It's a eerie precursor to some kind of Orwellian speak.
Enjoy your site. --Tim Youmans
Tim & Howie,
I agree that living by the gospel will always be so challenging that few will do so.
I don't think it is hard to perceive the truth of the gospel. All it needs is a free and open hearing.
mom2,
No one is trying to keep the gospel separate from the community.
What some of us are doing is trying to make sure that it is the church rather than the government that is making the presentation.
Bruce,
>No one is trying to keep the gospel separate from the community.
>What some of us are doing is trying to make sure that it is the church rather than the government that is making the presentation.
Your interpretation of separation of church and state is not based on scripture but rather tradition and personal opinion. 'Greek Shadow'
even admitted as much in an earlier post. When I mentioned that we should be seeking truth I did not get an answer. Could it be that the principle of keeping the state from interfering with the church has been twisted by the enemy and deceived many into flipping it around to mean that the church cannot interfere with the government as well? Think about it. The enemy is very clever. He just struck a blow against Christians being salt and light in the world - contrary to what Jesus desires and stated. The enemy celebrates while some have good intentions and believe they are doing the right thing - yet the end result works against the Gospel. I brought this up a long time ago when I talked about how a house divided could not stand. The enemy knows this...do we?
Roger,
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."
Jesus also said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
I don't know how you can get any more scriptural.
Church-state separation has always worked both ways. The idea that the church should run the state is not an American idea. It comes from the Vatican and the middle ages.
"The power of the gospel to transform and redeem lives is as strong as it ever was. It's fundamentalist Baptists and other evangelical Christians who have grown intellectually weak and spiritually flabby. They no longer have what it takes to compete in a free marketplace of ideas."
I think your statement here is made out of ignorance. If you have read any Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, Carl F.H. Henry, Francis Schaeffer, John Frame, or John Feinberg, you would see that intellectual vigor is alive and well in evangelicalism and conservative Baptist circles. While you might disagree with these guys, I don't think you really have an argument when it comes to them being intellectually weak. And as for spiritually flabby, surely you wouldn't accuse a Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, A.W. Tozer, or John Piper of this. Yet, most of them would disagree with many of your positions, including those of Church and State, but mostly those of theology and Scriptural concerns.
Additionally, I find this comment Amened in a rather ironic way, by a man (David Flick) who has rather poorly outlined Calvinism on his site, building straw men that he burns easily. Intellectual weakness is best shown in a lack of willingness to deal with the most difficult of arguments. Todays SBC professors and Evangelical scholars for the most part do not follow this line.
While I acknowledge that many in the past have done their fair share of strawmen burning and argument avoiding, I don't think you could sit in a theology class at Westminister, Trinity, Denver, Dallas, or Southern Seminary and feel that they are intellectually weak or spiritually flabby.
D.R.,
You've made my point. You give a long list of dead thinkers.
I've read most of them. Each has his own strengths and weaknesses.
None are prepared for the intellectual challenges of the twentieth century, much less the twenty-first century.
One last warning about the ad hominem attacks and insulting tone of your comments.
>Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."
Is being salt and light something of Caesar or Jesus?
>Jesus also said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Being salt and light has nothing to do with earthly power, but rather demonstrating the love of Christ and giving others a hope beyond the current fallen world. Once we know truth, can we not share it? (Jeremiah 20:9) If we don't, it logically follows that we must not know the truth then.
>Church-state separation has always worked both ways. The idea that the church should run the state is not an American idea.
The church is made up of believers. Christians are to be salt and light to all the world. There are no qualifiers on that command. Who wins by us being ashamed of Christ? Who loses? Who wins by us fearing man over God? Who loses?
Roger,
You are right about being salt and light having nothing to do with earthly power.
Separating church and state has nothing to do with being ashamed of Christ. It has everything to do with being ashamed of expecting the earthly power (government) to share Christ. If that is what was needed, Jesus would have run the Romans out and set up his kingdom.
>Once we know truth, can we not share it? (Jeremiah 20:9) If we don't, it logically follows that we must not know the truth then.
What are your thoughts on this? Why does separation of church and state so often lead to a silenting of what we know to be truth?
I said nothing insulting whatsoever. If you are referring to the word "ignorant" that is not an insult to say one is uniformed. Additionally, my tone was informative and matter-of-fact, and in no way accusatory or rude. As for your statement about dead thinkers, Piper is not dead, and neither is Frame or Feinberg. Isn't what you said about them ad hominem, after all you accused them of not being able to deal with the challenges of the 20th or 21st centuries without showing a shred of evidence.
And as for my words regarding David Flick, nothing I said was ad hominem there either. He does make straw men arguments against Reformed theology. I imagine he can defend himself on this one.
I honestly think you are just looking for a reason to boot my comments off the site. I am not sure why you are allowing them to remain and yet telling me how horrible I am. Delete them if you feel you should (it only makes you look like the bad guy again -- even to your own friends), but at least do it for the right reasons, not for the ones you incorrectly gave.
d.r. & cks,
I'm going to let your remarks stand for the moment.
None of your mentors would endure your impertinence.
Most of my readers can see through your allegations.
I'll post this again...this is a critically important point. (After all, you are the President of the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State)
You (as do we all) need to be aware of the importance of truth and what effect it has on all of us - our lives, our jobs, our families. We are accountable for how we handle the truth. When we fail to speak or stand up for truth, we are not just 'not standing up for truth' but also not standing up for Jesus because He said He was Truth. That's a sobering thought. But that's the nature of truth.
>Once we know truth, can we not share it? (Jeremiah 20:9) If we don't, it logically follows that we must not know the truth then.
What are your thoughts on this? Why does separation of church and state so often lead to a silencing of what we know to be truth?
Roger,
It doesn't lead to silence. It leads to respectful dialogue among equals in an open public forum.
What is prohibited is government agents using the power of the state to monopolize the discussion and endorse their faith.
Every public official is free to join the discussion as an equal -- not when acting in their official capacity.
Imagine your reaction if someone of a minority faith was using the authority of public office or a government position to lend credence and weight to their efforts to prosyletize you or your children. Then do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
>It doesn't lead to silence. It leads to respectful dialogue among equals in an open public forum.
That's not the reality though. Regardless of whatever intentions are behind it, there is a pressing need to observe what is going on. If deception was straight-forward, it wouldn't be deception.
>What is prohibited is government agents using the power of the state to monopolize the discussion and endorse their faith.
Like I said earlier, the enemy has deceived us into twisting this into the reciprocal...of keeping faith from entering the public square. Again, that may not be the stated intention, but reality is what it is - and the people that the enemy is working through to do this are accountable for their part in suppressing the truth.
>Imagine your reaction if someone of a minority faith was using the authority of public office or a government position to lend credence and weight to their efforts to prosyletize you or your children. Then do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The best thing we can do is be honest with people. If we know the truth and we don't share it...that's bad. If we know the truth and can't share it because of a law, that's not good either. Who defines prosyletizing anyway? Who enforces the 'separation of church and state?' Don't you think the enemy can deceive and distort a right principle into a tool to suppress the truth?
Look what's going on around this country and take note because of the positions you take and support. What are the results? Is that what was intended? Do you stand by a man-made law that has become something it was never supposed to be? Or do you seek truth and let that be your guide? Which do you love more?
I'll also point out that the truth is not the truth if you have to gut it and denounce what makes it true to please those that have issues with it (i.e. - those that would say merely stating truth is prosyletizing).
Roger,
If you refuse to practice the golden rule, then the only world you'll ever live in -- until you pass on to your eternal reward -- is one in which might makes right.
Truth will have nothing to do with it.
>If you refuse to practice the golden rule, then the only world you'll ever live in -- until you pass on to your eternal reward -- is one in which might makes right.
There is no powerplay involved in being truthful with people. Only harm can come from not being honest and letting lost people go into eternity deceived. Is that following the golden rule? The truth is worth standing up for, worth sharing, and worth living - even outside of the church walls.
Roger,
Your answer leaves the impression that, outside the church, the only place that exists is the sphere of government.
Outside of public schools and government property there is a whole lot of space for witnessing.
That is the appropriate place to witness.
>Your answer leaves the impression that, outside the church, the only place that exists is the sphere of government.
Outside of public schools and government property there is a whole lot of space for witnessing.
That is the appropriate place to witness.
I don't think I made that impression. Maybe you're expecting me to mean that. Can people in government jobs witness too? Or is that a secular world? You mentioned the golden rule earlier, why should we deprive those that work in that area a chance to hear some good news? We don't want a secular government do we? Why do you spend so much time blogging about politics? It's because there is so much power to be had there right? And we want people to do what's right and not use their power selfishly or to harm others. Don't you think it is wise to make sure that we don't have a secular government looking out for the religious freedoms of you and me. That would be a cruel irony - while we fought so hard for separation of church and state for the protection of our faith, we ended up with a godless government that had no appreciation or use for us and persecuted us.
The government, godless or not, has no bearing on our personal christian faith and witness. I would think it would take more courage to be a christian in a godless society.
I'd like to say something. I've been reading all the Dr. Prescott detractors commenting here for quite some time. I've dialogued with some even in tongue and cheek.
The advantage that I have over some of you is the fact that Dr. Prescott was my pastor for many years. Many of the articles he has posted on Mainstream Baptists I've heard from the pulpit. Never, I repeat never, have I ever heard him use a hateful, arrogant, bitter tone when speaking of these issues. I have heard sadness and bewilderment. Unfortunately "tone" is something that cannot be transmitted effectively in writing.
Even cks admitted:
"I recently listened to Bruce's podcasted Garnet interview. To my surprise, he came across as an intelligent, not-unfriendly guy."
Perhaps listening to more of his podcasts would be in order so you all can get to know the man behind the blog. Hearing his "tone", inflection, and attitude when he speaks of the things he blogs about would be most helpful to understanding where he is coming from and perhaps even finding some common ground.
I know him to be a man of honesty and integrity. I'd like you to know that about him too.
Marty, the same holds true regarding us (the detractors). Don't you think it is a bit ill-mannered to say in a general way that "fundamentalist Baptists and other evangelical Christians who have grown intellectually weak and spiritually flabby"?
And Bruce, you still haven't dealt with the problem of your comments. In light of those I mentioned, you first stated that you had read them, but that they were all dead, which was not true. And also that in some way what they said and wrote had no bearing on contemporary culture. In light of your discussion with Roger I would say that truth stands, no matter when it is communicated, if it is indeed truth. To suggest that of those I mentioned, "None are prepared for the intellectual challenges of the twentieth century, much less the twenty-first century" is an example, like CKS said of a generational fallacy. You would have to also say that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Know, Aquinas, Augustine, and a host of other incredible thinkers (including Galileo, Capernicus, Newton, and otehrs) are not able to meet those challenges either, though their words stand. Is Jesus Himself (or Paul, or John) not able to meet the intellectual challenges of the 21st century as well? That is where your argument naturally leads. In the end, you haven't proven your statement, just avoided the obvious -- that it is stated without actual information to absolutely confirm.
D.R.,
From your picture you look like a nice sweet guy. Really you do. But I've read your blog. You and your commenters over there are totally unmerciful regarding Bruce. Bruce may have called fundamentalist Baptists and other evangelical Christians intellectually weak and spiritual flabby, but notice the word "christian". He doesn't judge their salvation. You and others at your blog, however, have set yourselves up as judge and jury over his. Now which is worse? Calling someone intellectually weak and spiritual flabby or outright making a statement that they aren't a christian? There is a big difference. And I pray you can see it.
cks said:
>"But I really would like to know why Bruce's whole raison d'etre here seems to be to promote a radical divisiveness among Christian Baptists. The excuse of bitterness stemming from the conservative "takeover" doesn't hold much water with me simply because of my age and background. The church I grew up in was relatively uninterested in convention politics, and I'm too young to have had a personal stake in matter."
cks, you're wrong about Bruce. Perhaps it's fortunate that you're too young grasp the history of what happened a quarter century ago and therefore have no "personal stake in the matter." But you really do need to bone up on the history.
By your comments, I discern that you are woefully unformed about the takeover controversy. Bruce isn't promoting what you call ",a radical divisiveness among Christian Baptists." Far from it. He knows first hand, as I do, that the radical divisiveness among Christian Baptists (namely Southern Baptists) was first promoted by the likes of W. A. Criswell, Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, et. al. If you were cognizant of the history, you might have a different outlook on things.
I do have a personal stake in this matter. I was there before, during, and after the takeover. I am a casualty of the fundamentalist takeover. I know the bitterness of the fundamentalists by first hand experience. I was forced to leave my position as a Director of Missions because I dared speak out against radical divisiveness of the fundamentalists. I don't regret taking that stand. I support Bruce's stand on this issue and the issue of separation of church and state.
cks,
Thanks for the Titus passage. I think we all stand in the need of that reminder.
cks,
The "bitterness" epithet is speculation on motives. You don't know me and you certainly don't understand my motives.
I'm just providing my perspective on a forum designed for personal perspectives.
You are welcome to provide your own perspective as long as you challenge the thoughts and ideas and not the personal integrity of the posters.
I you want to speculate on motives and attack the integrity of posters, you are welcome to start your own blog.
Post a Comment