When I was in seminary, one of my professors often wove a profound quote throughout his lectures that he attributed to theologian Karl Barth: “When the church weds itself to the spirit of the age, it will find itself a widow in the next.”
Often this quote was raised in the context of contemporary theology and how the body of the American church in the early 20th-century “wedded” itself to western modernism by replacing faith and with rational and scientific explanation. Those churches embraced this philosophy by categorizing Christianity into neat systems and defending complex questions of faith with rational arguments to the point where they were sure people could be argued into the kingdom.
Then in the 90s and 00s, a societal shift took place where rationalism was no longer trusted and the metanarrative of science was completely rejected. Many churches responded by wholeheartedly embraced tearing down old meaningless theological constructs and seeking out different ways of approaching faith. “Let’s take an out-of-the-box approach to Christianity,” those churches would argue
The trendy church movement that came out of the first decade of the 21st century was known as the “Emerging Church.” At first, those churches—of which I was initially saw benefits—had some great new ways of helping Christians break out of from the grip of western culture and speak Jesus into other cultures.
Unfortunately, typical of ministries in the U.S. who have a tendency of overshooting the runway, those churches morphed into today’s progressive church. And this movement is delving into some pretty dangerous theological territory.
I have been increasingly suspicious when emerging church preached love and acceptance while completely ignoring sin. Suddenly, churches—even one I attended in Portland—promoted social justice at the expense of truth.
Fast forward another decade, and now a new, trendy term took hold—“exvangelical”—that was unfortunately embraced by several fairly well-known individuals in evangelical circles.
In this new trend, which thankfully is already started to peter out, the exvangelical proclaims their disillusionment with the millennia of Christianity, deciding that they are somehow more enlightened than 1700 years of Christian theologians and biblical authority.
Then, this trend started to jump the shark.
It started by taking small steps by making strange claims like Mary and Joseph were illegal immigrants, Jesus was a homeless man, and Jesus was a socialist.
Suddenly, naming sin a sin was considered hate. I actually know of a devotional magazine whose editor decreed quoting 1 Corinthians 6:9-11″hate speech.”
The movement began to double down. I recently came across the “Sparkle Creed,” a very bizarre rewrite of the Apostle’s Creed which for centuries had summarized the tenets of Christianity.
In what I assure you does not come from the Babylon Bee, the “Sparkle Creed” in part goes like this:
“I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God. I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.”
Perhaps I am being a bit fussy here, but can someone show me where the Triune Godhead, the physical death, burial and resurrection Jesus, his virgin birth, the blood atonement, among other claims fit in to the faith?
I am having trouble trying to imagine the martyrs of Christianity getting fed to the lions as a great witness to the Sparkle Creed.
Not going to lie, if my faith is based in the Sparkle Creed, I would probably be home for evening supper after getting the option to either renounce it or die.
Of course, the Sparkle Creed is an extreme example.
In fact, in an effort to remain socially relevant, the progressive arm of Christianity continues to wed itself to the spirit of the age thus diluting the authority of scripture. All with the help of the media serving as its mouthpiece.
Episcopalian minister Mariann Budde, in the spirit of telling truth to power, openly chastised the new president about social justice issues during the National Prayer Service while he sat in the audience. Progressive Christians stood and cheered her words. In the days following, Budde became a rock star in the press.
Now, I believe in telling truth to power—truth that is not synonymous with one’s own personal agenda. And it turns out she was not telling truth to power. Budde was protecting the $53 million dollars her organization received from taxpayer funding. It turns out she had skin directly in the game. That doesn’t disqualify anyone from speaking one’s opinions, but it sure lessens his or her credibility.
This weekend, I cringed when Wheaton College, one with a rich history in the U.S. and one of the few remaining colleges that are far more than Christian in name only.
At least for now.
This week Wheaton posted their congratulations to nominee and alum Russell Vought for receiving senate approval for Director of Office Management and Budget and calling believers to pray for him. After other Wheaton alumni went apoplectic because the school had the audacity to congratulate and issue a call to prayer for a –gasp—Trump nominee, it retracted the post and assured the world its non-partisan stance.
All the while having no trouble hosting a “non-political” political gathering last September by The After Party, discussing what Christians should do in a Trump administration (loosely speaking). It had no Christian speakers on the right and was funded by Defend Democracy Together which was founded by Bill Kristol who last week echoed the mantra of every villain from “The X-Files” declaring he “preferred the deep state to Trump.”
Meanwhile, the school offered no event addressing Christianity’s response to truth in Biden administration.
After looking this issue up, I found out Wheaton allows an LGTBQ+ Network on campus.
On a personal sidenote to that point. I was an adjunct professor at a Christian college in Portland who allowed a student-led Straight-Queer Alliance group on campus, whose stated objective was to change the thinking of the school about LGBTQ issues. The admin wanted that particular line omitted from the groups bylaws, and the group immediately went to the press who jumped at the chance to ridicule us closed-minded Christians. Now, I want to stress this is not official, but roughly six months later, the Board closed the doors to the 109-year-old institution at the end of the school for unclear reasons. Many on both sides contend that was the issue.
I respected Wheaton. I know graduates and once believed it as a light in the Midwest. It houses the Marian Wade Center focusing on C.S. Lewis as well as the Billy Graham Museum (at least it did). Now I fear its wedding itself to the spirit of the age is going to render the school an empty shell of itself if not close down altogether. Vought, the new OMB Director, expressed his hurt from Wheaton’s retraction. He says he cannot with a good heart recommend that school for his daughters.
I am not sure I could recommend it anymore either. In fact, I am hesitant to recommend one of my alma maters because of a growing concern they’re doing the same thing.
Now, let me clarify something and clarify this as unambiguously as I can. One could easily ask “isn’t the Christian Right also wedding itself to the spirit of the age?” Without reservation, I will answer absolutely: YES.
The danger is there, and the right has crossed that line before.
In the 90s, I read a book “Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?” written by Conservative Commentator Cal Thomas and former Liberty University Vice President Ed Dobson.
This book had a huge impact on me.
I am a Liberty alumni (Class of 90!). I attended the school during the time of Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority.
Thomas and Dobson argued in their book that the when the Christian Right submitted itself to the Republican Party in the 80s, it became a servant and a mere tool of that party. Instead, we are a kingdom worldview which should never submit to a political party.
Since then I have tried to navigate between being a kingdom individual who has a conservative political philosophy. That is a hard line to tow. It’s a real struggle for me.
I remind myself that revival did not come to America because of the election results.
While I agree with Trump draining the swamp, he is not my savior. Lower taxes and government funding are not a scriptural issues, and closing the Department of Education is not a salvific matter one way or another.
So, yes, Christians on the right make those mistakes—myself included—when it weds itself to the spirit of the age.
However, I will also argue that Christians on the left are making those same mistakes now. The Kingdom of God is not USAID; it is not found in any government programs.
Herein lies the real problem when the church weds itself to the spirit of the age. It lessens our credibility and dampens the church’s prophetic voice.
Our message gets confused and diluted at best, and highly suspect at worse.
It is okay to have a political stance and be relevant in culture. However, it must never, ever reinterpret or deconstruct itself into oblivion (which I would argue is impossible since it is Jesus’s bride). When we find ourselves having to squint at the text as we do rhetorical somersaults to make the Bible read the way we want it to, we throw out our prophetic voice.
The Spirit of the Age fluctuates. It will never stay the same. The Bible on the other hand never changes.
Wedding itself to the spirit of the age must never be our objective. The authority of the Bible must never be sacrificed in the name of relevance.
Or, as Barth warns, we will become a widow when the spirit of the age once again shifts.
Be First to Comment