Michael Spencer describes his adventurous three days with "mainline" Christians, a corner of Christianity often dismissed by evangelicals as "those liberal Christians." He points out many things in the mainline church that other Christians churches might do well to emulate—genuinely uplifting and supportive pastor networks, gentleness and generosity in preaching, among other things. He concludes:
One thing for sure. I was among people who knew and loved God and his Son; people who loved, read and preached the Bible in large doses; people who take the Gospel seriously; people very much desirous of the power of the Holy Spirit and genuine prayer. Certainly, they were people for whom the word ecumenical meant something important.I learned to love these brothers and sisters. I’m sure we would disagree on some things–perhaps many things–but I was encouraged by their faith and confirmed in my call by their joy in theirs. We all faced many of the same issues, from empty nests to angry board members to family and financial stress. When we prayed and worshiped, we were one in Christ, and I enjoyed the feeling.
It seems like a very healthy thing to occasionally take the time to interact with, and even worship with, Christians from the opposite side of the red/blue, conservative/liberal divide. Anybody know of any mainliners who spent a similar amount of time worshipping with fundamentalist or evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ, and wrote about what they learned?
(Image from Wikipedia Commons.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (9)
This type of article makes me sick. Unless you are preaching repentance to these backslidden emergents, you have no business mixing with false converts.
I read the article very carefully and honestly it confused me more than anything. Correct me if I'm wrong but I never viewed Lutherans as anything close to "liberal" (I don't have enough first hand experience with the others to comment).
I'm kind of lost where I fall into this. I'm kind of just...Christian. I don't know if I'd be a Fundamentalist. Maybe conservative? Moderate? I know I'm not liberal. I just Believe in Jesus and the Bible. Raised in Free Methodist and Baptist churches and also Assemblies of God and Full Gospel churches. Kind of somewhere in the middle. I guess I figured we were "mainliners". Maybe we're more right.
He seems to represent a very fundamental church whereas I guess the others are more liberal.
Honestly, this conflict the writer was expecting (But didn't see) seemed foreign. I've seen people argue over doctrine and what not but it was like this guy was from another country talking about another country. I just seemed totally outside the sphere of either culture represented in his article.
Then I became a member (now elder) of an evangelical/non-denominational/whatever-you-want-to-label-it church. Though the theology is usually more "conservative" (i.e. accurate in my opinion), still most (not all) of the attenders truly love the Lord and His Word.
If a church blatantly and repeatedly teaches or acts unbiblically, then there is a place for lovingly confronting that, and if there is no resolution then leaving. Otherwise, I'm pretty convinced that with some variance, every church of every denomination (or lack thereof) has some true believers and some non-believers. The Lord knows who are His. If you truly know Him, you can worship Him in Spirit and Truth - wherever you are .
Ehh...excuse me?
Specifically draw attention to
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral"
The Bible also says...
I hate to say it but this is one of those instances where the little peace and love party has gone too far. I'm usually not one to want to start fights on doctrine and what not...and I often tend to get along with people from both sides of the fence. But in this instance this is a blatant sin the Bible speaks against. And the author is acting like its all okay and good we didn't bring it up as if it were some petty doctrinal argument.
No...the Bible says its a sin...and this is the reason there are MANY fights and arguments and debates between the Conservatives and "Mainliners" (as they are called here).
They support and allow things which are altogether wrong. Things that only become debatable when you twist God's word to justify sinful behavior.
Simply put, there should have been no gay or lesbian preachers present and it would have been righteous to have expelled them. Society may say this is wrong, but society doesn't decide what is right and wrong...God does.
It'd be like keeping a pastor among you who constantly cheats on his wife, or is a pedophile, or has sexual interests in animals. Its wrong. Its sick. Its a perversion. Having peace in this instance isn't something that should be celebrated.
Again, we do have a lot of bickering and arguing over petty things among denominations. But this is one of those instances where a confrontation would have been fully justified and proper.
Also, just to point out to JB, the Emergent trend is something within Evangelical circles not mainline ones. Mainline churches have their own movements of redefinition but the label of such trends as Emergent is an Evangelical move.
Oh and I think its mildly problematic to label these denominations as liberal outright. Certainly groups like United Methodists have their liberal churches within them but there are also highly conservative ones as well. Its really issue of size and in comparison to many Evangelical denominations, which have ONLY conservative churches, they are liberal but I've known United Methodists that are lock step with fundamentalist doctrine. But, that's really a minor point after all.