To Protestants ...

To Protestants ...

Unless we advocate believer's baptism and deny the validity of infant baptism, then we're likely a part of what's called Ecumenical Protestantism. Evangelical Protestantism, influenced by its Anabaptist antecedents, generally dismisses infant baptism and relies upon believers' baptism as the only acceptable mode of entrance into the church, and as proof of faith in Christ.

Within each group, lots of flaws, some of them even fatal. One of the fatal flaws of Evangelical Protestantism is its unrelenting search for "something better." This flaw generates a deep restlessness, often a hyper-critical stance vis-a-vis other Christians, even within their own ranks, and frequently leads to schism.

While EvaP has been more than willing to offer criticism of EcuP, calling the church "dead," and declaring that ECO (Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians), for example, will find "something better," EcuP has been reluctant to find the holes and offer careful criticism of the weaknesses inherent within EvaP.

EvaP has had pretty much a free ride in America in the last 50 years, puffed by the media and enjoying the success of numbers - which, by the way, seems to be the chief indicator of faithfulness. The more numbers a church enjoys, evidently the more faithful it is.

Sort of like the old Presbyterian notion that wealth proved God's blessing.

Both "proofs," of course, fail to stand up when measured by the Bible.

EvaP is riddled with holes:

1. Biblical studies often more driven by ideology than sound exegesis and historical studies.
2. Heavy reliance on numbers as "proof" of faithfulness and all the subsequent techniques needed to sustain numbers.
3. Preaching often driven by therapy rather than the biblical story, with its traditional focus on the individual, rather than God, and the need to "win God's favor."
4. Preaching that relies heavily on inspirational stories, heavy on the miracle end of things.
5. The Anabaptist notion that one must do something in order to win God's favor is the heart of evangelicalism greatest weakness. Like it's Anabaptist ancestors, it's driven by anxiety - "have I done enough - and pride - "look at what I've done."
6. The greatest weakness is its ceaseless quest for something better, never satisfied, and reluctant to give thanks and appreciate where it is.

As an Ecumenical Protestant, I'm well aware of our flaws, several of which are fatal, as well. Thanks to the EvaP, most EcuPs know their flaws well.

But our commitment to justice, equality, a trained and connected clergy, and sound biblical scholarship have served us and our culture well. That American Protestant Christians should find great appeal in EvaP is understandable and lamentable, saying a great deal about the character of American faith, and the failure of EcuP to sustain adult education.

Much work to be done on all fronts.

EcuPs need to deepen their own culture, find the best within it, sharpen and expand it, and for crying out loud, quit crying, and don't be afraid to challenge the EvaPs.

They need the challenge, and with honest and careful criticism, we might actually make a better impact on American and global culture.

Are Christians-Protestants Dumb?

Are Christians dumb?

Protestants dumb?

I don't know ... but sometimes I think so.

Is this a religious problem?

Or a cultural problem?

Or is it just me?

Am I arrogant?

Or am I dumb?

Or a little or a lot of both?

I've spent 42 years in ministry, but someone recently noted, "time in the saddle doesn't mean anything."

Then I think of writers like Borg and Wright and Crossan and Bass - are they dumb, too?

Well, if everyone's dumb, that's that.

But if only some are dumb, then what?

Are there people who have a more coherent understanding of the gospel?

Of the Bible?

Of religious history?

And how it works in the mind and spirit of humankind?

Is there such thing as learning?

Or wisdom?

I've spent my entire career in pursuit of learning.

Not that I'm an intellectual - far from it.

Not that I know anything - unlikely that I do.

But I've pursued knowledge.

Reading.

Lectures.

Conferences.

Journals.

Retreats.

And books - tons of books ... more than I could ever read, but I've read more than I would have, because of all the books.

But what do I know?

Yet I think to myself, "There must be standards" or do we live in Alice's Rabbit Hole?

There must be some measure of knowledge when it comes to religion.

Or faith.

Is there any kind of reality in our "reality"?

Is there something enduring and true and good?

Beyond the momentary moments of my life?

Your life?

Our life together?

I don't know.

I think so.

And if there are, then what?

Is there something to know?

And what happens if we don't know?

Are there some who know?

And others who don't?

Then let's get to work.

I guess that's why some called Jesus Rabbi.

He was, after all, a teacher.

With authority.

Who pointed beyond the common wisdom of the day.

Beyond religious convention.

Beyond the sheep and the goats and the temple.

Beyond land and dietary laws.

I think he pointed beyond the things that make people dumb.

So that folks might know the glory of a living God.

A covenant of peace and wholeness and healing and hope.

A covenant that always requires people to pack up and move along.

Rather than settle down and stay put.

A covenant that requires some rootlessness to be rooted in God.

I think Jesus taught that.

And if he's a living presence, and that may be the case, then he still teaches that.

And by the Spirit, if that be the case.

I don't think Jesus was dumb.