Tuesday, February 03, 2015
He has learned that the answer to bad religion is not the Nones but good religion.Couldn't agree more. What's interesting is what ends up being bad religion and what ends up begin good religion. McKnight contrasts the book in question, which decides "good religion" is liberal with another book that decides its conservative.
I find it fascinating how so many of the same conclusions about what is bad religion (For example, bad religion "fosters nominal commitment to Christ and the church.") can lead to such differing conclusions on what good religion looks like. This reveals an enormous gap in in How American Protestant Christianity thinks about things. That we come up with entirely different constructs to solve a problem we are in agreement about means that one of us is not thinking through the whole problem very well. The line between salvation and sanctification is simply not well drawn.
Before our problems can really be solved we have to solve this underlying issue. We have to learn how to draw this line. Otherwise we are simply grafting worldly agendas onto our minimally drawn faith. All agenda must be drawn from our faith, not pasted onto it.
I ask you, who is Lord when the agenda is pasted?
Christianity agendas good thinking