PATRIOTIC IDOLATRY

Is Kirk Cameron Demonstrating the Compromise that Results from Patriotic Idolatry?

 

By Erin Benziger ∙ 21 September 2012 ∙ In Opinion ∙ Bookmark permalink

 

 

Kirk Cameron is best remembered for his role as Mike Seaver in the 1980s sitcom, Growing Pains. Today he is known as a Christian evangelist with Way of the Master and even more recently, Cameron is recognized for his movie, Monumental, and his persistent urgings for Americans to return to their alleged Christian roots.
Monumental stirred a firestorm of reactions among evangelicals. Many criticized Cameron and the film for its inclusion of Mormon Glenn Beck and controversial historian David Barton. Others who are more involved in the movement to ‘save America’ praised the work in spite of what some deemed to be religious compromise.
Now, Cameron once again has sparked a controversy with his latest endorsement of Glenn Beck on his Facebook page. Cameron writes:

Glenn Beck kindly and enthusiastically helped get the word out about my new film MONUMENTAL, and now I would like to tell you about a hilarious new project from him!
NCM Fathom Events, Mercury Radio Arts and The Blaze Present Glenn Beck Unelectable 2012 in select movie theaters nationwide — live tomorrow night, September 20, 2012 with a second showing on Tuesday, September 25, 2012.
Don’t miss Glenn as he squares off in this mock presidential debate.
Source

This announcement launched a stream of comments (151 as of this writing) both in defense and criticism of this latest partnering of Cameron with Mormon Glenn Beck. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate of these is one that reads,

Mormons are definitely Christians. You are more than welcome to check out http://mormon.org/jesus-christ – it will answer any question about what Mormons believe! Besides, I love that Kirk is cool with being friends with people that don’t believe exactly what he believes. That, to me, is truly being a Christian. Source

As has been demonstrated on CRN’s own Mormonism research page, the differences between Christianity and Mormonism are many. The religion of Mormonism teaches a false and damning gospel. Of course, one could argue that Kirk Cameron did not himself make the above statement, nor has he agreed with it. Nevertheless, this is the type of conversation that now is ensuing on the Facebook wall of evangelical Christian Kirk Cameron. How misleading it is to have individuals claiming that Mormonism is the same as Christianity, and yet, as of this writing, there has been no correction from Cameron.
This reality grieved some to the point of asking Cameron to step down from his role at Way of the Master until or unless he repents of his promotion of and association with Glenn Beck. Christine Pack of Sola Sisters would write,

Tremendous confusion is being sown among the body by Kirk’s continued alliance with Mormon Glenn Beck. Does it matter to Kirk that some people here on his FB wall are now insisting that Mormons are Christians? If he can’t take responsibility for his own FB wall, and he allows that confusion to stand, he needs to resign from Way of the Master and step down from his role as an evangelist for the Christian faith. Source

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Cameron, along with co-host and fellow evangelist Ray Comfort, actually have taught against Mormonism on their Way of the Master television show.
Indeed, it was one thing several months ago for Kirk Cameron to accept the endorsement of Glenn Beck for his movie, Monumental. It is quite another for Cameron actually to endorse Glenn Beck, which is what he seems to now be doing. At this point one must wonder if 2 Corinthians 6:14–16 begins to take relevance.
Another comment from a concerned individual reads as follows:

Kirk, please, I beg you. You are undermining the gospel by your partnership and promotion of Glenn Beck and his projects. The gospel is greater and more important than America. America will pass away. It is temporary, but God’s Word and His gospel is forever. Please. Look at all the people on this thread who have no idea. You are influencing them in a bad way. Source

This person seems to have identified the problem precisely. What was demonstrated in Cameron’s movie, and what he has consistently been preaching in recent months, is the importance of America to return to what he believes are its Christian roots. Yet, could such a focus be perceived as patriotic idolatry? Speaking at the 2012 Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. last Friday, the Christian Post notes that Cameron

said America can get out of the “mess” by returning to the “original factory settings,” which involves listening to the Founding Fathers who relied on wisdom that comes from faith in God and His Word. Source

Is this really the answer? Why not turn directly to God’s Word? Further, were America’s “original factory settings” truly Christian as Cameron alleges? In a conversation with Dr. Al Mohler, Gregg Frazer, professor and author of the book, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution, discussed his research of America’s founding fathers. Speaking here about John Adams, Frazer noted:

John Adams, I argue, is sort of the quintessential theistic rationalist. That is, he wrote the most about theology of any of the key founders and studied the most. He read any and all theology that he could find around the world and he wrote the most about it and revealed his own views the most, and it’s really quite shocking what he came up with. He fundamentally denied basically all the fundamental tenants of the faith. He was raised in a Calvinist community; although, and again this is where denominational affiliations can get you in trouble, his church was listed as Congregationalist and they kept that name, but the church turned Unitarian when he was a young man, and so just the label Congregationalist can get you sort of off-track. But he denied the deity of Christ; he denied the Trinity; he denied the atonement. He actually said what I think is the most striking statement of all the things that I’ve found in all of my study, which was in his explaining his opposition to the Trinity, he actually said that if he were standing on Mount Sinai with Moses, where God gives revelation, and God Himself told him that the Trinity was true, he said he wouldn’t believe it.
He referred to the deity of Christ and the atonement as absurdities, talked about the fabrication of the Christian Trinity. He talked about the incarnation and said it has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity—the belief in an eternal self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient Author of this stupendous universe suffering on a cross—says that that’s the source of most of the problems in Christianity. Speaking of the Bible, he said that philosophy is the original revelation of the Creator to His creature, and no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it, so philosophy trumps the Bible.
Source

If America’s “original factory settings” were not actually Christian, then Kirk Cameron’s admonition for the country to return to these is erroneous and potentially dangerous. It is not the job of the Christian to moralize his country. The Facebook comment quoted above noted a fact of far greater importance: America is temporary. It will pass away. The Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, however, will not. These are eternal.
Where, then, ought the Christian set his sights? Not on a country made of men, but on Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:2) and His eternal kingdom. Those whose focus remains fixed on America, her financial failings and her moral pitfalls find themselves engaging in patriotic idolatry. How does one “get out of that mess”? Repent, remember and return to the Lord Jesus Christ. He alone is the only true hope.

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship

Thursday, September 20, 2012

by Al Mohler

 

 

The whole world changed on Tuesday. At least, that is what many would have us to believe. Smithsonian magazine, published by the Smithsonian Institution, declares that the news released Tuesday was “apt to send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship — and beyond.” Really?

What was this news? Professor Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School announced at a conference in Rome that she had identified an ancient papyrus fragment that includes the phrase, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” Within hours, headlines around the world advertised the announcement with headlines like “Ancient Papyrus Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife” (The Telegraph).

The Smithsonian article states that “the announcement at an academic conference in Rome is sure to send shock waves through the Christian world.” The magazine’s breathless enthusiasm for the news about the papyrus probably has more to do with advertising its upcoming television documentary than anything else, but the nation’s most prestigious museum can only injure its reputation with this kind of sensationalism.

A Fragment of a Text, an Even More Fragmentary Argument
What Karen King revealed on Tuesday was a tiny papyrus fragment with Coptic script on both sides. On one side the fragment includes about 30 words on eight fragmentary lines of script. The New York Times described the fragment as “smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass.” The lines are all fragmentary, with the third line reading “deny. Mary is worthy of it,” and the next reading “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” The fifth states, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The papyrus fragment, believed to be from the fourth century, was delivered to Professor King by an anonymous source who secured the artifact from a German-American dealer, who had bought it years ago from a source in East Germany. As news reports made clear, the fragment is believed by many to be an authentic text from the fourth century, though two of three authorities originally consulted by the editors of the Harvard Theological Review expressed doubts. Such a find would be interesting, to be sure, but hardly worthy of the international headlines.

The little piece of ancient papyrus with its fragmentary lines of text is now, in the hands of the media, transformed into proof that Jesus had a wife, and that she was most likely Mary Magdalene. Professor King will bear personal responsibility for most of this over-reaching. She has called the fragment nothing less than “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” — a title The Boston Globe rightly deemed “provocative.” That same paper reported that Professor King decided to publicize her findings before additional tests could verify the fragment’s authenticity because she “feared word could leak out about its existence in a way that sensationalized its meaning.” Seriously? King was so concerned about avoiding sensationalism that she titled the fragment “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife?”

This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. One British newspaper notes that the claims about a married Jesus seem more worthy of fans of Dan Brown’s fictional work, The Da Vinci Code, than “real-life Harvard professors.” If the fragment is authenticated, the existence of this little document will be of interest to historians of the era, but it is insanity to make the claims now running through the media.

Professor King claims that these few words and phrases should be understood as presenting a different story of Jesus, a different gospel. She then argues that the words should be read as claiming that Jesus was married, that Mary Magdalene was likely his wife. She argues further that, while this document provides evidence of Jesus’ marital status, the phrases do not necessarily mean he was married. More than anything else, she argues against the claim that Christianity is a unified body of commonly-held truths.

Those familiar with Karen King’s research and writings will recognize the argument. Her 2003 book, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, argued that another text from the era presented Mary Magdalene as the very model for apostleship.

A Preference for Heterodoxy
The thread that ties all these texts and arguments together is the 1945 discovery of some 52 ancient texts near the town of Nag Hammadi in Egypt. These texts are known to scholars as Gnostic literature. The texts present heretical narratives and claims about Jesus and his message, and they have been a treasure trove for those seeking to replace orthodox Christianity with something different.

Several ambitions drive this effort. Feminists have sought to use the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that women have been sidelined by the orthodox tradition, and that these Gnostic texts prove that women were central to the leadership of the early church, perhaps even superior to the men. Others have used the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that Christianity was diverse movement marked by few doctrinal concerns until it was hijacked by political and ecclesiastical leaders, who constructed theological orthodoxy as a way of establishing churchly power in the Roman Empire and then stifling dissent. Still others argue that Christianity’s moral prohibitions concerning sexuality, and especially homosexuality, were part of this forced orthodoxy which, they argue, was not the essence of true Christianity. More than anything else, many have used the Nag Hammadi texts as leverage for their argument that Christianity was originally a way of spirituality centered in the teachings of a merely human Christ — not a message of salvation through faith in a divine Jesus who saves sinners through the atonement he accomplished in his death and resurrection.

Professor King, along with Princeton’s Elaine Pagels, has argued that the politically powerful leaders who established what became orthodox Christianity silenced other voices, but that these voices now speak through the Nag Hammadi texts and other Gnostic writings. Writing together, King and Pagels argue that “the traditional history of Christianity is written almost solely from the viewpoint of the side that won, which was remarkably successful in silencing or distorting other voices, destroying their writings, and suppressing any who disagreed with them as dangerous and obstinate ‘heretics.’”
King and Pagels both reject traditional Christianity, and they clearly prefer the voices of the heretics. They argue for the superiority of heterodoxy over orthodoxy. In the Smithsonian article, King’s scholarship is described as “a kind of sustained critique of what she called the ‘master story’ of Christianity: a narrative that casts the canonical texts of the New Testament as a divine revelation that passed through Jesus in ‘an unbroken chain’ to the apostles and their successors — church fathers, ministers, priests and bishops who carried these truths into the present day.”

King actually argues against the use of terms like “heresy” and even “Gnostic,” claiming that the very use of these terms gives power to the forces of orthodoxy and normative Christianity. Nevertheless, she cannot avoid using the terms herself (even in the titles of her own books). She told Ariel Sabar of Smithsonian, “You’re talking to someone who’s trying to integrate a whole set of ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history.”

Orthodoxy and Heresy: The Continual Struggle
Those who use Gnostic texts like those found at Nag Hammadi attempt to redefine Christianity so that classic, biblical, orthodox Christianity is replaced with a very different religion. The Gnostic texts reduce Jesus to the status of a worldly teacher who instructs his followers to look within themselves for the truth. These texts promise salvation through enlightenment, not through faith and repentance. Their Jesus is not the fully human and fully divine Savior and there is no bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Were these writings found at Nag Hammadi evidence of the fact that the early church opposed and attempted to eliminate what it understood to be false teachings? Of course. That is what the church said it was doing and what the Apostles called upon the church to do. The believing church did not see heresy as an irritation — it saw heterodoxy as spiritual death. Those arguing for the superiority of the Gnostic texts deny the divine inspiration of the New Testament and prefer the heterodox teachings of the Gnostic heretics. Hauntingly, the worldview of the ancient Gnostics is very similar, in many respects, to various worldviews and spiritualities around us today.

The energy behind all this is directed to the replacement of orthodox Christianity, its truth claims, its doctrines, its moral convictions, and its vision of both history and eternity with a secularized — indeed, Gnositicized — new version.

Just look at the attention this tiny fragment of papyrus has garnered. Its few words and broken phrases are supposed to cast doubt on the New Testament and the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. A tiny little fragment which, even if authentically from the fourth century, is placed over against the four New Testament Gospels, all written within decades of Jesus’ earthy ministry.
“The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife?” Not hardly. This is sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. Nevertheless, do not miss what all this really represents — an effort to replace biblical Christianity with an entirely new faith.



How to Think About the Embassy Violence

How to Think About the Embassy Violence

 

Kevin DeYoung|11:47 am CT

NOTE: I’ve made several changes to this post from earlier this afternoon. Unlike professional journalists or media outlets I am not equipped to follow a breaking story like this throughout the day. Thus, some of the information in the original post was in need of qualification or correction. In particular, three points:

• The attacks in Libya may have been preplanned and coordinated for the 9/11 anniversary. The YouTube video may be cover for the premeditated actions which were conceived well before the movie. We don’t know all the details yet.
• Terry Jones involvement may be little more than a lurching for the spotlight after things began to escalate. This “pastor” should not be given more credit than he deserves.
• It’s become clearer to me after I first published my post that the remarks from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo came before the attacks in Libya and before the full scale protests arose in Egypt. This puts the “cowardly” comments in a different light. Even if observers think they were too apologetic (which is probably why the White House didn’t want anything to do with them), they should be seen in their proper context. The previous iteration of this post was too quick to cast a harsh judgment, when a more judicious criticism (or saying nothing at all) was in order.

I’ve decided to keep the bulk of the post the same because I think the overarching points are still valid. The tensions between the West and radical Islam are worth commenting on. The big picture problem is not going away, but as a pastor I’m not in a good position to comment on all the specific issues in real time. Lesson learned.

******

What we are seeing unfold is terrible, uncalled for, and has to stop. All the way around.
The U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three embassy staff were killed by al-Qaeda linked gunmen in a raid on the consulate building in Benghazi. Meanwhile, in neighboring Egypt thousands of protesters tore down an American flag, burned it, and raised a black Muslim flag in its place. Reportedly, the reason for this international upheaval is a video on YouTube which criticizes Islam and mocks the prophet Mohammad (though increasingly it seems the 9/11 anniversary may have more to do with the violence). The film was reportedly produced by an Israeli-American property developer and has been promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones.
Everything about this ordeal is monumentally unfortunate and unnecessary.

Let’s start with Terry Jones. I wrote about him two years ago when he threatened to burn the Koran (a stunt he dropped and then later carried out). What I said then I’ll say again now: Jones’ actions are stupid and selfish. He puts American troops at risk, American dignitaries at risk, and American church workers around the world at risk. He certainly knows how to get attention. But he doesn’t seem to know how to make a difference for the good of the gospel, or even the good of his country. And as for the video, by all all accounts its depiction of Islam is unsophisticated, undignified, and unwise.

However insulting and detrimental Jones and others like him can be, however, the response of the gunmen in Libya is positively deplorable. To murder an ambassador over a YouTube video–or even over the pretense of a video–is wicked and evil. As I also pointed out two years ago, Muslim extremism cannot be laid at the feet of Western aggravation. No pastor or cartoonist or novelist is responsible for the outrage and violence carried out by some extremists Muslims and by terrorist-affiliated groups. Some may tempted to say, “Well, who can blame them when their prophet or holy book is desecrated.” But we can still blame them, and we ought to. Jesus is mocked in a thousand public ways every day in this country (and in most countries). This is wrong and deeply offensive to Christians. But it gives us no right to riot and threaten and murder. Every Christian should agree that killing people is not an acceptable response to religious offense. Every human being with a little common grace and a functioning conscience should agree with this principle. Muslims included.
This incident underscores one of the most significant challenges facing the Western world in our day. Will peoples who believe in free speech and freedom of religion sacrifice both when faced with the angry shouts and gunfire of those who don’t? As long as top ranking officials plead with crazy pastors every time they are itching to be annoying, the aggravating people among us will wield astronomically more power than they deserve. Citizens in this country have freedom of speech, which means they have the right to be annoying. Our authorities ought to protect that right, no matter whom they offend, including Muslims. No country can apologize (nor should they try to apologize) every time one or ten or three hundred of her citizens do something outrageous.

We don’t yet know all the details of who, what, and why. And, no doubt, we haven’t heard the last word on the matter from our government or our politicians. But we should not hesitate to restate and defend our first principles. In a democracy people are allowed to say and create things others don’t like. What they can’t do is perpetuate crimes that are deplorably wicked and violent. To act like the former offense is the real problem and not the latter is a foreign policy blunder, not to mention a moral one.

Pastor Greg Boyd Owes AiG a Public Apology!

Published on September 9, 2012 in Around AiG and Current Issues in the World.

 

On my Facebook page recently, I responded to a blog post written by Pastor Greg Boyd, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. You can read that Facebook post at this link.
Pastor Boyd specifically mentioned my name and that of our Answers in Genesis ministry as a whole in regard to our position on the book of Genesis. He said that he believed the impact AiG was having would be "disastrous for the church in America."

Now, Pastor Boyd can certainly have his opinions about what we believe at AiG and our impact, and I have commented on those things in the Facebook post. But in one sentence, Pastor Boyd clearly crossed the line and falsely accused us about what we teach regarding the gospel. Frankly, I believe this pastor owes us a public apology and needs to immediately retract this false statement. A Christian who bears false witness must do this.
Here is what Pastor Boyd wrote:

I instead just celebrate the fact that there are thoughtful Christians who embrace science and who wrestle with scientific and theological issues from the inside of the Christian faith instead of requiring people to declare war on science as a precondition to entering the kingdom.

Because he named me personally (and also Answers in Genesis) in his commentary, Pastor Boyd, in the context of his blog post, is leaving no doubt this his statement about the gospel refers to us. (I have asked several people to weigh in on this, and they all agree with my assessment.)
Also, I vehemently disagree with his implication that AiG is in a "war on science," and we've written many responses to such a false claim before (and I point out that we employ several staff with earned doctorates, and who practice and enjoy science). But here is where Pastor Boyd has really crossed the line, stating that "requiring people to declare a war on science [is] a precondition to entering the kingdom."

In the Christian world, "entering the kingdom" means becoming a Christian-eternal salvation.
Boyd's accusation that taking a certain approach to science is a "precondition to entering the kingdom" is accusing us of preaching a false gospel.

I checked the website of Woodland Hills Church and read its Statement of Faith. It seems to me that as far as the gospel is concerned, the church is orthodox. So I would never accuse Pastor Boyd, even though he disagrees with our stand on Genesis, of saying that people have to agree with his views on Genesis and science to enter the Kingdom of God! If he preaches the gospel as outlined in the church's Statement of Faith (regardless of any other areas we may disagree about), then I have no doubt people would be saved through his ministry as the salvation message is preached in his church.
Now, if Pastor Boyd were to check AiG's Statement of Faith and also read our blogs and articles on the AiG website, he would find that we preach the same gospel. Nowhere-I mean nowhere-have we ever tied anything related to science or one's views on Genesis as a "precondition to entering the kingdom." Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. Certainly we take a very strong stand on a literal Genesis, but we never tie our stand on a young earth, six days, global Flood, etc. to a "precondition to entering the kingdom."

Let me be even more clear: We wholeheartedly embrace these passages of Scripture:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8; emphasis added).
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).
In fact, here are some blog posts and articles we've written about this very issue:

• Is "Belief in a Young Earth the Only Way to Salvation"?
• Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?
• Does the Gospel Rise or Fall on the Days of Creation?

Pastor Boyd's anti-AiG statement is clearly one that defames us in the Christian world. He has no evidence that we tie a view of science to entering the kingdom and receiving salvation.
Again, Pastor Boyd can disagree with us all he wants about Genesis-that's between him and the Lord! But he can't in good conscience falsely accuse us in regard to what we teach about the gospel.

Christian Values Cannot Save Anyone

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 - by Al Mohler

A recent letter to columnist Carolyn Hax of The Washington Post seemed straightforward enough. “I am a stay-at-home mother of four who has tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with,” the woman writes. “Therefore I was shocked when my oldest daughter, ‘Emily,’ suddenly announced she had ‘given up believing in God’ and decided to ‘come out’ as an atheist.”

 

The idea of a 16-year-old atheist in the house would be enough to alarm any Christian parent, and rightly so. The thought that a secular advice columnist for The Washington Post might be the source of help seems very odd, but desperation can surely lead a parent to seek help almost anywhere.

You usually get what you expect from an advice columnist like this — therapeutic counsel based in a secular worldview and a deep commitment to personal autonomy. Carolyn Hax responds to this mother with an admonition to respect the integrity of her daughter’s declaration of non-belief. She adds, “Parents can and should teach their beliefs and values, but when a would-be disciple stops believing, it’s not a ‘decision’ or ‘choice’ to ‘reject’ church or family or tradition or virtue or whatever else has hitched a cultural ride with faith.”

 

That is patent nonsense, of course. Declarations of adolescent unbelief often are exactly what Hax argues they are not: rejections of “church or family or tradition or virtue.” Hax does offer some legitimate insights, suggesting that honesty is to be preferred to dishonesty and that such adolescent statements are often indications of a phase of intellectual questioning or just trying on a personality for style.

 

Hax then tells this distraught mother that she “didn’t throw out what my childhood, including my church, taught me; I still apply what I believe in. I just apply it to a secular life.” In other words, Hax asserts that she maintains many of the values she learned as a child in church, and simply applies these values now to a secular life.

 

“How can I help my daughter see that she is making a serious mistake with her life if she chooses to reject her God and her faith?,” the mother asks. Hax tells the mother to accept the daughter’s atheism and get over her “disappointment that she isn’t turning out just as you envisioned.”

What else would you expect a secular columnist who operates from a secular worldview to say?

The real problem does not lie with Carolyn Hax’s answer, however, but with the mother’s question. The problem appears at the onset, when the mother states that she has “tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with.”

 

Christian values are the problem. Hell will be filled with people who were avidly committed to Christian values. Christian values cannot save anyone and never will. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a Christian value, and a comfortability with Christian values can blind sinners to their need for the gospel.

 

This one sentence may not accurately communicate this mother’s understanding, but it appears to be perfectly consistent with the larger context of her question and the source of the advice she sought.

Parents who raise their children with nothing more than Christian values should not be surprised when their children abandon those values. If the child or young person does not have a firm commitment to Christ and to the truth of the Christian faith, values will have no binding authority, and we should not expect that they would. Most of our neighbors have some commitment to Christian values, but what they desperately need is salvation from their sins. This does not come by Christian values, no matter how fervently held. Salvation comes only by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Human beings are natural-born moralists, and moralism is the most potent of all the false gospels. The language of “values” is the language of moralism and cultural Protestantism — what the Germans called Kulturprotestantismus. This is the religion that produces cultural Christians, and cultural Christianity soon dissipates into atheism, agnosticism, and other forms of non-belief. Cultural Christianity is the great denomination of moralism, and far too many church folk fail to recognize that their own religion is only cultural Christianity — not the genuine Christian faith.

 

The language of values is all that remains when the substance of belief disappears. Tragically, many churches seem to perpetuate their existence by values, long after they abandon the faith.

We should not pray for Christian morality to disappear or for Christian values to evaporate. We should not pray to live in Sodom or in Vanity Fair. But a culture marked even by Christian values is in desperate need of evangelism, and that evangelism requires the knowledge that Christian values and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same thing.

 

I pray that this young woman and her mother find common hope and confidence in the salvation that comes only through Christ — not by Christian values. Otherwise, we are facing far more than a young woman “making a serious mistake with her life.” We are talking about what matters for eternity. Christian values cannot save anyone.