We do, though. We do.
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
Corinth was in a culture of hubris - pride in the self and what I am.
Just like us today.
Someone during a discussion this week was talking about the clash of the gospel with the accepted attitude in France. "Il ne faut pas se soumettre."
It's the same in Britain and in the USA.
Is that why evangelicalism is so tribal, so completely besotted with the cult of the personality - we accept each other on the basis of which big name preacher is our favourite, so we have to drop hints or quote them or mention them like some kind of badge... Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc...?
Is that why we can never accept anything that just comes from out there - whether it's a ministerial training course, a declaration of faith or an evangelism course - without rewriting it completely? What's that all about ?
In the 1970s there was Berkhof. We were all reformed baptists but we read our Berkhofs and we discussed it together and that was fine. Now there's LOADS of Systematic Theologies and everyone has to write another one - their own particular systematic theology. What's that all about ?
Is evangelicalism really so fragmented ?
Or is it just rampant comsumerism ?
Choice gone mad ?
Or is it another symptom of the cult of the "me" ?
And it's my fault because I really want a systematic theology written by:
a guy who was brought up Anglican
but then became a Reformed Baptist
and who has a strong sensitivity to the heritage of Revival
and a keen heart for evangelical unity
but who "doesn't have a charismatic bone in his body" -
in short by my hero,
who is kind of super-me...
Then I'll have MY brand of evangelicalism all codified - MEvangelicalism - and I can preach it systematically - it'll be almost kind of like preaching myself...
I'll stop now.
I always regret these half-baked rants.
Read this quick because I'll delete it tomorrow !
Corinth was in a culture of hubris - pride in the self and what I am.
Just like us today.
Someone during a discussion this week was talking about the clash of the gospel with the accepted attitude in France. "Il ne faut pas se soumettre."
It's the same in Britain and in the USA.
Is that why evangelicalism is so tribal, so completely besotted with the cult of the personality - we accept each other on the basis of which big name preacher is our favourite, so we have to drop hints or quote them or mention them like some kind of badge... Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc...?
Is that why we can never accept anything that just comes from out there - whether it's a ministerial training course, a declaration of faith or an evangelism course - without rewriting it completely? What's that all about ?
In the 1970s there was Berkhof. We were all reformed baptists but we read our Berkhofs and we discussed it together and that was fine. Now there's LOADS of Systematic Theologies and everyone has to write another one - their own particular systematic theology. What's that all about ?
Is evangelicalism really so fragmented ?
Or is it just rampant comsumerism ?
Choice gone mad ?
Or is it another symptom of the cult of the "me" ?
And it's my fault because I really want a systematic theology written by:
a guy who was brought up Anglican
but then became a Reformed Baptist
and who has a strong sensitivity to the heritage of Revival
and a keen heart for evangelical unity
but who "doesn't have a charismatic bone in his body" -
in short by my hero,
who is kind of super-me...
Then I'll have MY brand of evangelicalism all codified - MEvangelicalism - and I can preach it systematically - it'll be almost kind of like preaching myself...
I'll stop now.
I always regret these half-baked rants.
Read this quick because I'll delete it tomorrow !
Comments
Thanks for the challenge.
The thing that gets me is that I can afix half a dozen if not mmore theological labels to my name (Reformed continuationist (now im just being provocative) baptist, amil..etc)
Surely the more defined I become in what i believe about God the more likely I am to be wrong somewhere. I'm not infallible after all...
It's not where I'm at, but so what...
Definition good. Clarificaton good. Labelling bad. Tribalism bad.
(In my 'umble opinion)