06/21/2006: I don’t agree with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler on everything. However, most of my disagreements with Al Mohler have less to do with orthodoxy and more to do with orthopraxy.
In his latest blog, he assesses the Presbyterian Church (USA) regarding its accommodation of revising the Trinity. This week, the 217th General Assembly of the PCUSA “received” and commended a study regarding the Trinity, called The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing.
Who could possibly object to a study with an innocuous name like that?
Sadly, rather than accept what God has handed us via the Scriptures, the PCUSA–and its fellow liberals in tow–has taken it upon themselves to reinvent the Faith on their own terms (or allow others to define it on their own terms).
I don’t know what the PCUSA folks are smoking–whatever it is, I want it–but they seem to forget that Christians are a people of the Book. When you decide that the Truth is whatever the heck you want it to be, then none of Jesus’ teachings–even the ones the liberals enjoy–make any sense whatsoever.
If you strike out John 14:6, in which Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me”, then why should we accept His teachings about who is one’s neighbor (the basis for the Good Samaritan parable), or His receiving repentant sinners (the basis for the parables of the Lost Coin, Lost Sheep, and Lost (Prodigal) Son)?
If Jesus’ teachings on Father, Son, and Holy Spirit–there is no place in which Jesus refers to a member of the Trinity as “mother” or “rainbow” or “ark” or dove”–are obsolete, then what about any of his acts of compassion? Why are they not fair game for revionist redaction?
As Mohler states so clearly, God does name Himself in Scripture. Last time I checked, the name is YHWH. When Jesus teaches, He refers to “your Father in heaven”, even making the analogy with earthly fathers. He also teaches regarding the Holy Spirit, and refers to Himself as the Son.
Why is that archaic? Why revise on that? While there are many qualities and roles that God plays in Scripture, why trash Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Mohler realizes that this is the work of feminist theology, which is little more than old-fashioned Paganism with a quasi-Christian spin. Feminists cannot communicate their theology with the Bible as-is, and therefore the language must be adapted.
This is why–when I was at Southern–there was a significant struggle over inclusive language with respect to the Scriptures. (For the record: I am opposed to rewriting Scripture on such terms. Jesus shattered many paradigms during his time in flesh and blood. If He wanted to shatter that paradigm and promote inclusive language, He would have done that too.) A discussion regarding women in the ministry was synonymous with feminist theology. You could not discuss one without the other.
The takeaway is that feminist theologians–who are practically running the PCUSA and the Episcopalians–are in a full-court press to reinvent the Christian Faith, even rewriting the Bible on their terms.
Christians are a People of the Book, and feminist theologians know this. That is why they are trying to rewrite the Scriptures: it is their ticket to hijacking Christianity.
The PCUSA, the Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ are promoting a “social gospel” that involves a nebulous, Pagan, New Age spirituality, which makes a radical departure from the work of Jesus according to the Scriptures. That includes the virgin birth, the miracles, the teachings, the rebukes, the healings, and–yes!–the physical death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven.
An old friend of mine from my days at Southern, who is a PCUSA minister, is trying to get his congregation to bolt the PCUSA and enter fellowship with the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) for the very reasons that Mohler and I are stating.
Mohler is spot-on here.