Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

"Except make me fat, angry, and rich... to the tune of $300 million worldwide!"

Thoughts?

Does the death of one of the biggest pop cultural icon of all time mean anything?

This past weekend about a 100 or so of the nation's biggest talkers converged on a secret underground location in Manhattan Friday and Saturday. Last year when I attended the conference all Xtreme Media had in hand was a "demo tape" and hopes that we might just be able to someday be able to imagine having a show.

This year and 197 stations later... it was lots of fun to return to the premiere event for those of us in the talk radio industry. What follows is a ten minute highlight of what went down...

In the last couple of weeks, I've received continual e-mail and facebook pleas of urgency to address the "Coming Evangelical Collapse." Written by a blogger who found the good graces of the Christian Science Monitor to reproduce his piece, Spencer has issued an essay that has at minimum created a wide range of discussion within Christianity and at worst has taken a near perverse delight in one man's imaginative reinvention of what the reality of Biblio-centric Christianity will be destroyed by.

Prior to reading the piece for the first time I had never read anything previously written by Spencer so my observations to the piece early on came merely from my exposure to his essay.

And they were not generous...

His vision of near complete destruction of Biblio-centric Christianity is one that begs a central question. What was or is his motive in foreseeing what he claims to have seen. With reckless precision he states that in a decade that evangelical Christianity will be as dead as the mainline denominational churches.

Spencer however refuses to elaborate any perspective on why mainline churches died.

He also then descends into a mixed bag of rationale as to why evangelicals would follow suit.

There is plenty to discuss in those two points alone. But then he descends from bad to worse. As the essay progresses I find myself not wanting to acknowledge the legitimate observations that he makes that I feel are valid, because the overreach on the elements that seem unexplained and yet asserted seem to be so harsh.

He then concludes the essay with one of the least definitive assertions ever made, "the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential."

As I've reread the piece and some of the ensuing blog entries on his site I've come to a fundamental conclusion. Michael Spencer is a man with a confused perspective.

He criticizes the mega-church for its pragmatism and sense of commercialism, but he devotes an entire blog post (since the popularity of his essay) to a hard solicit for advertising for his site. Of course its hard to secure that without traffic. And I have to think that this rubbing the hands, licking the lips and predicting the end of the evangelical age has helped in that department. (Sure enough, I just checked with Alexa and the iMonk's traffic has been slightly higher since his prediction of Biblio-centric Christian demise.)

But not only is his perspective confused, his motives certainly seem to be questionable.

Since reading the essay, I've asked a number of respected Christian leaders, some from the local pastorate all the way to national ministry types. The universal similarity in all of their responses was, quite simply, what is his motivation?

One pastor from what would arguably be considered a medium sized church:

Another national ministry leader candidly told me over breakfast:

Another observation was returned to me along these lines:

It seems that everyone can get find something to agree and disagree with. Kevin your feeling that you had much to agree with and some to disagree with seems to be an across the board sentiment. I am not sure that this makes his assertions stronger.

On that point I strongly agree, throwing in one or two points that are fairly obvious to everyone lends no credence to a handful of rhetorical hand grenades.

One last pastoral thought:

The emergent person is going to agree that we have been too connected to political movements. The reformed person is going to say that we are not training our children correctly. The Pentecostal will feel both encouraged and dissed since he said they have great potential but need to be careful about heresy. When you say the mega churches will compromise, liberal churches will die and emergent churches will fade almost everyone is going to agree and disagree. I think that is why I found myself wondering what his point is.

So what are my reactions to the iMonk's ravings and the salacious effect it has on everyone in America that is already hoping for the evangelical's demise?

"So what..."

For the points that the iMonk can make that we need to do a better of job to teach the next generation better theology, stronger appreciation for the text of scripture, and the soundness of the doctrine of our local congregations... I ask him, "what are you doing?"

I know that regularly I am all too much of a pain in the backside of my teaching pastors for speaking out, and up, in defense of these important "legacy" ideas.

Fine, the church has work to do, so get to work...

But for the fear, and trepidation that iMonk litters throughout the essay, and much of his post essay blogging, the biggest point I keep coming back to is... "so how then are you living?"

If the cataclysmic end to Biblio-centric Christianity is just around the corner's bend it will only come from one source... sin taking root in the lives of the faithful.

Thus the solution becomes really, very very obvious doesn't it?

Live more obediently. Love more purposefully. Represent more truthfully.

These are not difficult concepts. They are only tough hurdles to approach because of the nature within us to not do the tough work of reflection, repentence, and response (in genuine gratitude) for what the God of the universe did on our behalf.

To that end, if the iMonk is merely attempting to push the church into greater obedience, love, and witness... I'm just not all that sure it was all that effective based on the discussions I'm seeing happen all around me.

And if his motives were anything less... then his entire premise should be repudiated or ignored. Life is too short, and there is too much work to be done for the provocative hopes of profit from the demise of our beliefs.

A Biblical sentiment comes to mind.

"God will not establish what He does not also sustain."

"And on this ROCK..."

The Times of London publishes today one of the more ludicrous pieces ever claimed by a "conventional Christian." It hails 2009 as the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, and the 150th anniversary of his work Origin of the Species.

Michael Reiss is the author and his biography according to the column's slug is Professor of Science Education and Assistant Director at the Institute of Education, University of London, and a priest in the Church of England.

Odd...

His emphasis in the piece is to attempt to claim that Darwin's unproven theory somehow deepens Christian faith (his brand of it anyway...)

His main argument of support for marrying the two is focus on the "decentering" of humanity (as distinct and of more value than animals) and of the "upcentering" of animals (bringing them closer on par with humanity in terms of moral value).

His primary quote that he pulls for support of this "Darwin deepening faith" sham is from Richard Dawkins--an avowed Atheist.

And his conclusion, as is often the case with elitist academics, is to reject the scriptural text.

It might also be pointed out that with the previously mentioned four points of worldview one can claim Christianity AND simultaneously claim evolution, abortion rights (because human life is not distinct from animals), the rejection of God, AND assert that the Bible is wholly unnecessary for guidance in life's questions.

The problem was and is today that Darwin was a fraud, his theory is yet unproven, and with the exception of "evolutionary process" being able to change existing species, there has never since Darwin's theory was openly stated been the creation of a species that did not previously exist. And so says this Berkley professor of science...

This should be reason enough for American schools to open up the science debate in the classrooms of today to allow analytical criticism of Darwin's theory.

But by continuing to teach Darwin as gospel, the academic community can continue to also open up doubts as to the validity of scripture, and of scripture's God. "Christians" that do so can argue away sin, the foundation of reconciliation - Jesus Christ, and ultimately the need for repentance, forgiveness and salvation.

And they do so knowingly...