Pop Christianity


I am pleased to report that many people of my acquaintance, pastors and teachers in various denominations, are speaking out against lightweight, cheap grace, thoughtlessly feel-good Christian sentimentality, and against the moral lawlessness that frequently accompanies a gospel of all sunshine and lollypops.

A gospel that speaks as if the Christian life is free of trials and torments and troubles makes me wonder just how that is even slightly plausible, but there is an answer of sorts in Hebrews 12:7-8.



via http://www.whatisthegospel.org.uk/

A related ill in the church world is thinking that it is not nice or proper to talk much about our trials. That idea is all wrong--we should talk more about our trials. If we do not tell others what is going on with us, we may lead other people who have troubles in life to think their problems are somehow new and different, despite 1 Peter 4:12-13. It is not quite a matter of misery loving company, more a matter of helping others to steer clear of wrong ideas about the things we go through. Talking openly about our trials threatens the narrative of those who want to paint too rosy a picture. That is not a reason to keep quiet. It is a good reason to speak up.

The really sinister side of the distorted feel-good gospel is that it leads people facing trials to doubt God: his goodness or even his existence. It is not a gospel that stands up under severe testing. It leads quite naturally to what I have dubbed the 'bad daddy argument.'

Of course, the problem all this poses for unity among the churches is a straightforward one. The flawed gospel held by feel-good Christians cannot be fully harmonized with the gospel that has us exposed to all sorts of difficulties. One or the other view of God is false, the one making God responsible for seeing to it that we are always comfortable and happy, or the other promising us quite the reverse.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more