"E Pluribus Unum"

Last night I wrote a piece I called “E Pluribus Unum”, and planned to post it this morning. Prior to posting it, though, I saw a blog article by Chuck Colson on Townhall with the same title. In his "E Pluribus Unum", Colson makes the same point I’ve made, and points to another author (Robert Putnam) with the same concept in an article entitled “Bowling Alone”. Here is my treatise on the glorification of “Diversity” to add to what they have said.

In our church we often hear, “We celebrate diversity”. We come from many denominations in addition to Baptist—and we even come from a variety of Baptist backgrounds. Our recent survey showed that only about 60% of the respondents grew up in Baptist churches.

In the Sunday School class my wife and I teach the results were even more dramatic. One Sunday I took an informal poll. Out of 21 present that day, two grew up in American Baptist churches, four in Southern Baptist, and one Independent Baptist. The other two-thirds of the class were from Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic , and various other backgrounds.

We are diverse in age as well, although in recent years skewing more toward an older demographic. With almost half of the respondents in that survey claiming membership for twenty years or more, it is inevitable that the membership would be ageing.

Theologically we see a lot of diversity. That is understandable given the wide range of religious backgrounds of our members. Although the majority is moderate to conservative in its beliefs about Jesus, the Bible, and salvation, a sizeable minority is fairly liberal. For example only 74% said they believe the resurrection was an actual event.

I could cite other areas of diversity, but the point is clear—we are a diverse congregation. That seems to be the major factor in establishing our corporate identity for some. In a presentation by our Pulpit committee, a tentative theme mentioned unity in Christ, but emphasized and elaborated on our diversity and the latitude we extend to others to pursue their own spiritual journey.

The tentative theme has some appropriate elements, but a shift of emphasis would make it more biblical. Going back to the “We celebrate diversity” statement, a more biblical approach would be, “We welcome diversity. We celebrate unity in Christ.”

We have diversity. That’s a given. The more we emphasize our differences, though, the more difficult it will be to come together to both call a new pastor and move forward towards a unified mission goal.

After all, in John 17 Jesus did not say, “I pray that they may all be diverse”. He said, “I pray that they may all be one…even as you and I are one.” (from John 17: 21,22).

If we are truly disciples, or followers, of Jesus Christ, let’s work toward the answer to His prayer. We do that, not by emphasizing diversity, but by focusing on what unifies us. From many different and very diverse backgrounds comes one unity in Christ.

The Abduction of Churches?

In the Summer 2007 issue of City Journal Heather Mac Donald writes about The Abduction of Opera. (Read the whole article, but be warned, the language explicitly describes the vile and base extent to which European, and some American, opera directors have taken classical opera.) The vivid description of what some have done to Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, Strauss, and others is necessary to show how low some will go to elevate their opinion above that of the genius of a former era.

Mac Donald’s last three sentences in the article are especially worth noting, “But Gelb should remember that he is the guardian of a tradition that generations have built. That tradition approaches the magnificent works of the past with love and humility, recognizing our debt to them. The Met will remain a vital New York and world institution for another century if it allows those works to speak for themselves.”

In addition, the article shows the end result of Postmodernism on popular culture. All the past is irrelevant; only my own experience today matters. What someone in the Enlightenment (i.e. “modern”) period thought or intended when they wrote music, or an opera, or a play takes second place to what we think today. We must transform the message as well as the medium in order to appeal to today’s audience.

This is exactly the problem churches face today. Churches have to decide whether to appeal to this generation by using different technology (such as PowerPoint projections on a screen above the pulpit); by changing the worship experience through more contemporary music; and by changing the message of the Gospel to one that is more in line with multiculturalism, moral equivalency, religious pluralism, and diversity politics; or to use whatever technology and methods of presentation are helpful in communicating the one Gospel that has transformed lives and cultures for centuries.

I’ll paraphrase Heather MacDonald’s last three sentences above. But churches should remember that they are the guardian of a tradition that generations have built. That tradition approaches the magnificent gospel message of the past with love and humility, recognizing our debt to it. Churches will remain a vital American and world institution for the future if they allow that message to speak for itself.

There is a reason that certain Christian denominations in the U.S. have been on a steady decline for the past two or three decades while others are growing. Trends and political themes come and go. The traditional message appeals to the felt needs of people, regardless of to which generational group they belong. Changing the message may be trendy in some circles, but changing the core of the Gospel message leaves it hollow, shallow, and ineffective. Churches today that do well follow Paul’s example in saying, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16 NIV)

Moral Equivalency at CNN

Check out this example of what is called "moral equivalency". Is it really true that some people think that there is no difference between Christian "fundamentalists" and Islamist "fundamentalists"?

The article is a post on PowerlineBlog "Fundamentally Flawed"

"On Tuesday evening, CNN will debut a three-part series called God's Warriors. The series, devoted to an examination of "religious fundamentalism," is created and hosted by Christiane Amanpour; the first segment, to be aired Tuesday, is called "Jewish Warriors;" Wednesday's show is "Muslim Warriors," followed by "Christian Warriors" on Thursday.
While these three topics are treated as though they were on a par, there are some obvious distinctions. Like, the Christian "warriors" are home-schooling their children, while the Muslim "warriors" are blowing people up. If this Associated Press account is accurate, CNN's series is devoted to obfuscating such obvious differences rather than elucidating them."