Allow me to offer some brief responses in the order you make comment.
My reference to Barth was not clear. Like you, I think Barth was one of the great theologians of the last century, though to say so is to condemn by faint praise. “The wound inflicted by Barth almost a 100 years ago” is a reference to the publication of the Epistle to the Romans, which has famously been described as dropping a bomb on the playground of the theologians – Liberal theologians (who else was playing?). Barth’s critique has held up, I believe, and Liberalism as an unchastened theological enterprise is complete – dead some would say. And this century is an exercise in watching how far the corpse will walk.
You ask when was the last time I graced the doors of a liberal church. I believe I was ordained in one — the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I have never second-guessed that call and decision. I believe I work within one part of it that is better described as liberal than not — the Presbytery of Chicago. I do so gladly.
You state that if I had experience of liberal churches, I would find the preaching to be merely a difference of pronunciation. I do not. I judge liberal preaching to be somewhat weak in Biblical exposition, opinionated, even idiosyncratic, and generally getting in the way of letting God’s Word do God’s work — much like much of the evangelical preaching I witness.
Unlike you, I find in the different locations a different gospel preached — when a gospel is preached at all. “You are OK just as you are” is not the equivalent of justification by faith. Tillich has not persuaded everyone.
Attending to Scripture is our best corrective in this controversy.
Wisely you turn to Acts 10 – 15. Here you note, even celebrate, a multifaceted interpretation of the faith in the Council of Jerusalem as characteristic of the early church. I note a unanimous decision based on and authorized by Scripture for the sake of the unity of the church. You note the absence of an insistence on obeying the Law. I note a clear insistence on abstaining from idols, sexual immorality, and foods that break the fellowship between Jew and Gentile.
You seem not to be content with agreeing to disagree on these matters. You want me to grasp it. Neither am I content to agree to disagree. I want us both to get it, believing that interpretation is one and application is many. We have quit too soon on the project of mutual discernment of the Spirit’s teaching, and the once valued practice of sustained committed conversation in the midst of controversy with the Scriptures as the sole arbiter.
You think the difference between the Right and the Left is a difference of emphasis on salvation and sanctification, respectively. I’ll need to think about that. It is not obvious to me. I think the difference in our approaches to the presenting issue of the day is often one of truth and justice, respectively. Would you think about that?
You openly wonder and seem to presume a negative answer to whether evangelicals ever cry against sins other than the practice of homosexuality and abortion. For all the faults of evangelicals I believe I can answer that we see sin broadly as do you. I have been preaching for 30 years and, in a sermon, have mentioned homosexuality and abortion each once. Once. Idolatry (of self), preferred gods (material goods and comforts), bearing false witness against neighbor (class and ethnic bias), and (yes) adultery are cried against more often in my preaching.
It’s not the sense of sin’s breadth that divides evangelicals from liberals, I think, but the depth. I am convinced that I am desperately in need of a Savior. So deeply rooted is my sin — in my soul, my manner, my self — that only my Creator can save me from it. The Son, in eternal union with the Father and the Spirit, is that Savior. No other would be sufficient. When I hear from some in the church that one may find salvation by following the light of their own religion, I believe a false hope has been offered. One that damns. Indeed, I do not believe one can be saved by following the light of Christian religion. One is saved by the one Savior whom God has provided. No other is needed. And for the life of me, I cannot fathom why another would be sought. This one is beautiful and wonderful, filled with grace.
All the above is the critique of the Liberal Protestant Church in America by Niebuhr as cited in my speech, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” I hope I was clear to say that not everyone who calls himself a progressive is guilty of these things, and not everyone who calls herself an evangelical is innocent.
I write this response on an early Friday morning as one hundred homeless men, women, and children slowly leave the church campus after another night of rest, three meals, and medical attention. While some may think screeds on the subjects of homelessness, hunger, and disease are best, and best characterize or measure faithfulness, the poor in our county seem to prefer shelter, food, and clothing. They seem to care that we care. We are honored by the connections with our guests. I have no evidence that evangelicals attend to the poor less obediently than their progressive counterparts, and would be glad to put that statement to the test.
As to my living up to my ordination vows by being a friend to my (progressive) colleagues in ministry, I invite you to interview any member of Chicago Presbytery, the leadership of McCormick Seminary, or any board member of the Covenant Network to get your answer. If your suspicions/accusations are confirmed, let me know that I may amend my ways. If you discover that I have offered (and received) friendship, then perhaps you may want to drop the charge lest you bear false witness against a neighbor.
You note that evangelicals withhold money from PC (USA) causes. I have never advocated this. I note that evangelicals give millions each year to PC(USA) causes and millions more to work that is done by and with other Presbyterians. And I note that amount is growing.
You accuse the evangelicals of damaging the church’s reputation by our combativeness. I suggest that the present two party system in the church is tense, adversarial, and will need to be replaced by something else for the long term health of the church. But I remember what preceded this moment. It was not that people complimented us on our love for another, but simply a one party system — a system in which evangelicals were intentionally and systematically excluded from leadership in the church (yet were expected to pay for it without whimper, of course). Those days are over. You may lament this development (has anyone ever shared power willingly?), but I think it is a step in the right direction.
All this, you say, is about power. Some of it is. But to the extent that it must be, let it be about the power of the Word to bring people to faith, and the power of the Spirit to make us one in that one Faith.
Agreed?
Jerry Andrews is pastor of First Church in Glen Ellyn, Ill., and is the co-moderator of Presbyterian Coalition.
