“His second argument is that these churches, while not necessarily preaching the gospel, do provide moral guidance for living, and money given to charities that helps the poor and needy. The most important loss is the loss of the social “gospel” endeavors of the mainline denominations.” - P&D
- About
- Forum
- Account
Discussion
NewYes and no
Is it necessarily true that a false gospel is worse than no gospel? What if the two are about equally bad? Then the debate is really about whether vaguely theistic and moralistic religion is more helpful to society than no religion at all.
This is complicated by the fact that the mainline denominations have become champions of the social left. So, as an abstract, it seems like vaguely theistic and moralistic religion is better than none, but on the ground… it’s not so clear that it works that way.
So I’m not sure who’s right on that question.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewIt's a mixed bag
I have had occasion to attend services at theologically liberal denominations from time to time, and I've got mixed reactions to this. On one hand, it's entirely appropriate to mourn the fact that in these same buildings, the Gospel used to be preached. On another level, there is the reality that, especially in Anglican/Methodist churches, they hear a lot of Scripture, even if they don't believe it. His Word will not return void, no? It's also sad to contemplate physical and spiritual capital wasted.
The one thing that strikes me as terribly dangerous is the same "social gospel" that Schaal notes; does it really help, or does it actually serve to inoculate people to the Gospel?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.