I was too busy to maintain one blog, not to mention two. I was required, as a rite of passage for a writer, to have a web page devoted to me as a writer and my book. Now that I have created that space, I will link it here. Once on the front page, you can go under the menu for the blog continuation of this place. So, go here.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Key Words: Post-evangelical, disillusionment with Christianity, spiritual abuse, Christian Dualism, Francis Schaeffer, Christian Decision Making, Honesty and Christianity
Mount Baker, Washington
God's Glorious Creation
Seeing the entire universe, the seen and the unseen, as all part of God's wonderful creation.
Popular Posts
Search This Blog
Key Words
Key Words: Post-evangelical, disillusionment with Christianity, spiritual abuse, Christian Dualism, Francis Schaeffer, Christian Decision Making, Honesty and Christianity
Interesting Articles
Organizations/Conferences
Interesting Books
Blog Archive
Ramsey and Mike Mountaineering
Mount Baker, Washington
What A Christian Monist Believes
A Christian Monist is simply a nudging of the mainstream Evangelicalism back towards it Biblical-philosophical roots, which we think is Monistic rather than Dualistic.
This may sound complicated but it is not. Scripture says that God created man, woman, the creatures and the cosmos . . . then said it was good. Yes the Fall did happen, tainting this world (and ourselves) but it didn't decimate the cosmos, rendering it as totally worthless or even evil.
The old Dualist (such as the Gnostics, which influenced the early church) believed that this physical world is evil. They also believed that Satan is the Lord of the darkness, juxtaposed, to God the Lord of the world of light (and the forces were almost equal). C.S. Lewis disagreed with this view, stating that evil was a lowly parasite in the shadows of God’s wonderfully created world.
The practical implications of this change in perspective is immense and we believe accounts for almost all that ails modern, American Evangelicalism. These implications are too many to discuss here, but to mention a few examples.
American Evangelicalism, which had been greatly influenced by forms of Dualism, from Zoroaster to Plato and others, sees things in black vs. white. The spiritual (invisible) is superior to the seen (the physical cosmos). So to an Evangelical, everything is divided between the spiritual vs. worldly and is almost along altitudinal lines. The earth, our physical bodies, art (especially art by non-Christians), emotions, our brains (eg. psychology) . . . all are inferior to the unseen spiritual.
Therefore Evangelicals believe that events must be understood by their unseen forces or they have no value. In other words, Aunt Martha’s cancer wasn’t caused by a cell mutating but by Satan’s attack. Her cancer wasn’t cured by the smart doctors who developed chemotherapy but only by a “super-natural” hand of God.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Evangelicalism has become very dishonest in places and the younger people (both within and without the church) often see it as a farce. I feel very passionate about this because 85% of children, reared within the Evangelical church, leave it before they are 25. Evangelicalism is on the wrong path. They see the great evil as humanism or evolution. The real great evil (and many young people have told me this) is the phoniness withing the church.
This may sound complicated but it is not. Scripture says that God created man, woman, the creatures and the cosmos . . . then said it was good. Yes the Fall did happen, tainting this world (and ourselves) but it didn't decimate the cosmos, rendering it as totally worthless or even evil.
The old Dualist (such as the Gnostics, which influenced the early church) believed that this physical world is evil. They also believed that Satan is the Lord of the darkness, juxtaposed, to God the Lord of the world of light (and the forces were almost equal). C.S. Lewis disagreed with this view, stating that evil was a lowly parasite in the shadows of God’s wonderfully created world.
The practical implications of this change in perspective is immense and we believe accounts for almost all that ails modern, American Evangelicalism. These implications are too many to discuss here, but to mention a few examples.
American Evangelicalism, which had been greatly influenced by forms of Dualism, from Zoroaster to Plato and others, sees things in black vs. white. The spiritual (invisible) is superior to the seen (the physical cosmos). So to an Evangelical, everything is divided between the spiritual vs. worldly and is almost along altitudinal lines. The earth, our physical bodies, art (especially art by non-Christians), emotions, our brains (eg. psychology) . . . all are inferior to the unseen spiritual.
Therefore Evangelicals believe that events must be understood by their unseen forces or they have no value. In other words, Aunt Martha’s cancer wasn’t caused by a cell mutating but by Satan’s attack. Her cancer wasn’t cured by the smart doctors who developed chemotherapy but only by a “super-natural” hand of God.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Evangelicalism has become very dishonest in places and the younger people (both within and without the church) often see it as a farce. I feel very passionate about this because 85% of children, reared within the Evangelical church, leave it before they are 25. Evangelicalism is on the wrong path. They see the great evil as humanism or evolution. The real great evil (and many young people have told me this) is the phoniness withing the church.
Evangelical Church Exit Interview--Fictional, but Possible
God's Glorious Creation
Genesis 1:31 (New International Version) 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
5 comments:
Nice to see you back! Congratulations on your book; that's quite an accomplishment!
Good to see you blogging again! I regularly checked to see if there was something new. I will definitely buy and read your book!
Johan
That is kind of you. I hope everyone is doing well.
Mike
Tried to leave a comment on your new blog, but it apparently didn't take.
Are you still at the same email address as when we used to correspond a couple years back? If so (or if not), send me an acknowledgment at my addy.
Sorry it didn't take. Was that here at this blog as apparently your comment took. Yes, I think I still have the same e-mail address.
Post a Comment