Matt

I lost an earlier reply…don’t know where it went! Newspapers and news magazines have both news reports and news analysis. What I have had to say post-article is analysis. The article itself is a news report, totally factual. I chose neutral and objective language to descibe the facts and only the facts. There is nothing in the article that is factually in error. A serious reading of the Lipscomb website and the “Tennessean” article clearly state the very same facts. The facts remain as they are: 1) A Lipscomb professor received Bible teaching from a non-Christian (Baptists reject the New Testament teaching on the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, in addition to other errors.) 2) Lipscomb chose to not only allow the professor to attend this training, they bragged about it on their web site and allowed its promotion in the “Tennessean.” 3) Lipscomb supports the future re-teaching of misaaplied Scripture (Luke 12:54-56, et al) to both “students and faculty.”

These facts constitute an “unequal yoke with unbelivers.” (II Cor. 6) Before anyone might object to such a characterization, ask and answer these questions: Did our Lord turn over Bible teaching to the Sadducees to whom he said, “ye err not knowing the Scriptures?” Did the Hebrew writer turn over Bible teaching to the Pharisees? Did the apostle John turn over Bible teaching to the Gnostics?

While it is regretful that the university allowed the politiization of one side of a scientific question and the de facto censorship of oppossing views, it is by far more alarming to now know that denominational error has a portal into the minds of Christians on this great Christian campus.

We must constantly “test the spirits” and teach “all things whatsoever Christ commands” in the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles and the Revelation.

God bless you all – Russ

When reporting on the church, theological considerations are of prime importance.

There is no logical way to say that Jesus wants all believers to be unified, and Paul says to speak the same things and be of the same judgment, and still advocate cooperation with denominations.

I am willing to discuss this with you further in private, or public, in any way you choose.

May God bless you in all things according to His will,

Matt

Perhaps I should have read your comment before saying I wouldn’t respond further. I’ll respond anyway, and this will (again) be my final comment on the matter.

I haven’t been interested in addressing the theological position you’ve taken because, even if that position is part the purpose of the article, it is unrelated to my criticism. The interpretation of scripture you present above is, in my view, logically fallacious, especially given Christ’s call for unity (which you reference yourself). I would agree that denominations are not what the Lord intended for the church. However, an interpretation of scripture that suggests we should not cooperate with denominational churches has the ultimate effect of separating the church of Christ like all the other denominations.

Again, this deflects from the criticism I’ve laid out (and breaks my own final-comment promise), but I felt it appropriate to briefly respond to your question.

The over-arching theme of my commentary on this article has been that your diction and presentation of facts is misleading. This remains true, and your previous explanation (regarding the so-called “bully pulpit” and your justification for calling climate activism an “agenda”) about the headline still requires a heavy dose of opinion to arrive at your conclusion. Your last comment, which ignores my criticism entirely in an effort to further discredit Mr. Gore (and indirectly, Lipscomb), makes my criticism even stronger. The editorial leeway you have been given to make your point is simply astounding, especially for an article intended as a news item.

I will not be making any further comments on this article, and I will close with one comment: leaving this article the way it is written (and prominently featured, no less) does a disservice to this publication’s Christian readers and any other web-surfing truth-seekers.

I’m not really interested in politics. I do not believe the church should involve itself in politics. The main thrust that needs to be addressed, in my opinion, is this:

“Yes, it would be wrong for the Lord’s church to join in joint activities with denominations, even for good purposes. To pool resources and work jointly places the Lord’s church and denominations on an equal footing in the eyes of the world. Denominationalism is against Christ’s desire for believers to be one (John 17:21). Since such division is sinful (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3), it would be considered a work of darkness which Christians are to expose, not join in (Eph. 5:11). Scriptures are clear on this matter of religious division.”

Can you show biblical references that show these concepts to be untrue?

What scriptures would you use to justify cooperation with denominations?

If these concepts from the Bible hold, then there is indeed a problem with Lipscomb’s actions, and congregations of the Lord’s church that practice and support similar actions.

The essential fact of this event is that a divisive political movement has been used as a portal to allow a non-christian to overtly teach allegorical & fuller sense interpretations of Scripture to unsuspecting students and faculty. These methods assert that Scripture has “multiple meanings” individually assigned. We know that such is the case because Al Gore himself misapplies Luke 12:54-56 to be a primary text in regards to detrimental climate change. Check it out for yourself:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27293

Origen would be impressed. In truth, Jesus uses an every day example of routine / non-detrimental weather conditions to illustrate the fact that his audience should “discern the times” in order to warn them that “unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

Such interpretive license, as Sen. Gore uses, allows modern day readers to assingn “meanings” to Scripture unknown to either the 1st and 2nd century readers of Luke or even Luke himself! Sen. Gore goes beyond allegorical interpretation and incorporates a “fuller sense” approach in order to conclude that this passage speaks to 21st century climate change.

We also know that “The Climate Project” is part and parcel of a quasi Baptist organization known as the “New Baptist Covenant Celebration.” About 30 Baptist denominations belong, all unhappy with the Southern Baptist Convention. Theologically, they appear to be left of center. Their web site neither asks nor answers the question, “What must I do to be saved?” This, too, you should check out for yourself at:

http://www.newbaptistcelebration.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=142&Itemid=101

What makes all this so urgently important is the fact that those who receive the “teaching” MUST agree to present the material to at least 6 group gatherings within their own “faith community” during the next year. The Lipscomb professor, via the Lipscomb website, HAD to comply and plans to do so by teaching climate change based upon allegorically interpreted Scripture to both students and faculty. Such a partnership is what Paul warns against in II Cor. 6:14 – an unequal yoking with unbelievers.

God bless you all

I’m almost not sure where to begin, except to say that I do not agree with the conservative values that you have chosen to equate with Christian values. The two are simply not one and the same, and Christians should not be in practice of equating the two (nor should they be equating them with liberal values, but this is less common). God and his commands are not inherently political; He loves all of us and extends his grace to members of all political parties.

In my comment, I was actually quite careful not to say that Lipscomb doesn’t support other ideas that could be construed as politically left-wing, because they certainly could. I just said that the article and subsequent comments don’t present evidence of other such involvement. I also do not subscribe to your “slippery slope” theory about liberalism, or any other philosophy, for that matter.

Many people in both major political parties have used artificial distinctions for mainstream issues in order to force people to take sides politically. The climate change issue is about stewardship and not merely politics. The fact that some people on both sides of the issue are manipulating it for political gain is nothing new, and that’s not a good reason to avoid supporting a good cause.

I can see the argument, based on the “unequally yoked” idea, that Lipscomb’s involvement in this specific activity is newsworthy, although I probably disagree with that underlying theological interpretation. I still think the tone of this article (especially the headline) is unfortunate, since it stretches the facts to play into preconceived political notions about Al Gore and the issue of global warming. Gore and other members of the climate activist movement may or may not have some nefarious “agenda” beyond promoting sustainable environmental practices. We don’t know for sure. A reputable Christian news publication, however, should not be trying to point out Lipscomb’s associations through such intellectually manipulative means.

Yes, it would be wrong for the Lord’s church to join in joint activities with denominations, even for good purposes. To pool resources and work jointly places the Lord’s church and denominations on an equal footing in the eyes of the world. Denominationalism is against Christ’s desire for believers to be one (John 17:21). Since such division is sinful (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3), it would be considered a work of darkness which Christians are to expose, not join in (Eph. 5:11). Scriptures are clear on this matter of religious division. The church has enough resources at its disposal to provide for those in need. The church’s problem in this area is motivation, not lack of resources or ability. Joining with denominations is not the answer to either of these problems, but rather Christians taking up the duties to which Christ has called us. Worldliness has caused us to fall short on these duties, but immersing ourselves in more worldliness in the form of denominationalism will help nothing.

In response to your second thought, does Al Gore stand for conservative Christian values?

Also, you say that Lipscomb ascribes to no other liberal left politics, other than climate change. If this is true, does it not alarm you that the school would step out now? Don’t you think this may be the first in many turns? Additionally, denominationalism is the outgrowth of the influence of postmodernism. You know, the “I’m okay, you’re okay” philosophy? Do you not see that postmodernism is both a tool and a characteristic of the liberal left?

If the church encouraged members to take up sound environmental practices, there would be nothing wrong with that at all. But, as I said before, if the church encouraged members to join a liberal political movement to do so, they would be connecting them with people who are involved in other liberal movements, such as abortion rights and “homosexual marriage” rights.

It does not take much research to know that the majority of the environmental movement is a power play for political purposes. Lipscomb is not the church, it is a private institution. But as an institution that claims affiliation with the church of Christ, the choices and associations Lipscomb makes should be noted.

in Christ,

Matt