Sunday, September 25, 2011

The "Walking Dead" Gospel

Lots of comments on an article posted by Christianity Today.  About remaining married to the "walking dead" (my comments on that aspect here).  And about "repudiating the gospel".  Russell slamming Robertson.
On an invisible mat.

Sure, Robertson was a little over the top in a question period. Yet, Russell was surely more than a little over the top in his submitted article.  Was being more than a little hyperbolic.  Was making irrelevant allusions to cartoon characters, pole-worship, sex therapists and giggling evangelists.  And was seriously  misrepresenting Robertson (ht. Tim and Bethany).  But all of Russell's weak allusions aside... was Robertson actually "repudiating the gospel"?

Well... only in a corollary way.  And Russell didn't help matters much.  Didn't say what gospel was being repudiated.  Didn't say what the gospel actually was.

Sure, Russell spoke of "a cross"... but he didn't speak of sin.
Our sin that required the cross.  Not "a cross".

And sure, Russell spoke of "the church"... but not how to become one of "the church".
Or what actually defines a member of the 'true' church.

And sure, Russell spoke of fidelity... a "sacrificial fidelity". 
But a "sacrificial fidelity" to whom? And why?

And don't give me that "icon" stuff.  And then defer to "ancient mystery".
Marriage is much more than an "icon".  And this mystery has been revealed (Col 1:26).

Besides... lots of folks have "a cross". 
And lots of folks have a "church". 
And lots of folks have a "sacrificial fidelity".
And lots of folks have a "marriage".
For a whole lot of different reasons.

So... where does Russell present the gospel here?
Where does Russell say "repent and believe" in his article?  Or even mention "sin"?
That the good news of reconciliation may be proclaimed!

It's all well and good to promote a social gospel in this article.  But where is the real gospel?
Surely Russell knows this gospel (as does Robertson).
But did he think he would just be preaching to the choir?
Did he reach his cyber word-limit with CT?
Or was CT just interested in his slanderous hyperbole?

This article is disappointing. 
Mere pole-dancing by Russell and CT.
Around an invisible pole.