Down in Arizona, a meeting is called Gospel Proclaimed, with both Sexton and Doran, go figure. Somebody should say what's going on with that. And I'm just using that as an example -- there's far more of this strangeness all over.
Some of the response that I at least got, and I'm glad to get a response, brought some other thoughts that I had heard before. Not necessarily in this order, but I'm sure that the secular worldview has influenced Christians in a big way today, namely the idea that theological truth is subjective, not like objective science, gravity and blood circulation. That ship already sailed on beauty and then "cultural issues," which are related. However, should we wonder about how that two gospels (or more) could be tolerated as both acceptable? These folks don't take their own doctrine too seriously. Broad parameters exist. Is the gospel being diminished to some slight level above paper or plastic? You say tomaetoe and I say tomahtoe.
Your coalition will shrink if you start getting too picky on stuff like the gospel. Do we really want to split things, whatever things are, right down the middle? Perhaps it's all being done in a low-level way behind closed doors with the two different gospels unifying out front. If you're wanting to give them a chance, give them a call or go visit them. "Hey, if I give him a platform, he might appreciate me more, and listen" -- a sort of dollar diplomacy, hearkening back to President Taft.
Some try to turn this into a semantical thing. We're saying the same thing, just using different words. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Boink. Or a testimony thing. Like when I was a kid, I didn't receive Jesus as Lord, and like are you saying that I wasn't like saved? Didn't think so.
I read this comment at SharperIron about part one of this now mini-series:
I feel like the purpose of this article is strangely divisive. I have no problem theologically with people saying Christ is their Savior or even relating to Him primarily that way. I don't see it as a disconnect from Christ being one's Lord.
"Strangely divisive." You've got two different gospels, but they don't have to be thought as two? That's strangely divisive? Is this acceptable theological or biblical precision? Someone doesn't understand what's going on, and needs correction, if he thinks this issue is just about how we "primarily relate to Jesus." These are two positions. What's strange is accepting two different as the same or deconstructing the issue so that both can be the same. "The anti-federalists were actually federalists and the two groups just related to the Constitution in a different way." This is the postmodern loosey-gooseyness with the truth, folks, and it slides right by anymore. Eternal souls are stake, but someone doesn't want to hurt someone else's feelings.
I would relate the unwillingness to divide here to the threat to the size of the coalition. Folks are unwilling to divide based on the gospel. Why? Does it matter? Does anything that we believe really matter, or it all just a matter of personal taste anymore?