fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Queering & Neo-Paganizing Evangelicalism

Popular pastor and podcaster Sky Jethani gives legitimacy to liberal Evangelical ministry team that teaches seriously heretical doctrine
Screen Shot 2022-12-16 at 7.41.50 PM

That's a photo of Samantha Beach Kiley, a pastor in North Carolina. This is eye-opening:

Advertisement

From the transcript (highlights are in the version Woke Preacher Clips provided). The speaker here is Skye Jethani, co-host of the podcast, with Phil Vischer:

Church on Morgan, where Samantha Beach Kiley, a theater kid, serves on the pastoral staff, describes its theological approach thus:

Church on Morgan is grateful to be a community made up of individuals who hold a variety of beliefs and perspectives. That said, we are rooted in the historic creeds of the Church (Apostle’s & Nicene) and shaped by the Methodist tradition. In regards to some of the more specific and frequently asked questions regarding our theology & ethics, we are proud to celebrate women and their gifts in all levels of leadership; include, affirm, and celebrate our LGBTQ siblings as a reflection of the creativity of God; and are committed to the work of antiracism both personally and corporately as we seek a more just and diverse future together.

From a website about SBK's vision (along with her mother's):

Advertisement

There is a big difference between diversity and full inclusion. Full inclusion is when you actually start paying attention to the cultural differences between people, and your leadership team leans into the different perspectives from those cultures. 

Every church is less than a decade away from becoming a country club. Because churches become insulated. Our financial model and our decision making model is all controlled by insiders. Leaders must bring intentionality and focus toward meeting needs that maybe they don’t have, but others in their community do have. 

Here's a photo of the Church on Morgan staff. Look at all that diversity!

In truth, I don't care if the church's leadership staff is all-white and all-young, any more than I care if a historically black congregation's leadership is all black. The theology matters more than the surface diversity. Still, I would be very surprised if there are any theological conservatives in that congregation. I'd bet money its "cultural differences between people" who worship there runs the gamut from A to B. And again, so what? I only bring it up because white liberals bang on incessantly about Diversity and Inclusion, but, well, look at this staff.

They might not have any black, Latino, or Asian people in that congregation. Maybe it skews white, middle-class, and liberal. Is that a big deal? If they were discouraging people of other races from attending, yeah, that would be a big deal. I'm sure they don't do that. It might well be the case that the kind of Christians who are drawn to this congregations theology and worship style are typically white, liberal, and young. I dunno; I'm guessing. My point is simply that it appears that SBK is quick to pass judgment on the lack of inclusiveness practiced by other churches, but in her own? I'd like to know more.

I think there's nothing at all wrong with not including theological conservatives, if the church's theological stance is liberal. Why should people who disagree with the congregation's fundamental principles want to worship there? Would any of the people pictured above want to attend a robustly conservative church? Probably not, for the entirely defensible reason that they believe that theology is mistaken. I bring it up simply to point out how shallow and self-deceiving it is to get on one's high horse about how other churches are on their way to being country clubs because they only cater to people like themselves, when your own church has drawn some clear lines about theological truth. SBK's earlier congregation, a progressive one in Texas called Austin New Church, says this about itself:

ANC is a progressive, affirming, gospel-centered community of people driven by inclusion and social justice. Many of us live in the Austin area. But an increasing number of us live around the country and around the world. 

We believe community is based on belonging, not beliefs. Beliefs will follow. Often. As will doctrines and dogmas and denominational distinctives. But not always. Many of us won’t end up believing the same things. And that’s ok. Unity requires a commitment to belonging not belief.

What holds our community together are the values we share, not our beliefs.

How does that make any sense for a church? It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you show up on Sunday? What use is that to ongoing conversion and discipleship? It sounds like what they really worship is the community itself. Besides, I don't believe that a church that orients itself around pursuing "social justice" (as it says on its website) is not centered around beliefs. The distinction that church makes between "values" and "beliefs" is highly tendentious, to the point of being comical.

Anyway, here's a link to a clip of Nancy Beach (who took a brave public stand in calling out Willow Creek founding pastor Bill Hybels's alleged sexual misconduct) and her daughter Samantha having a conversation promoting the Divine Feminine, and denying that God, who has revealed himself in masculine terms, is male. Of course God does not have a "gender" in the human sense, but the Church has always recognized that God, for whatever reason, has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is not Non-Binary! To deny God's masculinity is to call Scripture a lie. It is to read 21st century middle-class Western liberal social values into Scripture, in opposition to Scripture's unambiguous teaching, and two thousand years of church teaching.

It is to neopaganize Christianity. That's what this ultimately amounts to. Remember that Skye Jethani "can't recommend the book enough" -- the book that the mother-daughter feminist pastors wrote together. Why does Skye Jethani recommend this teaching? It's one thing to have controversial people on a podcast to debate their ideas; it's quite another to endorse those ideas. On his website, Jethani describes his beliefs briefly, like this:

Skye affirms the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed as essential articulations of Christian faith and often points to The Lausanne Covenant as a valuable summary of the historic, holistic, and global Christian tradition he belongs to.

The Nicene Creed begins like this:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

God the FATHER almighty. Jesus Christ, the only begotten SON of God, born of the FATHER.

What the Beach women teach is dangerous heresy. How can Skye Jethani, an ordained pastor and prominent Evangelical voice, give such a full-throated endorsement to their work, and still call himself a Nicene-Creedal Christian? What's going on here? I'm not Evangelical, and don't know much about that world, so I welcome correction. But as an outsider, it seems to me like this kind of thing introduces a form of neopaganism into the church, whether its advocates realize it or not -- and Skye Jethani, who, I understand, has a reputation as a more mainstream voice, is giving it credibility. The German Catholic bishops are doing something similar. In my Orthodox Church, voices have arisen -- white liberal voices, naturally -- advocating fundamental changes to our theology, while downplaying what they are doing.

I can't figure out if it's worse if they know what they're doing, or not. Whatever, it was a good catch by Woke Preacher Clips, who you should follow on Twitter.

UPDATE: Why do I care about this stuff when I'm not even Evangelical? one of you asks. Because I'm watching basic Christian orthodoxy in every church get hammered hard by the post-Christian culture and its beliefs, and it seems to me that many, maybe even most, Christians don't even see what's happening. Once it's gone, it will be very hard to get it back.

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now
Fran Macadam
Fran Macadam
No genuine Christian is without authority to call out these wolves in sheep's clothing when it comes to undermining the historical faith. No claimed branch is immune to criticism when attacked from within, as your recent reference to the seven churches in the book of Revelation shows.
schedule 1 year ago
JON FRAZIER
JON FRAZIER
I find the question of the "gender of God" (and no, not of the word "God") a major category error. One might as well ask what color a Bach fugue is or how old is eternity. Yes., masculine words are used to denote God by convention, and yes, the Son became incarnate as a human male, Jesus. But God has no incarnate sex just as he has no mass or no electric charge. Gender and sex are created thing, and we should not paganize god by assigning things he created as actual divine ans eternal attributes. (And yes, those who would feminize God are making the same category error). Leave such crude anthropomorphism to the Mormons.

By the way who is asking for "fundamental changes in theology" in the Orthodox Church and what changes are they asking for? Anyone trying to revive Arianism, or expressing sympathy for Monophysitism?
schedule 1 year ago
    JON FRAZIER
    JON FRAZIER
    Change "But God has no incarnate sex " to "God has no inherent [or innate] sex".
    schedule 1 year ago
    MPC
    MPC
    Doesn't Rod have a point that Christianity/the Bible constantly refers to God "The Father", even if God isn't incarnate, as the Mormons believe?

    It seems like you can disagree that gender is associated with God, more like Islam has it (and this is the view of God I personally adhere to), but that is to pretty clearly distance yourself from as Rod said, basically the entire history of Christianity which knew God as "The Father". It would have been taken easily as heretical as the Arianism (or Mormonism) you mention.
    schedule 1 year ago
      JON FRAZIER
      JON FRAZIER
      Yes, there's good reason that Scripture uses such language, but it isn't because God is in any rational sense a male being, but because he is acting in that role in his relationship to us. But we do need ti remember that God's essence is transcendent, and beyond all created reality. All worldly attributes have their ultimate source in Him and He is present in all reality.
      schedule 1 year ago
Mark Kimpel, MD
Mark Kimpel, MD
Agreed with almost everything you said including that "God" does not have gender, at least in any human sense. The Wisdom figure in Ecclesiastes and other O.T. books is feminine and some believe the figure is equivalent to the Holy Spirit. I myself was adamantly opposed to referring to God in the feminine, ever, until someone pointed out to me that some women (and men!) abused by men may not find a masculine God approachable. Certainly God is more than we can comprehend, "he" certainly created women and they were created in "his" image. The apophatic tradition is strong in Orthodox Christianity, check it out for more on letting go of our concepts of God.

Lest you think I'm some far out progressive, let me introduce myself. I'm a 64 yr old Roman Catholic political conservative. Retired doctor and neuroscience researcher. I think trans-ideology is individually delusional in a psychiatric sense. I have lived through one "approved" medical belief after another that has since been proven wrong. Antibiotics that are immune to resistance. Dietary advice on getting fats out of the diet to lower cholesterol, thus begetting a nation of diabetics. Benzodiazepines (Valium) that don't cause respiratory depression. Opioids that must be given to anyone with any kind of pain. I could go on. Next on the menu, however, will be severe side effects from massive doses of steroids and puberty blockers and regrets about surgeries that will have both short-term and long-term complications. Not to mention regret and the literal impossibility of undoing the harm done in the name of the idea that we really aren't the gender of our biological sex.

But I do like to be contrarian when I can be. So expect me to poke at you when the opportunity arises ;)
schedule 1 year ago
    JON FRAZIER
    JON FRAZIER
    There's been an undercurrent in Eastern Christian thought since antiquity recognizing "Holy Wisdom" (Hagia Sophia in Greek) as a divine--and feminine-- attribute of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. The Russian theologian Sergei Bulgakov is the most noted proponent in modern the era. It's one of those highly mystical ideas that's easily misunderstood (and easily falls toward heresy when it is). But the Byzantines thought it sound enough to name their great church by that title.
    schedule 1 year ago
      Theodore Iacobuzio
      Theodore Iacobuzio
      You do know that nouns in Greek fall into three genders, right? Masculine, feminine, and neuter. Right?
      schedule 1 year ago
        JON FRAZIER
        JON FRAZIER
        Uh, yes? Your point is? None of this is about the vagaries of Greek (or Hebrew) gender.
        schedule 1 year ago
    Frans
    Frans
    "he" certainly created women and they were created in "his" image”

    Except… what the Bible actually says is “And God said Let US make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness.”
    schedule 1 year ago
Theodore Iacobuzio
Theodore Iacobuzio
Theology: don't try this at home, kids.
schedule 1 year ago
Fran Macadam
Fran Macadam
Theological liberals. Gotta love 'em, and leave 'em.
schedule 1 year ago
Mark Robinson
Mark Robinson
The following sentence from the above essay is critical. "Why should people who disagree with the congregation's fundamental principles want to worship there?" The reason is the democratization of the Church in America. Hence, those who take oaths of ordination do so dishonestly and with a lack of integrity. They recite oaths knowing that they do not agree to teach and uphold the teachings of the Church. They recite oaths because they agree with the Church "process" that opens the Church to changing traditional doctrine through current majority votes on subjects that should not even be open for discussion. They do not recognize an unchanging faith delivered once and for all to the saints. These types of individuals set themselves upon pedestals of hubris. They ignore Tradition because they are always "doing a new thing"! Far from resting upon the "Solid Rock", they constantly move upon the shifting and sinking sands of modernity. Rod, you have pointed out before, these types always deceive when you hear the words, "We just want to enter into dialogue!" To such types, the answer is in the Orthodox Liturgy, "The Doors, the Doors! In Wisdom let us attend!" We must be perceptive and recognize the difference between people interested in learning to grow in their faith from those people who do not come as they are to change themselves; but to change the Church.
schedule 1 year ago
Frans
Frans
“It sounds like what they really worship is the community itself.”

This is probably the key point. I’m open to a great degree of variation in religious doctrine. I have great respect for most of the major world religions and most branches of Christianity. Although I have my own beliefs and I don’t buy into either the idea that truth is subjective or that all religions are equally close to the truth, I do believe there are many ways to God, that most religions are right about a lot of what really matters, and that people are generally better off with an imperfect religion than none at all.

But a fair bit that passes for religion today isn’t really religious at all in my view, because it effectively involves worshipping man more than God. That’s basically what the religion of wokeism come down to, and when a church starts to get seriously steeped in that they’re in serious danger of transitioning from a socially/conscious religious organization to a religiously-themed humanist organization.
schedule 1 year ago
    Maclin Horton
    Maclin Horton
    "...they’re in serious danger of transitioning from a socially/conscious religious organization to a religiously-themed humanist organization."

    That is very nicely stated.
    schedule 1 year ago