In this fascinating article in Christianity Today, Milton Acosta (a Latino theologian) argues that the church in Latin America is neither Protestant nor Catholic. In doing so, he offers a tempering perspective to the upbeat predictions of Philip Jenkins in The Next Christendom.

Acosta notes that, although the church there appears to be Pentecostal in many respects, it does not share the historical lineage of or even many of the core doctrines of Pentecostalism. Instead, the most prolific sector of Latin Christianity combines the hierarchical and authoritarian structure of Catholicism (with self-proclaimed apostles and prophets), indigenous shamanism (with “blowing” and “whistling” at evil spirits [a la Benny Hinn]) and traditional Pentecostalism (with speaking in tongues and prophecy).

In spite of all this religious activity, the clear gospel is not being preached, resulting in a complete lack of knowledge of the basic doctrines of the Reformation, such as sola gratia, sola scriptura or sola fide [grace alone, scripture alone, faith alone].

As you may imagine, the reason for this phenomenon may be traced to the prevalence of Enlace, the Spanish version of TBN, which …

“has become ‘a true magisterium’ beyond denominational beliefs and practices. It is available in most Latin American countries. Most evangelicals turn it on several times a week. No matter what topic Enlace is dealing with, the message boils down to making “pacts” with God, wherein a person must demonstrate the seriousness of his prayer request by sending money along with it. Pastors with little or no training imitate Enlace preachers, and the effect intensifies.

“Many Enlace-style churches have reduced the message of the gospel to economic prosperity. Based on belief in evil spirits’ hidden conspiracies that can only be averted by economic pacts—a contemporary version of indulgences—some of these churches end up in clear continuity with the surrounding culture of amulets, or magical ways of quickly obtaining wealth and happiness. The celebrities who represent this kind of overnight wealth are Mafia members and druglords. The final product, says Piedra, is religious consumerism.”

>>For an example of the type of “Christian” shamanism TBN is exporting to Lati American and beyond, check this out.<<

Explaining why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus said it was “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mark 10:5). Some scholars argue that Moses allowed divorce to protect women (Deuteronomy 24). In other words, if a man kicked his wife out without divorcing her, she would not be able to remarry—leaving her destitute. Simply put, although divorce is condemned as sin in scripture, the Mosaic law provides specific instructions as to how it should be carried out.

I have mixed feelings about abortion reduction strategies—in the same way I would have had mixed feelings about slavery reduction legislation in the 1860s, partial women’s suffrage in the 1910s, lynching reduction plans in the 1940s. It feels like halfhearted justice to me.

In spite of the author’s obvious bias, this Slate article on a new abortion reduction bill is informative. However, there is a stumbling block in this bill that has tripped up many conservatives: contraception. The bill explicitly requires grantees to “encourage teens to delay sexual activity.” But because it also requires grantees to provide “information about the risks and benefits of all contraceptives”, it is anathema to conservatives. I think the concern is that teens will have more sex if they have access to contraceptives, and distributing contraceptives is an implied approval of premarital sex.

My question is this: If Moses were alive today in our postmodern secular culture …

• … would he approve of the distribution of contraceptives if it were proven that it resulted in fewer abortions …
• … would he support laws that limit access to abortion without outlawing it altogether …
• … would he approve of some type of non-marital legal status for homosexual couples …
• … would he approve of laws to govern the distribution of substances that may be abused and destroy lives and families …

… because of the hardness of our hearts?

I don’t know where I stand on these questions, and there is not much of a parallel between the theocracy of ancient Israel and the democracy of modern America. But it’s worth considering how the law of God is intended to address the inevitability of human sin.

Recently, I noticed a church Website was marketing a new preaching series on hot-button issues. Visitors could vote on topics such as drugs, divorce, eating disorders, cussing, etc. Ostensibly, the high-rated items would then be tackled by the pastor in future sermons. Of course, this model is not new. In fact, it follows the same narrative of fundamentalists of the past–although it’s wrapped in much hipper packaging for today’s po-mo audience suspicious of religious “do”s and “don’t”s. Here’s the drill:

Step 1: Observe cultural trend that is being “ignored” by the church.
Step 2: Formulate position on said cultural trend.
Step 3: Assemble unassailable barrage of proof texts and personal testimonies to tackle cultural trend.
Step 4: Market series through those church signs with the individual block letters (if you’re old-timey) or the Wide World Interwebs (if you’re cool).
Step 4: Preach, using above materials to sway the opinion of the listeners.

Believe me–I am as guilty of this as the next guy. When I was a youth pastor, I tried it. See two kids holding hands? It’s time to teach on dating. Smell smoke? Let’s polish up the ol’ tobaccy sermon. Hear kids buzzing about a questionable movie? Turn in your Bibles to Psalm 101:3.

The problem with this method is its inherent arrogance. Preaching becomes about behavior modification, not exposing listeners’ hearts to the scalpel of the text, allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Besides, the alternative is far too boring: preach the scriptures and tackle issues when they come up in scripture. In context.

I once heard Walter Kaiser say that preaching should follow not only the content of scripture, but its contours. If I preach through books, chapters and verses, I will cover what the Holy Spirit wants me to cover, not what my agenda is, based on the perceived needs of my hearers or the culture at large.