Is that someone hammering a parchment on the church door?

Yeh. Some lout. No worries, he'll go away.

Amen Peter

As usual Sells is describing his own reductionism and confusion. The "religion" that he offers is entirely and only of the very domesticated and managed kind that he laments in this essay---no ecstasy allowed, or even hinted at.

What about Real God as Radiant Conscious Light as in:

1. http://www.dabase.org/dht7.htm

The "religion" he proposes is just another self-consoling consumer product. Or as in the case of the pentecostals etc, a version of P T Barnum's showbiz, which was based on the premise that hundreds of suckers are born every minute.

He asks us to take the Bible seriously. Which and whose version and/or translation? Even the much hyped King James version was/is a product of multiple interpretations and translations, and as such it is not at all reliable as a statement of whatever "truth" that may exist in the "gospels".

And besides which WHO wrote the gospels? None of the gospel authors actually knew "jesus" of Galilee. Nor did Paul who invented "christianISM", the religion based on a set of IDEAS ABOUT "jesus"---an ideology. It should really be called PAULISM---the "religion" based on the ideas (ideology) of Paul. Even then who was "paul"? Did such a character really exist?

Even worse it is not the liberal Christians who are a threat to the ENTIRE world. It is the "evangelicals" and their collective "end-time"
psychosis. Waiting and praying for the the "second coming" and the "rapture". Such psychotics even have an influence on USA politics as applied in Israel. For instance check out the entirely scary ALLIES FOR ARMAGEDDON by Victoria Clark on your Google.

Mind boggling collective psychosis.

A case study:

The Uniting Church's Wesley Hospital in Brisbane trashed a rehabilitation facility serving 500 aged, frail, disabled people a week, to build 73 new private rooms overlooking the river for the rich. They told all and sundry what a hard decision it was, and misreprsented it to both the local authority and their own Synod.

Lying, bullying, and a total failure to comprehend the missio deo. Probably the worst case of ecclesiastical managerialism I've seen in 30 years.

Plenty to work with here... and joy of joys.. no one will accuse me of 'hijacking' the thread :)

MISSION statement.

Matthew 28:19 "Go, and make disciples of all nations"
Lukes version...chapter 24:44-49 includes:

-Thus, it is written that the Christ must suffer, die and rise....

-and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

-You.. are witnesses of these things.

THE STRATEGIC PLAN.....

"but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high".

Paul saw it like this: (1 Cor 2:2)

2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

COMMENT
The Liberals
are dying because they don't recognize that the resurrection was a literal reality. Thus, the power of the Holy Spirit is just a 'story' to them. So..their ministry will degenerate into social'do-gooding' rather than serious discipling.

The Pentecostals
are often (But all universally) more froth and bubble than faith and substance, and running more on emotion and a psychologically generated 'high' they are prone to the pressures of life and also the pleasures of this world.

I guess that leaves the Biblically Balanced group. Neither denying the supernatural/miraculous (as the liberals would) nor making it the focus of their proclamation as the Pentecostals often do, but instead.. calling men and women, as Jesus did, to sincere repentance... and deep faith, and inviting them to share in the joy of 'the presense of the future' (the Kingdom of God.. in the here and now)

A boat that drags its anchor may well flounder upon a reef. Such is the plight of liberal theology.

Boaz was/is always good for a laugh---though nothing that he writes is at all funny.
He now describes himself as "balanced".

Ho Hum,

[[[[The "religion" he proposes is just another self-consoling consumer product.]]]]
Given that the gospel teaches that Christians have no rights, and that they are to bear reproach and persecution without retaliation, your idea here is unlikely to be true.
.
.
[[[[He asks us to take the Bible seriously. Which and whose version and/or translation? ......]]]]
Here you manifest 2 problems:
1. You have not realised that the various versions say the same thing in different words. Here is an example from Romans 10:9:
KJV: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
AMPLIFIED VERSION: "Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"
LIVING BIBLE: "For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in your own heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"
GREEK (LITERAL) INTERLINEAR: "Because if you confess with the mouth of you the Lord Jesus, and believe in the heart of you that God Him raised from (the) dead, you will be saved".

2. You did not notice that the author of the article stated that the bible bears witness to the Word of God, and therefore his implication that the bible itself is not the Word of God per say. That is, you make the usual ignorant statement that Christians follow the bible, when in fact they follow the Spirit, with the bible simply witnessing what the Spirit says to them.

So overall you don't know what you are talking about.

Sells

If you are going to distinguish between liberalism and 'radical' orthodoxy then I dont really know many liberals.
Surely 'radical orthodoxy', though, is a tautology. Jesus was radical/revolutionary and if orthodoxy is the proven path to discipleship then it is also the path to revolution.
There is a popular notion that orthodoxy is some sort of mindless conformity to tradition. This is certainly a misunderstanding of the Church and its 'mission'.
My experience suggests that it is the liberals who truly understand orthodoxy. Evangelicals with their skewed emphasis on Biblical Authority and Pentecostals with their focus on 'inspiration' both fail the orthodoxy test and their perceived popularity is in no way evidence that their 'discipleship' is more effective than any one else's.
I am intrigued by your paradoxical assertion that liberalism is dying because it is 'trying to be popular'. It suggests that liberals are not a very bright bunch and havent noticed that their 'pandering' is so pointless. As a practising 'liberal' Ive certainly noticed that its not a popular position at all. Luckily, as my NT Teacher observed, I 'havent an evangelical bone in my body' so I dont suffer from any sort of disenchantment with my lot. If God wants everyone be to like me then that is Her problem not mine.
Neither do I share your somewhat romantic passion for the 'rightly ordered society'. In Christ's terms 'rightness' is a dynamical, ethical category, divinely arbitrated and occassional rather than fixed and absolute. It is not a particular, idealised ordering of society.
Having said that. . . I need to say that I am generally in sympathy with your views expressed in this article. Surprisingly I am also in sympathy with BOAZ who points out in his/her own peculiar way that the Bible is as good a mission statement as the Church needs and vastly superior in that function to the soporific sentiments of your average mission statement.