Do You Trust This Man?
I don’t think we give the devil enough credit- he is a master strategist, and the only thing I’ve ever read that deals with this intelligently is the Screwtape Letters. While I can’t write as cleverly as Lewis, I will take a stab at explaining a likely strategy of old Beezelbub’s that takes advantage of weaknesses in the contemporary church.
If I were the devil, I’d find “the line”. That is, the line at which something that is deviating from the pure Biblical gospel is no longer effectual for salvation; then I’d invent my own gospel just to my side of the line, maybe with a safety factor of 10-20% past the line to account for any divine mercy I hadn’t anticipated. Next, I’d raise up a smooth-talker to promote this gospel.
Now, in most ages past this strategy wouldn’t have worked. Christians didn’t tolerate any deviance from the norm that was any closer to “the line” than what their church tradition allowed. The reason, of course, is that the closer we allow Christian practice to approach “the line”, the harder it is to distinguish the real soul-damners from true Christians who are just a bit off the preferred path.
But in today’s Christian environment it works great. Innovation (once a dirty word to Christians as holders of God’s unchanging Word) is rewarded and popularity is the only yardstick of success. All I’d have to do as the devil is put my smooth talker on TV and have him sell a bestseller full of wishful-thinking tripe, and Christians would defend my boy from attacks from the minority of traditionalists. And the farther my boy deviated from “the line”, the more popular he would get, because people are tired of hearing about sin, Christ’s death, sanctification and other “churchy” sounding stuff that bores today’s overstimulated media consumer to tears. What they really want is to reach their potential- and what they mean by their potential is acquiring the skills or schemes to increase their ability to indulge in the materialism that’s already enslaving them- in a word, to have their best life now. I would help Christians forget all that junk about storing up treasures in heaven or the old-fashioned Protestant ethics of wealth acquired through hard work- what they really need to focus their mind off of the world to come is a get-rich-quick scheme they think is sponsored by Jesus himself. My boy would be wildly popular in no time. And the more popular my boy got, the more Christians would defend him- after all, he holds a Bible and says “Jesus” and other stuff they think is important.
To avoid judging a brother (*which would be very, very wrong and intolerant of me*), I’ll just refer to this person as “Mr. O”. Before I give you my opinion, I should first note that I am not a dispensationalist, which means I don’t think there’s an imminent rapture or that the geopolitical concerns of Israel should be of any more significance to American Christians than that of Iceland or Peru. I hold to the traditional pre-Darby/Scofield views of prophecy.
But the whole dispensationalist-premillenial prophecy wing of the evangelical church makes for an interesting modern mythology- even if a bad movie. Surely everyone remembers the hokey, poorly made Left Behind movie with Peter York. Anyway, Mr. O’s worship services look to me like a poorly done set for the Antichrist’s False Prophet Tabernacle. I mean really- no crosses, a big animated spinning globe, some saccharin-worded preacher with bleached teeth talking about self-esteem. Mr. O would be side-splitting funny to watch if I didn’t know how seriously he’s taken by the people who watch him.
Is Mr. O inside or outside of “the line?” Since our leaders spurn doctrine and tradition, can we even tell the difference anymore?
October 7th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
This guy’s good at avoiding the real question though by saying “it’s not my business”.
I agree with you (except on the dispensationalist & Israel comments…but you probably knew that already).
The question is, though, what do we do? Other than not buy the guy’s books? We as individuals can’t move “the line” back any. And there are people who have moved the line back so far that they have become the opposite of what Christ was as well (Pharisees). So where’s the balance of truth?
Satan can take the truth in one direction to pervert it, and if that won’t work for you, he’ll take it all the way in the opposite direction to see if that will. We need to be cautious of both.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
This guy is the rising star of evangelism? I have to agree with you Tom: this is exactly the kind of fella I’d put up if I was trying to run a bunch of lemmings. Yet, how very apealling his message is to the post-modern world… “We can’t judge you, there really are no absolutes, yada-yada-yada…” But “Mr. O” does call himself a Christian (or is that “christian”?), so we do have Scriptural basis for judging his message and his ministry. Forgive me, but I have a real problem with believers who are afraid to confront both stumbling brothers and sisters and false prohpets/teachers/ministers. (Ref. Matt 18:15ff, 1 Cor 5:9-13, and even Tit 3:8,9 for good measure) And in the clip from “[Is] Larry King [Al]ive,” I’m hearing “O” using the same words my misled Christian siblings use to defend their positions: “Who am I to judge?” They sound kinda like a guy I know named Ahaz (Isa 7:12), or that guy Caiaphas (pick your reference).
My apologies; I feel like Jack Van Impe (”Jack Van Impe Presents”) here, peppering my comments with Scriptural references. I don’t normally do that, but I feel the need to make up for a certain someone’s lack of use of the Bible in his teaching the country’s largest congregation (of what?).
But for the record: Yes, Jews are going to Hell unless they accept the Fulfillment of the Law. As are Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, (these last two are cults: they deny the divinity of Christ; if Jesus was just a man, then He is dead and there is no salvation in Him) Hindus, and Unitarian Universalists, among many, many others — even really, really nice people who don’t know Christ. Not that any of the people I know who read this blog don’t already know that (even if you don’t want to admit it). If I have given offense to anyone because you are not a Christian, please accept my apology — then get right with God!
October 9th, 2006 at 8:59 am
I agree with Brian. You are not going to heaven unless you believe that Jesus Christ was died for your sins and is God’s Son. Period. I kinda am riding the fence on the Jews. I just don’t know enough scripture to go to one side or the other. I do have to say that we should love. I am not talking about “Do whatever you want and you will go to heaven,” but love and compassion for those that do not believe. By loving others, they see God in us and reminds or shows them there is a God. I do feel we need to confront the wrongs we see around us in a loving way. We are WAY too lenient today. Sic ‘em Tom!!!
October 9th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Well, we know Joel’s not a very educated guy. But the guys who are educated, our leaders who know better, have been working to reduce the Christian experience to the following over the last several decades:
1. Say this prayer.
2. Convince others to say this prayer.
Good men like Billy Graham perfected this particular and historically novel reduction of the faith. That one could have absolute assurance of salvation through a mere prayer is out of line with almost every historic Christian group, Protestant or Catholic.
The logic, of course, is to minimize the requirements of Christianity so as to get as many people out of hell as possible. But I would argue it’s entirely possible the evangelical church has made a grave mistake.
We are called to judge by the fruits, and fruit-wise the large evangelical church looks no different than the world: whether you measure by divorce rates, the horrific falling-away ratio our youth groups are producing, or the materialism suggested by our low fertility rates.
No fruit, no salvation? May God have mercy on us.
Joel could argue that he’s merely perfected to its logical end that which the evangelical reductionists started.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Lindsay,
Your point about the mirror danger of Phariseeism is well-taken. However, I can’t think of a Phariseeical group that didn’t also reveal themselves as apostate through bad doctrine. It could be that Christianity is so antithetical to Phariseeism that Pharisees can’t help but monkey with “salvation by grace alone”, and thus reveal themselves for who they really are. I still think the danger is mainly the other way.
As for action items, this is something that’s come home to me lately. First, pointing out the truth in our circle of influence is an action item. Second, we need to be change agents in our churches to help our leaders resist the temptation to go along with the latest watering down of the faith. Third, we need to identify the point at which we will no longer support or attend a church that continues down this path. The point of breaking communion will be different for different people, as this is a matter of opinion. I think the bar should be fairly high- it’s more important for conservatives to be in larger churches and resist the liberalizing tendencies than it is for them to be in smaller churches and isolate themselves.
The complication is when you have children, and their level of awareness of what’s going on. As a father, at some point my children will see an implicit endorsement of whatever the church we attend is doing. So we have to decide when we can no longer stomach that endorsement. I have hope that the pendulum will start to swing my direction before it would come to that. And we need to be active agents as well, not just observers who complain and bemoan what’s going on.
For too long conservatives in the church have allowed the liberalizers to run roughshod over them. We have been kept silent with false charges of Phariseeism and the implication that we do not care about “outreach”. Now that the liberal-gospel chickens have come home to roost, we should be emboldened by the conviction that our ideas and feelings have merit as more truly compassionate because they offer true salvation, not cheap salvation.
Reminds me of an old Merle Haggard song: “Are we rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell? Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?”
As cathartic as that kind of sentiment is, we are commanded to hope, and to work to produce the fulfillment of that hope.
Tom
October 9th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
The “easy believism” is something that has weigh on my heart heavily the last few years. I have been studying a man named Ray Comfort, who works with used-to-be start Kirk Cameron to teach Christians how to evanglize the lost. His main point is that no one is going to seek a cure until they know they are suck. Therefore, his main purpose in talking to people is to convince them of their sin.
“Saying a prayer”, in my personal opinion, has no affect unless there is repentance of sin. If there is no conviction and repentance, we see no reason to need God. So, why would someone pray the prayer? Insurance, I guess. “Just in case.” That’s why there is no fruit.
I agree with your action items. I think we must speak out lovingly BEFORE the situation gets out of hand; basically, before it is too late to change the direction our particular church or group is going. I do not believe we are there yet specifically; I trust the leadership of our church.
That said, where do you draw the line between what you say and what people hear? Do you, as you’ve suggested, be “extra conservative” so there’s no confusion at all, or do we have the freedom to say/believe our hearts, and then leave it to the people how they choose to interpret that?
That may sound confusing, so let me give you an example. I personally believe that you can live any way you choose after you are saved (including a sinful lifestyle) and still be truly saved. I don’t believe you will be content or happy in this lifestyle, but it is possible to be in it.
In saying this, many people will hear that I don’t believe there SHOULD be a change in lifestyle. That is not at all what I believe. I believe when Christ comes in to someone’s life He does change a life. But it is a process, not an instant occurance.
So, do I say what I believe, unvarnished? Or, should I keep in mind how people might interpret what I believe into “I can get saved and then do whatever I want for the rest of my life with no worries”?
Very interesting discussion!
ld
October 9th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Paul was a Jew’s Jew when he was with the Jews. And appeared a saved Gentile when with the Gentiiles. The same Jesus Who called the Pharisees a “generation of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs” gently helped the adulteress up and on her way with a kind word. And let’s not forget Jonah screaming his message resentfully to an unbeleiving Ninevah.
My point is, the delivery is not the issue. The message is. God will use us as His instruments to meet people where they are. Yes, we have to be willing and obedient, and yes, we are all still in process for our whole lives. But for the changes you speak of to take place, we must, as Paul said, fight the good fight and finish the race.
Constant vigilance is key, as well as strong discipline, both as individuals (i.e., self-discipline) and corporately; this requires total transparency and accountability. Not putting on a show for the crowd, not using prayer requests as a gossip session. (Before anyone gets their noses out of joint, this is not directed at anyone in particular — these types of things are symptomatic of the modern church in general)
I am as guilty as anyone else of talking the talk, giving the “Sunday school answer” and not even knowing where the rubber meets the road, much less living there.
But I have seen what that looks like.
This is the antid”O”te, the 50′ satellite image: transparency, accountability, genuine concern for the well-being of not just your brothers and sisters in Christ, but most especially for the lost. Being involved in the secular world. Giving a widow a ride to church. Or an orphan. Or your unchurched neighbor’s kids. Making yourself see the good in any situation. Praying daily. Reading and studying and meditating on Scripture every day. Talking with a fellow believer about your faith and convictions every day. (And the big one) Talking with a nonbeliever every day about your faith; telling them what you believe and explaining why you believe it. Challenging yourself to be a light to the world, maybe even challenging a nonbeliever to hold you accountable — because whether you ask them to or not, they are. Non-Christians will always keep track of what a professing Christian says and does, where they falter. I know I did.
But now I’m just rambling.
Tom: I’d like to talk to you more about your non-dispensationalist views.
Lindsay: Ditto on your dispensational ones.
Becki: Let me help you over that fence. Reread Romans 11, tell me what you think.
Auf vedersehen.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
After much research, I found that I agree with what I read here:
http://www.rightdivision.com/html/what_is_the_mystery.html
So Brian, officially off the fence, but still would love to hear Tom’s POV!
Thank you for the push to make me really consider this subject. (Like anybody cares what I think!! LOL)
October 9th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Sorry, I totally copied the wrong website. Here is the one I meant to copy!!! (I know you are probably saying- What?)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-N-6.htm
October 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I got burned out on theological arguments in college, so I try to avoid them now. I mentioned my traditional views of eschatology to place my comment about Mr. O’s church set in context, as in I don’t literally believe he’s the tool of the Antichrist, or share in that genre of thought generally.
Becki, I would suggest a more balanced view from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
Generally, on large, controversial topics like this Wikipedia can be quite reliable, as the language used has to satisfy both the supporters and opponents of a particular point of view. Romans 11, as Brian mentioned, is the major proof text for disp., while Galatians 2-4 is the strongest proof contrary. IMO, there are several valid ways to interpret Romans 11 (in fact, my wife’s BSF lesson interprets it in a non-dispensationalist way, as does our pastor), but not so many ways to “work around” the latter part of Galatians 4:
24: Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25: Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26: But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27: For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.”
28: Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29: But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30: But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”
31: So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
Kinda hard to be the chosen people if Paul says you’re being cast out as the illegitimate children of Hagar!
I WILL discuss WHY I’m not a dispensationalist, though I think there are better-qualified people to debate the fine points. Basically, I distrust any major innovation in theology- I find it hard to swallow that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, etc were wrong until 1820 when Darby appeared on the scene.
I think this is a non-essential issue for Christians, and I only object to the prophecy-obsessed wing of dispensationalism, who in my opinion lead us into unhealthy pessimism about the future.
October 10th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Lindsay,
To get back to the original discussion, I think there is a difference between the means of salvation (grace alone) and assurance. I think we have to be very careful about how we teach assurance.
While we can never say with certainty the salvation status of any individual, we can say things statistically about large groups that are more easily relied upon. For example, it is true to say that a husband is, on average, taller than his wife. But that tells you nothing about the relative heights any individual husband and wife.
If Christ’s advice to judge by fruits is right, then I think we can say with confidence that there is something wrong with the salvation being preached in the evangelical church, because the expected fruit is not there. But of course it doesn’t tell us anything about any individual. It does, however, present a sufficient condition to merit consideration and action of what to do to get back on the right track.
I’m still thinking about what exactly is wrong and how to fix it. Thankfully, I’m sure God is on the job already. We just need to be ready to embrace the great conservative revival force He will send. Judging by the happenings in our group lately, as fathers are starting to take charge of the spiritual growth of their families and question the liberal innovations of the last 100 years, maybe we can hope that something is afoot.
Tom
October 11th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I just can’t resist - regarding your Galatians 4 comments…
The contrast is between the son of Sarah (Isaac) and the son of Hagar (Ishmael). Or, in a greater context, between the law and grace. I do not believe that passage negates any previous promise given to Abraham because his line was continued through Isaac, not Ishmael.
However, that is a side note to the original discussion - whether literal or not, the end times are coming, and God already has it planned out. I’m content to be along for the ride.
I agree COMPLETELY with what you said about judging the “group” fruits vs. the individual. And, yes, God is already on the job. My concern is that we do not swing too far the other way in response to the liberalism being presented. As you pointed out earlier, we will not be any more correct in doctrine or practice if we embrace legalistic teachings than if we embraced liberal ones.
The truth is, if we really care about people (as Jesus did), we will not want them to be bound to legalism. However, for their benefit, we also will not want to see them living licentious lifestyles - it’s not to their benefit anymore than legalism is. THAT’s why Jesus cared enough to say “go and sin no more” - not just to satisfy some irrational control streak He had - He loved her and knew what was best for her. And that kind of lifestyle was NOT the best.
I think we’re in agreement here, but we’re just coming from two different sides of the discission.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I hope not to overstate my position, but to worry about legalism in the current relativistic environment of the church and culture would be like my worrying that my cat might decide to become a vegetarian.
I’ll not engage you further on the dispensationalist question. But our positions do demonstrate the fundamental problem of theological discussions. We all pretend to take the Bible literally, while taking the passages that do not agree with our position symbolically and and taking the passages we agree with literally.
Chances are, if Christians disagree on a given issue along more or less even lines, it’s because the Bible has verses which support either side more or less equally. The theological arguments have been beat to death for centuries. I hope to avoid them, frankly because others are more qualified to make them. My unique contribution to most discussions is probably an empirical mindset.
October 11th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Great post, Tom.
To address your original entry, I first will see that I agree with almost everything you said, save the issues of dispensationalism and Israel.
I have not studied as much theology and the history of the different movements throughout the ages of Christianity, so I’m not really familiar with the pre-Darby/Scofield views of prophecy. Can you briefly elaborate on what this means to you or provide a reference for me to read that won’t make my eye twitch?
When you say you don’t believe in an imminent rapture, what does that mean exactly? Are you saying you don’t believe in a pre-tribulation rapture or something else entirely?
As for the Left Behind movie, aaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhh, I could not agree more. It was like watching a high school production. Bad, really, really bad.
I did like the earlier books in the series, though, and they did make me think. But I do realize that there are several schools of thought as to when the rapture might occur. What do you believe? Pre-, mid- or post-tribulation? Do you think it matters? In other words, do you think subscribing to any one of those theories really makes a difference in the end?
As for your question on whether Joel Osteen is inside or outside the line, I can’t know his heart for certain — but my perspective is that he is definitely walking the tightrope that is the line and is losing his his balancequickly, if he has not gone outside the line completely.
I most definitely believe in a non-watered down Gospel. I have seen watered-down Gospels personally, and they always end up hurting so many people before all is said and done.
However, I do know that God asks us to go out and make believers — to evangelize. I believe that evangelization looks different for different people depending on how God created them in their temperment, mental capacity, social ability, personality and more. Further, I believe that God uses all of us in the way that suits His purpose for us. So evangelization for, say, Lindsay might look completely different than evangelization for Becki. And I think God not only allows it, but creates that difference.
I’m digressing here…back to the point…I’m concerned when people automatically assume that any seeker-oriented church or ministry is automatically watered-down. I believe there are those out there that truly want to reach out to the adulterers, drug-heads, losers of the world. And evangelization to those people might look different. If you were a runaway teen who was beaten and raped by her father and ignored by her mother and felt your only means of survival was prostitution — the words used to capture your attention about the beauty, love and grace of Jesus might look different than the general “If you were to die tonight, do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?”
So, while I absolutely do not trust Joel Osteen and I feel that the message he preaches is not only dangerous but can be ungodly, I don’t necessarily
disagree with him when he says he wants to reach out to the mainstream because they are the ones who desparately need God.
My agreement with him and his ministry stops there.
What am I trying to say…I can never just get to the point. Okay, let me try.
I think that sometimes we, as the Christian body of believers, can be SO deeply ingrained in tradition and the need NOT to depart from the Gospel that we become unintenionally legalistic.
I think it is a good thing to stretch our legs a little bit and try and put ourselves in the shoes of the lost — and find out what will speak to them. It has to be the Gospel message, but it doesn’t have to be “church talk.” Sometimes church talk sounds like condemnation to people who are so desparately lost and confused.
I don’t know if I’m making sense or not. I guess I’m just trying to say that presenting the true Gospel of Christ can look different ways for different people and for different churches.
HOWEVER, there is a danger in the seeker-friendly church — and that, of course, is the line. As popularity and public exposure increases, so does the liklihood and temptation of going outside the line. Like you said, Satan is a master strategist and will use whatever means necessary.
He does attack the “modern” seeker-friendly church. But he equally attacks the traditional church as well, in my opinion.
In the end, I think there must be a balance that excludes watering down the Gospel but also excludes legalism — both of which are equally harmful and damaging in my opinion.
Now I get to read all the comments!
October 11th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Whew! Heavy stuff in the comments section. I had to use my handy dandy Google dictionary a few times there.
I hope it’s okay, but I’d like to address the comments one by one because I do have some questions.
Brian:
I agree with you that, as Christians, we have the ability and even direction to rebuke fellow Christians when they are outside that line. And yes, we should call a spade a spade — but to quote Carrie H., we must be careful to rebuke with love and grace. Even a fellow Christian who is way outside the line may have a sincere heart in wanting to serve God and minister to others — even if they are dead wrong Scripturally. We can’t know another’s heart, so I believe it’s up to us to find out intentions and that person’s reasoning/motivation before rebuking. Not that it would change the fact that they are outside the line and confrontation might be necessary, but it might and should change the means/tone of the confrontation.
As for Osteen’s “It’s not my business” comments….are those not words straight out of the pit of hell? How can it not be a pastor’s business to shepherd his flock?
Quote from Becki:
I do have to say that we should love. I am not talking about “Do whatever you want and you will go to heaven,” but love and compassion for those that do not believe. By loving others, they see God in us and reminds or shows them there is a God. I do feel we need to confront the wrongs we see around us in a loving way. We are WAY too lenient today. Sic ‘em Tom!!!
____________
Couldn’t agree more, girl!
Quote from Tom:
That one could have absolute assurance of salvation through a mere prayer is out of line with almost every historic Christian group, Protestant or Catholic.
The logic, of course, is to minimize the requirements of Christianity so as to get as many people out of hell as possible. But I would argue it’s entirely possible the evangelical church has made a grave mistake.
___________
I agree with the above. You also mentioned that we are called to be judged by our fruits. “No fruit, no salvation?”
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?
I have always felt that saying a few simple words does not salvation make. I know there must be heart sincerity and true repentance in those words for them to “take,” so to speak.
I believe that at that point of crying out to God in repentance and asking for His salvation, that you are saved once and for, and that can’t change. But I also know that God doesn’t change all our ugly, dirty ways overnight. He is gentle and deals with us over time.
For instance, using myself as a neutral example: If I am being judged by my fruits, then in many ways, I am righteous. But in many ways, I’m not by the world’s standards or even by fellow Christians’ standards. I have not conquered anxiety. I have a mean streak a mile long, and I’m afraid of “church” (because of personal experiences; but not afraid of Christianity or Chrisitan people). I know God is working on me and with me in these issues, and they are serious issues. But I’m not sure I”m not sure how they affect my salvation experience.
God still sees me as righteous because of my salvation in His Son.
I’m not trying to be defensive, and I’m only using myself as an example — but I would truly like to understand what you mean by your comments. I have always had questions about this very thing.
Quote from Tom:
Now that the liberal-gospel chickens have come home to roost…
__________
Humor…I like it!!
Quote from Brian:
My point is, the delivery is not the issue. The message is. God will use us as His instruments to meet people where they are.
_____________
Is this Georgia’s Brian I’m talking to? I just wasn’t sure and wanted to ask. Anyway, I sort of disagree with your point that delivery is not the issue; the message is. Yes, of course, the TRUE message of the Gospel is paramount — but would you allow that God directs us to deliver that message in different ways to different people? And might that message look different when sharing it with a homeless man or your good guy neighbor across the street? My point is that I think both are important.
Quote from Brian:
…this requires total transparency and accountability. Not putting on a show for the crowd…
_____________
AMEN!
Quote from Brian:
the 50′ satellite image: transparency, accountability, genuine concern for the well-being of not just your brothers and sisters in Christ, but most especially for the lost. Being involved in the secular world. Giving a widow a ride to church. Or an orphan. Or your unchurched neighbor’s kids. Making yourself see the good in any situation. Praying daily. Reading and studying and meditating on Scripture every day. Talking with a fellow believer about your faith and convictions every day. (And the big one) Talking with a nonbeliever every day about your faith; telling them what you believe and explaining why you believe it. Challenging yourself to be a light to the world, maybe even challenging a nonbeliever to hold you accountable — because whether you ask them to or not, they are. Non-Christians will always keep track of what a professing Christian says and does, where they falter.
__________________
Beautiful! I love it. My only concern is that these things should come out of a reliance on God and His direction instead of an internal, (misguided in my opinion) need to perform for God.
Quote from Tom:
Basically, I distrust any major innovation in theology- I find it hard to swallow that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, etc were wrong until 1820 when Darby appeared on the scene.
________________
Tom, in this sense then, I’m interested in your thoughts and views on the Catholic church since it was the historical “first church.”
Quote from Tom:
I hope not to overstate my position, but to worry about legalism in the current relativistic environment of the church and culture would be like my worrying that my cat might decide to become a vegetarian.
__________________
Huh? I’m not following. Can you elaborate a little?
I appreciate this conversation. I love any conversation that makes me understand why I believe what I believe. Did I already say that?
October 11th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
I have to agree that a “mainstream” approach is needed for preaching the Gospel to unbelievers. As I was raised a Catholic, I did not understand a personal relationship with Christ. It was through gradual, gentle, non-offensive teachings that I became a “true” Christian. I was completely turned off to Ken’s Baptist “hellfire and damnation” upbringing. I appreciated Raymond’s approach and that is what led me to Westgate. I know that I am saved because I thirst for more and long to go deeper. (Is that possible as a blonde?) I think that is the true sign that the “mainstream” approach is making a difference. I guess it is making sure the resources are there to go deeper in the Word. If not for the “softer” approach I mentioned, my family would not have a wife/mother that they were meant to have. Also, if it weren’t for the stronger Christians at our church, I would know 1/100th of what I am learning now. I thank my Sunday School class and my Bible study groups for sparking that interest in me. If you all left to homechurch, us new Christians would have noone to look to for guidance.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Leisa, I have to disagree with this comment: “Tom, in this sense then, I’m interested in your thoughts and views on the Catholic church since it was the historical “first church.” ”
I do not believe this was the ‘first church’. In fact, I don’t think it came about til many years after Christ.
Tom, I understand what you’re saying about arguing these topics out. While I think it’s interesting to have the discussion (because I’m a ‘debater’), I also know that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind. Or, more accurately, it’s not likely that the Holy Spirit is going to rain down in a ball of fire just because I finally figured out the best way to express my viewpoint.
About the ‘literally vs. figuratively’ comment…I guess I feel like everything God’s Word says should be taken literally. I know you could give several examples that would probably blow that opinion out of the water, but I guess I just hang on to the fact that, if I do start to take certain things apart as simply ‘figurative’, what security do I have about any of it?
So, when He says “forever”, I take it to mean literally forever.
But, does that mean that interpreting something in a spiritual sense means I’m not interpreting it literally? I don’t think so. I think there are some very important spiritual truths (law vs. grace, for example) that are literal.
Ahhhhh, I feel like my words are muddy - it’s probably because it’s late and I should be in bed. Anyway, I appreciate the chance to kind of put my mind down on paper. It’s a fascinating discussion, with some very important consequences for our culture.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:59 am
I’m sorry - I have to make one more response to the legalism issue. I believe (from experience, unfortunately) that there are many people who have retreated from ‘liberal’ society into an almost cultish legalistic mentality. They refuse to let anything from the world enter their lives lest (and they do use the word “lest”) they be defiled. This is the context I’m referring to when I caution about legalism.
While I may have “legalistic” beliefs (I use that to mean that I have beliefs that I hold to be true, and if people disagree then I wil say i think they are wrong), I do not want to have a legalistic lifestyle - where I refuse to associate with anyone who does not hold to the same beliefs that I do. I’m not sure what that will always look like, but I think that these discussions and blogs are a good example.
Okay, I’m done! Thanks again for the discussion!
October 12th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Lindsay, that’s why I used quotations.
Perhaps I should have said “since they are often historically cited as and claim to be the first church.”
Picky, picky.
j/k
October 13th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
The following is a comment I wrote and couldn’t finish earlier this week, because the battery on this darn thing died on me…
Interesting… I really haven’t ever seen Romans 11 as anything but an argument against dispensationalism. Go figure. Nor did I know that your pastor agreed.
Tom, I think that overstates your argument just a very little bit. I agree that legalism and several other issues are of minor concern when the church in general is so gravely ill. Eschatology, Spiritual gifts (esp. tongues and prophecy), etc., etc. are all really secondary issues. I think that some of the “home churches” have put their fingers on a solution, but in that particular I think they’ve gone slightly too far: most seem to be withdrawing from congress with the world rather than shining in it. Not all, but most. And I think in addition to your illustration (original post), there’s another trick Old Scratch is pulling, with suprising success: distraction and dissolution. E.g.: Tim LaHaye and Hank Hannegraf, both theological welter weights, have had a long-standing (since the publication of the Left Behind books) cat fight about their end-times philosophies that I think demeans them both. Others — many, many others — sit in vaulted towers of study doing nothing more than rubbing blue theological mud in their bellybuttons. Not to mention the thousands of Christian men who are right this very second perusing the vast array of available internet porn.
What I mean is, if Satan can make us ineffectual, divert us from our main job, then he’s won before we even step onto the battlefield. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me which schools of Christian intellectuals are right; I’ll take pride in my Proletarian ignorance and strive to do the task that has been set before me. If the opportunity presents itself, I will share my faith with as many Jews and Catholics as come my way. Jesus gave the Great Commission to us all, and while it provides interesting intellectual diversion, I don’t really think it matters which of us has his thumb on the pulse of God — for secondary issues — as long as we strive to be obedient in the things we believe God has commanded us… 1) Love the Lord with everything in you, 2) Love your fellow human as yourself, and 3) Share your faith as often as you can manage. Secondary issues are important only in their ability to facilitate or hinder those main, plain things. And too much time and effort, in my humble opinion, is spent chasing these secondaries, rather than equiping believers to do the other three.
That having been said, and in the interest of the aforementioned intellectual diversion:
I agree with Tom; I don’t think that the nation-state of Israel has any more significance today than any other body politic. The great need to continue Peter’s work in bringing the Gospel to the Jews today is, in my mind, underscored by the fact that it is, I believe, illegal to evengelize for Christ in Israel. I do know that Messianic Jews are exempted from the Law of Return, as all extant branches of Judaism (and the Supreme Court of Israel) consider them Christian and therefore decidedly NOT Jewish. (Oh… plus, apostate)
“O”: bit o’ trivia… everyone seems to be stuck on referring to Joel as “pastor”, “minister” and cetera. However, our friend does not minister, he does not pastor; he preaches. He does no counselling, no weddings, no funerals, no hospital visits. He shows up Sunday morning, makes tens of thousands of his closest friends (and more via tv and the internet) feel good about themselves — “I’m okay, you’re okay” — , then picks up his check. And then, for the rest of the week, he’s like a bad penny: a book signing here, a talk show there….
Tom, I really think I know what you need to see. Georgia and I stumbled — glory to God! — across what I think could really be a model for what the Church should be. Nobody’s perfect, therefore any assembly of human beings is inevitably flawed to some degree. But the church home that we’ve found up here is incredible. I think it’s impossible for anyone to walk into this place without feeling the permeating presence of the Spirit. I’d like to make an open, standing invitation to anyone to come and visit. (To be honest, the people kinda scare me ’cause they’re so genuine. While they are mindful of growth, it’s seen as growth of the Kingdom, not growth of this particular church…
END
Apologies for the delay… I may return to this later…
October 14th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Brian,
West Texas is a neat place. My wife and I met in a middle size city out there while I was taking a break from my degree and doing a co-op. It’s unique in my opinion in that it has all of the positives of a Southern region (organic cultural Christianity, deep-rooted loyalty to kin and locale, pride in who you are, friendliness, hospitality, focus on family over material gain, etc) without suffering as much from some of our specifically Southern social problems that are more acute further east.
I can easily imagine that the environment would be favorable for creating functional Christian communities.
Your comments on Israel are dead-on. I remember earlier this year when the rapture-watchers were going on to each other about getting “glory bumps” (i.e. apparently these are goosebumps initiated by geopolitical events that portend Christ’s return) and supporting Israel’s latest “security action”. Meanwhile, ancient Christian communities in Lebanon, many of them probably direct spiritual descendents of the apostles themselves, are getting bombed to the stone age by Jewish pilots supported politically by American Christians.
I would think that at least neutrality and diplomatic efforts at restoring peace would be warranted on behalf of our Lebanese brothers suffering under Israel’s indiscriminate assault against civilian populations (Christians are a significant minority, 39%, in Lebanon). Instead, we get Falwell and Robertson egging them on so Jesus can return on their preferred timetable.
Tom
October 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I guess this is somewhat in response to Lindsay’s comments on legalism. I am sure, given certain circumstances and certain blaguard posts on a certain person’s blog (by me), I am viewed as legalistic. I don’t think so, on the main issues, but consider this. Maybe it is not an issue of legalism but definition of the “world”. We would probably all agree that “friendship with the world is enmity with God”, but not necessarily agree on what the world is. My intent is not to do everything the opposite of the world, because the ‘world’, namely worldly people, were still made in the image of God, so there would be similarities. Maybe the definition in question is not the world, so much as it is in what parts of the world we subject ourselves and our kids to.
We would all agree that we need to protect kids. Not leaving a loaded shotgun on the coffee table is, in a way, protecting your kids. Our Amish brethren have other ways of doing it. Most of us are inbetween. What we (Cathy and I) see as not having friendship with the world, many others would look at as isolationism. But, we do come into contact with our neighbors, friends, people at stores, etcetcetc. Through our experiences and our interpretation of scripture, we feel that public school is friendship with the world. I do sincerely apologize for my overbearing and non-Christian sounding stance on that, in particular, but not exclusively. Cathy has repeatedly informed me of my lack of tact. We feel that using methods of BC is friendship with the world. This is not the only biblical theme involved here, but we do have a more strict interpretation of these passages, and correspondingly feel that our kids are not our kids, and that it ties in with the parable of the talents, in that we will be given much if we are good stewards. I guess I am rambling and have totally lost my point. But there are ants in our house (as I am told) and I need to finish and go home.
So anyway, I guess some would view as legalism, that’s ok. One issue tied in with this is the homechurch. This is another avenue we have pursued that accomplishes our goal (and level) of protection from ‘the world’. And yes, I agree that there can be dangers. We must be diligent, Berean, etc. to ensure that we do not fall into traps and snares of the evil one. We have a tremendous feeling about the one we are attending (they’ve been doing it forever), but know that the one down the street might be sacrificing cats and drinking cool aid. As Christians, we must always be wary of those things.
We all love our children, we all want what is best for them. There are all methods and extremes of that. I also assume that everyone would agree that whatever the Holy Spirit leads you to as far as knowledge of scripture, that is what should be obeyed. Sometimes I think it is my job to help Him along. Anyway…Ants, Blessings, Aaron