My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "do Matthew 18 to brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their beliefs, these people are not members of the “church,” as Scripture defined it. And how do I privately approach these people in the first place? In my defense, too, St. Paul named names. In 1 Timothy 1:18–20, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight against false teachings. Paul specifically named Hymenaeus and Alexander as individuals that he helped throw out of the church because of their behavior. In his next letter to Timothy, Paul mentioned Hymenaeus again and added Philetus to the list of false teachers. Look also at Jude 4:
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Should we allow people who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church, freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't like gossip; in that blog, I quoted public statements they've made. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, the type of the pastor is a shepherd; his people are the sheep. Will we allow a wolf the freedom to attack our sheep, or will we defend them? And what if somebody said this about God (as one of them did): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty…” I mean, stop…it’s like calling my wife a prostitute. I’m going to defend my God.
Anyway, in Horn’s book Blood on the Altar, there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by Master of Theological Studies-educated Cris Putnam. I’m going to give you the kernel of it in my Reader’s Digest summary. I’ll probably hear more keening from some folks later, but that’s what always happens when you go to war against the enemy. So let’s do the unfortunate task of naming some names. On a bigger scale this time. Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, contrast in belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The dividing line, the real issue, is the authority of Scripture. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. On the left, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation in light of today’s sensibilities. Mainline “churches” who have these perverse beliefs include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the one group of Baptists--called the American Baptists, the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, the Unitarian church, and the Reformed Church in America. Most of the above reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like substitutionary atonement, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Evangelical denominations include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, Bible Church, Black Protestants, African Methodist Episcopal (and Zion), Church of Christ, Lutheran Missouri Synod, National Baptist Church, Pentecostal denominations, and the Presbyterian Church in America. (Note the split in the Baptist, Lutheran, Church of Christ and Presbyterian denominations. This certainly points out that it’s important to get a church's creedal statements before becoming a member—many individual churches have it online). Don’t get put off by people calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though most of them wear that badge proudly. Jesus said His children would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12).
Here are the five fundamentals, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of liberalism. (1) inerrancy of original Scripture; (2) divinity of Jesus; (3) the virgin birth; (4) Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins; and (5) His physical resurrection and impending return. Mr. Putnam adds two: (6) the doctrine of the Trinity; and (7) the existence of Satan, angels, and spirits.
Mr. Putnam argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in a god). He quotes Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell: “I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement.” And a quote from Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong: “the expanding knowledge of my secular world had increasingly rendered the traditional theological formulations expressed in core Christian doctrines as the incarnation, the atonement and even the trinity inoperative at worst, and incapable of making much sense to the ears of 21st century people at best.” (As Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.”) Both heretical statements are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. They don’t believe in the God we know, and will have the same destination in eternity as the godless antitheist—unless they repent.
The liberal churches, when they tear down the Bible, are attacking Biblical morality as well. They surmise that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says it promotes slavery, demeans women, and it “says” that sickness is caused by God’s punishment, and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. These are gross distortions. They say the Bible is a Jewish legend, that Joshua’s conquest is an example of genocide. If the Bible were true, God is a moral monster, says “New Atheist” Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens, now deceased, killed way too many trees with his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
A corollary of "postmodernism" (see the Emerging Church blog) known as “moral relativism” rules out a transcendent moral law revealed by God. Morality is culturally defined and relative to a particular group. So, if a majority of Americans agree that same-sex marriage is morally good, then it is. God has no say. As Putnam says, “it amounts to “the mob rules.” According to that “ethic,” the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1960s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just an immoral rabble-rouser. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, since the German citizens warned nobody when it went on under their noses. The majority were willing to be soldiers and kill and give their lives for Hitler, an avid and public Jew-hater. If the “relativist” argues the Holocaust was immoral, then he or she has conceded a moral absolute—a no-no for them. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic.”
They also say that if you argue that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, you believe in “religiocentrism.” (They love big words; it makes them feel superior, and puts you on the defensive.) Evidently religiocentrism is bad; as we said in that blog, what about Acts 4:12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Quoting that verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold. No Scripture returns void, remember (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride, anyhow.
Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, folks, one cannot say “racism is wrong” or “discriminating against homosexuals” is wrong. Remember, there are no absolutes, according to them. The best you can do is express your feelings: “I don’t like it.”
The apostle Paul was really thinking about today when he said the suppression of truth leads to futile thinking and a seared conscience (Romans 1:22ff). John Piper, an evangelical pastor, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of this behavior. Some of the author Putnam’s solutions: “We should approach liberal "Christians" as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that, as I Corinthians 2:14 says:
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of in Matthew 7:13:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
“Destruction” there speaks of hell. Now I'm not saying we should condescend to them as foolish or dull-witted, nor should we tell them early in the argument that they are non-Christian (there are many definitions of that word) or bound for hell. But (and I know I might get yelled at) there may come a time in the argument, later on, when they have voiced their defiance of Christian cores, or when they’re living openly in sin, or when they’re just toying with you with their “arguments,” that you might say that it does appear that they’re bound for hell, unless they repent—say it sadly, not angrily, right? (I'm assuming that's the way you feel).
The author finally warns that “these ‘in name only’ Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, (which has) already (been) labeled as bigoted and homophobic.” A shocking thought, hard to believe? Well, why not? Who led the charges against Jesus? Religious people. In the 1500s, who horribly tortured Christians, and deliberately burned them at the stake in green wood—to lengthen the pain before death? Religious people. Who used the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter n"on-believers" with the sword? Religious people.
Let’s have some spiritual discernment when we decide which church to attend. Let’s prayerfully look for a way to discuss the Bible with people—if we’re mature in the faith. Can we let them run off the cliff to hell without making any attempt to stop them?
Acknowledgements: Blood on the Altar, Thomas Horn
No comments:
Post a Comment