My last blog on this subject (The Emerging Church) was controversial because it named names. Charges of "judgmentalism" and "read what it says in Matthew 18 before you bad-mouth brothers in the church" are ringing in my ears. Well, based on their expressed beliefs, these people may not be members of the “church,” as Scripture defines it. And, since Matthew 18 says to confront them face-to-face first, how does a little guy like me privately approach these people? Their pastor should do that job, really. And let's not forget that 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.
People who “secretly slip in” and work to destroy the church--should we allow them freedom to tear away because we don’t want to offend them? This isn't simply gossip; in the Emerging Church blog, I quoted public statements they've boldly made that, whether they know it or not, are anti-Christian. Let's expose them and remove them from being called part of the church. I mean, those who have the gift of pastor are supposed to be shepherds; his congregation are the flock of 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 against this blasphemy by speaking up.
Anyway, in Tom Horn’s book Blood on the Altar (we referred to it on the blog of 7/16), there’s a great article called “A Divided House” written by a Master of Theological Studies, Cris Putnam. I’d like 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 continue to do the unfortunate task of naming some names. But on a bigger scale this time--naming denominations. Now, I hope you understand that if I denounce a denomination's expressed theology, that does not mean every single person in that denomination agrees with it--or even knows what it is. Nor does it mean that every single church in that denomination is in line with some heretical thinking we give. But we may ask: If you disagree on major theological points, why do you stay in that denomination?
Here is the split in the church: The so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, for the most part, have gotten to the point of a major contrast in recent belief, history, and practice with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestant denominations--"religious conservatives." The deciding factor I used, here, of course, is the statements of Scripture vs. their stated belief system. Conservatives generally uphold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (though, in fairness, their congregations often don't take His Word seriously) and embrace God’s moral truths as timeless. Opposing them, though, are folks who believe the Scriptures are an imperfect human work bound to an anachronistic culture, and that one must revise one’s interpretation of it in light of today’s sensibilities. Keep in mind that Scripture definitely claims to be the Word of God. Consider the definite meaning of "God-breathed" in II Timothy 3:16-17:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Mainline “churches” who have "updated" their beliefs (and often miss the Gospel message, and even become heretical) include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, 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 those reject core doctrines of classical Christianity like the substitutionary atonement of Christ, leading H. Richard Niebuhr to famously surmise their creed amounts to: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Evangelical denominations who believe Scripture is God-breathed include: Assemblies of God, Southern and Independent Baptists, 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. I would be leery of joining a church that doesn't post its creed. Don’t get put off by people who use sarcasm calling these groups “fundamentalist”—though some of them wear that badge proudly, maybe a little too proudly. But as you can see, there are plenty of churches that have a loose leash now that they are free to judge God on what's "really" His Word for now. (Men judging God?)
So let's get down to brass tacks: Here are five fundamental beliefs, any one of which could not be denied without falling into the error of non-Christian 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 has a shocking conclusion: he argues that there really isn’t any difference between liberal mainline pastors and antitheists (who don’t believe in God). For an example of proof of his statement, Mr. Putnam 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." Atonement, by the way, is that Jesus paid the price for our sin. 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.” But, as Mr. Putnam so well put it, “the incarnation, atonement, and Trinity are not exactly negotiable doctrines.” Both heretical statements above are the same, because both deny God’s central plan for the saving of the world. Neither of these people will lead you to heaven. Believe what they say here, and hell is your destination. These congregations don’t believe in the God we know, and their "knowledgeable" leaders will have the same ultimate 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 are stating that there is no objective, or absolute, morality. We thus have freedom to sin--as Scripture defines it--without guilt. They claim the Bible is sexist, homophobic, and the flawed product of an ancient patriarchal culture. Bishop Spong says Scripture promotes slavery, demeans women, and our Bible “claims” 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.
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; culture majority rules. As Putnam says, “it amounts to 'the mob rules.'” Following through with that reasoning, the majority who discriminated against the blacks in the South in the 1950s was correct, and Martin Luther King, who appealed to transcendent morality, was just a rabble-rouser trying to change culture for his own race's benefit. Further, there isn’t even a warrant to criticize atrocities like the Holocaust, even if the German citizens didn't call attention when it went on under their noses. The majority who were soldiers were willing to 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—and that, to them, is a no-no. So, by their own rules, they have to remain silent on genocide. By the way, just the fact of their repeated denouncing the “immorality” of real Christianity is a violation of their stated “ethic” about not judging anybody's morality.
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 4:10, 12? It sounds pretty religiocentrist:
...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead...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 those verse will make you an ”intolerant exclusionary”--but be bold, nevertheless. Remember, no quoted Scripture returns void (Isaiah 55:11). Quote it with pride.
Fancy name-calling is an excellent way to put you on the defensive. According to their ethic, one cannot say anything is truly 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 deeper and deeper sin under 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 non-believers, 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.”
Recent data indicate that they are just as numerous as conservative Christians. 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 be condescending, calling them 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 in society) or bound for hell. But there may come a time later on in the argument, 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 when you say it; after all, we should pray for the lost).
The author finally warns that “these (liberal) "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 "non-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