Recently overheard: "How did you like the new church?" "Oh, it was great! We both cried."
I've been told before, "If you tell people that the Bible teaches that, it will push them away from Christianity."
"If it feels good, do it."
By what standard do we determine what is right and wrong, good and bad? It appears that the standard set by the world of the '60's has become the standard of determining right and wrong for all of us ... or at least most. "If it feels good."
As I said, it was only overheard, so I wasn't able to respond, but I wanted to ask so badly, "When did 'we both cried' become the criterion for good church?" Apparently so many of us now determine if a church is good or bad by whether or not we have the appropriate emotional response. If it doesn't "move me", it isn't good. If I feel something that I deem is appropriate from the service, then it is good. Really?
I had a conversation awhile ago with a woman who was preaching at her church. I asked, "On what do you base your idea that this is okay?" She asked, of course, why I asked, and I pointed out the Scripture that said it wasn't right. "Oh, that can't mean that," she told me. "If a person feels a calling from God, it wouldn't be right to stand in the way." I see. If we feel called to do something, then it's the right thing to do.
Lots of people today determine "good theology" by how people react to it. "You know, telling people they're sinners just makes them mad." It doesn't feel good to hear that stuff. "Good theology", then, is theology that makes people feel better about God and about themselves. You know, stuff like "God loves you" is good, but stuff like "God makes demands" is bad. Telling people "It is God's will that everyone be saved" is good, but telling them, "Some will not" is bad. Don't tell homosexuals that their activity is against the Bible because that will only alienate them and making them feel bad is not good theology. Don't tell women that the Bible forbids women taking authority from men because that will just make them feel lesser and feeling that way is not good theology. Don't tell people that Christ is the only way because that sounds arrogant and people don't like arrogant.
When did "how I feel about it" become the standard of morality, the determiner of truth? I suppose it has always been the way to some segments, but it is now largely the standard for those who claim to be followers of Christ. These followers of Christ, then, take up positions opposed to Christ because these positions feel much better than those ones that align with Christ and figure out ways to change it so Christ agrees with them. Oh ... that sounds bad, doesn't it? Yeah, actually, it is.
21 comments:
You're absolutely correct. People don't like to hear that they're wrong or mistaken. People don't like to hear that they're holding on to traditions of men, or wealth, or power, or personal pleasure and tickled ears rather than truths of God.
But we ought to speak out and, in love, remind them that the goal is not Bible worship nor bowing to traditions, but rather, to follow in the steps of Jesus and heed HIS teachings. We ought to remind the religious (ie, ourselves) that it was the religious hypocrites that Jesus' most harshly condemned.
We ought to note that Jesus' teachings were mostly about how to live lives of grace and mercy and did not dwell upon the personal failings of individuals - although he certainly taught us to leave behind those sins, the materialism, the trappings of wealth, the hypocrisy, the power-grabs that would drag us down.
On these ideals, at least, I believe we can agree.
I DO find it interesting that the sins that the traditional church seems to most focus on, at least in the news and in the sermons that I grew up with in traditional church, are the "sins of the flesh."
What "the gays" are doing, or the abortionists, or the sexually loose or the drinkers and drug abusers. These seem to be the topic of many sermons.
And yet, none of those made it as topics of the sermons of Jesus. In fact, other than discouraging divorce a few times and saving the adulterous woman from a stoning by religious hypocrites and telling her to go, sin no more, Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexuality. Nor about drug abuse or drinking.
On the other hand, He had a lot to say about hypocrisy and wealth and how we treat the poor and oppressed. I sometimes (before I started attending my current church) wondered why our churches' sermons didn't seem much like Jesus'.
Anyway, by all means, let us speak the truth in love. Even though it makes some feel uncomfortable. Amen.
Wow, Dan, you could have just summed it up like your fellow blogger/commenter (at another site):
...just throw out John 3:16...can't we all just get along??
It'd have been a lot shorter read anyway.
Then you can justify whatever you want.
I'm not sure what you mean, starflyer.
Yes, I believe we should strive to get along ("in as much as it is possible, be at peace with everyone," I believe is how the Bible states it).
Yes, I believe John 3:16 is a great reality. God DOES the the whole world so much that God came to live right here amongst us, pouring out his life with and for us and if we believe in Jesus - in the Way that Jesus taught (of grace, love, justice, mercy, forgiveness) - then whosoever believes this is being saved.
However, I'm not sure that this was Stan's point or my point. My point was that I agree with Stan, that it is important for us to speak the truth in love. Even if some don't like to hear that truth. Even if some would rather you be quiet or go away and not engage in those sorts of conversations.
I'm not trying to justify anything beyond speaking the truth in love. What was your point?
It'd have been a lot shorter read anyway.
Sorry for the longevity of my answers. We seem, sometimes, to have a hard time understanding one another and so, in an effort to be more clear, I perhaps over-explain.
But then, when you seem to suggest that I'm trying to "justify whatever I want," it seems that, in spite of my supposed longwinded-ness, you still are reading things into what I've written that I have not intended to say (nor have I said).
Dan, you write that "the goal is not Bible worship... but rather, to follow in the steps of Jesus and heed HIS teachings."
Since even we inerrantists don't worship the Bible and don't run any significant risk of doing so, I don't know why you bring this up.
And since you don't seem to put much credence in Christ's teachings about a few significant subjects...
- Christ's teaching about the authority of Scripture, to the smallest penstroke
- Christ's stated reason for why God made us male and female
- even Christ's own teaching about why He came, why He died, and what His shed blood accomplished
...I'm not sure how much stock anyone should put in the platitudes you offer, as if your beliefs are convincing evidence of submission to His teachings.
On a more detailed note, Dan, you claim:
"In fact, other than discouraging divorce a few times and saving the adulterous woman from a stoning by religious hypocrites and telling her to go, sin no more, Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexuality."
This is simply not true.
First of all, it's a gross understatement to say that Jesus merely "discouraged" divorce: He forbade it except in extreme circumstances.
Beyond this, Jesus taught that mere lust is as immoral as adultery, in the Sermon on the Mount which you claim to revere oh-so very highly.
And, most importantly in regards to your beliefs about God and sexuality, Matthew 19 records that Jesus Christ taught that we were created male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female), a principle which obliterates your attempts to argue that God blesses an essentially androgynous matrimonial institution.
Your summaries of what Jesus taught sound great, except to those who have read the Gospels for themselves.
Dan, all I'm really saying is that I think you twist Scripture to justify things God clearly condemns, and you spend a lot of time and words trying to convince others that they are wrong.
You value reason over God's word (instead of bringing your thinking in line with God's thinking, as expressed to us in His Word).
You don't have to respond to this...I've been keeping up on the comment threads all along, and I've read your replies/rejections, etc. I'll leave the debate in the capable hands of Bubba and Stan...
But I do often pray for you. And it is out of care for you. I truly believe that supporting abortion, homosexuality and other issues that have come up, will really be a regret to you later. Again, no need to respond.
Starflyer said...
all I'm really saying is that I think you twist Scripture to justify things God clearly condemns, and you spend a lot of time and words trying to convince others that they are wrong.
If you truly think so, then the Bible tells you what to do. Go to the sinning brother alone and tell him (I think rather specifically) what he's done wrong, so that they can repent.
IF you truly think that I've twisted Scripture, then I'd advise that you do as Scripture commands and confront me about it and illuminate me so that I can know where I've gone wrong.
If you're not willing to do that, then aren't you merely slandering me publicly by suggesting that I've "twisted Scripture" without offering any evidence that I have done so (which I don't believe you can because I don't believe I have done so)?
I am always willing to learn but you have to be prepared to say, "Dan, when you say X, it is a twisting of Scripture because..." and explain why. Is it when I say that I don't think that the Bible teaches that God commands us sometimes to kill babies? Is that "twisting Scripture?" Or is it when I say that the Bible is silent on gay marriage (which it is), is that what you think is "twisting Scripture?"
I'm not very impressed with casual, unsupported and vague accusations as they are not how we are led to repentance.
Bubba said...
Your summaries of what Jesus taught sound great, except to those who have read the Gospels for themselves.
Okay, so let's see...
1. You don't like my saying that Jesus "discouraged" divorce. You think I should have said that Jesus "forbade" divorce except in some circumstances.
Okay.
2. You think I should have added Jesus' mention of lust being as immoral as adultery in the SOTM.
Okay.
Is that it? My summaries are insufficient because of these two exceptions?
Well, we've clarified that we agree on those two exceptions. Now are we good?
Except for Jesus' teaching about divorce in a couple of places, Jesus and the "adulterous woman (and man)" and Jesus' mention of lust in the SOTM, he hardly talked about matters of sexuality at all.
Is that better?
Dan, it appears that you're arguing that Jesus said all there was to be said and the large amounts of passages in the rest of Scripture on sexual immorality (as an example) ought to be ignored because Jesus didn't bring it up very often. Is that your view?
sexual immorality (as an example) ought to be ignored because Jesus didn't bring it up very often. Is that your view?
No. Just that concern about what other people do in their bedrooms - which Jesus just barely addressed - ought to be kept in balance with the more serious and common sins of greed, oppression, consumerism, militarism, etc, that Jesus actually spent more time talking about.
In other words, if a preacher preaches 50 sermons in a year, I'd expect the ratio to be closer to something more like Jesus spoke of - maybe one sermon a year or so which touches on sexual sins - and even then, it ought to be done in the manner that Jesus spoke of sexual sins. "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
I gotta admit, Dan, sometimes you make me laugh. While I find nothing at all in Jesus's sermons about "greed, oppression, consumerism, militarism", and while there is substantial texts in the New Testament about things like sexual immorality, you still consider me misguided when I find things like biblical inerrancy in the Bible. Funny stuff, really.
Stan said...
While I find nothing at all in Jesus's sermons about "greed, oppression, consumerism, militarism"
Surely you jest. Really? "Nothing at all??"
Jesus on greed/consumerism:
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal… for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
~Matt 6
"Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
~Matt 20
Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me."
He replied to him, "Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?"
Then he said to the crowd, "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions."
~Luke 12
And he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, "Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!"
But God said to him, 'You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?'
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God."
He said to (his) disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear…”
~Luke 12
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
~Matt 19
"Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful."
~Mark 4
Shall I continue, or perhaps you were employing hyperbole?
while there is substantial texts in the New Testament about things like sexual immorality
Nowhere nearly so much as there are about things like greed and materialism and the trappings of wealth. And, as noted, these things are virtually invisible in Jesus' words.
I'm just calling for balance and awareness of what the bible actually says, rather than human traditions. The Bible spends more time talking about wealth and poverty and how we are to beware one and side with the other than just about any other topic with the exceptions of God's own Self and God's kingdom (which sometimes are related to the wealth/poverty topics) and yet these are topics that are mostly silent in our churches, while sex sins are condemned regularly.
In all things, moderation, balance.
You tell me "The Bible never condemns 'gay marriage'." I tell you "Jesus never mentioned militarism." You're right; I'm wrong. In the lists of Scripture you just offered, the word "greed" appears once. No mention of "consumerism", "oppression", or "militarism". Still, you're adamant, even though these words don't appear, that these are the major thrusts of Jesus's teachings. Seems like a double standard to me.
Then we look at the post in question and find what it was about. I asked "How do we determine what is a good church?" and "Is it right for women to teach men?" and "How do we determine good theology?" as examples of questions of "What standards do we use to determine what is right?" So isn't this whole disagreement about whether or not we should care about sexual immorality unbalanced with the post? And you're asking for balance?
No mention of "consumerism", "oppression", or "militarism".
I mentioned a list that included greed, consumerism, oppression and militarism. I then provided a bunch of scriptures where Jesus talked about greed and what I would call materialism or consumerism (being concerned with your many material barns, consuming much stuff).
I was asking you if you seriously thought Jesus didn't teach against greed. I didn't go into each of the others (oppression, militarism) because you seem to worry that I write too much. So I took just the first topic (greed, which coincided with consumerism) and offered some passages to support it.
Do you still think that Jesus didn't teach "at all" about greed?
Jesus mentioned greed once in those passages. You apply "greed" to the rest. In other words, you see them as plainly talking about greed even though they never say the word. Apparently you define "greed" as "synonymous with consumerism". Of course, the #1 definition of "consumerism" is "The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers", but I'm guessing you're using the last definition -- consuming goods. So apparently when you said listed greed and consumerism, you were referencing the same thing, and it is bad to be a consumer of goods.
Dan Trabue: "Do you still think that Jesus didn't teach 'at all' about greed?
When Bubba called you to task for misstating Jesus's position on divorce, you agreed. I agreed that greed was mentioned. Jesus taught about greed. In fact, others did, too. Given. But when you tack on "consumerism, oppression and militarism", words not found in my Bible, and tell me these were primary themes in Jesus's teaching, you're right. When I point out plain Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior explicitly, I'm wrong. Isn't that odd?
Just a quick response here:
When I point out plain Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior explicitly, I'm wrong.
No. You're not wrong. Clearly in the few places that homosexual behavior appears to be mentioned, Scriptures are condemning the behavior mentioned.
Where you would be mistaken would be if you said that Scriptures condemn ALL homosexuals or any and every kind of homosexual behavior, since the Scriptures don't go that deep on the topic. They cover certain gay behaviors (clearly men laying with men as the pagans did in their ritual sexual practices at their temples, that was wrong, according to the Bible) but not every gay behavior. It just factually doesn't.
Dan loves that bit: "clearly men laying with men as the pagans did in their ritual sexual practices at their temples, that was wrong, according to the Bible". He likes to believe only the pagan version of homosexual behavior is wrong, but there's always other sins mentioned and Dan never OKs them if they are done, I guess, in a non-pagan manner. In other words, he's making crap up, or easily buying into the crap of others in order to justify his enabling of homosexual behavior. In still other words, he's lying about what is meant by those verses. Plain lying.
Oh? How am I lying, brother Marshall? Point out the lie so that I may repent and stand corrected.
Reading your post, I can't tell where I have lied. The text, in fact, that I referenced IS talking about "men lying with men" in the context of pagan temple worship, so I'm not lying there.
As to other sins being mentioned, I don't need a bible verse to tell me that bestiality is wrong. It is clear because someone is forcing something upon an unwilling creature, always a wrong.
So, if I have lied, tell me where (although I would suggest the more biblically correct way of correcting a brother in error is to do so one on one). But if you can't do this, I'd appreciate a retraction and apology - moreso for your sake than mine, since bearing false witness and slander and gossip are such serious sins.
Post a Comment