In the wake of the pope's retirement announcement, I heard a brief bit of a roundtable discussion among American Roman Catholics voicing their opinions. They hoped for a younger pope, one who would be more sympathetic to their concerns. They wanted a pope who wasn't so strong on abortion and homosexuality and women in ministry. They wanted a more ... sympathetic, "in touch" pope.
In an article in Christianity Today, Dr. Al Mohler discussed Tebow's change of heart in speaking at the Dallas church. The comments below were largely critical of ... the church. We don't need to be "hateful" (defined, apparently, as "having a biblical worldview"). Standing on Scripture and the historic positions of the Church are all well and good as long as they don't violate public opinion. One commenter wrote, "The church needs to rethink this issue because right now it's becoming irrelevant ..." Same idea as those Roman Catholics.
There are a lot of suggestions out there on this topic. If you are standing on biblical principles in agreement with the historic Church, you are "irrelevant". You are "out of favor". You are perceived as "hateful", "bigoted", even "foolish". And clearly "irrelevant", "out of favor", and "hateful" (to name a few) are bad things to be. One thing that never seems to come up, of course, is "right". Pilate asked Jesus with derision, "What is truth?" Our society (including many in the realm of Christendom) has gone far beyond the derisive question and set aside any such notions.
We live in a world that thrives on "favor", "relevance", "comfort", "pleasure". We claim to oppose "hate" but will hate anyone who opposes us in what we love. We reject judgmentalism and intolerance and will not tolerate those rotten folk we deem judgmental. Missing the schizophrenic positions we take, we stand defiantly against historic Christianity and the clear teachings of Scripture and call for repentance -- the repentance of the Church. And the reason we give is "favor", "relevance", "comfort", or "pleasure", but never "truth".
So you need to decide your priorities. If your priority is relevance, then you will likely need to oppose historic Christianity. If your priority is favor with your world, then you will likely need to move Scripture from its historic, reliable, authoritative position. If comfort is your primary aim, then you will certainly need to reevaluate what the Bible and the Church have taught all along and discard much of it.
Many today who are in Christendom believe that our primary task is to mollify those around us. I like the word, "mollify", here. It means "to soften in temper". It's root is the source of our "emollient" creams -- skin softeners. And that's how we see it. Be softeners here and soften up the opposition. The problem, of course, comes when you compare this approach with Jesus (you know, the Christ whose title is in the word "Christian"). He certainly wasn't being very soft when He drove moneychangers out of the Temple with whips. I'm sure that the woman caught in adultery, while appreciating His refusal to stone her to death, wasn't feeling very softened with His massive command, "Go and sin no more." And surely Jesus's disciples could have done a much better job of PR work when He started going off on the Pharisees with His grand "woes" (Matt 23). I mean, seriously, Jesus, "hypocrites", "blind guides", "whitewashed tombs", "brood of vipers" ... You had to know that those were not "mollifying" terms, right? Look, Jesus, if You want to remain relevant, if You want to be viewed favorably, if You want to retain any sense of comfort, You need to rethink Your stand here. You need to choose less hateful terms and take less judgmental and intolerant positions. Come on, Jesus. Oh, look at what it got You! Death! See?
Well, you decide. What is your priority? Is it truth? Or is it relevance? Is it favor? Or is it Christ? Is it comfort? Or is it conformity to the One you call Lord? Because "No, Lord" is the ultimate oxymoron, so decide this day whom you will serve and realize that sometimes following God will result in irrelevance, disfavor, and discomfort in your world. It did for the One we call "Lord". Expect it. Or discard Him.
21 comments:
I'm trying to picture how America is going to make Christianity illegal without making christianity illegal. While the unbelievers would love to see us disappear, there are still more than enough people that believe in religious freedom, no matter how wrong-headed it might be, and definitely more than enough anti-christs in Christian clothing. Obviously the Separation of Church and State only goes one direction, so how long before we have the "gestapo" monitoring our church services for "hate-speak", and when our co-workers become required to tattle on true believers. I know its coming, and the only way I can see it happening is if the America we pledged allegiance to in our youth is no longer the America we live in. And I think many in America would like to see that happen, though they wouldn't admit it because it just sounds so un-American.
Though I've rejected the Roman Catholic faith of my parents, I've always had respect for the pope, at least the last two or three, because of their strong adherence to what they believed were essential truths, many of which have been points of contention for the RCC for quite some time. Their example is one we should emulate if we are truly convicted in our own beliefs.
More lies, half-truths and false representation.
Thou shalt not bear false witness, Stan.
Those who slander and cut and gossip are not part of the Kingdom of God, Stan.
There is hardly a word of truth in what you just wrote. Wake up. Open your eyes. Give up your cultural blindness.
Repent.
David, I recently read an interesting book -- God's Smuggler. Okay, re-read. It details the story of Brother Andrew who smuggled Bibles into communist countries in Europe and Asia in the 50's and 60's. He had some very interesting insights into what it meant to outlaw Christianity without outlawing Christianity. They "permitted" it, but with such tight controls that no open Christianity could actually exist. So they embraced religious freedom openly while covertly ensuring you never actually got it.
Marshall,
I am obviously opposed to Roman Catholic theology, but there is much commendable about the Roman Catholics. The fact that they haven't bent to culture for so long is one of them.
To my readers, I have posted Dan Trabue's ardent comment because it was, well, so ardent. I am, once again, baffled at what he is so ardent about. I don't know what lies or slander he's talking about. And it is patently obvious that he doesn't understand the concept of "false witness".
My post suggested that many wish to mollify those around us and others believe we need to stand on the truth. I suggested that "the truth" on which we stand is both biblical and historical. If that is "cultural", then I suppose I have a different view of "culture". All that to say that I also don't understand the accusation of "cultural blindness", where my "culture" is derived from classical Scripture and 2,000 years of Christendom, and apparently, his "culture" has no correlation to his actual, present culture.
All this to ask you, dear readers, to help me to see if I'm misrepresenting, slandering, gossiping, "bearing false witness", or any other of those accusations, because I frankly can't see it. Or, it just could be a mirror he's looking at and he's the one doing all that. I don't know. Help me out.
You have to love Dan T's unsubstantiated denunciations. He always refuses to give any reason for what he claims other than he said so. And for some reason he believes that he is above cultural influence, when he is merely choosing which culture to follow. You choose the culture of biblical, historical Christianity, and he chooses the modern, can't KNOW anything American culture. He's just as cultural blind as we are, seeing as we all interpret the world through our culture.
And, Dan T perfectly exemplifies the definition of insanity: "Doing the same action and expecting a different reaction." That's where we have the advantage. We say the same thing every time, and he reacts the same, just as we expect. He says the same thing a different way, and expects us to just roll over and admit he's write and God is incapable of revealing His Truth.
Stan,
It seems as though it is at least possible to be relevant without compromising Biblical Truth. It also seems that to do so could be a laudable goal. Are you suggesting otherwise?
I did find the false witness part, apparently Al Moehler doesn't actually exist.
Just kidding, it is good to see folks from the left spreading the love of Christ around so lavishly though.
Did you happen to see my discussion on FB at Sola Sisters?
Dan has scales over his eyes. He cannot stand the truth because he is on the opposite side of it. He HATES you because he really hates Christ.
At least his posts have become more clear and to the point. It's almost refreshing. And it also becomes super clear which side he stands on. I say let him post...and you keep proclaiming the truth. Thanks Stan
Stan,
All you have to do is present the truth and Trabue will accuse of you of lies, slander, misrepresentation, etc, etc, etc.
He seems to be very ardent about opposing the truth.
Stan, I didn't see anything wrong with your post...maybe if we as believers are culturally "blind" we should just wait awhile - perhaps the culture will shift back to our beliefs at some point - because that's what culture does, it shifts. It changes. Up until about 25 years ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder. Then the culture shifted, and it is now an "orientation." Who knows what shift will be next....Pedophilia? Bestiality? I am so thankful that God is unchanging, and His Word is unchanging. We as men will always shift - which is why we need to keep our focus on Him and be in the Word. Please, Mr. Trabue, read your Bible! Seek Him and trust in His son Jesus' finished work on the cross!
As for not being a part of the Kingdom of God, please read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Craig, I think you're right. I know of no Al Moehler. (I do know of an Al Mohler.)
Dan, I'm no longer on FB and never had a connection to Sola Sisters, so never saw it. Synopsis?
Bryan, A culture that "shifts" back to a biblical worldview isn't likely. A culture impacted by God's Spirit, on the other hand ...
But, you're right. If you take the arguments in favor of "gay" and "marriage equity" as defined by the current culture, you will also need to allow for pedophiles and bestiality. Of course, that will take time, but, looking at the changes in American culture in the last 50 years, it won't take much time.
OK, I misspelled Al's name. But in all seriousness, I can't see a thing in your post that rises to the level of lie or false representation.
It's okay, Craig. I know you were kidding about "no Al Mohler" no matter how you spelled it and were actually agreeing with my, well, bafflement about what would be construed as lies.
It is ironic how we are constantly being accused of being irrelevant, when the things they are arguing against are completely relevant. I think they might not understand the meaning of irrelevant? Seems like a weak tactic to try to lower our voice. If we truly were irrelevant, we'd be being ignored, not hotly debated at every turn. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them irrelevant. And any true believer will tell you that Christianity can never become irrelevant because it is a living religion lead by the One True God Who is actively working in their lives. The only way for Christianity to become irrelevant would be for Christianity to be false or for God to give up. We are promised that the world will see our beliefs as foolishness, so their accusations fall on deaf ears here.
You can defend against Dan's charges by using Dan's own defense for his twisted understandings regarding Biblical teaching: If you truly believe what you are saying, can you be held accountable? Is it slander if you believe what you say? I mean, you're not engaging in the mental contortions Dan does, so it should work even better for you.
Stan,
Other than the comic relief.
Are you suggesting that one can't be relevant and not compromise Biblical Truth?
Absolutely not, Craig. As David pointed out, what could be more relevant than the sin condition of Man and the need for Christ? But, just like the title of the article, Priorities, indicates, the world has a different sense of priorities for relevance. They use the term to refer to culture, the current feelings about things, their particular wants and desires (often lusts). The Truth is not "relevant" to them not because it's irrelevant, but because it doesn't admit to their desires. The commenter on Dr. Mohler's article that complained, "The church needs to rethink this issue because right now it's becoming irrelevant" wasn't able to recognize that "Thou shalt not ..." is just as relevant to the question of ... fill in the blank ... as the very prevalent concern of "I want to do whatever I want to do and I want you to approve."
I've heard young people say that church is irrelevant because they sing songs of praise and read the Bible and hear preaching and what could be more irrelevant than that? Really? Stepping into the presence of the Most High along with all the saints, living and dead, and angels to worship God in all His glory is irrelevant?? Someone clearly missed the point of "relevant".
No, I'm saying that changing the Truth in order to cater to a distorted sense of "relevant" is a serious error.
That's what I though, just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.
"Those who slander and cut and gossip are not part of the Kingdom of God, Stan."
How does Dan know this?
We believe that Christ shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins and that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife. We believe these things because the Bible clearly teaches these things and even directly attributes them to Christ's direct teachings, but supposedly those beliefs are merely culturally conditioned.
Sure, the Bible appears to be clear about the sins of slander and gossip -- never mind whether Stan's comments qualify; they don't, and Dan should have had the decency to explain his accusation -- but so what? The conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy on the immorality of gossip could be JUST as culturally conditioned as the conclusion that the Bible teaches salvation through Jesus' death and the standard of heterosexual monogamy as God's will for humanity.
Surely Dan Trabue doesn't insist that his beliefs are free of cultural blindness just because they're his, and so I urge him not to presume to speak for God and to tell us who is and isn't in His Kingdom.
Post a Comment