The teacher for our small group was absent Sunday and asked me to fill in. Who would have thought it would be so disheartening to teach a group of older church people? I suppose it was my fault. I dropped the "bomb" in the room. It did not go well.
The topic was "Sanctity of Human Life Sunday". The texts were Acts 16:16-19 (the freeing of the fortune-telling slave girl) and Psa 139:13-16. (I figured we could skip that one since it was the text for the sermon. I should have followed through with the idea.) The Acts stuff went mostly okay. Then we got to Psalm 139. A short passage, fairly straightforward, but, I guess, not. One person pointed out how verse 15 proves that God made us all at the same time -- Creation. "How?" you ask? It says he was "woven in the depths of the earth." See? At the beginning. It only degenerated from there. The lesson and I both pointed out how "my unformed substance" (v 16) was considered by all commentators as a reference to the embryo, which, I thought, was important -- demonstrating life, biblically, begins at conception. But our "verse 15" person pointed out that God has a sort of "spirit box" where all human spirits already reside and God just puts them in when each is conceived. See? "Unformed".
That was just the prelude. The real event was all on me. Verse 16 says, "In your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." I asked a "simple" question. "If that phrase is true, is it possible to conclude that things happen in your life that God did not plan?" I'm thinking, "If we can see that God plans everything, we can have confidence in Him in any situation." Wow! What a mistake! The "Free Will" argument (I capitalize those words because most who lean on the concept emphasize it as superior to God's will) was tossed out there. "If God plans everything, then we don't have Free Will." The problem of "double predestination" was targeted. "If God plans everything, then God plans for some people NOT to be saved." The problem of "bad things happen to good people" was thrown in for good measure. "If GOD caused those unpleasant events in my life, I would find it unacceptable." The number of faulty, unbiblical-yet-firmly-entrenched doctrines was sad. Really sad.
What are we doing wrong? (By "we" I mean "we" as a local body of believers, "we" as Christians, "we" who are to make disciples, "we" who care about God, His truth, and each other -- all of us.) How can the absolutely basic and fundamental concept of the Sovereignty of God be in such disarray and disuse in what would seem to be a Bible-based church, even among lifelong church folk? There was no way to handle all the various arguments and stray concepts that were thrown out there, chase down the logical catastrophe each would cause, and demonstrate from Scripture where they should go. On one hand there were too many to handle in the time available and on the other they were so far away from Scripture that they would require quite some time to walk through. Even if that was possible, it would have been offensive to a good third of the class, so strong were their convictions.
I find myself in a dilemma. Is there a solution to this? Or is this "just the way it is; get used to it"? And, beyond that, is it even "safe" to address this? To take people from their current, comfortable version of their faith to a biblical version is often traumatic. It often produces more heat than light, so to speak. Do we really want to allow for that? Isn't that how churches get split? Which is more important here -- right thinking (orthodoxy) or people in the pews?
Rhetorical questions, I suppose, because I don't think, when you're looking in the eyes of the people you're addressing, there are easy answers.
24 comments:
I imagine that at some point there will be conflict, when teaching sound doctrine.
your dealing with minds that have been mis-managed with great skill. in all likelihood you will be ostracized eventually if you keep this up...
Says the voice of experience ...
It is your biblical responsibility to teach the truth, even if it's unpopular. If they eventually stop asking you to teach, then you have done your godly duty. If you back down and let them continue in their wrong thinking, then there is no chance for correction and you're simply continuing the problem. It won't be easy, but is the unpopular truth ever easy?
Well, now, remember, I was just a substitute. So I'm wondering, is it "your biblical responsibility to teach the truth" in all situations? What about, say, if you were sitting in that class as a member or attender and heard this stuff? Would you believe it was your obligation to correct it? Or ...?
The answers you and Bob gave me, by the way, are the answer to the second question. "Keep doing it." Good. But ... I also want to know how we got here from there? How have all these nice church people who really do love the Lord and really do read their Bibles ended up so far out?
How long has theology not been preached in churches? If someone in authority isn't teaching them the truth, then just about anyone can teach then something, and if it lines up with how they feel about something, they accept it. I know that at least the 20 years I've been paying attention, most church services are about feeling good about God or others. Deep dives into theological concepts are reserved for college classes. Topical teaching seems to be the norm today, and that usually only references a verse it two, or jumps around to a few to drive the feel good point home.
As for your situation, I'd think that if the setting is one that allows open discussion rather than simply listening, then sure, you'd probably be responsible to at least broach the theological fallacies being touted. We're all responsible to each other to sharpen each other, whether pastor, teacher, or layman. Unfortunately, or typical form of church service, or Sunday School, doesn't leave much room for discussions, but simply listening.
I’ve been in that situation a couple of times and it’s tough. I generally try to ask questions or lead without getting to confrontational in the group, then follow up afterward. I don’t think there’s a reader not to, but I’m not sure publicly calling someone out is always the best option. Gentleness and respect.
Yes, gentleness and respect. I'm not frustrated or upset with these people; I'm concerned for them. Want their best. Afraid they're missing out.
I completely understand that you motivation is concern. I'm just saying that my approach is to have those conversations more privately.
I did a whole session of a bible study on Peter's warnings about false teachers, it was interesting. At least we had a basic agreement on the fact that there actually were True teachings and False teachings. It was a start.
My preference by far is private conversations. Do we not address this kind of thing when it is proclaimed publicly?
I think there’s a time, but I’d say start in private.
Part of the difficulty is that Doctrine is mostly presented in the abstract. whereas the topical presentation is designed to address real world problems. People often complain that doctrine has no immediate application to domestic challenges. People want solutions to their life's problems. this assumption is a self defeating contradiction.
I believe that sound doctrine always has practical application. in addition i would state that without sound doctrine there is no meaningful practical application.
as for dealing with brothers and sisters.. all you can do is love them, one on one..
chances are someone is listening. you cannot change the minds of others, but you can limit their options.
I cringe when I hear believers say heaven is "first come, first served." It's like they have not even read John chapter 5. All of the billions who have died--saints and sinners--are still waiting on their individual judgements. Nobody yet occupies the afterlife.
Never heard that before. Not at all sure of the point they would be making. "Die faster so you can get there first"? (Although I don't agree with your "Nobody yet occupies the afterlife" statement, since Paul did say that to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8).)
A) What does that have to do with the topic? B) What does John 5 have to do with how long judgment will take and when it will happen? We also know that as believers, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Doesn't sound like a long wait. C) You believe we're just going to spend tens of thousands of years waiting for the Judge to see us, like the worst DMV experience ever?
I wondered about that first question, too, then figured Anonymous was just referring to another perceived doctrinal mistake.
Well, this is a potential learning moment for me. If some saint of God is already "home with the Lord," what can John 5:28 mean when it uses the future tense for the moment when God makes the crucial decision as to who is going to go home and who is going the other way? John certainly sounds like it is saying all of the billions of entries into heaven and hell will happen on the same Judgement day, and not a moment sooner for anybody. To be "home" right now in 2018 means the judgement has already been made for that person, no?
Never heard anyone say anything like that.
There is certainly a judgment coming up (although John 5:28 speaks about the dead hearing His voice, not anything about judgment), but is it your idea that God doesn't know who is and is not going to be where in eternity until that judgment? Scripture speaks of "the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world." (Rev 17:8) It would seem to me that the judgment is not for Him to decide who will or will not make it eventually.
Just because something written in the future tense doesn't mean it is perpetually in the future. The future for John's time could still be our past. John could have been talking about judgment being when Jesus accomplished His task at His ascension.
John's phrase "to be condemned" sounds like judgment to me.
If we take John to be writing in 85 AD and Jesus's ascension to be 33 AD, future tense wouldn't make sense applied to the ascension.
If the resolution of this is that one of the passages was intended to be taken poetically/metaphorically, 2 Cor. 5:8 seems the more likely of the two.
I don't want to believe that John 5:28-29 is meaningless, nor that it was intended to go over our heads so that we get nothing useful from it. It has to be conveying something we can use to bolster our doctrine. I hope to see a full daily blog post from Stan on it soon.
No Bible-believing Christian believes that John 5:28-29 is meaningless. The accusation is unfounded, just as, though it appears that you believe that 2 Cor 5:8 is meaningless, but I won't say that you do. That last paragraph in your last comment was unnecessary and unfair.
The text speaks of a judgment that follows universal resurrection. Is that going to be your argument that everyone from death until then ... what ... doesn't exist or "sleeps" somehow?
The souls in Jesus's story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) were not asleep. Paul's desire to "depart and be with Christ" (Phil 1:23) doesn't sound like delayed gratification. (That would be to "depart and eventually be with Christ in some unknown future.") Jesus told the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43) ... by which He meant "some time thousands of years from now"? John saw the souls of the dead saints in the presence of God (Rev 6:9-10) -- not asleep. And weren't Elijah and Moses "awake" or "alive" or something besides "on hold" at the Transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8)? None of this agrees with the notion that the dead cease existence/sleep/are in some sort of suspended animation after death until the judgment.
You think I'm trying to make John 5:28-29 to be meaningless. If that is true, should I also understand you to be making all those texts equally meaningless?
When it appears on the surface that scripture contradicts itself, it is always the case that the reader is misunderstanding the modality of a passage. Poetry and figures of speech have their place in God's word.
My heart has been open to the Spirit to impress on me the meaning of scripture, and I have never been given anything on the end of John 5 that differs from what I described above. I don't believe I am leaning upon my own understanding when I point out that John is matter-of-factly predicting some real event that had not yet happened in his time nor yet in our time.
You used the word "sleeps," but I like the term "Bosom of Abraham." There may be a degree of consciousness involved in the wait. Yes, that puts me in the minority of believers, especially in Western Christendom.
I invite you gentlemen to open your hearts totally to the Spirit on this topic, and please come back here to instruct me on what you are told is the purpose of the passage in John. I am pretty confident that if you are sincere, you will come into conformity with what has been revealed to me.
Well, then, since you have the direct input of the Holy Spirit, I suppose we're done here. As for me, I'll stick with what the main of Church History has held throughout Christianity, suspecting that they, too, have the Holy Spirit. It would be a sad mistake on your part to assume that anyone who disagrees with you on this has failed to open their hearts to the Spirit, and I'm pretty confident I will not (because I have not) come into conformity with this very unusual perspective on the text.
Post a Comment