After my foray into the Nashville Statement discussion, a reader contacted me and suggested I needed to see how wrong I was from a counter statement. Now, I do not intend to take on the author in this, but any serious follower of Christ will need to be able to consider the propositions offered and the conclusions reached, because this kind of thinking isn't "the author"; it's everywhere. So, come, let us reason together.
The first premise is simple. People are complex and God is more so, so no one is a spokesman for God. You understand the idea, right? It's another version of "Only God can judge me", another form of "You cannot know ..." It affirms that the Bible is not a sufficiently reliable or understandable source for anything along these lines. We cannot know what God says. For instance, Scripture says things like, "And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (Eph 4:11), where "apostle" refers to messengers (and since He gave them, they would be messengers from God) and "prophet" refers to those who "tell forth"; that is, they tell forth what God wants them to say. Spokesmen for God. But that is an argument from Scripture and this kind of thinking begins by negating the possibility of knowing with any real certainty what God says, even in the Bible. It is nothing more than "Did God say?"
How do we tell, then? This kind of thinking makes it clear. We know what is right and wrong, true and false, by our own proper thinking and not by any ambiguous biblical text. You can see this in the second premise. Love is good and hate is bad. Anyone who takes away rights and choice and liberty from others is not acting in the common good. Now, does that make sense to you? I get fouled up on this from multiple directions. First, what definition will we use for "love" and "hate"? You'd think it would be straightforward, but it's not. They think that trying to save people headed into serious trouble is "hate", so we've got a problem of definition. Next, is it actually true that taking away rights, choices, or liberty is always bad? Does not the law do just this? "No, you can't kill." "No, you can't steal." Well, now, isn't that removing some of my choices and liberty? Do we not almost universally agree that removing threats to the safety and security of a community by putting them in jail is a good thing? But this line of thinking removes that possibility. The next problem for me is to the extent that it is aimed at the Nashville Statement. The statement says "God says this is sin." It says, "We should love everyone." It says, "Everyone needs Jesus." Now, I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! I find nothing in the statement aimed at taking away rights, choice, or liberty. It simply says, "Scripture says these choices are sin." You're still free to sin. Finally, what we see in this claim is what is commonly believed to be true. The ultimate good is individual rights and choice and liberty. By no means should they be impinged. Now, how this doesn't argue for a "no rules", "anything goes" kind of lifestyle and society eludes me. It does certainly place Man at the top of the hierarchy. The Bible refers to that as "idolatry".
The third claim is that "women, gay folk, transgender folk and, well, folk in general are wonderful." It denies that "seeking to disempower and marginalize people for being who they are is a good thing." Since nothing in the statement seeks to "disempower" or "marginalize" anyone, I'm unclear on the point. Indeed, this statement includes an aim to protect women, a topic that didn't come up at all in the Nashville Statement. But, you see, we're back at that "how do you define?" problem. Is it love or hate to encourage someone headed to a disaster to avoid that disaster? Is it "disempowering" and "marginalizing" to call sin sin? If so, I suppose God -- all three persons -- are guilty. Is it evil to claim that this behavior is wrong and that is right? Is that "disempowering" and "marginalizing"? That is what the left is saying about Christians who claim the Word as their guide -- "What you're doing is wrong!"
Now, I would like to point out that none of this has provided any defense of the Nashville Statement. Mind you, I (obviously) agree with it. It is, after all, biblical. And, of course, therein lies my problem. This line of thinking that I've been addressing is premised on "You cannot know what God thinks", translated, "You cannot know what the Bible says and, therefore, you're on your own." (Oddly enough, those who say these things are pretty sure they know what God thinks and that you're quite wrong if you disagree.) (You understand the difference between my side and theirs, right? I say, "We can know what God thinks because it's in His Word. Therefore, we can say with certainty that those who think otherwise are wrong." That is not a double standard. "We cannot know, but we know you're wrong" is a double standard.) So I draw my conclusions from Scripture and they from their own rationale, but mine is wrong and theirs is right.
If I was to engage the author in any of this, I'd have to question his accusations of "anti-gay" and "anti-women". I explained that wasn't the case. If I were to engage him on this, I'd point out that "what the majority concludes" doesn't define truth or right. If I wanted to discuss it with him, I'd have to point out that God is not on the wrong side of history, that God doesn't care about culture wars, and that, just because our society has determined that 2000 years of Church history and biblical understanding means nothing, it doesn't mean that the culture is right. If he is, it speaks very poorly of 2,000 years of Christians and the work of the Holy Spirit. But I'm not engaging him. Just the premises, positions, and conclusions.
There is one part of that article with which I mostly agree. He said, "Within a generation or two, ... the matter won't be broached any more in 99% of churches." I don't know if you hear, in that, the echoes of Jesus's own words. Jesus spoke of tares among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30). False believers will abound. Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matt 7:13-14) I don't know if "few" is defined as "the last 1%" or not (What percentage of God's chosen people do you suppose 7,000 constituted (1 Kings 19:18) in Elijah's day?), but it is not "the majority". Jesus said, "when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8) The implication is, "Yes, He will, but it won't be easy to find." He said 99% of churches wouldn't care. Maybe it's not 1% that are genuine, but certainly "few". That's what Jesus said.
11 comments:
What's strange, is that there is a biblical precedent for how this could be dealt with. It's "If this is truly from God nothing we can do will stop it, if it's not it will die out on its own.". But instead of being tolerant, and trusting God, these folk feel the need to use every means at hand to stamp out what they perceive as heresy.
Most bizarre to me is that these folks perceive as heresy what all of Christianity for all of Church history viewed as orthodoxy.
The Babylon Bee explained the Nashville Statement. They asked, "Who has come out in opposition?" and answered, "A bunch of folks who believed everything it says just a couple years ago." Like that.
What may be worse, is how this whole movement has been based on lies and deception. When the issue of ordaining gays first started to be discussed the pro gay side was arguing "While the traditional interpretation of scripture is a completely valid way to read scripture, our interpretation is also a valid reading. Given that, if you allow us to hold our view, we will be content to walk alongside you and "agree to disagree"." In essence they were saying, you have your sphere of influence, we'll have ours and they can remain separate. Yet lo and behold as that side gained control of denominations those who disagreed were forced out under punitive circumstances. We've gone from "Just tolerate us over in our little corner of the world." to "We refuse to tolerate you in any way, shape of form." For a group of people who allegedly hold tolerance in high regard, they are quick to demonize and label those for whom they choose to show intolerance.
One thing is becoming clear. As long as tolerance only extends to those currently in favor, we're moving toward a future where totalitarianism will be masked by "tolerance".
17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people all about this new life.”
21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22 But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were at a loss, wondering what this might lead to.
25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
"Totalitarian tolerance". Interesting. And given the redefinition of "tolerance" to "the demand for affirmation", probably a given, too.
John 10:10
Right now it's about using the power of ridicule and hate to force "tolerance", but I don't think it's far fetched to see a time when those in power use the force of government to mandate tolerance.
Remember back when the slogan was all about keeping things in the bedroom? Had things stayed in the privacy of the bedroom, I don't think we'd have much of a problem. But they've moved if from the bedroom to Main Street and are now demanding conformity of thought instead of privacy or equality.
What makes this all do strange is that a tiny minority is presuming to dictate what people's attitudes and thoughts should be.
Not far fetched. Even biblical (John 16:2; Luke 12:49-53). But I'm not complaining. I want to tell believers, "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation." (1 Peter 4:12-13)
And isn't it strange that the tiny minority is wagging the dog? Our system was set up to protect the minority from the majority, and it appears that the majority needed protection as well.
ive just been spending some time diving back into looking at worldview and how it affects things and it's just shocking to watch the progression and see how much territory Chirstians have ceded to the pagans. Also how much do called christians want the approval and love of a pagan society, if they're willing to give up virtually everything that makes Christianity distinctive. I guess it's a little heartening that the Church is thriving and growing in other parts of the world.
Just think, Craig, in a few short years we'll be living in a major mission field. :)
I've had that thought. It's interesting that as western civilizations moves more toward the secular, that progressive christians, as s minority of a minority, are so dismissive of the rising numbers of evangelical Christians throughout the rest of the world. Clearly there is s sense of eorocentric superiority at play which views Evangelical Christians of color as something less than the white liberals.
I suspect some of the strength of these Christians comes from having to depend on God to a much greater degree than we do.
Post a Comment