I'm going to use Dan Trabue as an example here, so don't get side-tracked into thinking about Dan. I'm pointing to a way of looking at things ... that Dan illustrates. Dan considers himself a Christian in a world where "Christian" is becoming a negative thing. He goes to church regularly and listens intently to his pastor. He works with the poor and marginalized and urges others to do the same. All good things. Dan doesn't say, "Don't believe in God." He just says, "Don't believe in the God that you believe in." He doesn't say, "The Bible isn't true; throw it out." He says, "The Bible doesn't mean what you think it means." Dan has a hunch that the longstanding, traditional understanding of Scripture is false -- that our hunch is wrong and his hunch is right. Again, I use Dan because he offers a specific version of thought processes here. He doesn't reject God. He doesn't reject church. He doesn't reject the Bible. But he does reject the God, the church, and the Bible that has long been the standard understanding. (He even recognizes that, speaking at times about how he used to believe that.)
I'm not asking you to look at Dan or refute Dan. I'm asking you to look at the line of thinking. In Eden, one of the local residents -- a serpent -- asked another local resident -- Eve -- "Did God actually say ...?" The serpent did not say, "You know, it's stupid to believe God. It's stupid to believe in God. Follow me instead." When she told him what God said, he simply denied ... the claim. "You will not surely die." Poor Eve had misunderstood. Naive Eve had misinterpreted. She had the wrong hunch. The real God knew that violating God's command would make her wise. He wasn't urging her to reject God. He was urging her to become like God. And that's how Satan works. If he said, "Look, throw out all you know about any divine being and come worship this rock as god," he knows everyone would laugh him off. So he deviates. "God is real, but He's not quite what you think He is ... what He has revealed about Himself." "God's Word is true, but it's not the Word you think it is. It's a more enlightened version" that, in the end, nullifies half of itself. Satan doesn't simply contradict and evict God and His Word. He just nudges people into side paths that, when followed, lead them away from God and His Word.
It is so subtle that we often don't see it, we often can't hear it. Like the serpent in the garden, it sounds reasonable (read "plausible arguments" - Col 2:4). It seems rational (like "philosophy and empty deceit" - Col 2:8). You can follow the logic (which, as it turns out, is "according to human tradition" and "the elemental spirits of the world" and "not according to Christ" - Col 2:8). Misled, then, by the seemingly reasonable nature of it all, we can miss (as they do) how it contradicts itself, how it contradicts Scripture, how it contradicts God. It turns out, then, that pursuing this new line of reasoning takes people to a new "God" who is not God and a new "Word of God" which is not God's Word and gives them a false sense of "being right" which they are not ... to their own detriment. Complaining about your "hunches," they urge on you their hunches that believers throughout history have been wrong and their hunches are right. Remember, "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). You know how they do that, right? They split their victims off from the herd, isolate them, and kill them. You can't go wrong staying with a biblical view of God and a confidence in God's Word as sufficient and authoritative, even if both contradict your own grasp of things.
7 comments:
This seems to be the norm in progressive churches. "God didn't mean what you think He said..." Then they add their concocted view of God to reinterpret what God said. It sands off those rough edges of God.
Years ago, I was listening to Christianity in Crisis and noticed something about a lot of the false teachers they looked at. They weren't teaching something that was diametrically opposed to scripture, but they were making really small modifications to scripture. Some of these were so small that I had to listen multiple times before I saw them. I think that this is one more example of the kind of thing that has made Gnosticism, The Bible Code thing, Mormonism, JW, and other theologies popular. They all teach some version of "There is a special, secret, hidden piece of knowledge out there and only we know what it is.". I think that where Dan is different, is that he rarely will say anything as a definitive fact. He defaults to, "There's no way to know..." or "No one can prove anything..." or whatever so that he doesn't actually have to defend his beliefs.
All of those things point directly back to "Did God really say...". Which strangely enough I've seen Dan adopt as a question we should be asking.
I love wildlife, and wild cats are my second favorite group of animals to learn about after primates (birds come in third with me). I know that lions don’t need to work hard to pick out a victim; they get the herd running and go after the weakest or slowest one that lags behind (unless they find an easier target already isolating from the herd). The obvious application for me is that Christians should take their spiritual health seriously--fortifying themselves through regular Bible study and Christian fellowship in order to gain the maturity and maintain the strength to withstand the type of attack you discuss here. I appreciate this good warning today about one serious way I might fall victim to the enemy and his lies.
I believe that the mindset of people like “Dan” is exactly what led to the formation of all the past and present “Christian” cults and unbiblical sects in the world. Someone thought they had a new insight from “God” (obtained through a dream, a vision, “automatic writing,” unearthed golden plates, etc.) that negated the orthodox views held by the church for all the centuries since Jesus left this earth; this individual then managed to convince enough others so that they had a “following;” next thing you know, they create their own scriptures and (ironically) denounce orthodox Christianity as “from the devil.” One should think carefully before listening to that new voice and leaving “the fold.” (I think of the idiom, “If it’s new, it’s probably not true; if it’s true, it’s probably not new.” As Charles Spurgeon said, “new truth” is a contradictory term.)
Having said that, though, I am mindful that it is necessary to consider and confirm what one believes and whether it is in fact truly biblical. In order to reject Roman Catholicism and embrace a true biblical faith, I needed to reconsider much of what I had been taught, as the Holy Spirit led me to the real truth. In order for people to leave cults or other false belief systems, some reevaluation of their current beliefs must take place, so I personally can’t automatically rule out examining my “grasp of things” to make sure it’s not askew. Hopefully, when one does this reevaluation, they will be turning from error to truth--like I did--rather than the other way around.
Craig, I am guessing you have heard this famous quote from Charles Spurgeon: “Discernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right.” I think the statement is more accurate when worded this way: “Discernment is not only the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; it is also telling the difference between right and almost right.”--because telling the difference between right and wrong is indeed basic discernment. Still, the point he makes in the second part is an important one--and similar to your observation above.
Lorna,
I have heard that before, and I think is it exactly right. I vaguely remember something that was as minor as substituting "a" for "the" and how much that small change made. I think it comes down to a desire to have some sort of information that others don't have and the feeling of superiority that comes from having that knowledge.
I've always regarded Dan as the perfect representation of the modern progressive...which isn't in any way meant as a compliment. And regardless of whether the topic on the table falls under the heading of politics or religion, which can often overlap, one can get a fairly accurate representation of the corruption of both. He suggests what it must look like to be given over by God to one's corruption, and he as much admits it by suggesting he feels no condemnation from his heart. As a result, constant rejection of what has for thousands of years been the most reasonable and logical understanding of Biblical teachings, and particularly those teachings which conflict with the world. He supposes his problem is merely imperfection.
Post a Comment