As I mentioned after my Thanksgiving day wishes, there has a been a lot of buzz about the Manhattan Declaration. To me, this is something which is far too important to ignore.
For those who may not know, let me start by explaining what the Manhattan Declaration is. I will not be posting the Declaration itself here on my blog, but please feel free to go to www.manhattandeclartion.org to check it out for yourself, and see if you think that my characterization is accurate. It is certainly not my intention to, in any way, or at any time, mislead anyone, or misrepresent what this is all about.
The Manhattan Declaration, according the declaration itself, is "A Call Of Christian Conscience." It was originally drafted on October 20th of 2009, and released to the public on November 20th of 2009.
The document addresses three main issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. It purports to be a document which unites differing Christian groups around these very important issues. It lays out a case for the pro-life position, and against Abortion. It lays out a case in favor of preserving marriage as a sacred institution, and why we should strive against allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized. It also outlines the dangers faced by religious groups in the present age, where there is much animosity directed at anyone who dares to so much as disapprove of nearly anything.
To the extent that it does these things I would support it as a statement of position, and as a place for people of conscience to rally, and say, OK, we have differences, but we all agree that these things are important, so let's stand together on them. But that is not all that the document says. And it going farther, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Clearly, I am pro-life. If you wish to call me anti-abortion, that's fine, I'm not going to fight you on it, I am anti-abortion, because I'm pro-life. As far as it goes, I think that the declaration does a pretty good job of laying out some good arguments and points for a pro-life position, however, for something that supposes to be a Christian document, it spends far too much time expounding secular arguments instead, and virtually no time on Biblical arguments, save a couple of verses of Scripture which are never explained or defended in any way. Also, I do believe that marriage is only possible, in a very real sense, between one man and one woman, and again, the declaration does a very good job of laying out a secular case for traditional marriage, but again, is staggeringly weak when it comes to a Biblical basis, which is especially important on this issue, because, if the Bible didn't speak to this issue I personally wouldn't really care about it at all. I also understand the importance of religious liberty, but again, it is defended and explained entirely with secular arguments. So, while I can affirm the positions taken by the declaration, I think that they could have done a better job laying them out and defending them, and the fact that they didn't defend them from the Bible is a serious problem for me.
All that being said, let me get on to the main problem that I have with the Manhattan Declaration.
The document makes a big deal about Christians, and where they stand on important issues. But what is meant by "Christian"? Well, to quote from the declaration; "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians..." This should be another problem for Bible believing Christians. The fact that this document lumps Evangelical Christians in with Catholics, as well as, so-called, Orthodox, sounds huge warning bells in my mind, as the beliefs of these groups are wildly different. This brings me back to how the Manhattan Declaration came to my attention. Initially I had heard Chuck Colson talk about some, which is not surprising since he is one of the people who wrote it, but I hadn't had time to check it out. Then a friend asked me if I had signed it yet, and I could only respond that, up to that point, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. So, when I had time, I went to the website, www.manhattandeclaration.org, and checked it out.
The first that I saw when I got to the website was the very brief summary that is there, and I decided to look and see who had signed the declaration. While there are some very well known Christian leaders on the list, you can't help but notice more than a few Roman Catholic Archbishops on the list. For any Bible believing Christian, this has to give you pause when considering something like this. So I knew I was going to have to look very closely at the declaration before I could make up my mind, so I pulled up the full declaration and read the entire thing.
If you should read the declaration you will find that only scant lip service is given to the Gospel, and even then it is not defined or explained in any way shape or form, yet we know for sure that a Roman Catholic Archbishop would mean something very different by Gospel than I do. Given that this document was written with the idea in mind that it was for the approval of Catholics and Christians, it seems clear that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is not what's in view even the one time that it is mentioned. And no, in a pure sense, Catholics are not Christians. At it's best Catholicism is an apostate form of Christianity, but not true Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that no Catholics are truly redeemed, but given what is taught in most Catholic Churches and circles, I would venture to say that they are a rare breed.
Having established that the purposes of this document are not to further the Gospel, what then could they be? Well, it must have to do with propagating morality, but if that's all they are concerned with, why mention Christianity at all? Simply to have a grounding for the morality they are seeking? Perhaps, but if so, that does not do justice to the purpose of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to share the Gospel with the entire world. That's it, that's the core, it's why the Church exists. Our mission to spread the Gospel, to preach the Gospel, is the reason the Church is in the world, it's the reason God doesn't rapture (sorry, it's the best word I can think of for this) us out of the world the instant we come to faith in Him. And that is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are sinners in a fallen world, in danger of eternal judgment from a righteous and Holy and Just God, and can be redeemed out of this world and saved from that damnation only by grace and through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is something that could not be affirmed by many of the signers and endorsers of the declaration.
Now, from the Catholic perspective, there is a certain logic to this declaration. Being that Catholicism, as it is practiced, and as it is taught in most local Parishes and such, is a very legalistic religion, believing in a works based righteousness (often you will hear that the works must be coupled with faith, but even that is a gross bastardization of the Gospel) and that being good at least gets you closer to Heaven, no matter why you are good, it would make sense to force people, through political action or whatever, to be better, and thus put them closer to God, even if you have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to it. But this is not something that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. If a person rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the true Gospel, then they are damned and destined for Hell, and just how good or bad they are is of little consequence to them.
So, if I were to sum up the Manhattan Declaration, I would have to put it something like this: "We, under the guise of Christianity, demand adherence to our moral standards. We stand up, shake our fist at the culture and say, you will submit to us, we will see to it. We couldn't care less if you go to hell for all eternity, we will have our moralistic domain here and now! We don't care if you believe, only that you submit!"
But wait, there's something familiar about that sentiment, it's Islam! That's right, Islam doesn't require an affirmation of faith, only submission to it's laws and teachings. That's what's going on with the Manhattan Declaration, it's declaring that we don't care what you believe, only that people submit to the moral standards that it puts forth. This is all too common amongst people who wish to claim Christianity. It is what Dr. Michael Horton calls Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism. That is, we try to be moral, and it makes us feel better, and oh yeah, as an afterthought, there is a god, but that doesn't really affect us.
For me to affirm the Manhattan Declaration would be to say, if you are homosexual, you can go to hell, as long as you go without a marriage license. If you are woman, you can go to hell, as long as you go without having had an abortion. And I will fight for religious liberty, and disregard laws that I think conflict with that, while also refusing to submit to the consequences of such action. That is something that I absolutely cannot affirm. No matter who you are, or what your sin, I want you to learn about Jesus, repent of your sins, and be redeemed. If you are going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter what sin you committed, it will separate you from God.
So do I support the Manhattan Declaration? Will I be signing it? No. Unreservedly, and emphatically, NO!
There is more to be said, and I know that some will raise objections to what I've written, but I'll have to deal with those as they arise, because this long enough already.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
I know that I haven't been doing a lot of blogging lately, but I did want to take a moment and wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!
Also, I know that many Christian leaders have been spending a lot of time talking about, and spreading hype about the Manhattan Declaration, it is my full intention to do a post taking a hard look at this document within the next few days or so.
Also, I know that many Christian leaders have been spending a lot of time talking about, and spreading hype about the Manhattan Declaration, it is my full intention to do a post taking a hard look at this document within the next few days or so.
Monday, November 16, 2009
To Whom Are We Preaching?
Acts 2:14 [ESV] "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words."
In Acts Chapter 2 the Apostle Peter was preaching to Jews. This is very important, as we will see after we look at little bit more of his Sermon.
Acts 2:22-41 [ESV]
And he goes on the explain who God is, and what that means to these people who do not have a background in Old Testament Theology. And farther along in this Chapter, after explaining some of the prerequisite knowledge Luke (the writer of Acts) tells us, "32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."
As you read through the New Testament you will notice that the Jews do not mock when told of the resurrection of the dead, because they believed in resurrection, though not all of them believed that Jesus had risen, but they certainly believed that there would be a resurrection. It was the Greeks (or any non Jews) who would mock at the thought. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23 [NASB]" but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."
Now, the question is, why is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he was Crucified, buried, and then rose again, a stumbling block to the Jews? Quite simply because that means that His claims are true, that he is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and that they must embrace Him. This is very hard for them for a few reasons. You see, most Jews at that time, and throughout all of the time since then, even up until today, held to a very legalistic form of Judaism, failing to understand that from the very beginning Salvation was by the Grace of God and not by works. So these very religious people would have to admit that they are apostates, that is that they did not believe the true tenets of their own religion, that they had failed, and needed a Savior. Further, the Messiah that most Jews were (and mistakenly still are) looking for, was one who would conquer their enemies, and free them from oppression. Of course Jesus is the one who will do those things, but it was not in the Divine plan for Him to accomplish them at His first coming. Jesus being the Christ was a stumbling block because it forced them to turn away from so much of what they held to be true, not that the Old Testament is wrong or somehow invalid, but because they so grossly misunderstood it.
As to the Gospel being foolishness to the Gentiles, that is pretty easy to understand. They simply had no basis in their beliefs for the one true God, or their sin, or their need for repentance and Salvation. Besides, they had no expectation of resurrection, and the idea of coming back from the dead just seemed downright silly to them. That kind of thing just doesn't happen. And of course, on a natural level, they would be correct, but Jesus death, burial and resurrection, as well as the resurrection that we who are in Christ look forward to is Supernatural, and not natural. So the Jews have a hard time with the implications, but if they can overcome that, they are right there, ready to receive the salvation of Christ, while the gentiles must have it all laid out before they can even understand it, and even then, much of it just sounds silly.
This is also why in Acts 2, as a result of Peters preaching there was a huge response, with some 3,000 people being redeemed, while in Acts 17 the response seems to be quite minimal. This is not to say that Peter's approach was better, or that Paul did something wrong (some have suggested this nonsense) but rather that Peter was spreading the seed (to borrow from the parable of the soils in Mark 4) on well prepared, good soil, while most of the seed that Paul was spreading fell on the hard packed road, and what good soil there was the Lord had used Paul to plow and get ready by explaining the basics of what he was talking about.
I think that this is part of our problem today. Look at the world around us. Even for us in the United States, and even more in Europe and many other places, we are not living in an Acts 2 world! This is an Acts 17 culture! Even those who are active in Evangelism must understand that they are not Peter preaching to Jews, but rather Paul preaching to Greeks! This is the problem as I see it. Most evangelism classes try to teach a trite and quick way to deliver the Gospel message and move on. Maybe this worked back in the 50's and even to some extent in the 60's, when exposure to the Bible and the basics of it's truths were difficult to avoid. But back in the 60's or so the USA began a massive shift away from such basic ideas, and anyone born since then is progressively less and less likely to have the basic understanding for a quick message, which assumes a knowledge of sin and it's consequences, to be effective.
This is also why I have problems with simply leading people through "the sinners prayer." Most of the time, and more and more as we move forward, these are Acts 17 people who don't even know what it is they are doing. To them it's just a religious exercise that someone is telling them will save their Soul (whatever that means to them, if anything at all) or get them in the group (and they don't know why, but it seems like being in the group is a good thing). Then they are told, write down this date, now you are saved, and if you ever doubt it, just remember that on this date you chanted this incantation... ummm, I mean, prayed this prayer, so you know for sure that you "got saved." If you should in fact run across an Acts 2 person, you might find the simple and straightforward approach to be valid, but Acts 2 people are exceedingly rare these days.
This is why we must be prepared in several ways. We must be prepared to engage in much longer conversations and discourses. With most people in today's world you simply cannot effectively share the Gospel in five minutes and move on. We must be prepared to define our terms. Too often these days if you are in a room with 20 other people and say something about God, you may well have 21 different definitions, so, like Paul, we need to be ready to explain who God is, and what we are talking about. We need to be prepared to present the Gospel beginning with the fall and sin, rather than the Cross. Of course the destination is the same, but getting there will take longer. We must also understand be prepared for multiple conversations if that is possible, or be ready to direct someone to where they can get good Biblical answers if we don't have a reasonable expectation of seeing them again.
The work is still there to be done, but we're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish it.
******************
For those of you who listen to Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, you may find this familiar, yes, I was influenced by him, but did not simply copy him.
In Acts Chapter 2 the Apostle Peter was preaching to Jews. This is very important, as we will see after we look at little bit more of his Sermon.
Acts 2:22-41 [ESV]
22"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25 For David says concerning him,
"'I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell in hope.
27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'
29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
"'The Lord said to my Lord,Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
As we read this, it can be clearly seen that Peter preached to these people, these Jews, as he called them "men of Israel" in verse 22, and "men of Judah" in verse 14. This is critically important to the style and substance of his sermon. It is crystal clear that Peter was building on a base of knowledge that these people already possessed. He had no need to define his terms, or to explain who God was, or what sin was. His audience knew and understood completely that men are sinful by nature, and required a sacrifice for that sin. He also speaks of David, whom the Jews would know well, as a major figure in the history of Israel.
Also, we will notice that those who responded to Peters preaching already understood that something was required of them, for they asked what they must do. Please note that Peter did not say, "With every head bowed and every eye closed, repeat after me..." He said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Because of the knowledge that these Jews already possessed, it was a relatively simple task for Peter to show them the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially after he told them of the magnitude of their guilt before God, whom they knew a great deal about from their own history as a nation.
Contrast this now with the Apostle Paul, proclaiming the same Gospel, but to Greeks, who did not have the same background as the Jews that Peter was speaking to.
Acts 17:22-23: [ESV]
22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you."And he goes on the explain who God is, and what that means to these people who do not have a background in Old Testament Theology. And farther along in this Chapter, after explaining some of the prerequisite knowledge Luke (the writer of Acts) tells us, "32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."
As you read through the New Testament you will notice that the Jews do not mock when told of the resurrection of the dead, because they believed in resurrection, though not all of them believed that Jesus had risen, but they certainly believed that there would be a resurrection. It was the Greeks (or any non Jews) who would mock at the thought. As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23 [NASB]" but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."
Now, the question is, why is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he was Crucified, buried, and then rose again, a stumbling block to the Jews? Quite simply because that means that His claims are true, that he is the Christ (Greek for Messiah) and that they must embrace Him. This is very hard for them for a few reasons. You see, most Jews at that time, and throughout all of the time since then, even up until today, held to a very legalistic form of Judaism, failing to understand that from the very beginning Salvation was by the Grace of God and not by works. So these very religious people would have to admit that they are apostates, that is that they did not believe the true tenets of their own religion, that they had failed, and needed a Savior. Further, the Messiah that most Jews were (and mistakenly still are) looking for, was one who would conquer their enemies, and free them from oppression. Of course Jesus is the one who will do those things, but it was not in the Divine plan for Him to accomplish them at His first coming. Jesus being the Christ was a stumbling block because it forced them to turn away from so much of what they held to be true, not that the Old Testament is wrong or somehow invalid, but because they so grossly misunderstood it.
As to the Gospel being foolishness to the Gentiles, that is pretty easy to understand. They simply had no basis in their beliefs for the one true God, or their sin, or their need for repentance and Salvation. Besides, they had no expectation of resurrection, and the idea of coming back from the dead just seemed downright silly to them. That kind of thing just doesn't happen. And of course, on a natural level, they would be correct, but Jesus death, burial and resurrection, as well as the resurrection that we who are in Christ look forward to is Supernatural, and not natural. So the Jews have a hard time with the implications, but if they can overcome that, they are right there, ready to receive the salvation of Christ, while the gentiles must have it all laid out before they can even understand it, and even then, much of it just sounds silly.
This is also why in Acts 2, as a result of Peters preaching there was a huge response, with some 3,000 people being redeemed, while in Acts 17 the response seems to be quite minimal. This is not to say that Peter's approach was better, or that Paul did something wrong (some have suggested this nonsense) but rather that Peter was spreading the seed (to borrow from the parable of the soils in Mark 4) on well prepared, good soil, while most of the seed that Paul was spreading fell on the hard packed road, and what good soil there was the Lord had used Paul to plow and get ready by explaining the basics of what he was talking about.
I think that this is part of our problem today. Look at the world around us. Even for us in the United States, and even more in Europe and many other places, we are not living in an Acts 2 world! This is an Acts 17 culture! Even those who are active in Evangelism must understand that they are not Peter preaching to Jews, but rather Paul preaching to Greeks! This is the problem as I see it. Most evangelism classes try to teach a trite and quick way to deliver the Gospel message and move on. Maybe this worked back in the 50's and even to some extent in the 60's, when exposure to the Bible and the basics of it's truths were difficult to avoid. But back in the 60's or so the USA began a massive shift away from such basic ideas, and anyone born since then is progressively less and less likely to have the basic understanding for a quick message, which assumes a knowledge of sin and it's consequences, to be effective.
This is also why I have problems with simply leading people through "the sinners prayer." Most of the time, and more and more as we move forward, these are Acts 17 people who don't even know what it is they are doing. To them it's just a religious exercise that someone is telling them will save their Soul (whatever that means to them, if anything at all) or get them in the group (and they don't know why, but it seems like being in the group is a good thing). Then they are told, write down this date, now you are saved, and if you ever doubt it, just remember that on this date you chanted this incantation... ummm, I mean, prayed this prayer, so you know for sure that you "got saved." If you should in fact run across an Acts 2 person, you might find the simple and straightforward approach to be valid, but Acts 2 people are exceedingly rare these days.
This is why we must be prepared in several ways. We must be prepared to engage in much longer conversations and discourses. With most people in today's world you simply cannot effectively share the Gospel in five minutes and move on. We must be prepared to define our terms. Too often these days if you are in a room with 20 other people and say something about God, you may well have 21 different definitions, so, like Paul, we need to be ready to explain who God is, and what we are talking about. We need to be prepared to present the Gospel beginning with the fall and sin, rather than the Cross. Of course the destination is the same, but getting there will take longer. We must also understand be prepared for multiple conversations if that is possible, or be ready to direct someone to where they can get good Biblical answers if we don't have a reasonable expectation of seeing them again.
The work is still there to be done, but we're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish it.
******************
For those of you who listen to Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, you may find this familiar, yes, I was influenced by him, but did not simply copy him.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
I Find This Funny
I am one of those who has been online since the mid 90's. For any who might not have been around so long, let me assure you, all those email forwards that never seem to end, well, they've been running through email boxes ever since email first began, and along with forwarded jokes and such, hoaxes started running rampant too. This gave rise to websites such as www.snopes.com (and a few that came before it, but don't seem to be around anymore) which checks these things out and let's you know that they are in fact hoaxes. Admittedly they do lean a little to the left on Political things, but they're quite good if you're just looking to check on a basic factual issue. Quite often you'll get one of these hoax emails and just know that whatever it's claiming to offer is just too good to be true, and therefore you can just delete it and laugh at the friend who sent it to you, but sometimes one might seem like it could be legitimate and so you could head on over to snopes.com to check it out. Then some people thought it would be helpful to let people know that they had checked something out and it was, in fact, true, so you started seeing emails where people had typed notes on the bottom to let you know that Snopes had verified the information. Now, this is what I find funny, there is a trend that has started where the hoax emails have notes on the bottom saying that Snopes.com has verified the information in the email. Of course, if you go to www.snopes.com you will find that they say that the email is not true. What is really funny is that sometimes, you'll even find a link right to the correct page at snopes.com, that you can click right on and find out that it's a hoax... and yet, for all of that, people still forward them. Isn't email a hoot?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Salvation Is Not A Magic Spell
I want us to stop and think about how we share the Gospel with people, and what we tell them when they question if they really have been redeemed. Primarily I'm thinking about what is often known as "the Sinners Prayer." That is, the words that we quite often try to get people to say in order to be saved. We find ourselves telling people, ok, just repeat after me... or, say something like this, but, you know, in your own words. Then we tell them, ok, you said those words, now you're in, no matter what, and we treat Salvation as if it happens as the result of simply saying some magic words, reducing the Glorious Gospel of Christ to nothing more than some sort of magic spell. Chant these words, or utter this "prayer" and you'll be good to go. I'm not saying that it's always wrong to lead someone in a prayer when they are ready to come to Christ, and maybe they just don't really know what to do. What I am saying is that we cannot just toss these things around thoughtlessly.
I think we need to make sure of some things first. For one thing, have we actually shared the Gospel with them? Do we know that they understand that they are sinners and in need of a Savior? Do they actually understand what Jesus is offering them, and why it is that they need to cry out to Him? Or have we told them, if you have struggles, if you're sick, if you're poor and needy, well, Jesus can fix that for you? Are we pitching them a utilitarian Jesus to fix all their problems, if only they'll say these simple little words? Who wouldn't? But are those people saved? If in fact they do not know at least the basics of the Gospel, and don't repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness, then the answer is no. We must be certain that we are always sharing the Gospel before we ask someone to respond to it.
Further, when someone asks how they can know that they are really saved, what answer should they be given? I think that too often they are asked if they have ever "prayed the prayer," and if they say that they have, then they are told to stop doubting and wondering because they are fine. Is this how a person knows that they are truly redeemed? Because they chanted this magic spell? As I just said, a person can say some form of "sinners prayer" and not actually be saved, so is remembering a moment of saying those words good enough for assurance of Salvation? Obviously not. The evidence of true Salvation is a transformed heart and a transformed life. Not that someone must be sinless and perfect, but when there is true Salvation, there will be a transformation of the heart, and a notable change in the life. The New Testament is chock full of passages that help us to understand how to have assurance of Salvation, and what it means, and what it looks like, to have true Salvation.
I hope over the coming months to flesh these thoughts out a lot more and get deeper into these issues, but for today I just wanted to get people thinking about these things, so that we might start to understand where we might be going wrong.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Abandoning The Language
Acts 11:19-26 [ESV] "19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, 24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. 25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."
From www.dictionary.com:
*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.
Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)
This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.
However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.
Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.
I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."
From www.dictionary.com:
Chris⋅tian
–adjective
| 1. | of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. |
| 2. | of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. |
| 3. | of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades. |
| 4. | exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. |
| 5. | decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial. |
| 6. | human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian. |
–noun
| 7. | a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. |
| 8. | a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. |
| 9. | a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. |
| 10. | the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. |
| 11. | a male given name. |
*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.
Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)
This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.
However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.
Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.
I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
