bad theology

What if?

Frank

In the busyness of the Christmas season, I’ll be reposting some of my favorite posts and scaling back my original content. Reading Multiply by Francis Chan and gearing up for a Multiply Movement study in the New Year, I’m going to select posts on evangelism this week and Christmas next. This particular post was first published in August 2011.

***

Much of what passes for doctrine in American Christianity (TM) is based off of a what-if theology. You get these kinds of responses when reaching out to others to spread the Gospel. In an over-correction to be “seeker-sensitive” churches have gone out of their way to try and answer every what-if. But you don’t need to. The Bible answers sufficiently and our faith should take care of the rest.

What if there’s some tribe in the middle of the desert that never hears of Jesus? Then maybe God is calling you to pack your bags to go there and change that.

“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:26-27)

But what if in the middle of the desert there’s no water to be baptized? Well, first of all, people can’t live where there isn’t water. And we can’t get too far from it and still live. Did you know that there’s a military spec for building a baptistry out of boxes of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) and tarp?

“Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, ‘Go south to the road—the desert road’… As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?‘” (Acts 8:26,36)

What if someone is a prisoner of war with no hope of release? Do you think God is that small?

“After [Paul and Silas] had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks.
 
About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted, ‘Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!’

The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’

They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.” (Acts 16:23-34)

What if God creates a rock he cannot lift? Ah, the classic canard. So what if he does?

“Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.” (Isaiah 59:1)

What if my grandma was the sweetest person I ever knew? Eventually, the what-ifs become personal. But at some point we have to let go of our vested emotional interest and just trust God.

“[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)

What if Ghandi (or pick your strawman) was a really good person!

“No one is good- except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)

What are the what-ifs you struggle with?

If…

Frank

In the business of the Christmas season, I’ll be reposting some of my favorite posts and scaling back my original content. Reading Multiply by Francis Chan and gearing up for a Multiply Movement study in the New Year, I’m going to select posts on evangelism this week and Christmas next. This particular post was first published in October 2010.

***
“To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said,
‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.’“ (John 8:31)

There were times when I was reading Mere Churchianity that I wished Michael Spencer was right there so I could rush up to him and give him a big hug and thank him for saying what needs to be said. Better yet, I wish he was still alive to preach this message that is lost on so many churches in the tapestry of American Christianity. There are many to whom I want to give this book once I’m done. If they’re not interested in the book, I’ll just point them to this chapter. If this book even mildly interests you, read this chapter if nothing else.

Chapter 8: Accepting the Real Jesus draws a line in the sand and I’m sure that line will make many uncomfortable. But we have to remember, this book isn’t written for the Church, though it can learn from it, but is instead written to those who have left- physically or spiritually. The established church won’t like what Michael has to say, and maybe many who have left looking for Jesus won’t either, but Michael has to point towards the Jesus we all need to find. This Jesus, the complete Jesus, is not the pretty picture from Sunday school, nor is he a radical marketing ploy used by evangelical churches. We are not called to follow a church. We’re not even called to be Christians. Instead we are called to be disciples of Jesus. What does that mean?

That means being Kingdom-minded. That means associating with the lowly. That means making disciples (not Christians, not pew-fillers). That means “Jesus Saves”, not the church. That means changing the world.

A brother was sharing recently how he was reaching out at our local mall. He met a man who was attending seminary and was at that moment studying Greek. The conversation was started, “what is the difference between a Christian and a disciple?” The young scholar could not turn to his Greek lexicon or any of his former courses for an answer. He couldn’t rely on any ministerial training. So he couldn’t come up with an answer. I love my friend’s response, “I’m not out here looking for people to go to church with me, I’m looking for people who want to be disciples of Jesus.”

The Scripture above gives us an outline: Believe, hold, disciple. But there’s an important word that makes us uncomfortable, that turns religiosity on its head: IF. Jesus didn’t die so that there could be hundreds of churches all proclaiming his name but look nothing like one another. Jesus didn’t die to produce generation after generation of Christians. Jesus died to usher in His Kingdom, occupied by His disciples. IF…

God Knows Your Vote!

Frank

Sometimes the choice seems so clear.

“God and a religious president, or _____ and no God!”

“We must prevent the election of ____. If he is elected president, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible!”

This candidate has broken every one of the 10 Commandments, but to go into detail “would be too shocking, too disgusting to appear in print.”

And if you needed any extra motivation, if you vote for the wrong candidate you “will go to hell”.

None of these scare tactics are new. The first quote was used against Thomas Jefferson by John Adams in the third ever presidential election. The second was against Alfred Smith who was running against Herbert Hoover. What makes this quote even more remarkable by today’s standards was that it was in a newsletter sent home from school by a local school board. Take that, separation of church and state! The third quote is hilarious in that James Polk didn’t have to prove his allegations against Henry Clay because they were just… too…disturbing!

And you might not recognize the last one because it is so new. This is a reactionary headline to an advocacy ad put out by Mike Huckabee yesterday against President Obama. Never mind that Huckabee never uses those exact words, the headline is enough to get your attention.

Using religion as a tool to manipulate campaigns is nothing new. We expect candidates to sling mud. What is concerning to me however, is when sincere Christians use their faith to defend their unique political positions.

What do you think of this picture? Do you want to cheer, or do you scratch your head trying to figure out what the scripture has to do with gun control? Or how about my favorite prayer from Billy Graham:

‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!’

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, ‘The Rest of the Story,’ and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called ‘One nation under God.’

And even though someone just the other day posted this on Facebook as if these words were uttered recently, this is not a new prayer. Not only that, but neither Billy Graham or Paul Harvey had anything to do with it. This was a variation of prayer by Bob Russell in 1995 at the Kentucky Governor’s Prayer Breakfast and recited by Joe Wright as the opening prayer of the Kansas House of Representatives in 1996. Sadly, neither Russell or Wright are big enough names to start an email chain or to get quoted on Facebook, so we end up with the version we see here. What really gets under my skin though, is that somewhere along the line someone claiming to be Christian chose to lie in order to advance an agenda.

If we are to believe the statistics that roughly 80% of Americans claim the label “christian” and political polls show the country to be pretty evenly divided over the presidential candidates, then chances are that you and I aren’t likely to agree on politics even though we agree that Jesus is Lord. Does that mean I hate you or that you are going to hell because of how you vote? To suggest such a thing is abusing the faith that should be uniting us. Besides, if electing an alleged atheist 212 years ago didn’t force closed the doors of every church in America, then the results of this election are unlikely to affect my citizenship in the only Kingdom that matters. The only thing I know for sure, is that come Wednesday half of us are going to be upset.

“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:23)

“You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow [Romney],” and another, “I follow [Obama],” are you not mere men?” (1 Corinthians 3:3-4)

“Welcome all the Lord’s followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don’t criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours ” (Romans 14:1, CEV)

Political Expediency, Todd Akin, and the Religious Right

Frank

As the days become shorter and begin to cool, it can only mean one thing. Summer is drawing to a close. And being an even-numbered year, that also means election season is right around the corner. Election season, in other words, when I am usually embarrassed to call myself a Christian.

This election cycle is holding to form with the latest soundbite flub of Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin. In case you haven’t heard, Akin made a comment about “legitimate rape” not causing pregnancy because a woman’s body automatically shuts down its reproductive ability due to the trauma. When I first heard this, I didn’t blink and I didn’t flinch. I just chalked it up as a politician trying to score some pro-life points. But the statement itself did not phase me. I am a data-nerd so I take any claim by a politician without data to back it up with a grain of salt. So I was surprised to see so much backlash come against Akin. Did he say something stupid? Absolutely. Should he be vilified for it? No, but…

Like I said, it’s election season and there’s this thing called political expediency. You might also hear discussion on electoral math or listen to prognosticators speculate who will gain or lose seats in Congress to maintain, or regain, control of one or both houses. This is the time of year when logic is set aside for the sake of votes- see Palin, Sarah. (And let’s be honest, doesn’t most of the pandering for votes by either party defy logic?) So political expediency demands that Akin take the fall for his comments for the greater good of his party. Is that right or is that fair? Well it doesn’t matter in the cutthroat world of politics.

But then something strange happened. I knew we were in trouble when I saw the headline, “Kirk Cameron defends Akin“. After first asking myself why I should care what Kirk Cameron thinks, I was compelled to click on the link to find out why exactly Cameron was stepping into this political mess. Come to find out, Akin is a favorite of Conservative Christians (somehow I failed to get that memo) so it was only natural during an interview with Cameron on something completely different for the hosts of the Today show to ask him about it. Cameron’s comments opened the door for the Religious-Right to come out to support Akin in defiance of their party’s wishes.

First Kirk Cameron, then Mike Huckabee and David Barton (really?). Although they have the platform, it is important to note that not everyone who calls themselves Christian agrees. And now there are children conceived by rape and mothers who are the victims of rape stepping out to add their voice to the debate. So now the debate is no longer about an abstract theory, but about real people.

What worries me about this whole ordeal is the precedence it sets. I knew Christian Conservatives were a significant voting block to be pandered to, but I did not expect them to wield this big of a stick to get their way. This also doesn’t help the perception that Christianity is anti-science. Add crazy fertilization science to the growing list of anti-global warming, anti-evolution, anti-sun being the center of the Solar System, and so on. Meanwhile this anti-everything faction of the Republican Party is risking derailing the party altogether. Remember what I said about political expediency? Well you can forget about that when these Christians get a bur in their saddle.

And I’m again reminded why I loathe this time of year.

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” (Titus 3:9)

Chicken With a Side of Politics, Business, and Religion Causes Indigestion

Frank

One night while I was in college, I was pulling an all nighter with some friends when the munches came. So like any other college student, we debated what brand of cheap pizza would torment our stomachs in the morning. “I will not eat Domino’s” expressed one friend. She then explained how the CEO of Domino’s donated significant money from the company’s profits to pro-life groups. It was also right around this time that Eddie Vedder wrote “pro-choice” on his arm with a sharpie prior to playing a song on MTV. You might say this was a coming of age moment for me. No longer were brands apolitical. Even favorite musicians had an opinion; often strong ones at that. The innocence was gone.

At this time I identified more with the College Republicans than with campus ministry. The Michael P Keaton capitalist in me recognized that a private company had the right to spend their profits however they wished, just as consumers had every right to not give those companies their patronage. Musicians could hold an opinion, and listeners could choose not to buy their albums.

With this attitude in mind, I really wanted a Chick-fil-A sandwich yesterday. One, because I happened to be traveling in the Southeast and there aren’t any restaurants back where I live. And two, I thought it would make a good anecdote for this post. Unfortunately, my terminal at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport didn’t have one, so I settled for pizza instead. From Pizza Hut, not Domino’s.

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to wade into this debate. The doctrinal and political leanings of Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy are not news. And I think this whole firestorm has been fed by fuel poured on by the media. Yet the heart of the issue is right in the wheelhouse of the theme of this blog- in our democratic, capitalist society, what is the best way to stand up for our convictions in the public square?

In the context of the Freedom of Speech, Cathy didn’t do anything wrong. But was it the wisest approach?

Jesus was relatively apolitical. When the Pharisees tried to trap him into speaking out against Rome, he turned the tables on the instead. Paul wrote about soldiers who don’t concern themselves in political affairs while instructing Timothy to not get wrapped up in useless quarrels and debates.

In practice I think this would allow for financial support for causes when done in private, or vocal support when independent of business. I think you get yourself in trouble when you mix the two. But then again, I think it gets messy when you mix religion and politics in the first place.

Yet you could argue this is a moral issue, not a political one. But if it were not for the politics, would we even hear about this? And since Cathy so strongly supports “traditional marriage” is he as vocal opposing divorce? Or warning against workaholism? So how should he have expressed his convictions and how should we, as Christians have responded?

Others have written plenty on this already. Matthew Paul Turner, Rachel Held Evans, Alise Wright, David Kenney are just a small sampling. And Get Religion has done an excellent and thorough job scrutinizing the media attention this has received. (In order, Where’s the Beef, The Internet Honors Stupid Stories, The Media’s Irrational Fear of Chick-fil-A, Shocking AP Quotes, Hating on Chick-fil-A)

Please review these viewpoints, the pros and cons of boycotting or “eating mor chikin”, and tell me what you think the most Christ-like approach would be.

Update: A friend of mine, who also happens to be gay (yes, it is possible for a conservative Christian to have gay friends; shocking, I know!) posted this link showing the “Top 50 homophobic Chick-fil-A tweets” on his Facebook account. I know this is polarizing, but does it necessitate this kind of response? Warning in advance, the language in those tweets are beyond crude and definitely NOT Christ-like.

(Hah! I just noticed a typo of financial was auto-corrected to fanatical, completely changing the point of that sentence. Typo corrected, carry on)

Repost: Sanctuary

Frank

I’m dusting off this old post in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s illegal immigration law yesterday. Though written five years ago (!) the issues are still the same and the Word of God hasn’t changed.

***

Do you remember Elvira Arellano? She was an illegal immigrant who made headlines in fall of 2007 for claiming sanctuary in a Chicago church. This headline led me to study my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. At the time, the debate over illegal immigration died down, although as current headlines show the debate never went away.

Also in the fall of 2007, the city of Simi Valley, California sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since by their actions, allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that made perfect sense.

If this would have held up, it would have set a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? At the time, most agreed that this was an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in in the first place? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kind of like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They are here for a reason, after all; Mexico is an absolute mess between its economy, political corruption, and rampant violence between rival drug lords. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic du jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to help the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Or are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected, and depending on where you live chances are there is someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.

Sacred Cows

Frank

Authors/pastors such as Francis Chan, David Platt and Kyle Idleman have challenged our conventional wisdom on how we “do” church in the United States. Others like N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and Mike Breen are redefining Kingdom and Gospel in the context of the first-century Jews who initially heard those teachings. Could it be, that more of what we take for granted as our “old-time religion” is wrong?

I’ve already hit on two extremes of salvation doctrine, the Sinner’s Prayer and baptism as sacred cows that need to be re-examined. But what if more of our religious practices are merely “traditions taught by men”? (Mark 7) For example, from a young age, we are shown images of heaven as white fluffy clouds inhabited by angels with wings and halos and often playing instruments such as harps. Yet no such imagery exists in the Bible. The cute child-like cherubs of Hallmark porcelain are a far cry from Ezekiel’s description of the Cherubim he saw in a vision: “I knew that they were the cherubims. Every one had four faces apiece, and every one four wings; and the likeness of the hands of a man was under their wings.” (Ezekiel 10:20-21, KJV) or Isaiah’s description of Seraphim: “Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.” (Isaiah 6:2, KJV) My son overheard a study I was doing once on the holiness of God and instantly connected the descriptions of angels in Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Revelation with the comforting teaching of guardian angels such that he is now literally afraid of angels.

The consequence of that tradition is easily repairable. But others are much harder to reconcile. Here I need to make a disclaimer up front- I have no formal training; I do not have a seminary degree nor any certification in Bible study; these observations are my own that have jumped out at me from my own personal study; these are not definitive and are not points that are worth me drawing lines in the sand doctrinally, however they are worth studying in more detail so that you can come to your own conclusions rather than relying on religious tradition.

  1. Hell: Rob Bell recently made waves with his book Love Wins which drew sharp criticism and immediate response from the likes of Tim Keller, et. al  and Francis Chan. He questioned the assumption that the lost spend an eternity suffering in Hell in light of an all-loving God. Admittedly, this is a stumbling block to many against Christianity- how can a just God condemn people for eternity for following a savior they may have never heard of. This question makes many uncomfortable when we think about our favorite Aunt Sally whom everybody loved yet never went to church a day in her life. Could a just God condemn her to an eternity in Hell? But what if our definition of Hell is wrong to begin with? What if the eternal suffering refers to the consuming fire itself and not the punishment? That is the premise of Edward Fudge’s book, “The Fire that Consumes.” Now I haven’t read his book yet came to the same conclusion independently. In fact, even Chan in Erasing Hell makes this observation though he intentionally falls short of calling it a conclusion (and humbly so, I might add). Could it be that our religious definition of Hell as an eternal punishment is wrong?
  2. Eternal Soul: One of the counters to the argument above is that God made our souls eternal, and therefore cannot be annihilated. (Though who’s going to stop God from doing whatever he wants?) Yet the only evidence anyone has ever been able to give me that our souls are eternal is the scripture that tell us that we are all made in God’s image. And if God is eternal, then it follows so are we. Our bodies die and decay, so there must be some eternal component and there comes our common definition of a soul. Yet the word we translate as soul is also elsewhere translated in the Bible as heart, or body. The implication is that the word “soul” refers to our whole being. It is more a philosophical point than a theological one (for example, where in your body do you find thought?). The idea of a “being” or “essence” is where we get our word for soul. (And it even gets more complicated in the Greek when soul is translated from the Greek word psyche, as in “mind”.) My son asks me all the time what a soul is and I always struggle to define it. I say it’s the part of us that lives forever, but what does that really mean?
  3. Heaven or New Jerusalem: I ran into this one when debating with a Jehovah’s Witness. They teach that only 144,000 go to heaven based on Revelation 7 and 14 (Of course, why is that number literal when the others in Revelation are not?) and that everyone else either goes to Hell or inhabits the New Earth. (It is important to note that early JW literature shows each of the 144,000 to be white, Anglo-Saxon while the inhabitants of Earth are Jewish and minorities. I don’t know if that was ever intentionally addressed- especially considering their world missions, but I find it amusing nonetheless.) Despite the numerology, the Bible teaches of both a heaven and a new earth. Who goes where? I have yet to find an answer that satisfies my curiosity, but I do think it calls into question our standard dividing lines of heaven and hell.
  4. Gospel: I mentioned above that this definition is being challenged by others, so I encourage you to read their work and come to your own conclusion. But much of what we espouse as the Gospel is self-centered fire insurance. If we call into question our definitions of heaven, hell and our eternal soul, then what we present as the Gospel also needs to be reconsidered as well. Is the Gospel only that Jesus forgives our sin and saves us from hell? Is it not also that Jesus came to dwell among us and that his death reconciled our relationship with our creator? Could it be that the Gospel is more about our relationship with God than it is about our eternal destiny?

I call out these “sacred cows” because of the potential eternal impact they may have. From the Sinner’s Prayer and baptism to our common descriptions of heaven and hell, changing our perspective to be more biblical and less religious affects what our churches are built upon and how we share our faith with others. These are no small matters and need to be taken more seriously because it coulde be that how we define church could be completely wrong.

Sacred Cow: Baptism

Frank

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Convention approved a resolution affirming the use of the Sinner’s Prayer. In my previous post, I turned to David Platt, Paul Washer and Francis Chan to refute the doctrine. Interestingly, it was Platt’s talk at the Verge Conference this year that motivated the resolution as well as a counter to increasing Calvinist influence in the SBC. Eric Hankins, who wrote the resolution said invitations to the Sinner’s Prayer are accompanied by calls to repentance and costly discipleship. Unfortunately that last part isn’t in quotes in the Christianity Today article, because I’m genuinely interested if he really said that. In fact Platt’s and Washer’s criticism of the use of the Sinner’s Prayer is specifically because it usually lacks the command to take up our cross, give up everything, and follow Christ.

So what is necessary for salvation? The obvious answer, which the Sinner’s Prayer addresses, is faith in Christ alone. But if you dig into the Bible, you’ll find that salvation is more nuanced. In fact the word that we often point to in scripture as “saved” literally means delivered. So context is very important to discern from what we are delivered and if saved in that context actually refers to our eternal salvation. With that in mind, a quick survey of “saved” scriptures leads us to either inconsistencies or contradictions. One cannot simply cherry-pick a single scripture to justify their position. And if you take each scripture reference as being true and not contradictory, then you get what looks like ingredients, if you will, for salvation. These ingredients are hear the Gospel, have faith in Christ, repent from your Christless life, confess (or call on) Jesus as Lord, and be baptized. It is not one or another, it has to be all the above.

A friend of mine and I were talking recently how the Churches of Christ and Baptist churches have always been “at war” and the battle is fought over where in that sequence above one is saved. The problem with the Sinner’s Prayer is that it only addresses three parts of this: hearing the Gospel, responding with faith in Jesus, and responding to an invitation to call on his name. Hankins above quickly notices this discrepancy and notes that the Sinner’s Prayer is followed by calls to repentance and costly discipleship.

It is here that we diverge. “Costly discipleship” includes baptism because Baptists argue that one is baptized out of obedience, which puts baptism on the same level as other “fruits” of discipleship such as practicing hospitality, forgiving others, loving your neighbor, etc. Yet I read in the Bible that the “alter call” from the very first sermon preached was to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2)

So the Baptists have planted their flag on “faith alone” while Churches of Christ planted their flag on baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And sadly, just as the Sinner’s Prayer does not include every ingredient for salvation, the dogmatic adherence to baptism by some in the Churches of Christ has come at the cost of the other ingredients. This brings me to my next “sacred cow”, baptism.

One problem is that the symbolism and significance of the act is not frequently taught (Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are good places to start). Because of this Jeremy Myers, blogging at tillhecomes.org, wrote a whole series on how and why baptism needs to be reconsidered. He starts from the right point, in my opinion, but comes to the wrong conclusion. He argues, in essence, that since we no longer know what baptism means or is about that we need a different, culturally relevant, ceremony to signify our conversion.

I would argue instead that we need to renew instruction on the whats and whys of baptism in the New Testament while looking back on the covenant relationships in the Old Testament. (for more, see the comments on Jeremy’s post “Buried in the Trees and Sky“)

Baptism can also easily become a box that one checks to make sure they’re doing everything right without the heart being behind it. It is then used as a measuring stick for church growth and effective ministry. Baptism is no longer a means to salvation, but the ends of a church’s or ministry’s effort. Some argue that baptism is a “work”. It is. When it becomes the central focus of your church as the ends and not the means, then it is in fact a work as our faith is no longer placed in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, but in the water and ceremony of our church’s tradition.

Yet if submissively allowing yourself to be dunked in water is a work, then isn’t also the alter call and Sinner’s Prayer? Are not those also “efforts” expended in order to be saved? Don’t we also count how many “accepted Jesus” at a rally or crusade? I believe the line to be drawn between surrendered humble obedience and a salvation of works is who the emphasis is on. With the altar call and Sinner’s Prayer “I” invite, “I” accept, “I” pray Jesus into my heart. While in baptism I allow someone else to do the work for me. Yes, a preacher, minister, father, spouse or friend may be doing the act, but if my faith is not in the water nor in the one baptizing, then I am literally drowning myself to die and allow God to raise me up into a new life.

A scripture that really helped me come to terms with this was 1 Peter 3 where we read that baptism is a “pledge of a good conscience” (v 21) The NIV footnote says pledge can be replace with response, but I believe that also misses the point. The Greek word eperotema is translated by the English Standard Version and Holman Christian Standard as “appeal”. That makes the whole tone of this verse more passive. In baptism, we appeal to the grace of God- it is not us doing the work, but Christ in us.

I could go on and on, but I encourage you to study this out for yourself. The latest issue of New Wineskins has many articles this month on baptism that are well worth the read. I also want you to honestly go back to Francis Chan’s video that I posted yesterday. He goes further in this video below:

Flashback Friday: When is it OK to Walk Away?

Frank

***Originally posted a year ago while doing a group book discussion on Michael Spencer’s Mere Churchianity. It is my most spammed post (still today) so I figured I’d clean it up, update it some and repost. Plus it’s a good lead-in to some posts I’m hoping to get up next week.***

[A year ago] Pope Benedict XVI visited Great Britain for the first Papal visit in centuries and in the face of the ongoing child abuse scandal. Some demonstrators were so bold as to say that the Catholic Church “murdered” their souls. Despite this, they still identified themselves as Catholic: “I am a Catholic, but my faith is in God, not in those church officials who have covered this up,” one of the demonstrators said. Valid point, but why stay committed to that church?

At the same time, we have the audience Michael Spencer is writing to in Mere Churchianity; those who have left their churches and in some cases Christianity altogether because of abuse, hypocrisy, luke-warmness, and countless other reasons. Last week, I listed some specific examples. Each of these had valid reasons to leave, but I think just as importantly, each have a valid reason to return: the church is not Christ and Michael continues to hammer this point as we continue through his book. [Important distinction here. The big-c church is the Body of Christ. When we try and make it anything else- biggest, showiest, best-selling, most entertaining, most seeker-friendly, most missional, most… it is no longer Christ, but a group of like-minded people. It might as well be a fraternity.]

Let us consider these “sins” of the church: abuse, hypocrisy, luke-warmness. You could add neglecting its mission, being polluted by the world’s values or even other religions. If this sounds familiar and you find yourself shouting, “preach it brother!” recognize that this isn’t anything new. In fact, these are the same claims Jesus himself brought against the church in Revelation. In other words, the Church has been screwing up since it was founded. Not that that makes it ok. In fact, Jesus had some very harsh words to those churches. So today we continue to re-vector our programs, our polity, our preaching to make sure our eyes are “fix[ed] on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith.” (Hebrews 12:2)

[At the same time, we cannot practice Christianity by ourselves. We can focus on Jesus all we want, but if we don’t include others in our lives, we’re not really modeling Jesus’ life or instructions. The arguments that “my faith is personal, between me an God” or “I believe in Jesus, I don’t need a church for that” are bad theology.]
Keep in mind, there are 51 “one another” instructions (some are more strongly worded as commands) to the Church found in the New Testament. Many of these cannot be followed outside of an authentic church community. One specifically, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:25) Yes, you could argue that you can still have an authentic Christian community and not call it “church”. But then I’d just turn around and call you a “house church”. I guess whatever form it takes, we need each other for encouragement, for sharpening, for instruction, and for worship.

And this still doesn’t address the countless numbers who have walked away from the Church for any and every reason.

Keeping in mind Jesus’ own words to forgive not seven times, but “seven times seventy” times (Matthew 18:22) and to leave any offering to the Lord and first “be reconciled to your brother” (Matthew 5:23-24) yet “It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:2) Add to that Paul’s instructions to “submit to every authority” (Romans 13:1 and also Hebrews 13:17) and to “not put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way” (Romans 14:13, but really the whole chapter applies). And finally going back to Hebrews 10:25 above and the example of abused Catholics at the beginning of this post, [we see that the state of the Church is each of our own responsibility.

The onus is on us to live peacefully, to forgive, and to serve. Then, “as each part does its work” the Body of Christ is “built up in love” (Eph 4:16). This cannot happen if people walk away just because they don’t like the children’s Sunday School program, don’t like the style of preaching or worship music, or don’t get along with someone in particular.(To list extreme examples. To be fair, serious abuses of authority, tolerance of sin, and departures from the Word of God as the standard of belief are all valid reasons to walk away. The line isn’t the same for everyone, but if everyone put into practice the above scriptures- including those in leadership- then we shouldn’t have those problems.)]

Ashamed

Frank

Y Cru, brute’?

Almost exactly one year ago, the Young Men’s Christian Association, aka the YMCA, changed its name to simply “the Y”. Of course, the Y has been common slang for some time. YMCA justified the change noting that no one knew what YMCA even stood for anymore as well as to fight the stereotype encouraged by the Village People’s song “YMCA”. And it could be argued that few associate the Y with any Christian Mission anyways.

History repeated itself when Campus Crusade for Christ changed its name to “Cru”, a nickname that has been common for some time, much like the Y. And just like the YMCA, Campus Crusade was fighting the negative connotations of “crusade” (hearkening more familiarity with the Christian versus Molsem wars centuries ago than Billy Graham’s Crusades (or Greg Laurie’s Harvest Crusade, for example)). I agree with the point that “Campus” over simplifies their mission. But to say they want to move away from “crusade” by just reducing it to short-hand? I don’t buy it.

Actually I didn’t buy this story at all. When I first heard it I went straight to Snopes. I mean, the change came almost exactly a year to the day after the YMCA name-change. And for me, not involved with “Cru” in any way shape or form, the full name was always shortened to just Campus Crusade. Now I don’t know what to call it.

They also mention that the name “Christ” gets in the way of their mission. I can see the argument that you don’t jump right into conversation with “I’m a Christian and I’m here to convert you. Here are the four spiritual laws so that you can receive Jesus as your own personal savior. Oh, by the way, my name is Frank.” But c’mon, you’re a CHRISTIAN EVANGELISM MINISTRY!!! Maybe your name should reflect it. If you want to be a hip night club, then admit it. If your name gives a specific first impression, maybe there’s a reason. And maybe that’s a good thing.

Blackwater changed its name to Xe to try and overcome bad press. My mom’s retirement home changed its name from Classic Residence to Vi to separate it from its parent company, Hyatt. So I’m convinced. Vi was bought out by Xe who operates youth rec centers by the name of Y and a ministry called Cru. It’s a conspiracy. Or a word scramble. CruYViXe. Oh I get it, “crucifix”. Campus Crusade is really a Catholic organization! That makes more sense than any reason they give.

“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26)

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me.” (Matthew 15:18-21, emphasis added)