sacred cows

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:

Sacred Cow: The Sinner’s Prayer

Frank

This week, the Southern Baptist Convention will be voting on a resolution to “commend” the Sinner’s Prayer as sound and biblical. (h/t to David Croom who blogged about it here) The Sinner’s Prayer has become the centerpiece of salvation for some Baptist churches and many in the Evangelical movement. For the record, I am not Baptist. In fact I am the polar opposite, fellowshipping with an offshoot of the Church of Christ. So I come at this with a certain degree of hostility.

So rather than jumping on my soapbox, I’ll let others do that for me.

David Platt:

Francis Chan:

Paul Washer: