Tag Archives: Christian

Unintended Consequences

Posted on by

Government bureaucracies and large corporations are notorious for finding out only after the fact that some edict or rule has resulted in causing many more problems than those it was intended to solve. For example, welfare laws have encouraged many mothers to have large numbers of children they care nothing for because it results in more government handouts. But this is especially true in religion and philosophy, such as the fact that “karma” actually blames the victim for whatever they are suffering since it is payback for alleged crimes committed in a life the victim cannot remember.

Regarding Christianity specifically, a search on the word ‘consequences’ here lists times in the past where I’ve tried to address the unintended results of various teachings. But I think they can be summarized into two opposite extremes: those who view God as a cold-blooded punisher, and those who view God as a Santa Clause who doesn’t even care whether you’ve been bad or good. Within those, we can further separate on the basis of whether the view applies only or primarily in this life or extends into eternity. Of course, I believe both extremes miss the mark and ignore significant portions of scripture; God is both loving and holy, merciful and just, forgiving and condemning.

What are the unintended consequences of the “cold” view? Calvinism, as I’ve written much about, leads to the conclusion that there is no point to evangelism since God’s decree of whom He ‘elected’ cannot be thwarted. They complain loudly against this as being ‘hyper-Calvinism’, but that’s where their teachings lead. Lordship Salvation leads us to conclude that we must work very hard and relentlessly to earn what scripture calls a gift freely offered, since this teaching mistakes the results of salvation for its cause. Replacement Theology, where the church becomes Israel (less commonly known, where Israel absorbs the church), claims all the blessings God promised Israel but not her curses, though both groups suffer from the same degree of rebellion. For all of these, the ones who take the teachings to where they logically lead are deemed “radical” or “hyper” or “extreme”.

What are the unintended consequences of the “Santa” view? I’ve pointed out the irony of those who say it’s wrong to criticize others, since they (often with great anger) criticize the critics; they commit the very sin they claim to be against when they encounter anyone who disagrees with them. A belief that claims to tolerate all beliefs cannot tolerate beliefs to the contrary; it is self-contradictory. Universalism, which though it has several ‘denominations’, believes there is no eternal suffering for those who do not accept Jesus as Savior in this life. But like Calvinism, this means there is no reason to spread the gospel; in fact, there is no gospel to spread at all. If people can be saved without knowing Jesus died for them and rose again, then there is no need for ‘witnessing’ or ‘witnesses’, no need to even stop committing crimes such as abuse, theft, or even murder, since everybody’s going to heaven. At least karma pays people back for their crimes, but Universalism is blind to justice. A temporary purgatory doesn’t solve the problem, as I’ve explained in past articles.

There are consequences or necessary implications of every belief. As a whole, I think many Christians don’t consider what those consequences and implications are when it comes to the gospel. What does it mean for scripture to tell us to be witnesses? To spread the gospel? To be willing to die for our faith? If the extreme views are right, none of these things make much sense. They find ways to work them in, but only by being inconsistent or contradictory to their core teachings. We are followers of Jesus for a reason, and it isn’t to be either assassins on one extreme or fairy godmothers on the other. Any religion, philosophy, club, or even business model can preach a ‘gospel’ of abiding by rules, even if the rule is to just be nice or help the poor (the anti-rule view doesn’t realize that “be nice or else!” is a rule, a legalistic and controlling belief). Who needs Christian faith for that? Whether God ‘elects’ some or all, regardless of how they act in this life, why bother trying to convince others to agree with us? What’s the point? Both sides claim to have the moral high ground, yet anyone in any other religion or philosophy can claim it on the same basis.

I’ve said this many times but not often enough: salvation in the Christian faith is about being reconciled to God through faith in the risen Jesus, and that the expected behavior of one so reconciled is to love God and people. Those who only believe the facts about the gospel but never reconcile with God are no better or worse than those who dismiss the facts and only look at behavior according to their own invented standards. This means that nobody has a license to sin, and nobody can spend eternity with God without Jesus. God accounts for inability; we can trust Him to get the gospel message to all who are required to accept it by virtue of their ability to grasp it. Otherwise there is no reason to send out missionaries of the gospel, but only humanitarian aid workers. If whatever you believe about the Christian faith can be duplicated without it, then you need to seriously question your grasp of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There really is something unique about the Christian faith, some reason Jesus told us to tell the whole world about Him, some explanation for why John “the beloved disciple” would say “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18), some purpose for Paul telling the Greek philosophers “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

Whatever you believe about life, death, and eternity, think it through. Ask yourself where your beliefs lead. Consider the disagreement of others as a benefit since they have a better view of the holes in your arguments than you do (and that includes me of course, and is one of the reasons I debate these things so much). If you are claiming to follow Christ, read the scriptures and compare your beliefs to them. If you think Paul was misguided or contradicted Jesus, then why do you bother with the Bible at all? If Jesus didn’t require us to put our trust in Him in this life, then why risk upsetting others who might be nice practitioners of other religions or no religion at all? If the Bible is all allegory, then why get upset when some interpret it differently than you? Who cares what the Bible says if there is no way to determine what it says? (some try the middle road of throw up their hands and saying “there’s no way to know”)

Consign people to hell, if that’s what floats your boat. Or give them a lollipop and tell them nothing matters except being nice, if that’s what makes you happy. But if you want to call yourself a follower of the Jesus who died for us, rose again, and both “commands all people everywhere to repent” and told us to “love God and others”, then walk consistently with that conviction by spreading the exclusive, narrow, intolerant gospel. Or… be inconsistent if you want, but know that there are consequences for that too.

Red-Letter Christians

Posted on by

I came across an article today by Jan Markell called “Red-Letter Christians: Neo-Marxism in the Church?“. Interesting timing, since the last few days I’ve read so much about the evil “Christian Right”. Now don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of evil in the “Christian Right”. But this hardly means there is less evil in the “Christian Left”. Related misconceptions include the idea that only the “right” is political, or only the “left” adds or removes things from scripture. Neither side has a right to point fingers at the other.

But these “red-letter Christians” want to throw out pretty much the entire Bible, except for the words of Jesus typically printed in red ink in many editions. Yet at the same time, they are the most likely group to dispute what He actually said! Many who espouse the fundamentals (oh, the irony!) of this view believe that much of what Jesus taught was derived from earlier ones, e.g. Hammurabi, or that His disciples embellished His actual words. They are quick to accept as fact the likes of the Gnostic “gospels” but dismiss out-of-hand the much more thoroughly studied Bible.

Anyone who disagrees with the “left” is labeled backward, “fundy”, uneducated, blind, or just plain stupid. The “right” dishes out labels too, but what’s important always must be the essentials of the gospel— the “good news” about Jesus. To take only His quoted words is to take them out of context, and to ignore His own statements about why He came and who He was is to be unfaithful to His teachings, regardless of one’s political leanings.

I’ve already written about Jesus’ purpose and claims for Himself, so I’ll just list some here. Please let me know if there’s a broken link.

Now if the “red letter” group can accept ALL the words of Jesus, even if they choose to ignore the eyewitness testimonies and the teachings of those inspired to write, they will have to choose between that and their views about the gospel, the Bible, and the Christian life. They should also consider the consistency of their view in light of the fact that Luke wrote both a Gospel and Acts, the latter of which tells us a lot about that “bad guy” named Paul. Any view can be painted as “Christian”, but only if we ignore its inconsistencies. Yes, the “right” has its issues to deal with too, but my point today is that we need to be impartial and consistent when deciding what the gospel is, what Christianity is, what truth is.

Let’s trade “left” and “right” for “straight and narrow”.

Changelings

Posted on by

World Net Daily has published some pretty wild and sensational things, but there are legitimate reports as well. Today’s include an exposé of something called “Chrislam”, which I have called Islamanity. But while my article focused on the treatment of women, this one on “Christians Celebrating Ramadan” shows just how far compromisers (aka traitors) in Christianity are willing to go.

Notice how something that started as a great idea— using Ramadan as a reminder to focus prayer on Muslims for their salvation by accepting Jesus as Savior— has been hijacked into a full-blown apostasy from the gospel. Quotes:

The origin of this international prayer network came about as a group of Christian leaders were praying during a meeting in the Middle East in April 1992. God put a burden on the hearts of these men and women to call as many Christians as possible to pray for the Muslim world.

But a smaller left-wing Christian sect, often referred to as “the emerging church,” is now also taking a very different approach. This year, a group of emergent Christians led by one of the United States most influential pastors, Brian McLaren, has announced that it will actually be “observing” the Muslim holy month, along with a Muslim “partner.”

McLaren’s insistence that he has not converted to Islam is belied by what is obviously a repudiation of the exclusive truth of the gospel:

Our main purpose for participating will be our own spiritual growth, health, learning, and maturity, but we also hope that our experience will inspire others to pray and work for peace and the common good, together with people of other faith traditions … as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.

A similar quote from Tony Campolo demonstrates exactly what I wrote about recently concerning the Hegelian Dialectic and mysticism, revealing a pattern of pushing contradictory things:

What is also so concerning to observers of the growing emergent Christian movement is its tendencies to rarely express the Christian gospel while loudly and often proclaiming either a classic humanist message or outright religious pluralism.

This quote from Campolo is particularly blatant:

“I’m not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians,” stated Campolo. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say he believes many Muslims do not even need to be evangelized.

[W]hat can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? You say, “But he hasn’t a personal relationship with Christ.” I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn’t know it.”

Can it get any more obvious? And the influence of these apostates is growing; I see it all the time online. It’s bad enough when the secular governments of the world commit political suicide by “embracing Islam”, but when the “church” commits spiritual suicide, persecution of the few remaining followers of Jesus as God in the flesh can’t be far behind. Standing for the truth and the exclusivity of salvation by faith alone in Jesus alone will be seen as a capital offense, not only by government but especially by the religious. As Jesus said in John 16:2, they will think that putting us to death is a great spiritual service to “God”, whoever or whatever they perceive that to be. It’s a small step from merely hating us to having us executed, and the hate is already here.

Stand strong on the gospel and don’t concede an inch, because these fake believers will take a million miles. “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses” (Prov. 27:6). Better to offend than to smile as they skip merrily to hell.

Halflings

Posted on by

I’ve written recently on the need for doctrine and “spirit” to balance each other. This keeps either from excesses either to coldness or error. But there are powerful forces on those extremes, with huge followings, and they don’t give up easily.

On one hand we have those who rightly cling to scripture as an anchor against falsehood, yet many of them have forgotten all about the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-23). I and many others have contacted leaders and authors on Christian doctrine, politely and with admiration, only to be treated worse than unbelievers just for daring to disagree with them on some minor point. They show no basic Christian love, no respect for those who are not in their elitist club, no allowance for dissent. They are like conceited physicians who, when challenged on the basis of the patient’s personal experience, retort sarcastically, “And what medical school did you say you attended?” They are the experts, but they are not infallible. Yet many who are renown for their doctrine seem to think they are infallible after all. They would do well to remember Jesus’ words about what we do to “the least of these” (Mt. 25:45).

On the other hand we have those who have all but abandoned the Bible as outdated, irrelevant, an obstacle to enlightenment, or untrustworthy. Yet these same people seem to hang on every (written!) word of popular authors peddling every flavor of spiritual-sounding elixir imaginable. It no longer matters whether the Bible is historically accurate, or that it is the only religious book with a large percentage of prophecy, most of which has come to pass, and with 100% accuracy. They really don’t seem to care exactly how we would know anything about Jesus without that written Word, or how we would tell followers of Jesus from followers of Buddha without it. The Bible just doesn’t “do the spiritual thing” for them, and contains scary things like judgment and the vengeance of God. It’s much like a child licking all the frosting from a piece of cake and throwing the cake away.

Both these kinds of people are “halflings” because they only hold to one side of the Christian faith. But other such “halflings” can be seen in the clergy/laity class distinction, as well as the gender wars. All of these divisive things are tearing the Body apart. (Titus 3:10)

As I’ve said before, doctrine and spirit must work together. The Body cannot be whole as long as each half, however it’s divided, refuses to accept the other. It is no more “spiritual” to reject the written Word than it is to forget “the height from which [we] have fallen” (Rev. 2:4-5). The mystics as well as the hate-filled doctrinally-correct need to repent of their divisiveness. Until then, Satan hardly has to expend any effort to neutralize us, since we keep fighting ourselves instead of him.

Time is running out; let us not be found hurling stones at each other when Jesus returns.

Heresy

Posted on by

Definition:
her⋅e⋅tic —noun

  1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
  2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
  3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle..

2 Peter 2:1

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies (Gk. haireseis), even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them— bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Titus 3:10-11

Warn divisive people (Gk. hairetikon) once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

The Greek words highlighted above carry the meaning of choosing, a way of thinking, dividing, separating, or a religious sect. So when there is a difference of teaching within a religion, the charge of heresy is of course a matter of perspective; that is, it depends upon which view is the “right” one. Within Christianity, we would prefer that the NT writings are impossible to misunderstand such that we would only need to consult them in order to discern between right and wrong teaching. But while many claim this is the case and that their interpretations are the obviously correct ones, such claims are impossible to prove unless God Himself were to come and give the interpretation.

Many today think “heretic” is practically a four-letter word, but when we understand what it means, we realize that it can be reasonably applied to anyone who disputes what we personally feel is divine truth. So my first point is to ask the Christian community to change how they react to this word. If it is wrong to call someone a heretic, then it is also wrong to flame the person who makes the charge. We need to remember that this is about division, and in Christianity as history shows, there is no end to it.

But I do believe it is reasonable to claim that any teaching which decrees division, as opposed to “causing division” by disagreeing, is properly labeled a heresy. This merits emphasis: there is a huge difference between division caused by disagreement on disputable matters, and teaching that the Body of Christ should or must be divided. Now let’s read a sample quote wherein egalitarianism is called a heresy (source):

These considerations have weighed heavily on me because of my concern with egalitarianism, which I have identified as a heresy. Although the identification was not difficult from a theological point of view—and our opponents are now in many places returning the compliment, accusing us of subordinationism: but surely one of us is heretical—its publication was very difficult indeed. In our day one must weigh the advantage, for oneself and others, of speaking what he believes the truth, against the disadvantage of being scuttled down to the category of the peevish and rude, unworthy of being heard by reason of his un-Christian manner of speaking.

— S. M. Hutchens, for the editors

Mr. Hutchens is wrong on at least two counts: that whoever disagrees with his personal view must be divisive, and that his assessment is the clear and obvious conclusion to which theology points. In fact, it is the dividing between men and women in Christ which is truly a heresy (Gal. 3:28), along with other divisions such as by race or class. Since he believes that, contrary to clear scriptural principles (see also Mt. 20:25-28, Rom. 12:1-21, 1 Cor. 12:4-31, 1 Pet. 2:9), the Body of Christ is divided into “pink” and “blue” halves, then I can call him a heretic per the Bible’s own standards.

These same principles and verses can be applied to the clergy/laity division as well, for it puts barriers between the people and God. Read this quote about the Catholic priesthood (source):

The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank (“secundi sacerdotes” Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. In the exercise of these functions, however, he is subject to the authority of the bishop to whom he has promised canonical obedience; in certain cases even he requires not only authorization, but real jurisdiction, particularly to forgive sins and to take care of souls. Moreover, certain acts of the sacerdotal power, affecting the society of which the bishop is the head, are reserved to the latter — e.g. confirmation, the final rite of Christian initiation, ordination, by which the ranks of the clergy are recruited, and the solemn consecration of new temples to God. Sacerdotal powers are conferred on priests by priestly ordination, and it is this ordination which puts them in the highest rank of the hierarchy after the bishop.

The terminology in that quote speaks of rank and division, a hierarchy contrived of tradition and worldly power.

Now of course this does not mean I recognize no other false teachings; there are many that, while not teaching division, are clearly against the foundations of the faith: the divinity and humanity of Jesus, His death, and His resurrection. But I am saying that when a teaching espouses division, we have every right to call it a heresy.

And we must remember what the Bible says about teachings that are simply a waste of time and resources, such as “endless genealogies” and “quarrels about the law” (Titus 3:9), and Calvinism. Not even the Eternal Security debate can justify the rifts it has caused in the Body, since neither side has demonstrably better behavior than the other.

There are many dangers to our faith, and we must not silence those who warn. But our focus as believers should be on what truly unifies, on the foundations of our faith. Yes, we must warn of “destructive heresies”, of Satan’s subtle lies, but we need not divide over “disputable matters” (see Rom. 14). Disagree, yes… passionately defend our views, yes… but treat others as lost because they disagree with our interpretation, NO!

If a teaching is strictly academic and has no practical effect upon how we live, it should never take center stage in the community of believers. But if it divides, restricts, belittles, undermines, or otherwise grieves the Holy Spirit, it must be warned against. Some examples of my personal opinion:

“Disputable Matters”

  • Calvinism
  • Eternal Security
  • special diets (for religious or spiritual reasons)
  • days to worship
  • styles (worship, dress, music)
  • Bible versions

Essentials of Purity

  • salvation by faith alone
  • being “dead to sin, alive to God”
  • equality of all believers without restriction
  • authority of God, not people

These are hardly exhaustive lists, but just give an idea. Again, the question to ask on any topic is whether it affects us spiritually, and for that we need to be familiar with the whole Bible (see Galatians for example). Salvation by faith alone is not a matter of only personal conviction but also is the very definition of Christianity; being dead to sin means having to know what displeases God because we claim to have reconciled with Him; telling other believers that they can’t do something you do is both hypocritical and egotistical; claiming divine authority over another believer is likewise egotistical.

Today many undermine our ability to even define Christianity by reducing the Bible to a collection of moral tales for the primitives of the past (which is itself a very egotistical and insulting view of those people). Without the Bible, we cannot say what Christianity is; we cannot know what displeases God; we have no hope, no assurance, no unity. But on the other hand, those who treat the Bible like a weapon to use against other believers have undermined the faith as well, because they dismiss the relationship we have with God through Jesus and treat their fellow servants badly.

How can egalitarians and male supremacists coexist, since one side (male) wants to restrict and control the other (female)? How can egalitarians and clergy/laity class supporters coexist, since one side believes themselves to be “called” in a way no one else is “called”? How can a fellowship function if it allows all manner of sin, not in an effort to correct it and rescue those it enslaves but to celebrate and “tolerate” it?

Those are the questions that help me discern between that which is vital and that which is secondary. We must figure out who we are as a community before we can be any kind of witness to the world.

The Ideal Christian Man or Woman

Posted on by

I go on a lot about what’s wrong with gender stereotyping, but now I’ll try to focus on the scriptural– not cultural– definition of what the standard is, so everyone knows what to aim for.

First of all we have the ultimate Role Model, Jesus. And what was He like? Rather than a one-dimensional Hollywood “bad boy” on one extreme or a hyper-passive Mr. Rogers* on the other, Jesus had a wide range of emotions and actions. He overturned the merchant tables in the temple, but also wept over the people who were soon to scream for His crucifixion. He called Peter “Satan” at one point but also likened him to a rock upon which His ekklesia** would be built. He ranted against the religious elite but allowed a foreign woman to talk Him into making a healing exception for her. He worked in a common trade but healed a little girl. He taught about both mercy and justice, compassion and judgment. He never excluded the downcast, not even women, nor favored the strong.

Then there is Paul, another who can’t be stuffed into a tiny box. He often waxed eloquent on the love of God, but got crude and nasty with fake believers. He worked with his hands but was also a first-rate scholar. He travelled over land and sea to win converts but wished curses upon those who oppose God. He humbled himself to bring the gospel to the Gentiles yet opposed Peter to his face in public for compromise.

Women such as the Marys, the Samaritan woman at the well, Phoebe, Priscilla, and others are never seen in a negative light, nor reprimanded for stepping out of society’s boxes. They are shown to be brave and faithful, independent and trustworthy– qualities their society thought were only possessed by men.

Is any man in the NT commended for violence, crudity, bossing, or any of the long list of characteristics demanded by today’s Christianity? Is any woman in the NT commended for volunteering to be a slave or for looking to man instead of God? No. While there is a time and place for physical strength, confrontation, and other things we just saw in our examples above, these are not the primary qualities of the believer. Love and gentleness are stressed above all, and for all; it is not the exclusive domain of women.

Which brings us to another point: the ideals for Christian men are indistinguishable from the ideals for Christian women. Spiritual fruit is spiritual fruit, not a role to play or cage to keep people in. All of us must follow Jesus’ model of service and humility, of laying privilege aside to lift others up. Let’s just all follow Jesus and stop being obsessed with ordering others to play the roles we assign to them.

So the ideal Christian is not identified by gender but by character. The ideal Christian couple is one where each serves and builds up the other, where each leads in their areas of strength and follows in their areas of weakness, where the load is shared and the “Golden Rule” is practiced. And the ideal Christian community is one where each believer shares their spiritual gifts with the others, building them up and “esteeming them better” than themselves.

This is all very basic, very “Christianity 101″, yet so few seem to have learned it. Our celebrities are exactly that, and the character traits they espouse are neither Biblical nor ideal. They want to homogenize people into pink and blue boxes, and also stack those boxes by a contrived ranking system. But we are not parts on a conveyor belt; we are precious souls for whom Jesus died. Neither are we actors playing roles but kings and priests of God.

Just strive for the ideal Christian qualities we see in scripture, and you will find that this silly obsession with putting people in their places evaporates. With the writer of Hebrews say, “let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (Heb. 12:1).

* Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Rogers grasped a lot more of the ideal Christian man more than most today. Nevertheless, I think he took passivity too far. He was who he was, and that’s fine, but we’re looking for ideals here, not trying to homogenize everyone. :-)

** ekklesia is the Greek word typically translated “church”, but it is also used in the NT for any gathering, including those for pagan gods.

You Like Manifestos?

Posted on by

This post is in response to “The True Woman Manifesto“, a male supremacy-endorsing document meant to be signed by Christian women as, I suppose, some sort of defiant reaction against people like me who believe that the very concept of supremacy between one believer and another is exactly what Jesus came to abolish. Enjoy.

A True Christian Manifesto

A Biblical declaration honoring the work of Jesus Christ to set us all free to serve God from the heart and not the flesh, such that we are all adopted children of God by faith alone

We believe that there is only One True God, the God of the Bible, and that he does not share His glory with any other so-called gods.

We believe that God created humankind as the crowning glory of creation, in His image, male and female, to responsibly manage the earth on His behalf, and that male and female as one flesh and bone are to stand as equal partners in this task.

We believe that while sin has broken the relationship between God and mankind, that mankind still reflects His image1 and is therefore still distinct from all other creatures, but that all who would be restored to God must come to Him in faith, accepting Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection on their behalf.

We are resolved that the community of believers is never to get its values from the surrounding culture but only from God, and that we must not let down our guard even when parts of the culture reflect Godly designs, knowing that the winds of change can subtly turn us from His ways.

We believe that Jesus Christ came to restore the broken relationship between God and humankind, and that our mission as believers is to spread the knowledge of this to all, and show them the way to be reconciled.2

As Christians, we desire to honor God by living lives that do not bow to cultural norms such as slavery, misogyny, racism, elitism, or seeking preeminence, but to heed Jesus’ command for the greatest to be the least, and the master to be the servant, remembering that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and that every believer is to follow the example of Jesus Himself3 as the role model for all.

To that end, we affirm that…

Scripture is God’s authoritative written Word, revealing His nature, methods, and plan for us– a plan that found its ultimate expression in Jesus Christ, whose example was one of humility, of considering others better than ourselves, of serving each other as equals instead of seeking to control them, with Love as the overarching principle.

We glorify God and experience His blessing when we no longer act as the world with its hierarchies and chains of command, but instead as the Body of Christ whose parts cannot say to each other, “I have no need of you”.

As redeemed sinners, we cannot sustain this ideal cooperation without the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and continual instruction in the full counsel of God as revealed in His Word.

Husbands and wives are not separate classes of beings with one a mere assistant to the other, but equal partners whose unique perspectives, gifts, experiences, and personalities can be truly complementary such that they are much more than “the sum of their parts” and become “one flesh”, allowing each one to support the other’s weaknesses and exalt in their strengths.

We are called as Christians to affirm and encourage each other, all of us taking our example of humility from Christ and following His example of lifting each other up, recognizing those among us who are mature in the faith and following their example until we too exemplify the truly transformed life of a disciple, instead of trying to play the part of God to any other.

Marriage, as created by God, is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, representing the mystical union between Christ and His Body, the community of believers– not that between the Father and the Son, or the Son and the Spirit.

When we respond humbly to the leadership of mature believers and follow their examples, we can grow to become like them and then in turn lead others who are younger in the faith, and in this way the whole Body grows together in love and faithfulness.

Selfish insistence upon flesh-based privilege, tradition, or other worldly traits is contrary to the spirit of Christ3 and His example for all believers regardless of race, class, or sex, that we should all humble ourselves and be like Him in His humanity, choosing to lay aside privilege as He did for the betterment of others.

Human life is precious to God and we do not have the right to take it except as God has ordained governments to punish wrongdoers, and we recognize that no one can be held responsible for anything worthy of punishment before they are born or have reached an age or mental state whereby they are responsible for their actions.

Children are a blessing from God and benefit most when both parents lovingly and firmly protect, nurture, and guide them until they are capable of independence, with each parent providing what God has enabled them to provide, working together as a team for the benefit of the family.

God’s plan for believers is for them all to grow into the likeness of Christ and His humble example, and no believer is exempt by virtue of any quality of the flesh or any traditional worldly notions of propriety, but instead are all to strive for the fruit of the Spirit.4

Suffering is an inevitable reality in a fallen world, and believers of all generations have had their faith tested in this way, regardless of the winds of change and whims of society, such that we should not think it unusual or doubt God’s provision or abandon His teachings.

Mature Christians have a responsibility to leave a legacy of faith for the less mature, exemplifying the humble service we all are to render to each other and training them to know the Word and pass on the message of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Believing the above, we declare our desire and intent to be “True Christians” that follow their Master. We consecrate ourselves to abandon all ambition for preeminence or rule over another and replace it with a servant’s heart and a warrior’s protection of those they love. By His grace and in humble dependence on His power, we will:

  1. Seek to exhibit our love for God by loving his children.5
  2. Gladly yield control of our lives to Christ as Lord.
  3. Be people of the Word and true followers of Christ, following His example for us all in humility, service, and sacrifice for the betterment of others.
  4. Nurture our relationships with God and His children by forgetting self and pride.
  5. Discard the world’s hierarchies and chains of command in favor of the unity of the Spirit as parts of Christ’s Body.
  6. Follow the examples of mature believers and emulate their lives, that they may do this with joy because it is for our good.6
  7. Recognize and encourage the spiritual gifts in others instead of trying to restrict or control them, so that the Body may be built up.
  8. Be examples to the unbelieving world in the way we treat both leaders and followers, parents and children, those who agree with our personal convictions on secondary matters and those who do not.7
  9. Be always ready to either gently explain the gospel to the seeking8 or to rigorously defend the faith against the hostile.9
  10. Pray for a true revolution in Christianity such that the world and its ways are excised from the Body, allowing it to heal and become the strong, unified whole it was meant to be, with all the “parts” working together instead of interfering with each other or playing the part of the “brain” to other parts, resulting in that against which “the gates of hell” can never prevail.10
  1. James 3:9
  2. 2 Corinthians 5:20
  3. Mt. 20:28, Phil. 2:5-11
  4. Galatians 5:22-23
  5. 1 John 4:7-8, 5:2
  6. Hebrews 13:7
  7. Romans 14:1-23
  8. 1 Peter 3:15
  9. Jude 1:3b
  10. Mt. 16:18

Go To Heaven!

Posted on by

Note: The content of this article was replaced Dec. of 2008. The content of the old one is now modified and expanded into a new article, Salvation Under the Microscope.

Is this all there is? What, if anything, happens after this life?

Some say you just keep coming back in different bodies, maybe even as an animal or plant or rock. Others say you just stop existing or you get absorbed into some cosmic consciousness. But if any of those are true, then it really doesn’t matter how we live, because we won’t remember it.

But what if this life is really just a test, a rehearsal for eternity? Then it really would matter how we live here and now. So how do we find out, or should we just play it safe and pick a belief that seems to offer the best “fire insurance”? The first thing we have to do is decide the best way to determine what is true and real (my personal method is here under The Fountain of Truth). Then we can decide what to do about what we discover.

The fact is, someone called Jesus of Nazareth appeared in history, born as a human but from a virgin mother. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, including a manner of execution that hadn’t even been invented when the prophecy was made. But most important of all, Jesus rose from the dead after three days, another fulfilled prophecy. And if you’re thinking that this is all made up from only the Bible, think again; consider the articles Here, Here, and Here, as well as books like Evidence That Demands A Verdict and Who Moved The Stone?

Some brush off all the evidence but blindly accept many other facts without any evidence at all. If the same requirements were made for everything they believe, they would find themselves doubting even their own existence— which many do. So again, it comes back to how you determine what is real, and how consistent you are with that. The bottom line is that no matter how you approach this question, the Bible’s answer is at least as good as any, and has the best number and quality of evidence.

But so what? If the Bible is true and Jesus really is God in the flesh who died for our rebellion against Him, then rose again, why should it matter to us? And what was that all about, anyway?

God originally created humanity with direct, face-to-face communion with Him. But that relationship was broken by the rebellion of the first human, Adam, resulting in mortality and a cursed world. Every person since Adam and Eve has been born into this world of suffering and death, unable to directly relate to God. But God provided a way for us to be reconciled: He Himself would become human and pay the ransom with his own blood to restore that relationship. But just as it takes two to reconcile, and a legally nullified divorce doesn’t guarantee a restored relationship, so also God has made the offer but it’s up to each of us to accept it or reject it. Here is what the Bible says:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
— 2 Cor. 5:17-21

That’s the gospel, the message of salvation, the way to heaven: Be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. And accepting Jesus by faith is the only way that can happen. To put your faith in someone is to have a deep conviction about them, to “put all your weight” on them. You can’t just say the words, “I believe Jesus is God who died for us and rose again”, you have to accept this as a personal conviction. You don’t just believe about him, you believe in him. You want to be reconciled to God.

Once you have as a personal conviction that Jesus is God who died and rose again to reconcile you, you are guaranteed to “go to heaven” after this life. Yes, guaranteed!

Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
— 2 Cor. 5:5
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
— Eph. 1:13-15

There is no other requirement, no hidden fine print, no organization to join:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
— Eph. 2:8-9
Now to anyone who works, their wages are not credited to them as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
— Rom. 4:4-5

But doesn’t this amount to “a license to sin”? Of course not!

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
— Rom. 6:1-4

We wouldn’t dream of living a life that angers or insults a person we claim to have reconciled with, so neither should we do this to God. This isn’t about meeting some minimal requirement to buy our way into eternal happiness, but an honest desire to be reconciled to God; it’s all about the relationship. We have this guarantee of eternal happiness because of the love of God for all the world (John 3:16), so love is the “meat” of that relationship.

Naturally, the next thing to do is to find out more about God, to know what pleases Him and what does not. That means studying the Bible and getting instruction from the spiritually mature, who can be recognized by how well they model the life of Christ and the disciples He chose to write the Bible. Good deeds will follow from the truly transformed life. They can be faked by the lost, and the saved are certainly spiritually “sick” if they have not changed or have fallen back into a life of sin. But we are to focus on our own spiritual health, not on whether others meet our personal level of spirituality. Spiritual maturity is not a means to a high position of rule, but a low position of service, of being an example to others, of slowly becoming like our Master and Savior. One very important factor in our spiritual growth is to hang around with other believers (Heb. 10:24-25). And this is the only way we can use the spiritual gifts God gives each believer (1 Cor. 12:7), since their purpose is to help other believers and be helped in turn by them.

So even though the only requirement to be saved is faith in the risen Jesus, this “rebirth” is not the end but the beginning, the start of a new life. But don’t think that an easy life awaits you. This life is a temporary testing ground, and the test is not always pleasant or easy while you are taking it. But the reward is happiness for the rest of eternity. We live to please Jesus, in gratitude for salvation, to be His hands in this world.

Here is a handy chart of all the changes that take place spiritually when we place faith in Jesus. It’s good to refer to whenever you may have doubts later on. To quote the disciple John, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

What happens the moment we are saved?

declared righteous Romans 3:28, 4:5, 24, 5:1, 9, Gal. 3:24, Phil. 3:9
become children of God Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 3:7, 26
clothed with Christ Galatians 3:27
belong to Christ, not ourselves 1 Cor. 6:19-20
heirs according to the promise Galatians 3:29-4:7
the flesh was crucified Galatians 5:24
redemption through Jesus’ blood, forgiveness of our sins Eph. 1:5
became God’s own possession Eph. 1:11
sealed with the Holy Spirit who guarantees our inheritance 2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13-14
made alive with Christ Eph. 2:5
raised up and seated with Christ in heaven Eph. 2:6
brought near to God, have peace with God Romans 5:1, Eph. 2:13
citizens of God’s household Eph. 2:19
sealed for the day of redemption Eph. 4:30
buried and raised with Christ Romans 6:4-6, Col. 2:12
made alive and forgiven Col. 2:13
died but life now hidden with Christ in God Col. 3:3
protected from the evil one 2 Thes. 3:3
given eternal life Romans 6:23, 1 Timothy 1:16, Titus 3:7, 1 John 2:25, 5:12-13
set free and purified Titus 2:14
born again Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:3,23
given an imperishable reservation in heaven 1 Peter 1:4
ransomed 1 Peter 1:18
kept from falling 1 Cor. 10:13, Jude 1:24
are God’s temple 1 Cor. 3:16
washed, sanctified, justified Romans 3:24, 1 Cor. 6:11
are a new creation 2 Cor. 5:17

Christian Behavior and Activism

Posted on by
Lu 6:46 Ro 14:1-15:4 1Co 6:12, 5:9-13, 10:23-11:1

1 Cor. 5:9-13 makes it clear that we can and will “rub elbows” with unbelievers who, of course, do evil things, but that we should not associate with those who practice evil but call themselves believers. Even Jesus associated with the dregs of society, but he only had condemnation for those who were self-righteous, because they did evil while pretending to be holy. Yes, we may get a bad reputation for associating with unbelievers, but how else could we witness to them? So the big question is, where do we draw the line on what Christians can do?

From Romans 14 we see an important general principle: that we must act in love and not demand our rights if it might cause a “weaker brother” to fall. 1 Peter 2:12 gives another general principle: that we should live such good lives that no one, believer or not, can criticize us. We are all to strive for the highest, not to look for what we can get away with. Even so, there are areas where Christians are in sharp disagreement, such as social drinking,dancing, styles of music or fashion, eating meat, playing cards, etc. Some believe the Bible absolutely forbids one or more of those things, while others believe the Bible allows them.

Wherever there is controversy over a subject, we should do whatever is the most considerate thing, not just what is permissible. But those who abstain must not look down on those who don’t. Far greater sins are committed by Christians who criticize their fellow believers than by those who drink or dance or gamble. We must remember that we are all in a process of growth, and that we do not all have the same measure of faith*. Of course, things concerning salvation and things the Bible expressly condemns are not a matter of opinion. But if we must guess on which way to lean concerning a certain gray area, follow this rule: if it’s about my own behavior, err on the side of abstinence; if it’s about someone else’s behavior, err on the side of tolerance.

Some Christians feel that everything a believer does must be openly evangelistic. In other words, there is no room for neutrality. The Bible says that everything we do should glorify God, but that doesn’t mean it must be blatantly religious. I can glorify God by keeping my room clean, but I’m not making an evangelistic statement by doing so. The idea is that Christian living should do no dishonor to God (1 Peter 2:12).

* The Bible describes as having “weak faith” those who feel something is forbidden even though the Bible says it’s ok. But if one with weak faith goes ahead and violates his conscience because someone else knows it’s ok, for the one with weak faith it is sin! On the other hand, if one with “strong faith” flaunts his freedom in front of a weaker brother, he causes him to sin. Be careful!

Christian Activism

Mt 22:17,21 Mr 12:14-17 Ac 16:37,17:6, 22:25-29

Should Christians participate in marches, boycotts, sit-ins, etc.? Should we hold political offices, or join in secular ventures with unbelievers?

Notice that Jesus never organized a rebellion or even a mild criticism of the Roman government, which was known to be at least as evil and corrupt as any other. His only critical words were for those who considered themselves righteous but had evil hearts. He did, however, tell his followers to spread the Gospel wherever they went. But most people did not quit their jobs when they were saved, even if they worked for the Roman government. He even told his disciples to pay civil taxes, which undoubtedly would be used at least partly for some evil purpose. The only riots or other civil disruptions the early believers were involved in were instigated by the enemies of the Gospel. And those believers “turned the world upside down” not by political means but simply by proclaiming the truth. But even Paul would use his political connections when necessary (Roman citizenship, which he did not renounce when he was saved).

In the USA it is legal to peacefully assemble, so as long as our motives are pure and we break no laws, marches and the like are acceptable. However, we must remember the difference between rebellion and protest: rebellion overthrows a government from the top down, but protest is a legal form of free speech. But we must not forget our primary means of changing the world: spreading the Gospel. Some Christians have allowed political ambitions and civil disruptions to be their focus, instead of love for lost souls.

Although going into business or other formal alliances with unbelievers is a controversial subject among Christians today, I personally believe it is wrong. Being “unequally yoked”, if you look at the context, is not about marriage but about alliances.