(Theological) Liberalism = The Enemy Part V: Christ or anti-Christ?

We have come then to this fearsome place where the word 'Jesus' has become the enemy of the Person Jesus, and the enemy of what Jesus taught. We must fear this contentless banner of the word 'Jesus' not because because we do not love Jesus, but because we do love Him. We must fight this contentless banner, with its deep motivations, rooted into the memories of the race, which is being used for the purpose of sociological form and control. We must teach our spiritual children to do the same.

This accelerating trend makes me wonder whether, when Jesus said that towards the end-time there will be other Jesuses, He meant something like this. We must never forget that the great enemy who is coming is the anti-Christ. He is not the anti-non-Christ. He is anti-Christ. Increasingly over the last few years the word 'Jesus', separated from the content of the the Scriptures, has become the enemy of the Jesus of history, the Jesus who died and rose and who is coming again and who is the eternal Son of God. So let us take care. If evangelical Christians begin to slip into a dichotomy, to separate an encounter with Jesus from the content of the Scriptures (including the discussable and verifiable), we shall, without intending to, be throwing ourselves and the next generation into the millstream of the modern system. This system surrounds us as an almost monolithic consensus.

-Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason

(Expected) Lunacy from Left-wing "Christians"

When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, “Don’t you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?”

And he said, “Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian.”

–”Christian” writer Anne Lamott writing about her warm and fuzzy feelings toward John McCain and Sarah Palin in Salon, September 16, 2008

“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

–”Christian” writer Anne Lamott, in her book Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts On Faith (2000)

H/T: Reformed Pastor

Stupidity:

MR. BROKAW: ... When does life begin?....

SEN. JOE BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

H/T T19

(Theological) Liberalism = The Enemy: Part IV

The following is a quote from the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna and Austria, Hilarion Alfeyev. I found the quote on Reformed Pastor's blog. According to Reformed Pastor, this was addressed to the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches in Geneva. I think it is one of the best statements I have seen on theological liberalism in a while.

I would like to draw your attention to the danger of liberal Christianity. The liberalization of moral standards, initiated by some Protestant and Anglican communities several decades ago and developing with ever-increasing speed, has now brought us to a situation where we can no longer preach one and the same code of moral conduct. We can no longer speak about Christian morality, because moral standards promoted by ‘traditional’ and ‘liberal’ Christians are markedly different, and the abyss between these two wings of contemporary Christianity is rapidly growing.

We are being told by some allegedly Christian leaders, who still bear the titles of Reverends and Most Reverends, that marriage between a woman and a man is no longer the only option for creating a Christian family, that there are other patterns, and that the church must be ‘inclusive’ enough to recognize alternative lifestyles and give them official and solemn blessing. We are being told that human life is no longer an unquestionable value, that it can be summarily aborted in the womb, or that one may have the right to interrupt it voluntarily, and that Christian ‘traditionalists’ should reconsider their standpoints in order to be in tune with modern developments. We are being told that abortion is acceptable, contraception is agreeable, and euthanasia is better still, and that the church must accommodate all these ‘values’ in the name of human rights.

What, then, is left of Christianity? In the confusing and disoriented world in which we live, where is the prophetic voice of Christians? What can we offer, or can we offer anything at all to the secular world, apart from what the secular world will offer to itself as a value system on which society should be built? Do we have our own value system which we should preach, or should we simply applaud every novelty in public morality which becomes fashionable in the secular society?

I would also like to draw your attention to the danger of a ‘politically correct’ Christianity, of a Christianity which not only so easily and readily surrenders itself to secular moral standards, but also participates in promoting value systems alien to Christian tradition.

We are facing a paradoxical situation. British secular politicians who share Christian convictions are concerned about the rising Christianophobia in the UK and initiate a debate on this issue in Parliament, calling for recognition of the country’s Christian identity. At the same time the primate of the Church of England calls for ‘a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law.’

I am sure I will be told that Christianity must become more tolerant and all-inclusive, that we Christians should no longer insist on our religion as being the only true faith, that we should learn how to adopt other value systems and standards. My question, however, is: when are we going to stop making Christianity politically correct and all-inclusive; why do we insist on accommodating every possible alternative to the centuries-old Christian tradition? Where is the limit, or is there no limit at all?

Many Christians worldwide look to Christian leaders in the hope that they will defend Christianity against the challenges that it faces. It is not our task to defend Sharia law, or to commend alternative lifestyles or to promote secular values. Our holy mission is to preach what Christ preached, to teach what the apostles taught and to propagate what the holy Fathers propagated. It is this witness which people are expecting of us.

I am convinced that liberal Christianity will not survive for a long time. A politically correct Christianity will die. We see already how liberal Christianity is falling apart and how the introduction of new moral norms leads to division, discord and confusion in some Christian communities. This process will continue, while traditional Christians, I believe, will consolidate their forces in order to protect the faith and moral teaching which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers preserved.

Thank you Bishop Alfeyev!

(Theological) Liberalism = The Enemy: Part III

"Liberal theology is very well known historically and is also a very clear set of revisions on historic orthodoxy. From Schleiermacher to the present, liberal theology, under various names and guises, has involved the substitution of human insight and experience for divinely revealed truth, the view of scripture as merely human, time-conditioned "witness" to people's religious experience, the tendency to see all matters of faith, doctrine, and ethics as a function of one's tradition and experience and not as something revealed by God and binding universally, and the tendency to submerge the finality and uniqueness of Jesus under pluralistic affirmation of all faiths and "spiritualities." Liberal theology uses Christian language and appeals to Christian sources, but does so to advance teaching that is not historic Christian teaching."
-Dr. Lawson Stone, Asbury Theological Seminary

If that's true, then Christianity is False, or A Popular Lie in the Lukewarm Church

As I've read debates on certain blogs and as I've talked with many professing Christians, I've come to see that one of the chief lies promoted by many in the church today is that because no one is perfect, there can be no expectation of freedom from sin in this life and that there should be no standard of holy living when it comes to selection of church leadership.

I actually debated once with a liberal pastor whom I worked under and she used this argument to justify acceptance of practicing homosexuals in church leadership. She said that since she was divorced and remarried, she was technically living in adultery according to Christ's words, so how could she judge a homosexual? I was, of course, unimpressed by her argument but I didn't have the courage right there to say, "well maybe you shouldn't be a pastor." Ultimately her argument was that because certain things described as sin have become acceptable to many in the church, that we had no right to choose other sins which would bar one from positions of leadership in the church.

If freedom from sin does not come with conversion to Christ than I say that Christianity is proved to be a false religion. Jesus said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.(Matt. 5:48)" Is Jesus calling us to something that is not possible? And what does Jesus mean by perfection? In the context of this call to perfection we see the Sermon on the Mount, we see teaching on anger and reconciliation with brothers, sexual morality, marriage, oaths, retribution and love for enemies. We also see in Matthew where a fundamental part of Jesus' message is repentance. We read, "From that time on Jesus began to preach, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.(Matt. 4:17)'" So it is obvious that Jesus was calling his followers to leave sin behind and follow him. If all of this talk of repentance and leaving sin behind and holiness is not reflected at all in actual followers of Christ then I say the whole thing is a sham. And yet it seems that many believe and teach that there is no real change in the life of a Christian other than maybe a new hope or some warm feelings. In fact, maybe the only life change encouraged by the liberal is abstinence from ever making a judgment call that something is actually sinful or contrary to God's will. Even in evangelical circles you can see the theology of praying the "sinner's prayer" and then everything is a-okay. This theology doesn't match the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter, though. If you take a verse in isolation here or there you can argue for that theology. If you only read John 3:16 then maybe you could believe that no repentance is required but if you read it in the context of the entire gospel of John you see calls to repentance in both 5:14 and 8:11. The Gospel of John also contains some of the most sublime writing on the promise of the Holy Spirit. In connection with this promise we read Jesus' words, "When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment...(John 16:8)" It is claimed in the New Testament and in the testimonies of multitudes of believers that the Holy Spirit really has come into the lives of many. So if this testimony is true and if Christ's words are true, then what is the point of the Holy Spirit convicting of sin if there is no change in the life of a Christian?

So is Christianity a big lie? Well, I don't think so. It follows that I believe that there is a real life-change in Christians that is supernaturally enabled by the work of the Holy Spirit. There is real sanctification and freedom from sin in this life. God in His grace has freed me of things that many don't even think a person can be freed of. Am I entirely sanctified? No. But God is working on me and I have a blessed hope for entire sanctification and Christian perfection in this life. And for any who scoff at terms like "entire sanctification" and "Christian perfection," I say, how dare you limit God! How dare you answer Jesus "no thanks, I don't think it's possible," when He says to you in His Word "Be ye Perfect." This freedom from sin will come differently to different people but it always requires patience, perseverance and a willingness to lose one's life for the sake of following Christ.

And for those who perpetuate the lie of the "carnal Christian," Jesus warns, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.(Matt. 18:6)" The lie that there is no supernatural life-change when a person in converted to Christ keeps many today in sin. If revival is ever to take place we must break free of this lie.

Amen

...No thanks

Well, the bishop's response to the primates is in where they slickly side-step around the issues and also give a plan for "episcopal visitors." But as for me, if my church, which I love, or if St. Patrick's back in Kentucky had come under Episcopal "church"-oversight I would have had to and would now have to leave and find somewhere else to worship. I had enough liberal-mainline compromise and heresy growing up. I don't need to be connected to it any more. I doubt that any of these churches will come under TEC and I can say now that I am really hoping for a split. I don't want to be unequally yoked with unbelievers who claim to be Christians while leading people to hell. So I for one hope that my faithful brothers like Orombi, Akinola and Kolini will reject the bishop's response. And for me, connection with Canterbury is not all that important. My friend Alice C. Linsley described a sermon which my Archbishop Henry Orombi preached on Northern Plains Anglican's site. She says, "When asked about the importance of Canterbury, the Archbishop responded, 'Anglican identity is not tied to Canterbury.' While Anglicans recognize Canterbury as one of the oldest sees, 'there are other significant sees.' In this matter His Grace follows Church tradition in recognizing the authority of older sees such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome and Antioch."

How Firm a Foundation Ye Saints of the Lord...

Henry Luke Orombi is the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda. Depending on where I find a church home in southern California, he may soon be my Archbishop. He has written something so profound and true that I could not help but post it here. It is called, "What Is Anglicanism?" and It makes me proud to be Anglican. I can only hope that an Anglicanism which reflects his words written here can arise in North America. Also, thank you to Titusonenine for posting this, which was originally published in First Things.

In the Church of Uganda, Anglicanism has been built on three pillars: martyrs, revival, and the historic episcopate. Yet each of these refers back to the Word of God, the ground on which all is built: The faith of the martyrs was maintained by the Word of God, the East African revival brought to the people the Word of God, and the historic ordering of ministry was designed to advance the Word of God.

So let us think about how the Word of God works in the worldwide Anglican Communion. We in the Church of Uganda are convinced that Scripture must be reasserted as the central authority in our communion. The basis of our commitment to Anglicanism is that it provides a wider forum for holding each other accountable to Scripture, which is the seed of faith and the foundation of the Church in Uganda.

The Bible cannot appear to us a cadaver, merely to be dissected, analyzed, and critiqued, as has been the practice of much modern higher biblical criticism. Certainly we engage in biblical scholarship and criticism, but what is important to us is the power of the Word of God precisely as the Word of God—written to bring transformation in our lives, our families, our communities, and our culture. For us, the Bible is “living and active, sharper than a double-edged sword, it penetrates to dividing soul and spirits, joints and marrow, it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). The transforming effect of the Bible on Ugandans has generated so much conviction and confidence that believers were martyred in the defense of the message of salvation through Jesus Christ that it brought...

...As the Bible came with the authority of Christ, it revealed a God that is greater than the evil spirits and the kingdom of darkness that controlled so many people’s lives. In Uganda, the Bible has grown into a cherished source of authority that is central to Christian faith, practice, and mission. For all God’s people, obedience to this Bible is the source of confidence, abundant life, and joy. It is an absolute treasure that no one can take away. Isaiah, later quoted by Peter, wrote, “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:8; 1 Pet. 1:24-25). The grass on which our cattle feed, the grass from which our roofs are thatched—all this withers. But the Word of God has withstood the test of time. The Bible is at the heart of our Anglican identity, and we Ugandan Anglicans joyfully submit to its life-giving and transforming authority...

...From Thomas Cranmer to Richard Hooker, from the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Ordinal to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the authority of Holy Scripture has always held a central and foundational role in Anglican identity. This is true for the Anglican church in Uganda; and, if it is not true for the entire Anglican Communion, then that communion will cease to be an authentic expression of the Church of Jesus Christ...

...Consider, first, the centrality of the Word of God in faith and life. No honest reading of historic Anglican formularies and the English Reformers can deny the central place of Scripture in Anglicanism. Our worldwide communion is in danger today of confusing doctrine and discipline. The various disciplines of the autonomous provincial churches can be contextualized, but doctrine, based on Scripture, transcends all such cultural distinctions.

We would not be facing the crisis in the Anglican Communion if we had upheld the basic Reformation convictions about Holy Scripture: its primacy, clarity, sufficiency, and unity. Part of the genius of the Reformation was its insistence that the Word of God and the liturgy be in the language of the people—that the Bible could be read and understood by the simplest plowboy. The insistence from some Anglican circles (mostly in the Western world) on esoteric interpretations of Scripture borders on incipient Gnosticism that has no place in historic or global Anglicanism.

Amen

If you want to be encouraged by the wonderful workings of God in Uganda, go here. It is the entire text of the article by Archbishop Orombi.

The Making of a Charismatic or “Fan the Flame”

Some of you who know me well know a bit of my Christian journey. I was baptized as an infant at Ontario United Methodist Church in Ontario, Oregon and I asked Jesus to be my Savior when I was 13. I remained a very immature but zealous Christian until college. In college I wanted to party so I decided to become a liberal “Christian.” God by his grace brought me back to the faith with some relationships, some books and with my own inner struggle. For the next few years, while I was a youth pastor at a United Methodist church, I tried to embrace mainstream Evangelicalism. It was actually a very good time where God’s presence was very evident in my life and where I began to ask the Holy Spirit to take control of my prayer. I felt called to seminary and went to Asbury where I was richly blessed by God.

God messed with me a lot during my first year at Asbury. I came out of that year broken. I struggled regularly with fits of depression and anxiety. I told a friend that I felt “weak.” I also struggled with doubt a lot during that time. There were weeks when I had to will myself into being a Christian. But during that time God continued to meet me, I would say, miraculously. When I returned home to Washington from seminary in 2006 I was invited by a good friend and brother in Christ, Josh Monen, to a church service that was a ministry of a local Pentecostal church. The ministry was called ‘Fan the Flame,’ taken from 2nd Timothy 1:6 - “For this reason, I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” I was suffering the first time I went. The service was held in a barn in the countryside not far from my house. We worshipped and there was a short message. Then there was a prayer time. A family went up to be prayed for and I imagined that the service would wind down and I would talk with my friend for a while and go home. But that’s not what happened. As I said, I was suffering. I was standing about halfway back in the congregation, minding my own business, when the guy who had preached, Ross, pointed at me and said something like, “you need prayer.” He couldn’t have been more right. I went up and balled my eyes out before a whole congregation of people (something I had never done before and couldn’t imagine myself doing) while brothers and sisters layed on hands, prayed, prophesied and spoke in tongues. I asked for healing and I received it. I was free of the frightening depression and anxiety that had plagued me for months and it has not returned since. That was the first miracle of that summer. Fan the Flame continued to amaze me throughout the summer. I’ve commented to Josh that Fan the Flame has been the only place where, on a Monday, I was excited about what might happen at church on Sunday that week. There were a number of amazing things that happened that summer but one other thing is worthy of note. I’ve mentioned it on this blog before. One Sunday we had a guest preacher at Fan the Flame. I came to the service as usual not knowing what to expect but excited about what God had in store for that night. After he had preached, the guest preacher began telling random people from the congregation to stand up. He would then lay his hand on their head, pray, speak in tongues and prophecy. I am a skeptic. My natural reaction to every situation is to find a naturalistic explanation. I was skeptical about this preacher. I didn’t want him to prophesy over me because I loved Fan the Flame and I knew that if he said something that wasn’t true, I would be devastated. He walked down the center aisle, pointed at me and said, “stand up!” I obeyed and he began to speak in tongues and prophecy. He said something to the effect of “you have been hurt by a church in the past and you still need to forgive them.” First of all, I was happy that what he said was true. But I was also able to remain skeptical because I thought to myself, “lot’s of people have been hurt by churches - he could probably have said that to three quarters of the people here.” The fact was that I had been hurt by a church - the liberal church I had grown up in. But I thought I had forgiven the people there. After the service I went up to the preacher, Frank, and I let him know that what he said was true but that I felt like I had already forgiven those people. He looked at me and said something like, “I have something more to tell you - you are bitter about that church and that bitterness is affecting your theology.” I was surprised about having been contradicted but two words he used surprised me. The two words were “bitter” and “theology.” As I thought about it, I realized that this guy who didn’t even know me told me the same thing that the guy who knows me best, Blake Brodien, had been telling me for months at seminary. Blake had been telling me that I was bitter about liberalism and this ‘prophet’ now said the same thing. The other word that struck me was “theology.” This struck me because I was studying theology - and bitterness certainly was affecting it. In fact, I’d be willing to say that bitterness about liberalism was the primary force driving my theology. As you can imagine, that is a pretty unhealthy source of theology. As I thought about this true prophet’s words I grew more and more amazed. I was so amazed that I later asked my friend Josh whether he had talked to this preacher about me before the service - he hadn’t. On further thought, another aspect of the words of this prophet which struck me was that what he had to say was what I really needed to hear. At the service, before he prophesied over me, I had thought about what God would probably want to say to me through a prophet. I thought about the obvious struggles with sin in my life. I thought about lust among other things. But the struggle that this prophet hit me with was something that was very real but also something that I was in denial about. Hearing that I was bitter from him made me finally listen up after my best friend had been telling me the same thing for months. I would be lying if I said that the bitterness was gone - it’s not. But I’m aware of it and I realize that stoking it and feeding on it is keeping me in a kind of bondage that God wants me to be free of.

In my experience with Pentecostalism, I have seen little of what seems so problematic to those on the outside. That’s not to say that the problems aren’t real. But in my experience, Pentecostals are a group of people who value intimacy with God above all else, who believe the Bible and who are willing to live self-sacrificial lives. They are also aware of the marvelous and miraculous ways in which God acts in people’s lives today and they expect miracles in their churches. I believe that God honors this openness to His power by doing amazing things in Pentecostal churches.

For All Men From All Sin

As I said in my post yesterday, doing construction gives me a lot of time to think. Today I was thinking about what is central to the faith. I don't claim to have gotten some revelation, but I feel like God was messing with me. I was thinking about what I would be willing to break fellowship with a person over. I became convinced that a lack of commitment to holiness would be one of the first things I would break fellowship over. I would break fellowship over the issue of holiness before a lot of other theological issues that I also feel strongly about.

Holiness is central and many Christians have forgotten it or just don't want to deal with it.

I think that the only kind of Christian there can be is a radical Christian. Anything less and I think a person is risking, "Lord, Lord, did we not prohesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers.'" Do we not believe that the road is narrow leading to salvation? Have we forgotten "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Anyone who is not seeking utter obedience to God is condemned by Christ's words, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching." What was Christ's teaching on sin? To the woman caught in adultery he said, "leave your life of sin." He says the same thing to all of us. Do we love him enough to do it?

Is this holiness easy? Do we just get saved and have no desire to sin? Perhaps some have experienced entire sanctification at conversion but most do not. So what does this mean? It means that the Christian life is a constant battle against the flesh. It means that there are things in us, things that seem to be central to who we are that must be renounced and rejected in obedience to and trust in God. Jesus said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Self-denial, cross bearing - not things that feel good but things we MUST do to follow Christ. There is no other way. These are the basic values that liberal "christians" utterly reject and that many other true Christians try to ignore.

We must also trust that it is out of God's love that he calls us to this holiness. If God becomes our portion, that is, if we truely experience the Presence of God in this life then I think that all the things we are called to leave behind will appear weak and ugly compared to what we gain in God.

Did Jesus' death and resurrection free us from needing to be holy or did they allow us to become holy? On a plaque outside of the chapel at Asbury College is written, "Salvation For All Men From All Sin." I believe it. Christ frees us from sin. That is what he calls us to. He didn't just die to give us a ticket to heaven. Heaven can begin now and there is no sin in heaven. 1st John 3:4-6 says, "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him."

Amen

Liberal Honesty. . .

I was reading the news on Stand Firm and T19 this morning and came acrossed a piece where theologian Luke Timothy Johnson has come out in favor of sexual sin. The piece was lame but I liked the honesty of one quote. Maybe if all liberals were this honest about the issue, we wouldn't have so many "evangelicals" fawning over them. . .

"I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to..."

Well, there you go. Choose this day whom you will serve.

Ryan Johnson: "Don't Judge Me?"

A friend from Asbury, Ryan Johnson, posted this on his myspace blog. I thought it was so good that I asked if I could post it here. Enjoy. . .

I always hear people saying, "Don't judge me," or "You have no right to judge me." They will even say things like, "Jesus tells us not to judge one another," or "Jesus didn't judge people, so why should you?" These are true statements, in part, but I think there is some confusion when it comes to judging others. I do not intend to go into depth on this, it's a blog for crying out loud, but I do want to scratch the surface.

It all started this morning when I was reading in 1 Corinthians (It's an AMAZING letter, by the way. You should read it :). In chapter 4, Paul says that no one should judge him, because "It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God" (4:4,5). BUT, oddly enough, one chapter later he starts talking about how we are to judge those in our community.

Apparently there was a man sleeping with his stepmom, and Paul is rather upset that this man has not been removed from the worshipping community. He instructs them to "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (5:5). But what is the purpose of this? That the man will forever be ostracized from the community of faith? Absolutely NOT! But rather that he will turn from his ways and repent, and be allowed to reenter the church. He goes on to say, "For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. 'Drive out the wicked person from among you'" (5:12,13).

So which is it? Are we to judge? Or are we NOT to judge?
The Greek word being used here in these two passages is "krino", which can be translated "to judge, pass judgment on (midd. and pass. often stand trial, go to law); condemn; decide, determine; consider, regard, think; prefer." More than anything, though, the word is understood as "to come to a conclusion in the process of THINKING and thus to be in a position to make a decision - 'to come to a conclusion, to decide, to make up one's mind.' (i.e. 'for I made up my mind to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified' 1 Cor 2.2).

Jesus uses this word in Matt. 7, the definitive teaching on judging others, right?
"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.

Does this teaching suggest that we are not to judge AT ALL? If Jesus had stopped at verse 4, then maybe so. But he doesn't. His teaching is to remove the log from your own eye, and THEN you can help your neighbor with his speck. The command not to judge does NOT mean that we should leave a person in their sin because we don't feel we have the right to condemn them. What it DOES mean is that we are to look at ourselves and recognize the total depravity of our own lives and the fact that it is only through Jesus Christ that we are saved. Only then can we look with compassion at the one in front of us.

The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus DOES tell us not to judge others, and that is true. BUT, there IS a place for "judging" others. Jesus' command not to judge does NOT mean that we are supposed to allow sin to persist in the world, but it DOES mean that we should not condemn a person for their sin. That type of judgment is left up to God.

There is ALSO a difference between judging a Christian and a non-Christian. This is what I am talking about:
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons-- 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.

In this passage, Paul states that when Scripture speaks of not associating with immoral persons, it is not talking about those who are still in the world, i.e. the tax collector, the woman at the well, etc. We are not to judge, nor are we to distance ourselves from the world out there. BUT, if that immoral person is a brother or sister in Christ, then we DO have the right to judge, as a body, as a community of believers. IN FACT, Paul goes on to say, in chapter 6, that we should be judging between ourselves and not taking our matters to secular courts.

Judging others is a serious issue in our day. We judge people all the time for their words and actions without stopping to realize our own sins. However, when it comes to the body of Christ, Scripture DOES teach us to judge, but we must learn how to make wise decisions, and we must make those decisions with compassion.

I could go on forever with this line of thinking. There are so many more passages to look at, but I'll stop here. So what do YOU think?

Emergent No: Part 1

I'm realizing that perhaps the most important theme in emergent/emerging-"church" conversations is the re-appraisal of Christian doctrine and practice where it conflicts most strongly with non-Christian popular culture and scholarship. The only result of this conversation can be compromise. The conversation should not even be occuring because the Church has already received God's revelation on the issues at hand. Is homosexuality a new issue? Of course not, but reading any emerging/emergent page would make you think so. If I move any direction in seeking God it will be based on Scripture and the Church Fathers, not on what popular culture says is right or just. It is sad that people don't see how problematic it is when the source of theology becomes people's experience and a desire to look good to an anti-Christian culture.

Reflections on Liberal "Christianity" Part I

(Disclaimer: When I say "liberal" here, I mean liberal theologically. I consider those who would compromise on Christian doctrine as seen in the Bible and the Creeds to be liberal and those who would compromise with the culture on Scriptural Christian morality to be liberal. Some of the more common displays of this liberalism are de-emphasis of the importance of such doctrines as the Virgin Birth or compromise on sexual morality.)

I grew up in a liberal church. For a time I embraced the ideology I found there but God rescued me from the destructive lies I believed at that time. This will be my first post in a series of reflections on the nature of Liberal "Christianity." I use scare quotes around the word Christianity because the ideology of these people is not Christian at all. I believe their ideology is a lie from the devil and their true gods are personal experience and empirical sciences, especially secular psychology and sociology.

In much the same way that the ideology of the Pharisees and Sadducees had corrupted Judaism at the time of Christ, the yeast of the liberals is now corrupting nearly all of Protestantism and to a lesser degree parts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I think that this "yeast" of the liberals is hidden in many of the ideas of so-called "postmodern Christians."

The thing that makes me most pessimistic about the future of Protestantism is what I have seen at Asbury. Don't get me wrong, Asbury is a wonderful place. It is a place where I have seen the Holy Spirit work in marvelous ways to heal people and to bring people into obedience to God. But what I have seen here is a kind of naive acceptance that we have much to learn from liberal "Christianity." The only thing we should learn from these people is what not to think. Liberalism is seen as benign and liberals are seen here as nice Christians who might be wrong about some things but who probably have a better understanding of love than conservatives. Theological liberalism is anything but benign. It is a malignant cancer that once embraced in part will corrupt a whole church, a whole denomination and a person's whole way of thinking about God. It is a kind of slavery, a slavery to experiential epistemology. I think the source of this naivete is the fact that many here grew up in what could be considered "fundamentalist" backgrounds. They have seen the other side of the spectrum where a mean-spirited legalism takes all the joy out of Christianity. I don't deny that this is a problem. It is probably much more of a problem here in Kentucky than where I grew up in Washington. But the proper reaction to this problem is not to throw out holiness, self-denial and obedience. The proper reaction is not to look to liberalism as some kind of liberator and savior. The proper reaction is to read the Bible, read the Fathers and immerse oneself in the Tradition of the Church and see what does not match up with fundamentalism. If this is done, one can find a joyful obedience to God. One can identify with Christ where self-denial is necessary. One can begin to equate living a holy life with the love of God versus the fear of hell.

Liberal "Christianity" is evil and dangerous. It destroyed my faith once and nearly destroyed me. Any part of the church that embraces it will die because it has embraced a lie. Francis Schaeffer said something that is very true, "I had gone to a 'liberal' church for many years. I decided that the only answer, on the basis of what I was hearing, was agnosticism or atheism. On the basis of liberal theology I do not think I have ever made a more logical decision in my life. I became an agnostic."

Amen

Akinola Smacks Down Liberals

(For those unfamiliar with the current situation: Schori, who supports ordination of practicing homosexuals and is the head of the Episcopal Church, wrote a letter to the Nigerian Archbishop, asking him not to come to the U.S. to ordain some clergy. In her letter she appealed to the "ancient customs of the church." Archishop Akinola pointed out her hypocrisy in a reply. This is a quote from that letter.)

“I also find it curious that you are appealing to the ancient customs of the church when it is your own Province’s deliberate rejection of the biblical and historic teaching of the Church that has prompted our current crisis.”

-Archishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola

Are all sins really equal?

It seems from my experience of talking to Christians that most see all sins as being equally bad. In a legal sense I suppose this is true as all sins make us guilty before God and it is only the blood of Christ which takes that guilt away when a person is justified. But I think that there are sins that are more dangerous or destructive and I think that it is these sins which many "moderate" or "post-modern" Christians are asking the Church to compromise on. I am talking of course of sexual sins. (Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1st Cor. 6:18) I read today that Brian McLaren said that in a few decades same-sex marriage will not be controversial in churches. Of course I think McLaren is an idiot but maybe he's right. In "churches" that have fallen away and are no longer truly churches, same-sex marriages will be accepted and anyone who would think otherwise will be viewed as an old-fashioned bigot. In the remnant which will exist, God's word will still be trusted and people will still lead lives of self-denial and transformation. ("If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Matt 16:24) I personally look forward to a more complete division between those who trust God and His word and those who don't. Truly Christ's words will be fulfilled, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against the other three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12:51-53

(Theological) Liberalism = The Enemy: Part II

"Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society."
-John Henry Newman

(Theological) Liberalism = The Enemy

"Liberalism at its heart is what Wesley would call 'a blow to the root.' It strikes at the core of the faith by selling out totally to anthopocentric theology. Truth is not truth, but only the perspective of the speaker, nothing more. Even the Bible is not truth, in the sense of a unique, infallible deposit of divine revelation. The Bible for liberalism is just a human document, no more. When I see what liberalism has done to the Methodist movement, I have to say that as an ideology, liberalism is the enemy. I personally believe it to be the most effective heresy Satan ever fomented on the church. It doesn't matter what we believe, even if we believe orthodox ideas, if in fact there is not unchanging, transcultural, absolute, revealed truth of God. While I have no personal animosity toward 'liberals,' I believe that they actively or passively participate in the ruination of the church by diluting the message that we have been commissioned to proclaim."
-Dr. Lawson Stone
Professor of Old Testament
Asbury Theological Seminary