Yesterday, on my Radio Show I had a conversation with Chris Rosebrough of Fighting For The Faith and Pirate Christian Radio about his take on why people from his network and stream of faith are so willing to speak about me and others the way they do. I wanted to reflect on it a bit more here.
(I sent this post to Chris and got his “sign-off on it” in an effort to “talk-with” and not “talk-about” people and to be sure I did not mischaracterize him .)
Here is a selection of things said about me just from the last week that I asked Chris to help me understand:
Comments From a Youtube video promoting my book:
Hi Doug, “Just curious as to know what it feels like to be apart of the apostate church? Just watched a video of one of your disciples and couldn’t help but notice her comment about how we need to stop focusing on sin which seperates us from God and just focus on our relationship with God. Funny, the word says it is our sin which seperates us from the Lord and until we REPENT for our sins, we cannot have a relationship with God nor can we be apart of the church. Although in your case I guess that means nothing though right? I know this message might seem harsh, critical and unfriendly, but you know, I’ve come to a conclusion, having hunted wolves, that I have no more patience for promoters of heresies in the church which are leading untold many to hell, thinking they are right. But there is hope, I ask that you repent for the false teachings you are supporting and that you seek God for the lies that you have promoted.”From A Blog post about my book Preaching Reimagined taking to task the reviewer for not being harder on me:
Tim, I am actually shocked to read the positive notes in your review. I know Doug Pagitt, studied his ministry (from afar), and he is no friend to biblical preaching. I’ve read his book(s), and find his views on preaching to be dangerous and a disservice to those who love the Word and the flock of God. (kinda strong? yup).This from a blog post called The Truth Wars:
In this, we see the thesis for John MacArthur’s The Truth War. Using the New Testament Epistle of Jude as the foundation, he uses Sacred Scripture in contrast to actual quotes from Emergents such as Doug Pagitt and Seeker-Sensitive advocates such as Rick Warren, to cement home to the believer why the Church is so apostate in our time. The missing part is submission to God’s Truth as The Truth. Hence, we are in the midst of a war.
“Hunting wolves”, ”surprised to see positive notes”, “we are in the midst of a war”.
I wanted Chris to help me and my listeners to understand why people, who I know are followers of Jesus, talk about other professing followers of Jesus in these disparaging ways.
Chris basically said, I am paraphrasing (but Chris did see this and gave his ok on it), “We know there are false teachers and deceivers in the world – Jesus said there would be, the devil tempted Eve, and Paul warns against them – and so when we hear you saying the stuff you say, it is clear that you are in the group we have been looking for and are on the lookout for”. You can hear the interview here – January 17, last half of hour 1, and first 10 minutes of hour 2.
I suggest this view is a distorted version of faith that does not reflect the Biblical story at all, but that argument is part of our ongoing conversation. What I am sure of is that their reactions are driven from fear. I am not sure where the fear come from, but, in my opinion, it causes them to look at people with suspicion and distrust which taints everything. Looking at the world in the terms Chris suggested creates “the good” and “the evil”, and “the good” are always fearful of “the evil”. This kind of fear does strange things to people.
It made me think of this Springsteen Song (as I am prone to do):
I got my finger on the trigger But I don’t know who to trust
When I look into your eyes There’s just devils and dust
We’re a long, long way from home, Bobbie Home’s a long, long way from us
I feel a dirty wind blowing Devils and dust
I got God on my side And I’m just trying to survive
What if what you do to survive Kills the things you love
Fear’s a powerful thing, baby, It can turn your heart black you can trust
It’ll take your God filled soul And fill it with devils and dust
This song, according to Springsteen, is about a guy at a guard post in Iraq and sees a car coming at him and needs to decide if it is a danger or not. He has his finger on the trigger and doesn’t know who to trust. Does he shoot and kill an innocent, or trust the wrong person and die himself? Fear causes you to see in others “devils and dust”. And, this fear produces in you “devils and dust”.
I think there is much fear going on in the lives of these critics. I believe they see themselves in this life and death situation and they will be held accountable -they are “the guards at the gate”.
I wish, for their sake, that this wasn’t so. I am most sad because this kind of fear causes them to work against the very people of God and ultimately to trust their judgment over trusting God.
I want to be careful not to misuse Bible passages to simply make my point, but I keep thinking of Jesus being accused of doing what he did by the power of Beelzebub. He clearly wasn’t, he was doing the work of God, but the “religious purists” of his day could only see “devils and dust”. There were only two options and they knew he was not on their “side” so, that leaves no other option of which “side” he is on.
From Matthew 12:
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
(I am quite sure this post will bring comments suggesting that I have misapplied this passage along with many other “proofs” of my anathema-ness. And I am sure there will be many more verses exchanged in the comments.)
People who heard the radio show interview were offering their condolences to me for being called and “anathema” by Chris (end of the segment in the second hour). I did not feel hurt or insulted, rather I feel pain for him and others that their fear causes them to see the story so wrongly and to see devils and dust in me and others. That they credit the work of the spirit to the “devil” is amongst the most tragic missteps.
The words from 1John 4 capture my hope and desire in all this:
This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
We love because he first loved us. If we say we love God yet hate a brother or sister, we are liars. For if we do not love a fellow believer, whom we have seen, we cannot love God, whom we have not seen. And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love one another.
May the love of God remove blinding fear from us all.
{ 72 comments }
I know personally what that kind of fear feels like. It was instilled in me from early childhood and grew deep and strong roots. At the time, I was empowered and emboldened by what I thought was devotion and a kind of faith and perseverance that the Spirit rewarded. Looking back, I feel so sad thinking about how afraid I was. And the thing that makes me the most sad is all of the friendships I missed out on, all of the chances I missed to actually LIVE the WAY of Jesus loving and serving. Instead I behaved out of fear and most of my serving was done with caveats or out of a sense of self righteous aid. I will spend the rest of my life trying to live out of a place of love and freedom, no longer afraid of hell, demons, satan, spiritual influences, homosexual agendas, feminist agendas, prochoice agendas…no longer afraid of what might happen to that person if I don’t present them with the 4 spiritual laws, no longer afraid that if I don’t have it all figured out that I’ll be spit out of God’s mouth. I have 30 years to make up for and I plan to make the most of it by embracing the true Spirit of love that casts out fear and following the Way of Jesus that starts with creation and wholeness not sin and brokenness.
So yeah, I feel sad for these people – but I also know from experience they feel sad for me and they will scoff at me for feeling sad for them.
I listened to this on Ustream and found the conversation to be very helpful. Finally, I understand why there is no use debating theology with individuals who adopt the world view that Chris espoused yesterday.
I believe you are right when you say that this perspective is fear-based. There have been studies conducted where people were asked to identify their beliefs about life after death. They were then asked to think about the concept of death (they were existentially disturbed). Next, they were presented with pictures of people from diverse backgrounds. What the researchers found was that the subjects tended to perceive those with religious views that were different than their’s as less honest, less intelligent and less desirable.
What the researchers demonstrated was that how people cope with the fear of death determines not only their world view but how they view others whose perspective disturbs the likelihood of their world view being correct (and thus throwing into doubt their certainty about what will happen to them after they die). (more info here: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/09/varieties-illusions-of-religious.html)
Post-modern thought combined with the scientific method (reason that leaves room for subjective expression) is VERY disturbing to those who prefer to not grow up and leave Neverland. The reason it is disturbing is because time and time again it is found to accurately describe causality, accurately predict outcomes and provides undeniable evidence of its efficacy as a superior epistemological tool in every facet of human knowledge. Blind faith simply cannot compete – it is not as convincing to modern minds and so it is continually losing credibility in the broader culture.
It seems inevitable that Christianity will become increasingly split between pre-modern conservatives and post-modern liberals. Mainline communities will for a time likely feel caught in the middle. Who knows what the Christianity of the future will look like. Hopefully, the more extreme rhetoric will fade with time but given the fact that emergent Christians are being viewed as the devil incarnate I am doubtful that this will happen anytime soon.
I know that fear, too.
Thanks for your compassion and empathy for those stuck in that fear. It’s a hard task-master. Your understanding tone reminds me of Don Miller’s response to the latest Pat Robertson flap.
It’s really a pity for people to remain in willful bondage to such debilitating fear. I keep holding out hope for helping others to open the box that holds themselves in.
I just listened to the podcast (and I like how you worked in the ‘Devils and Dust’ on the breaks). Fascinating and confounding.
What’s especially interesting to me is that we talked about ‘anger’ at our church on Sunday, and I picked that same song for the prelude/postlude playlist. Which just has me thinking about the interrelatedness of fear and the kind of vitriol that you mentioned during the interview. Perhaps fear and anger are the natural outcomes for those who see themselves as the gatekeepers for right and wrong, and the arbiters of same. That’s a lot of pressure to bear– more than any person should attempt, I reckon– and I suppose it’s only logical that such folks would be so angry.
Anyway, kudos to both Doug and Chris for your public conversation.
Gudday Doug
I came to the interview as a regular listener of Chris’. Taht probably marks which viewpoint I brought to listening to your interview with Chris. It was probably a function of timing in the radio show, but it seemed to be a pity that you got to the issue of whether and why you’re considered to be a heretic right until the end, and the impression was that chris was cut off as soon as he said that he’d consider you to be a heretic.
It may be your interviewing style or to kinda limit Chris from soapboxing too much, but it felt like you didn’t give him much space to answer your questions. This isn’t a function of what I think of your theology but just a general comment on interviewing style. Take it or leave it for what it’s worth.
I’ve observed discussions as to where the boundaries of heterodoxy and heresy lie, and the consensus seemed to be adherence to the early creeds of the church. It allows for flexibility on the periphery and clarity as to what is at the core of belief. The discussion was among Calvinists, and that definition of orthodoxy is broad enough to encompass arminians (the “nemesis” of Calvinists) while demarcating the boundaries of the historical and current heretical beliefs.
Label me as simplistic, but surely if christians are seeing people presenting a gospel other than what is presented in the bible they should graciously and clearly enunciate the points of difference, and not paper over things that challenge core areas of belief. It can be done graciously, and maybe it isn’t done in a gracious way often enough, but the message that someone is no longer preaching or following an orthodox form of christianity should be said.
It really baffles that despite the bible having such clear truth and exclusivity claims that post-moderns can claim confusion and propagate obfuscation. To me it seems to be a special skill to add confusion to what is a pretty plain document when read as written.
I hope I didn’t come across as one of the haters you cited above, but wanted to put a view contrary to yours in a polite and friendly way.
All the best,
Andrew
The answer is really quite simple. The reason there is such a strong divide is due to the fact of how one views and approaches the Word of God. Either is it all the Word of God, or none of it is the Word of God. You cannot pick and choose which parts you would like to believe…there is truth and there is un-truth. Jesus, Himself, declared that there would be false teachers, thus saying that there is a truth to contradict. The Apostles, the ones who walked with Jesus and taught the Gospel He gave to them, said there would be false teachers…so the question is, what is truth? Here is where the divide is. Once truth is established, you move from there. For guys like me and Chris (whom I’ve never met), we come from the standpoint that the Bible is the actual Word of God. God’s Word reveals to us the Gospel and is the absolute truth we live by. So, when we come in contact with a guy like Doug Pagitt, who we believe is teaching something contradictory to the Scripture, we feel the need to call that heresy. Jesus did not use soft words for heretics and neither should we. If we truly believe someone is teaching a false gospel, we must speak out. I heard Brian MacLaren once say, “I don’t think we’ve gotten the gospel right yet?” How can someone say that when the Bible gives us the complete Gospel? The Apostle Paul said in Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation.” How could Paul have made that declaration if he was unsure of the Gospel? So, guys like me and Chris and I guess even the Apostle Paul are not operating from fear, but rather from what we believe is absolute truth. We will never see eye to eye with anyone who approaches Scripture from a different perspective and we will always see them as false teachers as we feel they are teaching a false gospel. Any way, I’m sure this post will only be met with further opposition, which thus only illustrates my point. There is truth and un-truth and the only reason perfect love casts out fear (as 1 John says) is because of the absolute truth of the Gospel made manifest in the person and work of Jesus Christ, revealed in His divinely inspired Word. So, all the verses Doug quotes above come from the absolute truth of the Gospel and when someone like Doug does not teach all of the Gospel, but rather picks and chooses the portions they want to believe, we simply feel it makes him and guys like him false teachers.
Andy, thanks for your comment.
I agree that the timing was unfortunate, but as you know from listening to the 3 segments I gave him additional time, and had no idea that he was going to end up there, so I could not have anticipated what to skip.
I think the stuff about how he viewed the world was as or even more important than his opinion about me, but it was unfortunate timing to just leave it there.
I would take issue with the notion of “heresy hunting” from agreement with the creeds on the basis that I do hold to the creeds and yet there is still this disagreement. There is disagreement in the meaning of the words in the creeds. I think this is a cultural issue and that is why the pre-modern stuff matters. Also, it is a view that difference is bad. Rather than suggesting that fellow believers see this differently but are part of the same faith, some are driven by fear of the other.
Thanks for the comment and for listening.
I enjoyed this read, Doug. Understanding our own fear I think is exclusive to each individual and difficult to pinpoint. Although I feel I am a man of faith, why do I freak out in fear this morning when our sunroom, garage and breakfast rooms are flooded and it didn’t even rain last night!!! Insurance guys coming over now. Found myself listening to a message on FEAR to help calm my nerves.
http://hoteldrawer.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-are-we-as-christians-to-combat-fear.html
Glenn, dang, sorry about the flooding. May you insurance company be all you hope.
I must say that I tend to agree more with Chris (the interviewer). But I must ask, why, if I do not believe what you are saying is Biblical, does the underlying motive have to be FEAR? And assuming that you are unloved just because you are called “unbiblical”?
I simply wonder, as followers of the Jesus of our chosen Biblical world-view, if it is in our job description to seek out those whose theologies we differ with? And in doing so, are we permitted to hate and wish harm upon their professors?
Why do we feel so empowered to insult and personally disparage those with whom we differ? What is in our hearts that causes one to release such vile and degrading judgments upon those that believe differently from us?
There are many things that I don’t agree or understand about what Brian MacLaren says. But in the few times that I have hung out with him, I have found him to be a caring man, that loves his wife and displayed genuine concern for those around him. Despite whatever political or theological differences that I have with him, I love him. Even more so after meeting him.
I probably don’t understand or agree with Tony Jones on some theological issues. However I know him to be a man that loves his children. A man to invite me over for coffee and commiserate and counsel me on my divorce. Who encourages me to write and who always asks how my kids are doing and I love him.
There are many things, on many topics, that I don’t understand or agree with when it comes to Doug Pagitt. But I know him to be a man that upon being evicted from our church building, tossed me the keys to his building and told me to lock up and turn out the lights when we were done. A man who nightly tucks in his teenage kids for bed and prays with them. A guy who calls me, after not hearing from me for a while, to check in and see how I’m doing. A guy who spontaneously invites me to dinner and movies, because he fears that I’m lonely on a Friday night, and I love him.
Since I have personally experience the love and kingdom of God from each of these men, I know for certain that they bear the marks of Christ and that the Spirit of Truth lives within them. I wish I could say the same for many other people that I know who believe exactly the way I do.
Are Brian, Tony and Doug a heretic? Worthy of anathema? Maybe, but I know them, and I love them.
amen John
Again, the one thing that keeps coming up is being “unloved”. What is unloving about telling someone that they need to get back on track biblically? I mean, the truth of the matter is that Doug would like it more if Chris thought like him, right? Does that make Doug unloving? Yes, strong language is used, but if Chris is right (which I believe he is) that the truth of the gospel is at stake, then is not strong language required? If the eternal gospel is at stake would you like soft language or strong that draws a deep line in the sand. Or would it be more loving to see error taking shape and doing nothing because you do not want to be perceived as hateful?
Chris, I think you are missing the point. What people are saying is “by their fruits you will know them”. Love is a sign that someone is on the side of God. 1John 4 – “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
So, when you say that I, or anyone else is an enemy of God, and the life they leads testifies against you, it shows the errors of your judgement,
So, yes being unloving is a sign and so is loving. Read the signs my friend.
The issue should not be emotionalized as John does above. I mean what if a good, moral Muslim was contributing in this discussion? A Muslim that loved his family, prayed with his children at night, did all kinds of benevolent acts, etc. Should I be tolerant of his beliefs just because he is a nice and loving guy? The answer Scripture says is, NO! Why? Because they do not believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus, biblical salvation, the Gospel, as well as a whole host of other issues. The reason guys like me are saying Doug is teaching heresy is because we feel he is teaching a gospel contrary to the clear Gospel message in the Bible. So, it does not matter how nice a person is if there beliefs are in contradiction to those in Scripture. As I said before, it is really quite simple…the issue revolves around how one views the truth of the Gospel.
Doug,
Come on! Just because someone exhibits loves does not make them authentically a Christian, or as you say, “On the side of God.” There are non-Christians who are loving people, but that does not mean they are truly born again. As Jesus said, “Unless a man is born again, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
And I would also add that repentance from sin is as much a genuine sign of a believer as love is. So is standing for truth in a crooked and perverse generation. While love is something that all Christians should exhibit, not all who exhibit love are Christians. Every elephant is gray, but not every thing gray is an elephant. However, every one who has repented of their sins and confessed the Lord Jesus Christ is a Christian.
But this brings something up though concerning the very nature of truth, does it not? If I am to repent of something that means that something is wrong. I need to turn from something and embrace something else and Scripture says that I am turning away from sin, from the love of self and the love of the World. I am turning from those things and embracing Christ Jesus, carrying my cross daily and following Him. Yes, He does call me to love (as do His apostles), but He does not call me to ushy gushy sentimental emotional love. He calls me to the kind of love that confronts error, prays for those who embrace falsehood and rebukes those who would teach others to do the same. Paul was loving, but I bet the Judiazers of Galatia probably did not think so.
Good words, Christopher. I don’t see how it is loving to not tell someone when they are about to be hit by a bus, but that’s the logic presented here. We are only loving if we hug them and help them continue to walk in the middle of the street, yelling at them from the sidewalk, “Lovely day for a stroll, isn’t it?” just before they get flattened.
That said, it is certainly true that some Christians could use a lesson in HOW to warn people that a bus is coming. Some (including myself at times) do so out of an apparent need to be right, or with no apparent concern for the REAL fate waiting for anyone hit by the bus. We need to daily remind ourselves of two things… one, we all were in error and separated from God at one point in our lives and that did not change because of anything within ourselves, and two, these are real people who are destined for real eternal pain. They are NOT the enemy, even though they make act or talk like it sometimes.
See friends, this was exactly my point. If these folks genuinely think we’re going to hell and they aren’t willing to accept the possibility that their view of scripture on the subject could be wrong, there is nothing they can do but warn us that “we’re about to be hit by a bus” (interesting, a previous pastor used a bus analogy too, must be in the literature). It’s really just best to hear their concern and worry for our eternal souls and end it there.
So guys, thank you for your concern for my eternal state. I appreciate your devotion to your beliefs. May your prayers and spirit life be fruitful.
Jeremy, what else could this mean from 1 John, if not meaning what it says: Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God
It’s a mistake to assume that what the ordinary human being means by the word “love” is what God means by it. In fact, God’s Love is utterly alien to fallen human minds and without regeneration/repentance we don’t have any idea what it is.
The heart of the Gospel is that God chose to show His eternal power and nature by rescuing some of us dead sinners from our sin, and that He accomplished that through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that that salvation comes ONLY through faith in His Name.
The reason that many think you’re a heretic, Doug, is that you’ve been known to espouse universalism and deny penal substitutionary atonement in favor of a vague application of “savedness” to anyone who shows “love” – whatever that means. The Bible is pretty clear that not all will be saved (I’ve also heard that you don’t have a particularly high view of Scripture, so I’m not sure how heavily that fact weighs with you) and that sin had to be judged by the sacrifice of the Son of God.
Tim, what is fascinating to me is that you want to play “word games” with love and then hold as the standard of true faith the extra-biblical categories of universalism, and an interpretation of penal substitutionary atonement.
You don’t take the Bible at its word and then add your culturally conditioned requirements. The conditions you require are interpretations of the Bible.
So, please do not suggest that I am the one who does not take the Bible seriously.
I am sure you will resist this, but please take a bit on consider what you are saying.
That people’s understanding of love is skewed but your extra-biblical categories are ass true as scripture.
Adding onto my previous post:
The “circle the wagons” mentality that many evangelicals have toward you is because you you deny the core elements of the faith they hold.
That is, Christian faith is faith in the truth of specific things God has said and promised: specifically that God hates and requires punishment for sin, that men are sinners by nature, that the only way we can live forever and have a relationship with God is by having our sins atoned for, that only Jesus qualified as our atonement, and that we enter in to the benefits of that atonement through the free gifts of repentance from sin and faith in God’s application of that atonement to us.
It’s your apparent denial (or at least refusal to unambiguously endorse) the key elements of those “fundamentals” that lead people to say you are a heretic. Which is, after all, what the word “heretic” means — i.e., someone who contradicts the core elements of a faith.
Doug,
It would be helpful to me, and perhaps many others, if you would state what you consider to be non-extrabiblical categories…doctrines that are non-negotiable (if you will). In my thinking and understanding of Scripture, I think there are primary doctrines and secondary doctrines. The primary doctrines are the things considered as fundamental tenets of the faith…things such as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as we clearly see in 1 Corinthians 15) among other things, but the secondary doctrines are things where discussion can be had and where differing can take place. Things in this category might include spiritual gifts, aspects of eschatology and ecclesiology, etc. I would hope you would agree that there are at least some things not open for discussion…
Doug,
There is more 1 John than “merely” love, sir:
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”–1:9…This means that we are indeed sinners before God and must confess that sin in order to be cleansed from Unrighteousness. If we are not cleansed from said unrighteousness we cannot be in fellowship with God the Father.
“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” 2:22,23…So, even though someone may deny Jesus is the Christ they can still go to Heaven if they “Love”? Does not gel.
“Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.” 3:7…How do we practice the righteousness of God, but by Jesus Christ. I would wager, by the testimony of Scripture, that not all who “love” are righteous. Most of the men who were part of the Nazi regime loved their wives and children. In fact, their “love” for their country was why they were doing a lot of what they did. I would dare say, however, that NONE of those men were followers of Christ, nor brothers in the faith.
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.”–5:1…Again, it is not merely love that shows we are co-heirs with Christ, as Paul puts it. One must believe that Jesus is the Christ. This excludes Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, etc…John draws a deep line in the sand.
If “love” is what gains us acceptance in the eyes of God, then why did Jesus say that many who had taken care of the poor and needy would claim to be part of His family, yet He said that He never knew them?
Christopher, the “sir” usage is not ok on my blog, I find it rude, and I am sure you don’t mean it that way.
Yes, there is more than love, but it can’t be excluded. So, if you read back in the comments you will see that is what some have attempted.
If you have not love, then you are a clanging symbol.
Love is not all, but must in all.
Darius, why must you argue with the clear words of the bible?
Jeremy, I would suggest that the problem “doctrinal” people have is that they make lists of essentials and non-essentials. I do not think we should have lists of doctrines that you need not believe and a list of the ones you must believe. Who would decide,
I am not sure why the entirety of the Bible is not enough for you.
Leave nothing out, add nothing in.
When you read it know that you are always interpreting because that what all people do all the time, and live with that reality in humility.
Allow yourself the freedom to use the Bible, in humility of your own understanding, but do not add anything to that Gospel, neither a list of essential nor non-essentials.
What is the Gospel, in your opinion, Doug? Let’s start at the most basic standard for Christianity…
Oh, and I’m not the one arguing with Scripture. I think love is a necessity among Christians… but only if it’s based on the truth of Scripture and not on each person’s own view of reality.
Doug, what I don’t understand is why you will not respond to what I have asked of you? Do you believe there are doctrines that are non-negotiable? Surely you are not ignoring me
The whole purpose of your radio interview with Chris and the further posting of this particular blog was to try and understand or explain why people see you as they do. I feel I have tried to exaplin why there is such a divide and why people might see you as a false teacher. If you would clarify what core doctrines your hold to, if any (that might really help with clarifying this discussion)…just a thought!
Sorry…did not see the post
I do let the Scripture be the Scripture and I also let Scripture interpret Scripture. However, I think it should be obvious that there are certain doctrines in Scripture that are clearer than others…that is what I am saying. In other words, not everything is up for grabs in the Christian faith. There is truth and there is error…the Bible points clearly to that. I just want you to help me understand you view of this. Do you have any doctrine that is a non-negotiable? For example, it is clear that Jesus had non-negotiables, as did Paul did…would you at least agree with the non-negotiables of Jesus and Paul?
Jeremy, I am a Bible follower and non-doctrinal.
So, no I do not suggest that one part of the Bible is more authoritative than others.
To add doctrines, which are simply explanations of the Bible for certain context, to the list of mandates is a mistake that leads to nothing but trouble.
Darius, seriously, I have written entire books on what the Gospel is and the entire Bible is the Gospel, let’s not play the reductionistic blog comment game.
The Gospel is the entire Bible, the life of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, the life and teachings of his followers and the work of the spirit of God in the world.
And, please do not pull one or two passages from the Bible and try to suggest that is the Gospel, I am familiar with that approach and it does not do honor to the scriptures.
Then why to the books of Titus, 1 Timothy, and Romans (to name but a few) all say that there is such a thing as sound doctrine and bad or false doctrine? Do you just ignore those chapters or how do you interpret them?
It would seem that your doctrine is that no one else should adhere to doctrines.
Darius, where is the list of doctrines that are mentioned. There is no record of them because they are meant to be culturally temporary.
Does it strike you as odd that if these doctrines are supposed to be for all people for all times, there is no record of them?
Why does it take hundreds or a thousand years for the lists to be generated?
And, do you think Paul meant for some of the referenced doctrines to be necessary and others not?
If not, then why would you or I make such a list?
“The Gospel is the entire Bible, the life of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, the life and teachings of his followers and the work of the spirit of God in the world.”
That’s true, but can you summarize that? If someone wants to become a follower of Christ, what do they most basically need to know? If a lost person comes to you asking how to know Christ personally and to have eternal life, what do you tell them? I’m not trying to “trap” you but just wanted to know how you approach evangelism and if there is at least something that you would consider a core doctrine (besides the doctrine that there are no doctrines) that one has to hold to as a believer in Jesus.
Darius, I don’t think salvation is an issue of what someone knows- that is gnosticism.
Evangelism is not getting people to believe a set of doctrines, it is helping people to live at peace with God and all creation.
I am not trying to be snide, but I think you might want to re-work what you have been told about the invitation of God. We are not invited to think right about topics, we are invited into a living relationship with God. And that is not contingent on getting the right facts in the right order and then ascending to certain topics. As James says, even the devil does that.
The “list of doctrines” are throughout Scripture. That some people miss them or deny them doesn’t change their existence. For example, one core doctrine that Jesus repeated time and again and Paul spent letter after letter stating explicitly is that all men have sinned to some extent or another and are doomed to eternal punishment unless something is done. Another one is that no one can earn God’s favor, salvation is a gift of His grace. Just because Paul didn’t say “here is a list of the core doctrines: total depravity, salvation by faith alone, etc. doesn’t mean that they aren’t clearly stated in the Bible from beginning to end.
Darius, are you a Minnesota guy?
There are some great cohort get togethers in the area if you are interested in meeting some people who are think differently than you but are really great christians.
There is a meeting tomorrow night in Mpls.
“Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.” Matthew 21:12
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.” Matthew 23:15
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.” Matthew 23:27
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” Galatians 5:12
WOW! Those verses sound pretty unloving, don’t they? Paul says that he wishes “those who unsettle you” would remove their own… well, you get the picture.
Doug, I think you are “barking” up the wrong tree. The gospels and epistles are chalk full of strong language being used by Jesus and the Apostles against false teachers. Using such language is not “unloving” unless you want to accuse our Lord and the Apostles as being unloving. Of course, the other route is to dimiss such scriptures out of hand. If the scriptures are left to stand on their own, which they should be allowed to do, then what Chris Rosebrough had to say to you was an act of love and not out of fear of you or what you teach, but out of fear for your soul and for those who are being led astray from the gospel of Jesus Christ by your false teachings.
The “doctrines” that in the Bible are not doctrines, they are the scriptures.
Summaries of the scriptures are not the same thing as the scriptures.
“We are not invited to think right about topics, we are invited into a living relationship with God. And that is not contingent on getting the right facts in the right order and then ascending to certain topics. As James says, even the devil does that.”
That’s true to a certain extent. Merely intellectual assent to certain truths like “God is love” or “God hates sin” or “God is three in one” puts you on the same plane as the devil. We’re to have “living relationship” with Him. But we’re also told in John, believers are to follow God in spirit AND truth. And in 1 John, it says the Holy Spirit IS truth. So obviously there’s some truth to be known about God that we must believe in. We can’t have a “living relationship” with God unless we confess our sins and repent. Jesus made that the premier prerequisite of salvation. So one truth we must recognize is our own sinfulness… God isn’t in the mood for self-righteous people.
Jim, I am not talking about something being “unloving”. I am saying, what 1john says, that those who love are of god.
Not that being direct, or angry is unloving.
I think if you read the comments you will see that is the point of this discussion – not that you are being unloving, but that I and others are loving, and that comes from God.
Darius, I know you will agree that what that confession and repentance looks like is particular to each setting and person and sin.
so, yes, that ought to be done, but that is not some kind of ubiquitous activity – it is particular and what someone needs to know to do that is also dependent on the person.
A mental restricted person has a different standard than you and I. A child grows into it.
In old age it takes on a different form.
So, yes confession is crucial but the form is not universally mandated.
On the cohort, there are plenty of people nonprofessional types that come, even engineers, really. So, if you are interested let me know. Would be great to meet you and have these conversations in real time.
“but that I and others are loving, and that comes from God.”
No offense intended, but that doesn’t prove anything. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 that some “men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”
So based on that, someone who appears to be loving isn’t necessarily a Christian, which is probably what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 7 when He described those who came to Him with many great loving deeds to boast of.
People are Christians not because we love (because many times we don’t) but because Christ loved us and died for us. I am not a Christian because I’m a loving person (as much as I try to be) but because I was/am NOT a loving person yet Jesus took away my sin and gave me His righteousness. Any love that comes out of me is from Him and not of my own character; nor does it garner favor with God (though it may store up riches for eternity).
“On the cohort, there are plenty of people nonprofessional types that come, even engineers, really. So, if you are interested let me know.”
Perhaps sometime, tomorrow night isn’t good for me. I have visited SP once and would like to visit again in the future as time allows.
Darius, 1 john is clear as bell – 7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
The proof of our being born of God is not what we know.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 7 trackbacks }