It is becoming quite clear that in our postmodern world, Scripture is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of our faith. I have known for quite awhile now about the Emergent Movement and its deemphasis on doctrinal importance and over emphasis on social awareness. While I don't deny their concern that the Church can be negligent in its awareness of and involvement in the world around them, their belief that Christianity is simply a salvation prayer followed by Christians uniting to solve the wrongs of the world is grossly erroneous. To them Scriptural doctrine is some unnecessary idea that just creates arguments between uppity intellectual Christians who care nothing for the world around them.
What they don't understand is that knowing Scripture and doctrine IS knowing Christ. Christianity and salvation is not just saying a prayer. In order to properly understand and live one's faith requires intense study of Scripture. Living one's faith will and should involve caring about and being involved in the world around us, but we can't do that until after we begin to understand the Scriptures God gave us.
If you want to be socially aware, that's all well and good, but if you're not actually going to understand what Christianity is all about, then you're no different than any non-Christian out there who volunteers their time to lend a hand in the community, so there's no reason to mask your environmental concerns as Christianity. The Emergents want to put the cart before the horse, and that breakdown in logic is bound for failure.
Another erroneous "form" of Christianity I have just recently become aware of is Christian Mysticism. This seems to be, for the most part, an off shoot of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. These movements have always been problematic because of their poor understanding of Acts Chapter 2. On top of this, Charismatics often times base the depth of their faith on how emotional they can get during a worship service and demand signs and wonders from God, or they won't believe his existence. The flaw in logic here should be very apparent.
However, Christian Mysticism adds a new wrinkle to this idea that is even worse. Christian Mysticism is an attempt to fuse Eastern Mysticism with Christianity. So, not only are the people practicing this adding to Scripture, which is already spoken against in the Bible, but they are also attempting to add a pagan flavor to Christianity. Paganism and Christianity will never work together because at their favor base they are in opposition to each other. This is a very dangerous place to play and Pastors who are leading their flocks in this direction should be ashamed of themselves.
What is wrong with Christians today? Why is Scripture no longer sufficient? In a recent chat room discussion about Christian Mysticism I was involved in, Christians were actually defending this. The conversation went something like this:
Person 1: "I can't believe this guy on this forum has a problem with Christian Mysticism. After all, it is Christian Mysticism."
Me: "I'm sorry, but I see no Scriptural support for Christian Mysticism."
Person 2: [link to wikipedia article on Christian Mysticism] "See, there's Scriptural support. It's very similar to what Charismatics practice."
Me: "That is a complete misinterpretation of Scripture and the Charismatics have no Scriptural support for their practices either, in my opinion."
Person 2: "Well, I think we need to look deeper and not just judge things on the surface. After all, if their focus is on Christ, we shouldn't judge what they do."
Me: "If their focus is on Christ, then they should want to follow what Scripture says about worshiping Christ, not say 'We're doing whatever the hell we want...but it's alright, because our main focus is Christ.'"
34 comments:
Yo. Leaving comments begets comments, I think—and I haven't been doing much of any commenting lately, not even really posting!
There seems to be a fairly large group of Christians who conflate the gospel with some kind of social message, and I agree whole-heartedly that this is dangerous. The distinctives of Christianity are all doctrinal, not social.
Social considerations flow from doctrinal ones; when we understand the relationship of the physical world to the spiritual ("take care to make it as you saw the pattern on the mountain"), I think it helps sharpen our focus on social issues like abortion and homosexuality. We understand the value of life—that death is unnatural and an enemy to be triumphed over, that marriage represents the union of Christ and the church, and so on.
But it's increasingly rare to hear people talk about social issues from a doctrinal perspective.
We are his readership.
Why didn't you tell me you had put up the quarterly post?
Oh Deus Nudus. Luther shines in all his brilliant insanity there.
The problem is much in how we view Christianity. Is it about Christ or is it about me with Christ acting as a facilitator for my desires? Is he a means to an end or is he the means and the end?
Indeed mysticism comes into play, the desire for transcendent experience which scripture does not provide. This is the end for those who practice it.
We still think temporally. Because judgement has moved into the spiritual realm some make the mistake of thinking that it is not as harsh and we can therefore get away with more while God tuts but does very little. Fools. The temporal punishments of the OT were merely a picture of the far greater punishment awaiting those who spurn and pervert grace.
This reminds me, do you also HATEHATEHATE the quote "preach the gospel every day if necessary use words" with the very fire of your eternal SOUL? Cause I totally do.
It comes from Francis of Assisi. There are Christians who take it quite seriously despite it's platitude quality. Of course it suggests that Christians can live the gospel in such a way that they can bypass preaching scripture by just being a nice person. Utter twaddle.
If indeed people are going to understand the gospel because of my actions, then we are in trouble because I am horrible.
I seriously doubt it. I am like officially the worst Christian in history, ask mem.
Hey you should come and argue in my church thread on the petrazone if you get the time. mem was supposed to defend praise and worship music and he totally screwed that up.
Holy cow, how many times do I have to tell you to stop spreading lies about how you're somehow a worse sinner than Paul?
Man.
Oh, sorry, argument spillover.
We're arguing about this? Fine.
If I'm spreading lies and flouting what you tell me then I must be horrible. So you admit it.
You know he doesn't say and for posterity all you people can think that at least you're better than me.
Anyway he did not say he was the worst Christian, just the worst sinner and that he acted in ignorance and unbelief-which I don't. Like come on how could Paul be worse at being a Christian than I am. Duh.
Some of our comments are on topic.
I fail to see the humour in that.
You are so full of crap.
The best thing about being a Baptist is that I can make wild assertions and have no need to back them up. I can just say read your bible and look at you. That's the Baptist way.
You as a Presbyterian have to biblically prove I have no sense of humour and also provide a twelve point theological treatise on the effects of my lack of humour.
Hey you're the Presbyterian, that's not what I say but the way things are for you people. You with your hold over doctrines of foul popery.
Don't try to argue like a Baptist against a Baptist. You'll lose.
You're welcome you pugnacious Presbyterian.
You should come and argue about theology instead. That's much more interesting and fun. How much of the Puritans do you read?? Ha.
I thought making things up for no reason was the province of the Irish, and Calvin and Hobbes, not the Baptists. Get it right.
In the spot where Paul calls himself chief of sinners, he does not speak of his ignorance or unbelief; otherwise you would possibly have exegetical reasons to consider Rm 7.24,25 to speak of his pre-conversion experience like the legalists do.
Your argument about the general I is better. Regardless, for one who doesn't like looking at sin as a laundry list, it seems like calling yourself the worst Christian in history invites it.
But I don't mind if you keep it up, because it's fun to find things you're inconsistent about. Haha.
I have it right. And you know why? Because I am a Baptist. We make nothing up-I nowhere said we made things up. It's just that when we make our assertions they are obviously right and biblical because we're Baptists.
Paul didn't call himself the Chief of sinners in Romans 7, he called himself the chief of sinners in I Timothy 1:15. Read the two verses before that then I'll let you come back and apologize for taking the scripture out of context.
My laundry list has one item: being worse at being a Christian than everyone else. Therefore I am the Worst Christian in History.There you go.
My head has exploded enough times over other people's lack of biblical exegesis (like say paedos) that I remain most humble.
You mean the mud trail? That is in the middle of someone's field and if you tried to drive it they'd sic their dogs on you. So don't.
Does the fact that you are talking about visiting me with your Ford mean you've decided to forgive me for being Baptist? Or would you bring your Bimmer in that case?
I thought I'd let you know that my mama got one of those wii things and I still don't see the point, even though you all told me I would way back there somewhere. The nerf things are fun to whack people with though.
A BMW.
A beemer is a BMW motorcycle. A bimmer is a BMW car. Man these kids today.
I wondered if you would only bring your cheap car to the places of people you hate for being baptists. If your cheap car is your only car, then does that mean you forgive me for being one?
Not so complicated—the main question to answer is "How are we born again?" The typical response is that our faith provokes God to regenerate us, but this really isn't the case. We believe because we're born again.
Char and I are just discussing by what means that happens—I opined we're born by the Word, and she took that to mean I didn't really involve the Spirit, and I took that to mean she didn't involve the Word, and I think we both more or less agree until she says something else.
A chinook is a "snow eater," a warm wind. I was more or less figuratively saying hi to Spring.
You weren't even alive in the 70's, little boy.
Yes well anyone who calls puritans "old stuffy writers" can't really be that Presbyterian anyway. Most puritans were Presbyterians you know. Of course Owen was a Congregationalist, Bunyan a proto-Baptist, Sibbes an Anglican...so you're missing some of the most awesome ones but still. Flavel was a presby, Manton was...was Baxter? I don't remember. Anyway so there are some of them and this means you should read them.
...Because I told you to. Respect your elders.
The discussion was sparked because it seemed to me that mem's answers conflated the roles of the persons of the trinity.
Long long before your time children were dressed in short pants with hair in curls. When they grew up this was dispensed with. Of course you know this or you wouldn't have called me grandma.
To which I say (in the immortal words of one of our residents when we get her up in the morning),
Rotten kid. Someone should have drowned you when you were a pup.
I should add on to my disclaimer: "If you think I'm anything but iggerant, you're in a bad way."
Char knows more than I do about most things. I get points for grammar, which is useful but in the big scheme pretty piddling.
mem is just saying that I know more than he in a vain attempt to get into my good graces (forgetting that I don't have any) so I will re-think kicking him in the eye.
The leaven of your empty flattery will not save you mem. Books are your only hope, writings from outside of you.
...And not an outline of the New Measures either.
I dunno, what books would you placate me with??
And what would you accept in the mail by way of returns?
Unlike you, I can kick you in the eye, and you know it. So watch it, sister. I'll spot you a weapon of choice and still beat you with your own arms.
How's that for flattery?
And I wasn't flattering, I was just being honest. I'm way more proficient at kicking and grammar than you are (which, incidentally, explains why you never understand anything I say); you've read more. Adjusting for my familiarity with my own skills, I still think you're in a better position. I doubt grammar and kicking are actually eternal skills.
Oh. And we had better pretty quickly start this young balding reformers club, because pretty soon it's going to be have be young bald reformer + young balding reformer.
And don't ask me how the heck I fouled up that last comment. There goes my grammar superiority. Sigh.
And, at the risk of deluging you with a Char's-ridiculousness-vortex amount of comments, maybe I should've said, "There goes my claim of grammatical superiority."
Double sigh.
Oh I don't need recommendations. I just need moar books.
You see, mem is bringing me books to appease me and hold my white hot wrath against him at bay. As long as he continues to make such offerings, I won't have him destroyed.
You need to read Puritans, the Bruised Reed if nothing else. Everyone needs to read that one. Broken Christians should read the Bruised Reed. Non-broken Christians (at least not yet) should read The Bruised Reed. The heavenly Dr Sibbes shines brilliantly.
Six ignoramuses that may or may not be an urban legend have not read Pilgrim's Progress.
mem. How do you know how well I can kick? Or how much longer my legs are than yours and how much less chicken like (I take that from your own admissions)? You keep assuming training wins over street brawling and Ulster genes-to your detriment. We'll see what you think when you are wearing a glass eye for the rest of your days.
You are right though on one thing: grammatical priggishness is patently unimportant in the grander scheme of things. Oh and BTW "be have be" is the kind of thing Providence causes in the comments of grammar prigs.
If you're starting a club, what about Reformers in Short Pants and (some) Curls?
Char. Not content to be better read, you also have to be a better kicker? C'mon now.
I keep assuming nothing. It seems to me like you assume that (a) I assume and (b) that kicking is not involved in street brawling and (c) that I don't know a little bit about street brawling and (d) that I don't have a bit of Ulster in me and (e) that all I can do is kick when push comes to shove. There had better be some pie in this deal.
My mother does not like Pilgrim's Progress. Or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I never said I was better read.
I don't assume kicking is not involved in street brawling (how utterly stupid), or that it is the only thing involved, or that you can't push or shove. Kicking however is what we were discussing. Don't try to rabbit trail.
Also you admitted to not street and playground brawling in the past. This means I have to assume nothing but take the facts straight from your own lips-well typing fingers.
Also You have had ample opportunity to prove any such heritage yet have refused to. Since I know such heritage is too glorious to be ashamed of you must not have any.
Oh you'll get your pie alright.
So does that mean that your mom and my mom are two of the six? If they all get together I'm sure it will be ominous.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
Ha.
Wow you really are beginning to suffer the vagaries of age aren't you. I of course have worn glasses since I was nine.
Hey, saw your Zone posting...hope that you don't find the adjustment too difficult, and I suppose you can be thankful that you're mostly out of the line of fire. I'll be praying for you.
Post a Comment