Richard Mansel's Blog, page 4
January 29, 2015
Problem with Preacher-Centered Evangelism
In my first year of full-time preaching, I was told by a leader of the congregation, “I don’t have to visit. That’s what we pay you for.”
This statement encapsulates the problem with the form of evangelism practiced in far too many congregations.
Preacher-centered evangelism is where the preacher is the sum total of the evangelistic efforts of the congregation. It falls on him to find all the prospects, teach them, immerse them and foster their spiritual growth.
If this growth fails to materialize, then he is replaced by another man and the cycle begins anew.
This flawed system fails to account for community knowledge. The congregation hires a new preacher and instructs him to help the congregation grow. He begins to settle into the work and to the community. For several months he learns the new system and the people around him.
Slowly, he begins to connect with some people in the community. Two years into his tenure, he is told to move on and another man is brought in and the cycle continues. The next man lasts three years and is replaced. The third man also stays three years.
This congregation has three preachers in eight years. Each of these three men starts from zero and has to build up his knowledge of the brethren and the community. It is unlikely these men even had a chance to impact a community they knew little about.
Each new man that arrives knowing nothing about the community. As he settles in, he gains a rudimentary knowledge of the people at the stores, bank, restaurants, etc.
He makes some friends and works on meeting people, but this is a long way from knowing people well enough to impact their lives spiritually. He also has to spend a substantial time studying, teaching, preaching and counseling.
The people in the congregation are waiting on the new man to draw these strangers into the assembly while forgetting the obvious. They know everyone in the community and have for decades!
Why should a man who barely knows anyone be solely responsible for bringing in the friends and family members of the congregation?
Why should he be the only one approaching people in the community for studies, when he is the stranger?
Reaching people for Christ is a delicate operation based on familiarity and opportunity. It takes time to develop this kind of bond with people.
A preacher who is barely familiar with the prospect is at a decided disadvantage. He lacks the requisite knowledge to have casual conversations with them. If the prospect is heavily involved in family or local politics, local construction or growth then the preacher will have very little to talk to him about while the native will find it easy to converse.
In many smaller communities, there is a basic distrust of strangers. This simple fact puts the preacher at an even greater disadvantage.
This is in addition to the natural “force-field” people erect when around preachers. Local members don’t have these liabilities. They are known to the people and can easily dialogue with them. They know their personalities and the best ways of approaching them.
These are nuances that a newcomer cannot hope to grasp immediately.
The local member should naturally be able to depend on the preacher to be a leader in the evangelism program. Yet, the members must be the most valuable source of securing prospects and reaching out to them as he grows in the eyes of the community.
The preacher, once paired with a new prospect can carry them forward through a study. This is a much healthier approach.
The preacher’s workload is another factor. Having the rapid familiarity with strangers outlined above is further complicated by the workload placed on him. The workload isn’t the problem. It is an accepted part of serving God in the ministry. It is what most preachers love doing.
Learning a community in an accelerated fashion, though, requires time and focus. Coupled with his preparation of sermons, classes, bulletins and articles, cleaning the building, maintaining a church website, church visiting and running office errands, preaching on radio/television, going to hospitals and nursing homes, he is at an even greater disadvantage in turning strangers into prospects in a short amount of time.
When he finishes all of his responsibilities each week, he begins his own time of personal evangelism. The common perception is that since “he doesn’t work,” he has plenty of time to evangelize. This is a naive and ignorant attitude.
He has a full week’s worth of duties in addition to his family just like the person at a factory. They both have the same amount of time to spread the gospel in their personal evangelism.
Congregations must rethink their evangelistic efforts. A holistic approach is much more effective. Everyone finds a way to get involved. The congregation provides the preacher with the names of prospects and they help foster them and, if possible, lead them to Christ, personally.
He, as an individual in the congregation, works alongside the congregation to also find prospects. Preachers are to work with [not instead of] a congregation to help them accomplish the most they are able to do.
In Acts 2, the church begins upon the foundation of the Word of God and the leadership of the Apostles (Acts 2:42-47). The infant church thrives in doctrine (2:42), fellowship (2:42), worship (2:46) and evangelism (2:47). But, if we look carefully we see that in 2:42-47, nothing is said about the apostles other than the people’s constant attention to the “apostle’s doctrine.”
“They” do the work and spread the gospel and great success comes.
Were the apostles there? Yes.
Were there others who proclaimed the gospel? Yes.
Yet, “they” are the only ones mentioned. And “they” are identified in 2:41 as “they” that were baptized and “they” that believed. If we would restore this spirit, the church would prosper just as much as it did then.
January 16, 2015
God Simplifies, Man Complicates
The relationship between God and man in spiritual matters can be summarized as, God simplifies and man complicates. Satan always conspires against God (John 8:44; 1 Peter 5:8; Matthew 4:1-11) and man is an able accomplice (Romans 3:23).
When we run ahead of God, we’re on our own. In Christianity, this divide is magnified and advancing technologies make it worse. When we go where God doesn’t authorize, we’ve left his protection (Colossians 3:17).
God said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15, NKJV), while men say, “but what about…”
God says, “Preach the Word…” (2 Timothy 4:2), and men preach whatever will sell tickets.
God says, “worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), while men turn it into a fleshly production.
God says, “sing” (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), and men say electrify and choreograph.
God says souls (Matthew 16:26), but men say money.
God never intended for things to be as complicated as man has made them. Worship is about simplicity that can be done anywhere and by anyone who wants to glorify God. The Broadway production numbers of our day are far removed from God’s plan (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Jesus built one church that would have one doctrine so we could all focus on one thing (Matthew 16:18-19; Ephesians 4:4-5). He loathes division (1 Corinthians 1:10) because it distracts from the mission.
If we would just humble ourselves, go back to the ancient paths and do what God prescribed in Scripture, we would be a united force to save the world (Matthew 28:18-20). Instead, we squabble and fight while Satan rejoices.
Our disobedience empowers the Devil and disappoints the Lord. Let’s stop making the Church a business. Instead, let’s focus on souls and stop making Satan’s job so easy.
January 15, 2015
Nostalgia will not get us into Heaven
Few things are more heartwarming than pleasant memories of home and loved ones. Nostalgia crystalizes the past until only joy remains.
During those idealized years we become a Christian like so many in our family before us (Acts 2:38; 22:16). They carry us on a wave of faithfulness.
As they die or move away, we become isolated and pull away from the Lord. The Lord’s Day becomes our day. Yet, the identity remains under glass.
Whether or not we’ve become a Christian is of immense importance. Yet, Christianity doesn’t exist in the past. It will be maintained or discarded.
We are to be transformed by God’s Word (Romans 12:1-2) and walk by the calling we have received from the Lord (Ephesians 4:1). The Apostle Paul had glory days. Yet, he refused to rest on his past (Philippians 3:12-13).
“I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14, NKJV).
The imagery is of an athletic event where the runner presses on to the finish line instead of standing at the starting line reminiscing about past races. We must move on and be active each and every day.
Obedience to the will of God maintains our focus and faithfulness (John 14:15). Otherwise, we slip away from God (Hebrews 2:1) until we have gone too far (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31).
God requires a vibrant faith (Hebrews 116) in an active Word (Hebrews 4:12). Nostalgia does not exist in God’s plan for redemption. We are either presently walking in Christ or we are not.
“But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20).
January 14, 2015
God’s Patience Has Limits
While the longsuffering of God is beyond our human comprehension (Romans 9:22), we can’t take His goodness for granted (Ezekiel 18:20). There will always be a reckoning (Revelation 21:8).
God did everything He could for Israel, but his patience ended when the Jewish system met a horrifying end in A.D. 70 at the hands of the Romans. However, Zechariah warned Israel in advance.
The prophet began with the cedars of Lebanon which were used to build Solomon’s temple (2 Chronicles 2:3, 7; 1
Kings 5:20) and many other structures in Jewish history. Unlike the spiritual leaders of Israel, the cedars were strong, useful and dependable.
Instead of directing Israel to God, these leaders were fattening the people for slaughter (Zechariah 11:4-5). Therefore they wailed with travail (Zechariah 11:3).
Unrepented disobedience guarantees judgment (Jeremiah 25:15-18). Jesus said, “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, NKJV).
Today’s shepherds carry this responsibility with them as they strive to protect the flock from wolves (Acts 20:28-29). We must take God’s Word seriously because He never changes (Hebrews 13:8).
God illustrates their sin by prophesying that Judas would sell out his Savior for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-16). To show the evil of their act, we see that 30 pieces of silver was the value of a dead servant under the Law of Moses (Exodus 21:32).
Judas regretted his behavior and killed himself. Just as prophesied, the silver was used to buy the potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13; Matthew 27:1-10) for the graves of the destitute. God’s imagery is brutal and poignant.
Without God, we’re defenseless (Ephesians 6:10-11), so we must cling to Him (Hebrew 13:5). Our Good Shepherd will lead us safely to His eternal pasture if we’ll remain with Him until the end (John 10:1-11; Psalm 23).
God is good and so his Word. No matter what we do, we cannot separate them (John 1:1-5).
January 12, 2015
“Christians” and Racism
In 1816, George Bourne, a Presbyterian minister in Virginia, wrote a pamphlet entitled, “The Horrors of Slavery.”
He wrote:
“Every man who holds Slaves and who pretends to be a Christian is either an incurable Idiot who cannot distinguish good from evil, or an obdurate sinner who resolutely defies every social, moral, and divine requisition.”
For his honesty, Bourne was defrocked and chased out of Virginia.
I have no way to know Bourne’s views on racism in general but no one can honestly be a Christian and hold racist views against any group of people. Sadly, racist attitudes against people of Arab or Middle-Eastern heritage are accepted by far too many Christians.
Racism is pure sin and Satan delights in it. His lies have led countless souls to hell with racism (John 8:44).
God is love and we must live the same way (1 John 4:7-21; 5:1-3; Galatians 2:11-21). Racism is an abomination because all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).
God will not judge us on our skin color or ethnic heritage (Revelation 20:11-15), so we have no right to do so. Jews and Gentiles have been brought together into the Church and racial divisions do not exist in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-18).
Will we love as God commands or will we join Satan and hate?
#CelebrateLife15
January 11, 2015
Series on Liberalism
Those who are concerned with the damage being done to the Lord’s Church would do well to pay attention to the reasons behind the threats. Dismissing liberals before we seek to understand their beliefs would be foolhardy and dangerous. Liberals don’t hate the Church or the Lord. They just have very different perspectives and worldviews. Information is a tool to help win the battles ahead.
January 10, 2015
Implications of Liberalism, Part Five
Liberal Guilt
It’s easier to complain about brethren who want to change the church instead of doing the work to figure out how they arrived at their conclusions. Liberals are sincere and love the Lord. However, their worldview differs greatly from conservatives.
In fact, if we accepted their presuppositions and worldview, we would see their conclusions as axiomatic. They aren’t out to intentionally destroy the Church, just change her to meet their view of how things should be.
The qualities of liberalism we’ve outlined come together in discussions of the church. They’re inevitable based on their presuppositions. Anyone who spends any time studying liberalism can’t be surprised at them.
As these articles have highlighted, they care very much about people’s feelings and souls, in that order. They want to be loved by everyone and they don’t want anyone to feel bad or hurt. They feel they must stand up for the oppressed and the maligned.
Their magnanimity is impressive. We could learn a lot from liberals in this respect.
God teaches us to love in a way that transcends the fleshly (1 Corinthians 13:4-8; 1 John 4). We must stand against intolerance, ignorance and abuse. It’s imperative that we are socially active as long as it does not violate God’s will (Acts 4:19-20).
However, that tender-hearted love must be in line with God’s will since He demands complete subjection (Romans 12:1-2; John 14:15). God loves everyone (John 3:16) but He established consequences (Matthew 25:35-46).
We can’t place people’s feelings above their soul. In our rush to protect people, we can doom them to an eternal destruction.
A natural consequence of their beliefs comes to a focus in the Church. They hold unity services with denominations, dilute doctrines, redefine words, and rename movements to try to level the playing field for everyone. They can’t bear excluding anyone from the fold.
They believe it so strongly that they filter the words of Scripture through their heart-felt views. Exclusivity invokes far too much guilt for them to tolerate. Accordingly they’ll reshape their terminology, teachings, names, anything to appear inclusive.
When we put feelings over souls, sermons or articles, for example, comparing the Church to Noah’s Ark will send this guilt into a rage. No clearer illustration exists of what will happen to those outside of the body of Christ (Genesis 6-9; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27).
God decided who had lived faithfully and obediently enough to be in the ark and everyone else, no matter how sincere, died a terrible death.
We’re given stories like the Ark to show the exclusive nature of God’s people. We can’t remove the story from the Scriptures. Instead, we work with all God has given us to see how we should live (Ephesians 4:1).
Revelation 20:11-15 provides a glimpse of what will happen in the end. Because of our works, we’ll either enter heaven or hell for all eternity (cf. Matthew 25:31-33, 46). Christ will be coming back to receive those in his body and everyone else will be lost (John 14:1-6).
Sincerity, loving hearts, benevolent acts, titles, education, and a host of other concepts will have no bearing on our eternal souls. The only criterion will be whether we’re in the Church belonging to Christ and whether we have been faithfully obedient in shining his light and proclaiming his Word to a lost and dying world.
This is too much for liberal guilt to handle. It is too narrow-minded and exclusive. The doors must be flung open so all can be saved. Christ was of love and grace, not rejection and hate. We must all come together on what we agree upon and be one, they say.
Platitudes aside, creating artificial criterion for entering the Lord’s Church and the eternal heaven will win points but will have no effect on God. God doesn’t read polls nor engage popular opinion. God has never been the Lord of universalism.
He wants everyone to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but He knows it will never happen (Matthew 7:21-23).
Before time began, God decided how we would enter the church and remain within its borders. Before liberalism, progressivism and conservatism, there existed the “settled word” of God (Psalm 119:89). We’re hopeless to change God’s mind.
Since this loving, authoritative act preceded man’s opinions, excuses and obfuscations, it continues on unabated without them, as if they didn’t exist. God’s ways are not man’s ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).
We must resign ourselves to this fact and work with God (Matthew 28:18-20) to help as many people to heaven as we can instead of trying to force God to let us decide who should be saved.
Let’s be more worried about being left out of God’s heaven than we are in being separated from the fellowship of the larger religious world (Galatians 1:8-9). Being a saint is far removed from being a snob and we must get that straight in our minds.
January 9, 2015
Implications of Liberalism, Part Four
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Relativism
Allan Bloom writes:
“There is one thing that a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” [1]
Progressivism seeks to move past Scripture and to be free to find truth in a variety of methods and resources. Relativism is a “philosophical theory asserting that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the individual, or to a particular time or culture, or both. To put it another way, relativism may be defined as the radical denial of objectivity.” [2]
It is an obvious offspring of the presuppositions of progressivism.
“The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, ‘relative’ – that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.” [3]
“It is the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved.” [4]
“‘Relativism’ is a philosophical theory asserting that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the individual, or to a particular time or culture, or both. To put it another way, relativism may be defined as the radical denial of objectivity.” [5]
“Relativism says that truth isn’t fixed by outside reality, but is decided by a group or individual for themselves.” [6]
The philosophy of relativism is so pervasive in our society that most have accepted it without realizing they have done so. It is seen in the excuses we utilize to absolve ourselves from guilt. The situational ethics we effortlessly employ stem from this doctrine.
A perfect example is a caller to a radio show in Atlanta.
“At one particular time, the subject matter had narrowed down to how young adults and teenagers evaluate what makes a person good or bad.
The next caller was Natalie, a 17-year-old girl who lives in an upper-middle-class neighborhood and achieves a B+ average in school. As her comments continued, it became clear that Natalie judged her own life by what others around her were doing and saying. Her moral and ethical standards did not come from the Bible or from standards taught to her by her parents. Her standards were based solely upon what was acceptable to her peers-those ‘wise’ counselors who encourage individualism but all dress, act, and speak the same.
As Natalie vainly described her lifestyle, it was amazing to realize her total removal from reality and moral responsibility. She said she did not sleep around-she only has sex with her boyfriend (whoever that is that particular week). She does not drink alcohol-except at parties (which she attends several times a week). She defensively sighed, ‘I’m not bad, not like the others.’ She claims she only smokes pot about two times during the school week and occasionally before school in the morning-but not as much as most kids. When she goes to school stoned, the teachers know it, but no one mentions it. According to Natalie, most kids in her high school smoke pot mixed with LSD ‘because they go together so well.’ She has tried it, but does not smoke it regularly (only a few times a month). Natalie admits, ‘Pot definitely affects my memory, definitely. There’s a lot I can’t remember. But everybody does it! I don’t do it like the others. Not as often.’ Natalie justified herself by saying, ‘I’m not bad, not like the others. I think I’m a pretty good person, I haven’t killed anybody. I know it’s wrong to do drugs, but it’s the only thing I do wrong. I’m a pretty good person. I haven’t killed anybody yet!’ The announcer was stunned, ‘Are you telling me, because you haven’t killed anyone-yet-that makes you a good person?’ In a matter-of-fact way Natalie replied, ‘Well, yes!’ [7]
Relativism requires so many lies and deceptions that conflict in required. The human mind wants peace and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. If necessary, we will twist words and ideas to ensure that things come out positively for us.
Denial and rationalization are infinitely creative.
Natalie wanted to smoke marijuana, drink alcohol and commit fornication so she found those who were more active, so she could feel better about her behavior. She convinced herself that society demanded that she engage in these activities in order to be accepted.
A progressive can preach that there is no absolute truth and then demand that a thief who pilfered items from their house be incarcerated. Never mind that they’ve claimed that each person has the right to their own truth, thus allowing the thief the justification to exercise his right to possess their belongings.
In a world without a standard of truth, the thief would be wholly justified. Moreover, without absolutes, there could not be any laws and criminals would have the right to act as they choose.
If murder was the best way to handle conflict for one person and not for the another, the latter would have to allow the former the proper exercise of his beliefs. Pedophiles and necrophiliacs would be free to participate in their avowed beliefs, according to relativism. However, very few relativists will go this far.
Possibly, these ambiguities are why the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has said, “Moral relativism has the unusual distinction – both within philosophy and outside it – of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone.” [8]
A few years ago in a Worldwide Anglican Conference the subject of Biblical authority was fiercely being debated. Eventually, the African bishop asked in exasperation, “If you don’t believe the scripture, why did you bring it to us in the first place?'” [9]
Progressivism sees the problems of a changing culture and larger religious world and comes back to Scripture for verification to adapt to the shifting times.
As the culture changes, truth evolves to match up with the new reality. Liberals see the culture as the standard rather than holding resolutely to the kingdom of God, regardless of where the culture leads.
Citations
[1] Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 25.
[2] Progressive website has been suspended.
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
[4] Progressive website has been suspended.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Dennis McCallum, General Editor, The Death of Truth (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), 31.
[7] http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/f....
[8] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mor...
January 8, 2015
Implications of Liberalism, Part Three
The Progressive Agenda
The progressive agenda will require a focused plan of attack. In order for progressives to convert the majority of minds, they will have to alter the presuppositions of Americans so they will begin viewing the world as progressives do. It will require an intellectual sleight of hand in order to lure people to accept these ideas.
The cultural effort to accomplish this goal has been ongoing for decades through universities and the mass media. The groundwork to change the philosophical makeup of the nation has been very successful as it worked behind the scenes. Incrementally, people have accepted progressive doctrines without even realizing they have done so.
Christians have also fallen for these plots in more ways than they realize (Ephesians 6:10).
John Shelby Spong outlines an agenda of victory for progressivism. It involves altering the language and meaning of terms within Christianity, the abolition of sin as an antiquated notion, stripping the divinity from God and Jesus and the miraculous from Scripture, and eradicating any boundary to salvation and happiness. In short, demolish and reorient all that characterizes Christianity until it is safe, harmless and, ultimately, worthless.
“My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.” [1]
Spong clearly outlines the tenets of war. They seek nothing less than the dismantling of the foundations of Christianity.
One group within the progressive movement has the following tenets. [2]
First, “Christians must have an openness to other faiths.”
Second, “Christians must care for the earth and its ecosystem.”
Third, “Christians must value artistic expression in all its forms.”
Fourth, “Christians must welcome and include all persons.”
Fifth, “Christians must oppose the co-mingling of Church and State.”
Sixth, “Christians must seek peace and end systemic poverty.”
Seventh, “Christian must promote the values of rest and recreation, prayer and reflection.”
Eighth, “Christians must embrace both faith and science.”
We quickly notice the fact that man decides how Christians should be, not Christ. The supposition that we can dictate truth and Christ will tag along is ignorance.
“And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve’ ” (Luke 4:8).
We serve God, not a social reform agenda.
The Center for Progressive Christianity has the following eight tenets. [3]
1. Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;
2. Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;
3. Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to: conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, believers and agnostics, women and men, those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, those of all classes and abilities;
4. Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;
5. Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;
6. Strive for peace and justice among all people;
7. Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;
8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love.
Jesus is not “an” approach. He is the only one (John 14:6).
They stress the slogan, “…embrace the search not certainty”
Consider their words:
“Rather than treating Jesus as the unreachable perfect God that is so hard to relate to for most people, we can think of Jesus as the enlightened teacher who asks only to be followed.” [4]
“Today with our awareness of black holes, post quantum physics, multiple dimensions and multiple and expanding universes, it is impossible to believe that any one religion could have the whole picture or the correct understanding of God, let alone have an exclusive path to that God. To suggest anything else would be at best, arrogant.” [5]
Indeed, in a pluralistic sense they are exactly right. However, pluralism is not God’s plan and it should not be ours, either (Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 1:10).
They cite Isaiah 25:6, “And in this mountain The LORD of hosts will make for all people.” They conclude, “Note that in this vision of the banquet all the nations, tribes, and clans of the earth are God’s guests. No one is to be excluded.” [6]
Yet, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”
While Christ is not willing that any should perish, he demands that we take up His cross daily (2 Peter 3:9; Mark 8:34-38).
Note this alarming quote:
“According to the gospels, Jesus rarely gave a straight answer to a straight question. Instead he responded with another question or told a puzzling story. Jesus would not provide absolute answers because answers, by providing false confidence and security, become barriers to an awareness of God. Answers become substitutes for God. The task Jesus bequeathed to the church was providing a context in which those who would follow him can find the courage to pursue their questions.” [7]
Here is a perfect example of how liberals and conservatives read the same book and come to very different conclusions. Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). He also said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
Progressivism exhibits a disdain for boundaries and a passion for unrestrained freedom of thought and action. Authority will not be a concern of progressivism.
A fundamental principle of Liberalism is the proposition:
“It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.’ This principle implies the denial of all true authority; for authority necessarily presupposes a power outside and above man to bind him morally.” [8]
Conclusion
An observer of progressives in the church will see remnants of these beliefs in varying degrees. A perusal of their writings will yield a wealth of examples that touch on them to some extent. Understanding why they believe as they do is essential if we will combat their spread among the saints. We cannot debate that which we do not understand. And since progressivism attacks Biblical authority, these battles are of eternal importance.
Citations
[1] http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/3...
[2] http://www.religioustolerance.org/pro...
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://progressivechristianity.org/th...
[5] http://www.tcpc.org/about/point1_study.cfm [Defunct website accessed in September 2007].
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/disse...
January 7, 2015
Implications of Liberalism, Part Two
“The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy” (Charles Spurgeon).
“A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put” (Bernard Ramm).
Labels can be divisive. Their inexact nature can obscure the truth of the doctrines of men. Doctrines require healthy examination if they will lead to the salvation of souls. God’s truths are the only firm ground that exists (Psalm 119).
Everything has a name, despite the imperfections of language. Our experiences, prejudices and worldviews, whether for good or ill, make us who we are. These combine to create the perspective through which we view the world.
The labels “liberal” and “conservative” are usually inadequate descriptors. Often in our language, misuse ruins words or their meanings have changed.
However, someone is not a liberal because they disagree with any certain person. Our beliefs and opinions are not the standard. Scripture is to be our guide in everything (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 12:48).
We must all be more humble and precise in our language. Save the word “liberal” for those who adhere to certain philosophies and doctrines. It is a word with meaning, not a grenade.
The term “liberal” will be used in the academic, classical sense of one involved in a particular movement built on certain presuppositions.
Introduction to the Progressive Movement
The term “progressive” and “liberal” are genuine terms based on established ideologies. Those who fall within these parameters have earned the labels “liberal” and “progressives.” They are real philosophies rather than verbal weapons.
Since these ideologies are real, we can examine what they mean to the view of Scripture and what their ultimate goals are for the Church of our Lord. Progressivism seeks to answer the following question, “What is the relation between Christianity and modern culture; may Christianity be maintained in a scientific age?” [1]
J. Gresham Machen concludes that, “despite the traditional use of Christian phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.” [2]
Liberalism and Progressivism
Conservatism and Progressivism are vastly different. In fact, the presuppositions of Progressivism are so different from Conservatism that they are beyond consensus, as they presently exist.
The Center of Progressive Christianity offers the following main points to describe their beliefs. [3]
First, they “are repelled by exclusivist beliefs. They reject the concept that only their branch of their religion has the entire monopoly on truth.”
Second, they “value the search for truth, even though it can never be fully possessed. They view it as more important and challenging than the acceptance of those fixed beliefs found in the past by others and embedded in church creeds.”
Third, they are “chaos tolerant.” They can handle a degree of disorder, uncertainty, and ambiguity in life and want to be “partners in the exciting search for tentative but satisfying answers to the most pressing problems of existence.”
Fourth, they “believe in the Ethic of Reciprocity: that how we treat other people is more important than the specifics of what we believe about God, humanity and the rest of the universe.”
Fifth, they “have the ability to absorb rapid change in their beliefs, as they integrate findings from social and physical sciences.”
The Center for Progressive Christianity offers the following illustrative story to explain their mindset.
“It involves a Sunday school teacher and a class of 9 or 10 year-olds. Even at that age, some were skeptical of the inerrancy of the Bible. They felt that many events recorded in the Bible never happened. Rather then try to convince the children otherwise, the teacher suggested that they read Charlotte’s Web instead about a bashful pig named Wilbur who befriended a spider named Charlotte. The class enjoyed the book. After some great discussions, the teacher interjected the thought that pigs and spiders cannot talk. The kids protested: “Well, it’s a story.” The teacher asked whether the story was true. They decided that it was sort of true. And in a way, it was true. So the teacher suggested: All right, well let’s look at the Bible in the same way.” [4]
This despite the words of Scripture,
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
If the Bible is not true, then all its teachings are spurious, at best. We are, to paraphrase Paul, men to be most pitied for following a book of lies (1 Corinthians 15:19). If God is not powerful enough to ensure the validity of Scripture then he cannot save our souls, either.
Liberals often prefer the label “progressives” today. There is a great antipathy in Christianity and politics toward the name liberal. J. Gresham Machen wrote, “The movement designated as ‘liberalism’ is regarded as ‘liberal’ only by its friends; to its opponents it seems to involve a narrow ignoring of many relevant facts.” [5]
“Regarding the relation of liberal and progressive, many religious thinkers employ these terms interchangeably. This usage has historical weight, because for many years liberalism was the progressive tradition in theology. The idea of a progressive Christianity was first imagined and developed by theological liberals. However, I believe that “progressive” should be treated as a wider category than “liberal” and that the fundamental divide in Christian theology is between various forms of conservative orthodoxy and progressivism.” [6]
“Liberalism no longer owns the progressive designation, but it remains the historical and theoretical touchstone for all progressive theologies, and the future of progressive theology as a whole rests heavily on the fate of its liberal stream.” [7]
“I do believe that Protestants should stop wasting their time trying to carry on dialog with conservatives in hopes to unify the church. They should now use their time, energy and resources to build up the Protestant church based on a Progressive Protestant Theology.” [8]
These are very serious matters as we move into the future. The progressive movement is not slowing down but moving rapidly with an agenda of change.
If “Progressive Christianity” denies the transcendence of God, original sin, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, Christ’s atoning death on the cross, his bodily resurrection and ascension, miracles, prayer, and the authority of Scripture, one must ask what of “Christianity” is left?
Indeed, “Progressive Christianity” is not Christianity at all.
Progressive Christianity seems exotic to most. The Center for Progressive Christianity accepts
“….all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to): believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, women and men, those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, those of all races and cultures, those of all classes and abilities, those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope.” [9]
These individuals are those who “stress justice and tolerance above creedal beliefs.” They are bringing their social agendas to their religion and seeking to plug into a movement that will accept them as they are. God calls for a total change (John 3:3-5) while Progressive Christianity simply assimilates them, as they are.
The Apostle Paul wrote that we must undergo a complete transformation (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 12:1-2). A standard less than the call of discipleship issued from heaven is superfluous. It leads men to the same goals they already attained. A lost man led to further confusion is just more lost, not saved.
Citations
[1] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1923), 6.
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.religioustolerance.org/pro...
[4] Ibid.
[5] Machen, 2.
[6] Gary Dorrien, Cross Currents; Winter2006, Vol. 55 Issue 4, pages 456-481.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Article no longer online. Accessed in 2007
[9] Article no longer online. Accessed in 2007
