Sometimes people can irritate you and sometimes they make you mad and sometimes they make your blood boil. In reality, however, how you feel is all you. I suppose these days that is a hard concept to grasp because we live in a society where personal responsibility has been replaced by cause and effect; it is someone or something else's fault you felt or behaved the way you did.
Maybe this is an oversimplification, but I believe it is really that simple. We are sentient. We can choose how to respond. Granted, some have more tools they can use to deal with situations than others but regardless, the action was a choice.
Let me get back on point now.
Today there is a funeral where I live for a soldier who was killed in Germany. It has been said that the Westboro protestors are going to attend the funeral. I am angry.
We live in a country where we can speak our mind, and what we say is protected (for the most part). Westboro has decided that their message is most effective when shared at funerals. I don't think it is any secret that they chose this venue to increase their chances of being heard nationally and even globally.
I am angry because they exploit the loss of a soldier and son and the grief of a family and community to promote their belief that God has told them to let people know that God hates sinners.
It appears to me, however, that it is their own self-righteousness which dictates what they do. I seriously doubt God has any consideration in their organization beyond the abuse and misuse of His Word to promote their ideology.
Jesus Himself can be found in the company of sinners. He IS Love and proved that love on the Cross. I do not see that in the Westboro message.
They celebrate death and destruction. They encourage their children to celebrate the death of a soldier. If their mission is to convince America to turn back to God, then I believe the love they should have would be a crushing weight on their souls leaving no room for celebration of any kind. I do not believe that love would protest at funerals.
Unfortunately, I can only read about what other people say about them because their sites are inaccessible. So in the absence of any sign of real love on their part, I can only conclude that they are a self-important group with a message that they want the world to know about and that they choose to use pain and grief as the platform from which they share that message. The only goal I can see is a desire to remain true to their ideology. America and people at large may be a part of that ideology, but it is not the goal.
Maybe after I see them in operation first hand, I will have a better understanding and insight into all this.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
It’s About The Message – Not The Packaging
There has been a whole lot of activity centered on Rob Bell and his soon to be released book "Love Wins". I have seen Bell's promotional video and read the publisher's promotional text. I have spent a bit of time reading various blogs and blog comments about the subject. To say the least, it has been educational. I don't think there is an unexplored aspect of this whole controversy. I don't plan to go into what all has been said, however. Bing or Google can provide enough content sources if you want to find out more about it.
I appreciate this whole controversy as it provides a very good example of what I spoke about in my earlier blog "Interfaith - Time To Choose Your Side." While there are many who weighed in to any one of the various "Love Wins" blogs who are on the fence, it is clear that the majority are on one side of the issue or the other even if their position is masked by their opinions of the appropriateness of commenting on the upcoming book before it is released.
I am sure everyone is in agreement that writing about the contents of a book that has not been released is pretty much pointless, I do believe that there is much to be said, and has been said, about the promotion of the book.
I don't think it much matters how clever the promotion of Bell's book has been. The promotion is either accurate or misleading and once the book is released we will see. But to argue that folks who comment on the message the promotion carries are in error because they have not read the book or that there is nothing to address since only questions are being asked is pretty ridiculous. The whole intent of the promotion is to convince people that they should buy the book and as a result folks have something to say.
I find it unfortunate when the entire point is missed by some commenters. We are not dealing with filling the pews, remaining relevant in an ever changing world, or building some type of utopia through tolerance and mutual respect for each other's belief system. What is at stake are the souls of every man and woman.
In John 14:6 Jesus says, "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If the message being preached from the pulpit, no matter how subtle or clever, invalidates this or promotes a different "Jesus", then that message is damning people to hell, period.
Now I know, especially based on the comments I have read of late, that there are some who are going to admonish me for judging. Let me stop you here. This is what the Bible says, not some rule I have created. It is absolute position. Jesus is the only way. If anyone cannot acknowledge that truth, then that person is only assessing their personal choice in the light of Jesus and what His sacrifice means.
I believe that the reason why an "alternative" salvation is being presented and accepted by so many is because it is impossible to stand in the light of truth and feel comfortable. As a result, any message that provides an alternative salvation based on a more "acceptable" and flexible standard is so very enticing, especially when wrapped in feel good, non-confrontational acceptance and bound with an ego boosting intellectualism.
If Rob Bell is preaching something other than John 14:6 in his new book, then God help those who follow the path he is laying out for them.
I appreciate this whole controversy as it provides a very good example of what I spoke about in my earlier blog "Interfaith - Time To Choose Your Side." While there are many who weighed in to any one of the various "Love Wins" blogs who are on the fence, it is clear that the majority are on one side of the issue or the other even if their position is masked by their opinions of the appropriateness of commenting on the upcoming book before it is released.
I am sure everyone is in agreement that writing about the contents of a book that has not been released is pretty much pointless, I do believe that there is much to be said, and has been said, about the promotion of the book.
I don't think it much matters how clever the promotion of Bell's book has been. The promotion is either accurate or misleading and once the book is released we will see. But to argue that folks who comment on the message the promotion carries are in error because they have not read the book or that there is nothing to address since only questions are being asked is pretty ridiculous. The whole intent of the promotion is to convince people that they should buy the book and as a result folks have something to say.
I find it unfortunate when the entire point is missed by some commenters. We are not dealing with filling the pews, remaining relevant in an ever changing world, or building some type of utopia through tolerance and mutual respect for each other's belief system. What is at stake are the souls of every man and woman.
In John 14:6 Jesus says, "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If the message being preached from the pulpit, no matter how subtle or clever, invalidates this or promotes a different "Jesus", then that message is damning people to hell, period.
Now I know, especially based on the comments I have read of late, that there are some who are going to admonish me for judging. Let me stop you here. This is what the Bible says, not some rule I have created. It is absolute position. Jesus is the only way. If anyone cannot acknowledge that truth, then that person is only assessing their personal choice in the light of Jesus and what His sacrifice means.
I believe that the reason why an "alternative" salvation is being presented and accepted by so many is because it is impossible to stand in the light of truth and feel comfortable. As a result, any message that provides an alternative salvation based on a more "acceptable" and flexible standard is so very enticing, especially when wrapped in feel good, non-confrontational acceptance and bound with an ego boosting intellectualism.
If Rob Bell is preaching something other than John 14:6 in his new book, then God help those who follow the path he is laying out for them.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Interfaith - Time To Choose Your Side
To address the subject of choice which this blog entry is about, let me set the stage.
The Sides: God or Satan
Whatever claims made in regards to Interfaith Dialog, Interfaith movement, or Interfaith [any word here], ALL support their master’s (Satan’s) plan.
Those who are saved and actively reject the Interfaith movement support their master’s (God’s) plan.
In the context of this blog, everyone else is on the fence.
The Line: Christ
The following passage best explains this.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)
Now I am not going to dive into every religion and show how interfaith anything is contrary to their teaching. I do not know enough about them nor do I find any distinction between their goals and those of the interfaith movement. Instead my focus is on Christianity as I defined it in one of my earlier blogs.
I found the following statement on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_dialog) that I think really sums up the whole interfaith idea from a Christian perspective.
For traditional Christian doctrine, the value of inter-religious dialogue is confined to acts of love and understanding toward others either as anonymous Christians or as potential converts.
In mainline liberal Protestant traditions, however, as well as in the emerging church, these doctrinal constraints have largely been cast off. Many theologians, pastors, and lay people from these traditions do not hold to uniquely Christocentric understandings of how God was in Christ. They engage deeply in interfaith dialogue as learners, not converters, and desire to celebrate as fully as possible the many paths to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_dialog, 5 March 2011).
While there are so many things that can be addressed on this Wikipedia topic, these two paragraphs are the most relevant to this post.
It would seem on the surface that there is nothing wrong with that first paragraph, but it is this section that jumps out at me: “inter-religious dialogue is confined to acts of love and understanding toward others”.
I notice that they did not use “interfaith dialogue” but instead used “inter-religious” dialog. I can only imagine that the choices of words were designed to promote more acceptance of the author’s position, a kind of “foot in the door” approach.
In the second part of the sentence “acts of love and understanding toward others”, isn’t this how we are to behave Christians; “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all, especially unto them who are the household of faith.” (Galatians 6:10). This has nothing at all to do with interfaith or “inter-religious”. But if the intent is to stretch or distort the meaning of “do good to all” so that it falls in line with the acceptance of that which is evil, then this paragraph does not apply to Christians.
It is only speculation, but this first paragraph seems to try to legitimize, almost as an aside, this interfaith concept to Christians by claiming as fact that traditional Christian doctrine supports a certain aspect of it.
If that was the totality of the interfaith concept (love and understanding toward others), then maybe there is not much here to fuss about. In reality, however, the description in this first paragraph at its worst is simply the bait in the age-old bait-and-switch technique and at its best the expected result of global acceptance and practice of the interfaith concepts.
Before going on I think it is important to try to clarify what the interfaith concept is. Below is the definition of the topic from the same Wikipedia page:
The terms interfaith or interfaith dialog refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e., "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world. It is distinct from syncretism or alternative religion, in that dialogue often involves promoting understanding between different religions to increase acceptance of others, rather than to synthesize new beliefs.
Let’s break this up into the Who, What, Where, When, and Why to see if we can better understand what is being said here.
Who
Organization of people with 1) religious traditions and 2) spiritual beliefs (so broad it could apply to most anything) and 3) humanistic beliefs (a more philosophical perspective).
What
“…cooperative and positive interaction between people…”
Where
This is a little hard to nail down to one specific place as it is a global construct of many different entities and initiatives. In other words, it is everywhere around the world.
When
It is here today.
Why
Within the context of this definition, the “why” is to derive a “…common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.”
I would also like to point out the last sentence as also addresses the “what” question as well as implies a “why”. It also contains a contradiction that may or may not be the result of a failure on the part of the author to fully understand the words used here.
If I can paraphrase this last sentence, I would say that it is the blending of two or more religions in an effort to promote understanding and acceptance. I cannot include the last part “…rather than to synthesize new beliefs…” because the result of “blending” are new beliefs. Even if the intent of that last part was the idea of maintaining specific single beliefs of individual religions and the “blending” resulted in a wholly new “belief system” the end state is the abandonment of a former belief system for a new belief system (the implied “why”).
There are so many things that can be addressed about the interfaith concept. And I may address many of them in future blogs. But this blog is about choosing sides so I will be focusing on that here.
First, let me clarify a couple of ideas to help reduce any confusion later on.
I wish there was a concrete definition for religion, but there is not. If you look at any single definition, you will find that it excludes aspects of certain groups who consider what they do a religion. I would also submit that any all-inclusive definition would carry as much meaning as the word “stuff” so I am not going to waste my time trying to find a definition. Instead, I will just use the term “belief system” instead.
I would also like to clarify that I do not consider Christianity as a collection of Christians and their beliefs. I understand that the world uses Christianity to identify a particular belief system and considers it a religion, but as I wrote in an early blog, Christianity is so inclusive it has excluded actual Christians because it does not recognize the requirement that one must realize they are a sinner, understand that the wages of sin are death, understand that the only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ, believe in their hearts that Jesus Christ died for their sins, and accept him as their personal Lord and Savior. Instead, Christianity exists solely as a social identity and in no way identifies someone as a Christian.
Now it is with this perspective that I can say that one is a Christian or, if I can coin a new word here, "Interfaithist".
Instead of trying to identify interfaith beliefs and explain how that is contrary to Christian beliefs, let me instead point out scripture that offers no place for compromise, no opportunity for blending, and no way to be eliminated.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23)
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11:25-26)
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one.“ (John 10:27-30)
“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10-12)
“For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (1 Timothy 2:6-7)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
If time permitted, I could list scripture after scripture where the absolute and singular statements eliminate any chance that there is any form of compromise with any religion. There is nothing interfaith about Jesus Christ, God, and who we really are.
I believe that even with a superficial examination of scripture, it is easy to see that there is no chance of Christian beliefs merging with some common belief system – there really are two sides.
I am sure there are other and better ways to show how Interfaithism is not an option for a Christian, but I believe that when the spotlight is put on the interfaith concept, it cannot be supported by doctrine and more importantly is in direct conflict with who a Christian is in Christ.
Before closing I want to make sure you understand that there is a cost if you chose to follow Christ. While the reward is eternal life, Jesus clearly states that:
"For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
(Matthew 24:5-13)
The Sides: God or Satan
Whatever claims made in regards to Interfaith Dialog, Interfaith movement, or Interfaith [any word here], ALL support their master’s (Satan’s) plan.
Those who are saved and actively reject the Interfaith movement support their master’s (God’s) plan.
In the context of this blog, everyone else is on the fence.
The Line: Christ
The following passage best explains this.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)
Now I am not going to dive into every religion and show how interfaith anything is contrary to their teaching. I do not know enough about them nor do I find any distinction between their goals and those of the interfaith movement. Instead my focus is on Christianity as I defined it in one of my earlier blogs.
I found the following statement on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_dialog) that I think really sums up the whole interfaith idea from a Christian perspective.
For traditional Christian doctrine, the value of inter-religious dialogue is confined to acts of love and understanding toward others either as anonymous Christians or as potential converts.
In mainline liberal Protestant traditions, however, as well as in the emerging church, these doctrinal constraints have largely been cast off. Many theologians, pastors, and lay people from these traditions do not hold to uniquely Christocentric understandings of how God was in Christ. They engage deeply in interfaith dialogue as learners, not converters, and desire to celebrate as fully as possible the many paths to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_dialog, 5 March 2011).
While there are so many things that can be addressed on this Wikipedia topic, these two paragraphs are the most relevant to this post.
It would seem on the surface that there is nothing wrong with that first paragraph, but it is this section that jumps out at me: “inter-religious dialogue is confined to acts of love and understanding toward others”.
I notice that they did not use “interfaith dialogue” but instead used “inter-religious” dialog. I can only imagine that the choices of words were designed to promote more acceptance of the author’s position, a kind of “foot in the door” approach.
In the second part of the sentence “acts of love and understanding toward others”, isn’t this how we are to behave Christians; “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all, especially unto them who are the household of faith.” (Galatians 6:10). This has nothing at all to do with interfaith or “inter-religious”. But if the intent is to stretch or distort the meaning of “do good to all” so that it falls in line with the acceptance of that which is evil, then this paragraph does not apply to Christians.
It is only speculation, but this first paragraph seems to try to legitimize, almost as an aside, this interfaith concept to Christians by claiming as fact that traditional Christian doctrine supports a certain aspect of it.
If that was the totality of the interfaith concept (love and understanding toward others), then maybe there is not much here to fuss about. In reality, however, the description in this first paragraph at its worst is simply the bait in the age-old bait-and-switch technique and at its best the expected result of global acceptance and practice of the interfaith concepts.
Before going on I think it is important to try to clarify what the interfaith concept is. Below is the definition of the topic from the same Wikipedia page:
The terms interfaith or interfaith dialog refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e., "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world. It is distinct from syncretism or alternative religion, in that dialogue often involves promoting understanding between different religions to increase acceptance of others, rather than to synthesize new beliefs.
Let’s break this up into the Who, What, Where, When, and Why to see if we can better understand what is being said here.
Who
Organization of people with 1) religious traditions and 2) spiritual beliefs (so broad it could apply to most anything) and 3) humanistic beliefs (a more philosophical perspective).
What
“…cooperative and positive interaction between people…”
Where
This is a little hard to nail down to one specific place as it is a global construct of many different entities and initiatives. In other words, it is everywhere around the world.
When
It is here today.
Why
Within the context of this definition, the “why” is to derive a “…common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.”
I would also like to point out the last sentence as also addresses the “what” question as well as implies a “why”. It also contains a contradiction that may or may not be the result of a failure on the part of the author to fully understand the words used here.
If I can paraphrase this last sentence, I would say that it is the blending of two or more religions in an effort to promote understanding and acceptance. I cannot include the last part “…rather than to synthesize new beliefs…” because the result of “blending” are new beliefs. Even if the intent of that last part was the idea of maintaining specific single beliefs of individual religions and the “blending” resulted in a wholly new “belief system” the end state is the abandonment of a former belief system for a new belief system (the implied “why”).
There are so many things that can be addressed about the interfaith concept. And I may address many of them in future blogs. But this blog is about choosing sides so I will be focusing on that here.
First, let me clarify a couple of ideas to help reduce any confusion later on.
I wish there was a concrete definition for religion, but there is not. If you look at any single definition, you will find that it excludes aspects of certain groups who consider what they do a religion. I would also submit that any all-inclusive definition would carry as much meaning as the word “stuff” so I am not going to waste my time trying to find a definition. Instead, I will just use the term “belief system” instead.
I would also like to clarify that I do not consider Christianity as a collection of Christians and their beliefs. I understand that the world uses Christianity to identify a particular belief system and considers it a religion, but as I wrote in an early blog, Christianity is so inclusive it has excluded actual Christians because it does not recognize the requirement that one must realize they are a sinner, understand that the wages of sin are death, understand that the only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ, believe in their hearts that Jesus Christ died for their sins, and accept him as their personal Lord and Savior. Instead, Christianity exists solely as a social identity and in no way identifies someone as a Christian.
Now it is with this perspective that I can say that one is a Christian or, if I can coin a new word here, "Interfaithist".
Instead of trying to identify interfaith beliefs and explain how that is contrary to Christian beliefs, let me instead point out scripture that offers no place for compromise, no opportunity for blending, and no way to be eliminated.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23)
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11:25-26)
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one.“ (John 10:27-30)
“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10-12)
“For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (1 Timothy 2:6-7)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
If time permitted, I could list scripture after scripture where the absolute and singular statements eliminate any chance that there is any form of compromise with any religion. There is nothing interfaith about Jesus Christ, God, and who we really are.
I believe that even with a superficial examination of scripture, it is easy to see that there is no chance of Christian beliefs merging with some common belief system – there really are two sides.
I am sure there are other and better ways to show how Interfaithism is not an option for a Christian, but I believe that when the spotlight is put on the interfaith concept, it cannot be supported by doctrine and more importantly is in direct conflict with who a Christian is in Christ.
Before closing I want to make sure you understand that there is a cost if you chose to follow Christ. While the reward is eternal life, Jesus clearly states that:
"For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
(Matthew 24:5-13)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)