And could it be:

1. fear?
2. distraction?

Indifference is certainly a good explanation for a lot of people. But I would suggest there are those who are neither indifferent, nor ignorant – but who are fearful. They fear confrontation – because peace among men is more important to them than doctrinal purity and accurate divining the mind of Christ. They abhor anything remotely approaching Acts 15 and condemn those who would call together such a council.

Distraction is another explanation. Many Christians have been distracted into believing that the purpose of the Church is to multiply itself. They’re all about growing the size of the Church. They’ve taken “Evangelicalism” and turned it into something more – something centered on selling the gospel. They have left their first love and embraced a new love – conversion and growth. They are distracted by a so-called great commission and have abandoned the love of the saints, the discernment of Scripture, the service of faith, the submission of the saints – all in favor of new worship methodologies meant to bring in more unsaved. In fact, they have filled churches with so many unbelievers that it is hardly surprising that indifference is found running amok.

Just my $0.02

Jon, I’m not sure how your comment relates to this post.

My reading is that the Third Commandment forbids, among other things, invoking the blessing of God for a project with the attitude of commanding God to do so, and that He will not bless the project unless the invocation is made. It is a kind of tribal marking of the project as the turf of the invoker. and thus like the practices of those who have conducted religious wars. More broadly, it can be regarded as covering all of what is sometimes called “Bible-thumping” or “carrying one’s religion on one’s sleeve”.

Kara, to be honest, no. I am nearing the end of my semester and have much school work. The fact that I’m even on here, writing and commenting is a stretch but I think that is part of my insanity…LOL.

But since you mentioned it, I did glance over there. Without really reading comments carefully, I will say that what he has said on that topic doesn’t really have any bearing on this one. In taking his comments at face value here, I would tend to agree with what he has written specific to this topic.

Lisa,
Have you been following Dr. G’s comments on abortion?

Dr. G…it’s made like this….:) colonendquote…no space in between.

And guess what Dr. G, I am a Pentecostal…go figure.

Dr. G, I couldn’t agree with you more. Having come out of a church culture where speaking for God was quite common and sought after, I see now how irreverent that is. He and His word should be approached with fear and trepidation. Not sure if you read my other post on Submission, Authority and our Rebellious Tendencies but that was at the heart of that post.

I started coming around when a friend challenged me, very similar to the approach you describe. Basically, he was just pointing me to the Biblical text and ask that I consider what it says and contrast that with what I’m thinking it says and what I’m thinking Christian living is based on popular ideas. It was challenging but I had to let the Bible speak for itself. That does not mean I have it all together, for I’m sure there are some things I’m still getting wrong but am willing to acknowledge those things if the witness of Scripture contradicts it. However, in the end, some will stubbornly cling to their own ideas but then its God responsibility to correct not ours. All we can do is point to what the text says.

And yes, I do agree that taking the Lord’s name in vain is attributing to Him words He did not say but claim that He did. Michael Patton has a post from months ago on that exact same topic.

“Pentacostals” was a joke; I would have left a smiley face there, if I knew how to make one. Though incidentally, there does seem to be a “Cessastionist” conversation, going on around the corner on this blog, regarding Pentacostals.

Your remark in any case, guessed my first point correctly: how sure are we, perhaps even of the core, that we should go heresy-hunting.

Still though, I agree with you, that we can find some reasonably sure things. And I will tell you several approaches I find useful, in letting others know they might be making theological mistakes. My first tack on this one, is not to go heresy hunting; but …

1) To point to parts of the Bible that contradict what they way.

2) But then especially, I simply ask people to stop presenting their ideas, as the ideas of “God.” Telling them that parts of the Bible contradict their views – and then asking them especially to, in the future, not ever invoke the name “God” over their views. But simply present whatever they think God said, as their own … opinion.

There are strong traditions to back this. Especially, consider this:

Today, everyone shouts out that “God says” this, or “God says” that; without any real foundation. So how do we fix this? In the old days of Judaism, the name of “God” was so sacred, that no one was allowed to pronounce it or write it in public. (Today, many Jews and others still follow this, by writing “God” in some coded way: “G-d,” etc… Indeed, they followed similar prohibitions so closely, that for a long time, we did not know about the name “Jaweh”; and are not entirely sure about it today in fact)

So, actually, and seriously, I would recommend something like this again: lets start telling people the name of God is sacred, and to stop using it in public.

Let’s remind everyone, that to speak allegedy for “God,” to start issuing statements in the name of God, is a very, very, very serious responsibility.

And the Bible warned about those who step into that role too quickly. Those who “teach” for example, “make many mistakes.” And therefore, “not many of you should be teachers.” Because it is one thing to mislead one’s self; but to be a bad teacher is to mislead many others too; as James warned. For that reason, James warned, the penalty for sinning or erring as a teacher or minister, would be much greater than for others. Because they mislead not only themselves, but many others. (Cf. however “The New Evangelization,” which for a while seemed to cross this?)

So, how do we keep these legions of mislead persons, from bellowing their bad opinions of religion, as the word of “God” over the airways? Telling us that “God says” we must vote Republican in the next election? Or next: “God said” we should buy Pepsi, instead of Coca-Cola?

Why don’t ministers all begin a campaign, to make the name, word, “God,” holy again? To insist in sermons, that people do not invoke the name, much at all (if ever).

This seems strange at first. But 1) its extremely traditional.

And 2) in actual practice, your average, educated minister, … does something much like this. Oddly enough, if you listen, the educated minister uses the phrase “God said” etc., very seldom. Because of course, the more we know, we more we discover how fallible our opinions are. Even our ideas about God.

It is precisely the worst preachers – and often the very worst people, from Muslim terrorists to others – that constantly shout, that “God” backs their opinions.

So why don’t we … caution the people, about … invoking the name “God”? And making the name of God holy again?

By the way; would the command not to “take the name of the Lord in vain,” relate to this, as Biblical precident, in your opinion?

Dr. G, I’m not sure I understand your comment in relation to the post. I do believe that there are some things we can be certain about with respect to our faith that is outlined in the Bible. Since the Bible is the final arbiter of our Christian activity, that activity must be judged according to what the Bible says.

There are areas of tension as well as interpretation difficulties. And because of this, there have been interpretation differences but that unfortunately does mean there is more than one meaning. Nor do I think we can just dismiss interpretation deviations as just having “freedom in Christ”. In context of the post, I would say that is the problem. That we have generally resigned to 1) understanding the core; 2) reconciling deviations with the Biblical prescription and 3) not considering it important enough to investigate. That does not mean you become a heresy hunter but we should be able to spot error, especially in reference to the essentials of the faith.

In terms of your comment “except for Pentacostals”, what exactly do you mean by that? It seems a bit harsh and unfair. Please expound.

Are we enetirely sure there is a good, solid, identifiable core? Or where it is?

The Bible says in conjunction with remarks on churches, that there will be many “branches”; and we won’t know which one is good, until “fire” tests them, in the End.

The Bible even speaks of problems with “foundation,”s and cornerstones and pillars.

So … shouldn’t we allow the “freedom of Christ”? Though to be sure, except for Pentacostals.

Just a thought: if we could get John Pew to:
*understand that the Bible is the primary interpreter of the Bible
*The Bible did not originally have chapters and verses and books were read as a whole (and people did not string verses together to build a truth)
*put the New Testament letters in the sequence they were written in (James probably being the first one?)
*understand who the letter was written to and why
*understand what can and what cannot be generalized to us today

then maybe we’ll understand better just what the kingdom place and role of that specific generation was, and so understand better who we are!

Blessings to all!