Christianity is Not Dependent on your Character Witness

# on 16 Jan 2009
Apologetics & Christian Life & Christian Philosophy & Current Issues in Theology & Emerging Church & Losing Faith & Rants & Theology

Comments (144)

Related Posts

• "You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Leaving Christianity for All the Wrong Reasons
• Leaving Christianity for all the Wrong Reasons
• Lack of Theological Discipleship: Casualties by Friendly-Fire
• Is this a good illustration of our belief in the truthfulness of Scripture?

144 Responses to “Christianity is Not Dependent on your Character Witness”

1. Phil McCheddar on 16 Jan 2009 at 5:16 am #

   Well said, Michael.

   A secondary reason why that gentleman’s logic is invalid is that the views & behaviour of Christians are not monolithic and uniform. It may be that the majority of Christians that gentleman mixes with in his small part of the world support Israel but that is not necessarily the case in the rest of the world (and there are many more Christians today living outside the USA than inside it). Here in the UK I would say the majority of Christians sympathise with the Palestinians (at least they do in my small part of the world). And I suspect the 2000+ Christian Palestinians living in Gaza (indigenous Arab Christians whose ancestors have lived in the region for centuries) are not too endeared with Israel right now.

   But as you say, that makes no difference to the truth of Christianity.

2. minnow on 16 Jan 2009 at 7:35 am #

   “If we don’t love one another, it does not make Christianity any less true. It only makes our profession to be Christian less true. Likewise, if we do love one another, Christianity is no truer than before. Christianity is based solely on the person and work of Christ.”

   Absolutely spot on.

3. Stan on 16 Jan 2009 at 7:55 am #

   While I agree with the general tenor of what you are saying here Michael, it still sounds to me like you are discounting the impact our personal behaviors have on the witness we show others. I have NEVER pulled out a BIBLE when witnessing to someone mainly because people want to first see how you live and carry yourself before they want to hear about Jesus or the bible.

   People want to know you care about them and have character. If Christians behave like the rest of the world then why be a Christian?

   Christianity is based solely on the person and work of Christ BUT we are His church and we are supposed to be His light to the people. If you carry a bible and preach it then you better live it else people will see you aren’t and may never be drawn by you. Yes, it is God’s job to bring people to him BUT it is our job to be fisherman. If our bait is bad our catch will be nil.

   I don’t blame people for leaving Christianity when they see someone(s) who profess Christ behave like they don’t know Him at all.

4. jamie steele on 16 Jan 2009 at 9:35 am #

   I sure hope he finds some good Buddist to hang around with. Where will he go next?
   Maybe a Mormon community or to some very moral Muslim community. I really hope this guy realizes he is basing his eternal destiny on how another person lives.

   Also
   Stan you said, “I don’t blame people for leaving Christianity when they see someone(s) who profess Christ behave like they don’t know Him at all.”
   I am glad the disciples didn’t take this advice when Judas hung himself.
   I can hear Peter know. “Boys i am leaving Jesus because Judas was a fake.”

   Can you back that up with a Biblical reference?

   You also said, “If Christians behave like the rest of the world then why be a Christian?”

   Because, You are a sinner and Jesus died naked on a cross in front of His Mama for your sins.

   REad the parable of the soils, John 6 or read some Grudem on the perseverance of the Saints or just read 1John.

   Don’t place your trust in people place it in Jesus.

5. Scott Ferguson on 16 Jan 2009 at 9:46 am #

   Michael,

   In my studies of Methodist theology the concept of a journey toward perfection (never arriving, of course) is prevalent. It is assumed that the power of the Holy Spirit will make it possible to move in this direction. This is just to point out that, as Phil said, opinion is not monolithic.

   I’m afraid I have to go with those naughty Arminian Methodists – and Stan – on this one. The fact of Jesus resurrection is all but unprovable without appeal to Biblical authority, a rather unsatisfactory solution to those not already convinced. So, the value of Christianity ends up relying on the witness of His disciples. If the power of God is at all meaningful, non-believers have a valid expectation that Christians will be different from the rest of us. If this not the case then we are left with something that happened 2000 years ago and has no effect on our current lives. Of what use is that? Christianity gets to be “true” but meaningless.

6. Dr Mike on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:00 am #

   I’d like to add Jn 17.21 to the mix:

   “. . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

   This is not saying that Christian character validates our faith, but I think it is at least saying that our character vindicates our faith to unbelievers.

   Christianity is true regardless of our character. But, if I understand John here, non-Christians are going to believe that the Father sent the Son based – at least in part – on the unity of Christians.

   So character is critical vital. (I’m often critical, only in the wrong way.)

7. Nick Charalambous on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:04 am #

   A small point in addition to an excellent post that was much needed: early in my Christian life, the emphasis I was beginning to place on the importance of character witness as a way to fully live out my faith began to feel a lot like the beginnings of legalism … Praise God that he didn’t let me go down that road. I do think that the way character witness is stated leads to this error. In marketing parlance, it is not about “broadcasting messages.” A witness is about consistent, high-contact, personal ministry … that’s the only way apparent inconsistencies can be resolved and the way the subtleties and nuancies of our faith can be received.

8. Markd on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:10 am #

   My family refers to this idea in these terms: “God is not so much concerned about what you do as He is with who you are.”
   What the world believes (and for that matter most of the Church) is that we are justified in faith by a work of one sort or the other. The Bible clearly does not say this. But, when that runious doctrine is noised about as it has been for two millenia, it is no wonder that so many reject Christ on the basis “good living” and the poor representation of such from the Church.
   Hit the nail on the head CMP. Bravo!

   Now if we could only reverse the damage…

9. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 16 Jan 2009 at 11:45 am #

   Here is another lurking Arminian. The bible says that we are “the righteousness of God”. Why? Because we are the lens that the world sees God through.

   “Christianity is based solely on the person and work of Christ.”

   Sure, but part of the work of Christ is to transform people. Or in logical terms, A implies B. So if B doesn’t happen, then you have to question your assumptions about A. In the same way, if people do not see that transformation happening, then they have every right to question Christianity.

   Finally I would like to note that although it seems like we often disagree theologically, I do love your blog, especially its gentle tone.

10. Jeffrey on 16 Jan 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    While it is true that Christianity stands or fails on who Jesus was and what he did, there are other ways of seeking the truth about Christianity. Followers of a false religion look different than followers of a true religion. Many people are better able to judge the lives of Christians in the here and now than they are able to judge the historical record. Perhaps someone looks at the historical record, doesn’t know, and uses Christians as the tie-breaker.

    Maybe someone decides which religions are worth investigating based on the lives of the followers of each religion. I’d bet 99% of Christians haven’t investigated Islam as much as you would like people to investigate Christianity. I haven’t looked at the history of Islam either. The behavior of its modern followers is enough to convince me that while it might be interesting historically, the chance that Mohammad really was God’s prophet is not strong enough to motivate the search.

    You often criticize people for leaving for all the wrong reasons. What is the right reason – becoming convinced based on historical/textual sources that the evidence does not support Jesus’ Resurrection? Are there any others? But this should be turned around. How many people come to faith in the first place for the right reasons?

    Make sure the comparison being made is fair: if leaving for emotional reasons and later becoming well-versed in counter-apologetics is a wrong reason, then so is coming to faith for emotional reasons and later becoming well-versed in apologetics.

    If the standard is good reason = apologetically justified, and you compare informed moves in and out of faith, then it’s pretty clear that educating Christians is very dangerous. While I know people who are currently Christians for good reasons, I don’t know anyone who became a Christian for good reasons.

11. Truth Unites... and Divides on 16 Jan 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Eclectic Christian Michael Bell: “I do love your blog, especially its gentle tone.”

    I particularly like the irenic tone of CMP’s convictions that are expressed here:

    “I am going to make a statement here that I suppose is going to make many of my readers upset. This especially goes for those who are more “emerging” in their thinking. Here it goes:

    Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

    Did you get that? Let me repeat.

    Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.”

    I heartily applaud CMP’s most excellent blog post.

12. C. Barton on 16 Jan 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    To which I would add that a really good experience in an assembly does not validate their theology, and anyone who has been to a warm and fuzzy occult gathering can testify that the affectionate feelings and positive “energy” don’t amount to anything in a supernatural perspective.
    Christianity is not a mere belief system that can be mechanically judged based on the “output”, or behavioral changes of its constituents.
    Neither can the “good” feelings and treatment of strangers be an adequate validation of their walk before God, for such is the method of the Mormons, and others, to “love the unchurched into the fold” – basically a rather nasty con game, if you ask me.
    But praise Jesus, that when we truly meet Him we become more like Him!

13. Hans Zaepfel on 16 Jan 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    God uses different means to bring people to Christ and I think one of those means can be a consistent Christian witness. But I also think that if someone is “hell-bent” on rejecting Christ, he can always find inconsistencies in a Christian’s walk to justify his turning away from God.

14. Truth Unites... and Divides on 16 Jan 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    Hans: “But I also think that if someone is “hell-bent” on rejecting Christ, he can always find inconsistencies in a Christian’s walk to justify his turning away from God.”

    It will be an eternally inadequate and an eternally unhappy justification for the Christ-rejector to contemplate as she or he spends a tormented eternity apart from God.

15. Mike B on 16 Jan 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    Yes, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead is important, but if the power of a resurrected life is not evident in those who believe in him, then what’s the point?

    Who wants to believe in a Gospel that leaves people in their sin?

    Who wants to believe in a savior who doesn’t save?

    A man 2000 years ago died and rose again. That’s a pretty incredible miracle, but how does that help me, or anyone else for that matter?

    I’m only being slightly coy. Nevermind the naysayers. Suppose I were fully convinced of my own sinfulness and need for salvation, but had absolutely no evidence from the lives of those who had put their faith in Christ that the Christian Gospel had any real solution for that? Would I become a Christian?

16. John C.T. on 16 Jan 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    As is frequently the case with many of the initial posts, some of the words are being used ambiguously or in an equivocal manner (usually apparently intentionally to get the discussion going).

    This is the case here with respect to “validate”. What is the validation in reference
    to? existence? basis of knowledge? Both, it seems.

    In terms of existence, nothing we say or do will change the actuality of what God did (assuming he exists). When we get before the throne at the end of days, it will be true and valid that Christ died and rose again even if we denied in this life, or lived in the middle of the Amazon and were completely unawre of it.

    But that (in Frankenstein words, that is, English words composed from Latin body parts) is “ontology”. Ontology is the study of what there is. Now of course, if the death and resurrection of Jesus is something that exists, it will exist regardless of anything else. Regardless what we believe. Regardless of how we act or live.

    What the putative gentleman is concerned about, however, is how do I know if my bleliefs are valid? That is, are his beliefs warranted or justified. This is not an easy investigation, and philosphers have written numerous, long books on this (A. Plantinga has two volumes on warranted belief). The fancy word is epistomology. The issues are what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge. What are the sources and limits of knowledge? In this, the life of the Christian is certainly relevant to validity.

    Why should a non-Christian believe or be persuaded that a Christian’s assertions are true adn valid if the Christian lives a life of sinful hedonism and hatred? The Christian claims that the risien Christ is in him through the indwelling presence of the Spirit. If there is no lived evidence of this, why should the non-believer be convinced of the validity of the resurrection of Christ? And if a Christiabn cannot live a sSpirit filled life, she is justified in wondering whether her beliefs are valid.

    It’s not as if the historical arguments are a slam dunk. I’m convinced, but not everyone is. We don’t even have the (certain) location of the tomb, let alone grave clothes or a piece of the cross.

    We have to piece together our knowledge from various sources, and with varying levels of certaintly and persuasiveness.

    Hence it does matter greatly how Christians respond in or to Palestine. It won’t change the (ontological) fact of whether Jesus rose from the grave, but it does impinge on what we can know about that (alleged) fact and whether we can be or should be persuaded that it is indeed a fact of existence.

    regards,

17. CT on 16 Jan 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    Stan’s and Scott Ferguson’s comments (3 and 5) seem reasonable. Mr. Patton seems to confuse the idea that “Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents” with the issue of whether Christianity can be invalidated by the character of its adherents.

    There are a lot of claims to truth, and possible ways of life, among which an individual must choose. In some cases it may be reasonable to pass over a certain doctrine after examining the fruits that the doctrine bears in the lives of its adherents. This is especially true if the doctrine itself claims that it will change the lives of its adherents in a measurable and positive way.

    Interestingly, Paul calls the church the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells his disciples that they are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Consider a hypothetical question: If all one could find among Christians is hypocrisy, confusion, ignorance and immorality, then how should one judge that doctrine which entails that Christians are the light of the world?

18. Tyler on 16 Jan 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Nice post, John C.T.

    CMP, your original post is very much in line with my recent coming to the realization of how much sense Scripture and Reformed theology make when everything is profoundly God-ward in its orientation. “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36).

    However, I agree that the way we live influences our credibility when talking with non-believers. That said, experiential evidence is of course limited in its power and people should place much more weight on objective historical evidence. Our witness certainly doesn’t change the fact of the resurrection…but people will inevitably trust us MORE if we are good witnesses and reflections of Christ’s love.

19. Seth R. on 16 Jan 2009 at 6:50 pm #

    I disagree with the original post here.

    Christ does not depend on the character of its adherents. Neither does the Gospel.

    But Christianity?

    You betcha it does. Christianity is nothing more or less than a collection of frameworks for religious worship and belonging among human beings. And I certainly can judge something like that by how well the people are doing.

    Here’s where you are going wrong Michael.

    You are approaching this from the perspective of a believer.

    Does an atheist believe in Christ?

    No.

    So why do you expect her to draw any distinction whatsoever between this make-believe person called Christ, and the people who profess to follow him. For her, there is no Christ – only the example of the people who follow him.

    Seriously, do most Christians here judge us Mormons by our asserted God?

    Not in my experience you don’t. You judge us by our people. Do you go to the Book of Mormon as the primary source for what we believe about grace vs. works?

    Not really. Not usually. Most of the time, the Christians I’ve encountered go straight to what some ex-Mormon says about how messed-up and guilty they felt as a Mormon and how they are soooo glad they found the “true Jesus.” Any inquiry into Mormon scripture is usually a fishing expedition to back up any preconceived notions formed from other non-scriptural sources.

    Harsh reality guys:

    Jesus ain’t here. But you are. And people will go with what is available to them.

    And I won’t fault them for that.

20. Jason C on 16 Jan 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    Seth R. I know no Mormons, I do not base my disagreement with any doctrine of Mormonism on the character of a Mormon I may or may not have met. I would simply say that Mormonism is wrong because statements about the nature of God as an evolved man are incompatible with the teaching of the Bible that God is transcendent and eternal.

    Islam is incorrect because the Koran makes claims about Jesus that are not consistent with the Bible and are drawn from fourth century pious fiction like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

    I really don’t care whether a person is nice or not, I only care if they’re right.

    Scott, you were raised in a semi-Christian society and indoctrinated with Christian mores. Meanwhile the encroaching secularists in the public school system have indoctrinated Christian children with nonsense like “tolerance” and “moral relativism”. You won’t see huge differences between Christian and non-Christian in such a system. You’d have to go to some place with a strong history of paganism and see the difference between Christians and their neighbours there. Try Africa.

21. C Michael Patton on 16 Jan 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    Folks,

    One of the things that you have to consider is that if, as you say, Christianity is evidenced as true or false by the character of its followers, then we have many religions that have nice self-sacrificing people. Does this contribute to the validity of such? If so, you all are illustrating my point that we are caught up in an unbiblical mode of epistemic verification. If not, then Christianity is based solely on the character and witness of the person and work of Christ.

    It is interesting that we have so many of you who would dispute such a statement.

    This is in no way to take away for make excuses for the the bad behavior of Christians. If we are not acting according to what we believe (which is a problem for all of us), we are less likely to be known as disciples of Christ, but this does not mean that Christ is not Lord!!

    I think that many of you are mistaking the ontological grounding of Christianity with the practical living of Christianity. The former has to do with whether it is true, the latter plays no part in such.

    Therefore, no one has an excuse for leaving Christianity based on the character witness of its followers since its ontological and epistemic grounded have nothing to do with us.

    Each of you, in my opinion, should be thanking God that such is the case. If Christianity was based on our character witness, I would have left a long time ago!

22. C Michael Patton on 16 Jan 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Let me ask all of you this question and it should clarify:

    For the sake of the arguement, Do you want the validity of Christianity to be based on your character witness?

    Any takers?

23. CT on 16 Jan 2009 at 8:57 pm #

    “Do you want the validity of Christianity to be based on your character witness?”

    The issue, I think, has nothing to do with what anybody wants. The validity of Christianity either is or is not related to the character of Christians.

    Again consider the hypothetical question: If all one could find among Christians is hypocrisy, confusion, ignorance and immorality, then how should one judge that doctrine which entails that Christians are the light of the world?

24. Parchment and Pen » Christianity Does not Depend on your Character … | workoutforgod on 16 Jan 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    [...] Excerpt from: Parchment and Pen » Christianity Does not Depend on your Character … [...]

25. Stan on 16 Jan 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Michael,

    My answer to your question “any takers?” is a resolute NO, of course. It is just disappointing to see so many people turn from an opportunity to meat Christ because of the hypocrisy they have seen, experienced or more likely “heard about” from someone or the media.

26. C Michael Patton on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    “Again consider the hypothetical question: If all one could find among Christians is hypocrisy, confusion, ignorance and immorality, then how should one judge that doctrine which entails that Christians are the light of the world?”

    If this were the case, would this mean that Christ is no longer God…that he did not raise from the grave.

    Christianity is about the historic incarnation first, our incarnation follows imperfectly.

    Don’t even consider that the validity of Christianity is based on your character. What a terribly frightening proposition.

27. CT on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    “If this were the case, would this mean that Christ is no longer God…that he did not raise from the grave.”

    So you a see a strong connection between the validity of Christianity and character issues? Or, is the concern the feature of “ignorance”? If so, let’s restate the hypothetical question:

    If Christians character is most noticeably marked by hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning, then how should one judge that doctrine which entails that Christians are the light of the world?

    Would you say that spiritual doctrines are never to be judged according to the fruit they bear in the lives of their adherents? (And, by the way, the validity of a proposition generally shouldn’t be judged by how “frightening” it is.)

28. bethyada on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    I agree that the truth of Christianity does not depend on the behaviour of Christians. It is either true or it isn’t. Christ either rose from the dead or he didn’t. The point is that our behaviour should flow from the truth of Christianity, the truth does not flow from our behaviour. We must get cause and effect right.

    However if Christianity claims that it will transform people and it does not, then that claim is seen to be false. If it does then the claim is true.

    If P then Q means
    Not Q then not P

    If Christianity is true then it will transform lives.

    If one accepts this one could potentially claim

    Lives are not transformed then it is not true.

    Note that if lives are transformed it is not proof by the above logic (but it is proof by other means), though it is consistent with it.

    (I think there is good evidence that lives are transformed. One needs to look over time, not at snapshots.)

    What Michael is claiming is that the Bible is not making the above claim, rather this claim:

    If Christian confession is true then we will love one another.

    ___________

    Make sure the comparison being made is fair: if leaving for emotional reasons and later becoming well-versed in counter-apologetics is a wrong reason, then so is coming to faith for emotional reasons and later becoming well-versed in apologetics.

    Except that the so called “emotional” reason may be an encounter with Jesus, or a healing; these are valid.

    But I agree, one should teach people about Christianity at the beginning. They need to consider its claims and decide whether or not they wish to follow Jesus. Jesus taught this.

29. C Michael Patton on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    CT,

    Y use the word “doctrine” but this needs to be qualified. If you are talking about the central doctrines of the Christian faith, the person and work of Christ, the Christian faith is unaffected because its central anchor cannot be touched by the sinfulness of man.

    This is my point. Don’t base the truthfulness of Christianity upon the character witness of Christians.

    CT, do you want people to do so with you? (Just for the same of argument.)

30. C Michael Patton on 16 Jan 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    beth,

    correct, but there is also the tension that we are sinner yet justified. The only righteousness we find is within Christ. If we reflect this from time to time, we are doing well. But even non Christians can reflect the image and glory of God from time to time. This does not in any way validate their worldview does it?

31. CT on 16 Jan 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    For Mr. Patton and bethyada:

    1. If Christ’s words are not true, then the Christian faith is invalid.

    2. Christ said that his followers are the light of the world.

    3. People who are most noticeably marked by hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning, cannot be the light of the world.

    4. If Christ’s followers are most noticeably marked by hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning, then Christ’s words are not true. (from 2 and 3)

    5. If Christ’s followers are most noticeably marked by hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning, then the Christian faith is invalid. (from 1, 4)

    6. Hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning are issues of character.

    7. The validity of the Christian faith depends upon the character of Christ’s followers. (from 5, 6)

32. Seth R. on 16 Jan 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Look, I’m not saying that bad Christians mean a bad Jesus.

    I’m just saying that most outsiders don’t have anything else to go by. So whether you want Jesus and his gospel to be judged by your character is quite beside the point.

    You don’t have a choice in the matter, and you need to own it.

33. whoschad on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:16 am #

    CT -

    Number 3 is false: People who are most noticeably marked by hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning, cannot be the light of the world.

    I assume you’re getting the ‘light of the world’ language from Matthew 5:14. Please explain your exegesis of this passage.

34. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:38 am #

    “I’m just saying that most outsiders don’t have anything else to go by.”

    Seth, I know what you are talking about, but what I am saying is just the opposite. We need to quit acting as if they have nothing else to go by in order to validate Christianity!!!!

    The validation of the truthfulness of Christianity is only a historical issue. People need to communicate this. The validation of our Christian witness and profession is a personal issue.

    If you don’t go this way, the cart is before the horse, and the cart is weak and poor at best.

    Both of our witness cannot prove Christianity any more than the love and kindness of a Buddhist could prove Buddhism!

35. Striker on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:45 am #

    I think that I agree with Seth on this one. We could go on and on with what a Christian really is. I consider myself a Christian by believing that Jesus died and rose again. NOW that is really easy to say but words are sometimes cheap. I think the best example of if we really believe that way is by how we show it (Yes what we DO).

    I don’t think even the bible could show people who a Christian truly is. Lets face it, there is a lot of controversy over even that. I am pretty sure I think the bible talks about a whole different “Christian” than most of you think (and this is purely based on what the bible says).

    So I’m left with one thing that all us Christians I think can agree with. Jesus died and rose again. But how can I know that you really believe that??? I mean words are cheap remembered? And how do we know that some how other “non-Christians” don’t know that. Because I sure see in their works (what the DO) sometimes.

36. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:47 am #

    Let me ask all of you this question and it should clarify:

    For the sake of the arguement, Do you want the validity of Christianity to be based on your character witness?

    Any takers?

    I am a taker.

    I will tell you why.

    I am the only evangelical christian in a workplace of 60. There a couple others who believe, but none who talk about their faith. So every day I have 60 pairs of eyes who consider what I say, how I act, how I treat others. Sure I could have kept quiet, but then they would be validating Christianity based on the witness of Ted Haggard or Benny Hinn. So I talk, I discuss, I make myself available for questions. One has joined an alpha course. A couple are reading my blog. Yet another considers me an aberration, because I give thoughtful non fundamentalist answers to his questions. A fifth asked me what church she should consider going to after she got married.

    If my character showed that their was nothing different about me, then they would have no reason to consider Christianity or the claims of Christ. So I continue on knowing that imperfect me might be best chance they have to have some sort of conduit to know Christ.

    Many years ago, I was told that an elder in the church I was attending had the reputation in his workplace of having a bible in one hand and a breast in another. How many do you think considered the claims of Christ because of him? How many do you think failed to consider the claims of Christ because of him?

    His actions on their own do not validate or invalidate the claims of Christ in absolute terms, but from the perspective of the people watching him they certainly did.

    “Christianity is based solely on the person and work of Christ.” Absolutely. And I am his workmanship, the clay in his hands. If you want to know how good a master craftsman is, you look at what he produces.

37. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:51 am #

    Both of our witness cannot prove Christianity any more than the love and kindness of a Buddhist could prove Buddhism!

    Agreed, but it is our witness that is going to get others to consider the claims of Christ. Just like in University it was the witness of a couple of Baha’i that got me to consider the claims of Baha’ullah. I was not convinced, but had they been jerks I never would have considered the claims in the first place.

38. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:54 am #

    Folks, consider the apologetic you are given to the world. You are saying that you should follow the group, religion or worldview that is nicest.

    How could things get so out of whack? Christ came precisely because we are sinners. Did David’s sin with Bathsheba invalidate the ontological truthfulness of Christianity in any way.

    Friends, I for my part, vow not to look to the Christian community, historic or contemporary, for the validity of the Christian message. I will only look only to the person and work of the historic Christ. I suggest you all do the same. If your eyes are set elsewhere, get ready to be disappointed and join another faith. (…and then be disappointed again).

39. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 1:24 am #

    Michael, we are saying the same thing…maybe

    You are saying we gain an audience by our character. With this I agree.

    But our character does not validate the truthfulness of Christianity in any way. Do you want people looking to Peter, David, Samson, Lot, Abraham or any other Biblical character for the truthfulness of our message. Is it true if they were good?

    Further, I believe that gaining an audience is not so much a matter of putting on the best face, but by showing them how to be beggers of mercy because we are in just as much need as they.

    Again, God help us all if our character is placed on the witness stand. Check please!

40. CT on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:10 am #

    Mr. Patton,

    You have claimed the following: the “light of the world” can be “most noticeably marked by hypocrisy, immorality and very poor reasoning.”

    The context in which Jesus used the phrase “light of the world” makes your claim somewhat odd:

    13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

    Whatever it means to be the light of the world, it seems clear that when others see the “light” what others see are “good works,” which prompt them to “give glory” to God.

    Can you see the difficulty with your claim?

41. Leslie on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:19 am #

    Dr. Mike (#6):

    Could you kindly qualify, ” … unity of Christians”?

    Thanks!

42. minnow on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:31 am #

    CMP–As I read the comments I get the sense that most would say that the truth of who Christ is can NOT be changed by our behavior. We DO NOT validate Christ. At the same time I also think that most are saying the value of our witness as to who Christ is, IS dependant on the strength of our character. Our character DOES validate our witness. Should it be so? What does that matter? It is so. I also think that most of the “emergers” you thought you might upset with the repeated “Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.” line would remove the “ianity” part and agree with you. Just to get your goat they might also add: “nor is Christ validated by whether we dot all the right I’s and cross all the right T’s of our doctrines.” But that’s just my guess. Aren’t you really just saying: “God is God no matter what we think, do, or say about Him”? I mean, is there another point?

43. Jeffrey on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:34 am #

    bethyada: Except that the so called “emotional” reason may be an encounter with Jesus, or a healing; these are valid.

    Well, yes, I would consider that to be an emotional reason because whatever such an encounter with Jesus is, it is an emotional experience. Conversely, you would consider the manifest absence of God via a “dark night of the soul” to be an emotional reason, while I consider it to be a completely rationally to disbelieve in what is both invisible and absent.

    But to level the playing field, I left out both. What remains is vastly more educated Christians leaving their faith for academic reasons than educated non-religious people embracing faith for academic reasons.

44. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:39 am #

    CT, was the nation of Israel the light of the world?

45. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:42 am #

    Minnow, exactly…our character can give the message an audience…that is it. But it does not add to its validity. Otherwise “good” people of other worldviews can claim the same.

    Our faith rests soley on the historic person and work of Christ, not the character of Christians.

46. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:43 am #

    Jeff, be careful not to make a false dichotomy between “academic” and “faith.” That is extremely dangerous. In some sense, the Christian faith is the most academic of all because it is the only faith that has incarnated itself in history.

47. Truth Unites... and Divides on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:33 am #

    Folks, CMP is far and away correct on his argument in this blog post. The fact of God’s sacrificial, redemptive love for us through the work of Christ on the Cross and His resurrection is neither validated, nor invalidated by the character witness of His followers, or by the character witness of His professed followers (wolves in sheep’s clothing), or by the judgmental perceptions of unbelievers towards Christ and His Body.

    The Bible speaks to apostasy increasing. The Bible speaks to false teachers and shepherds. Do you remember Ted Haggard? How about Jim and Tammy Faye Baker? Jimmy Swaggart? Todd Bentley? Child-molesting Catholic priests? Bishop Spong? Bishop V. Gene Robinson? Many openly unrepentant gay and lesbian ministers in mainline liberal Protestant churches? Christians who openly support abortions? Christians who have embezzled? Christian pastors who’ve committed adultery? Liberal, judgmental pharasaic Christians?

    None of these things invalidate the fact of the Incarnation and Resurrection and Second Coming of Jesus Christ (to judge).

    Furthermore, the Bible speaks of the Father of Lies. A roaring lion. The Adversary. Of course, such an Enemy will sow seeds of corruption and will tempt (all too often successfully) the disciples of Christ. [And some "disciples" are not disciples at all, but pawns of the Adversary.] It would play directly into the hands of the Adversary to have people look and judge the validity and veracity of Christ’s work by judging the periodic bad fruit that Satan has sown.

    CMP has got it right. God bless him.

48. Susan on 17 Jan 2009 at 10:26 am #

    AMEN and AMEN to this post Michael. I’m so glad you have addressed this, and so surprised to see the numbers of those who don’t fully agree. Disturbing.

    John C. T. said:

    ” Why should a non-Christian believe or be persuaded that a Christian’s assertions are true adn valid if the Christian lives a life of sinful hedonism and hatred? The Christian claims that the risien Christ is in him through the indwelling presence of the Spirit. If there is no lived evidence of this, why should the non-believer be convinced of the validity of the resurrection of Christ? And if a Christiabn cannot live a sSpirit filled life, she is justified in wondering whether her beliefs are valid.”

    To that I will say, You have described a non-believer here. That is often the problem. We need to all remember that a person is not a Christian because they profess to be one. There are many who are self-deceived. Such a person may be involved in the church, but of course will not bear the fruit of a believer. Satan is keen on this strategy to be sure. Don’t be deceived. An immoral life is indication that one is NOT in Christ…..it is not evidence that Christianity is not true.

    Very excellent post Michael! I agree 100%!

49. Susan on 17 Jan 2009 at 10:34 am #

    TU&D, after posting my comment I read yours. I guess we were thinking alike, again. Have a good day!

50. Seth R. on 17 Jan 2009 at 11:34 am #

    Problem is Michael, I think the historical evidence on the New Testament is at least as unreliable as the example of modern Christians.

    So no, I don’t think it’s “putting the cart before the horse.”

51. Dale on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    Either Christ suffered God’s wrath on the cross for man or he didn’t. Even if there were no Christians on the planet that doesn’t deny Christ’s work on the cross. It may cause some to deny the message or to deny that it actually happened.

    Let us suppose that it didn’t happen, that there was no man named Jesus and that it is all made up. That doesn’t change the fact that in this made-up system the essential message is one of Christ taking the wrath of God for man. Again the message doesn’t count on the acts of its adherents.

    No matter how you look at it that is the message of the gospel, whether Christianity is true or not.

    Now, some may take Christian character as a sign of the message’s believability but that isn’t the same thing.

52. Dr Mike on 17 Jan 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    Leslie (41):

    What I understand Christ to be praying for us is that we would experience a unity with one another than is analogous to or similar to the unity between in the incarnate Christ and God the Father. That was a relationship of submission, respect, and a never-ending desire to do that which was best for the Father, on the one hand, and an unwavering commitment to the Son, on the other.

    Certainly the world should be recipients of some of our good deeds, but the relationships between Christian and Christian should make the world take notice as we show our commitment to the good of the other and a willingness to give up our own agendas for others in the Kingdom of God.

    This includes love, of course, but it is a love that is self-sacrificial, committed, tenacious, and confrontational when necessary. The way in which we deal with one another should stand in sharp contrast to the ways of the world.

    Jesus said that to see him was to see the Father. For unbelievers, to see Christians with this type of unity should result in them getting a glimpse of the kingdom and recognizing that Jesus Christ the King has indeed been sent by the Father.

53. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    “I think the historical evidence on the New Testament is at least as unreliable as the example of modern Christians.”

    Seth, I am not sure we are talking about the same New Testament. Either you have been reading too much Ehrman, or not enough Blomberg. Maybe both. http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079

54. From The Balcony on 17 Jan 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Seriously excellent post, Michael. And so relevant. I’ll agree with what some of you have said above —that our character/witness is hopefully an excellent tool to reach out to others. However, if that is the only tool used, all falls flat on the floor because without the substance of the gospel being communicated to those who see our character, it really doesn’t matter, does it? If the gospel message isn’t understood, then how can one really be changed and understand their God?

    I visited a very small reformed church last week and for the first time in 30 years, heard the gospel message taught by a seminary student from Westminster (CA). I was almost in tears because the rich message of the gospel has been so vacant from “worship” in all of the plethora of churches I have visited trying to find it. The Bible was read throughout the entire service…it wasn’t boring …..because God was talking.

    In saying this (relating to your post), the gospel can say what our character/witness can never say. My guess is if your newly converted Buddhist friend had heard the real gospel message (not just a facsimile of it) taught weekely, he might not have made the switch. I’m not trying to beat up on churches, but if it took me 30 years of hard looking to find this kind of message (and experience how the pure words of God was the focus of worship), then I’m sure others have experienced this.

    I’m going to wait and see who is called to pastor this little church (they are looking). If what I heard last Sunday becomes a weekly reality, I’m going to have to leave where I am and plant in that small church. It is being faithful to tell the message that Christ died for the atonement of our sins…I can’t do anything by myself to become righteous….the penalty for my sin is death….1 Cor. 15: 1-4, etc.

    It was so powerful…….

55. Norm on 17 Jan 2009 at 2:19 pm #

    Michael,
    I get your point and agree with it. The post made me think about several useful truths and concepts. Thanks for posting it. Quite frankly I don’t “get” most of the seemingly angry, polarized, accusational comments that follow. A lot of this is classic post-modern deconstruction. “I know what you really meant by what you said and now I’m going to destroy and discredit it.” Sad to see here.
    As I believe you’ve said in some of your responses, we also should never loose sight of the fact that “we” are the only gospel message some will ever hear and we should try, in the power of the Spirit, to live what we want them to see.
    Thanks again for your thoughtful leadership. We are studying TTP Soteriology DVDs and readings in our small group and are being really stretched and blessed by it.

56. Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 17 Jan 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    Norm writes: “Quite frankly I don’t “get” most of the seemingly angry, polarized, accusational comments that follow.”

    Hmmm, interesting how I can read the same posts, and not feel the anger. I know I didn’t have any when I wrote. In fact I complimented CMP on the tone of his blog. I understand where CMP is coming from. As for polarized, both CMP and I agree of the importance of having a good witness. We also agree on the fact that there is nothing I can do to change the message of Christ. The primary difference is that I see myself as a work of Christ, and therefore part of the good news story. CMP (I think) does not.

57. Slime on 17 Jan 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    “If, for some reason, I was to renounce my faith, leave my wife and family, and take up the banner of atheism, I am certain that many people would be discouraged”

    Did you conflate these two ideas (atheism and leaving your family) on purpose, or was it merely an oversight? I’m curious, because I don’t see them as the same thing.

58. Seth R. on 17 Jan 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Actually Michael, I’ve been reading a little of both. Thanks for the book recommendation though.

    Much like apologetics in my own religion, I’ve found Christian apologetics to be convincing only when you already agree with the position being defended.

59. Norm on 17 Jan 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    To Eclectic Christian – Michael Bell
    I was not directing my comment at anyone in particular but at the cumulative “adversarial spirit” that I perceived the debate, as a whole, had taken. I did not even recall your specific comments until I just re-read them. I agree that they are not as adversarial is some.

60. bethyada on 17 Jan 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    I think people are arguing at cross purposes here. Many are being pragmatic and saying, well people will judge us based on our behaviour (and they do). While I think there is some legitimacy to this, Michael is saying that we should tell people that they should judge Christianity based on this as it is not a valid metric. That is activity let people know that the case for Christianity is based on the truth of its worldview.

    What people do and should do differ, and the commenters are variably addressing both of these.

    Personally Michael, I have mixed thoughts about what you state. While I agree with what you write partially, I also think that everyone is in a different place. Many people just don’t think that much, and others tack their faith on the tails of others.

    However I do think that early on we need to bo0th encourage people to follow Jesus and make people consider what the cost is. Looking at Jesus’ ministry we see that he said several things that made it harder, not easier for people to follow him. “You are not my sheep, leave your family, let the dead bury their own dead.”

    But following Jesus is predominantly about relationship, so many meet him and it is based on knowing him, not about him. Yes they accept the truths, but probably more because they accept the Truth than because they understand the evidences for textual criticism, the evidences for the resurrection,… They know he is resurrected because the know him and one does not activity know dead people. They trust the Bible because it tells us about Jesus.

61. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 8:10 pm #

    Seth, this is a problem of methodology. You should take my introduction to theology course. We walk people though all these issues, teaching them not what to believe, but how to think. Prolegomena is the most pressing theological discipline of our day.

62. Scott on 17 Jan 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    To all: Seth, CT, CMP, Others
    CMP seems to me to be spot on.
    CT you make valid points, but they are really irrelevant. Over the last 2000 years there have been thousands who have been transformed, been the light of the world, done the good works, loved others as Christ spoke about, that we know about, and millions that we have not known about. The consistent hypocrites that we know about and didn’t know about were most likely not even Christians (“the wolves in sheeps clothing” and “the tares”). Also CT, Jesus said very clearly that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws them. So true Christians have been the Light of the World and Christianity isn’t invalidated by our character. So nothing really to argue about, unless all you want to do is argue.
    Seth, although reason can only take you so far and in the end you must have faith, the evidence, notice I didn’t say empirical proof, is overwhelming. I pray, and just did pray, that the GOD of all Creation give you the faith to believe in Him, because He Loves you so much and wants you to be with him and know Him. He LOVES you Seth. And He is Awesome, He is the Greatest Dad! Seth do you know JESUS LOVES you?

63. bethyada on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Much like apologetics in my own religion, I’ve found Christian apologetics to be convincing only when you already agree with the position being defended.

    Showing your position is internally consistent may not be a complete apologetic but it is a significant component of it.

64. bethyada on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Jeffrey Well, yes, I would consider that to be an emotional reason because whatever such an encounter with Jesus is, it is an emotional experience. Conversely, you would consider the manifest absence of God via a “dark night of the soul” to be an emotional reason, while I consider it to be a completely rationally to disbelieve in what is both invisible and absent.

    Except that invisible does not equal absent. And perceived absence does not equal ontological absence.

    But to level the playing field, I left out both. What remains is vastly more educated Christians leaving their faith for academic reasons than educated non-religious people embracing faith for academic reasons.

    I suppose it depends on your location. This may be the case in the US which still has a large underlying acceptance of Christianity, I am less certain this may be the case in other Western countries and probably not in Africa and the East. I don’t really have figures to hand.

    While I agree that if Christianity is true it will likely be intellectually fulfilling, to then assume that educated Christians are leaving because of academic reasons may be a push. While they may give these as reasons, is it the true reason. Or is it because God doesn’t seem real (ie. emotional) but the academic reason is given as the excuse. Or is it claimed academic reasons, yet these reasons are soft. Or is it sin they do not wish to confront, or authority they do not wish to be under, and again give academic reasons.

    Not that people do not have genuine academic concerns, I am sure many do, but pride would suggest that people are going to claim this before they admit to sin (granted people may readily admit to lack of God’s presence).

    Further, many of the academic reasons I have seen I think reflect untrue statements, poor reasoning and acceptance of much greater difficulties in their replacement philosophy.

65. Seth R. on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    To clarify – as someone who believes in the Bible, and who tries to take it literally (in absence of compelling reason to do otherwise), I really don’t relish the idea of dumping on the Bible. I happen to like it quite a bit. My message is not that the apologetic for the Bible is a “load of rubbish.”

    I just don’t think that ultimately grounding your faith mostly (or even primarily) on “the history” is a realistic, or even particularly firm approach to religious belief.

66. CT on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    To clarify (esp. to Scott): all that I have been attempting to show is that Mr. Patton takes too extreme a position in denying that the Christian faith contains the view that the Christian faith makes a positive and observable difference in the Christian’s character. (For those that missed it: if the Christian faith does contain this view, then it is rather easy to show that the validity of the Christian faith depends upon facts about the character of Christians.) Even if Mr. Patton’s extreme position isn’t unsatisfactory in itself, it does force him to interpret the scriptures in a particular way, ways which in fact do seem a bit forced. I suspect that there are more nuanced ways of articulating the claim that Mr. Patton is trying to make which are more plausible scripturally and otherwise.

67. C Michael Patton on 17 Jan 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    Seth,

    “I just don’t think that ultimately grounding your faith mostly (or even primarily) on “the history” is a realistic, or even particularly firm approach to religious belief.”

    This is understandable considering you are a Mormon. But Historic Christianity is based on the historicity of the incarnation alone. Our apologetic does not depend on a “burning in the bosom” as the Mormon faith does.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Therefore, being of two different systems of faith, I would expect you not to agree with this article

68. Seth R. on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:03 am #

    Cute.

    But keep in mind Michael. I have never once experienced a “burning in the bosom” in my entire life, and I know many faithful, knowledgeable and committed Mormons who (quietly) acknowledge that they never have either. Nor does the Book of Mormon demand this sort of a basis for faith, but I’m not going to wander off into that kind of off-topic territory.

    Don’t think for a moment that I take this approach as some sort of lame cop-out to handle the cognitive dissonance of a religion that is “more unjustifiable” than yours.

    I have read the criticisms of my faith and the defenses. I have also read the criticisms and defenses of Christianity-at-large. And let me state unequivocally that I find my own faith to be just as rationally, historically, doctrinally, and archeologically, sound as yours.

    I have read Mormon scholars that met the likes of William Lane Craig and Paul Copan on their own theological turf and gave a good account of themselves. In fact, I pretty-much think they handed them their hats, but take that for what it’s worth.

    I have seen Joseph Smith vindicated in more than a hundred small and large ways. I have read Mormon scholarship from some of the top minds working in the fields of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Coptic. Mormon scholars are some of the leading experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no lack of intellectual firepower defending Mormonism – be assured. Most Evangelical counter-cultists like to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend this stuff doesn’t exist, but that’s not my problem.

    Suffice it to say that I find Mormonism every bit as credible as the rest of Christianity ON OBJECTIVE TERMS.

    And I still reject this kind of evidentiary inquiry as a misguided theological/intellectual “Tower of Babel.”

    Just because I think the quest to objectively prove scripture is ultimately misguided, doesn’t mean I’m waving the white flag in that arena – or that I haven’t done some serious reading on the topic.

69. C Michael Patton on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:10 am #

    Seth, I was not meaning to be offensive. I was just saying that the Mormon faith is bent away from historic verification. I understand you might disagree, but fidesm is it primary apologetic recourse.

70. DK on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:12 am #

    Great thoughts and great focus, C Michael Patton.

    Just wanted to also add another point to your excellent article.

    If the validity of Christianity is not dependent on the character of Christians–you would also have to say the same for OT believer–would you not?

    If the validity of Yahweh in the OT was dependent on the character of Israel—————WOW!

    Ponder that for a bit. . .

    We have a great Savior!

71. Seth R. on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:28 am #

    The heat in my response was because I know how many other Christians view us, and I wanted to respond firmly to that perception.

    I did not think you were trying to be offensive Michael. Let me state that I have always found your approach to be very polite and fair-minded.

    I just didn’t want my own witness or convictions to be misunderstood, and I felt there was a very real possibility they would be.

72. Aaron on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:36 am #

    I think that the argument that Michael makes is particularly valid to the one who is already a believer. As a follower of Christ, I could be tempted to put too much of my faith in my pastor or elders, and if they were to fall or leave the faith, I could be tempted to follow them “off the cliff.”

    So, while I think that the principle is correct in its essence, I think that it is a terrible argument to the one who is NOT a believer. Basically, I would be saying to them, don’t look at what Christ has done in my life or anyone else’s life, just believe the Bible. The problem is they don’t believe the Bible! It is also particularly difficult for the unbeliever to understand this perspective as they don’t have an understanding of grace: God’s redeeming love that covers our sinfulness.

    It’s kind of a catch 22 – on the one hand we want them to believe in Jesus for who HE is and what he did; on the other hand we know that we are the physical representation of Christ to the world. I don’t have a particularly good solution for this, only a determination to show the veracity of Christ’s message by 3 things: 1) Do my very best to align myself with the kingdom of God, 2) Be open and honest about my sinfulness and failures, and 3) Be openly and vocally thankful for the Grace of God.

    Aaron
    Anchorage, AK

73. minnow on 18 Jan 2009 at 2:30 am #

    Susan # 48 “We need to all remember that a person is not a Christian because they profess to be one. There are many who are self-deceived.”
    Nor, I might add are they not a Christian just because someone else judges them thus.
    “Such a person may be involved in the church, but of course will not bear the fruit of a believer. Satan is keen on this strategy to be sure. Don’t be deceived. An immoral life is indication that one is NOT in Christ.”
    Fruit such as? I see a red flag here in that what you say leads me to wonder if some might have a list of “bad” sins such as adultery and a list of “not-so-bad” sins such as gossip ( in the name of loving prayer requests of course).
    “it is not evidence that Christianity is not true.”
    Agreed!

    What seems to be happening here is that CMP is relying on the Calvinist doctrine of predestination to bring those who are supposed to believe to their faith and so human witness has much less value. While at least some of the rest of us think we can actually influence a person’s decision for Christ thus human witness has more value.
    Unlike Norm #55 and #59 I do not see our comments being negatively adversarial or extremely polarized. We simply seem to be giving human witness different weights.
    God is God and we are not. Thank God for that! But, He has still called us to feed His sheep, love one another, and minister to the “least of these”.

74. CT on 18 Jan 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Here’s a different way (forgive me if someone has already called attention to it) in which the validity of the Christian faith might depend upon issues of character.

    The validity of the Christian faith might be judged on the basis of the sorts of character traits that the faith itself endorses/justifies/promotes/encourages. For example, if the Christian faith promotes bigotry (a character trait), this would provide a prima facie reason for rejecting the Christian faith. In this sense, the validity of the Christian faith would depend upon issues of character.

75. Susan on 18 Jan 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    Minnow,

    I stand by my statement that a person is not a Christian just because they profess to be one. That is a true statement. It is not a judgmental statement. In order for that to be a judgmental statement I would have to have someone specific in mind, and I would have to say definitively that that person couldn’t possibly be saved, because they are misbehaving. I did not have anyone specific in mind. So, it seems to me that your statement “Nor, I might add are they not a Christian just because someone else judges them thus.” is your judgmental assumption of me.

    Of course it is true, that my assessment, or anyone else’s assessment of a person’s standing before God, means nothing. It is God alone who knows a person’s heart. There are however, indications of a person’s spiritual condition which Christ has told us. Matt. 7:16-20 Christ was telling us that we can know if someone is false or not, by their fruit. If He didn’t want us to be aware that some are false believers, then He wouldn’t have told us what to look for. Matt 7:21-23 indicates that there will be some taking part in the church who are pretenders, or perhaps think themselves to be saved, but will be proved otherwise on Judgment Day. 1 John 2:3-6 makes it clear that a person’s behavior clearly marks them as a believer, or not. You said: “Fruit, such as?” If you have read the above scriptures, you will see that these words are from Jesus, not me. It might be worthwhile for you to do a study on what “fruit” Jesus speaks of. It would be rather lengthy for me to get into.

    As to the “list of sins— bad, and not-so-bad” as you put it, I have no such list. I believe it is possible for a believer to commit such “bad” sins and yet be true believers (e.g. king David). With a true believer there will come a point of repentance as one is convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit. It’s unlikely that a true believer will continue endlessly, and unrepentantly in a specific pattern of sin. I don’t know who in my church, or elsewhere are true believers, and who are not. Only God knows for sure.

    Your assessment of CMP’s post— that it seems to come from a Calvinistic perspective– I don’t see that. I think that there are Arminian scholars who would agree with Michael’s post. Perhaps you are one who believes that if a person sins ‘too much’, ‘or too bad’, they can ‘loose’ their salvation(?).

    Michael is not at all dismissing the value of a person’s witness, in word and deed, to a non-believer. He is merely saying that a person’s witness does NOT in anyway determine the VALIDITY of Christianity. Christianity is true, because of who Jesus is and what He did—and that He rose from the dead. My behavior does not determine the truth of Christianity.

76. Susan on 18 Jan 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    CT, You would be hard-pressed to find any negative “character traits” which are promoted by Christianity. Christianity does not promote bigotry. Are you suggesting that it does? The opposite is true. Gal 3:28-29 indicates that we are all equal in God’s sight.

77. CT on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Hi Susan,

    The idea is rather this. We might first suppose that Christianity does promote/endorse/etc certain character traits (perhaps, e.g., egalitarian tendencies). If, however, Christianity promoted or endorsed certain character traits (e.g. bigotry), this would provide a prima facie reason for rejecting Christianity. In this sense, the validity of Christianity is connected to issues of character. (But please notice: this statement does not imply that Christianity does in fact encourage any unseemly character traits.)

    Consider how this line of thinking might be applied. Joe the seeker reasons as follows: the character traits that Christians characteristically possess give some indication of the sorts of character traits that Christianity promotes. Then, (and this part is purely hypothetical) seeing that Christians are characteristically bigots, Joe infers that Christianity promotes bigotry, and that he therefore has a prima facie reason to reject Christianity.

78. C Michael Patton on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:20 am #

    CT,

    “If, however, Christianity promoted or endorsed certain character traits (e.g. bigotry), this would provide a prima facie reason for rejecting Christianity.”

    I understand where you are coming from, but this is not correct. Contingent beings do not determine reality. If, for some strange reason, Christ did promote bigotry, we could not raise our hands to the Non-contingent One and say, “I object” and expect our objection to determine reality. You may not like it, but we cannot place our judgment above that of God’s whatever it may be.

    God will still be God no matter how you feel about his dictates. If Christ rose from the grave, Christianity is true. That is it.

    There is never any reason to reject Christianity if Christ is who he said he is and did what he is said to have done.

    This is why I get frustrated with people like the person who I spoke to the other night. He supposes his morality can trump God or take moral high ground. Even to the point where the history of the incarnation becomes secondary.

    If you don’t like something in God’s character, say unconditional predestination for example, we are not free to reject the truth of Christianity. We may not accept or trust God, but the excuse is invalid.

79. Susan on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:45 am #

    Yaaaaaa…….Yaaaa…..(!) That’s what I mean!

80. CT on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:50 am #

    CMP,

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It seems to me that you are raising several issues. Let me begin by stating a few points I fully accept:

    1. If Christ is who he said he is and did what he is said to have done, then no one’s behavior/character overturns these facts, or makes any of these things less true.

    2. If morally virtuous character traits are simply those which are consistent with God’s commands or nature, then bigotry would be morally virtuous if bigotry was consistent with God’s commands or nature.

    3. If Christ rose from the dead, and Christianity entails nothing more than this fact, then Christianity is true (regardless of anything else).

    This said, the following claim is nevertheless true: If Christianity promotes bigotry, then there is a prima facie reason to reject Christianity.

    There may be various ways to flesh out this “prima facie reason.” We might begin by noting that if Christianity promotes bigotry, then it promotes a bad/immoral character trait. It might also be shown that Christianity does what it claims not to do, or that Christianity surreptitiously/inadvertently promotes immorality in its followers while condemning immorality at the same time (like a poorly designed constitution that actually undermines individual liberties in its flawed attempt to protect the same). Presumably we have a reason to reject an internally inconsistent teaching or set of beliefs.

81. Edward T. Babinski on 19 Jan 2009 at 2:51 am #

    The obverse of what Michael is pointing out in his post is that no matter how many bowls of soup a church may give to the homeless, that does nothing toward proving say, the resurrection, or the Trinity, or the metaphysical efficacy of bloody sacrifices for sin.

82. Gerrie Malan on 19 Jan 2009 at 4:25 am #

    Just wondering Michael (please forgive if I missed it in my quick glance over this blog that I only came across now) – your original post uses the term “cultural Christianity”. Would that be the same as Christianity in Biblically rooted understanding?
    I personally think not. The one is rooted in true faith and the other in the fact that it is a cultural thing – Jesus called it traditions? After all, an enormous percentage of young people leave the church when they leave home, according to the Barna Research Group?

    Also: the three pastoral letters seem to note some 24 or so characteristics of church leaders. Are they not all rooted in character?

    And more: is your post not perhaps a repudiation of Paul’s many admonitions, e.g. Col 3? We read we need to put on this and put away that? Are we not finding ourselves in a theology of excuses? Is that not why the world is in such a mess?

    If, as the Barna Research Group states, it is true that 49% of Protestant pastors (in the USA, but probably no different elsewhere) do not have a Biblical worldview, we seem to be in trouble?

83. Character Witness « Jack Of All Trades on 19 Jan 2009 at 8:25 am #

    [...] by Bitsy Griffin on January 19, 2009 What an utterly fabulous post on our character witness by C. Michael Patton at Pen & [...]

84. Armand Massie on 19 Jan 2009 at 8:52 am #

    Michael’s comment:

    “God will still be God no matter how you feel about his dictates. If
    Christ rose from the grave, Christianity is true. That is it. ”

    I agree that basing one’s acceptance or rejection of Christianity based
    on the character or conduct of a “professed Christian” is a bogus
    foundation for true Christian faith. The ONLY true foudation for saving
    faith is upon belief of the message of the gospel upon it’s own merit.

    Paul said that, “not all men have faith”, and that to those who are
    perishing, the preaching of the cross is, “foolishness”. If someone
    bases their faith on the credibility of another, that “faith” is worthless.
    However, when one “hears” the Truth and believes into the One who
    is the Truth, that faith is on solid ground.

    Utlimately it is the soveriegn work of the Holy Spirit upon the heart and
    mind that brings true conversion and keeps one in “the Faith”. Such a
    faith will withstand the shameful failings of all who wittingly or
    unwittlinly misrepresent Christianity.

85. minnowspeaks on 19 Jan 2009 at 9:03 am #

    Susan (# 75) my addition (# 73) to your statement (#48) was not pointed specifically any more than your original statement. And in fact my point was the same as you concluded when you said: “I don’t know who in my church, or elsewhere are true believers, and who are not. Only God knows for sure.”
    CMP You state: “God will still be God no matter how you feel about his dictates. If Christ rose from the grave, Christianity is true. That is it. There is never any reason to reject Christianity if Christ is who he said he is and did what he is said to have done.” The key words in your statement are: “if Christ is who He said He is and did what He is said to have done.” Behind God’s/Christ’s/Christianity’s statements about himself/itself are reasons and character claims if in the minds of non-believers these claims are shown to be false they have a reason to reject Christianity, the religion that promotes these claims. It does not change whether or not the claims are true but it is a reason to think they are not.

86. Firespeaks on 19 Jan 2009 at 9:41 am #

    This same thought or logic is what causes so many to fall from the faith when (or if) their pastor falls. It is sad some Christians hinge their hopes, and faith, on the behaviors of a man.

    One of the leaders of my church said to us just last Wednesday that his vision for our church has to be greater then him. Because if he were to die or to fall from the faith the vision would also die, and the things we do for God has to be greater than we are.

87. Steve Merckx on 19 Jan 2009 at 10:02 am #

    Isn’t this summed up better as:

    Don’t base the validity of Christianity on our character, rather the character of Christ? Whom we are suppose to emmulate.

    When any of us sees another going astray we need to call each other on it and point it out [personally at first]. Iron sharpens iron, right?

88. Hawke on 19 Jan 2009 at 11:56 am #

    In Post #22
    CMP asks:
    “Let me ask all of you this question and it should clarify:
    For the sake of the argument, do you want the validity of Christianity to be based on your character witness?
    Any takers?”

    Answer:
    No! Since I was not born sinless there is no reason to base a character witness upon how I choose to live or behave. I am not the one claiming I am the truth, the life or the way (that is for folks like Jim Jones and David Koresh). I do believe that it is true that once one is saved, and has the Holy Spirit working in them there will be changes in their character. Is the complete character erased? No, I don’t believe so. With Peter following Jesus for 3-years, and then denying him and yet still God/Christ finds favor with him. This is a process true throughout the Bible, being used in spite of character flaws, and look at David, Moses, and so on. The Biblical meaning of “perfect” or “upright” has a much different meaning than Webster’s. One would be fair in asking “how long was this person a Christian, was it a year, 30+ years”?

    I often hear…”would this Christian have a grasp on orthodoxy, or are they more liberal in their beliefs?” One would have to pin down how and why a Christian believes. For example someone may say; “a person that truly believes God exists would know that God is watching him/her at all times and would or should act accordingly.” On the other hand, did Adam and Eve always act accordingly knowing this same premise? Could this be a precursor to how we were influenced? Would the same negative influences be applicable to Christians today? I believe so.

    Now the so-called dilemma, using character witness in a sense of accountability, would the writings be valid despite the author? In views of inspiration, such as verbal plenary, making use of a person’s character wouldn’t necessarily make the writing discredited in that bias. In an approach that only allows for a less comprehensive interpretation, then one has to view the character (flaws, inconsistencies) of the individual and place them on the forefront due to their bias. Would the character flaws equivocate to a complete falsehood, or grounds for a complete dismissal of truth? If so why? What methodology are you imploring to validate your claims? Could it be correct, or are you flawless in all your endeavors? Could you be wrong in the introjections you espouse upon others? Have you performed a (gage R&R) study upon your methodology to find truth? What is your maximum uncertainty level?

    Let me ask some more questions…

    Is an effectual decision based upon relevance, specific to a certain situation really a litmus test for verifying the validity of a claim? Would this procedure be objective? Would it be considered as a pragmatist view of discerning truth? Would this be more of a fallacy than being technological? Where would you place your significance on truth, a founder, a follower, a correspondent? Are you this critical to all theologies, despite the inconsistencies that are inherent to everyone? Why should we believe you, what is your basis?

    I also wouldn’t want to merely influence others with my testimony. My testimony is mine, you would have yours. I rest in Christ and his redeeming work, not so much my own.
    In all honesty claiming to be a Christian has little relevance in today’s world. The claim had significance at one time, but not so much a true focus on Regula Fidei in today’s world. Not to say there are not Christians seeking the Regula Fidei, it just isn’t a blip on the radar for some. I believe Dan Wallace is correct, that the Church is in trouble.

    We can find character flaws in nearly everyone or anything, yet choose to ignore our own flaws. Yet somehow we feel justified in looking at others inconsistencies, yet ignore our own. What are we really teaching others, how does our character truly look through such introjections? Looking for consistency isn’t as important as being consistent in truth, or consistently seeking truth. One could be consistently incorrect yet believe they are correct.

    So using this methodology of looking to others to represent, as a character witness, or define Christ himself is a character flaw in itself. There are good Christians out there and generalizing a small portion as representing the group is at best a fallacious argument, nothing more. When you reach perfection (as based upon Webster’s definition) look me up as I would want to be part of history in the making. Until that time I will stick to my beliefs, despite my character witness that may offensive to others. If you want to use my character witness as your crutch, please consult me before doing so for litigation purposes.

    Hopefully this post will be taken with stride, no jumping to conclusions as my humor is dry and so is my candor. I can empathize as to why people fall away due to this character witness clause, but not fully convinced it’s fully justified as a valid excuse. I too have had horrible experiences with Christians and Pastors during the 30+ years of my faith. A few times it did affect my views towards others, but over the years I looked for the true example of Christianity not so much what I expected from Christians. People will have the tendency to let you down that is just how it is, just make sure you take a hard look at yourself before passing too much judgment.

    I would consider it an honor for someone to place so much emphasis on my character witness (to make rational judgments or reach conclusions); however, I wouldn’t recommend doing so. Placing me that high upon a pedestal isn’t good for either of us and surely not healthy.

    As you were.

89. John C.T. on 19 Jan 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Re #38: CMP, “Folks, consider the apologetic you are given to the world. You are saying that you should follow the group, religion or worldview that is nicest.”

    Um, no. The “folks” are explictly NOT saying follow the “nicest”, they are saying follow if or because the Christians actions are consistent with the words of Christ. Christ did not bring the “nicest” religino by a long shot. I don’t read anyone here talking about being “nice”, I read people taling about being like Christ.

    Furthermore, as noted before, the historical evidence is not slam dunk. I’D be worried if womeone were basing their faith solely on historical evidence.

    Lastly, according to John Calvin, the elect are already selected. Those who are elec ted cannot resist God’s election regardless of the poor testimony of Christians, and those who are elected will never fall away, regardless of what their faith appears to be based on. And if someone does appear to leave the faith, or have their faith shipwrecked, it’s not because they based it on something weak or false, it’s becasue they were never elect in the first place. God just used poor theology as the means to show his lack of election of that person.

    So, don’t sweat it vis a vis shipwrecking your faith or witnessing to others. It’s like preaching to teh non-elect–we don’t preach in order that they be saved (cause they won’t be) but only out of obedience to Christ’s command that we preach. Similarly, we don’t do good theology either to keep our faith in good condition or to save others, but only because God’s Word tells us to test all things like Bereans and to live with good fruit of the Spirit.

    regards,

90. From The Balcony on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Ed B
    I took the time to read your lengthy post on your site (and others). While I appreciate the time it took to so eloquently write down the reasons you continue to question the existence of God, I think Michael’s statement ‘God will still be God no matter how you feel about his dictates’ remains accurate.

    Most of the people I encounter who, like you, have these kinds of questions, are never be satisfied with any answer any Christian gives. While you desire to have your questions answered about the nature of our existence, still – we exist. Serious Christians believe we exist because and only because of God.

    In my own limited way (I’m not a scholar but I study seriously), I’d like to say that this debate is the ‘never-ending’ debate. You obviously have read vehemently on the topic so you must acknowledge that man can only write within the scope of his limited knowledge. That means….YOUR knowledge will always be limited….and so will mine.) God, however, is not limited to the confines of our knowledge.

    I think the issue is not whether we can prove anything to you. I’ve tried doing this with others like you. Science alone, is not a reason to discount the existence of God. Science continues to change; those who know God know He does not change.

    I am reminded of Heb. 11:6. (All of Hebrews 11) Verse 6 says that without faith it is impossible to please him for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

    As I think of the early Christians who lived a few decades after the death of Christ, I’m sure that many of them had questions just like you and others have. (Even Christians long to understand these very deep things.) They weren’t ignorant. Paul reminds them—you must have faith to believe God exists. Ed, you are not willing to have that faith. I guess we could even go into a more lengthy Calvinistic debate about whether you are even chosen or not… (sorry, I got carried away)….and yes, I am reformed in my theology.

    Bottom line – until you rely on a Holy God to be the answer for those questions, your refusal to believe will remain. It’s not up to us to convince you of anything.

    I will, however, agree with your last paragraph, about how the gospel message of Christ has been perverted in America. We hate that as much as you do. Some of us don’t like what books like the Prayer of Jabez and Purpose Driven Life have done to our rich faith. I hope you will remember that not all protestants fit into your personally defined mold of us. I would, in fact, say many on this blog have broken through this mold. Don’t lump us all together, OK? Go ahead and spend thousands of hours trying to disprove the existence of God. The rest of us….know….because we’ve been taught through God’s Spirit a wealth of internal knowledge that sinful man can never understand without an interpreter. I, alone, do not have the power to understand. Only God gives me that gift.

91. Gerrie Malan on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    John C.T. – my understanding of election differs much from Calvin’s and doesn’t need a theology of excuses to cover for a seemingly unjust God who elects some for salvation, while others have simply missed the bus to start with. Oh, and I have read so many wonderful explanations, but in the end they all fail.

    The Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ preached is called the Good News – not only for some but for all who believe in Him.

    The Elect are simply that specific generation (of the apostles) through whom the transition came from the Mosaic dispensation (a.k.a. the “present” – to the writer – evil age) to the New Testament kingdom. It also removed the dividing wall between one nation and the rest. You know the Scriptures that directly and indirectly address the fact that there is no more Jew, nor Greek, nor… That brings parallel concepts like suffering with Christ into its proper context too – many of that generation were crucified, beheaded, thrown to the lions, etc. Modern sermons on how we should consider it a blessing to suffer with Christ have lost the Biblical context.

    We cannot randomly transport all that was written to our time and presence. Much of popular modern theology has done just that and has moved very far away from the context of the original writings of the NT. Its fruit is that we battle to find our own identity in Christ throughout all of our lives, our children become alienated from a faith they read about, but do not see in action. We also have the fruit of people such as the gentleman that moved Michael to post this discussion.

    I understand what Michael started out with and I can live with that, very conscious of my own failings. But I have a problem with the definition of “Christian” involved – especially as it was not initiated by any of the apostles and teachers of the NT times. Like the modern organisation or institution we call church, it was manmade. And seen from that perspective, character becomes, well, important.

    Regards.

92. Tom Ellis on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Michael,

    I agree with your perspective. CS Lewis stated in “Mere Christianity” that the argument that any Christian “should have” better character than any non-Christian is invalid. Rather, he posits that a Christian should be a better person after having been saved than before…having been born again, imperfectly repenting of old ways.

    I would also conjecture, Michael, that the individual to whom you referred that converted to Buddhism was not a born again Christian. There are lots of Christians in name only that turn out to be humanists in search of some brand of spritualism to support their brand of humanism. Humanists focus on standards and values that are established by humans, not by God. The actual church is much smaller than the number of those that identify themselves as Christians.

93. Witness Matters « Minnowspeaks Weblog on 19 Jan 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    [...] there I thought I’d bring it home. The initial point of the post was summed up in the title: “Christianity Does Not Depend on Your Character Witness”. Mr. Patton repeated the point twice in the body of the post saying, “Christianity is not [...]

94. Susan on 19 Jan 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Ed, here’s a quote from Dan Wallace’s recent plenary lecture at the ETS:

    1. [The incarnation as a methodological model for historical investigation]
    Finally, there is one theological a priori that I think evangelicals must have as we do the work of textual criticism—indeed, as we do the work of theology, exegesis, archeology, etc. It is belief in the incarnation of the theanthropic person. God invaded time-space history in the person of Jesus Christ. The Judeo-Christian scriptures are the only scriptures in the world that subject themselves to historical inquiry. The Bible puts itself at risk in a world of science and history while the sacred scriptures of all other religions (including the Gnostic gospels) are untouched and non-falsifiable, because they do not intersect with the real world.

    The incarnation is both a redemptive event and a methodological model. The incarnation is God’s ‘yes’ to the question, Can I investigate Christianity with historical rigor? The incarnation serves notice that we dare not treat the Bible with kid gloves. The incarnation not only invites us to examine the evidence, it requires us to do so. The fact that our religion is the only religion in the world that is subject to historical verification is no accident: it’s part of God’s design.

95. Daniel M Villa on 19 Jan 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Michael,

    Interesting thought: Jesus alone validates Christianity.

    Followers of Christ also validates him or deny him by the way they live. Jesus made this clear in many passages. As someone who ministers in places where Christianity is banned, preaching or writing is a crime, the witness of Christians is very important. Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:11-13.

    While it is true that Christianity is true because of Jesus objectively, our witness either validate or deny that claim.

    May I suggest that you address the Israel-Palestinian issue. That should be an interesting topic.

    Daniel

96. EricW on 19 Jan 2009 at 10:14 pm #

    Daniel M Villa on 19 Jan 2009 at 9:35 pm #
    .
    Michael,
    .
    Interesting thought: Jesus alone validates Christianity.
    .
    Followers of Christ also validates him or deny him by the way they live. Jesus made this clear in many passages. As someone who ministers in places where Christianity is banned, preaching or writing is a crime, the witness of Christians is very important. Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:11-13.
    .
    While it is true that Christianity is true because of Jesus objectively, our witness either validate or deny that claim.
    .
    May I suggest that you address the Israel-Palestinian issue. That should be an interesting topic.
    .
    Daniel

    Am I correct in guessing that you are in an Arab and/or Muslim country? (Or China, perhaps?)

    If so – or even if not so – why not state your views/position on the Israel-Palestinian issue? Then CMP can use your post and comments as the lead-in or basis for a post/essay on the subject.

97. Sharon on 19 Jan 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Although I am having trouble remembering it after all the comments I just read, I agree with Michael’s post, which as I recall basically stated that the truth of Christianity is not validated by the character of its adherents (or those who call themselves Christians). This reminds me of a quote that is attributed to Ghandi that went along the lines of saying that he liked Christ, it was Christians he didn’t like. Whether something (in this case, Christianity) is true is based on whether it is true, not whether it “works” or makes someone a moral person. And while I agree that once saved, I should behave in a way that is different from how I behaved before, that has bearing more on my witness or whether I am really saved than on whether the good news of Christ’s life, death, atoning work on the cross for my sin and His resurrection are true. (I know we are saved for and not by good works, and I don’t want to get into the faith vs. works argument here.)
    And, this is off topic, but I do not understand how disagrements over Creationism and young earth, old earth, etc. can cause someone to become agnostic. This does not seem to me to have anything to do with the essentials of salvation? Michael I know you moderate, you may want to address all that in a separate post.
    Sharon

98. Gerrie Malan on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:51 am #

    Hello to all. Thought much about all the argumentations as I was shaving this morning.

    Galations 5:16-26 addresses the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit. In this regard Paul states clearly that “those who belong to Christ … must also follow the Spirit.” He is adamant about that and is definitely not presenting it as one of several options one should consider.

    The two sides Paul describes are rooted and grounded in character, whichever way you wish to look at it. Jesus also made a number of very profound statements about the fruit, and once again it reflects character.

    If people therefore look at “Christianity” and do not see the fruit Paul described, I’m afraid one cannot blame them if Christianity does not draw them to the Christ. WE are described as His ambassadors, called to be the light, etc. The Bible does not state we should not make mistakes. Then we repent – and while people will respect you for what you know, they will love you for the way you repent.

    I’m afraid that the compromises that have been and are being dished up in the “Christian” world have brought us where we are today. So, in summary, we can say whatever we want, people will judge the “Christian” by the fruit they see in that person’s life compared to what they have been told the Bible says. And that will validate “Christianity” in their eyes, whether we agree or not. BY THE FRUIT YOU WILL KNOW THEM! And we cannot divorce that from character.

99. Jason C on 20 Jan 2009 at 5:05 am #

    Seth R, try JP Holding’s book The Mormon Defenders where he deals specifically with the claims that differentiate Mormonism from orthodox Christianity.

    The truth of Christianity is rooted in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Josh McDowell observed this himself when he described a discussion with a Hindu man who couldn’t believe that any religion would render itself subject to the vagaries of historical events. Though all men be liars, the truth remains. As a historical event, the resurrection is as well attested as anything else pre-printing press, and better than most others. If we apply a consistent standard (rather than the arbitrary hyper-scepticism that atheists cling to) we have no reason to discount it.

    Christians are, as Gerrie observes, ambassadors of Christ. In ancient terms we bear His image (not that we look like Him, we represent Him). Because of that we ought to try to model ourselves on Him, and conduct ourselves in such a manner that we bring no dishonour to Him. To our discredit this is not always the case. However that is a separate matter from whether Christianity is true.

    In that respect Christianity is more concerned with orthodoxy than orthopraxy. Or perhaps equally concerned is a better way of putting it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason can be as bad as doing the wrong thing period. Since, as I believe, Christian morality is deontological, being motivated by obligation and gratitude towards God, any moral act that is contrary to that may well be the wrong decision.

100. Gerrie Malan on 20 Jan 2009 at 7:18 am #

     Jason C. You’ve stirred a thought in me and if not anyone else, it brings me closer to a firm foundation in this specific matter. I don’t deny or oppose the view that Christ alone validates the truth that “Christianity” is supposed to represent. I think it was Dr. Howard Hendricks who said that truth is truth, whether one knows it or not, or acknowledges it or not. Christ is the everlasting truth irrespective of any man’s attempt at validation.

     BUT: that is one thing. Perhaps we should differentiate validation then. The second aspect would then be validation of “Christianity” as representing the truth in the eyes of man. And this is where we either draw people to Christ or push them away. And sadly, whether you agree or not, too large a part of the organisation called church pushes people away and alienates many who have been part of the church for long.

     I have just returned from a discussion with two businessmen who are Christians – but thery are fed up with the church, with the manipulation and hypocrisy. One of them told of a recent experience when he and a business associate were driving past a the building site of a new church building and his companion remarked: “Another one man business going up”.

     A lady friend sends me an email from a very well-known lady evangelist (on worldwide TV channels) inviting the reader to “purchase” seven “blessings” of God “for your gift of 60 dollars or more”. And so it goes on and on.

     Does all of this really not reflect on character and does it not contribute towards validation of Christianity? As an ex pastor, I simply want no part in “cultural Christianity” – I yearn for the real thing. And I’m not finding it in church! You may disagree – but that is the truth from my heart!

101. Gerrie Malan on 20 Jan 2009 at 10:32 am #

     By the way – has anyone read the survey article “5 Kinds of Christians” in Leadership Journal? Makes one think.

102. John C.T. on 20 Jan 2009 at 12:37 pm #

     I agree Gerrie (re #100), and so have many others (see my early post #16 for a similar concer about what is meant by “validation”. To validate something is to find evidence and argument that confirms it. It is an exercise in “epistemology”, and exercise in how we know something to be true. In his later posts, CMP is still equivocating on what he wants done when asks for Christs work to be “validated”.

     What most people mean by “validate” is “to confirm the truth of”, which is a question of how they know something to be true. Thus, the character of Christians is an important part of vaidating the truth of Christ’s claims about who he was. Even he did rise from the dead, that doesn’t prove that he was God; it just proves that he was a human that rose from the dead.

     For various examples of the validation of Christ and Paul’s message about him, read Acts. In chpater 19, Pauls’ message is vindicated, not because of some historical evidence, but because of Paul’s ability to heal and expel evil spirits.

     How silly it is to appear to throw down the gauntlet of “who will say validate Chrsit by my life?”. the gauntlet has already been thrown down by the unsaved of the world, and the mantle of that responsibility already been laid upon us by Jesus. What does Paul write in 2 Cor. 3? That we are a living epistle read by all men. Or how about Titus 1:16, where those that in words profess Christ actually deny him in their works?

     regards,

103. Susan on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:28 pm #

     John C. T., OK then, does that mean that if a Christian has an affair, or an abortion, or cheats on their tax return, that Christianity in invalid? ….that it must be false?

104. C Michael Patton on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:35 pm #

     Right Susan…

     Or is it even less true than before. If no, then my point is made.

     THanks!

105. Seth R. on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:56 pm #

     I don’t mind if the believer internally makes this distinction between the essence of the faith and the actions of its adherents. Logically, that’s sound and probably a good idea.

     I do mind when the faithful throw the distinction out as a means of washing their hands of responsibility when somebody falls away.

     I just think that this whole distinction is often used as a bit of congregational Novocain for crappy Christians who don’t want to own up to the fact that they became a stumbling block for one of God’s other children. So they try to make excuses for their bad behavior by saying “oh, he was just a spiritual wuss who couldn’t hack it – so good riddance.”

     That is not a helpful response and it needs to stop.

106. Susan on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:57 pm #

     Thanks Michael….. keep up the good writing!

     I continue to receive comments from agnostics from the following discussion. The original post was written by ‘Joe the Peacock’ who writes: How to Actually talk to an Atheist if you are a Christian. He does not identify himself as a Christian or an atheist ‘purposely’. I now know that he isn’t a Christian (he made that clear in a response to me), he would most likely call himself an agnostic.
     http://www.joethepeacock.com/2008/03/how-to-actually-talk-to-atheists-if.php
     Much of the discussion centers around this issue, which you have raised. His argument is basically ‘If Christians would just go about it in a nicer way, and be better, more socially conscious people then maybe we would believe that Christianity is true.

     I think that this is largely just an excuse to avoid facing the possibility that God might actually be an authority which they truly must submit to….. or face the consequences. If they are looking to find fault with a Christian, as their excuse to ignore Christ, they will find it. We are still sinners. That really isn’t the issue of their heart’s resistance.

107. Jason C on 20 Jan 2009 at 2:17 pm #

     I tend to focus more on the historical matter because that is where I find young people who self-identify as atheists produce most of their objections. Zeitgeist, and The God Who Wasn’t There typifies the kind of material that they regard as authoritative.

     If I hear one more person claim that Attis was a pre-Christian crucified, dying and rising saviour figure…

     Being civil is desirable, but then if we look at the Bible we see both Jesus and Paul putting the hard word on those who would dispute their message. The challenge-riposte method was standard practise for them.

108. RandyB on 20 Jan 2009 at 6:41 pm #

     Didn’t Jesus himself give us a look at two different individuals and their character witness in a parable in the book of Luke? In the parable of the Pharisee and the publican… One says he is thankful that he is not like the other… apparently he lives an upstanding life and says and does all the right things and has what is probably a fantastic character witness. The other asks God to have mercy on him because he is a sinner… he is probably well aware of the poor character witness he is portraying to others. Wasn’t he a much hated tax collector among his people. Yet, Jesus tells us that it is the Publican that will go home justified. I think this is much more than a lesson about being humble. And I don’t think it is a lesson that the justified man will then go home, have a change of heart, get a new job and not screw up again. Surely he wasn’t suddenly stripped of his humanity. Nor was I when I accepted by faith that it is the resurrection of Christ that saved me. Trust me, I’m still going to keep falling short. I think the parable is a lesson that we are all in the same boat of being spiritually dead in our sin and there is nothing we can bring to the table to change it. The long list of things that the Pharasee listed in his prayer won’t cut it, regardless of the fine character witness he displays. As stated in the original post, it is only the work of Christ that can change that. All we can do is come to grips with it, like the Publican, and have faith that our sins are forgiven; and faith is not a work. I’m no great Bible teacher, but by my understanding we have a parable from Christ indicating that nobody has a good enough character on which to validate or vindicate anything.

109. striker on 20 Jan 2009 at 11:14 pm #

     Susan. I think that Joethepeacock might be right. I mean for the most part. No matter how Christians act or how they go about saying who God is, God will stay the same. BUT if we aren’t nice, don’t try to be better Disciples of Christ, and are socially rude and unconscious toward the world then why would any of the world want to be a Christian???

     We must represent Christ in this world. Christ will stay the same but we (Christians) are the ones that are telling the world that we are representing Him.

110. Susan on 21 Jan 2009 at 12:14 am #

     RandyB, excellent response! I was just thinking today that there seems to be an underlying self-righteousness in many responses on this post. Sort of an ‘If we can just be better people we will win them’ mentality. Nope. The focus needs to always be on Jesus….. remembering with humility, that we are not worthy of what He has given us. We are sinners, and if anyone knew all of the dark secrets of our heart, they truly would not be drawn to Christ. The refreshing truth is: “God is apposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble”. Always point to Jesus when sharing the gospel, while acknowledging that I too am an unworthy sinner. People can grasp this.

     striker, It’s not that joethepeacock has nothing valid to say, but it’s interesting that he wants Christians to shut-up about the Gospel, and just be good people. I believe that Satan likes to deceive Christians to believe that they can share the Gospel without ever speaking it. Romans 10:14-17 says otherwise. Again, the Good News is about Jesus, not what good people we can be if we try harder. This is a message which must be spoken, or people will not know, or respond to it.

111. striker on 21 Jan 2009 at 12:36 am #

     Susan. Are you sure Joe said that?

     “he wants Christians to shut-up about the Gospel, and just be good people.”

     You weren’t saying that in #106. You talked about him saying that “we should go about it a better way.” I think that “it” is referring to ministering and sharing the gospel.

112. Susan on 21 Jan 2009 at 1:46 am #

     striker, I was not quoting the article, and it’s been awhile since I read the original post. I think that he was expressing that he would rather that Christians would just be nice do-gooders, and not interrupt him (atheists) with the Gospel message, which atheists really don’t want to hear anyway. It doesn’t surprise me at all that an atheist/agnostic would think that way, but the truth lies in a message which must to told, in order to be received. Thus, it is important for Christians to be kind and thoughtful, and build genuine friendships with all, but we are not making a mistake to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, even if we meet with some resistance, as Jesus, and the apostles always did…. when they proclaimed the Gospel.

113. Gerrie Malan on 21 Jan 2009 at 1:52 am #

     I’m afraid all the argumentation is really based on different definitions – there are clearly at least two filters through which the original post are being looked at. If with “Christianity” is meant Christ and the doctrine He taught, then Michael, you’re right – Christ is the sole validator.

     But that is not a defintion that fits modern “Christianity” and that the world out there understands. Also, Christ never preached “Christianity” – He preached the Kingdom of God. It was in Antioch that His followers were first called Christians by people. That would indicate followers of Christ and accordingly “Christianity” would indicate the community of followers of Christ, with their doctrines or teaching. The very term “Christianity” is then a creation of the human mind.

     If “Christianity” is then the same as the Kingdom of God, then it is true. Christ is the validator. The question is however: are they the same? 38 000 denominations? Are they then all validated by Christ? You cannot divorce them from their respective teachings and you cannot divorce then from “Christianity”. So Christ would be validating the following of the Law, slaughtering and offering of lambs, etc., as some “Christian” communities insist must still be done? But He also validates the rejection of the Law by Paul? He validates both the rapture and the fact that there is no rapture? Etc.

     The world out there does not understand “Christianity” in any other way, than that it is a religion, or religious system of men. If I teach them the Biblical principles but they do not see those principles in my life, I have already lost the cause. The realities of the “Christian” world is enough proof. Maybe we are talking about “Christianity” when that which the people see in us is “Christianism”?

     I am on my way this morning to visit a young man in prison. He was sentenced in 1998, but only imprisoned in 2004 after a dragged out appeal. Inbetween he found the validated truth of Christ, got married to a pastor’s daughter and they have two children. When he had to start serving the sentence after his appeal was turned down, his father in law took the daughter and two grandchildren and immigrated to England, starting a ministry there. They turned their back on this young man. When he spoke to me from prison the first time, he said that even the congregation turned their back on Him. He still believed and has completed a degree in ministry while in prison, but he was spiritually tired. His cry to me was that he now needed a (spiritual) father urgently. He is anxious to get out on parole to earn money in order to provide for his children even though the family have turned their backs on him. To me he manifests “Christianity” much more than his former father-in-law-pastor and the whole congregation!!!!!

     Please guys, tell him and people like him that the character of so-called “Christians” is not at issue; that it does not validate “Christianity”. I’m afraid they won’t hear you – for they do not see any resemblance with the Master’s teaching, or that of the apostles for that matter.

     And no Susan, it does not mean they want “Christians” to be faultless – they are simply looking for authenticity compared to what they are told it is all about. It includes being able to make mistakes, but repenting afterwards, not justifying and showing an air of self-righteouness! Sadly, when a “bishop” (another human title) beats his wife, runs for three days from the law, then gives himself over and is received with a standing ovation by his congregation, I’m afraid individually and as a community of believers they are not showing Christ to the world (in the world’s eyes). Or two pastors announce they are getting divorced, that counseling did not help them, that the one will continue as pastor of the congregation, while the other has already been appointed in a senior leadership position of another minsitry. No open repentance except for a few words? Etc.

     If I buy a car because it had received the title “car of the year”, but I get a dud, then no amount of assurance by the manufaturers that it really deserved the car of the year award, will make any impression on me. That’s reality.

     So for me: Yes, Christ validates the truth; He validates the Kingdom of God. No, He does not validate “Christianity”, the religion, for that is something that manifests in the eyes of the world at large in the character of the “Christians”. And character does not equate faultlessness, it is validated through authenticity! After all, Jesus quoted Isaiah in saying those people followed God with their words, but their hearts were far from him! He never said they were to be without any failing, but He certainly expected authenticity from them. The same principle applies here. For Jesus God remained the unchangeable truth that was the foundation of the Mosaic Covenant – but He clearly said the character of the religious leaders invalidated that truth in the eyes of the people. And He said it often!

114. Susan on 21 Jan 2009 at 2:45 am #

     Gerrie, I will only address your last paragraph, because it’s bedtime! When Jesus said those people (the Jews) followed God with their words but their heart was far from from Him, He was pointing out that they were self-righteous rule-followers (in theory) but that they didn’t embrace Jesus. They didn’t have a heart for Jesus. They were smugly thinking that they were right with God, because they were ‘keeping the law’, as they saw it. They didn’t see their need for Jesus, because they could not see the desperate need of their wicked hearts, for a Savior. He wanted more than ‘authenticity’ from them. He wanted them to humbly receive their Messiah/Savior, and Lord.

     Of course the religious Jews made a mockery of the truth. They were not redeemed….. they had not found their righteousness in God (as by faith, Abraham had), but rather thought that it came from themselves. Anyone who is spiritually dead will poorly represent the truth if they claim to adhere to it.

     I have NOT at any point said that a Christian’s character, and behavior don’t matter. I only say, as Michael has said, that the truth, established in Christ, is true regardless of whether I (or other believers) fail at times.

     And, there are always the tares among us….. who we think are in Christ, but they are self-deceived….. spiritually dead. The unrepentant. Yes, they give Christians a bad name at times. All the more reason to evaluate the faith by focussing on the ‘real deal’….. Christ Himself.

115. striker on 21 Jan 2009 at 3:01 am #

     Gerrie Malan. I had a few things that you said that I wanted to point out and say “I REALLY, REALLY, agree with” But I got distracted and forgot.

     So I will just say WELL SAID! I very much agree with you. Let it be the true Christ we fallow. He is even greater than a religion.

116. Gerrie Malan on 21 Jan 2009 at 6:13 am #

     Striker – thanks.

     Susan – I’m sure our differences are based upon our different definitions of “Christianity”. So I won’t labor that point.

     An update from my visit to S in prison this morning. When his appeal finally met with defeat, his pastor father in law let him know they are breaking all ties with him BECAUSE IT WAS NOT GOOD FOR HIS MINISTRY!” S (who has been ministering with well-known evangelists in South Africa in some of its more prominent congregations) responded that his f.i.l. had known his background from the beginning and yet allowed him to marry his daughter and minister in his congregation. The answer – it didn’t matter then, but it mattered now that he had to serve a sentence.

     Whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus the Christ in Mat. 7:21-29 and others like that?

     Therefore I remain at the position that Christ validates the truth. He is the Way, the Truth, the Resurrection Life, the Door …. Neither Jesus, nor the apostles taught that Christianity is the Way, the Truth,…

     They should be the bearers of that truth – and that is where character comes into play again.

117. John C.T. on 21 Jan 2009 at 7:17 am #

     re Susan #103. It doesn’t mean that it is false, only that the evidence we have indicates it’s false. It’s a question of our ability to know, not a question of ultimate reality. The native in the middle of the Amazon who has never heard of Jesus can’t possible know if Christ existed. That does not mean, however, that Christ did not exist.

     How we know something and how we confirm its truth (validate) occurs in a number of ways. Validating a mathematical or geometrical theorem occurs in a certain way, a way that is fit to the kind of knowledge that math and geometry is. We wouldn’t, however, use geometry proofs to validate our knowledge of Jesus.

     When we look at confirming, or validating, the things Jesus taught and claimed, part of how we come to have knowledge of Jesus and confirm its truth is historical, part is the coherence and power of the written Word of God, part is experience (works of God, signs, internal perception), and part is how Christians live.

     CMP continues to confuse the commenters on this thread by not properly analysing what it means to validate something and by continuing to equivocate between how we know something is true and whether something is in fact true.

     We do not have direct access to “truth”, only God does because he creates reality. We do not create reality; we can only perceive it (imperfectly). Whether we believe something to be true or not, or whether we even know about something, is irrelevant to whether it exists (i.e. God’s perspective).

     However, facts such as the behaviour of Christians is an important component of how we know whether Christ is who he claimed to be.

     Consequently, it is entirely rational and appropriate for the gentleman to reject Christianity as false if no Christians behave as if they are indwelt by the Spirit. The problem with the gentleman’s reasoning, however, is that he is only looking at some Christians, and only at those (i.e., those who behave contrary to Christ) that support his belief that Christianity and Christ are not valid. He is “rationalizing” by only looking at things that support his prejudice or bias that Christ is false. A more fulsome and appropriate analysis by the gentlemen would take into account people like missionaries, Mother Theresa, nature itself, history, cosmological and other philosophical arguments for God, etc.

     To return to #103 & #104, our behaviour cannot create reality (except the reality of our behaviour) and so our unChristlike behaviour cannot make it that Christ did not exist or is not who he claimed to be. However, our unChristlike behaviour can fail to provide evidence for Christ and even provide contrary evidence. That evidence confirms or disconfirms (validates, invalidates) the claims made by Christ and his apostles.

     regards,

118. Peter on 21 Jan 2009 at 8:37 am #

     Imagine Christianity had died out in the 2nd century.

     Then in 2009, someone digs up a New Testament in the sands of Egypt or something.

     Do you think there will be a rush of people to adopt this newly rediscovered religion? Outside of supernatural forces, I don’t think so.

     What do you think Michael? Is 2000 years of real life Christians in any way influential in your validation of Christianity? I think you’ll probably have to admit that it is.

119. minnow on 21 Jan 2009 at 10:35 am #

     Three cheers Gerrie # 113 and # 116 also John C.T. # 117. I think the definition has been blurred. One arguement to say my character does not validate Christ. A whole other argument to say my character has no influence on an unbeliever’s willingness to examine Christianity as true. Probably hitting the end of this post but it’s been helpful to read your comments.

120. John C.T. on 21 Jan 2009 at 10:56 am #

     A nuance to “truth”: Christ does not merely validate truth by how he lived and died, He IS truth (so he claimed). But again, for Christ to BE truth, and for us to KNOW that He is truth are two different things.

     regards,

121. C. Barton on 21 Jan 2009 at 1:20 pm #

     It might be said that the only “christian” practice that is condemned is that of hypocrisy, as denounced by Jesus himself. And from what I understand, the Pharisees under His rebuke were good actors (the Greek for actor has the same root as our word hypocrite) who put on a good show for public consumption, but in reality they could care less about holiness or obedience from a sincere heart. They thought that they had a universal “get out of hell free” card.
     And today, how many congregants, even pastors, really don’t believe this “born again” stuff, but merely go throught the motions?
     Hey, Jesus also said that if we were doing things right, the world would hate us and slander us – so let’s not get too comfortable with good reviews from the children of darkness, eh?

122. John C.T. on 21 Jan 2009 at 2:23 pm #

     Further to my claim in #107 that CMP is equivocating on the meaning of “determine” and confusing issues. If one looks at his comment #78, we find him quoting CT and then responding, as follows, ““If, however, Christianity promoted or endorsed certain character traits (e.g. bigotry), this would provide a prima facie reason for rejecting Christianity.” I understand where you are coming from, but this is not correct. Contingent beings do not determine reality. If, for some strange reason, Christ did promote bigotry, we could not raise our hands to the Non-contingent One and say, “I object” and expect our objection to determine reality. You may not like it, but we cannot place our judgment above that of God’s whatever it may be.”

     Note that CT was writing about how we know whether something is true, about the evidence for our knowledge and beliefs, about whether our beliefs are warranted. CT noted that a sinful life is evidence that there is no Spirit indwelling Christians and thus evidence that Christ’s claim on this point is false; evidence, in fact, that Christ himself was a phony.

     CMP’s response, however, was on a competely different topic; indeed, he did not actually respond to CT at all. CMP wrote about what “determines” reality. His observation is the trivial one (well, maybe not so trivial in a postmodern age) that we cannot determine or create reality merely by believing or disbelieving something.

     Christ may or may not be true, but how do we know that? Christian behaviour is an important component of the evidence that validates or invalidates the claims made by or about Christ.

123. John C.T. on 21 Jan 2009 at 3:09 pm #

     As you may surmise, I’ve spent a fair bit of today on hold.

     Note in CMP’s comment #26 that he references the historic incarnation. However, history is a no beteer proof than our lives (indeed worse, as I will get to in a moment). What CMP states about about the argument to validity from a lived Christian life can be said about any other argument or reason or evidence that one might give for the validity of Christ’s claim. No apologetic will change the truth of Chrsit, all they can do is provide evidence as to why we should believe. Even history is merely an accumulation of evidences. So there is nothing we can say or do or think that changes past or present reality.

     Furthermore, note that the validity of Christ is not the same as the validity of, for example, a methematical argument. 2 +2 = 4 or it doesn’t. The same goes for much more complex math and physiscs–one can show the validity of a theorem by supplying the correct mathematical proofs. Christ is not subject to mathematical proof. The analysis of history, of allegedly historical events is not one that is either true or not tru (as mathematical analysis is). Historical analysis is a matter of varying degrees of certainty about accuracy. WE do not now have direct access to the embodied Christ of history. The embodied Chrsit disappeared from this earth 2,000 years ago.

     However, each Chrsitian does have direct access to Christ through His Spirit. We are in Chrsit and Christ is in us through the indwelling of His Spirit (a.k.a., the Holy Spirit). Therefore, Christ is actually prfesent in this world through our lives lived in the Spirit. If Christ is not alive in us Christians, then he is not alive at all; he is invalid. Hence, the gentleman actually hit the nail on the head and CMP missed the entire board. A Christians’s life directly goes to the validity of Christ because it is not just the Christian living his/her life but Christ living through them. They are Christ in the world, they are his body. If the body is not alive (becasue there are no living works, no love), then Christ is not alive either.

     When nonChristians come into direct contact with us, they come into direct contact with Jesus Christ.

     Let me illustrate with an excerpt from a recent article in the London Times by Matthew Parris (timesonline):

     “But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

     Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

     I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

     But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.”

     regards,

124. dcarrington on 22 Jan 2009 at 1:33 pm #

     Thanks for this great post! I have long tried to instill in people the idea that you cannot judge Christianity by Christians, but only by Christ.

     This topic could be discussed in enormous detail, but I think you’ve done a wonderful job of clarifying clearly and concisely that this is about Christ, not about Christians.

     What many people don’t seem to understand is that every Christian is in a different place when they come to Christ and the process of sanctification begins. Therefore, if someone was a mess and then accepts Christ, they are not immediately transformed into a loving, compassionate, generous, kind, uplifting person that we would all want to be around.

     Instead, they are still a mess, but are finally on the road to recovery. And only God knows how far along that road of recovery any individual is.

     Great article!

125. Buzzman on 22 Jan 2009 at 6:32 pm #

     A popular Christian songwriter once wrote:
     “Can they see God for who He really is, and what He sees in you and me?”
     “For who He really is all they really need to see.”

     People aren’t perfect and never will be.
     God is and always will be.

126. Chad on 12 Feb 2009 at 8:16 pm #

     Michael,

     Awesome, awesome, awesome article! So many times I’ve heard, “I’m not a Christian anymore because I didn’t see any evidence of it’s validity among those who claimed the name.”

     You have done some fine work here! Thank you!

127. Gerrie Malan on 20 Feb 2009 at 9:13 am #

     Something that came my way by email:
     “The world isn’t reading the Bible; they’re reading Christians like you. And if they don’t like what they see in you, they’re not going to want what you’ve got — Jesus.” – Christnotes.org

     Christianity is a manmade concept – was never used by Christ or his apostles. See the following as a description of what people are seeing today:
     Prophetic Lyrics
     RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA
     by Larry Norman

     There are Christians in Russia, they meet underground,
     In China they’re killed when they’re found.
     And in Cuba the Christians live up in the hills
     Because it’s not safe in the towns.

     And to think it might happen right here in America,
     I know you think it’s not true,
     But it’s happening to Christians right here in America,
     Wait ’til it happens to you.

     The Christians in Berkeley are passing out Bibles
     And food to the hungry
     They’re hoping to help out the people this way.
     But there are threats of the lives
     Of their leaders and wives,
     They’re not welcome to stay.

     And to think it might happen right here in America,
     Maybe you think it’s not true,
     If you think it’s not happening to Christians right here in America,
     Wait ’til it happens to you.

     There’s an underground church and it’s following Jesus
     And hoping to meet people’s needs
     But we don’t have the time to build nice little churches,
     Besides we don’t need to -
     We’re holding our church in the streets.

     And we are passing out leaflets and underground pamphlets
     From Buffalo to Monterey
     And we’re talkin’ ’bout Jesus and all of a sudden
     We’re arrested and taken away.

     So I ask you, America, where do you stand?
     Your people are starving, they’re beaten and they’re raped
     And they’re dying in jail cells, so what are your plans?
     I’m not talking to congress or you politicians
     Or Panthers or Muslims or Nixon or Birch,
     I’m addressing this song to the church.

     ‘Cause I’ve been in your churches and sat in your pews
     And heard sermons on just how much money you’ll need for the year.
     And I’ve heard you make reference to Mexicans, Chinamen,
     Niggers and Jews
     And I gather you wish we would all disappear.

     And you call yourselves Christians, when really you’re not,
     You’re living your life as you please.
     If you’re really a Christian, then put down yourself
     And follow wherever God leads.

     I’m not talkin’ religion, I’m talkin’ ’bout Jesus,
     Put all your plans on the shelf,
     Let’s stop marching for peace, and start marching for Jesus
     And peace will take care of itself.

     Well, I pray that we Christians will get off our sofas
     And stand up for what we believe
     The time is too short, and Christ is returning
     We’d better get ready to leave.

     We who are Christians should turn on the light,
     So the truth will shine bright as the day
     Jesus will come like a thief in the night,
     And he’ll steal all who love him away.

     There are Christians in Russia, they meet underground,
     In China they’re killed when they’re found.
     And in Cuba the Christians live up in the hills
     Because it’s not safe in the towns.

     And to think it might happen right here in America,
     I see you shaking your heads and I hear you saying
     It just can’t be true.
     But it’s happened to me right here in America,
     Wait ’til it happens to you

     Now I don’t necessarily agree with all the lyric writer said (like the thief in the night thing – for why would Jesus steal His own?), but it is certainly a Jeremiah type voice to the organised Christian world. And he is certainly not complementing them for living the truth. How much of it is actually addressing character?

128. Gerrie Malan on 20 Feb 2009 at 9:32 am #

     Maybe I need to refresh our minds on how this blog started out, and I quote the core of it all:

     “Christianity is determined as valid or invalid upon the character of its adherents.

     In other words, if Christians do not act a “good” way, then Christianity itself is discredited. In this man’s mind, Christians were on the wrong side of the conflict, therefore he left Christianity for something more suitable in keeping with the character that he supposed should accompany those who follow the true God.

     I am going to make a statement here that I suppose is going to make many of my readers upset. This especially goes for those who are more “emerging” in their thinking. Here it goes:

     Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents.

     Did you get that? Let me repeat.

     Christianity is not validated upon the character of its adherents. ”

     So the original argument was about Christianity and not about Christ! Christianity includes cults – the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, Armstrongism, etc. And they all claim the validation of their “truth” of Christ. And what about the 38000 or so denominations of Christianity. Or the variety of doctrines and their different nuances of truth based on the same Scriptures. Is that a picture of Christ validated truth?

     I posted something earlier on a young man I was visiting in prison. When he phoned his former congregation (where his father in law had been the pastor) – they were surpised to learn he was in prison as dad in law told them he was overseas. Then the leader/elder he spoke to responded by saying they wanted nothing to do with him, that he was a jailbird, a criminal and rubbish! Incidentally, this leader was caught out in an adulterous relationship some two years later. That is the kind of face of Christianity people see – certainly not the image of Christ.

     It certainly does not change one iota of the truth that is Christ, but it certainly reflects the values of the RELIGION called Christianity as people perceive it! A pastor can work over a long time to build up people in Christ, to save and heal a marriage – just to see his efforts destroyed in a moment by another Christian’s action. Character, or not?

129. Gerrie Malan on 24 Feb 2009 at 11:28 pm #

     QUOTE: “We have to recognize that we’ve created the system that we loathe. I don’t think the reason 15 percent serve is because 85 percent are lazy. We’ve created a system that glorifies the clergy and marginalized the laity. We got the outcome we created programs for. We’ve become ‘clergified.’ There’s a three-tiered structure: laypeople, clergy and missionaries. … All religions tend to create a class of people who are above others so 1) they can revel in that and 2) the rest of us can say it’s their job. Christianity was started without any of those structures, and ended up like so many false religions do when they create a ministry caste structure. When we see real movements of God take off, they happen when people are free.” -Lifeway Research director Ed Stetzer [rev.org, 2/09]

130. Seth R. on 25 Feb 2009 at 12:00 am #

     Gerrie, I don’t think the problem is necessarily institutional.

     I’m a Mormon, and our Church structure has no paid clergy (unless you count Church university religion professors). Our last Bishop served in his capacity for about 4 years and was then released. He was immediately called to teach the 4 year old children. That’s the kind of structure we have. Everyone is supposed to pitch in and anyone could be called to any position (provided they meet a few practical requirements).

     And we STILL have the exact same problem.

     There’s an old saying in the LDS Church that “twenty percent of the cows give eighty percent of the milk.”

     Despite our institutionalized lay clergy, Mormons have the same problems with overworked elites, and marginalized majorities. So I’m not sure the answer for other Christians lies with what you are proposing.

131. Gerrie Malan on 25 Feb 2009 at 1:08 am #

     Seth, I think what I’m really trying to say is that I read the Bible and I look at the organizations called church, whichever denomination or grouping, and I don’t see what I read. I read church news from all over the world, and once again I don’t see there what I read in the Bible. So, something is very, very seriously wrong.

     I served a youth ministry for the past three years. Last year we uncovered gross mismanagement by the founder/CEO that had the ministry in a position of technical insolvency. Despite my warnings of the irresponsibility to go ahead with a year end function that is simply there to glorify the CEO, while there was a danger that the youth facilitators working for the ministry in schools would not receive their salaries, the function went ahead in November. Now in February the young people are being laid off and I’m branded (by the CEO’s pastor-mentor as someone whith poor relational skills, and that I have actually turned my back on God by objecting to the money wasting of which there have been a number of incidents. It’s sickening to say the least.

     Is it that there is no longer a quest for the truth, but a reading of the Bible to find my nuance of the truth? In other words, preachers are seeking out parts in the Bible, whether in or out of context and its original background, that suit their nuance of the truth and fit their personal agendas. The Christ-kind of love that John demands in his first Epistle has given way to all kinds of programs, seminars, etc. Maybe people are shying away because they have been abused or are seeing people being abused for the agendas of an organization that never was intended in the first place.

     So, I wonder (as an ex pastor, with a doctorate in theology) – where is the church that Christ built – that is if we believe that the Bible is God’s Word? Remember – He said to Peter that He would build His church?

     If we believe that the Bible is/reflects/holds/…the truth, and I see the absolute fragmentation of organizations all called Church of Christ, then I’m back at the beginning of this blog – CHARACTER! I see very little Christ in the church and a whole lot of pastor. Perhaps it was all lost in the 3rd century AD through the political maneuvering of one Constantine who turned the church into a government department and started paying them salaries. So we have a shrewd politician – and can we separate CHARACTER from that reality?

     Throughout history Christian persecuted and killed Christian – all in the name of Christ and the truth.

     It may sound harsh, but I am where I am because of the poor character reflected by people who call themselves CHRISTIAN LEADERS, and who seem to be untouchable. They no longer kill one another because of the law of the countries, but the persecution has not abated.

     So I believe Christ is the truth – but how am I to know the truth? Certainly not through the church – for which one or number among the many teaches the truth? Can I trust their CHARACTER? My experience says NO!

     If someone says he’s a Christian, I am wary. If he proclaims to be a pastor, I put up a wall. If he says “the Lord told/showed…me, I run!

132. Susan on 28 Feb 2009 at 11:57 pm #

     Gerrie, John Piper’s new book: Finally Alive is now available. He discusses Jesus’ command: “You must be born again”. I’m including a couple of endorsements:

     “When I was a boy my grandmother asked me, ‘Have you been born again?’ Though I didn’t understand what she meant at the time, that question led to my conversion to Christ. In this wonderful book, Pastor John Piper rescues the term ‘born again’ from the abuse and overuse to which it is subject in our culture today. This is a fresh presentation of the evangelical doctrine of the new birth, a work filled with theological insight and pastoral wisdom.”

     - Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

     “Many will be thankful that John Piper is here addressing the key need of our times. Every awakening begins with the renewed discovery of Christ’s teaching on the new birth. Here is that amazing teaching in lucid yet comprehensive form; with a relevance to readers worldwide.”

     - Iain H. Murray

     “Have I been born again? is not a question to be answered hastily. In this book, Piper strips away our complacency, arguing that many people falsely believe they are Christians. By examining the Bible’s teaching on the new birth, he shows us how to be certain our faith is genuine. Because no issue could be more critical, I believe this is the most important book Piper has written.”

     - Adrian Warnock, blogger

     “I cannot too strongly celebrate the publication of this book. Owing in part to several decades of dispute over justification and how a person is set right with God, we have tended to neglect another component of conversion no less important. Conversion under the terms of the new covenant is more than a matter of position and status in Christ, though never less: it includes miraculous Spirit-given transformation, something immeasurably beyond mere human resolution. It is new birth; it makes us new creatures; it demonstrates that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. All the creedal orthodoxy in the world cannot replace it. The reason why “You must be born again” is so important is that you must be born again.”

     - D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

     It seems to me that you have experienced some of the corruption which comes at the hand of pastors who are not truly “born again”. I know that you have had objections and concerns regarding the use of this term…… I hope you will read John Piper’s book. You can read the entire book online, and watch the sermons which inspired it at Piper’s website. Google: Desiring God John Piper

133. Gerrie Malan on 01 Mar 2009 at 4:11 am #

     Hello Susan,

     The “born again” doctrine was a major part of my doctoral thesis and I’m still studying the topic – and of course Piper’s views have been included in the ongoing literature study.

     While the frightening array of born again doctrines are all “nice” they miss the Biblical point. And my views are not new, for I find them in the works of scholars long gone, such as JD Lightfoot to name but one.

     Simply put, Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus pointed out that the Abrahamic bloodline was no longer the precondition for perceiving the kingdom of God, but was replaced by a “spiritual bloodline”. One of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry is the principle of parallelism. John 3 applies this in its reference to born of water and the spirit.

     Preachers love to quote 2 Cor. 5:17 – “when you are in Christ you are a new creation…” This is over-spiritualization and it simply refers to the fact that believers look at each other through renewed eyes – there is no longer Jew, nor Greek,…

     There are several examples where Paul underlines “you must put on the new man; you must…; etc. So if we believe that Christ is who He said He is, we must… The two Epistles to the Corinthians as a unit illustrate that there is not an instant spirituality. You have to put your feet in the water. Beyond any doubt the fruit will reflect in character.

     In the end what I seek in so-called Christian leaders (and remember I say ‘Christian’ and its derivatives are manmade and not God-breathed) is authenticity – and that unavoidably includes character. This is precisely why so many young people are leaving the church (according to Barna research in the USA) – they do not see authenticity in Christianity.

     Did not Jesus quote Isaiah about the people who honor God with their mouths but that their hearts are far removed from Him? So, what’s new?

     But all that out aside: is your daughter well?

     God bless
     Gerrie

134. Kara Kittle on 01 Mar 2009 at 4:37 pm #

     Some good arguments there. But I have some I would like to throw in as well.

     1:Did he ever know Jesus? Jesus said to the woman at the well…if you knew who it was that said give me to drink, you would ask of him and you would never thirst again…so apparently if you really know Jesus, you would not thirst for some other religion because you would have been satisfied in Jesus.

     2:Not understanding the actual roots of the church…we are grafted into a vine that already existed…hence Judaism is our mother faith and we are spiritually connected to Israel whether we like it or not (but I like it). God never cast away His people.

     3:We are called to be salt and light….we do have a commandment to walk right. The outward man is an expression of the inward man, and if the inward man is Godly, then it will be expressed outwardly but if it is not, then we become hypocrites. We are supposed to have the same mind of Christ and the same spirit. If we don’t then what are we saying?

     4:He turned to a religion based on self-satisfying works, and baseless enlightenment. There are no prior scriptures that support Buddhism. But what is the difference in a church that shows favoritism toward those who have money or dress certain ways and Buddhism and Hinduism that deny certain people as being human? BTW favoritism in the church is addressed and condemned.

     5:While Christianity is not based on our character, we still have the responsibility to conduct ourselves Godly because we are really supposed to have the nature and character of Christ in us. So in essence,when we say we are Christian, then yes it is based on our character…not the “old man” but the “new man”.

     So I take the position that he did not really know Jesus personally.

135. Susan on 01 Mar 2009 at 9:50 pm #

     Gerrie, So, do you not believe that a person’s conversion to Christ happens at one point in time, and at that point in time a person changes from a state of being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive?….. to being indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are you a universalist?

     I’ve been married for 21 years. I thought my husband was ‘in Christ’ (yes, a Christian) when we got married. Over the years of our marriage, he always attended church with me, but I could not see the fruit of the Spirit in his life at all. Jesus said, that you know a tree by it’s fruit. A good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Jesus said these things so that we would know how to discern whether a person was an authentic believer or not….. whether a teacher was true or false. Matthew 3:10 has John the Baptist warning the Pharisees… who think that they are righteous because of their law keeping, saying: “Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” John warned them to repent….. and to bear fruit in keeping with their repentance. They lived as hypocrites. Their heart was far from God, and they rejected Christ. They were ‘bad trees’.

     Back to my husband…. I suspected for some years that he might not be a true convert of the Lord Jesus’. I began to pray about this, and asked God to help me to know one way or the other, so that I would know better what approach to take with him. God answered that prayer specifically by causing my husband one day, to voice his true thoughts about how much he disliked the person I had become. He enumerated his gripes about me…. they all had to do with my interest in the things of Jesus such as my interest in Bible study, and Christian books and radio preachers and talking to others about Jesus etc. I think that my husband had been irritated by all of this for a long time, but never fully admitted it until that day. When it dawned on me that God had answered my prayer, I began to ask Him what I should do about it. One day, God prompted me to express my doubts about my husband’s spiritual condition to him. It wasn’t the easiest conversation, but it was clear, in the days that followed, that the impact of what I had said was very evident in my husband’s demeanor. We had some very significant conversations, he asked me questions, and he did a lot of talking with God. He was wrestling with it in a big way, because he had always struggled with doubts, and felt a great lack of peace in his life…..

136. Susan on 01 Mar 2009 at 11:11 pm #

     About a moth later, right after Christmas, I turned on the radio in the kitchen one day and a pastor was preaching about false conversion…. about how a person can think that they are saved, and even be very involved at a church, and yet not be truly saved. My husband was in the room, and he was all ears, because he had been giving much consideration to these things. We tuned in the next day for the second part of the series. That night my husband told me that he felt very convicted, and that he just wanted to have the peace that he had always lacked. A few months later, our pastor preached from Matthew 7:21-28 which addresses the issue of being ‘authentic’….. authentically ‘known’ by the Father…… authentically ‘in Him”…… authentic children of God. After all, a person can say they are authentic, but the truth about all men will be revealed “On that Day”. Those who are not ‘in Christ’ will not do God’s will, they will not bear the fruit of a believer. “Not every one who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven….”.

     My husband told me, a week after hearing that sermon, that he had something to tell me. He had finally given himself completely to Jesus. He finally had peace. I too felt a tremendous peace sweep over me upon hearing those words. In the days and weeks to follow, my husband began to exhibit an amazing appetite for God’s word, like I had NEVER seen in him before. He IS a new creation Gerrie. He is instantly someone I never before knew…. and I’ve been married to him for nearly 22 years now. He used to be arrogant, insulting and angry much of the time. Now there is a level of humility in him that I have never seen before. He even apologized for the terrible and hurtful way he has treated me throughout the years of our marriage. Occasionally now, he slips back into the former ways of talking to me, but then he feels convicted and comes to apologize to me. He often says things to me which reveal a level of humility which was foreign to him for 21 years of our marriage. He’s laid aside his ‘idol’, cycling, and has been spending time with our children, and developing loving relationships with them. I finally believe that he loves me!

     He is living proof of what it is to be ‘born again’, a ‘new creation’. I don’t think that that is over-spiritualization, Gerrie. My husband has been, and is being, transformed by the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. He is exhibiting the fruit of the spirit for the first time since we got married. He says and does things which I didn’t think I would ever live to see in him.

     And, as far as those kids who depart from the faith once they go off to college…… I really believe that for the most part, those are kids who were never true converts of Christ’s to begin with. They may have grown up in a Christian environment, and maybe they ‘prayed to ask Jesus into their heart when they were very young. Was that a true conversion? In some cases, maybe it was, but in other cases it wasn’t…. only God knows for sure, but parent’s sometimes hang all their hopes for their Child on those events, and never stop to consider….. when the ‘leave the faith’ as young adults, that maybe they were never really a child of God. Many are self-deceived about their spiritual condition… and the future which awaits them. Some are pretenders. Many of these ‘tares’, as Jesus called them, attend church every Sunday, some are pastors and leaders in the church.

     My husband wasn’t ‘authentic’. My daughter called him a hypocrite. She was right. Now, things are different! Not perfect, but there is so much evidence of the Spirit of God in is life….. like nothing I’d ever seen before in him. There are many tares in the church, Gerrie. Many pretenders, many false-converts. If someone is looking for an excuse to deny Christ… based on so-called Christians….. they won’t have to look far. Plenty of people call themselves Christians who’s hearts are like the Pharisees…..are far from Him. They are living in the realm of of self-righteousness. They will face the wrath of God ‘on that Day’ …. the Day of Judgement….. if their names are not written in the Lambs Book of Life. Woe to them!

     McKenzie is a bit sick, but managing to get along. She is a senior, hoping to pass Algebra II (which is looking ‘iffy’ right now), so that she can graduate with her class, and go on to college. Thanks for asking!

     Susan

137. Gerrie Malan on 02 Mar 2009 at 1:11 am #

     Hello Susan, thanks for your comments. Always great to have such a testimony. Incidentally, some months ago I had a meeting with another ex-pastor who said that he was convinced it is the church’s fault that people don’t know God. And when I use “know” I mean the Hosea 4:6 meaning of relational knowledge and not intellectual acknowledgement. My own testimony would be similar in many ways – being an elder in the church and not knowing the Christ!

     On born again: It is a wonderful descriptive term in the way you use it and I have no problem with that. In church circles it has unforunately become a misused term to a large extent. Many sermons on Sundays are simply motivational speeches dressed up in biblical terminology. They are not conveying what the Bible says. Several preachers I have heard lately, for example, explained when God said to Abraham his seed would be like the dust, God was referring to Ismael’s descendants – earthly. Then when God said again Abe’s seed would be like the stars He referred to Isaac’s descendants. Now that is probably a good illustration, but it’s not what the Bible says – both instances has to do with the vast number of Abe’s descendants, not their quality.

     The same is applicable to ‘born again’. What you explained is a description in line with the original Aramaic idiom, which means to become like a baby again (Psalm 51:10 carries the same meaning). But that is not what Jesus explained to Nicodemus – as I noted before He was referring to the Jewish pride in the physical Abrahamic bloodline. There are very few instances of the usage of ‘born again’ or similar expressions in the Bible and they differ too. One states born of God, the next born of the spirit (the original does not have capital “S”), and Peter uses born again by the imperishable seed of the Word of God. Therefore we need to understand each one in its proper context.

     Interestingly – and I go back to CMP’s earlier blog on criteria to judge essential doctrine – Jesus spoke about the born anew/from above question only once. That was in a private, nightly discussion with a Jewish religious leader! He NEVER, but NEVER spoke about it to His disciples or the multitudes (unless we want to assume He did – but then, what else do we assume?). The modern popular ‘born again’ doctrines only arrived on the scene in the 1970’s. And I can show you that there are an array of ‘born again’ doctrines – from being born again after saying a 3-sentence ’sinner’s prayer’ (a-la-Joel Osteen as an example) to being born again only one day at the ‘resurrection’. This last doctrine is based on the view that to be born of the spirit, you need to be spirit – that is invisible, in order to be able to see the kingdom, which only exists in the invisible realm. You see, all are taught as the truth and all are rooted in the Scriptures – but admittedly they are all interpretation’s. In the end we need to understand what the BIble really says. Incidentally, Paul does not use it (KJV), but rather uses the idea of regeneration.

     So, in summary, to say someone is ‘born again’ is a good descriptive term, but it is not the essence of what Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus.

     The ‘in Christ’ concept is another issue. It is used in different forms: in Christ, in the Lord, and in Him. It is largely a Pauline concept and is used in 4 broad understandings: (1) Something received in or through Christ; (2) the oneness of God and Christ; (3) the church or body of believers; and (4) the believer as a transformed person. And here too, there are many doctrinal variations. What is important though, is that we differentiate according to our position or standing in Christ and our conduct (walk; state) in Christ. Paul concentrated largely on the positional aspect – the Gospel is not rooted in man’s choice, but in God’s choice for man manifested in Christ.

     Therefore, to return to the original post of CMP – I say Christ validates the truth. Christianity is represented by a frightening array of doctrines on the same topics and Christianity can therefore not claim validation by Christ. And much of the doctrinal differences flow from the personal agendas of individuals and groups. The truth is Christ; Christianity is a manmade concept that sadly does not always represent the TRUTH.

     Blessings.

138. Kara Kittle on 02 Mar 2009 at 8:50 am #

     Let me ask this, if the Catholics had it right…then did Martin Luther have it wrong? But if Martin Luther were right, then did John Calvin have it wrong? And so forth and so one with so many other religious leaders in Christendom.

     The problem we have is not with Christianity itself, but the ways we view it and explain it. And some denominations have become exclusive, and bigoted. But if there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism then there must be one viewpoint, right?

     Take for instance Pentecostals (of which I am), some say we come from the teachings of John Wesley…to which I would say no because he was opposed to the idea of speaking in tongues and the KJV, and yet there were churches who were still continuing the practice before John Wesley was born.

     The Holiness Revivals came from that movement, we say, and yet Holiness was a doctrine already taught in certain Baptist churches before the modern Holiness movement began.

     There were individuals who believed in and taught things the Pentecostal church holds to long ago, and yet faced so much persecution it was done in silence. And yet no one questions other churches about why they were permitted to do such things to people who professed and confessed a faith in the Same Lord.

     So if the view of regeneration and “born-again” are the same, then it would be correct. Nicodemus points out “can a man go back into his mother’s womb” to which Jesus answers”that which is born of the flesh is flesh but that which is born of the water and the Spirit is spirit”. There is no way to re-birth a Jew to a Jew to bring the Jew unto the Abrahamic covenant..but a Jew can convert and come under the new covenant….but in essence remains a Jew because of their blood.

     The name Pentecostal was tacked onto us from Azuza Street and stuck from that day…but there have always been people who had adhered to the same teachings for much longer. But we are still viewed by many mainstream to be false.

     Christianity is not man-made, it is an amalgamation of ideas and viewpoints centered on small points of doctrine. I have been belittled in my life for being Pentecostal, people from other churches have cursed at me, preached at me, called me names and even went so far as to hold bashing services against me, before asking me what I believe. In one church I visited because I was invited a woman in the church asked me if I have a home church and when I replied I am Pentecostal, she stuck her hand in my face and said “Whatever” and walked away.

     It is such incidents like those that force unbelievers to question the validity of Christianity. When a church becomes exclusive, then it is not holding to the Great Commission. It is those individuals within the church who believe it is ok to treat others in such manners that turn people away.

     The doctrine of your church should be Bible Based. But can I say to C Michael Patton that he has it all wrong because he believes in Calvinism and not Pentecostal? No, because we have the same Lord and Savior. He understands God from where he is, the same as I understand God from where I am. God is smart enough to figure out how to teach us individually who He is, As long as we don’t change definitions of the Bible to suit us.

139. C. Barton on 02 Mar 2009 at 8:47 pm #

     I used to say that some are not saved because of their doctrine, but in spite of it, spite being not pejorative, but as a rhetorical comment on our imperfect knowledge and understanding of many issues which are not clear to many.
     In James 1:5, we are encouraged to ask for wisdom and that God will surely answer us. And John tells us that when we abide in Christ, He will give us light.
     However, Mr. Patton has presented us with challenges to our understanding of what are “core” beliefs: and if you know of the polls taken in the church today, there are relatively few (approx. 20% to 40%) who believe that Jesus was sinless, or that He is the ONLY way to spiritual rebirth.
     If we liken core doctrine to software in a computer, then faulty core doctrine will not produce the spiritual fruits intended for the church, who are called to be examples of God’s unconditional love for humanity. Maybe we should look for an error message when we stray from the Word?
     The prerequisite for knowing the Truth and being set free is to hear (really know it in your heart) and put it into practice! In fact, everywhere I look in the gospels I see Jesus taking absolute delight in RESPONSE to Him and His words, for instance the tax collector who gave to the poor and paid back anyone whom he had cheated (Luke 19: 1 – 9), or the thief hanging on the cross beside him: faith was the key, and without it we cannot please God nor can we produce good fruit without it – not belief only, but a living faith (James again).
     So, not to sound trite, but we must lovingly embrace the core truths which will produce the effect (with God’s miraculous work) that we call, “Good Character” and let the world see the results!

140. Gerrie Malan on 03 Mar 2009 at 2:06 am #

     Susan, I owe you an answer on your question whether I’m a universalist. The answer is unequivocally NO! But neither am I a Baptist, or Evangelical, or Methodist, or Pentecostal, or Charismatic, etc. I am a believer in the Christ of the Bible, the One who is the Truth and the Way and the Life – not the one misrepresented in countless books of the shelves of Christian bookshops.

     C. Barton – you have presented a wise post.

     Kara, in saying that Christianity is manmade, I am referring to the manifest organization and its rituals and liturgies, etc., that we see. The one with 38 000 denominations. The one of whom research (Barna group) has found that 49% of Protestant pastors do not have a Biblical worldview. A body? Phew! In one accord! Phew again! The explanation of many members, yet one body cannot apply, because one body cannot go many different directions.

     It is historical fact that the church never had full-time paid ministers until the the third century when Constantine turned the living church organism established by Christ on the foundation of His apostles and their clear teaching of the Gospel (Acts 2:42) into an organization – in reality a government department. Apostolic vision was removed, the prophetic as well – really most of what the Pentecostals for example hold dear.

     Some years back I found a printed copy of a prophetic allegory by Robert Burnell dated 1980. It is worthwhile reading as a reflection upon where Christianity/Christendom finds itself – one only has to follow the Christian TV channels for one day. It can be found at the following website: http://www.eaglevision.com.my/escape.html

     As a matter of interest: Sunday evening I heard a preacher who was introduced as one with an anointing to raise funds twice say “God loves you, but He loves your money more”! Drawing people unto Christ?

141. Kara Kittle on 03 Mar 2009 at 9:51 am #

     Gerri,
     You have to know, I was one who’s parents were raised under such preachers as A.A. Allan, Oral Roberts, Leroy Jenkins and others like that. I know there is a lot of hucksterism in churches.

     The problem goes back to this, not being educated enough in the Bible and not being taught that living a Christian life is more than just listening to Gospel music and going to church on Sunday morning. But that being said, there are so many honest, believing people within our ranks who do know. For many years people were attracted to Pentecostalism because were not an exclusive organization and allowed for once poor people to sit beside rich people and was the first denomination that promoted desegregation.

     For many years people were told any type of education was unnecessary because all they needed was to be taught by the Holy Ghost. This led to problems because some people could not read and where left at the whims of hucksters. So then when Bible Colleges were being built within Pentecostalism they were not taken serious by mainstream churches, and yet provided courses and curriculum equal with mainstream colleges.

     We look at tv preachers today and assume they received no education whatsoever which is not true. But the stereotypes against us continue even now. The largest church in the world is Yoido Full Gospel Church in South Korea. There has been a lot of work done in faith to be able to attract 800,000 plus in a predominantly Buddhist country.

     But it goes back to the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ “and the poor shall have the gospel preached to them” Now you can translate that as poor in spirit, but why would Jesus not say that if He said it in another setting. No, the poor were being rejected even in his day from coming into the temple and buying sacrifices.

     We can look at these various tv preachers or preachers in superchurches or where ever they may be, the poor are having the Gospel preached to them by means of television, radio and continuing missionary work. The problem that happens is there are few teachers and more preachers. But I can’t tell you how many times I have heard people tell me they attend a “formal” church but are a closet Pentecostal because they are treated with contempt among the members of their churches.

     I asked someone who attends a Fundamental Baptist church how they handle people who are members but practice speaking in tongues…the answer was “Well if they do, they are not real Christians and we are told to completely reject them, even if we see them on the street we are not even supposed to say hello” That seems harsh because the person who is speaking in tongues never denied their faith in Christ, they just believed a little different than the tenets and creeds of the that particular church.

     God loves us, but wants us to show it by loving each other.

142. Gerrie Malan on 03 Mar 2009 at 11:37 am #

     Kara, I’m not sure if you perceive that I’m negative towards the Pentecostal people? Not so, I have wonderful memories of the years I spent in the Pentecostal family. I also have bad memories (like the pastor who cancelled the soaking prayer meeting because he needed the hall for a private Amway meeting). I don’t question Pentecostalism, my problem is people and their personal agendas – we started out about character, remember. And character of leaders and members validate Pentecostalism the same as any of the other denominations.

     On the other hand there are Christians whose teachings I disagree with, but whom I respect for the admirable way they live their faith and walk their talk. That is the issue in a nutshell.

     I remember a story of a missionary going to an island where he was prohibited to have a Bible or speak the Gospel. Years after his death the island opened for Christian missionaries. When the first Missionaries started preaching Jesus, the islanders said they knew him, he used to live among them and was buried there. They then showed the missionaries “his” grave. Now whether that is just a story or the truth I do not knw, but it surely illustrates what I’m trying to say.

     We hear the message of being ambassadors of Christ – but how many who regularly attend church (no matter which denomination) reflect any sort of ambassadorship?

     Let’s start again with validation or not through character…

143. Dr. G. on 17 Apr 2009 at 2:36 pm #

     “By their fruits you shall know them”?

     Could this be applied here to say, by the fruits – acts; behavior – of Christianity today, we can know how true and good the original founders were?

     That might not seem fair, or accurate. But it might be Biblical?

     You might want to single out one group as having better fruits; as being truer Christians; truer to the founders. But then … finding out which group this is, is notoriously difficult.

     And here you didn’t particularly try: the title suggests we look at “Christians” as a whole.

     And to be sure, judged as a whole?

144. Leah on 27 Apr 2009 at 7:30 pm #

     A hypocrit is an actor. This means someone is claiming to be a christian and may not be. If you ask for a definition of what a christian is you will find different people giving different answers.
     That becomes a problem.

     Imature or false Christians , do not look like lights of the world.
     Is it possible that true Christianity is being defaced by copys?

     I thought I was a Christian but noticed I did not live the Life Christ asked me to.
     True Christians are a work in progress , but if they are still acting evil after many years , they are abusing Christ.

     I do not think it is right to claim Christianity and live like the devil. Mabe we should call ourselves progresive believers in Jesus seeking to become a little more like Him each day.

     Grace should lead to gradual change or maybe even a somewhat fast change.I do not think very many Christians get past the saved by grace issue to see that God has made us new creatures in Christ. Thats in the Bible . New Testement!

     Jesus is real ,but ignorance in a majority of Christians , which by the way means Christ like , makes them not look Christ like.
     Therefore we deserve to be called unn Christ like if we practice evil.

     Maybe we should all find out what is a believer in Christ compared to a full on Christian who is starting to look like Christ.

     Check out 1 John it is a far cry from just saved by Grace.

     Hmmm maybe some are saved but not realy making Jesus LORD.
     That may answer your question.
     How many people do we meet that even come close to Paul ,yet allone Jesus.
     Time for some repentence and getting to know our God so that we do not represent him so badly.
     We might pray he does not hold us accountable for making him look bad. Yes we are saved by Grace but so few look like Him.

     Maybe those who look at Jesus and His word and not at us may start looking more like Jesus then we have.
     God forgive me for not knowing him as I should.
     Thankyou for listening and may you meet the real Jesus and surpass us all in looking like the real thing. God Bless you all!!!!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.