Last week I met with an old friend of mine who I had heard was a “swinger.” For those of you who don’t know, swinging is when both partners in a committed relationship agree to have a sexually open relationship. This guy was married and came in to talk to me about – you guessed it – marital problems. The idea in “swinging” is that things never become mundane. Sexual monogamy, according to swingers, is nothing more than confining yourself to sexual boredom. Being with the same partner becomes cliché and uneventful. Swinging keeps things fresh and novel at all times so the high produced by provocation is always maintained.

As problematic and destructive as marital swinging is, that is not what I am writing about. I want to talk about what I call theological swinging. This is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems in theology today (and probably of any day). Let me explain.

Before going to seminary, I was given a set of books by my pastor. At the time he was, to me, the smartest person living on planet Earth. I salivated to get a peek of his notes each week. I wanted to record everything he said. And just to get to see his library – the source of the very sun! – was just about too much excitement for me to handle. That is why I was speechless the day he gave me two books, one blue and one red. I knew these were precious books to him due to the amount of notes and stickies that covered the dog-eared pages. What were they? Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volumes 1 and 2 by Josh McDowell. Upon reception of these books I read them cover to cover. The wisdom and knowledge that filled these pages was almost too much excitement for this 20-year-old apologist wannabe to take. It was so provocative to me. The provocation came, not from learning the Gospel for the first time, but from seeing for the first time, with my own eyes, an attempt to defend Christianity. “Are you kidding me?” were the words I said each time I hit a new topic. This guy, Josh McDowell, must be a giant of the faith, demanding respect from everyone. He was my new hero.

It was not until I hit seminary that I found out the “truth:” You see, at seminary, among all the students “in the know,” I came to find out very quickly that these kinds of works are frowned upon. I came to find out that McDowell’s apologetics were called “pop” apologetics. In essence, pop apologetics is a cliché defense of the faith performed by cliché apologists. Translation: it was naive. It was not kosher. If and when I quoted someone like McDowell in a conversation with fellow students, there would be some snickering. The idea conveyed was that there were certain works, written by certain authors, that were “little league” and not respectable. Whether is was Lewis Sperry Chafer, Josh McDowell, Wayne Grudem, or R.C. Sproul (all of whom were my self-proclaimed mentors until that point), they were, at best, milk from the breast of my mother; at worst, naive teachers who simply parroted the simple and sheltered faith of evangelicalism. If you wanted to run with the “big boys” you had to read yourself some Barth, Multmonn, Hauerwas, or one of the liberation theologians such as Boff or Gutierrez. Why? Because, quite frankly, they did not fit the “stupid” evangelical mold. These were the “cool” people to read. They were the trump cards that, when played, left other students feeling inadequate and inferior. I thought I could read Dwight Pentecost’s Things to Come and be prepared for any discussion on eschatology. Who knew that quoting Theology of Hope by Jürgen Moltmann at Dallas Theological Seminary would be more prestigious than Pentecost? Who knew that saying that you had been reading A Theology of Liberation would score you more points than reading Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie? Who knew that the greatest danger for any Christian leader was to be labeled cliché?

Let me try to illustrate this another way before I get back to the swinger thing: I remember in fourth grade, there was a girl who held the near-unanimous vote for being the prettiest gal in school. Everyone was in love with her. Everyone wanted to sit by her at lunch or go across the monkey bars with her at recess. If you gained either of these honors you were, by extension, the most popular guy in school. She held that much power. However, things changed. By the time our same group of friends entered high school, she was no longer held in such high esteem. In fact, thinking she was pretty was somewhat passé. Suddenly, it was the random loner gal (who everyone previously thought was weird). Suddenly it was the one who hung around with the skinheads and listened to Violent Femmes who everyone liked. On paper, she was not as pretty as our former love, but she was exotic. She was outside the box. If she were to lose her exotic “off-limits” appeal by joining our crowd (which some did), she was no longer the one. The primary qualification for appeal became novelty. Fresh appeal that comes from being obscure and mysterious went further than the meat and potatoes of good looks and charm.

Theology is a lot like this. If it is exotic, out of the norm, and less known, it does not matter how “pretty” it really is, it is what is “cool.” You see, in theology, for many people “in the know,” once something becomes mainstream, it is disqualified. Once it becomes too popular or normal, it is naive. Once everyone thinks it is correct, it is no longer qualified to be  anything but a foil for the correct. We become theological swingers whose end is not to find the truth, but simply to swing.

For theological swingers, referencing the unknown, obscure, rejected, Violent Femmes-loving theologian becomes a heavy-handed power play. It has its power because most people don’t know how to respond. A statement like, “I used to be premillenial like you until I read Moltmann” leaves people speechless. They don’t know who Moltmann is, much less read him, so they are left feeling inadequate to stay in the conversation. Mystery, intrigue, and novelty become placeholders for truth. Pastoral ideals of theological stability are replaced with looking smarter than the next person. Truth is not the goal, but rather self-image. And theological swingers just don’t want to be bored, liking the same gal that everyone else likes.

I have been a theological swinger. In fact, I am only now beginning to graduate from this way of thinking. I am only now beginning to see that this method is itself naive. For a time, I would not read anyone who fit the mold of my conservative evangelical theological culture. I felt that was my duty. I loved to quote those who were less known and exotic. I still have the tendency to belittle (at least in the back of my mind) people who reference and quote theologians, biblical exegetes, and philosophers who are too popular within the evangelical sub-culture. I am ashamed to say that McDowell, who inspired me so much before, became to me an embarrassing distant relative who only discredits my “scholarship” and reputation with others whose respect has fueled my swinging habit.

However, I am recovering. The first thing I have realized lately is that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation. Dealing with people who come out of other traditions has taught me this. Those whose culture is accustomed to learning from liberal theologians find conservatives provocative. Those who are accustomed to Eastern Orthodoxy find evangelical writings out of the box. Those who are fundamentalists rebel and swing with those who take a more liberal stand.

Theologies and theologians come and go. Provocation is a great thing, but if we are committed to provocation and swinging more than truth, the journey will be unending and ungodly. We will never be satisfied, as our compass will be broken. Divorce, adultery, and eternal convictionless theological swinging is all we can expect. Remember, there was a time when all the “pop” theologies and apologetics that you might look down upon now were not mainstream. They were the mysterious, obscure ideas. They were the novelties. However, their value does not come in their newness, but in their substance.

I do want to say that all of those thinkers I referenced before have been very much worth my time and attention. With popular theologians or the less popular ones, we all need to broaden our horizons. And we should read and learn outside the norm of our culture. We don’t need to accept mainstream because it is mainstream and we don’t need to reject it because of this either.  The exotic, novel, and provocative are worth our attention so long as truth, not novelty, is our goal. However, sometimes there is a reason why the gal who hangs out with the skinhead is obscure and unknown . . . and it is not because she is prettier than the other!

I write this for myself. These are confessions of a theological swinger. However, I know so many theologians and young “emerging” thinkers out there today who are completely unstable, swinging away and trying to get everyone else to swing with them. Swinging is not theologically “cool,” much less does it evidence any intelligence. It has no profundity and is the furthest thing from a pastoral approach to stabilizing people’s faith. Once we realize that one person’s cliché is the next person’s provocation, we will disengage in this endless search for something new. “Novel” is not synonymous with “profound.” Realize this: that which is new today will be passé tomorrow. All one has to do is look into much of the Emerging movement and see this swinging mentality displayed, as authors who were thought to be the most profound ten years ago are now thought of as simple.

And just as a sidenote (to get me into a bit of trouble), I often wonder if this mentality is more to blame for the resurgence of all the young people who are Calvinist charismatics than is actual theological conviction. It just seems like it is the “cool” thing to be these days in evangelicalism: young, restless, reformed, and charismatic – and to read Jonathan Edwards! Certainly I have nothing against Calvinism or Edwards (though, as you know, I have some issues with the charismatic movement), but I don’t know if celebration is necessarily in order. I have a hunch that many will switch dance partners once this fad goes out of style.

And, to put this into perspective: Theological swinging is nothing new itself! There were a bunch of these boys in Athens.

Acts 17:21
“Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.”Similar Posts:

• Are We Theological Bots?
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
• “True for You, But Not for Me” 2.0: The Newly-Released Revised, Expanded Edition
• Hi, I am Paul Copan

Though I don’t know where (c^{itation needed}), it is said that when Martin Luther rediscovered the idea that justification was by faith alone, without the aid of any meritorious good deeds, the leadership within the institutionalized church of the day said, “You can’t teach that. You know what will happen if you do? Everyone will be doing whatever they please.” To which Luther responded, “This is true. Now what pleases you?”

The idea Luther was promoting was not unlike the same idea posited by Augustine before him: when we become believers in Christ, our nature changes; with it, our pleasures. Our greatest pleasure, our greatest satisfaction, our loftiest ambition, and our lifelong goal, after faith is ignited in our soul, becomes to please our Lord. Why? Because we have changed, because we have graduated, because it is the best thing to do. This change will continue from the inside out for the rest of our lives.

I believe in the doctrine of sola fide. Sola fide means “faith alone.” It means you and I are justified, not by any good things we do, but by simply trusting in Christ. My Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormon friends do not share this belief. In fact, I don’t know of any religion in the world that does or ever has. All other systems of being made right before God involve some sort of merit system. Ultimately, for them, you have to perform well here on earth. You have to refrain from enough sin and add enough good deeds to your resume, which you will one day present to your creator. What a terrible (and fear-inducing) system. I don’t want God (or anyone else) to see my resume. It would not be pretty. I need a substitute resume. Therefore, I have acquired one which is not my own: Jesus Christ’s. His is the only resume God will accept, because he is the only one who lived a perfect life. And, indeed, I do have his resume. But I did not buy it, lease it, or put it on layaway. Nothing can be done to purchase or deserve his resume. He offers it to us freely. All we have to do is extend our hand (an act of faith) and take it. Hence, our justification (perfect resume) is a gift that comes only by faith.

It is a wonderful message. It is an unbelievable message. However, it is an offensive message. First, it is offensive because we are a prideful people. We think our resume is not too shabby. Many just want to take their chances on their own. Second, it is offensive because people are scared. They are scared of what this might mean. They are scared of abuse. They are scared of grace. Grace means it is free. If it is free then people will do whatever they please. Here are some of the common road blocks I have heard from others:

“So, what if a person becomes a believer, then goes and murders a hundred people?”

“What you are doing is giving people license to sin.”

“If you give people such freedom, there will be anarchy.”

“Pfff…So what you are saying is that I can go out and get drunk every night and all is covered?”

“Good, this mean that I can commit adultery with no consequences.”

And a thousand others like this. At first glance, it is the same as I said before: “If this is true, then I can do whatever I please.”

I agree with Martin Luther. Yes, it does mean we can do whatever we please. But if we have truly turned to Christ in faith, our pleasures will change. Some faster than others. Some more definitively than others. It does not mean that we will not be in a battle with the flesh for the rest of our lives. It does not mean that we won’t lose the battle with the flesh from time to time. Heck, I would be willing to say (from personal experience) it does not even mean that we won’t lose the battle with the flesh more often than not. What it means is that we actually desire the flesh to lose. What it means is that our ultimate pleasures come when we do beat the flesh. What is means is that we are changing from the inside out. What is means is that engaging in the sinful pleasures of this world does not taste as sweet as it used to. And – this is the key – when we do follow the Lord  and make the right decisions, we are not doing it for some reward or for fear of being punished (though even as Christians there are serious “built-in” consequences to sins), we are doing it because it is right. We understand it is right not because retribution is glaring at us or because our feet start to feel more than a little cozy as the fires of hell come a little closer, but because we have been changed, from the inside out. Isn’t this the gospel?

I think John says as much:

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

If we stopped with the first half of the verse, we might have reason to object. However, the second half tells us the means by which following the Lord is accomplished. Far be it for me to argue with the way John worded this, but let me put it more positively (as John can be somewhat of a glass-half-empty guy). Instead of saying, “His commandments are not burdensome,” I think we are justified in putting it this way: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; it is a joy to do so.” God does not just call on us to do something we don’t want to do, but he changes our wants to conform to the greatest joy in the universe. He is not some cosmic pleasure killer, but the creator of the very idea of pleasure. Therefore, he is qualified to say that what the greatest pleasure is.

Doesn’t God want us to be more like my daughter? Doesn’t it please him more when we find our pleasure in following him? Isn’t he, by default, the greatest pleasure in the universe? Isn’t he the one who is at work within us both to will and do his good pleasure? You see, God does is not enlisting a fearful, reluctant army. He enlists only family members who not only have the resume of Christ, but are being changed from the inside out. Therefore, the doctrine of sola fide is not only the best option to understand the Scriptures, but it just makes more sense.

Psalm 37:4
Make Yahweh your joy and he will give you your heart’s desires.Similar Posts:

• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
• “Sin Boldly”:What Would Luther Blog (WWLB)
• Historical Renewal Friday: Jonathan Edwards
• “Will One Sin Really Send You to Hell for All Eternity?” or “Why is Hell Eternal?”
• Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?

As Halloween approaches, you can bet the discussions will increase amongst Christians, as they normally do.  One faction promotes participation while the other faction wants all Christians to see the horrors of Halloween and why they should not participate.  But that is neither here nor there because I believe it is a matter of Christian liberty of whether one participates or not.  Each should live according to their own convictions.

But I want to address what I consider a real horror that does involve Christian participation in Halloween.  In various spots in the country, months of organization and activity have gone into the production of a haunted house experience for innocent people looking for a good old fashioned Halloween scare.  The will line up to go to Hell House and they will rightfully face a horror.

Participants will be led through a series of scenes, which sadly go on in every day life.  There is one scene that emulates the Columbine shooting.  There is another one where a Rave ends up in a date rape scenario.  The girl feeling so ashamed of what has happened to her, curses God.  Another ends up hemorrhaging from a morning after pill.  There is one living room scene that confronts the addictions of pornography.  Yes, this is certainly real life.

Unfortunately, the scenarios are used to highlight one thing – all these people are going to hell.  And that is the point of Hell House, to lure people into a haunted house experience and expose scenarios that could be going on with anyone in the audience.  In fact, as I watched the documentary of the original Hell House here in TX, I couldn’t help but wonder how many people were being forced to relive their own private pain and then being scorned for being victims.

Now, do not get me wrong.  I do believe in Hell.  I do believe that it is the destiny of those who have rejected the grace of God by trusting in His Son.  But I also believe that it was not a place made for people nor does God want people to go there, though some will.  But to frighten and condemn people using such deceptive and horrific tactics is abusive, both to the people who witness them and to the gospel itself.

I see nothing of these tactics used in the pages of scripture to win people to Christ.  If anything, Jesus Himself reached out to the very ones these scenarios condemn – the outcast, the abused, the neglected and the mistreated.  Can you imagine if He made the woman with the issue of blood watch a scenario that only emphasized the horror of her situation?  Or if He had told showed something like this to the woman at the well?

The problem with highlighting these scenarios and equating them with damnation, is that it negates the real problem that separates us from God.  Sin is our problem not bad behavior, although it certainly is the motivation behind everyone of the acts portrayed.  But sin also motivates us to believe we can earn our own righteousness through good deeds and avoid these kinds of immoral circumstances.  Apart from Christ, we are all dead in our trespasses and sin  (Ephesians 2:1).  Those who are apart from Christ and suffering under the anguish of these scenarios are already condemned.    Castigating victims is not only cruel but very unloving.

And this is where I think Hell House abuses the gospel.  Everything that God did by sending His Son was motivated by love (John 3:16; Romans 5:8).  All through the pages of scripture, we see a righteous and loving God pursuing His creation, extending grace and mercy and calling people to Himself.  Look at Ephesians 2:1-9,  we were sinners and acting out on this nature, but God who is rich in mercy extends grace through the gift of His Son.  God so loved the world (broken humanity) that He sent His Son, not to condemn it because it is already condemned.  I don’t believe He takes delight in condemning the condemned and calling it evangelism.  In fact, the only people that got condemned were the self-righteous religious leaders who were more concerned with form and function, than with God’s redemptive plan.

Yes, there is a brief message at the end of the ‘tour’.   The message was in line with what I wrote in this evangelism post, that dealt with people as widgets with souls to be rescued from the horrors of Hell and not as people that God wishes to redeem.  So the message was really nothing more than a get out of jail free card.  I was actually shocked that the presenter of this message gave people a time by which they must make their personal decision. Otherwise, forget about it.

Friends, this is no way to do evangelism.  It is abusive to people and to the gospel.  It treats people as nothing more than commodities to gain in order to satisfy a quest of Christian accomplishment.  If we are so concerned about the people that God came to rescue, wouldn’t it be better to use the opportunity of Halloween to feed people, to give them treats and not tricks.  And this is a trick, to make them think they are getting one thing and getting something completely different.  I love what Marc Cortez says here regarding this kind of bait and switch tactic,

Why do we do this? Deep down, are we that afraid that they won’t want to hear? Do we doubt the power of the message that much? Do we think the Spirit can’t handle things?

And, what are we subtly communicating to ourselves and to other people about the Gospel when we do this? I’m afraid that we’re hinting that we really don’t think that the Gospel is all that. If I’m really convinced that I have the most amazing story that will transform your life forever, I’m not going to invite you over to my church for a football game and then try to slip it in between commercials. I’m going to invite you over to hear the story.

In the case of Hell House, it is far more than just a story but it is giving people a good scare while victimizing the victims who are already ensnared in a darkened prison.  Apparently,  just presenting the gospel  is insufficient by itself and the Holy Spirit is clearly incapable of drawing lost people without tricky tactics.  Sadly, some have thought this was a good idea and have replicated the model.  I can only hope that people will escape the horror of Hell House and instead be shown real love, the kind that Christ demonstrated to us.

 Similar Posts:

• Jesus with His Lights Out on Halloween
• Jesus with His Lights Turned off on Halloween
• Making Jesus Known: Some Random Thoughts on Evangelism
• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners
• Bucer, Evangelism and Unconditional Election

It is no secret that our culture today has been/is undergoing a massive paradigm shift with regards to the way people come to know truth. The atmosphere of the intellectual landscape has changed. For many, confidence, certainty, and dogmatism have been replaced with doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. All truth claims are held in high suspicion. Those still working under the old paradigm of absolute truth and absolute knowledge are thought by this new generation of thinkers to be naive at best and power mongering manipulators at worst.

Within the philosophical and theological communities, this new generation goes by many names: Post-fundamentalism, Post-Christian, Post-Evangelical, Post-Liberal, “emerging”, and the most common postmodern. While these names may not be sufficient to completely convey the ethos of this generation, they all have one important element in common—they are all post something. They are all emerging out of something. The culture is moving beyond where it was before. And this is not necessarily a bad thing.

How do you know who to trust?

Before Google, before the internet, before twenty-four-hour world news, before community run encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, before Facebook, before blogs became the premier source for truth, before the introduction of our globalized culture where alternative truth claims are literally at ones fingertips, people could be much more confident that the truth claims to which they adhere were an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because we did not have so many alternatives to confuse the issues. The naivety that this intellectual isolation provided, while quite comforting, is no longer a luxury that we can afford to entertain and expect to have an audience in the real world with the Great Commission. Truth is no longer simply a matter of going to the local parish on the corner and inquiring of the pastor. It is much more complex and confusing. Today, people are looking for answers, and bewilderment is the most common result. Doubt, depression, and disillusionment are often the result as people pan-handle for truth. Thousands of alternatives present themselves at your front door at every turn. After a while you just don’t want to answer the door anymore. The question “What is truth?” or, better, “Where is truth?” is the great ambient question that saturates the thinking of our culture whether we know it or not.

People are suspicious

Suspicion. This is a good, rich, and sad word that is only needed because of humanity’s moral downfall. To be suspicious means that you are in a “state of uncertainty or doubt.” Or better, “Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like.” Synonyms for suspicion are doubt, mistrust, or misgiving. Our culture is in a perpetual state of uncertainty about truth; our culture is suspicious—suspicious of you and suspicious of me. Heck, I am even suspicious of you! Why? Because Christians claim to have the truth about the most important questions in life. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. We have presented ourselves at the front door, and our message of exclusivity is, more often than not, falling on deaf ears.

While the problem is no secret, the solution is harder to come by. It would be easy to say “sin” is the problem. While this would be the answer that fits within the Christian worldview, it is a bit simplistic. Yes, sin is the problem. Its my problem as a knower of truth and my problem as a seeker or truth. I can’t know perfectly and neither can you. I can’t seek perfectly and I often don’t where to go. Because of these epistemological (“how we know”) difficulties, the focal point for theology is no longer Bibliology as it once was, but prolegomena. Prolegomena is the theological discipline that focuses on issues that need to be covered before truth claims can be asserted and debated. Prolegomena deals with the “first things” of theology. Methodology, theological systems, epistemology, and sources for truth are all issues of prolegomena. Because the world does not work with the same assumptions that it used to, I believe we must create common ground before we can reach our culture. This common ground must first and foremost deal with the issue of suspicion. The distrust that people have for you when you approach their door with a Bible opened to your favorite verse is real and needs to be answered. Trust needs to be gained.

Not only this, but this disarming of suspicion must have a subjective component to it as well. You and I are not speaking from a megaphone from our isolated island of naivety (at least we shouldn’t be). We are affected by the change as well. I have seen just as much confusion, suspicion, doubt, and discouragement among believers in recent years as I have among unbelievers. People are leaving organized religion in droves, and the denominations are depleting in numbers. As I said before, I myself find it hard to know who to trust.

What I want to propose is a method of theological inquiry that goes a long way in disarming both the skeptic out there and the skeptic within. It is called “irenic theology” or the “irenic method” of doing theology. The word “irenic” is taken from the Greek irene which means “peace.” Irenic theology is learning about truth in a peaceful manner, accurately representing the opposing belief even when you disagree strongly. In many ways it is the opposite of a dogmatic methodology which seeks to tell people the truth by positioning itself as the only true option.

Requirements of the Irenic Method

Willingness to learn, adapt, and change: The Reformers brought theology out of the dogmatic slumber of the dark ages. They challenged the unfounded traditions and abuses of the past, giving the church a bright light of hope as the Gospel was rediscovered. They also sought to prevent the church from ever revisiting the difficulties proclaiming the principle of Semper Reformanda which means “always reforming.” The Reformers knew that truth must always be tested and ready to be reformed. This understanding presents our search for truth as a journey that will not end until Christ comes for the church (1 Cor. 13:12). We will always see in a mirror dimly. The greatest reform or each of us, in both mind and body, will come when Christ comes. Today, we must be willing continue to carry this banner and reform as well. The irenic method demands that we approach our study ready to alleviate ourselves of any sacred cows that might have crept in without warrant. We must be willing to reform our theology if the evidence makes such a demand. This is easier said than done, but it is necessary nonetheless.

Willingness to take a risk: When you present all views accurately, the best arguments from all positions are presented so that people have the chance to make up their own minds, knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of all relevant positions. In short, learning and teaching theology in an irenic way gives people the chance not to believe so that they might truly believe. There is risk involved in irenic theology, especially for teachers. Those being taught may or may not identify with or be convinced of your particular persuasions. But it does not fare well before the Lord for us to sweep the other options under the rug in fear of the possibility of desertion. People will find out the other options in a Googling generation. Once they do, you will have lost their trust and will not have an audience with them any longer. They will see you as manipulative, naive, or, at best, misinformed and incompetent. Irenic theology demands that the risk be taken.

A broad knowledge base: No longer can people study in isolation, seeking to confirm their prejudice with what they read or whom they listen to. We must be willing to challenge ourselves and expand our thinking. If you are a Calvinist (as am I), you must be able and willing to represent the Arminian position (or any alternatives) accurately. Irenic theology demands that you allow for no straw men arguments or any hint of belligerence. In other words, you should know enough to present their case so well and respectfully that if the strongest apologist for their position were to be in your audience, he or she would give you a thumbs up, affirming the accuracy of your information and appreciating your peaceful tone.

There is an old folk tale that has been spread more times than I can count about counterfeits currency. Some would say that just as those who investigate counterfeits only study real currency in order to identify counterfeits, so should Christians only study the truth in order to identify untruth. This is a very modernistic illustration which is not only untrue, but will hardly serve as a justified model for discovery in a suspicious world. The first fallacy is that the illustration is simply untrue. Counterfeit investigators do study every type of counterfeit that is known. Second, this illustration arrogantly assumes that they are already in possession of the truth against which to measure the false. It necessarily requires that you do not examine the options. Therefore, it seeks to keep you in isolation. This is fine and good if you actually do have the truth, but who is to say that you do? Here is the key: Any number of rival truth claims can use this illustration to keep their people in naive ignorance. Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, or any other religion can use this illustration to keep their own at bay. It will not deepen beliefs but it will confirm prejudice. For many who follow this methodology, they are in for a rude awakening. We must be willing to study broadly and consider deeply the alternatives if we expect to have and produce intellectual honesty. Without it, how do we expect to stand before God with integrity?

Benefits of Irenic Method

Your beliefs will be more real: No longer will you believe something simply out of a subjective emotional conviction that can be shared by all people of all world religions, but because of an honest wrestling with the issues. God gave us our minds and He expects us to use them. He has no favor for the naive (read the Proverbs). His desire is for us to see the truth and be convinced of it.

You will have degrees of conviction: Without an irenic method, all beliefs carry the same degree of conviction. They are black and white. You either believe them or you don’t. There is no in-between. While the irenic method will give you greater conviction on many things, it will also demand less assurance with other things. And this is par for the course of human inquiry and understanding. None of us can have perfect conviction to the degree God does.

In Christianity, there are many non-essential doctrines about which sincere believers disagree. Often, due to the strengths of the arguments for alternative positions, the evidence demands that we be very timid about setting them up as tests for orthodoxy or holding to some things too strongly. If God’s revelation is clear, then we speak with the same clarity. If God’s revelation is not so clear, we represent it as such. Being Christian does not mean that we know it all or have a secret decoder ring when it comes to difficult issues. We have to look to the evidence and take a stand, even if that stand says “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.”

You will have a hierarchy of beliefs: As Roger Olson put it in Mosaic of Christian Belief: “Beliefs matter, but not all beliefs matter equally.” The irenic method demands that we see that some beliefs are more important than others. In other words, all doctrines are not worth dying for on a hill. Once we begin to see this, we will have gained an audience because Christians will all be speaking the same language. While disagreements will definitely still exist, people will see that there is a center of peaceful unity upon which we all agree. The list on Google for “What is a Christian” suddenly gets much, much smaller. The person and work of Christ is the center of our theology and must be spoken of by all Christians with unity and conviction.

You will have disarmed all skeptics: No longer will people see us in the likeness of a used car salesman or a determined lawyer, but as those who truly care about the truth. People will see that we have entrusted them with the ability and confidence to make their own decisions. All talk of knowledge being manipulative will necessarily cease for it will find no basis in reality.

Our world is confused. They feel betrayed and manipulated. There is information overload and people don’t know where to turn. But this does not mean that many are not seeking for answers. We have the only thing that matters: Jesus Christ. Though we believe that the power of the Spirit is the only reason people turn to Him, this does not mean we are for throw tact, understanding, and empathy out the door. God will use these things to bring people to him.

In conclusion: Don’t underestimate people’s ability to spot a fake. Ask yourself continually if you are a fake. Don’t be afraid to learn. Christ has not given us such a faith that demands blind adherence. Pursue truth will all your being. Trust that God is not afraid of questions and doubt. He is pretty big. I think He handles honest doubt better than naive commitment.Similar Posts:

• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Googling for Truth: The Importance of Irenic Theology in our Postmodern World
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief
• All the Right Beliefs for all the Wrong Reasons

Dear friends,

This is written to those of you who I know and are without Christ. By that I mean you have never fallen on your face before Christ and asked for forgiveness. Many of you are friends—close friends—whom I have talked to about Christ, but you are unconvinced. I would love to be able to push a button, write a check, or perform a task that would make you believe as I do. However, the stark reality that I have to deal with is that many of you whom I love very dearly will die in this state. And, according to my deep convictions, you will not be in the presence of the Lord but in a place of terrible judgement.

Now, I know what you are thinking. Don’t quit reading though. Hear me out. I am not necessarily trying to evangelize you or make you love Jesus. I am trying to tell you how to prepare for hell. Just give me some slack here. Though what I am offering to you is still as far from heaven as the east is from the west, it may do some good. Though you do not believe in heaven or hell, you have to admit: you could be wrong. Yes, I admit, I could be wrong too. But if I am wrong, what awaits me? Eternal darkness? Nothingness? Fine and good. However, if you are wrong, something terrible is coming. I can’t prepare for nothingness. You can prepare for Hell. This is a “just in case you are wrong” letter.

You see, I believe that when we die, we will all present ourselves to God. Let’s put it this way for illustrative purposes. When life as we know it comes to a close, there will be two lines in heaven and two sets of book. One line will stand before Christ, one line will stand behind him. Christ will have two books: one which has the name of those who stand behind him written in it called “the Book of Life”. The other book is for those who stand in front of him called “the Book of Judgement”.  In this book of judgement is written all the wrong things that those who have not trusted in him have done. Every selfish act, every sexual sin, every cutting word, and every time you failed to love your children. In short, every sin that you have ever left your fingerprint on will be represented. Your disbelief in God will find a prominent place as it is the reason the ink will have dried on the pages of this book.

If I am right, I will be in a line behind the judge, Jesus. I will have eraser residue all over me. You see, my name used to be written in the same book of judgement. My issues were just as bad as yours (if not much worse). I had many pages reserved in that book. However, there is an invitation given to everyone in the line of judgement. It says that God loves us and does not desire that we should stand in this line and be judged. It says that Christ took the judgement upon himself for all those who will accept it. It says that who ever wants to leave this line and stand behind Christ can do so. I got in the line behind Christ many years ago. Because of this, Christ took a blood stained eraser, turned to my pages in the book of judgement, and erased it all. He then wrote my name in the book of life with permanent ink. Look at me. I have more eraser pieces on me than anyone. But the point is, because of what Christ did and because I trusted in him, my sins are no longer in that book. Because you failed to believe that Christ is God’s eternal Son who died on a wooden cross for your sins, your sin remains in that terrible book. I elected to have Christ take my penalty; you elected to stay in the line of judgement and stand on your own. I elected to have Christ be judged in my place; you have said, “If it is true, I will make my case before the Lord and stand on my own.” Therefore, we are in different lines. While these lines become permanent upon death (i.e. the Bible does not present an after death chance to change lines), in some sense, we are in these lines right now.

However, since you are determined to remain in the line of judgement (which breaks the Lord’s heart and mine), I am trying to think of what I can do for you. I am scrambling here with tears in my eyes as your future is so bleak. Of course, if you reject Christ, there is nothing you can do to avoid the ultimate fate that awaits you: eternity away from God’s love, eternity in torment, eternity in hell. Hell is your decision; it is not the decision of God who loves you. However, I do believe that while hell will be unimaginably terrible for everyone, it will be less unimaginably terrible for some than for others.

In the Bible, Christ says as much. Comparing hell to being whipped, he said that some will receive ”many lashes” and some will receive “few” (Luke 12:47-48). Hell will always be eternal. Hell will always be outside of the grace and love of God. But for some it will be worse than for others. I would that you would just trust in the God who loves you and sent his Son to erase your part in the book. I would that your name was written in the “Book of Life” not the “Book of Death and Judgement”, but, again, I have to deal with the reality that you may never change your heart toward God.

For this reason, I want to give you some advice about how to make, what I believe to be, your terrible future, less terrible. Here is how to prepare for Hell:

1. First and foremost, whenever the Bible is being taught, run.

I know that this sounds kind of odd (especially coming from me), but it is true. If you are determined to remain an unbeliever until death, don’t go to church where the Bible is taught, don’t listen to the Bible on your iPod, don’t even pick up a Bible and thumb through it. Stay far away from that book.

Let me illustrate. The other day, I yelled from the living room to my daughter Katelynn to get to bed. Fifteen minutes later, she was still up. I became upset with her. I thought it was a deliberate act of disobedience. However, when I talked to her about it, she said that she did not hear me. Once I believed her, my anger went away. Why? Because she did not actually know that I told her to go to bed. Now, she was still in a little bit of trouble because she already knew what her bedtime was. But her trouble would have been more severe had she not only known what her bedtime was but heard what I said and still disobeyed. The point is the more you hear what I believe to be God’s word and disobey, the greater the offense.

Listen to what Christ says about this:

Luke 12:48
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”

2. Don’t try to persuade others, especially children, of your unbelief

Christ said some terrifying word to those who are evangelists of unbelief:

Mark 9:42
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.”

3. Whatever causes you to sin, get rid of it

I think that this one will be the hardest of the three so far, but if you can do it, it is sound advice. If your television causes you to neglect your family, get rid of it. If your iPad is distracting you from productivity, throw it away. And (and this is going to sound crazy), if your eyes are causing you to lust (i.e. pornography?), cut them out. It is that serious.

Mark 9:43-48
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where ” ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

This does not mean that if you do these things, your deeds will cover all the other things written in that book, but it does mean that you will have fewer pages in that book than you would otherwise.

4. Take care of your family

Don’t neglect to work hard and provide for them. Whether it is your parents, wife, husband, or children, take care of them with all your might. Love them dearly. Let me get real practical here. Some of you men are divorced and are failing to pay for the support of your wife and children. Don’t do that. Some of you have parents who are elderly and you are more concerned about the advancement of your career than caring for them. These type of things are written in bold in the book of judgement.

Listen to what Paul tells Timothy:

1Tim. 5:8
“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

5. Don’t give yourself too much credit

If you were in the same line as me, I would simply say “Give credit to God for every good thing”. But I cannot say that to you since you do not follow or believe in God. However (and I am doing the best I can here), you have to do whatever you can to remain humble. Pride will create a full chapter in most people’s section in the book of judgement. It causes your heart to be darkened in so many ways and leads to the sins of vanity, selfishness, and the devaluing of others. Even in your worldview without God, you can understand that you are not essentially better than anyone else can’t you? If you are an atheist, you are the way you are due to fate, not your own ingenuity or efforts. I would that you would give credit to God for all things, but I will have to settle for second—a far distant second—best: just don’t pat yourself on your back too much.

Paul sees the wrath of God as centered on people’s lack of thanksgiving to him.

Rom. 1:21
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

Again, you cannot thank God, but you can keep from thanking yourself.

I have more to say . . . much more. But I fear that you may become overwhelmed. I may write more someday.

However, although I said that this was not written primarily to evangelize you, I must pass this invitation from God over to you once again. You do not have to stay in that line. As long as you are still breathing, you can join me over here behind Christ. You don’t have to pay anything, give anything, or do anything to join me. Just  have to turn to Christ and ask him to erase your pages in that book. God is beckoning you to come.

Listen to this from John 3:18: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

One more thing. The line illustration is not really original with me. John uses a similar theme in a book in the Bible called “Revelation”:

Rev 20:12
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.”

I would that your name was written in the book of life.Similar Posts:

• A Real Halloween Horror: Hell House and Evangelism
• Why is God So Silent in My Life?
• Introducing 3 Brand-New Resources: Pre-Order Your Copies Today
• Why is God So Silent?
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?

There is no special nobility for believing in God. Most people at their best, using their common sense, believe in God. In fact, conservatively speaking, ninety-percent of all societies and peoples have all believed in a God of some sort. In our Christian dominated society, I rarely come across a true atheist. It is quite a novelty. It is about like coming across someone who does not believe that the earth is round or that we actually landed someone on the moon. They are very rare.

However, it would seem that many people believe that their is some sort of special pass or dispensation for simply believing in God. The same is true about believing “in” Christ. Many people have some sort of belief that Christ was who he said he was—God incarnate—, died on the cross for their sins, and rose bodily from the grave. After all, at least here in America, this still comes standard with every new model.

However, God is not calling on people to do something as minimal as believing in him. Belief in him is indeed required. As well, we can always believe in him more today than we did yesterday. However, God is calling on us to do something radical. God is calling on us to do something that far exceeds a mere belief in his existence or even his works. Because he exists, because he has done what he has done, he is calling on all people everywhere to believe him. You see, God has introduced himself to us as the sovereign of the universe. He as told us that he knows more than we do. He has presented himself as one who is not only bigger and stronger than we are, but one who is infinitely wiser than we are. Because of this, he wants us to believe him.

While in Chicago two weeks ago, I got into a very pleasant conversation with my taxi driver. He believed in God. In fact, he got very excited when I talked to him about God. He was very willing to engage in spiritual conversation. But the conversation was not so easy for me as I attempted to distinguish between his belief in God and a life lived believing God. Belief in God can evidence nothing more than mere intellectual assent. This assent often issues forth in no real or substantial change of life, thought, or action. Sure, it affects some things here and there, but God is more of an accessory to living than anything else. Believing God effects everything. When we believe God, we are saying that he is right about everything and it is of paramount importance for us to harmonize our lives with his reality. When our reality—feelings, emotions, experiences, and rationalizations—come in conflict with his revealed will, his revealed will trumps anything we have to offer.

Think of life like a car. Most people I know have God in one of four places in their car:

1. Trunk: In this sense, God is the “go-to” God when we are in trouble. Like with the spare tire, the tool kit, or the flashlight, we only call upon him when we are in desperate need. Other than that, he has no part to play in our daily living. We believe in him, but we don’t believe him enough to let him out of the trunk.

2. Back seat: This represents a heightened conviction about the need for God in our lives, but we don’t really want him bothering us. He is like a back seat driver who is constantly whining about what direction we are going, telling us to turn here rather than there. We would like him to just be quite, but we are willing to put up with his disruptions in order to feel better about our conviction that we need him in our lives.

3. Passenger seat: This person is very convicted about their need for God so they allow him to be right beside them. In fact, this person likes God quite a bit. They enjoy the conversation and even ask for suggestions about where to turn and how fast to go. We are so proud about this level of involvement that we create bumper stickers to let others know that “God is my co-pilot”.

However, God is not calling us to any of these first three. I am not saying that if you find God in your passenger seat, back seat, or, even, trunk you are not a Christian. That is not the issue. I am talking about what it means to believe God.

4. Driver’s seat: This is where God wants to be. This is where we graduate from believing in God to believing God. This is where we hand control of everything to him. This is where he is no longer just a god in our lives, but our God. He says to us, “Give me the driver’s seat of your life. I want nothing less. Believe me; I know much more than you do. I want control of your passions, your plans, your family, where you are going, and where you have been. My way is the best. I know you better than you know yourself. I know you believe in me, but will you believe me. You sit there in the passenger seat and I will take care of the rest. And please…no back seat driving.”

I am afraid that there will be quite a long line of people in heaven who are waiting to be judged according to their works and will have nothing more to present to God than that they believed in him. God may respond to these: “Yes, but why didn’t you ever really believe me. I said to pray about everything (Luke 18:1). Why didn’t you? I said that all things work together for good (Romans 8:28). Did you think I was mistaken? I said that giving is better than receiving (Acts 20:35). Why did you take this as back seat nagging? I said that I was coming to bring justice (Luke 18:7). Why did your heart grow cold? Why did you always believe yourself more than me? Why did you put me on the judgment seat of your life requiring me to account for myself? Why didn’t you believe me?”

Again, God knows how many times I have put him in the passenger seat. God knows how many times I have put him in the trunk! God knows how many times I have hijacked his car and, in my unbelief, made many wrong turns. God knows how many times I have believed in him without believing him. But at my best I know that God is calling on me to do much more than the-common-90%-believing-in-him-type-belief. He is calling on me to do something radical. He is calling on my to believe him about everything.Similar Posts:

• Sometimes Believing God is the Cosmic Telos of Our Suffering
• Is the New Atheism Really Affecting People’s Belief in God?
• The Anatomy of Belief (9): Forensic Conviction
• Sometimes Faith Does Take Faith
• What is God’s Will for My Life: The 90/10 Rule

Every Sunday morning I have the privilege of serving a small group of very enthusiastic believers who are relatively new to the faith.  We’ve been plodding through the book of John and this morning, our discussion was John 4:1-45.  The number of sermons or other messages on Jesus’ confrontation with the woman at the well is too many too count.  But one thing I’ve come to discover, and especially in preparation for the lesson, is her proclamation of the Messiah was not so much prompted by the uncovering of her lifestyle but because of transformed thinking of who the Messiah was.

I think the common emphasis on her lifestyle is misplaced because when Jesus confronts her about it, she immediately begins to address the differences between Jews and Samaritans.   Her statement of him being a prophet was born out of how the Samaritans viewed OT prophecy in that it did not carry weight.  For her, Jesus was pulling out the Jewish card and she immediately resorts to defending her Samaritan-ness.  Jesus goes there with her and confronts her wrong thinking.  Her proclamation of him as the Messiah to the same people was based on him revealing himself according to the truth of God’s revelation.  I think this is telling in her statement in that the Christ is the same one that told her her business.  The significance is that the Samaritans believed the Messiah would be a teacher, yet she recognized the truth of who he was because of the prophetic function, which the Samaritans had rejected.

My point in all of this is that Jesus did not tell her to go tell the town’s people.  When she learned the truth, she was motivated to make the proclamation.  This planted the seed for the Samaritans to seek and find Jesus, which turned into their belief.  I say this because I think sometimes we can put too much pressure on people to share their faith without the necessary transformation that motivates them to do so.   Again with the counting, I really can’t count how many times I have heard the urgency to witness to the point of brow beating or laying guilt trips on Christians.  But witnessing should be an outflow of our own transformation of the gospel.

What I fear is that we have turned the urgency of the great commission into campaign that gets reduced to the promulgation of a message detached from the concern of the individual that is being witnessed to.  This is evident in some of the language we use such as “making a personal decision” or “soul winning”.   We can dehumanize the gospel by making it strictly about the message.  This is especially true when Christians are responding to the call to act without the internal encouragement of their own transformation.  In some cases the insistence is so strong that can result in strong arming.  I am grieved whenever I hear stories of Christians forcing a personal decision, as if conversion is based on us closing the deal.  Rather, a person responds to the gospel message because the Holy Spirit has opened their eyes to do so. Sometimes we might just be planting the seed.

I actually have become increasingly disillusioned with the term “soul winning”.  Souls come with bodies, hurts, experiences and needs.   Since Jesus reveals God to us, his actions towards people should encourage consideration of how we engage with people.  God does care for the whole person and not merely that a message has been accepted.  Sharing faith should involve sharing life.  This is what Christ modeled for us.  He tended to their needs.  He saw fit to heal and clothe people and put them in their right minds.  That is not to say that acceptance of Christ is based on engagement of caring for human needs.  We must believe who He is and put saving faith in Him.  But neither should it be divorced from it.  “Winning souls” is dehumanizing at least, Gnostic at worst.

I believe one reason the gospel message gets reduced to a dehumanized sound byte is because we’ve viewed in terms of heaven and hell and not based on God’s redemptive heart for His creation.  Souls then become widgets to escape the horrors of hell instead of people that God wishes to redeem.  Viewing humanity in these terms will most certainly disengage the Christian from human realities.  We are never told to convert people but to make disciples.  That does entail getting involved with people and not just seeing converts.

In terms of the great commission, I find it interesting that while the charge was made to the apostles (Matthew 28:19-20) the bulk of instruction to the church was their reflection of Christ as his body.  This is particularly evident in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and the pastoral epistles.  There was minimal instruction about them “going out” but a whole lot was said in terms of how they should be towards one another.  I don’t negate the charge of the great commission but it seems reasonable to conclude that the church must act in concert according to who they are, which does entail an inward focused effort.  When they do that not only do they model Christ, but also then can take Christ out to the world.  Yes, we must me mindful of the needs for evangelism throughout the world. Churches should be engaged with the task of world evangelism as reflected in their commitments to unreached places.  But mirroring the concern for evangelism done by individuals, so too the local church can engage in outward focused activities that do not match inward realities.  This would be counter-productive to the purpose of the church of being what she should be.

So evangelism is about making Jesus known.  It is not merely captured in a message but lived out when we share our life.  We can only make him known to the extent that we have embraced Him for ourselves, both individually and corporately.  When that happens, there should be little need to encourage evangelism and make Jesus known.Similar Posts:

• A Real Halloween Horror: Hell House and Evangelism
• Some Thoughts on the Great Commission – Part 2: The Historical Setting
• What Does Believing In Jesus Really Mean?
• Bucer, Evangelism and Unconditional Election
• The Gospel is Not Just for Beginners

The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?

Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):

1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.

2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture? No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in everything it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.

3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t have to accept it.

4. Problem with creation account in Genesis? No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)

5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil? Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.

6. Problem with the doctrine of election? I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on your choice. There . . . the sting is gone.

7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ? Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.

Next…

8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t have to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.

9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin? Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not universally condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.

Next…

10. Problem with male headship in the church and family? This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”

Okay. I am done with the examples…

Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are some legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.

However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?

While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.

I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?

I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism (3): Changing the Horse
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

Similar Posts:

• Credo Clip: What is Theology?
• Credo Clip: Is the Bible Reliable?
• Credo Clip: Should a Christian Believe in Hell?
• Credo Clip: Can Christians Doubt?
• Sam Storms on What is the Gospel (in Three Minutes)

My concern here is that this young lady has made the mistake that many people, both professing Christians and non-Christians alike, often make. They make decisions based on what they think either is or is not the secret, decretive will of God. But Scripture forbids us to do this. All of our decisions and evaluations are to be made based on the revealed and moral will of God, namely, the will of God made clear to us in Scripture. The secret and decretive will of God is precisely that, secret, and therefore cannot be known apart from an explicit revelation in the Word. The revealed will of God is that this young lady repent and believe the gospel. There is no way she could ever know if she is among the elect except by believing the gospel. There is no way she could ever know that she is among the non-elect except by dying in unbelief. It is really quite easy for her to overcome her fear of being among the non-elect: repent and believe the gospel! If she does, Jesus says he will in no way ever cast her out. If she says, “But how can I believe the gospel if I’m among the non-elect?” The answer again is, “Believe the gospel and thereby know that you are among the elect.” Those who are non-elect ultimately don’t care one way or the other. They so despise Christ and the gospel that they don’t live in fear they are non-elect. This leads me to suspect that this young lady is under the convicting work of the Spirit and that the Spirit has already unveiled to her heart the beauty of Christ and the hope of the gospel. She is struggling to make sense of it all and has allowed herself to be led into despair on the basis of her “knowledge” of something that by definition can’t be known. So, again, the mistake that creates numerous unanswerable problems for her is basing her decisions and letting her feelings and fears be governed by something God has refused to reveal. I would say to her, “Put all your fears to rest and know this for sure, if you will but repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ you will be finally and forever forgiven and saved.”

- Sam Storms

Similar Posts:

• For those of you interested in the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism
• Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
• Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
• Bucer, Evangelism and Unconditional Election