fascinating...
i read the articles very quickly, i hope to re-read them slower and with more attention later today. but what i see is very interesting.
USA Today front page today: View of God can predict values, politics
USA Today Website today: U.S.A Losing it's religion?
posted by pablo
16 comments
16 Comments:
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
Post a CommentPablo: I've read both of these articles. I also saw the new (September 18) issue of Time has as it's cover feature "Does God Want You To Be Rich?" Here's a link:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html
I was going to pass this over to Steve, in keeping with his recent series of sermons, for his comment.
All three articles together led me to a common thought, especially the Time article: given the assumption that so many people in America claim to believe in God, then why is it that we have no consistency concerning what we believe about Him? Is it God's will that we all be rich, or not? What is His will on abortion? On homosexuality and homosexual marriage? On a hundred other issues?
I can see how different Christians could see Him differently (authoritative, benevolent, or critical, but certainly not distant!) based on their day-to-day experiences, but concerning the CONTENT of our faith - the teachings, the commands, the doctrines - how can there be such wide divergence? I can come to only two options: either God doesn't put any importance on those issues and just wants to be a "big tent" kind of God, or we as the church are just not teaching any kind of consistent doctrine to believers. I tend to lean toward the latter. I wonder whether we as the Church in America are just sitting back and letting people believe whatever they want, in sort of a "judge not, that ye not be judged judgmental" mentality.
And not just in America! Al Mohler featured on his website yesterday the story of an Anglican priest who has converted to Hinduism, and doesn't seem to see any problem with practicing both religions! (Check the 9/11/2006 blog entry.)
When Jesus returns, will He find faith on Earth?
but concerning the CONTENT of our faith - the teachings, the commands, the doctrines - how can there be such wide divergence?
interesting question. you know, i have wondered that at times. i am a big proponent of a "the same Spirit speaks to you as He does me" mentality. so why doesn't he make sure that we are all on the same page? i'll make sure to ask him when i meet the worm...i'll let you know.
I wonder whether we as the Church in America are just sitting back and letting people believe whatever they want, in sort of a "judge not, that ye not be judged judgmental" mentality.
this is true too i guess. i believe in the ability/responsibility to communicate truth with love. we should all practice that.
Pablo: it looks like Al Mohler is reading our blogs again, brother! We talk about it on the 12th, and he follows up for us on the 13th:
http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=772
I believe you're right when you say the Spirit of God is speaking to us all. He makes us all different - different gifts, different ministries, different stations in life - but there is only one doctrine. I believe the answer to your question (why doesn't He make sure we're all on the same page?") is, are all of us listening, and are all of us faithful to obey?
There is plenty of room in the Kingdom for good differences! Romans 14:1-4, for example, deals with moral vegetarianism, and Paul deals explains that one view, held by the weaker brother, is incorrect, but still okay in the Kingdom. The expectation is that the weaker brother, as he becomes mature in Christ, will grow in doctrine.
And then in verse 5, dealing with holidays and Sabbaths, note that Paul doesn't even tell us which view - if either! - is the one held by the weaker brother! On this issue, both views are equally valid, and the Gospel appears to have room for both!
So then, when we encounter a difference, we need to prayerfully seek to determine whether we're dealing with a acceptable difference (which we are to embrace), or a weaker brother issue (of which we are to be tolerant), or a false teaching (against which we must speak). This is NOT easy. I often find myself thinking twice before speaking or posting over a disputed issue, just to make suere I'm reacting to the right level. My gut reaction is often to come out with my guns blazing, because that is my nature.
That's why Steve was right in his series on the prosperity doctrine - it is a heresy, a false teaching, and he argued against it fittingly.
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment" (James 3:1). Note that a teacher can never hide behind the weaker brother defense. Because we're dealing with not only what we believe, but what we lead others to believe, we who are teachers must be challenged where we are wrong. The two USA Today articles (which brings me full-circle) show that masses of Christians are being allowed by some church leaders to believe whatever they want. We who are teachers have an immense responsibility to teach rightly, and the fact that those two articles even exist shows how we leaders must be held accountable for the work we do.
That's quite a burden to bear, isn't it?
Q,
I've already read the TIME piece, and have submitted my "ghost" blog post to Josh Riley. You can read my response there. (Just kidding; Josh doesn't need my help. But he says it so well, I don't really have much to add.)
Regarding the TIME article, I don't know if the authors, Biema and Chu, are believers, but they understand the Scriptures better than Osteen, Dollar, Jakes, and George Adams. Osteen, "Thomas Dexter" Jakes, and Dollar are biblically deviant. Neither Osteen nor Dollar have theological degrees, and as is obvious by their preaching, no framework for "rightly dividing the word of truth." "Thomas Dexter" received his bachelors, masters, and doctors degrees from Friends International Christian University, a correspondence school in Merced, CA, which I know nothing about. But all three of these men have been exposed as heretics by numerous evangelical groups. Several people with theological training are quoted in the article, and they disagree with the "Prosperity Lite" teachers.
I can accept the basic premise of what Caldwell says in terms of having money to give away. But if we give it away, that means we don't keep it for ourselves, or use it for selfish opulence.
Rick Warren, who seems to have a way with words, says it very well. "This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy?"..."There is a word for that: baloney. It's creating a false idol."
I think Warren, Witherington, Ben Phillips, Alan Branch and Michael Spencer, as quoted in the article, are spot on regarding this issue.
This statement exposes the real problem with "Prosperity Lite": "Most unnerving for Osteen's critics is the suspicion that they are fighting not just one idiosyncratic misreading of the gospel but something more daunting: the latest lurch in Protestantism's ongoing descent into full-blown American materialism."
And, Q, thanks for your kind words.
I think this is relevant to all three articles as well.
Throughout Western societies, and most especially in North America, there has occurred a fundamental shift in the understanding and practice of the Christian story. read it all here (it's only 2 paragraphs)
So then, when we encounter a difference, we need to prayerfully seek to determine whether we're dealing with a acceptable difference (which we are to embrace), or a weaker brother issue (of which we are to be tolerant), or a false teaching (against which we must speak).
well said.
The two USA Today articles (which brings me full-circle) show that masses of Christians are being allowed by some church leaders to believe whatever they want.
here i agree too. but on the flip side, what you said earlier about embrace, tolerance and speaking against can complicate this.
letting people believe whatever they want = rampant heresy and convenience gospel. "teaching" them but neglecting to teach them the skill of listening to the spirit = cult status.
the clear issues are easy, we speak against them. don't have sex with your neighbors wife. check. don't steal that car. check. don't give your kids mohawks when they attend private school...oh wait, my bad. just kidding. :)
but what about the embraces and the tolerances? do we speak as if we are the imparters of truth, or do we present multiple angles and let someone come to a conclusion by listening to the spirit? i pick the latter, because unless they are issues of biblical clarity, i also believe it is the responsibility of the teacher to model humility, as well as to teach people to rely on the spirit for truth and not the teachers.
consider Matthew 16:13-17. jesus asked a question, listened to their response, and then asked them what they thought. peter's response was on the money. and then he told peter that god himself had revealed that to him. he let him think. he let him listen to the spirit speak to him.
he could have easily told them what was up. but he didn't. he was proving a point, and in the process, teaching them something about listening, a skill many christians do not posess. why not? because they don't want to hear from god? nah, because they have never been taught to do so.
to speak truth when it is known, and to speak educated opinions when it is unknown seems the wisest and most responsible course of action.
some may believe that this is standoff-ish, or perhaps weak. to me, trusting that the spirit will convict a person on an issue is a serious test of strength and faith. HE told US that the spirit would guide us to all truth.
i intend to take him at his word.
Another interesting related blog post...
"American Christianity is far more American than Christian"
yeah, rosie is way off on that. although radical christianity is a danger, it does not measure up to radical islam. we've had some nutcases bomb abortion clinics and stuff like that, but we would never see entire armies and swarms of christians that push death the way radical islam does.
i wonder what the realistic ratio/percentages of radicals exist in our faiths. not just sheer numbers, but ratios. i wonder which of the 2 would win out as the more radical...i have a hunch, but totally unfounded. :)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I understood Tom Ascol to be using "radical Christianity" in a positive sense, i.e. not irrational, hate-mongering (or here for visual learners), or unfounded fanaticism.
I thought these were two of the best statements in the post:
"One reason that such mischaracterizations as O'Donnell's are loudly applauded in our day (as her comments were by the studio audience) is because we have so few examples of radical Christianity in the West and particularly in America."
"If more of us who name the Name of Christ were radically committed to Him and His way, our lives and churches would provide such a radical contrast to radical Islam that any attempt to equate the two would be immediately recognized as absurd."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tom was, rosie wasn't.
if you are saying radical like robbie sortino made famous, then yeah, we need more of that. if we are tlaking radical like rosie, then nah, we can do without.
The thing is I'm not sure who Rosie was referring to. I think she meant people like you and me. I don't think she was talking about Fred Phelps or Robert Weiler Jr.
The Pope understands what Rosie does not. Did you hear about his speech at the University of Regensburg in Germany?
In a speech Tuesday, the pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Islam and Christianity.
"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said.
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" (Houston Chronicle 9/14/06)
more excerpts here and articles here
Or click here to see the list of over 5,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01. (At the bottom of this page, click Go back to the List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks and scroll down to see the actual list.)
OK, back to Osteen...
(sorry Pablo, you swerved into a few of the hot topics sizzling in the blogsphere right now)
In an article in the Boston Herald, they noted that Osteen was asked about homosexual marriage. He responded:
"I don't think it's God's best," the handsome Holy Roller said of homosexuality. "I never feel like homosexuality is God's best."
When pressed on the issue, Osteen said, "I don't feel like that's my thrust . . . you know, some of the issues that divide us, and I'm here to let people know that God is for them and he's on their side."
Dr. Al Mohler says this about Osteen's answer: "There was no conviction in his answer; no clear declaration of biblical truth; no Gospel, no judgment, and no promise. Just a non-answer with a smile. Pathetic . . . simply pathetic."
Burger King Christianity.
It says it all. Just go read it. It'll take you 30 seconds to read the whole thing.
<< Home