Posted on 07/09/2002 5:35:41 AM PDT by Valin
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:36:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Christians should use every possible opportunity to witness to the unbeliever, but NEVER pretend that the unbeliever or those who believe in a different "god" are doing an acceptable thing; acceptable to a Christian believer that is.
The purpose of any church is to glorify God; not please man. The latter has become the expected in too many places today and thus we have the seeker-friendly priorities overwhelming the emphasis of the Cross.
No matter what gimmicks or fads may come and go, it is still the Holy Spirit that grows Christ's church. If that first principle is not understood, all else are moot points.
Paul never met Jesus, not even according to the writings in anybody's version of the Bible. Frankly, I feel that Christianity would have been the better for it, I can't imagine (based on the writings attributed to Jesus) that he would have let Paul carry on in what he had to say about women, gays, etc. All the things that have made problems for Christianity in the modern world. As for eyewitness accounts, certainly there are independent writings of the Roman government at the time that confirm the existance of a historical Jesus, but modern Biblical scholars believe that most of the Gospels, for instance, are copies of third sources. If I do a book report on "A Tale of Two Cities", and you do one, they will not be word for word, but they will have great similarities. Modern Bible scholars have forensic evidence, computer analysis of pre-translated works (from only several centuries after the events were supposed to have happened), and mass communications to help them share ideas on what was said, and what was meant, and even then, they frequently disagree. They understand that bishops in the early centuries after Christianity became aligned with the Roman government did not have these things to guide them in what parts to include in the scriptures, and what parts to burn (and best to burn at the stake those with any memories of a conflicting version, lest it be rewritten some day). If you have a mindset that believes that somehow "God" guided your little tiny sect all through the minefield of human memory and recollection, and saved it from all the misinterpretations that obviously beset your neighbors who believe 99% of what you believe, then I guess its easy to say that the right books were picked by these amateurs sixteen centuries ago.
Sorry, again, got off the point, and that is, I did learn something else about religion on 9/11 and its aftermath. Its that you cannot always tell who's a religious intolerant just by looking for the rag on the head.
This is the crux of the dispute between us.
Real Christianity does NOT accept people as they are. Consider the core beliefs of Christianity:
1. All human beings are born sinful, and are condemned to hell after death. Nothing I do can save myself from this.
2. But God loved enough to send his Son to die in our place and take on Himself the punishment that should be ours, and that by believing in him and being baptized, we are free from the condemnation.
Part 1 isn't very nice, is it - not very inclusive, tolerant, or accepting. Or very compassionate even. I am going to hell, just because of my nature? Even if I was a good person? Yup. That's the Law. I've broken it, and eternal death and damnation is my punishment.
But part 2 is my salvation - I can be saved, not by what I do but by what Jesus did.
The problem arises here in our society in that people look to religion for "healing", like a session with their therapist. And many Christian denominations have fallen for that trap, that Christianity is here to bring earthly comfort, healing and prosperity. Real Christiantiy is not about healing grief - its about saving souls. Because of humanity's sin, life pretty much sucks here on earth. The comfort in our faith is that we can be assured of life after death, not that my grief will be assauaged, my depression lifted, my personhood affirmed or my bank account filled.
By participating as a "representative" of Christianity in what was clearly an "interfaith" service, this pastor did not clearly and boldly proclaim part 2, the good news of salvation which we Christians are commanded to do. Instead, his participation with Hindus, Muslims, etc., gives the message that "What the hey - Allah, Shiva, God, whatever dude...it doesn't matter." This is what we call syncretism, blending of religions, and that is what this pastor has been condemned for. We do NOT accept that other religions are the path to heaven. And no, this isn't very nice of us. But it is faithful to our core Christian beliefs. What is petty adhearance to old dogma to you is vital truth to Christians, whether you or society like it or not. (you continually insinuate that because the religion is old it is outdated and useless. This is fallacy - is math useless, because we discovered its principals thousands of years ago? Is writing stupid, because its such a, well, old invention? Is the Constitution dumb, because its over 200 years old? I think not.)
Does this mean that we shouldn't grieve over the fallen Twin Towers, that we shouldn't have compassion on the victims of 911? No, of course we should. But this pastor was not "merely bring the relief his training and experience could be expected to add", according to the teachings of our church.
I was raised in the LCMS as a PK. When I was serving as head elder in an LCMS congregation I became very bitterly embattled with the pastor. (Breach of office confidentiality.) The LCMS hierachy protected the pastor ... so I left the church. After a ten year absence I joined an ELCA congregation. This was a truely bad mistake! Now I'm looking for a fresh start in another LCMS congregation ... but that stupid "Blue Hymnal" makes Worship a chore. Many LCMS churches in the Atlanta area are also taking the "I'm OK, you're OK" route of the ELCA. I'm about ready to puke.
.......and many fellow LCMS folks are right beside you. I have faith though. There are still congregations, such as my own, who are keeping the wolves at bay.
However, the battle lines are being drawn. There are far too many who want to play the liberal games and introduce a whole new form of political correctness.
Yes..............I'm about ready to puke too.
Maybe I was wrong to use the word "healing", clearly, a few denominations of Christianity have no interest in using their vision of their religion as a means to acheive it in nonbelievers. But what the pastor said about making a primary human connection, and then being criticized for it, was what I take issue with the higher-ups in this church, and their defenders. If people with those mindsets just simply keep to themselves, and refuse primary human connections with the rest of us, then we will be rid of the problem, as they will not win any more converts. Their children will find faiths (if they choose to believe in any religion at all) that have an understanding and an acceptance of the fact that not everyone is "saved" for believing 100% of what they believe, or eternal damnation is the result.
I understand that the version of Christianity that you follow has this idea of a vengeful God who would create intelligent beings to suffer some sort of "hell" unless they figure out EXACTLY which one of the thousand denominations there are to follow to the very LETTER of some human preacher's interpretation of scriptures of questionable origin. I've gotta say, that's pretty much my problem with yours, and everybody else's religion. I find it very difficult to believe in a being so vastly intelligent to create such an elaborate universe, who would then make it practically impossible for a mere human mind to figure out the puzzle. Indeed, the vast majority of humans wouldn't even get close! What a waste of consciousness! It's far easier for me to believe that all consciousness is cosmically wasted than to believe that only 0.0000000001% of the humans who ever lived will be what this whole world has been "created" for, while the rest of us are just sawdust to be shoveled onto some "lake of fire".
I guess its just my shortsighted belief in the certain reality of the "here and now" that makes me focus so much on the compassion part that the interfaith service was designed to bring about.
By the way, your analogies to math and the Constitution are flawed. Mathematics is constantly searching for new truths, and will gladly (like any science) replace a belief discovered to be false with a newfound truth that is verified, and the Constitution is amendable and interpretable. Yes, those interpretations sometimes strain credibility, but the idea of applying Constitutional principles to modern times is here to stay. Our intellectual property laws that deal with writings on dead trees can be the basis for works that travel on a stream of electrons. Practically all religions have closed the book on "truth" a long time ago, they are unable to grasp that humans were able to see things that they just weren't able to see hundreds of years ago. I'm not saying that old is bad, its just that what's the best form of "right" right now may not be seen as such forever.
What I was trying to say was that when religious intolerance is taken to an extreme, all that is needed is a willingness to engage in violence in the furtherance of that religion to make them all the same. This brought about the Crusades a thousand years ago, and now we have the payback for it a millenia later, from people who just won't let go of their ancient "truths". The interfaith ceremony was an attempt to use the positive side of religion to deal with the aftermath of the tragedy, but clearly, some don't want to use their religion for that purpose if it is not prominently featured as the "true" religion. Again, I applaud the pastor for seeing past this nearsightedness, and for standing with his fellow Americans, no matter what church door they go into on their Sabbath.
God did NOT create intelligent beings for the purpose of sending them to hell. He created them to be perfect, to live in the earthly paradise he had created for them. But then we screwed up, we broke the law. Why?
Free Will.
Rather than mindless robots, God gave us the freedom to choose good over evil. To paraphrase the words of the Grail Knight at the end of the Indy Jones 3 movie, "We have chosen...poorly." And from then on, the full consequences of sin is with everyone. All the evil, all the bad in the world is because humanity screwed up. I see your argument often, it usually falls along these lines:
1. There is a lot of evil and suffering in the world.
2. After life in this world, many if not most people are condemned to forever suffer in hell.
3. All of this was known by God beforehand.
4. God went ahead with his plan.
5. Yet, you say your God is a good God.
The real Christian answer is as follows (note, these are someone else's words from another forum, but they are applicable here)
1. The suffering and evil came as a result of man's action.
2. God, knowing man would fall(beforehand) into sin planned and provided a full redemption of every person who ever lived/will live. He sent his very own Son - God in the flesh - to suffer the wrath due mankind. Only those who resist God's plan of Salvation end up in hell; they throw down the rescue rope of Gospel Word and Sacrament sent out from God and count it as no effect, sending themselves to eternal judgement needlessly.
3.Yes, God went ahead with His plan of Redeption.
4.Yes, our God is a good God.
Since God knew not all would be redeemed, why did He go ahead with the plan? The only hint of an explanation (since God doesn't really owe us one) that I see in Scripture is that He regarded the ultimate end as something so glorious that it justified to Himself both the plan of creation and redemption and the incidental evil which would come about along the path to that end.
Is this a slip of the tongue or are you really saying seeker sensitive churches are compromised?
By the way, I did read the link you posted and was not too impressed. Theologically, the guy is crying "the sky is falling" for anyone proposing church services that differ from his proscribed method. While being critical of the CGM and the way they are reaching out to meet people's needs (seems Jesus did the same thing, go figure) he advocates a "works-based" method for determining qualifications for membership. I guess I must be reading the wrong Bible - which version teaches us that there are membership guidelines? Which one teaches us that this guy's view of worship is the right one?
Sounds to me like he is someone who is slamming the barndoor after the horse has escaped (I love euphemisms!!).
I'm familiar with your points, too, and I refuse to believe that each individual who has suffered unjust pain and sorrow have brought it upon themselves. I guess that's why its OK not to participate in the interfaith service, after all, if 9/11 happened, then those people might well have brought it on themselves in the great cosmic plan. Of course, the Adam and Eve fable is fobbed off as an allegory as to why humankind suffers, best to make it the very first humans on the planet, so that we are all heirs to their "sin", thus deserving of the suffering and evil. Well, if I believe in the concept of individual responsibility, then whatever someone did five thousand years ago should have no punishment for me. Our Islamist "neighbors" feel that the descendants of Europeans (and anyone who would tolerate them) should pay for the Crusades, and their notion of inherited responsibility is consistent with "fire and brimstone" Christianity.
As for "resisting God's plan of salvation" through Jesus, how do you figure God would help people who are presented with hundreds of conflicting views of exactly what that plan consists of? Surely, the Catholic, Mormon, and Seventh Day Adventist views of Jesus must be "wrong" in your opinion. They all profess to elevate Jesus' teachings to a level that you do, but they just don't do it "correctly", do they? Are they going to the very same hell as Hitler? Wow, aren't you glad you chose correctly! I mean, there are a lot of people who lived and died before Jesus was ever on the earth, and who lived in places where Christianity was not preached. Wow, you coulda been one of them! (Aren't you lucky that God's been looking out for you? Whew!)
The only hint of an explanation (since God doesn't really owe us one) that I see in Scripture is that He regarded the ultimate end as something so glorious that it justified to Himself both the plan of creation and redemption and the incidental evil which would come about along the path to that end.
I guess the crux of it all for me is this, somehow the "glorious plan" makes sense in the end, so all that deplorable waste of souls makes it all right. I guess for you to be part of the carving, a bunch of somebody elses have gotta be the sawdust. Sorry if I'm not impressed in this lifetime with the divine plan.
I ask you, is it possible that the pastor could very well have decided that he was doing God's work by being there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.