Pat Robertson recently caused quite a stir with his comments about how the U.S. government should assassinate the socialist leader of Venezuela, Col. Hugo Chavez. Robertson, in an exasperated outburst, definitely uttered foolish sentiments unfit for his television program, the 700 club.
The insightful blog Rocket in the Bocket linked to none other than Jim Wallis, who surprised no one who has heard of him when he came out, guns blazing, against Robertson. It's a rather sad piece, which goes from misquoting the Ten Commandments (It's 'You shall not murder', think about it, how could it say 'You shall not kill' when capital punishment was an institution of the Law?) to deceptively portraying Hugo Chavez as just another legitimate foreign leader who simply differs from the Bush Administration (like Castro, I presume). The ironic thing is Wallis worked himself into a frenzy that mirrors the frustration Robertson displayed when he made his idiotic suggestion. Both of them need to take a deep breath and read the Bible.
In the accompanying post, Pepperdeaf also lambasts Robertson, in what reveals a more disturbing view than Wallis' hot air. He quotes Brennan Manning, “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
Confronted by the foolishness of this statement, the mature believer's mind should burn with the Truth. Or, if like me, the Christian would find himself nodding along with the sentiment, caught up in the ever-glowing allure of blaming other people. Then, hopefully, once the moment has passed, he'd find a nagging discomfort in the total picture presented by these words.
With all fairness, I don't know where this quote is from. I know Manning has written a book "The Ragamuffin Gospel", which is popular among our young generation. I haven't read it. I may be taking Manning out of context, if Pepperdeaf took him out of context. Manning very well could have somehow provided a biblical framework that supports this audacious claim, although I doubt it sincerely, due to the word choices the greatest single cause that open the statement. These concrete words leave no room for misinterpretation.
King David said, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) The greatest single cause of atheism is foolishness, or in other words, sin, evil, ungodliness, wickedness, depravity, however you like to call it. David also pinpoints the blame for unbelief, namely, the fool. Champions of "free will" theoretically should embrace this truth; but in reality, most do what Manning seems to be doing: passing the buck. One sacred mystery of a biblical worldview is the interaction between God's unlimited power and man's guilt. But do not be deceived; attributing cause of unbelief to others is not an option.
Pepperdeaf goes on to share this condemnation of President Bush and Robertson's faith that fuels their political views:
"One non-Christian friend of Mrs. Pepperdeaf told her last week that 'if President Bush and Pat Robertson are what Christians are about then she does not want to be one.' This individual missed the essentials of Christianity. . . she never even attempted to understand creation, or sin, or forgiveness, or what Jesus did for all of humankind. She was too turned off by the so-called Christian political agenda.
That hurts. Our world needs the gospel. . . and when that gospel becomes distorted by personal agendas, it loses its potency. "
This quote from Pepperdeaf's post is sad, but not for his reasons, but for his reasoning. It is sad because God's surpassing might is being doubted and underestimated by some who call Him Lord. God's tender mercy, blazing glory, relentless grace, consuming justice, undaunted power---all ignored.
If someone purports to put their own conditions on worshipping the Alpha and Omega, the infinite God, the great I AM, are they dwelling in reality? Do they have the humble acknowledgement of humanity's emptiness necessary to see God? Absolutely NOT. If they had the merest iota of understanding who is the Lord they reject, they would wail with regret and immediately collapse in anguish and fear.
God to the complaining Job,
Who is to blame for this blindness? If this person cannot imagine a god big enough to forgive George W. Bush, Pat Roberston, and everyone else he disagrees with, can we blame his doubt of God on anyone but him? What if I were to brazenly shout at God, "You love David Berkowitz (The Son of Sam, serial killer, repented, now worships the True God)? Screw you!" Or what if Pol Pot heard the Gospel on his deathbed and confessed that Jesus was Lord? Would I dare seethe at God for His lavish grace?
The answer is that I would, if I was not yet shown the depths of my own depravity by the Spirit. Anyone with the gall to turn from God's face and claim his doubt is legitimate because his demands weren't met is truly to be held as an object of sorrow for his calloused heart and his doomed future. Anyone who doesn't see this hasn't seen God.
The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot "(lose) its potency". To make such a egregious error is grievous to those who cherish God. "(The gospel) is the power of God" Paul says in Romans 1. How can man, whose every second of life occurs at God's breath, say God's power can lose potency? The very words in the same sentence are a foul combination. Would a broken glass shard glittering in the light turn and gauge the Sun to be dim?
Pepperdeaf closes with this, "Please Pat Robertson (and others). . . preach the gospel. . . and explain your personal opinions on politics if you desire, BUT STOP TAINTING THE GOSPEL BY MIXING THE TWO."
Again, heartbreaking. Christians should rejoice that Jim Wallis and Pat Robertson exist, in the sense we should praise the Spirit that people exist who attempt to base their views on the Bible. It should not be a surprise that in this profound process, a plethora of foolish ideas abound, due to the believers' inability to see perfectly while on earth. But the answer to these false notions is not to create a illusory division between the gospel and politics, church and public policy, prayer and science, tithing and economics, etc. Indeed, the Church today is stunted because more followers do not entrench every thought, feeling, opinion, hypothesis and desire in Jesus Christ. The solution is a deeper understanding of the Word and its foundational aspects on every facet of life.
Jesus is Lord of all. Belief in God, through the Holy Spirit, is a holistic, complete, indivisible perspective on reality. You cannot marginalize the gospel of Christ. Finally, the cause of atheism is the atheist's sin. I'm done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I am pretty sure I am in complete agreement. Figured I would give you a little encouragement before the point/counterpoint begins.
Mixing Christianity with politics is our obligation. Christianity is a whollistic lifestyle and cannot be separated from any part of our lives. To say that Christianity must be separate from politics is to say that no Christians can be politicians, because a Christian politician (when he is behaving like a Christian) will base his politics on scripture.
I have been waving this same idea around for weeks... but I see this as yet another example of man setting himself up with the power of God. We give ourselves credit for the salvation and damnation of other men because, even though it reflects poorly on us at times, it means we are in control. And man has been trying to usurp God's power since the fall of Adam and Eve. To blame Bush for causing some to fall away is to say that we have power that we do not have.
Last of all, people don't like Bush because they don't like his politics. It has nothing to do with how he mixes religion and politics. People need to stop trying to turn him into a bad Christian because he is a Republican. It's nonsense.
I also agree.
>>One sacred mystery of a biblical worldview is the interaction between God's unlimited power and man's guilt. But do not be deceived; attributing cause of unbelief to others is not an option.
…
God's surpassing might is being doubted and underestimated by some who call Him Lord. God's tender mercy, blazing glory, relentless grace, consuming justice, undaunted power---all ignored.
…
The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot "(lose) its potency".<<
This I think is the bottom line. We are saved by God alone. The gospel's saving grace does not lose its force because of another sinful human's actions or inaction.
>>attributing cause of unbelief to others is not an option<<
the gospel is primarily communicated through believers (other people). the bible makes this abundantly clear with a few exceptions (i.e. maybe paul). the holy spirit works in the non-believers heart, but ultimately a non-believer gains understanding of the information as it is conveyed to him/her through another person. it is really simple. it would be very difficult to come to a full understanding of the christian faith isolated in the woods. that is why we send christian missionaries around the world. . . to tell them the 'good news.'
i am not sure what the hang up is. for example, let's say i meet someone in the woods and i am the only person that he/she ever encounters. is it not partially my fault that they stay an unbeliever if i tell the person that the 'gospel' is about eating as much bread and drinking as much wine as possible? along the same lines, i think that the 'good news' of Jesus Christ is dishonored when Christians say that it is about 'feeling happy' all the time or 'having lots of money and good health.'
>>the cause of atheism is the atheist's sin<<
true. . . and how do we know what sin is? through the law. . . which is communicated to us. if my parents raise me and continually tell me that there is nothing wrong with stealing, i will likely never consider that stealing may be wrong until i meet someone who says that it is.
>>God's surpassing might is being doubted<<
never. God seeks to work through us, but because of our sin we are clogged pipes. clean water goes in, but murky water often comes out. when i say we screw up the gospel, the gospel does not become screwed up, we just convey it in a screwed up way. . . it is presented to others screwed up.
>>The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot "(lose) its potency".<<
galations 1 clearly says that the gospel can be perverted. read romans 10 too.
if i tell a person that the gospel does not require a turning away from sin, but only belief in a 'good man,' the gospel has lost its potency and is no longer the gospel.
>>a illusory division between the gospel and politics. . .<<
i am not clear why you believe i would advocate this, especially since i mix the gospel with politics in nearly every post that i have.
i desire for everyone to bring God into politics. i do not desire anyone to bring politics into God.
i am free to make truth assertions when my foundation is clear in the text and context of the bible, but when my subject matter strays from the text, i must be clear that i am not speaking from truth, but from opinion (unless i am a prophet, and some people clearly are). non-believers, who have little exposure to christian doctrine and the bible, would be severely mislead if they understood robertson's teachings to be clear apostolic teaching.
i believe robertson (wallis, whoever), as a public christian figure, has an obligation to separate his truth claims (the gospel) from his personal opinions (green is the best color, capitalism is the best system, etc.). what happens when this line is not drawn is that listeners say, 'heck, i don't believe that opinion, so that gospel must be crap too.' the same thing would happen if during my next sermon i said, 'accept jesus into your heart' and 'do away with drinking pepsi.' people begin thinking both are required.
>>the gospel is primarily communicated through believers (other people)...is it not partially my fault that they stay an unbeliever...<<
Here I guess we're getting a little bit into the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, but most evangelicals theologians today would say that salvation is an act of God, wholly and entirely. If we spray out muddy water as you say, we are culpable (I Peter 3:15) for failing to give a reason for the hope we have, but that person's unbelief is not on our shoulders. God can choose to act through us, but God never fails due to our failure. If God means to save someone, he will.
>>the gospel has lost its potency and is no longer the gospel<<
Exactly. It is no longer the gospel. What it is is something less potent, but no longer the Gospel. The Gospel itself has not lost potency.
>>i think that the 'good news' of Jesus Christ is dishonored when Christians say that it is about 'feeling happy' all the time or 'having lots of money and good health.'<<
Definitely agree.
>>what happens when this line is not drawn is that listeners say, 'heck, i don't believe that opinion, so that gospel must be crap too.'<<
I don't believe that this truly keeps people from the Gospel. If that is the reason they give, they aren't truly listening and searching for the truth. In fact, by this logic, any but the 100% ultimate best presentation of the Gospel is not okay.
We are, as you say, imperfect mirrors of the gospel, but that's what we're called to be for that brings glory to God. Where our words are outside the Gospel, may unbelievers forget them. In fact, my pastor prays that most Sunday's-- that anything he says outside God's will would quickly be forgotten. And it's the same in our day to day life.
Of course, that's no excuse to go on speaking haphazardly, just as grace is no reason to keep sinning.
General, it seems your philosophical framework is holding up quite well. This is why I believe humanism is the most harmful ideology present in the U.S.
Pepperdeaf,
>>ultimately a non-believer gains understanding of the information as it is conveyed to him/her through another person.<<
The is nothing ultimate about one person's display of the Gospel. It is the Spirit who ultimately calls each soul according to God's designs.
I did read through Romans 10 and Galatians 1. Great references to include, man.
"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ."
--Paul to the Galatians, chapter 1
The phrase that stands out is WHICH IS REALLY NOT ANOTHER. Westy makes the point.
>>i desire for everyone to bring God into politics. i do not desire anyone to bring politics into God.
<<
I really hope this was mistyped, but I fear that this is what people really think. Surely you don't desire to 'bring God into politics'? How do you bring the Source of all Truth into study of Truth? It'd be like hoping the foundation of a skyscraper will instead be a paperweight inside the 87th floor offices.
Instead, we should build on the Rock. Bring your politics, sciences, philosophy, thoughts, emotions, dreams, hurts, grievances and lay them at God's feet, willing to part with them all, ready for His redemption to transform us to discern His will.
>>If God means to save someone, he will.<<
why do evangelism then? do we have no accountability under your logic for what we say to others regarding the gospel?
>>God never fails due to our failure<<
you are misunderstanding me if you think that i am saying that God fails. he clearly cannot, but we can. the bible talks often about people leading others astray. for example, in matthew 24, jesus said that false prophets will come and deceive many. are their deceptions without consequence? they lead others astray.
>>humanism<<
my comments are as humanistic as yours are gnostic. . . and i believe that both are misleading representations and labels of our intentions.
>>There is nothing ultimate about one person's display of the Gospel.<<
i never said anything about ultimate. never once have i denied that God is ultimately in control. this, however, does not negate our actions.
>>the gospel has lost its potency and is no longer the gospel<<
>>The phrase that stands out is WHICH IS REALLY NOT ANOTHER<<
how could the gospel change? and from where in my 50+ posts discussing the gospel would you draw a presumption that i meant this by my comments? please look at the context.
>>I really hope this was mistyped<<
you are confused with semantics and ignoring context and intended meaning. its the same logic that reads the bible and gouges out an eye for sinning.
I'm certainly not trying to be antagonistic, but Pepperdeaf raises a solid point regarding accountability.
If I understand their words correctly, I agree with Westy and Oneway when they say God will have His way in man's heart even if the message is messy or the messenger is questionable. What I don't understand then, is why so much of these comments are spent picking apart others' presentation of Biblical truth.
For instance, why devote an entire post to criticizing Pepperdeaf's "foolish" statements about Pat Robertson's antics if God could in fact use those statements to bring people unto Himself?
By no means am I asserting that anyone hear doesn't believe in being accountable. I just want to understand how it fits in with your attitude towards correcting fellow Christ-followers.
>>What I don't understand then, is why so much of these comments are spent picking apart others' presentation of Biblical truth.<<
Thanks for the responses, gentlemen. I appreciate the call to accountability, relevent. I agree we are. And I apologize if anything I'm expressing comes off as harsh or antagonistic. I do not mean it as such. The point of my posting is to help myself and others sort out our theology, hopefully pushing it closer to the Truth. This sort of forum is very useful to me, and hopefully others, for straining out what I truly believe.
>>God could in fact use those statements to bring people unto Himself<<
I agree, and I pray that they would.
>>he [God] clearly cannot [fail], but we can.<<
Exactly. But by our failure, he doesn't fail. If we fail to go to our 'Ninevah' (say Jonah had never gone), God doesn't snap his fingers and say "whoops, I guess those people won't be saved." He will use someone else to reach who we might have. We missed the opportunity to be a part of God's plan.
>>why do evangelism then? do we have no accountability under your logic for what we say to others regarding the gospel?<<
Ahh yes, the question it boils down to. A good one, and a common critique of Calvinism (which I might add is not necessarily a theology I today agree with wholesale, but am growing to understand). A truly wonderful resource on this and really everything Gospel-related is John Piper. He is, I think, one of our modern-day prophets. A man of God I admire greatly. Please visit his website at www.desiringgod.org if you haven’t. Anyway, here is what he has to say about this:
"These truths [about Calvinism] remind me that evangelism is absolutely essential for people to come to Christ and be saved, and that there is great hope for success in leading people to faith, but that conversion is not finally dependent on me or limited by the hardness of the unbeliever. So it gives hope to evangelism, especially in the hard places and among the hard peoples. John 10:16, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold, I must bring them also. They will heed my voice." It is God's work. Throw yourself into it with abandon."
I sincerely thank you all for your comments. I must follow Westy's example and also apologize if I came across as being argumentative or overtly harsh.
Pepperdeaf,
My impetus for evangelism is along the lines of Westy's wonderful quote of John Piper. His book "Desiring God" invigorated my soul to cherish God's character as described by Reformed theology. The book contains an Appendix which heavily quotes Jonathan Edwards to build a case for Calvinism, and after three month of wrestling with it, I came see the stirring beauty of this doctrine.
I was referring to Manning when I mentioned humanism in this thread, although in the past I have characterized your worldview as humanistic based on your blog and your comments here on HIFI. Labels never perfectly fit, but they serve well as shortcuts. I'd be interested in the basis for labeling me a gnostic.
>>i never said anything about ultimate.<<
Again, without being argumentative, I hope to elucidate. I directly quoted you saying "ultimately..." from your comment earlier. I don't wish to be libelous on top of gnostic.
>>i desire for everyone to bring God into politics. i do not desire anyone to bring politics into God.<<
If you have the time, please explain these thoughts. My take on them is consistent with what I understand your position to be, based on your blog and your comments here in this thread and past ones. I missed your intended meaning apparently.
toberelevant,
I appreciate your comment. You did an admirable job in being upfront but unantagonistic. It seems I need more tact.
My motivation to correct false assertions is simply because I worship God throughout the process. It is a pleasure to wrestle with, mull over, meditate on, obsess in, discover, and appreciate the Total Truth of Jesus Christ. I am not afraid of false statements, mine or another's, preventing the Spirit from the rescue of a soul. I strain to speak truth by grace in an effort to walk closer to the Spirit. In the same sense, I evangelize, not out of fear, but for the chance to fly by the Spirit in the face of persecution, to observe point-blank the grace of God, to sit front-row to an uncomparable display of Jesus' supremacy. God doesn't need us, but we are all fools for every time we pass on this opportunity.
Westy,
Thanks for the clarification. Somehow you managed to mention Calvinism without sounding like a cold-hearted prick. That's a great skill I need to learn.
>>conversion is not finally dependent on me<<
i do not think i said anything that would contradict piper's comments. god is more than capable of saving those who are led astray by our evangelical failures, but we still should not act as if they are insignificant.
>>gnostic<<
to be brief. the gnostic idea that god's grace is so abundant that humans can do as they please without consequence. god works everything out, so we don't have to do anything to make things better. we're just lucky we got the secret knowledge.
>>I directly quoted you<<
you quoted the word 'ultimately,' but not much else.
i said >>ultimately a non-believer gains understanding of the information as it is conveyed to him/her through another person<<
you said >>There is nothing ultimate about one person's display of the Gospel.<<
i meant. . . noone is going to know information about jesus unless they are told it or read about him. you made my words sound as if i was saying that a person's salvation ultimately depends on my ability to correctly convey the gospel. (you misunderstood/misconstrued what i was saying)
>>i do not think i said anything that would contradict piper's comments.<<
You did. The Manning quote and your Mrs. Pepperdeaf story all attribute cause (as opposed to influence) of unbelief to other peeps' actions. Piper is saying it is God's call.
>>you quoted the word 'ultimately,' but not much else.<<
Untrue, I quoted whole parts of your post, and the entire pertinent phrase in which you used the absolute term "ultimately".
I agree with your explained meaning, it is a much clearer thought.
>>gnostic<<
Great definition of the term. Again, it's fine with me however you want to label me, but to be fair, it seems reasonable to support such a claim. You have not.
>>You did<<
my point is fairly simple. some people lead others astray. robertson's comments likely led some astray. that makes me angry.
you say sin is the cause of atheism. that is fine. . . but do you then believe that we have no influence on another person's proclivity to sin? (that is what manning is getting at)
do you believe that conversion happens without communication?
>>it is God's call<<
do you mean by this that jesus only died for some of us?
>>You have not.<<
the difference is that i do not think you are really a gnostic, but you seem to think that i am a humanist.
I guess I'll jump back in this. (And I thought we were so close to resolution...)
>>some people lead others astray.<<
I disagree. This is I think the bottom line of the difference I see. I don't think that even by utterly sinful actions that another person can cause a person to harden their heart and not accept Christ's calling.
>>do you mean by this that jesus only died for some of us?<<
Many would say that Jesus only died for the saved. Personally, even if he died for everyone, I still think it's God's call.
I'm curious, I am by no means a Piper expert, but I am trying to devour as much of it as I can, as I see truth in his writings. Do you guys also agree with his theology?
Westy asked >>Do you guys also agree with his (Piper) theology?<<
It would be folly for me to say that I agree with all of Piper's theology before I've honestly studied all of his writings. However, with that said, I believe the Bible teaches what Piper asserts about the sovereignty of God in man's heart, evangelism, racial equality, and submission to authority.
I've absorbed many of his sermons online (text and audio) and am currently reading "Pleasures of God." I recommend checking out any from his series "Men of Whom the World Is Not Worthy." I don't know if they're availabe online, though. The series is a collection of talks about great men of the faith (Spurgeon, Edwards, Branerd (sp?), etc.).
>>>>some people lead others astray.<<
I disagree.<<
but the bible clearly says that some are led astray.
see 1 Cor. 12:2; 1 John 3:7; 2 Chron. 21:11; Deut 13:13; Ezekiel 13:10; Isaiah 3:12; etc.
matthew 23 talks about leading others astray as well and clearly scolds the pharisees.
>>Do you guys also agree with his theology?<<
i do not know much about him and have read very little of him. only a few sermons and some articles for world magazine.
>>but the bible clearly says that some are led astray<<
I'll be honest, when I wrote what I wrote, I was thinking of 'true Christians' being the ones leading people astray in my head. Obviously several of these examples are non-Christians (and thus the devil) leading others astray.
However, the Bible does say that even hypocritical Christians are a concern.
I guess I'm not sure what to think. If people are capable of being led astray and yet are called by God, that would be saying they're capable of choosing man or even the devil over God. That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
It seems if God means to call somebody, he's irresistable. So how does that jive?
Piper even goes so far as to say, "The elect most definitely WILL obtain salvation: "those whom he elected he predestined, and those whom he predestined he called and those whom he called he justified and those whom he justified he glorified." No one can lead astray the elect (Matthew 24:24). Therefore the ministry is undefeatable."
>>you seem to think that i am a humanist.<<
Pepperdeaf,
I don't presume to judge your heart, or anyone else's. I simply see certain influences in your thinking as described by your blog and comments, and that's as far as it goes. Our words are imperfect mediums, so knowing you outside of blogging gives me hope we are seeking the same God.
Westy,
In my limited experience, Piper is the greatest preacher around today. His theology seems to present God as He is revealed in the Word, and I agree with it.
toberelevant,
FYI, it's Brainerd. Just so it's clear.
It seems we all have arrived at the impasse of Arminianism vs. Calvinism. Of course, hypocritical believers are a concern with both positions. It seems the crux is how much influence over another soul will we ascribe to the hypocrite, and how much influence over a soul we will ascribe to God.
Post a Comment