The obligatory “cussing pastor makes Calvinism cool again” post
posted at 5:55 pm on January 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
We’re tossing grenades over it in Headlines, naturally, so I thought I’d move it to the front page for general consumption. Having watched a few of his videos on YouTube, I think the Times gave him a bad rap. For one thing, he didn’t curse. For another, they overplay the machismo angle. There are indeed preachers whose mission is to re-masculinize Christianity, but that theme was conspicuously absent from the eight or so clips I saw.
Or maybe I’m just watching the wrong clips.
God called Driscoll to preach to men — particularly young men — to save them from an American Protestantism that has emasculated Christ and driven men from church pews with praise music that sounds more like boy-band ballads crooned to Jesus than “Onward Christian Soldiers.” What bothers Driscoll — and the growing number of evangelical pastors who agree with him — is not the trope of Jesus-as-lover. After all, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the bride of Christ. What really grates is the portrayal of Jesus as a wimp, or worse. Paintings depict a gentle man embracing children and cuddling lambs. Hymns celebrate his patience and tenderness. The mainstream church, Driscoll has written, has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”
If you want to hear him discuss masturbation or oral sex, poke around here. The Times gives the impression that he’s some sort of heretic or shock jock, but every lesson I saw was entirely conventional. More interesting are these two vids. The first deals with predestination, which seems more mundane as he explains it than I thought it would be. God chooses the Christian, he insists, the Christian doesn’t choose God, but since the evidence of who’s “chosen” appears to be how devoutly one practices the faith, the distinction seems mostly semantic. In the second clip, we get into who’s “really” a Christian and who’s not. He justifies making fun of Mormons in yet another video, so I’m guessing they’re in the “not really” column.
Update: Actually, it’s not just semantic. Belated exit question: If God’s doing the choosing, how and when did he decide whom to save and whom to let burn?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Yeah he does. He intervenes to try to save people all the time. Thats why he sends his ministers to preach to the lost so they can be delivered from their sin but they refuse his free gift of salvation. Sounds completely fair to me. He gave them a choice and they chose their own way.
Well if he didn’t allow you to make bad decisions then you wouldn’t have free will. What good is a free will if you are not free to make bad decisions?
Again, its not God’s fault that man wrecked everything. What, God is somehow unfair because he allows you to make your own mistakes and decide whether or not you want his free gift of salvation?
No, the problem isn’t that the question hasn’t been answered, its just that you are not willing to accept the answer. You would be correct to say that the god you believe (or disbelieve) in doesn’t exist. What you have done is create your own god that is supposed to fit into this pre-conceived paradigm of how a God you have never met is supposed to be. If you never humble yourself and admit before God that you indeed don’t have it all figured out and may be all wrong then you will never find absolute truth.
NeverLiberal on January 11, 2009 at 12:42 AM
No, the argument is perfectly legitimate. Sure its possible on an individual basis, but try doing it on a societal level. Name one society where atheism was exalted and taught as truth and that nation didn’t become totally corrupt. I see the same parallel in Christianity all the time. Unless you give people a clear sense of righteousness and ultimate judgment, most of them will just continue living life the way they please. Of course there are exceptions, but societies aren’t run on the 1%.
NeverLiberal on January 11, 2009 at 12:52 AM
But…He knows the outcome before He even sends them. Doesn’t He? Or does He?
Again, He knows what you will do before you are even born. He knows if he sends somebody to “save” you, whether you will be saved or not. He knows if it will work or not. He’s therefore not giving you a real choice. He knows what the outcome will be. If I know you’re going to rob a bank, and I want to stop you, and I know that if I make a phone call to you to tell you to stop that you won’t actually listen, did I really do my best to help you? No I didn’t.
What about people who haven’t heard of “salvation”? And, again, He knows whom those are, and He knows they’re going to Hell anyway. So what kind of random “gift” is this?
You’re wrong. =) The question hasn’t been answered. I have thousands of years of Christian debate to secure me on that. You have…faith. Great, that’s wonderful. Anything I say, you can say something about faith. You don’t have to prove it, you don’t have to make a logical or rational argument about it. You just have to have it. It’s not a valid argument.
Predeterminism has always been a very big problem for Christian doctrine and it always will be, for the very reasons I outlined. The fact that you refuse to recognize it because you just have faith doesn’t disqualify those arguments at all.
I explained several times now why your “choice” isn’t really a “choice”. It’s a smug and self-serving sort of fatalist philosophy.
Again, I’m not knocking on Christian faith or doctrine. The fact is that many theologians in Christianity have debated this with open minds about the nature of God over centuries of discussion. All of them that I know of have concluded that there is no knowable answer. They fall back on faith, but they do so knowing that it isn’t a logical step or a rational one. They also admit that were there to be an answer to it, it would destroy doctrine as we know it. They recognize this as fact.
Summer on January 11, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I hate to point this out, but modern day Israel was founded mostly by Atheists. They believed in historical and moral reasons for having a state of Israel, but discounted the religious ones. They were “culturally” Jewish, but not religiously Jewish. Einstein, David Ben-Gurion, Herzl, all were openly agnostic or atheist. Many Jews who came out of the concentration camps had lost their religious faith but kept their cultural identity. Many who fled the pogroms of eastern europe also were avowed Atheists. The kibbutzes were originally set up by mostly Atheist parties.
They didn’t need a religion to identify whom they were or to defend themselves to the death.
Just you remember that.
Summer on January 11, 2009 at 1:01 AM
What I said is not Calvinism.
spmat on January 11, 2009 at 1:22 AM
What kind of logic is that? You mean if I know how someone is going to react in a certain situation, that somehow takes their free-will away from them? So if I have a cousin who is curious and doesn’t listen to authority well and I tell him not play around the electric fence, then just because I know he won’t listen to me then somehow he doesn’t have free-will?
So what are you trying to say? That unless God comes and splits the sky in 2 and comes to you face to face and yells in your ear then he is not fulfilling his moral obligation to save your soul? Where in the world is that written? First off, God has no moral obligation to offer you a free gift of salvation in the first place seeing we have cast off his word to begin with. He walked with Adam and Eve and told them as plain as can be not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
There can’t be sin unless there is a knowledge of it to begin with. Thats why it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So exactly how he judges those people will be up to him.
Well, having read some of the writings of the so-called church “fathers,” having their word on something is about as helpful as having a politician’s word that he won’t raise taxes.
That is a silly assertion. Of course we are not going to have a full understanding of anything, but that doesn’t mean we can’t understand the essentials of something without destroying doctrine as we know it. Maybe they like to claim it doesn’t make any sense but that is their words and not mine or the Bible’s. It makes perfect sense to me that God would operate in such a fashion. There is no other way he could act without giving us free-will. Eventually he will act and put a stop to it all though.
NeverLiberal on January 11, 2009 at 1:24 AM
There is a world of a difference between some of a countries leaders having a particular belief and the entire country believing that. The fact is that the majority of Israelis are not taught atheism in school and the majority of Israelis are not atheists. It would be true to say that they aren’t as religious as in the past but if you look at the moral decay of the nation then you will see that it is tied directly with the casting off of their religious morals.
NeverLiberal on January 11, 2009 at 1:31 AM
That’s quite alright.
Sure, I acknowledged that possibility, but the fact remains that he’s still the loser.
Trying to understand God usually is.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Again, most of Israel’s founders, including the people working the land and defending the nation, were agnostic at best. Not just the founding “fathers”. Most of the people were as well. The nation of Israel, since 150 years ago or so, was founded by people living in Kibbutzes or farms which openly taught Atheist principles.
I won’t argue the other points about predeterminism right now because I’m getting tired at the moment except to say that it’s one thing for you to know if I will listen to you or not, and another thing for you to know I will not listen, and then to damn me forever, when you have full power not to allow me to be damned or to do anything bad at all and still let it happen.
You’re not God so maybe you can’t understand the difference. =)
Summer on January 11, 2009 at 1:48 AM
The answer is extremely simple Allahpundit, though I am almost certain you will refuse to acknoeldge it even once I spell it out plainly.
God predestines GROUPS of people as far as salvation goes. Like boarding a plane going to Heaven or boarding a plane going to Hell.
Today, those who respond positively to Paul’s become members of the Body of Christ and will be saved as it says in Ephesians 1.
You have to understand Greek to get a grasp on the accurate meaning of verses 1-14. You can read about it from the explanation of a Greek expert here http://www.biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered/qa_eternal_security_1_body.htm
The short explanation is that there is a DEFINITE ARTICLE used with the “all things” so Paul is referring to “the al; things” which makes it a specific “all things” limiting the scope he is referring to in this passage which is the Body of Christ.
Yes, to understand the New Testament and what is being said its necessary to have a good knowledge of Greek grammar. Pastors must know this kind of stuff.
TheMightyQuinn on January 11, 2009 at 1:49 AM
You’re an excellent person.
baldilocks on January 11, 2009 at 2:07 AM
Gee, for one talking about quality control you sure seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
You mean Cyber stayed on topic? What a surprise. Talk about how Christians treat elephants and you’re likely to get a Christian to respond by talking to you about elephants. That’s generally how conversation works.
Your scenario is irrational, but I don’t see how it lines up with any Christian theology. God doesn’t wait but only because time is not a concept God lives inside the way we do. What happened a thousand years ago is the same as what’s happening now.
But then you go on to talk about God as though he is inside time.
No, when we say that we’re only talking about when it happened to us, how we describe the encounter.
No matter how it could have happened it would have been that way. No matter what happened, the Bible would have been used to record it. After thousands of years, it stands to reason that the method used could have been comprehended.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 2:14 AM
God could have cut out the middle man and just created paradise from the beginning. The fact that he didn’t has to offer some insight into God’s alleged mercy.
RightOFLeft on January 11, 2009 at 2:29 AM
As someone whose job it is to know something like that, it’s simply not grammatically true. It’s optional and mostly only done by Christians these days.
If you’re the one who gets to decide, then aren’t you the one who’s giving yourself false hope and being cruel to yourself should you be damned?
Or rather, he knows what your response would be and knows when intervening would serve no purpose.
As humans, many of our scientific achievements are the product of trial and error, sometimes taking an entire inventor’s lifetime to produce. An omniscient God wouldn’t have that problem.
The Bible says that everyone who seeks God will find him and that God makes his existence known to everyone, so even feral people who grow up without human contact can have a relationship with God and thus experience salvation.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 2:45 AM
Thank you. I’ve always thought highly of you.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 2:46 AM
Ditto for both.
Baldilocks/Estheir in 2012!!!
ColtsFan on January 11, 2009 at 3:21 AM
It could but only assuming we have the knowledge to decipher such a clue.
It’s much like I believe Obama’s meetings with Bush to be. All this time, I’m sure he’s labored under at least a few misconceptions about what it is to be president, and I’m sure that since he’s been given access to information that was previously unavailable to him, he now has a greater understanding of why Bush has done what he’s done, maybe even on issues where he’s in the past criticized Bush but will now copy him on.
Besides, even if what it shows us is that God really is not merciful, if God exists, you’re only punishing yourself if you reject him. Even a principled stand against a God who is a tyrant has no benefit. When you take a stand against a dictator, you have the option of taking away the dictator’s power. God by definition cannot be usurped.
Furthermore, if by taking a stand you cause other people to join you in a cause that will only cause them significant pain, earthly and other worldly hell, you’ve actually done more harm than someone who takes a life. So even if God is more vile than our imaginations can conceive, the consequences of rejection are even worse.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 3:25 AM
Heh. I appreciate the vote. You’ve certainly earned your good reputation here.
I know that I don’t fully understand Calvinism, but most of the ones I know appear to be uniquely intelligent.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 3:47 AM
Are you saying God created the universe outside of time? Firstly, what does that even mean? And secondly, how did you get to this conclusion when The Bible suggests otherwise?
Nonfactor on January 11, 2009 at 4:22 AM
I believe in God, but I don’t believe in Hell. I think I should be good because that is what God wants.
I don’t need Hell to keep me in a Mexican standoff against my morality.
Black Adam on January 11, 2009 at 5:27 AM
If God is the Creator of the Universe (and I believe he is) who are we as man to question who he shall and shall not have mercy upon as his creation. Rather presumptuous aren’t we? Any power that can create the observable universe, will obviously be too powerful for us to understand and we should possibly humble ourselves before him and marvel at his majesty! But…no…in all our glory we find ourselves able to actually question His existence! Remarkable!
sabbott on January 11, 2009 at 6:21 AM
Sorry, then we don’t believe in the same God. Jesus Christ and his followers in Scripture (which Jesus Christ confirmed) spoke very directly about Hell and the need to avoid it! He did not mince words or speak in parables about it. He spoke of it as a literal place of torment that we are to avoid! You cannot believe in the true God and not believe in Heaven and Hell! Sorry!
sabbott on January 11, 2009 at 6:24 AM
AP, why are you surprised & offended at that?
You are to Creation what William Ayers is to the United States.
The main reason Christians should love you is to try to influence you to cease your treasonous ways & embrace the King.
jgapinoy on January 11, 2009 at 8:50 AM
She no doubt thinks you should repent.
jgapinoy on January 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Posted in Headlines comments:
Chuck Smith through the Bible
rhodeymark on January 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM
of course He knows…He doesn’t ‘let’ us be damned…we do that ourselves…its called free will…
the ‘point’ is He suffered and died so we COULD be saved…not MUST be saved…or there would be no free will and we would be robots…that any are saved at all is a miracle.
you cannot have free will and no consequences for that free will.
oh please, then why bother to even create us, or anything at all, since HE already knows how it will turn out..you have kids..you know they’ll be human…so why have one??
please.
I get to damn you? uh yeah you really are delusional…seems like you want God to punish you…sounds like He’s just giving you what you want.
more delusions…look at it this way..your son died to save someone on 9/11…at the funeral that person that your son died to save, comes up to you and spits in your face…what do you do??
God doesn’t damn you for ‘judging Him’ because your judgement of Him is no doubt amusing to Him…hubris…you’re judged for rejecting His Son and what He did…spurn His grace, earn His wrath.
its rather simple
unfortunately the only problem is within you…
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM
I have been to soooooo many churches that have switched from traditional services to so-called “contemporary” ones, and I just don’t get it…the whole thing seems to me more of a “dumbing-down” of Christianity. The pastor of our church did away with all the rock-band, hand-holding, contemporary nonsense when he got here. The original is still the best.
uncivilized on January 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
very true!!
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM
ROTFLMAO…. The music you call “traditional” was the heretical rock and roll of its day. The music employed in Christian churches has always evolved to suit those doing the worshiping.
doriangrey on January 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I’ve been to churches where the music is like a rock concert…my ears ring after the service…I quit those churches…all you can hear is a pouding bass beat…
I think they cross the line at that point, and use music to manipulate people….kind of like the drums in voodoo…to get an emotional response…
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Well, you know, my comment was meant to be amusing, and only meant to annoy the dumber Christians.
thuja on January 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM
What about atheist quality control? Oh, wait, if there’s no God, then there are no standards.
jgapinoy on January 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM
thuja on January 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Just curious. What do you mean by the “dumber” Christians”?
kingsjester on January 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Some people like Jazz, some like Classical, some like country and some like rock and roll. Musical tastes vary according to the individual. Most people have preconceived notions of what is appropriate for certain situations. Those notions are not always right. The Apostle Paul had this to say.
Music in the church works much the same way. It’s there to serve the needs of those who attend the church. If the music at your church offends you, then go somewhere where it doesn’t offend you. That the music they use offends you doesn’t mean that they are wrong or trying to manipulate anyone, it only means that you either have a different preference for music, or have become to ridge in your thinking to appreciate the style of music they choose to use.
I’ll leave you with King David’s thoughts on this matter…
3 Praise him with a blast of the trumpet; praise him with the lyre and harp!
4 Praise him with the tambourine and dancing; praise him with stringed instruments and flutes!
5 Praise him with a clash of cymbals; praise him with loud clanging cymbals.
doriangrey on January 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM
@kingjester
Explanations of humour are notoriously unfunny, but I’ll try. My statement was meant to be over the top. I had hope that the intelligent Christians would see that it was meant as humor. The dumber ones would then illustrate exactly what I meant by the lack of quality of control in Christianity.
@jgapinoy
Obviously, atheism also has no quality control. My point was that Judaism requires a convert to be approved by a rabbinical court.
thuja on January 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM
thuja ISN’T much of a sportsman, now is he? What do you think collie?
My collie says:
Yeah. If he thinks Christians are dumb, wait until THOSE people camp-out on his front lawn.
CyberCipher on January 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM
but it doesn’t say anything about praising Him until you damage your hearing…
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 12:34 PM
yeah I’m offended by any type of music that is so loud it damages your hearing…and when your ears are ringing…they’re being damaged…
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Yes, this is very important point. And it’s not just some churches. Many entertainment venues play music at dangerous level. Becoming deaf actually makes people unhappier than becoming blind. I would argue that human happiness could better be served by regulation of noise levels at entertainment venues than by anti-tobacco regulation.
thuja on January 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM
What does it mean? The possibilities are endless.
I disagree that the Bible does anything of the sort.
There wasn’t really much in your post to indicate that.
After your explanation, I get what you were doing, but to accomplish that you needed to go a little further.
That’s fine, but Jews are also born Jewish. Certainly that’s just as much a crutch.
Esthier on January 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
very true!! you can’t go see live music of any type anymore, they have it so amped up…they must think, if its loud, its good…
interesting, I wasn’t aware of that..I couldn’t imagine being blind…because I love to read…and look at pretty girls… ;-)
either would be very difficult…
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I have also heard that tinnitus is one of the top, if not the top disability for veterans of the current war on terror…..
right4life on January 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Calvinism breeds a horrendous entitlement mentality that comes with a get out of h3ll free card, too. This puts ‘em on tunnel vision par with the Muslims and their doctrine of ‘allah selects and protects whom he wills’ – everyone else is screwed.
Calvinists just need a good dose of Arminianism.
locomotivebreath1901 on January 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Apparently you don’t understand Calvinism then. A Calvinist see himself as he is, a sinner who deserves to go to Hell and only through God’s grace, he has been chosen to escape that damnation. If he truly is a Calvinist, then he will live a life that only pleases God because he has a proper grasp on who God is (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Johnathan Edwards) One of the first questions in the Westminster Confession of Faith is, What is the chief end of man? Answer: To glorify God and enjoy Him for ever. You can’t glorify God and enjoy Him forever, if you are living in sin and constantly worrying about where or not you will do something that will send you to Hell, even if God has died for your sins. God chose the elect in Him before the foundation of the world. It was God’s plan, carried out by Christ’s death, burial and resurrection and applied by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1) We had nothing to do with our salvation Eph 2:1 and 2:8,9 and can do nothing to lose it. God does however chasten those who live in sin and the ultimate chastisement is death. Being a Calvinist causes you to live a life that is more pleasing to God because we can see ourselves as what we could have been, except for saving Grace of Christ. Romans 3 (There is none righteous, no not one, there is non that seeketh after Him, they are all gone out of the way)Eternal security is not a get out of Hell free card, it is assurance that God is not a liar and that our lives are in His hand and not in our own. Romans 8:28-29.
flytier on January 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Heh. Research a few years back before the Bible and read about Zoroaster. If reading about pre-christian faiths is taboo for you, then read Prometheus Bound and see the parallels between it and Christianity.
Black Adam on January 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM
LOL
Baloney
Zoraster is a joke–almost as funny as Prometheus—you gotta smoke a lot of dope to fall for those phonies……
Been there, done that, threw away the t-shirt.
I dug through alot of garbage to cut and paste a Bible-less theology too—then I realized that it ended up what it started out as—garbage.
John The Baptist on January 11, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I chose Calvinism of my own free will because I was predestined to be Armenian. LOL
Actually I am neither anymore.
Thank God.
John The Baptist on January 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Chuck Smith is my pastor, an Arminian who believes in one of Calvinism’s five points — that man is radically depraved. He is an original evangelical standing athwart the emergent church and prosperity gospel movements, yelling “Stop!”
Despite the fruitfulness of his Calvary Chapel fellowship that now numbers in the hundreds worldwide, Pastor Chuck is still as on fire for the Lord as when he started preaching in an Orange County tent filled with Jesus People nearly 40 years ago.
Terrie on January 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Oh, I’ll agree with you that Zoroaster is a joke, but it predates Christianity. That doesn’t make it real.
Black Adam on January 11, 2009 at 3:52 PM
It’s only been in the last thirty years that Mormons called themselves Christians. Before that, they got insulted when you called them Christians.
You aren’t damned by God. You can only be damned by your own actions.
Squiggy on January 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM
You have the ability to read. I assume you’re also not deaf. Do you expect God to descend, slap you around and say “Hey, fella, believe this”?
I mean really, Allah, you’re a smart guy. What does God need to do for you to figure it out?
leetpriest on January 11, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Er… According to Christian doctrine, he did. Cf., “Garden of Eden.”
q2600 on January 11, 2009 at 8:06 PM
What AllahPundit–& anyone else–needs to do to figure it out:
1) Humble yourself.
Jesus said, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, & you don’t seek the glory that comes from God?”
“Pride comes before a fall”
“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
2) Be honest. Jesus said, “The good & honest heart receives the word gladly.”
3) Seek the Lord. God promises that all who wholeheartedly seek him will find him.
jgapinoy on January 12, 2009 at 7:45 AM
Here is your problem. Your god’s ‘tries’ aren’t enough. His plans are thwarted constantly by his own creatures. Your God is small.
That’s why regeneration has to take place first. God gently removes the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh and in doing so he makes us willing.
I’m joyful that he made me willing.
shick on January 12, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You’re no longer Armenian? That’s a pretty neat trick being able to disassociate yourself from your country or descendants.
:)
shick on January 12, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Depending upon how you interpret them, both Calvin and Arminus believed in predestination.
The difference was that Arminius believed that God predestined according to His foreknowledge:
While Calvin believed that God chooses (what we might call) arbitrarily, just whomever He chooses to choose.
To the best of my knowledge, it is a rather recent (past few hundred years) phenomenon that churches have adopted the belief that man chooses God at all. One point of agreement between Calvin and Arminius is the doctrine of “Total Depravity” meaning that because of fallen man’s sinful nature, he is totally incapable of loving God without some kind of Divine Intervention and therefore it is impossible for him to choose God at all, or be convinced of his need for God through argument or any other kind of appeal.
Many churches get around this problem by adopting the doctrine of a “divine nudge.” A moment of Grace that allows man to accept or reject God for that one instant that the nudge is being applied. Arminius might have agreed with this, but he still would have believed that that opportunity would have only been given to those whom God predestined according to His foreknowledge.
I can see how this pastor would get upset with the doctrines of the American church on these matters. What is currently practiced in many American churces isn’t even true Arminianism, but rather a Democratized, modernized, poorly thought out verson of it. What is practiced in much of the modern American Church is a humanistic, “believer-centric” Christianity that forgets the reason that God saves any of us (for His glory) and that Heaven isn’t a right that God denies some people, but rather an amazing gift that He gives to whom He chooses.
God is no longer a benevolent king, granting His subjects access by His grace to what they have absolutely no right. He is instead a poor, pitiful figure begging anyone passing by to come and join his club.
Pastors have gone from being speakers of difficult truths (see: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) and become slick salesmen, and the slicker the better, hoping to argue or beg some people into the Kingdom. The church itself has become a sales-pitch from the minute you walk through the door (or perhaps enter the parking lot), with graphics and music and plays professionally desingned to convince you to “sign on the dotted line” like you were buying a car.
Much of the Church has stopped teaching and helping Christians to deepen their relationships with God and begun teaching self-help and “how to share the Gospel” instead of believing what Scripture says and trusting that through a deepening relationship with God and the new Nature that comes with it, the believer will live and act and speak the way God directs him.
As such, the American Church is often described as “a mile wide and an inch deep.” The problem with that is that the Church isn’t “a mile wide” anymore. In fact it’s shrinking all the time, and what the purveyors of this new system never seem to realize is that the more they trust in themselves to grow the church, the more the church shrinks.
What it boils down to is that much of the Church has given up on trusting God. We want to trust ourselves, for salvations for right living and everything else. And the more we trust ourselves, the more we fail. And, Heaven forbid, a church leader is seen as “successful” the glory goes him instead of God and everyone follows his “model” or “plan” instead of the precepts clearly outlined in Scripture of (paraphrased) “Trust and Obey.”
29Victor on January 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3