Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship. This is, perhaps, the most common naïve Christian slogan. I consider it naïve for two reasons. First, because it is not true, and second, because while it is used to counter one valid problem, it implies a view of the Church which is just as large of a problem.
When Christians claim that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, they intend to distance it from cold ritualism. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Performing a service for the mere sake of performing a service, or saying a prayer merely for sake of saying a prayer are both wrong and ought to be avoided. Worse yet is for a man to perform a service or say prayer for the sake of convincing himself that he is not a bad man, or for assuming that these acts prove his goodness and allow him to stand before God. The purpose of our services and our prayers is to both worship God and be edified in our pursuit of Him; our righteousness before God is Christ alone, not anything of ourselves.
The trouble, then, is not the sentiment of the statement. The trouble is the statement. My copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines religion in the following words.
Religion: 1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; 2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Clearly, the dictionary entry contained more than those first two definitions, but none of the other definitions could be construed in any way that would disqualify Christianity as a religion. Christianity is and always will be a religion. Why am I making such a big deal out of definitions? As somebody wise once said, “When words lose their meanings, people lose their lives.” In this case, no one is dying, but a proper understanding of the Christian life is at stake; spiritual lives are at stake.
When we say that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion, we implicitly reject both the communal aspects of religion as well as its formal aspects. Christianity becomes entirely personalized, and the Church as an institution diminishes in importance, or disappears altogether. But the visible Church exists both for God’s glory and our benefit.
Here are three ways we benefit.
1) A healthy church keeps us from great hypocrisies by exercising church discipline. As my pastor often says, “Don’t join a church that won’t kick you out.” Excommunication is more like chemotherapy than an execution. Church discipline is reserved for members who refuse to repent of their sins. And the point is not to abandon them out of spite, but rather to withhold certain blessings that they might realize the severity of their sins and repent and return. It is also an excellent deterrent; I have no wish to be confronted by the elders of my church.
The cruelest thing that a church can do is ignore great sins in its members; to ignore a sick soul is not love – it is apathy. And not to point out the obvious, but the refusal of churches to exercise church discipline is the reason that churches are allegedly filled with hypocrites. Turning a blind eye to sin is turning blind to sin.
2) Regularly attending church keeps us from spiritual lethargy by virtue of being regular, by providing us with Christian fellowship, and by administering the means of Grace (the Lord’s Supper, the preaching of the Word, baptism, etc.). At least, that is how it ought to be.
But why not have ‘church’ at home? Why can I not be a congregation of one? The church was always meant to be a community of believers. If we read our Bibles at all, we recognize that we are God’s people, and not just God’s person. Also, I suspect that Christians who reject ‘organized religion’ for ‘personal religion’ have far less personal religion than those Christians in established churches. With no accountability and no schedule, it is far too easy not to pray, not to read one’s bible, not to sing praises to God, and not to maintain a daily attitude of worship.
3) Attending church also keeps us from pride by reminding us that we are dependent on Christ and dependent on each other. We are neither the masters of our fate, nor are we spiritual giants ready to battle demons in the desert (like vain medieval hermits).
Christianity is both a religion and a relationship; the two are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually dependent. The church is the bride of Christ. If I reject the bride, how can I expect a good relationship with the groom? The application is this: attend a church that preaches the gospel. We are the bride. Let us not forget our Groom.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Tuesday 31 August 2010
Saturday 28 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 2 - Don't Judge!
Don’t judge or you’ll be judged! This phrase appears as a naïve Christian slogan when its scriptural meaning and context is ignored. In my experience, “Don’t judge!” is tossed into discussions like a smoke bomb to prevent persons from making moral evaluations. It usually means this: Hey, you can’t pass any judgments because it’s not your place to judge; it’s God’s. So leave me alone, jerk.
As we know, “don’t judge” is in reference to Matthew 7:1-2, which says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (NIV).
At first glance, the common use of the phrase might seem justified. But let us examine the verse that follow. Verses 3 through 5 continue the theme. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye” etc. It’s obvious from these verses that it is not judgment which is being condemned, but hypocrisy. This passage is saying that if you are going to pass a judgment, make sure you are not engaged in the same sin that you are condemning. That is, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.
And look at what happens in verse 6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Wait, how do we know who the dogs and pigs are? Gasp! Is Jesus asking us to use our judgment to differentiate between mocker ‘pigs’ and honest truth-seekers? (also see Proverbs 9:7-9) Yes, yes he is.
But what about Luke 6:37? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Well, the log-in-the-eye metaphor appears a few verses over (vs. 41-42). And on top of that, there are verses 43-45. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” Etc. Here also are moral judgments not only implied, but necessary.
Therefore, to read “do not judge” as a prohibition on judging is misguided. Perhaps a better reading would be “do not judge censoriously” or “do not judge hypocritically” (see John 7:24 and previous verses).
It is impossible to be a Christian and not judge between right and wrong. We’re even commanded in Galatians 6:1-5 to practice the following: 1) to recognize sin in each other, 2) to gently correct each other, 3) and to judge our own actions accurately.
If it sounds like I am beating a dead horse, I am sorry. It is important, however, that as Christians, we not abandon the tools God has given us, especially in our misguided attempts at harmony. If we refuse to judge each other in light of Scripture, calling each other back to truth and repentance, God will judge me for sinning, and then judge you for your heartless silence.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
As we know, “don’t judge” is in reference to Matthew 7:1-2, which says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (NIV).
At first glance, the common use of the phrase might seem justified. But let us examine the verse that follow. Verses 3 through 5 continue the theme. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye” etc. It’s obvious from these verses that it is not judgment which is being condemned, but hypocrisy. This passage is saying that if you are going to pass a judgment, make sure you are not engaged in the same sin that you are condemning. That is, hold yourself to the same standards you hold others.
And look at what happens in verse 6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Wait, how do we know who the dogs and pigs are? Gasp! Is Jesus asking us to use our judgment to differentiate between mocker ‘pigs’ and honest truth-seekers? (also see Proverbs 9:7-9) Yes, yes he is.
But what about Luke 6:37? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Well, the log-in-the-eye metaphor appears a few verses over (vs. 41-42). And on top of that, there are verses 43-45. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” Etc. Here also are moral judgments not only implied, but necessary.
Therefore, to read “do not judge” as a prohibition on judging is misguided. Perhaps a better reading would be “do not judge censoriously” or “do not judge hypocritically” (see John 7:24 and previous verses).
It is impossible to be a Christian and not judge between right and wrong. We’re even commanded in Galatians 6:1-5 to practice the following: 1) to recognize sin in each other, 2) to gently correct each other, 3) and to judge our own actions accurately.
If it sounds like I am beating a dead horse, I am sorry. It is important, however, that as Christians, we not abandon the tools God has given us, especially in our misguided attempts at harmony. If we refuse to judge each other in light of Scripture, calling each other back to truth and repentance, God will judge me for sinning, and then judge you for your heartless silence.
Read Part 1: Doctrine Divides
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Friday 27 August 2010
Sloganized Christianity: Part 1 - Doctrine Divides
There are a great many naïve Christian slogans floating in the air, and I’m quite certain it is a solely western phenomenon. I doubt the underground church in China uses slogans like the ones we have got. They do not have the luxury of being naïve; they have too much at stake. I mean popular phrases like, “Love unites; doctrine divides”, “Don’t judge, lest you be judged!”, and “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship.” All of these phrases emerge out of some valid concern; they’re all used by well-meaning persons. The trouble is that, like most reactions, they go too far.
Of the three phrases I have listed, the first is downright dangerous, the second is merely an honest mistake, and the third phrase makes us look ignorant and is potentially misleading in several ways.
Love unites; doctrine divides! That sounds awfully nice, but is rather silly. If you were paying attention, you noticed that “love unites; doctrine divides” is itself a doctrine. To put it another way, this slogan is saying “Love unites, but rules about what to believe are divisive.” But this is absurd; this slogan is also giving you a rule about what to believe: that love unites and that doctrine divides.
What persons usually mean (I hope) when they say that “love unites, but doctrine divides,” is that there are some doctrines which are not salvific ones, but which are often enough to divide Christians. I mean doctrines like those of baptism—do we immerse or pour? Or questions of the gifts of the spirit—are cessationists right, or is it the continuationists who are right? To be wrong on questions like these is not to be a mortal heretic.
The trouble is that when we say that doctrine divides, it implies that doctrine is either bad or unimportant. But every theological question is important, because every question is a question about God, and God is infinitely important.
How is every theological question a question about God? All theological questions can be classed as questions about God’s nature, God’s wishes, and God’s acts. But God acts and wishes only according to His nature. So even questions like “What is man?” can be understood in terms of God’s nature. (God created man in His own image and created man good, according to His nature. Man did not obey the wishes of God, and found himself at enmity with God, etc.)
Doctrines ultimately unite. We may disagree over doctrines, and that is magnificent, because it means we must respect each other enough to disagree. G. K. Chesterton writes that “creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each others’ way.”* Our disagreements force us to become better listeners, to practice love, to always be reexamining our convictions. If we ignore our disagreements, we do so by ceasing to listen, by loving only those who refuse to anger us, and by hiding our convictions under a smug blanket of cold tolerance.
Yes, love also unites; it is like string, or bandages. But doctrine is cement. Doctrine is the reason the universal Church exists as a universal Church. It is because we share the fundamental doctrines of Christianity that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is because of the doctrines of love that we understand our need to love.
*What's Wrong with the World, I.3 -- G.K. Chesterton.
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Of the three phrases I have listed, the first is downright dangerous, the second is merely an honest mistake, and the third phrase makes us look ignorant and is potentially misleading in several ways.
Love unites; doctrine divides! That sounds awfully nice, but is rather silly. If you were paying attention, you noticed that “love unites; doctrine divides” is itself a doctrine. To put it another way, this slogan is saying “Love unites, but rules about what to believe are divisive.” But this is absurd; this slogan is also giving you a rule about what to believe: that love unites and that doctrine divides.
What persons usually mean (I hope) when they say that “love unites, but doctrine divides,” is that there are some doctrines which are not salvific ones, but which are often enough to divide Christians. I mean doctrines like those of baptism—do we immerse or pour? Or questions of the gifts of the spirit—are cessationists right, or is it the continuationists who are right? To be wrong on questions like these is not to be a mortal heretic.
The trouble is that when we say that doctrine divides, it implies that doctrine is either bad or unimportant. But every theological question is important, because every question is a question about God, and God is infinitely important.
How is every theological question a question about God? All theological questions can be classed as questions about God’s nature, God’s wishes, and God’s acts. But God acts and wishes only according to His nature. So even questions like “What is man?” can be understood in terms of God’s nature. (God created man in His own image and created man good, according to His nature. Man did not obey the wishes of God, and found himself at enmity with God, etc.)
Doctrines ultimately unite. We may disagree over doctrines, and that is magnificent, because it means we must respect each other enough to disagree. G. K. Chesterton writes that “creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each others’ way.”* Our disagreements force us to become better listeners, to practice love, to always be reexamining our convictions. If we ignore our disagreements, we do so by ceasing to listen, by loving only those who refuse to anger us, and by hiding our convictions under a smug blanket of cold tolerance.
Yes, love also unites; it is like string, or bandages. But doctrine is cement. Doctrine is the reason the universal Church exists as a universal Church. It is because we share the fundamental doctrines of Christianity that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is because of the doctrines of love that we understand our need to love.
*What's Wrong with the World, I.3 -- G.K. Chesterton.
Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion
Thursday 26 August 2010
New Club of Good Cents Posts
The Club of Good Cents (where I am a contributor) has two new blog posts.1) Slave to Sin or Righteousness?
2) The Great Weaknesses of Atheism: Part 2 - Irrationality
You can read part 1 HERE.
Friday 20 August 2010
"Runaway Slave"
I'm buying this when it comes out in 2011. You should, too.
I heard about it on this follow-worthy blog.
Peace.
I heard about it on this follow-worthy blog.
Peace.
Sunday 15 August 2010
Agenda: Grinding America Down (a documentary)
I just finished watching this documentary. I was blown away. Everyone must see it. I have no further words. It speaks for itself. Watch the trailer below. Then buy it. The information it contains is worth far more than $18.
AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Trailer) from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.
Here's a link to the Agenda Website.
A friend (who is awesome) let me borrow this film, so I don't actually own it. But after watching it, I'm ordering at least one copy.
Thursday 5 August 2010
Books: America Alone and The Spirit of Churchill
| I finished America Alone yesterday, and today I started The Spirit of Churchill by Debbie Brezina. America Alone was about the moral cowardice of the West, and The Spirit of Churchill is about an era when the West was still brave. Brezina's book makes an excellent prequel to Steyn's. There wasn't much that was new to me in America Alone. Steyn discusses the dangers of the increasing Islamization of the West. I was familiar with most of his points-- the problems with global demographics (and how it relates to the spread of Islam), the moral poverty of the West and the moral strength of Islam, the incompatibility of Islam and Western freedom, Islam's inherent violent bent, etc. So over all, America Alone was depressing. After all, critics of the book called it 'alarmist propaganda' or something. Which would be a bad thing, except for the fact that Steyn is right. Whether a book is alarmist or not has nothing to do with whether or not it makes valid points. And not only are his points valid, they're also pointy and uncomfortable, like swords: the Sword of Islam. It's worth a read. The Spirit of Churchill, on the other hand, is nothing short of inspiring. It's amazing how easily I'd forgotten how incredible Hitler's rise and defeat actually was. The West needs another Churchill; we need another Charles Martel. We've got far too many Chamberlains in politics these days. I've been reminded how rare true courage is. Perhaps it's because courage is a Christian virtue; only the weak can be brave. It is the lamb and not the lion which can cultivate courage. Courage is the lamb becoming the lion, despite the knowledge that he is still a lamb. At any rate, I highly recommend The Spirit of Churchill to your reading lists. Cheers, |
Tuesday 3 August 2010
A mosque on ground zero? Sure! Why not? It's not like the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims or anything.
Granted, the mosque won't be on the ruins of the two towers; it'll be an a nearby building that was struck by airplane debris. I don't know that the Islamic center can be legally opposed without violating the first amendment, but it ought to be recognized for what it is. A slap in the face of the American people.
The mosque is supposed to be, as the linked article states, "part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices." The trouble with this, of course, is the notion of 'moderate Muslims.'
What is a 'moderate Muslim?' The term is so vague as to be completely meaningless. It's often used vis a vis 'radical Muslim,' which implies that a 'moderate Muslim' is simply a Muslim who isn't trying to blow persons up. Well, that definition works just fine. The trouble is that that isn't what is meant by 'moderate Muslim.'
What is usually meant by 'moderate Muslim' is a Muslim who keeps his faith at home and in the mosque. In other words, a 'moderate Muslim' would be nearly indistinguishable from your typical American self-proclaimed 'Christian.' But this is ridiculous. Islam requires the practice of Sharia law. Sharia law does appear in four distinct schools, but all four agree that anyone who wishes to leave Islam ought to be given three days to return to Islam. If after three days he refuses, he must be killed. I won't even talk about other human rights violations in Sharia law, that one example ought to suffice.
Myth: Islam means peace. No, Islam means submission, and there are no Qur'anic verses which command peace with non-Muslims. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Thus, moderate Muslims are really Muslims who are against Islamism--almost like Christians who oppose the organized Church. They aren't being consistent.
Don't get me wrong, I wish all Muslims were truly moderate Muslims. (I wish even more that they were all Christians. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Try find that one in the Qur'an.) I simply think that we've been greatly mislead in believing that most Muslims are as moderate and modern as we've made them out to be.
One would think that this slap to the face that this new mosque represents would wake us up, but nah, we're too drunk on our own smug delusions--like the one that murderers only kill persons because society has failed them. Don't worry, Mr. Terrorist! We know that you're really a nice person. You're just upset because we've been so bigoted as to think bad thoughts about Islam, like the idea that it might be wrong.
Okay, so I'm upset. But shouldn't you be upset, too? I should probably temper my language; it's not going to win over any Muslims who read this. But I'm not writing to them. I'm writing to post-Christian Americans who ought to know better. Don't be a frog in a pot. Pay attention to that water. It's been heating up for several hundred years.
Peace,
Granted, the mosque won't be on the ruins of the two towers; it'll be an a nearby building that was struck by airplane debris. I don't know that the Islamic center can be legally opposed without violating the first amendment, but it ought to be recognized for what it is. A slap in the face of the American people.
The mosque is supposed to be, as the linked article states, "part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices." The trouble with this, of course, is the notion of 'moderate Muslims.'
What is a 'moderate Muslim?' The term is so vague as to be completely meaningless. It's often used vis a vis 'radical Muslim,' which implies that a 'moderate Muslim' is simply a Muslim who isn't trying to blow persons up. Well, that definition works just fine. The trouble is that that isn't what is meant by 'moderate Muslim.'
What is usually meant by 'moderate Muslim' is a Muslim who keeps his faith at home and in the mosque. In other words, a 'moderate Muslim' would be nearly indistinguishable from your typical American self-proclaimed 'Christian.' But this is ridiculous. Islam requires the practice of Sharia law. Sharia law does appear in four distinct schools, but all four agree that anyone who wishes to leave Islam ought to be given three days to return to Islam. If after three days he refuses, he must be killed. I won't even talk about other human rights violations in Sharia law, that one example ought to suffice.
Myth: Islam means peace. No, Islam means submission, and there are no Qur'anic verses which command peace with non-Muslims. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Thus, moderate Muslims are really Muslims who are against Islamism--almost like Christians who oppose the organized Church. They aren't being consistent.
Don't get me wrong, I wish all Muslims were truly moderate Muslims. (I wish even more that they were all Christians. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Try find that one in the Qur'an.) I simply think that we've been greatly mislead in believing that most Muslims are as moderate and modern as we've made them out to be.
One would think that this slap to the face that this new mosque represents would wake us up, but nah, we're too drunk on our own smug delusions--like the one that murderers only kill persons because society has failed them. Don't worry, Mr. Terrorist! We know that you're really a nice person. You're just upset because we've been so bigoted as to think bad thoughts about Islam, like the idea that it might be wrong.
Okay, so I'm upset. But shouldn't you be upset, too? I should probably temper my language; it's not going to win over any Muslims who read this. But I'm not writing to them. I'm writing to post-Christian Americans who ought to know better. Don't be a frog in a pot. Pay attention to that water. It's been heating up for several hundred years.
Peace,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)