by Reid on January 13, 2011
Every church has one of these, but not for too long. They leave.
I recently had the unpleasant experience of trying to reason with a person who was behaving in ways similar to another individual, in a different congregation, a few years ago. They share these things in common. Both are self-published authors. Both strongly dislike the 16th Century theologian John Calvin (they believe he is a false teacher), although neither of them have read anything he wrote. Both now avoid attachment to any local church. Both get most of their information from the internet. Both see any disagreement with their beliefs as divisive, no matter how disagreement is expressed or presented. And, as well, they both cite Titus 3:10 for support when they cut off all communication with anyone who disagrees with them.
Their attitudes have nothing to do with formal education. They just prefer to be self-taught but both lack discernment in the content they choose to believe.
They are frustrating to speak to, or to exchange email or letters with, because they are solidly of the “my mind is made up so do not confuse me with facts” cohort.
The problem is that they try to disguise their ignorance as certainty.
They are unable to see the damage they cause to the gospel of Jesus Christ because of their intransigence. Much of what they so fervently believe is open to theological discussion and debate. When they remove themselves from a local church they also isolate their beliefs and behavior from the mutual accountability which must exist in any church, for its corporate wellbeing and for the spiritual health and growth of its individual members.
The tragedy is that they do not stay around long enough to be taught because they have become unteachable. What they call ministry is always on their terms and with their content.
Your church may have one of them. But they will soon leave. Just disagree with them.
by Reid on January 13, 2011
The beginning of a new year brings new beginnings for governments. In Canada the House of Commons returns from a holiday break. In 2011 the United States sets a new Congress and an altered Senate to work.
This is a good time to consider the character of the men and women who are elected to public office, at any level. Just as the Ark of the Covenant held the stone tablets with the laws for God’s people, so the arc of the government identifies how people elected to public office usually live out their mandate. It is a four-step process.
The first step is the recognition of the candidate’s principles. Principles can be neutral, positive or negative, but whatever the candidate believes in ought to guide and govern whatever they do from the point of seeking and accepting the role of a candidate.
The second step is the presentation of the candidate’s promises of what they will do if nominated or elected. Promises should come from the candidate’s principles but at times the temptation cannot be resisted to make promises the candidate knows they cannot keep, which immediately undermines their declared principle of honesty. The arc continues.
The third step is being elected, which moves the candidate from principles through promises into power. It does not matter if the candidate’s new title is Board Member, Councillor, Mayor, Member of Parliament, Representative, Senator or President. With every elected office comes some level and form of power and privilege. This is the apotheosis in the arc of the government. To the elected man or woman acquiring and exercising power usually becomes addictive. Power becomes something to be retained and, if possible, increased, which leads to the final unfortunate step in this arc.
The final resting place of the elected person’s principles and promises is in the morass called pragmatism. Whatever undergirding principles guided the candidate to make their promises to get elected are now trumped by pragmatism. Self-serving pragmatism becomes the only principle and promise that will now be employed to ensure that power is maintained and hopefully enlarged.
Pragmatism is used to excuse the violation of principles and the breaking of promises. Rare indeed is the elected man or woman who will relinquish their power for the sake of their principles and promises.
The arc of the government explains why elected persons rate so low in any poll or survey on trust.
Pragmatism often tramples the truth. Perhaps any oath of office should include a declaration to be faithful to all of the principles and promises which brought the candidate to power. It might make for slightly better government, at every level.
Perhaps.
by Reid on September 13, 2010
This September weekend marking the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy has been almost overshadowed by the plans of a pastor to hold a public burning of the Koran, which he then decided he would not do, although The New York Daily News reported that one unidentified man did burn some pages of the Koran near Ground Zero.
Christians have a mixed history when it comes to burning books, sometimes with unfortunate results. Those who think it is a justifiable act presume that there is biblical support for such behavior, citing events at Ephesus recorded in The Acts of the Apostles by Dr. Luke. In Acts 19:19 he writes that a number of people who had been involved in occultic practices became Christians and decided to hold a public burning of their books and materials which contained incantations and instructions for carrying out rituals of magic.
As a caution to any Christians who now believe this justifies public burning of the Koran or any other objectionable writings it would be wise to consider two important facts in the account in Acts.
First, the burning of the occultic books was not a planned, organized event staged for the purpose of publicity. It was instead a spontaneous and public demonstration of repentance. The new Christians were saying to the city, “This is what we were, but now we are something else. This is what we followed but now we follow someone else”.
The second fact is just as important. The people in Ephesus burned their own books. They did not go and gather up the books of those who continued with the practices they had now abandoned. They did not go and collect the writings of any other religions. They simply burned their own stuff.
A number of years ago, following a sermon in which I encouraged parents to know what their children were reading one of the sheep approached me, angry, demanding to know why I had not called on parents to burn the Harry Potter books. I replied that I held a degree in literary criticism and did not really hold with book burning. He became even more angry and removed himself, his ewe and his lambs from the congregation and went off to find a new sheepfold.
There are times when it may be appropriate for you to destroy harmful writings, but only if, like the people in Ephesus, you also are engaged in a true act of repentance, and the only things you burn are your own.
by Reid on September 11, 2010
We were away for a few days due to being inattentive to the complexities of forgetting important things while relaxing by the ocean shore. Now, serious efforts will be made to actually write and post pieces which will hopefully, bless, annoy, challenge and build you up.
by Reid on September 28, 2009
There used to be fewer labels to define the church. Really, how far in the past is it necessary to regress to find only Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox? Well, maybe a few hundred years. But there were not that many subsets until the early part of the last century. First came liberal, and then fundamentalist, followed not long after by the much misunderstood and even abused label of evangelicalism. During evangelicalism’s formative years the names of Harold Ockenga, Nelson Bell, Billy Graham, Carl Henry and Charles Fuller were seen and heard together in their cumulative efforts to encourage a movement that was biblically and academically sound and culturally acceptable.It worked for a few years.
Now getting past middle age, evangelicalism is thinning out as it becomes drained by all of its divergent streams. Seeker, emerging, Emergent, reformed, charismatic, prosperity, monastic, traditional, contemporary, Third Wave, and more recently, the Third Way, all of them trying to maintain some semblance of connection with evangelicalism.
Perhaps the most revealing and bogus claim for evangelicalism came a few years ago from the soon-to-be-disgraced president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, who made the remarkable statement that evangelicalism embraced everyone from Benny Hinn to R. C. Sproul. In attempting to hold up these two men as representatives of diversity within evangelicalism Haggard, as the pastor of a megachurch, displayed his own theological shallowness, and the sad condition of a movement which apparently had no one better to wave its flag.
We need something better. We need something more akin to what Thomas Oden calls the “new ecumenism”, with unity built on truth rather than image. Maybe we do not need evangelicalism any longer, but we do need something better.
