Maybe you've heard the arguments that witnessing to the lost is (a) in the same category as alerting your neighbor if their house is burning, and (b) part of your Xtian duty in "loving your neighbor as yourself." I disagree.
First of all, if my neighbor's house is burning, there's absolutely no condemnation involved towards him in my alerting him. In contrast, when I tell my neighbor about God's holiness, man's sin and God's wrath, the neighbor feels "judged." (Whether he's right is another issue; they always misconstrue that pt.) Furthermore, it is an objectively verifiable fact that neighbor's house is burning (he can call another neighbor to confirm it), whereas God's wrath and our sinfulness and need for Christ's atonement/righteousness are not objectively verifiable.
Secondly, I myself hate it when Mormons or JW's try to get me to believe their falderol. I resent not only the lies they propound, but even just their gall in knocking @ my door (or coming up to me when I'm taking my walk or sitting in the park). So why would I then want to behave that way towards my neighbor the unbeliever? Why would I presume to foist my beliefs on him if he hasn't asked to hear them? (See my previous post about this last aspect.) And no, don't go using the "planting a seed" rubbish on me: the seed will be useless and die unless the ground has already been prepared (in which case [again, see my previous post], the unbeliever will probably show some sort of interest in discussing spiritual matters). Even worse, the seed might get caught in the guy's craw and cause him to close up to future "witnessing."
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
MishNULL SchmishNULL
[NOTE in advance: no, I am NOT a hyper-Calvinist; I am not a Calvinist, period. But yes, the Bible does teach election. Look it up.]
In the same way that as a new Christian, eons ago, I got fed up to the gills with Evangelicalese ("I wanna encourage you to..." "Thanx for sharing that with us," "I felt convicted," "If you feel led," and such), I am sick to death of hearing the term "missional." The latest bout of it that I encountered was @ a comments thread where someone (albeit well-intentioned, yes) was insisting that if we just spent more time with the "unchurched," they'd see that Christians aren't the Medusas that unbelievers [coached by the media] perceive them to be, and then, they'd be more likely to want to come to Jesus. (Uh, election, anyone?)
To which my retort is: horsefeathers. My experience is this: if you're relaxed and not "holier-than-thou" (what I like to call "authentic"---not to be taken here in the Emergent sense), then The World says you're not holy enough, you're not "other enough" to claim to be a Christian. On the other hand, if you do stand on your Christian distinctives (say, not laughing at dirty jokes, or admitting that you don't even own a TV, or that you never go to movies----all without making a big deal about the respective issue), if you do try to walk in the Spirit, WELL! Then, you're "anally retentive," "stuffy," "rigid," "narrow-minded" or "old-fashioned." Then you hear things like, "Chill out!"
Can't win.
Besides that, what do I have in common with unbelievers that would make me want to spend time with them---or them with me? Sure, at work, I can exercise professionalism and "as far as it is in your power, pursue peace with all men." But once my responsibilities are behind me for the day, in my scant free time, I need to recharge in profitable ways, rather than being dragged down even more by the emptiness of The World's mind and ways. The "company" of unbelievers is draining.
As one last thought in this regard, notice 2 crucial items in this passage by Peter: "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..." First, the unbeliever is initiating the spiritual conversation, and even more importantly, the thrust of the Greek verb for "asks" is that of someone so keen on an answer, they are as it were gripping you by the collar for your reply. In other words, the idea here seems to be an unbeliever who is probably one of the elect---i.e., a future believer, and God has whetted the person's appetite for whatever it is you radiate.
This approach is TOTALLY opposite the usual Evangelical/fundy/dispy obsession with "witnessing" and "getting decisions." Hey, and while we're at it, the so-called Great Commission was made to the guys Jesus sent out to start the church. The Amish seem to be the only Christian group that have this aspect right: they don't subscribe to the erroneous notion that every believer is being addressed by that passage where Jesus is giving the command to "make disciples." As the Amish so sensibly say, "Anybody can pick up a Bible and read it." AMEN.
If you disagree, tell me just one thing: why is the rest of the things He said to His Disciples not then still valid as well (like speaking in tongues, treading unharmed on snakes and scorpions, picking up serpents, drinking poison unscathed, healing the sick by laying hands on them [and for the record, no, I am not a Pentecostal or Charismatic, heaven 4bid])?
In the same way that as a new Christian, eons ago, I got fed up to the gills with Evangelicalese ("I wanna encourage you to..." "Thanx for sharing that with us," "I felt convicted," "If you feel led," and such), I am sick to death of hearing the term "missional." The latest bout of it that I encountered was @ a comments thread where someone (albeit well-intentioned, yes) was insisting that if we just spent more time with the "unchurched," they'd see that Christians aren't the Medusas that unbelievers [coached by the media] perceive them to be, and then, they'd be more likely to want to come to Jesus. (Uh, election, anyone?)
To which my retort is: horsefeathers. My experience is this: if you're relaxed and not "holier-than-thou" (what I like to call "authentic"---not to be taken here in the Emergent sense), then The World says you're not holy enough, you're not "other enough" to claim to be a Christian. On the other hand, if you do stand on your Christian distinctives (say, not laughing at dirty jokes, or admitting that you don't even own a TV, or that you never go to movies----all without making a big deal about the respective issue), if you do try to walk in the Spirit, WELL! Then, you're "anally retentive," "stuffy," "rigid," "narrow-minded" or "old-fashioned." Then you hear things like, "Chill out!"
Can't win.
Besides that, what do I have in common with unbelievers that would make me want to spend time with them---or them with me? Sure, at work, I can exercise professionalism and "as far as it is in your power, pursue peace with all men." But once my responsibilities are behind me for the day, in my scant free time, I need to recharge in profitable ways, rather than being dragged down even more by the emptiness of The World's mind and ways. The "company" of unbelievers is draining.
As one last thought in this regard, notice 2 crucial items in this passage by Peter: "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..." First, the unbeliever is initiating the spiritual conversation, and even more importantly, the thrust of the Greek verb for "asks" is that of someone so keen on an answer, they are as it were gripping you by the collar for your reply. In other words, the idea here seems to be an unbeliever who is probably one of the elect---i.e., a future believer, and God has whetted the person's appetite for whatever it is you radiate.
This approach is TOTALLY opposite the usual Evangelical/fundy/dispy obsession with "witnessing" and "getting decisions." Hey, and while we're at it, the so-called Great Commission was made to the guys Jesus sent out to start the church. The Amish seem to be the only Christian group that have this aspect right: they don't subscribe to the erroneous notion that every believer is being addressed by that passage where Jesus is giving the command to "make disciples." As the Amish so sensibly say, "Anybody can pick up a Bible and read it." AMEN.
If you disagree, tell me just one thing: why is the rest of the things He said to His Disciples not then still valid as well (like speaking in tongues, treading unharmed on snakes and scorpions, picking up serpents, drinking poison unscathed, healing the sick by laying hands on them [and for the record, no, I am not a Pentecostal or Charismatic, heaven 4bid])?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
If Only
The fires and family health emergencies have retarded my reading and responding to various posts. Tim Challies blogged about wives submitting to husbands. I arrived there too late to be able to leave my 2c worth: what the church hasn't historically majored on, nor does now, is the urgency of the husband dying to himself for his wife as Christ died for the church. ONLY IN THAT CONTEXT does submission make any sense. And of course, immediately preceding the exhortation to wives, is the exhortation to mutual submission.
I have never seen a Xtian marriage about which I could really say, "Now THERE's the type of relationship I'd like." Even the one best example of a Xtian marriage I have seen, the husband is still someone I'd not want to be married to (as much as I cherish him as a brother in Christ, nay, as a father in Christ). In most cases, overtly or covertly, Christian husbands use the "headship" designation as an excuse for lording it over the wife. Had this not been the case over the centuries (not to mention the abuse of the submission verse as applying to all women under all men), the feminist movement would have never found fuel for its fire.
I have never seen a Xtian marriage about which I could really say, "Now THERE's the type of relationship I'd like." Even the one best example of a Xtian marriage I have seen, the husband is still someone I'd not want to be married to (as much as I cherish him as a brother in Christ, nay, as a father in Christ). In most cases, overtly or covertly, Christian husbands use the "headship" designation as an excuse for lording it over the wife. Had this not been the case over the centuries (not to mention the abuse of the submission verse as applying to all women under all men), the feminist movement would have never found fuel for its fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
