S.T.S. 1.4 [Closing Comments]

I bring this issue to a close by offering some thoughts on how certain aspects of American culture (as it now stands) have contributed to the "fragmented spirituality" practiced by many "professing" Believers.

Here in America, we have grown accustomed to a way of life that basically tends to separate who we are (beliefs & values) from what we do in a sense (actions-behavior-conduct). If you don’t believe that, just open your ears during election season!! This mindset, in turn, has slowly crept into American Evangelicalism.
In America, we so over-compartmentalize our lives that the only consistency in us is the fact that there is none. If there ever were such a thing as a walking, breathing "oxy-moron," it would have to be the run-of-the-mill American whose thinking has been taken captive by the prevailing ideas and notions of popular culture. Unfortunately, this is all-too-commonplace in many Churches. I’m willing to bet (not really) that this is an underlying principle in the following scenarios which I’ve devised to make the point:

1. Your co-worker claims to be a born-again Christian, but he sees no correlation between his
"beliefs" and his work ethic. Better yet, he sees no problem hitting the local pub after work to
have a drink with the crew. I mean, after all, who are we to judge? "I’m not the role model
Christian," he affirms, "but at least I am a good ol’ boy." (all the while, he never sees the
inconsistency)

2. Your friend (not being the beacon of personal integrity) believes her personal, private lifestyle has no bearing on her professionalism at work. She facilitates classes on leadership skills while
on the job, but is a loser with her husband/kids at home. "What I do behind closed doors
doesn’t affect anyone but me," she says every now and then.

3. A nameless Senator (running for President) claims that his personal belief is that life is a gift
of God that begins at conception. Unfortunately, this type of belief (since it wreaks of
Christianity) has no place in this candidate’s contradictory public policy ideas. "I have to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, which calls for a strict separation of Church & State," he whines.
(No, John, it doesn’t . . . read it again – this time in context, please sir!)

4. Multitudes of professing "Christians" believe that they have their "fire-insurance" (after all,
they have walked an aisle . . .). "Whether we choose to ever live for Christ is entirely another
matter," they say. (Maybe I’m missing something, but what about passages such as Matthew
7 & 13:24-30; 36-43/John 3:36/2 Corinthians 5:17 & 13:5/Ephesians 2:10/ and James 2:14-
26? Also be sure to re-read this month’s quote, which sums things up nicely.)

I think there may be a common denominator running through the very heart of the 4 common scenarios above. What about you?

Until next month’s issue . . . . . . . don’t be ashamed to peel back those Surfaces in order to see what’s worth holding on to. Some will thank you for doing so, while many others (Christians included) will seek to marginalize you for it. When everything is said and done, however, at least you can say that you escaped the shackles of a mere day-to-day existence in order to get outside of the box. I want to warmly wish you a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

S.T.S. 1.4 [Q&A 101]

[Subject – Cults!!]

Question:
"What is a ‘cult?’ More specifically, what differentiates a cult from simply another ‘denomination?’ "

Answer:
Simply put, a "cult" (as it pertains to the Christian faith), is a group that claims to be Christian in nature but that deviates from the ESSENTIAL doctrines of classical Christianity. That is, members of Christian cults such as the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) or the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) fall outside of the "pale of orthodoxy." Some doctrines that are in view here are the authority of Scripture, Person & work of Jesus Christ, the nature of God (monotheistic or polytheistic), the Trinity, sin, the resurrection, the way of the cross (Jesus as the ONLY Way to the Father), state/condition of the human heart, etc.Remember this -- in ESSENTIALS . . . Unity; in NONESSENTIALS . . . Liberty . . . and in ALL THINGS . . . Charity!! Denominations do not exist due to deviations/variances on ESSENTIAL Biblical teaching, but rather deal more with certain NONESSENTIAL concerns. Items in this category could range from one’s view on baptism (i.e., immersion, sprinkling, or pouring), to a person’s take on capital punishment, to an individual’s stance on "last days" or "end times" chronology, etc. By the way, neither the essential nor the nonessential lists above are completely exhaustive (specifically the latter list of nonessentials).

In that light, the various denominations that fall under the larger umbrella of Christianity are inevitable when you consider many dynamics. In essence, two Christians can take opposing sides on a "secondary" issue and still be Christians all the while in good fellowship with one another. Remember, secondary doesn’t mean unimportant!!On this note, we need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. This is not to say that truth cannot be discerned on these nonessential issues; furthermore, I never want to give the slightest impression that those who disagree on secondary concerns should never flesh these things out with one another. In fact, I would encourage believers to dialogue about "secondary differences" in light of Biblical & historical context, "age" of the particular stance relative to Christian history, etc. On the other hand, however, we must be careful not to become embittered against brothers and sisters who differ with us on the non-essentials. When we begin to lean in that direction, we become very legalistic very quickly; this is something that we need to guard against. On these issues . . . may the best idea win!!


To explore this very issue a bit further and in more depth, I refer you to the following helpful articles:

1. What Is Christianity?http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/whatis.htm

2. The Essentials of Christianityhttp://www.equip.org/free/CP0701.htm

S.T.S. 1.4 [Main Article]

. . . On the Nature of True Saving Faith . . .[pt. 1]

("Faith ALONE saves, but the faith that saves IS NEVER ALONE!")

I don’t know about you, but I truly believe that American Evangelicals have missed the boat entirely whereas the nature of true Biblical salvation is concerned. As far as I can see, this issue rests (at least in part) upon an overemphasis on a questionable teaching that we will call "Carnal Christianity." By "Carnal Christianity," I am referring to the popular and appealing (but historically recent – say 50-60 years) notion that one can be truly regenerate/"saved" and not show the slightest hint of that throughout their lifetimes . . . & still get heaven upon departing this life. This is false, at least in my estimation.

The foundational problem is our understanding of "conversion" as a mere human decision (on this view, one could choose not to grow or, better yet, to remove themselves from the saving grip of God) instead of a supernatural working of God whereby the very NATURE of the individual is changed.Make no mistake about it – one becomes a child of God through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit! The "heart of stone" (which is unresponsive to God) is removed and replaced with a "heart of flesh" (that responds to God). Before conversion, one is inclined to the things of the flesh and sin. After conversion, one is given to the things of the Spirit and holiness. The notion that we have any sort of freedom apart from the governance of God is not a Biblical concept, for it is in Him that we live, move, and have our being. We do not simply adopt a new set of rules and force ourselves to live by them, but rather we become a "new creature" that DESIRES a new set of rules according to the very nature, character, and will of God.


The references to "carnality" are to be explained in their context:

1. It should never be denied that: [a] all new believers must grow from carnality and immaturity into a spiritual and mature walk with Christ; [b] even mature believers may act carnally and immaturely.

2. What is to be denied is that a truly "regenerated" person can live in a constant state of carnality without growth to maturity and the bearing of fruit – this is the popular (but Biblically absent) doctrine of the "Carnal Christian" that has done so much damage to the Church (especially in the U.S.A.).

3. Many of the "Christians" in Corinth were indeed acting in the flesh. Paul attacks this problem in 2 ways: [a] 1st, he admonishes them that believers are not to act in such a way; [b] 2nd, he warns them that if they CONTINUE in the flesh WITHOUT REPENTANCE, it could very well be the evidence that many of them are still "unregenerate" (2 Corinthians 13:5).

4. Many true Believers are indeed delayed in the process; & not all progress at the same rate or pass away at the exact same mark (we know this from the rewards system in heaven) . . . but, a huge distinction must be made between delayed growth & no growth at all.

The teaching of the Scriptures is clear – the genuine Christian will walk in the way of the Lord or on the "narrow path" (Matthew 7), not because of his greater will or discipline, but because God has made that person into a new creation for His glory. John Piper once stated that "the Christian disciple serves Christ Jesus in the power with which he or she is served BY Christ Jesus"; furthermore, Christ is not the lucky beneficiary of His trusted Christian benefactors. Christ Jesus is the Initiator and He thus gets ALL of the glory, for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things forever and ever, amen. When the true Believer steps off the "path," he is "convicted" and even "disciplined" by a loving/caring Father (Hebrews 12:5-11) until he returns. If a "professing" Christian steps off the path and begins to bear the fruit of the unbeliever, he can have no assurance of ever being saved/rescued. If he returns to the path, then this is a confirmation of his salvation and the foundation of his assurance. If he does not return to the path, it is a great evidence of his "unregenerate state."To say that a true Believer's life can be consistently characterized by an unrepentant, happy-as-you-sin-regardless pattern is foreign to the testimony of much Scripture.

Therefore, based upon this very testimony, I must take the position that the teaching of co-called "Carnal Christianity" (again, not Christians who can act carnally) is shaky, weak, & Biblically unfounded. If you are truly justified (in right standing with God [positionally]), the Scriptures declare that you shall be truly sanctified (progressively set apart) & truly glorified (our ultimate redemption, to which we should look forward with eagerness). It has been rightly said that "I'm not what I want to be (sanctification); I'm not what I'm gonna be (glorification); but thank God I'm not what I used to be (justification)!"

Once again - to say that one can be justified & not sanctified is just not good theology. It is God who saves, God who preserves us, God who works through us, and God who will raise us up on that that glorious day . . . with that said – Glory to God in the highest!! All of us must think soberly on these truths in this day when our substance (not our style) seems to have more in common with the fluctuating ideas of pop-culture than it does with the principles of Christ.

S.T.S. 1.3 [Concluding Remarks]

Concluding Remarks:

In the process of doing some background work in preparation for this month’s issue, I came across a great piece that summarizes my basic rationale throughout the feature article. In closing, I’d like to share it with you here:

"In May, 1994, Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic. Pamela Maraldo, President of Planned Parenthood at the time commented to the press, ‘This law goes to show that no one can force their viewpoint on someone else.’ The self-contradiction ought to be obvious: All laws force someone’s viewpoint."(Gregory Koukl, Christian Apologist, Stand To Reason)

No, Ms. Maraldo, a particular brand of "morality" was legislated in May ’94, one that doesn’t conflict with your worldview (hence, your satisfaction with the decision). Again . . . see what I mean? I encourage you to listen closely to what people say, for many times, the devil is right there in the details!

Legislating Morality! It's not 'IF' or 'WHETHER,' but 'WHOSE!'

Legislating Morality -- The REAL Issue . . .

(it’s not "IF" or "WHETHER," but "WHOSE")

"Please remember this . . . all law/legislation is someone else’s view of right/wrong that is imposed on another!! America has legislated morality since her beginnings, and rightly so, for we would have chaos and anarchy if that were not the case. However, this brand of politically-correct rhetoric should clearly show us that much of the thinking within America (& within Christendom) is about a mile wide and an inch deep." (Scott, 10/2004)


. . . and since then: [Presidential Debate #2 Excerpt]

GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."

DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"

KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. . . . you'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it."

___________________________________________________________________


Wow! It’s an interesting place we’ve come to here, wouldn’t you say? On the one hand, we Evangelical Christians strongly esteem and place super-high value upon life due to the fact that mankind is created in the very image of God. This truth inevitably and naturally impacts our views and/or voting habits on issues pertaining to life, be they issues of abortion, embryonic stem-sell research, euthanasia, etc. On the other hand, however, we’re constantly told by the liberal elite that it’s simply inappropriate to "legislate" or "impose" such beliefs on those Americans who would disagree for various reasons. If you don’t see this starting to happen, I’ve only got one thing to say . . . disarm the "SNOOZE BUTTON" feature on your cultural alarm clock, because you seem to have a habit of hitting it during times like these.

From here on out, I’ll refer to this popular, albeit erroneous/flawed, line of reasoning as the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." This particular mindset, which has saturated our thinking for decades, can be restated in the following ways:

As long as I don’t hurt anyone the government should leave me alone . . .

No one should force their morals on anyone else . . .

You can’t make people be good . . .

Legislating morality violates the "separation of church & state" . . .

"Big Brother" has absolutely no business in my bedroom . . .

Do you see the common thread woven throughout the preceding lines of argumentation? Namely, that it is wrong to legislate/impose "morality" on the people, specifically those who disagree with a particular moral stance. While I’ll readily grant the notion that the preceding philosophy has good rhetorical force (i.e., if one isn’t familiar with this type of rhetoric, he or she will most likely be caught off guard), it is desperately lacking in terms of strength and substance.

Why is this the case?

Allow me to offer a couple of theories on this:


1. For decades, this brand of jargon has been "spoon-fed" to us through a plethora of avenues (i.e., Hollywood, the media, activist court rulings, misguided politicians, etc.). Interestingly enough, if you were to take a certain saying, belief, argument, etc., and pound it over and over again into the thinking of a highly susceptible, non-thinking culture, you’d be amazed at the things that would become acceptable. Unfortunately, we tend to accept that which is ingrained into our thinking when we don’t think through the practical ramifications of a particular thought. Remember that ideas have legit consequences.

2. On top of the previous theory, it has "populist" appeal, in that it strongly identifies with the mindset of radical independence that has swept over our land. That is, we humans (especially Americans) don’t like being told what to do (I mean, after all, we’re depraved, capable, and know what’s best, right?) . . . HA! We could certainly camp out here for a while, but that’s for another time. In sum, Americans value what seems fair rather than what is true. Honestly, the same could probably be said of the American Church!!


As for the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy" lacking in terms of strength/substance, take a look at the following simplified exchange (in conversational form) which will serve to expose the basic problem:

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
I think it’s awesome that we have the most pro-life president in history (i.e., signing into law the Born Alive Infants Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law)! On that note, we have the opportunity this year to impact legislation whereas the issue of abortion is concerned; more specifically, we, the people, get to decide on the parental notification of a minor’s termination of pregnancy. I can’t believe this is even an issue, but if my child has to have my permission to take an aspirin at school, I will be made aware of a situation like this. My voice, through my vote, will be heard this year! You know, maybe abortion should be outlawed altogether.

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Mike, you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that things have changed and we’ve made a lot of progress as a society. In fact, it has been well-said that America is going through "collective puberty." Besides, it’s common knowledge these days that moral imposition is off-limits, especially whereas the government is concerned. We cannot impose or legislate morality . . . it’s simply wrong . . .

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Is that, then, your "morality?" In other words, is your belief that you cannot impose morality "your morality?"

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Well . . . ummm . . . I’ve never really looked at it that way, but if that’s what you want to call it, then fine . . .

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Since that is "your morality," whether you’d like to admit to it or not, then why are you "imposing" it on me (and the others who dissent)? Why will you be seeking to "impose" your brand of morality on those who disagree with you by "your vote" on the issue?

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Huh???


Do you more clearly see the basic problem?

It’s not a matter of whether morality can be legislated, but WHOSE morality will be legislated. Don’t ever forget that!! In fact, if you get nothing else from this month’s issue, make sure you grasp the preceding point. ALL law/legislation is someone’s view of right and wrong that is imposed on another. Much like the man who says there are no absolutes (which would have to be "absolute" in order to be "true"), people who hold to the "No Moral Legislation Fallacy" are walking contradictions. In other words, you can’t get away from the legislation of morality, no matter whose brand of moral principles is eventually imposed.

Therefore, after taking more of a rational look at this issue, I must conclude that if we abandon the legislation of morality (which is inherently impossible), we must, in turn, abandon the rule of law itself. If you’d like to see a recipe of disaster for societal stability, just take a stroll down that street.

In closing, I’d like to alter the Q&A piece from presidential debate #2 to even better illustrate the inherent weakness of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." As you’ll quickly notice, I’ve made two alterations [for illustration purposes ONLY]: (1) The subject of Degenhart’s question is a pro-choice voter; & (2) Kerry is a CONSISTENT pro-life politician (i.e., if a thing is wrong personally, then it should follow that it is wrong whereas public policy is concerned).
Buckle up and watch what happens here . . .

GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."

DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is the sole right/choice of a woman and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would be able to support that very right, what would you say to that person?"

KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect your right to believe what you want to believe even though I strongly disagree with your stance. As for me, I'm a Catholic, and I was raised a Catholic. I was even an altar boy (can you believe that . . . me, an altar boy?). Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, and it leads me today (because I want the votes of a certain constituency). But I can't take what is an article of belief for you personally and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that belief, be they unborn child, pro-lifer, whatever. I can't do that. But I can still be your President and have this difference of belief with you. As a president, however, I have to represent all the people in the nation, including the unborn children who have no voice but us. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-life, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping the unborn child, politically correct or not."

Beloved, the same principle that was at work in the true account of that exchange was at work in the above illustration, even though it was admittedly modified to make the point. Kerry’s philosophy that he is personally against abortion, but wouldn’t legislate his views on others who disagree, was completely erroneous. In the first place, by refusing to display the principled discipline to stand up against his pro-abortion constituency and defend the unborn, he was essentially imposing his views on others – the babies – by default!!! Do not forget that, my friend!! In one sense they are the only innocent ones in this situation. Secondly, as previously stated, we do (and must) legislate morality. Our entire system of criminal law and much of our civil law is based on our moral beliefs, from larceny to rape to pre-meditated murder.

As has also been said here, if we don’t legislate morality, we forfeit the rule of law, societal stability, and ordered liberty all together. Think, right now, about other moral issues that we legislate on but which are not necessarily hot-button issues at the moment . . . murder – rape – assault & battery – petit theft . . . etc. Are you seeing what’s happening? I want you to think through these things!!

When someone gives you a variation of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy," ask them one question . . . do you vote?? If they vote, they begin to engage in self-refutation, and that is something that we need to point out more often in our day. When you do get the chance to pull back the curtains, be sure to expose the error in a loving manner. More specifically, do so with a question rather than a statement (i.e., Maybe I’m missing something, but …). This is just a point of tactical wisdom that tends to disarm a tension-filled situation, even if you and your friend vehemently disagree on the issue.

By the way, would you like to know who else argued against "moral legislation?" You’re going to need to buckle up for this one - - - - - - - American slave owners during the time period of the civil war! That’s right! I’d encourage you to think about that one on your drive home today.

Remember: it’s not IF, but WHOSE . . .

A Counseling Tip

During a counseling session (regardless of the setting/comtext), and specifically during the initial session, it is always better to do more listening than speaking. Think with me for a moment (and forgive me for not producing a more tactful illustration) – you tell me what’s more rational . . . (1) to digest information before it is properly ingested; or (2) to ingest/gain the information and then digest that information appropriately? I hope that you chose option #2, as I did.

I distinctively recall Dr. Jerry M. Windsor telling us in class that for some odd reason, he found in his counseling experience that it was usually the 3rd issue (given by the counseled in the initial session) that turned out to be the real problem. Let’s create an imaginary scenario in order to better grasp this point. You (& your spouse) are the counselors – Suzie, the subtle (yet rebellious) varsity cheerleader has asked you if she could meet with you ASAP. Let’s say that the presenting problem is an issue of acceptance/rejection . . . or a parental issue . . . check it out – if you too hastily begin to unload whereas the “presenting” problem is concerned, you may never discover that Suzie is carrying the child of the all-star athlete!! While that is indeed a radical illustration, I believe it makes the point. In these situations, take your time, listen, and learn to discern the difference between that which is symptomatic and that which is problematic. There is a difference!

CD Burning

Question: "My friends and I like to share music. Is it wrong to burn CDs or download music for free online? And if burning whole CDs is stealing, what about making mixed CDs (with a bunch of favorite songs) for friends?"

Answer: Click on the following link to discover what Mark Matlock has to say on this pressing topic (I agree with him here):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2004/004/11.30.html

--

Not bad for 'Christianity Astray,' huh?? ;~)

Short Quotes to Toss About in Your Mind

"When it comes to truth, ‘tolerance’ is a travesty; when it comes to personal relationships, it’s a virtue." –Hank Hanegraaff

"Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin; controversy for the sake of truth is a Divine command." -Walter Martin

"Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone!!" -John Calvin

“When the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred." -Gordon H. Clark

"He who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." -Phillip E. Johnson

"What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull-down empires." -J. Gresham Machen (1881-1936)

"There is nothing so likely to lead to error or heresy than to begin with the parts rather than the whole." -Dr. D. Martyn Lloyed-Jones

"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -Elbert Hubbard

"Most people value themselves, but mostly for the wrong reasons." -Daniel Copeland

A Note on Teaching

I would venture to say that much learning is “self-generated.” That is to say, the majority of stuff that ends up in our “gray-matter” will indeed be placed there by us!! No kidding! From a personal standpoint, I have learned much more in the field of my major since graduating than I did while I was there. Ultimately, however, this says more about me than it does regarding my alma mater (I truly appreciate my time there). Therefore, as teachers, we must teach the basics and teach them well so that our students are properly positioned to go on to self-directed, advanced learning.

It is better to master all of a little rather than none of a lot. Too many of us, whether teachers or students, seem to work from the opposite end of the spectrum; that is, we ingest too much from too many places in too brief of a time-period. The fall-out from this is that many teachers and students alike end up becoming a mile-wide and an inch deep. When you master the little bit that you are presently working with, then move on to the next piece of the puzzle. Students, it's the same with you, just from a perspective of learning. All of us would do well to master the basics (a rifle-approach) rather than surveying the whole landscape (a shotgun approach).