Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Are Teachers More Accountable? by Dr. David Orrison, Grace For The Heart Ministries
 | Are teachers more accountable? |
Stricter judgment? Yikes! What does that mean? Since all eternal judgment is based on our relationship with Christ, I take this to mean earthly judgment, judgment of the community or church. James goes on to remind us that the tongue is a dangerous tool. No doubt, in our culture, he would agree that the pen and the computer are dangerous as well. Those who teach should be careful.Is it fair to judge teachers? That may be the wrong question. The question may be whether it is avoidable. Is it even possible not to judge teachers? Sooner or later, something you teach will come back and people will use it to challenge you. Sadly, we expect our teachers to be perfect and a failing in one area discredits much of the rest of their teachings.
Teachers are accountable rightly when they claim that their teaching comes from God or is “biblical.” They ought to make their case strongly with Scripture support. Teachers are accountable wrongly when their followers look to them without questioning. That isn’t necessarily the fault of the teacher. However, I believe that teachers should cultivate questioning and allow discussion, simply to avoid the impression that they speak with the voice of God. When the teacher is sharing something that is clear from the Scriptures, he/she should let the Scriptures speak. In other words, if God said it, show me. If you are saying it, I will feel much more free to disagree.
There are certain “job hazards” that come with being a teacher. Some people, who perhaps lack the means or the interest to attack the teaching, will attempt to discredit the teaching by discrediting the teacher. The teacher’s life becomes much more open to inspection and challenge than the life of the student. I suppose this is true in Christian circles more than in others, but politicians face a similar hazard.
Also, teachers are placed in a position of having to produce material. To write regularly on a blog, preach each Sunday, write follow-up books, whatever—takes work. No one wants to use the same ideas over and over, whether they are his own ideas or the rehashed ideas of others. Teaching today must be innovative, interesting, motivating, and challenging. How do you come up with that regularly?
Well, good teachers are also students. They study the Scripture and they study writings of other teachers and they study people and life. As they study, they learn and form ideas. One serious job hazard is the temptation to teach what is being learned, rather than what has been learned. In other words, teachers sometimes teach out of their own journey. Not a bad thing in itself, except that a journey is not a conclusion. How often have we learned things at or near the end of the journey that affect our whole understanding of where we have been? If we teach out of the journey, we may mislead people and may find ourselves defending things we aren’t even sure of ourselves. Pretty soon we have painted ourselves into a corner. Labels come that we don’t want, but we can no longer deny easily.
Preachers often hear themselves quoted as saying things they didn’t say. You may have heard of the ancient heresy called, “Nestorianism.” It had to do with how we understand the union of God and man in Jesus. It is interesting that some people suggest Nestorius never really taught Nestorianism. There is real question as to whether Pelagius ever taught what became known as Pelagianism. What happened? Well, the followers of these men took the teaching farther than their teachers. But when the teaching went over the edge and became objectionable, the name continued. Few people warn teachers of this “job hazard.”
Our evangelical fathers asked an appropriate question, “Where stands it written?” What they meant was that the doctrine, in order to be taken as prescriptive or normative, had to be found in Scripture. They would then test the application of Scripture to the question, using accepted methods of interpretation. Teachers have to be willing for their teachings to go through such a test and the people who do the testing may not have studied the issue as long or as carefully as the teacher. It is similar to placing a painting out for public view. Regular people are quite free to stand in front of the artwork and decide whether they “like it or not” based on their own set of standards. Just as this is often frustrating to an artist; so the examination of a teaching can be frustrating for a teacher. A job hazard.
God calls some to teach. Just be careful . . . and be ready for challenges.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Who Said What? Dr. David Orrison, discusses when it is appropriate to use names in a discussion
Who Said What?
One of the more shocking chastisements I have heard used among believers is the idea that we are not to use names when referring to those with whom we disagree. We are supposed to say “some teachers” or “a certain someone I know” or use some other method of keeping an identity anonymous. This surprised me again recently.
Now maybe my background is the problem. I have advanced academic degrees and learned that referencing sources is important. If you don’t name the person you challenge in your dissertation, the professor will probably mark you down. If you say, “A certain teacher believes;” the professor will ask, “Who?” Identifying sources allows others to verify your words and determine for themselves whether or not they agree with you.
Or maybe it is because I have been a pastor for so long. Many times people have come to my office and have said, “Pastor, quite a few people are concerned…” But I only see one person in front of me. Who are the others? Where are the others? Are they afraid to identify themselves? Do they really exist? I have spoken against what I call “back-pocket people,” and have asked “representatives” to represent only themselves. My desire is to value the disagreement or concerns of one person and there is no need to hint at more.
Or maybe it’s because I sat so long under the teaching of a legalist who always had these amazing examples to support his points. The problem was that these examples never had names. It became very difficult to believe that they existed at all. Today, when the teacher or author says, “A certain man,” I just assume he is telling me a parable.
So, I think there are situations that call for names to be used. Authors, teachers, politicians—people who present their ideas to large audiences—should be named when their ideas or writings are challenged. Why? Because each teacher is different. Teacher A teaches the idea one way. Teacher B communicates it another way. If I fail to distinguish between them, I may misrepresent one of them. Also, the author/teacher has already identified himself with the idea. It is neither gossip nor accusation to refer to the teaching and the teacher together.
But I do have a general rule to follow. Let the circle of the teacher’s teaching be the circle of the identification. In other words, if an author presents his ideas in a book that is promoted and marketed publicly, then naming that author in reference to his teachings in another book, or any smaller venue, is acceptable. If the teacher has a blog or a radio program, a reference in your book may be too large, but in your blog or radio program it may be acceptable. But if a person makes a comment on Facebook, then Facebook should be the limit of the naming. And, this is my opinion, ideas expressed in private conversation should be answered in private conversation.
A couple examples (and I will avoid names): One legalistic teacher has a ministry that has reached something near 20 million people. Is it fair to use his name in association with his teaching? Of course, provided it is truly his teaching you are referring to. (No matter how large the ministry, you are not free to misrepresent someone.) Someone makes a comment I dislike on a friend’s Facebook page. Am I free to use that offender’s name in my blog? No. There are many people who read my blog who would not know this person and I would be introducing him in a disparaging way to them.
Sometimes I hear words like libel or slander used when names come up in Christian discussion. Libel is associated with written defamation. Slander is usually a spoken false charge or defamation. Both have to do with purposeful misrepresentation. If I write, “Bob is a tax cheat,” I had better be able to back up my statement with facts. Even if I can do so, my purpose in writing the words must not be to defame Bob or to harm him publicly. That would be libel. If I think that someone is cheating on his wife and I say that publicly, I could easily be guilty of slander.
But referring to the published teachings of an author/teacher by using his name is neither libel nor slander, as long as you can show that the person actually is proclaiming the ideas. You are free to disagree or interpret the ideas as you wish. You may not be free to interpret the teaching and then represent your interpretation as the interpretation of the other person, however. Instead, you have to say something like: if this is what the author means, then he is teaching xyz. Even then, he is free to disagree with you (and use your name in the same circle).
I will close with a contrasting thought: It really isn’t necessary to use names in all circumstances. Sometimes, as in this blog, you will be better served by just talking about a teaching in general. Supporters of teachers or authors can pick up an offense quite quickly. Often they don’t care about the teaching you are trying to talk about. All they care about is that you named their favorite teacher and said negative things. You become the enemy unnecessarily. And, if you pronounce judgment on the teaching, you may be seen as pronouncing judgment on the person. If you say, “x teaches abc and abc is heresy,” you will be heard to say that x is a heretic.
Sometimes it just isn’t worth it.
Dave Orrison, Grace For My Heart
http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/who-said-what/
One of the more shocking chastisements I have heard used among believers is the idea that we are not to use names when referring to those with whom we disagree. We are supposed to say “some teachers” or “a certain someone I know” or use some other method of keeping an identity anonymous. This surprised me again recently.
Now maybe my background is the problem. I have advanced academic degrees and learned that referencing sources is important. If you don’t name the person you challenge in your dissertation, the professor will probably mark you down. If you say, “A certain teacher believes;” the professor will ask, “Who?” Identifying sources allows others to verify your words and determine for themselves whether or not they agree with you.
Or maybe it is because I have been a pastor for so long. Many times people have come to my office and have said, “Pastor, quite a few people are concerned…” But I only see one person in front of me. Who are the others? Where are the others? Are they afraid to identify themselves? Do they really exist? I have spoken against what I call “back-pocket people,” and have asked “representatives” to represent only themselves. My desire is to value the disagreement or concerns of one person and there is no need to hint at more.
Or maybe it’s because I sat so long under the teaching of a legalist who always had these amazing examples to support his points. The problem was that these examples never had names. It became very difficult to believe that they existed at all. Today, when the teacher or author says, “A certain man,” I just assume he is telling me a parable.
So, I think there are situations that call for names to be used. Authors, teachers, politicians—people who present their ideas to large audiences—should be named when their ideas or writings are challenged. Why? Because each teacher is different. Teacher A teaches the idea one way. Teacher B communicates it another way. If I fail to distinguish between them, I may misrepresent one of them. Also, the author/teacher has already identified himself with the idea. It is neither gossip nor accusation to refer to the teaching and the teacher together.
But I do have a general rule to follow. Let the circle of the teacher’s teaching be the circle of the identification. In other words, if an author presents his ideas in a book that is promoted and marketed publicly, then naming that author in reference to his teachings in another book, or any smaller venue, is acceptable. If the teacher has a blog or a radio program, a reference in your book may be too large, but in your blog or radio program it may be acceptable. But if a person makes a comment on Facebook, then Facebook should be the limit of the naming. And, this is my opinion, ideas expressed in private conversation should be answered in private conversation.
A couple examples (and I will avoid names): One legalistic teacher has a ministry that has reached something near 20 million people. Is it fair to use his name in association with his teaching? Of course, provided it is truly his teaching you are referring to. (No matter how large the ministry, you are not free to misrepresent someone.) Someone makes a comment I dislike on a friend’s Facebook page. Am I free to use that offender’s name in my blog? No. There are many people who read my blog who would not know this person and I would be introducing him in a disparaging way to them.
Sometimes I hear words like libel or slander used when names come up in Christian discussion. Libel is associated with written defamation. Slander is usually a spoken false charge or defamation. Both have to do with purposeful misrepresentation. If I write, “Bob is a tax cheat,” I had better be able to back up my statement with facts. Even if I can do so, my purpose in writing the words must not be to defame Bob or to harm him publicly. That would be libel. If I think that someone is cheating on his wife and I say that publicly, I could easily be guilty of slander.
But referring to the published teachings of an author/teacher by using his name is neither libel nor slander, as long as you can show that the person actually is proclaiming the ideas. You are free to disagree or interpret the ideas as you wish. You may not be free to interpret the teaching and then represent your interpretation as the interpretation of the other person, however. Instead, you have to say something like: if this is what the author means, then he is teaching xyz. Even then, he is free to disagree with you (and use your name in the same circle).
I will close with a contrasting thought: It really isn’t necessary to use names in all circumstances. Sometimes, as in this blog, you will be better served by just talking about a teaching in general. Supporters of teachers or authors can pick up an offense quite quickly. Often they don’t care about the teaching you are trying to talk about. All they care about is that you named their favorite teacher and said negative things. You become the enemy unnecessarily. And, if you pronounce judgment on the teaching, you may be seen as pronouncing judgment on the person. If you say, “x teaches abc and abc is heresy,” you will be heard to say that x is a heretic.
Sometimes it just isn’t worth it.
Dave Orrison, Grace For My Heart
http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/who-said-what/
Monday, April 25, 2011
God’s Love, Hell and Humanity: A Few Thoughts on the Purity and Uniqueness of God’s Love by Don Steve
God’s Love, Hell and Humanity: A Few Thoughts on the Purity and
Uniqueness of God’s Love
by Don Steve
(I realize that not all my brothers and sisters in Christ will agree with
my convictions. I wrote the following with respect for all and with no
expected response. God is free to convict anyone who may read of truth
or error. Our security is in a Person not a position.)
Scripture refers to God’s love as agape love. God’s love is unique. In
holiness and purity it stands far above the love of man. The activity of
agape love is opposed by the selfish deceit of the enemy of souls. Agape
love, due to its holy purity and divine nature, is often misunderstood.
The Bible teaches that God is love and that all of His ways are founded
upon love. I John 4:8 (NIV) states, “Whoever does not love does not
know God because God is love.” The word love in this passage is
specifically referring to the God type of love called agape love. An
individual is able to perceive agape love only because the Spirit of God
has chosen to reveal the nature of agape love through the uniform
witness of the Word. Bottom line is that God’s love is still a mystery
regardless of how much the Spirit reveals the love of God! We can’t
plumb the depths of His love or measure its bounds any more than Job
could measure the foundation of the earth and find personal value as a
consultant to its maker! Our consolation in this dilemma is that we are
not designed to comprehend God’s love in its totality. We are designed
to know it intimately by faith as we relate to God. Love’s target is the
heart of man. The heart is far more than just the mind.
A tendency of human beings is to mix our perceptions of God with Spirit
revealed truth about God. Because God’s ways are higher than our own,
the result is a very distorted picture of God—an image drawn by an
aspiring artist suffering from spiritual vertigo who can’t tell the bottom
of the canvas from the top! Theologians call this anthropomorphic
error. It is making God in the image of man. Romans 1:22-3 (NASB)
explains “Professing to be wise, they [mankind] became fools and
exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form
of corruptible man.” No one is immune to this tendency. The solution is
radical dependence upon the God who delights to reveal Himself by the
authority of scripture.
One of God’s truths under anthropomorphic assault today is the Biblical
doctrine of a literal hell. Arguments against a literal hell have their
roots in philosophical beliefs about the nature of God and His love.
One such belief is the age-old supposition that a loving God could not
have created a literal hell and could not tolerate any individuals ending
up in the torment of such a place. Many scriptures speak of a literal
hell. II Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:14-15 are two passages
that speak explicitly of the reality and finality of a literal hell. In an
attempt to substantiate teaching to the contrary a quantum shift is made
away from orthodox methods of Biblical interpretation to a subjective
figurative interpretation of scripture. In doing so individuals abandon
the common sense assumption that God meant to communicate specific
truth through the writing of scripture. If God meant what He said He had
to use language in the literal sense to communicate.
One Bible scholar compared the recent trend towards figurative
symbolic Biblical interpretation to ordering a Big Mac at McDonald’s. I
will expound upon his thoughts a bit: Can you imagine going up to the
counter placing your order for a Big Mac and hearing the individual at
the register yell back to the grill, “He said he wants a Fillet-o-Fish!” “Hey
wait a minute,” you would protest, “that’s not what I said!” Your jaw
would drop even more if the individual taking your order said, “Yeah,
but that’s what you meant.” You used language in its normal literal
sense to communicate. The individual hearing your words chose to
interject subjective meaning and was forced to deconstruct your literal
words! One can imagine how the conversation may have continued:
(Team member)”Yeah, but when you said ‘Big Mac,’ I knew you really
meant a Filet-O-Fish because our filets are made of only the finest
extra-large mackerel fresh from the ocean!” Unless the one wearing
the Golden Arches on their name tag was willing to acknowledge the
literal meaning of your words, the conversation would either be useless,
endless, or abruptly ended.
The fishy thoughts of the McDonald’s team member illustrate why the
literal, grammatical, historical approach to Bible study is so important.
We must interpret the Bible literally unless the literal meaning gives
validity to a symbolic expression as implied by the context. To abandon
the literal meaning of Scripture is to open the door to endless types of
useless heretical interpretations of God’s word. One’s own thoughts
then supersede those of God. “Oh, did God say a lake of fire? What he
really meant was…(cue the philosophy of man).”
Romans 1:21-22 tell us that the speculative “wisdom” of man is both
futile and foolish. The futile wisdom of man caves in on itself when
exposed by the light of God’s truth. The philosophical supposition that a
literal hell could not be a reality because God is love cannot stand under
scrutiny.
In spite of contrary erroneous assumption, the Biblical truths of a literal
heaven and a literal hell are totally congruent with each other. They are
as compatible as the Biblical truths of life and death. No Bible scholar
with any credibility would attempt to argue that death is symbolic.
Death is self-evident. We are faced with the reality of death each day
in many ways. Death finds its essence in its relationship to the nature
of life. Death stands in opposition to life. Death is the polar opposite
of life. But it would not be correct to say that death is inconsistent or
incongruent with the fact of, or the existence of, life. In fact, a Biblical
definition of death is that death is the absence of life in the spirit of man
(zoe life or the God type of life to be specific) and degradation of life in
the physical world due to the curse of death. The correlation between
the two is evident in the Genesis account of creation. One the one hand,
Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to eat from the tree of life.
On the other hand, the opposing choice was the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil. Partaking of one tree led to life. Partaking of the other
tree led to death. Death was a natural consequence of Adam and Eve’s
choice to forsake life! The fact and presence of death in Eden was totally
consistent with the fact and presence of life. Hell is a component of
death, just as love is a fundamental aspect of the God who is life. The
constitution of death finds its reality in the absence of God’s life and
degradation of existence that results.
In the mind of man, God’s love and hell may seem like polar opposites
and therefore incongruent and incompatible. Nothing could be further
from the truth! Death and hell are the literal reality of rejecting a God
who literally loves you, who literally sent His Son to rescue you from
the concrete facts of sin and death. The fact of sin, hell, and death are as
real as the facts of righteousness and life. Here’s a simple illustration.
If I place a quarter in my pocket, my pocket becomes the container for
that quarter. Turn my pocket inside out and it becomes a dispenser
of the quarter. Containing and dispensing are opposite concepts but
they are congruent with one another due to the physical nature of the
pocket. The wisdom of man, which is foolishness to God, has confused
congruent opposites with incongruence! In order for those who argue
against a literal hell to be consistent they would also have to argue
against a God who loves us literally! The absence of God’s life is death.
If one is literal so is the other. The culmination of death is Biblically
referred to as the Second Death (Rev. 20:14). The Second Death is as
real as the love that held Christ upon the cross. Oh how foolish the
wisdom of man can be, when standing in opposition to the revealed
wisdom of God!
The fact is that any time we attempt to diminish the reality of sin, death
or hell we also attempt to diminish (albeit inadvertently) the work of
Christ on the cross and the love that made redemption possible. May the
nail-scarred hands forever tell of the literal reality of sin, death, and hell
as sure as they tell of God’s love!
Uniqueness of God’s Love
by Don Steve
(I realize that not all my brothers and sisters in Christ will agree with
my convictions. I wrote the following with respect for all and with no
expected response. God is free to convict anyone who may read of truth
or error. Our security is in a Person not a position.)
Scripture refers to God’s love as agape love. God’s love is unique. In
holiness and purity it stands far above the love of man. The activity of
agape love is opposed by the selfish deceit of the enemy of souls. Agape
love, due to its holy purity and divine nature, is often misunderstood.
The Bible teaches that God is love and that all of His ways are founded
upon love. I John 4:8 (NIV) states, “Whoever does not love does not
know God because God is love.” The word love in this passage is
specifically referring to the God type of love called agape love. An
individual is able to perceive agape love only because the Spirit of God
has chosen to reveal the nature of agape love through the uniform
witness of the Word. Bottom line is that God’s love is still a mystery
regardless of how much the Spirit reveals the love of God! We can’t
plumb the depths of His love or measure its bounds any more than Job
could measure the foundation of the earth and find personal value as a
consultant to its maker! Our consolation in this dilemma is that we are
not designed to comprehend God’s love in its totality. We are designed
to know it intimately by faith as we relate to God. Love’s target is the
heart of man. The heart is far more than just the mind.
A tendency of human beings is to mix our perceptions of God with Spirit
revealed truth about God. Because God’s ways are higher than our own,
the result is a very distorted picture of God—an image drawn by an
aspiring artist suffering from spiritual vertigo who can’t tell the bottom
of the canvas from the top! Theologians call this anthropomorphic
error. It is making God in the image of man. Romans 1:22-3 (NASB)
explains “Professing to be wise, they [mankind] became fools and
exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form
of corruptible man.” No one is immune to this tendency. The solution is
radical dependence upon the God who delights to reveal Himself by the
authority of scripture.
One of God’s truths under anthropomorphic assault today is the Biblical
doctrine of a literal hell. Arguments against a literal hell have their
roots in philosophical beliefs about the nature of God and His love.
One such belief is the age-old supposition that a loving God could not
have created a literal hell and could not tolerate any individuals ending
up in the torment of such a place. Many scriptures speak of a literal
hell. II Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:14-15 are two passages
that speak explicitly of the reality and finality of a literal hell. In an
attempt to substantiate teaching to the contrary a quantum shift is made
away from orthodox methods of Biblical interpretation to a subjective
figurative interpretation of scripture. In doing so individuals abandon
the common sense assumption that God meant to communicate specific
truth through the writing of scripture. If God meant what He said He had
to use language in the literal sense to communicate.
One Bible scholar compared the recent trend towards figurative
symbolic Biblical interpretation to ordering a Big Mac at McDonald’s. I
will expound upon his thoughts a bit: Can you imagine going up to the
counter placing your order for a Big Mac and hearing the individual at
the register yell back to the grill, “He said he wants a Fillet-o-Fish!” “Hey
wait a minute,” you would protest, “that’s not what I said!” Your jaw
would drop even more if the individual taking your order said, “Yeah,
but that’s what you meant.” You used language in its normal literal
sense to communicate. The individual hearing your words chose to
interject subjective meaning and was forced to deconstruct your literal
words! One can imagine how the conversation may have continued:
(Team member)”Yeah, but when you said ‘Big Mac,’ I knew you really
meant a Filet-O-Fish because our filets are made of only the finest
extra-large mackerel fresh from the ocean!” Unless the one wearing
the Golden Arches on their name tag was willing to acknowledge the
literal meaning of your words, the conversation would either be useless,
endless, or abruptly ended.
The fishy thoughts of the McDonald’s team member illustrate why the
literal, grammatical, historical approach to Bible study is so important.
We must interpret the Bible literally unless the literal meaning gives
validity to a symbolic expression as implied by the context. To abandon
the literal meaning of Scripture is to open the door to endless types of
useless heretical interpretations of God’s word. One’s own thoughts
then supersede those of God. “Oh, did God say a lake of fire? What he
really meant was…(cue the philosophy of man).”
Romans 1:21-22 tell us that the speculative “wisdom” of man is both
futile and foolish. The futile wisdom of man caves in on itself when
exposed by the light of God’s truth. The philosophical supposition that a
literal hell could not be a reality because God is love cannot stand under
scrutiny.
In spite of contrary erroneous assumption, the Biblical truths of a literal
heaven and a literal hell are totally congruent with each other. They are
as compatible as the Biblical truths of life and death. No Bible scholar
with any credibility would attempt to argue that death is symbolic.
Death is self-evident. We are faced with the reality of death each day
in many ways. Death finds its essence in its relationship to the nature
of life. Death stands in opposition to life. Death is the polar opposite
of life. But it would not be correct to say that death is inconsistent or
incongruent with the fact of, or the existence of, life. In fact, a Biblical
definition of death is that death is the absence of life in the spirit of man
(zoe life or the God type of life to be specific) and degradation of life in
the physical world due to the curse of death. The correlation between
the two is evident in the Genesis account of creation. One the one hand,
Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to eat from the tree of life.
On the other hand, the opposing choice was the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil. Partaking of one tree led to life. Partaking of the other
tree led to death. Death was a natural consequence of Adam and Eve’s
choice to forsake life! The fact and presence of death in Eden was totally
consistent with the fact and presence of life. Hell is a component of
death, just as love is a fundamental aspect of the God who is life. The
constitution of death finds its reality in the absence of God’s life and
degradation of existence that results.
In the mind of man, God’s love and hell may seem like polar opposites
and therefore incongruent and incompatible. Nothing could be further
from the truth! Death and hell are the literal reality of rejecting a God
who literally loves you, who literally sent His Son to rescue you from
the concrete facts of sin and death. The fact of sin, hell, and death are as
real as the facts of righteousness and life. Here’s a simple illustration.
If I place a quarter in my pocket, my pocket becomes the container for
that quarter. Turn my pocket inside out and it becomes a dispenser
of the quarter. Containing and dispensing are opposite concepts but
they are congruent with one another due to the physical nature of the
pocket. The wisdom of man, which is foolishness to God, has confused
congruent opposites with incongruence! In order for those who argue
against a literal hell to be consistent they would also have to argue
against a God who loves us literally! The absence of God’s life is death.
If one is literal so is the other. The culmination of death is Biblically
referred to as the Second Death (Rev. 20:14). The Second Death is as
real as the love that held Christ upon the cross. Oh how foolish the
wisdom of man can be, when standing in opposition to the revealed
wisdom of God!
The fact is that any time we attempt to diminish the reality of sin, death
or hell we also attempt to diminish (albeit inadvertently) the work of
Christ on the cross and the love that made redemption possible. May the
nail-scarred hands forever tell of the literal reality of sin, death, and hell
as sure as they tell of God’s love!
Why We Fight? Dr. David Orrison Discusses Why Christians Like To Draw Sides
The old joke says that wherever two or more Baptists are gathered they start a new denomination. Throughout history churches, denominations, ministries, and Christian friends have separated themselves from each other for the most amazing reasons. Did you know that groups have divided because one believed that the adult immersion baptism should be performed face-first, while the other believed that the person being baptized should bend backwards into the water? Seems like an exaggeration to us, but I assure you that individual churches have divided on far less important grounds.
Why are we so quick to divide? Why do we so willingly separate ourselves from brothers and sisters in the Lord? I don’t have the space for a long dissertation, but I would like to throw out a few things I have been thinking about.
First, we fight out of habit. Fighting against the enemy is part of our heritage as believers. The Jews have fought against enemies for 4000 years. The early Christians not only were afraid of the Romans and the Greeks, but also the Jews. Enemies were everywhere and have always been everywhere. Even within the church there were those who endangered the message. Paul talked about false prophets who would teach compromise and misuse the trust of the church. Terms like apostate, false teacher, or heretic, have almost always been part of our vocabulary. In other words, fighting is familiar—even sacred—ground.
Second, the more the church withdraws from the world, the more we see the enemy in each other. We certainly do have enemies. There have always been those who have wanted to destroy the church’s message, to wipe it out. Philosophers and tyrants have gleefully announced the termination of the Christian faith. But in a culture like ours, where the enemy outside is not obvious and we worship without fear, our conditioning moves us to discover our enemies inside. We argue about big and little things and draw lines of distinction between us with little understanding that the real enemy is something and someone else.
Third, the flesh isn’t gone from us. We all still suffer from feelings of inferiority, isolation, and more. We want to be right, look right, and be accepted as right. It is easy to jump to our own defense when someone disagrees and, unfortunately, easy to seek an advantage when we disagree with someone else. When we hear someone suggest that we are wrong, we hear them saying that we have failed and are unworthy of respect. It doesn’t matter whether that’s what the person meant to say, the flesh reacts anyway. We fight because we want to protect ourselves and those with whom we identify.
Fourth, ministry money comes from loyalty. That’s a hard thing to admit for most of us. It is certainly a part of the motivation from the flesh. To disagree with a teacher or a ministry leader, particularly when it is received as a negative judgment, is to attack the stability or health of the ministry. If the teacher is shown to be wrong, who will trust him in the future? Will supporters abandon the ministry? What happens if they do? Pastors suddenly become more willing to see division between friends or family members than to see themselves out of a ministry. Sometimes ministry leaders actually cultivate the divisions because a quick end to the debate is considered less damaging than the attrition from a long disagreement.
Fifth, we have forgotten how to argue. Disagreement over doctrinal matters is built into the structure of the church (see the last point) and isn’t going away. We certainly don’t have to agree, and good discussion has its own value for us. It is good to think through spiritual things and discuss them with friends. But somehow we have acquired the idea that arguing is bad and those who disagree are just trying to cause problems. Nice Christians keep their questions or points of disagreement to themselves, we think. In the process, we have forgotten how to argue and still be friends and family.
Sixth, by neglecting the work of the Spirit in the centuries that have preceded us, we repeat old and worn arguments. Much time, energy, ink, and verbiage is wasted because we have to start at the beginning of every doctrinal disagreement. Perhaps a little more study would show us how the Spirit led others to work these things out or to discern truth from error. We may not agree with the outcome, but we can save a lot by attending to the discussion of the past. Why was a certain doctrine abandoned so long ago? Why does the church stand where it does today?
Seventh, we do have a real enemy who works to divide us and steal our love and siphon our power away from our real calling. So often we observe that the only one who gained from the battle was the evil one. While one side accuses the other of working with or for him, the truth is that our flesh always is open to his influence and both sides are usually manipulated by him to some extent.
Finally, we simply have not been given all the answers we would like. Let’s admit it: the Scriptures are vague on some pretty important things. In spite of the fact that we have become expert at finding proof-texts to support our side, the truth is that almost all of our arguments seem contrived and weak. Some Scripture texts are worded in ways that defy easy translation. Some points of doctrine are barely referred to at all. If it were up to me, just in regard to the doctrinal questions I have, the Bible would be much longer.
So, could it be that we are supposed to argue? If some things seem important, but are not clearly revealed in Scripture, maybe we are supposed to come together in prayer and debate, discuss, argue them through. Maybe we are supposed to find truth by coming together in the Spirit. If we come together in the Spirit, trusting Him to lead us, perhaps we will find our answers—or at least we may find that we don’t need the answers after all. Maybe just finding each other and our Lord will be enough.
Thoughts?
http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com
Why are we so quick to divide? Why do we so willingly separate ourselves from brothers and sisters in the Lord? I don’t have the space for a long dissertation, but I would like to throw out a few things I have been thinking about.
First, we fight out of habit. Fighting against the enemy is part of our heritage as believers. The Jews have fought against enemies for 4000 years. The early Christians not only were afraid of the Romans and the Greeks, but also the Jews. Enemies were everywhere and have always been everywhere. Even within the church there were those who endangered the message. Paul talked about false prophets who would teach compromise and misuse the trust of the church. Terms like apostate, false teacher, or heretic, have almost always been part of our vocabulary. In other words, fighting is familiar—even sacred—ground.
Second, the more the church withdraws from the world, the more we see the enemy in each other. We certainly do have enemies. There have always been those who have wanted to destroy the church’s message, to wipe it out. Philosophers and tyrants have gleefully announced the termination of the Christian faith. But in a culture like ours, where the enemy outside is not obvious and we worship without fear, our conditioning moves us to discover our enemies inside. We argue about big and little things and draw lines of distinction between us with little understanding that the real enemy is something and someone else.
Third, the flesh isn’t gone from us. We all still suffer from feelings of inferiority, isolation, and more. We want to be right, look right, and be accepted as right. It is easy to jump to our own defense when someone disagrees and, unfortunately, easy to seek an advantage when we disagree with someone else. When we hear someone suggest that we are wrong, we hear them saying that we have failed and are unworthy of respect. It doesn’t matter whether that’s what the person meant to say, the flesh reacts anyway. We fight because we want to protect ourselves and those with whom we identify.
Fourth, ministry money comes from loyalty. That’s a hard thing to admit for most of us. It is certainly a part of the motivation from the flesh. To disagree with a teacher or a ministry leader, particularly when it is received as a negative judgment, is to attack the stability or health of the ministry. If the teacher is shown to be wrong, who will trust him in the future? Will supporters abandon the ministry? What happens if they do? Pastors suddenly become more willing to see division between friends or family members than to see themselves out of a ministry. Sometimes ministry leaders actually cultivate the divisions because a quick end to the debate is considered less damaging than the attrition from a long disagreement.
Fifth, we have forgotten how to argue. Disagreement over doctrinal matters is built into the structure of the church (see the last point) and isn’t going away. We certainly don’t have to agree, and good discussion has its own value for us. It is good to think through spiritual things and discuss them with friends. But somehow we have acquired the idea that arguing is bad and those who disagree are just trying to cause problems. Nice Christians keep their questions or points of disagreement to themselves, we think. In the process, we have forgotten how to argue and still be friends and family.
Sixth, by neglecting the work of the Spirit in the centuries that have preceded us, we repeat old and worn arguments. Much time, energy, ink, and verbiage is wasted because we have to start at the beginning of every doctrinal disagreement. Perhaps a little more study would show us how the Spirit led others to work these things out or to discern truth from error. We may not agree with the outcome, but we can save a lot by attending to the discussion of the past. Why was a certain doctrine abandoned so long ago? Why does the church stand where it does today?
Seventh, we do have a real enemy who works to divide us and steal our love and siphon our power away from our real calling. So often we observe that the only one who gained from the battle was the evil one. While one side accuses the other of working with or for him, the truth is that our flesh always is open to his influence and both sides are usually manipulated by him to some extent.
Finally, we simply have not been given all the answers we would like. Let’s admit it: the Scriptures are vague on some pretty important things. In spite of the fact that we have become expert at finding proof-texts to support our side, the truth is that almost all of our arguments seem contrived and weak. Some Scripture texts are worded in ways that defy easy translation. Some points of doctrine are barely referred to at all. If it were up to me, just in regard to the doctrinal questions I have, the Bible would be much longer.
So, could it be that we are supposed to argue? If some things seem important, but are not clearly revealed in Scripture, maybe we are supposed to come together in prayer and debate, discuss, argue them through. Maybe we are supposed to find truth by coming together in the Spirit. If we come together in the Spirit, trusting Him to lead us, perhaps we will find our answers—or at least we may find that we don’t need the answers after all. Maybe just finding each other and our Lord will be enough.
Thoughts?
http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Free To Disagree? Yeah Right!
Free to Disagree – Yeah Right!
graceformyheart | April 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm | Categories: Church, grace | URL: http://wp.me/pTb3j-gW
Now, you are welcome to disagree with me on this—as long as you want to be wrong, stupid, un-Christian, un-patriotic, and worthy of gross rejection. Oh, oops, I wasn’t supposed to put that last part in there.
Why is it that some teachers, pastors, group leaders and others try to project this willingness for discussion and differing thought when they really don’t want to hear anything contrary to the conclusions they have presented? Why is it that Christians are so quick to jump to “my side versus your side?” Why are we so willing to abandon friendships and relationships for our disagreements?
I am watching a discussion deteriorate into the name-calling and friendship-severing mess we often see in churches and ministries when people stop remembering who they are in Christ and let their differences define their relationship. It grieves me. So much is lost when this happens.
Let’s think about why this happens. Let’s get the obvious and most nasty reason out first. There are some leaders who simply cannot abide a challenge to their opinion or teaching. This is a narcissistic characteristic some people have that moves them to see anyone who disagrees as an enemy or an obstacle. I have known pastors who fired associate staff upon the first disagreement. Narcissists usually react very strongly against people who disagree because they feel threatened by the challenge.
But not all ugly disagreements stem from the paranoia of a narcissist. Sometimes churches, ministries, even friendships are destroyed simply because people don’t know how to disagree or they hold their own opinions too highly. Sometimes a minor disagreement is blown out of proportion because a political rift already exists and one or both sides use the disagreement against the other. Sometimes people are frightened and respond with much more force than is appropriate and the battle escalates from there.
We really can’t do much about the political or ideological rifts and the wars that result from minor disagreements. In those cases, anything would have been a good weapon and the disagreement was just handy. No matter how much you try to talk through the disagreement, you find no progress because the disagreement isn’t the real problem. Some churches, in other words, are primed for an explosion and almost anything will set it off.
But believers should be able to discuss their differences without becoming angry and attacking. And we should be able to relate in a way that a simple disagreement isn’t seen as an attack. Actually, we should be able to see each other in a way that even an attack is not fatal to the relationship.
In the next several days, I will write more on this. I would like to address concerns such as: what to do when you are attacked; when it is appropriate to name names; how far a disagreement can go before the relationship should be severed; how far to go to prove or force your point; what arguments are worth having; why Christians, in particular, are susceptible to the us versus them mentality; and more.
Maybe you can add to the list.
...... From: Dr. David Orrison, Grace For The Heart
graceformyheart | April 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm | Categories: Church, grace | URL: http://wp.me/pTb3j-gW
Now, you are welcome to disagree with me on this—as long as you want to be wrong, stupid, un-Christian, un-patriotic, and worthy of gross rejection. Oh, oops, I wasn’t supposed to put that last part in there.
Why is it that some teachers, pastors, group leaders and others try to project this willingness for discussion and differing thought when they really don’t want to hear anything contrary to the conclusions they have presented? Why is it that Christians are so quick to jump to “my side versus your side?” Why are we so willing to abandon friendships and relationships for our disagreements?
I am watching a discussion deteriorate into the name-calling and friendship-severing mess we often see in churches and ministries when people stop remembering who they are in Christ and let their differences define their relationship. It grieves me. So much is lost when this happens.
Let’s think about why this happens. Let’s get the obvious and most nasty reason out first. There are some leaders who simply cannot abide a challenge to their opinion or teaching. This is a narcissistic characteristic some people have that moves them to see anyone who disagrees as an enemy or an obstacle. I have known pastors who fired associate staff upon the first disagreement. Narcissists usually react very strongly against people who disagree because they feel threatened by the challenge.
But not all ugly disagreements stem from the paranoia of a narcissist. Sometimes churches, ministries, even friendships are destroyed simply because people don’t know how to disagree or they hold their own opinions too highly. Sometimes a minor disagreement is blown out of proportion because a political rift already exists and one or both sides use the disagreement against the other. Sometimes people are frightened and respond with much more force than is appropriate and the battle escalates from there.
We really can’t do much about the political or ideological rifts and the wars that result from minor disagreements. In those cases, anything would have been a good weapon and the disagreement was just handy. No matter how much you try to talk through the disagreement, you find no progress because the disagreement isn’t the real problem. Some churches, in other words, are primed for an explosion and almost anything will set it off.
But believers should be able to discuss their differences without becoming angry and attacking. And we should be able to relate in a way that a simple disagreement isn’t seen as an attack. Actually, we should be able to see each other in a way that even an attack is not fatal to the relationship.
In the next several days, I will write more on this. I would like to address concerns such as: what to do when you are attacked; when it is appropriate to name names; how far a disagreement can go before the relationship should be severed; how far to go to prove or force your point; what arguments are worth having; why Christians, in particular, are susceptible to the us versus them mentality; and more.
Maybe you can add to the list.
...... From: Dr. David Orrison, Grace For The Heart
Monday, April 18, 2011
Over 2000 Visits To Trinitarinism.Info in Less Than One Week!!! .... No Slanderous Statements Made: Check For Yourself! >>>
Over 2000 visits to Trinitarianism.Info in less than one week :) In our electronic age of paper trails and fingerprints being left globally in only a moment's time I am grateful that all one has to do to refute a slanderous attack made against against me, and other pastors, that was made this afternoon, is to simply listen or read what I and other leaders have made pertaining to warning about the teachings of this cultic movement of, trinitarian universalism. Some of the teachers promoting these cultic doctrines were indeed, mentioned. However, and it is a BIG however, they were affirmed as to knowing and loving Christ, … and to be our brothers. They were never attacked personally, however their teaching was exposed for being dangerous, for what it is.
And this can be easily proven! If you haven't already, please listen to the message for yourself by going to: http://www.fileswap.com/dl/JpFcbwp/Trinitarian_Universalism.mp3.html
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. - Ephesians 5:11
Tomorrow, God willing, we'll have part two of this discussion of this ongoing doctrinal crisis, exposing this hidden invasion of this dangerous, subtle universalism that has claimed more than 33% of the global, new covenant - exchanged life community in less than one year. The recorded audio broadcast will be posted here at the site by the end of this week. One of our guests, personally knows the leading theologians espousing these strange doctrines.
And this can be easily proven! If you haven't already, please listen to the message for yourself by going to: http://www.fileswap.com/dl/JpFcbwp/Trinitarian_Universalism.mp3.html
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. - Ephesians 5:11
Tomorrow, God willing, we'll have part two of this discussion of this ongoing doctrinal crisis, exposing this hidden invasion of this dangerous, subtle universalism that has claimed more than 33% of the global, new covenant - exchanged life community in less than one year. The recorded audio broadcast will be posted here at the site by the end of this week. One of our guests, personally knows the leading theologians espousing these strange doctrines.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Several Pastors Discuss & Expose a Dangerous & Subtle Movement of Universalism .......
A Special Audio Report; More Than 5 New Covenant Pastors Discuss & Expose Trinitarianism
The teachers of this movement, very likely know The Lord; and believe with all of their hearts that they are sharing a more radical grace and love to a legalistic; & grace starved church. The teachers of this movement strongly deny and object being called, universalists, but after taking a closer look at their teachings, do their claims hold sway to Scripture? The founder of this blog, David Lesniak, after having spent almost 6 years promoting the ministry work of Dr. Steve McVey, from Grace Walk Ministries; via that ministries former Internet Radio Station; has been accused of setting himself up as "a self appointed guardian of the church", & spreading dissension, hate, and disunity, within the global New Covenant - Exchanged Life Community. Lesniak, has worked feverishly, primarily online for 14 years, as a "relational networker" among like minded - like hearted "new covenant grace believers". After discovering some major contrasts on the foundational - essentials of the gospel, that Steve McVey; Malcolm Smith; Paul Anderson Walsh, Paul Young (author of The Shack); Wayne Jacobsen; & many others were teaching, he began to have a huge check in his spirit & began to contact the many pastors; teachers; missionaries; and conference speakers of his concerns. He has lost many friends; and has incurred severe financial loss; as a result of standing firm in what he believes is a massive satanic onslaught going on in the New Covenant - Exchanged Life Community, globally. This one hour audio program (link shared above) released under, Movement of Grace Ministries' ..... "Movement of Grace On Demand Radio, shares one of those discussions with a group of "new covenant - grace" pastors. You are invited to listen in and search the Scriptures for yourself to see whether or not if Lesniak's claim, that this form of "Trinitarianism" is THE MOST dangerous movement in the church today; or if it is as McVey and others claim, is reveals insights so that believers can grow deeper in God's awesome grace and radical love.
Audio Message Here >>> A Special Audio Report; More Than 5 New Covenant Pastors Discuss & Expose Trinitarianism
This site as it has just been launched this April 8th, 2011 is still being built. Thus the links have not been activated.
Thoughtful questions; feedback; & comments from visitors will be reviewed for publishing and may be edited accordingly.
The teachers of this movement, very likely know The Lord; and believe with all of their hearts that they are sharing a more radical grace and love to a legalistic; & grace starved church. The teachers of this movement strongly deny and object being called, universalists, but after taking a closer look at their teachings, do their claims hold sway to Scripture? The founder of this blog, David Lesniak, after having spent almost 6 years promoting the ministry work of Dr. Steve McVey, from Grace Walk Ministries; via that ministries former Internet Radio Station; has been accused of setting himself up as "a self appointed guardian of the church", & spreading dissension, hate, and disunity, within the global New Covenant - Exchanged Life Community. Lesniak, has worked feverishly, primarily online for 14 years, as a "relational networker" among like minded - like hearted "new covenant grace believers". After discovering some major contrasts on the foundational - essentials of the gospel, that Steve McVey; Malcolm Smith; Paul Anderson Walsh, Paul Young (author of The Shack); Wayne Jacobsen; & many others were teaching, he began to have a huge check in his spirit & began to contact the many pastors; teachers; missionaries; and conference speakers of his concerns. He has lost many friends; and has incurred severe financial loss; as a result of standing firm in what he believes is a massive satanic onslaught going on in the New Covenant - Exchanged Life Community, globally. This one hour audio program (link shared above) released under, Movement of Grace Ministries' ..... "Movement of Grace On Demand Radio, shares one of those discussions with a group of "new covenant - grace" pastors. You are invited to listen in and search the Scriptures for yourself to see whether or not if Lesniak's claim, that this form of "Trinitarianism" is THE MOST dangerous movement in the church today; or if it is as McVey and others claim, is reveals insights so that believers can grow deeper in God's awesome grace and radical love.
Audio Message Here >>> A Special Audio Report; More Than 5 New Covenant Pastors Discuss & Expose Trinitarianism
This site as it has just been launched this April 8th, 2011 is still being built. Thus the links have not been activated.
Thoughtful questions; feedback; & comments from visitors will be reviewed for publishing and may be edited accordingly.
