Dalai Lama offers his flock a vote on whether he should be reincarnated.I am afraid if I put my reincarnation up for a vote, it would come back as "Die now and never come back."
Faced with Chinese plans to seize control of his reincarnation, the Dalai Lama has come up with two revolutionary proposals — either to forgo rebirth, or to be reborn while still alive.
The exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader proposed yesterday to hold a referendum among his 13-14 million followers around the world — before his death — on whether he should be reincarnated or not.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I Didn't Know You Could Do This
Monday, November 26, 2007
Rob Bell and the Anger of God
Today, I read the second review I have seen on Rob Bell's current speaking tour entitled "the gods aren't angry." This reviewer notes Mark Driscoll's recent labeling of Bell as a heretic when he (Driscoll) spoke at Southeastern Seminary at their Convergent Conference. This review is decidely more sympathetic than the previous one was, but I can't remember where I saw the other one.
What grabbed my attention was this comment the reviewer makes in closing:
1. The idea that "the alternatives leave us with small god who needs sacrifice to be appeased" is a curious remark, particularly given the biblical teaching on propitiation. This concern is straight out of the playbook of those who deny penal substitution. They see God as a cosmic child abuser who beats up and kills his own Son to satisfy his bloodlust. They believe that forgiveness by definition is incompatible with penal substitution, arguing that if Christ paid the penalty then sin wasn't really forgiven; it was paid for.
Such is hardly a biblical picture. The truth is that God's holiness must be satisfied. He is not able to say "Forget about, no big deal." If he were to do that, his only holiness would be compromised. But because of his love for us, he took the step of satisfying his own holiness while not charging our sins against us. Romans 3:24-26 is clear that God is both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus through the death of Christ. The death of Christ was necessary for God to justly forgive sin, and it was necessary for God to justify (declare righteous) those who believe. This isn't a "small god." This is an unimaginably great God whose holiness and love met at the cross.
2. The idea that God is not angry with sinners is simply a denial of the plain teaching of Scripture. Psalm 7:11-12 talk about a God who is daily angry with those who do not repent. Psalm 5:12 talks of a God who hates the sinner (not just the sin). So the idea that God really isn't angry undermines both the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin. If God isn't angry, then there is no reason for us to fear him. Yet he continually uses warnings of terror and wrath to come as a motivation for following him, and submitting to his lordship.
While it is not politically correct to talk about an angry God, it is impossible to preach the whole counsel of God without talking about an angry God. Michael Finley, in his commentary on Joel, says this:
3. Finally, the idea that what we really have is a mental problem in grasping the fact that God really isn't angry with us undermines the biblical teaching on the nature of sin and its affects in our lives. It undermines the biblical definition of saving faith, which is not just mental acceptance of God's lack of anger, but is mental, volitional, and emotional acceptance of who Christ is and what he did for us at the cross.
Salvation is not just a mental issue of accepting that God isn't angry. He is. But he has been propitiated through the death of Christ. Our biggest problem is not that we need to change our opinion about God's lack of anger. It is that we need to recognize that our sin has separated us from God and only unconditional trust in the sacrifice of Christ alone can remedy that.
This brings me to conclude with what I think one of the real dangers of someone like Bell is: He makes sense to people. You might wonder why that is a danger. I think it's a danger because he uses religious ideas and even biblical imagery to construct a theology that ultimately undermines the Scripture itself. I have heard Bell preach. He is a decent communicator, particularly in an age where "stream of consciousness" communication is "in." I have heard that is Nooma videos are very interesting, though I have never seen them. But making sense to people while distorting the biblical teaching is hardly admirable, at least in my book.
It is bad that in some churches, the messages don't make a lot of sense. They are great theological treatises, but they never touch the lives of the hearers. People who sit under that kind of teaching find people like Bell very captivating. At long last, they have found someone who uses the Bible and makes sense to them. But they don't see that Bell doesn't use the Bible as God intended it to be used. Bell tends to use the Bible as a prop to support some "cool ideas," rather than as a hammer to break rocks, a fire to burn chaff, authoritative word to be submitted to.
What Bell has done is gotten away from the simplicity of Christ crucified. And when we get away from that, we begin to compromise on doctrines such as the value and necessity of the death of Christ, such as the nature and accomplishment of the death of Christ, and the awfulness of sin in light of the holiness of God.
So to conclude (the second time), as a preacher I am constantly trying to make sense to people. Having grown up in Christianity, it is far too easy and comfortable for me to fall back into church words and Christian-ese language, to the patterns of traditionalism, and the ways of a by-gone era.
If we are to reach a new generation, suckled on post-modernism, we must examine the way in which we communicate. We dare not change the message, not even by compromising it through form, but to use Christianese (in language and in practice) to a people who do not speak it is ecclesiastic suicide.
So let's try to become better communicators of the word God has given us, rather than trying to use God's word to help us communicate our own message. And let us learn from the danger of Rob Bell.
What grabbed my attention was this comment the reviewer makes in closing:
The sense I got from Bell is that the whole problem to be solved is a mental one: people are not aware of the already-true fact that God is not angry with them. I’m wrangling with the notion that what Jesus changed is not God’s opinion of me, but my opinion of God. For some reason, this makes me think of Jesus as a Post-It note from God telling us what has been true rather than making it true. I’m ready to dismiss this as too insignificant, except that Bell convinced me that the alternatives leave us with a small god who needs sacrifice to be appeased.There are several issues worthy of comment.
1. The idea that "the alternatives leave us with small god who needs sacrifice to be appeased" is a curious remark, particularly given the biblical teaching on propitiation. This concern is straight out of the playbook of those who deny penal substitution. They see God as a cosmic child abuser who beats up and kills his own Son to satisfy his bloodlust. They believe that forgiveness by definition is incompatible with penal substitution, arguing that if Christ paid the penalty then sin wasn't really forgiven; it was paid for.
Such is hardly a biblical picture. The truth is that God's holiness must be satisfied. He is not able to say "Forget about, no big deal." If he were to do that, his only holiness would be compromised. But because of his love for us, he took the step of satisfying his own holiness while not charging our sins against us. Romans 3:24-26 is clear that God is both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus through the death of Christ. The death of Christ was necessary for God to justly forgive sin, and it was necessary for God to justify (declare righteous) those who believe. This isn't a "small god." This is an unimaginably great God whose holiness and love met at the cross.
2. The idea that God is not angry with sinners is simply a denial of the plain teaching of Scripture. Psalm 7:11-12 talk about a God who is daily angry with those who do not repent. Psalm 5:12 talks of a God who hates the sinner (not just the sin). So the idea that God really isn't angry undermines both the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin. If God isn't angry, then there is no reason for us to fear him. Yet he continually uses warnings of terror and wrath to come as a motivation for following him, and submitting to his lordship.
While it is not politically correct to talk about an angry God, it is impossible to preach the whole counsel of God without talking about an angry God. Michael Finley, in his commentary on Joel, says this:
“It is interesting to reflect on Joel’s power as a preacher to motivate people to repent on the basis of the judgment to come … In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid ‘fire and brimstone’ preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s word.”Let's face it: God does use fear and terror to motivate us to follow him. That's not a bad thing.
3. Finally, the idea that what we really have is a mental problem in grasping the fact that God really isn't angry with us undermines the biblical teaching on the nature of sin and its affects in our lives. It undermines the biblical definition of saving faith, which is not just mental acceptance of God's lack of anger, but is mental, volitional, and emotional acceptance of who Christ is and what he did for us at the cross.
Salvation is not just a mental issue of accepting that God isn't angry. He is. But he has been propitiated through the death of Christ. Our biggest problem is not that we need to change our opinion about God's lack of anger. It is that we need to recognize that our sin has separated us from God and only unconditional trust in the sacrifice of Christ alone can remedy that.
This brings me to conclude with what I think one of the real dangers of someone like Bell is: He makes sense to people. You might wonder why that is a danger. I think it's a danger because he uses religious ideas and even biblical imagery to construct a theology that ultimately undermines the Scripture itself. I have heard Bell preach. He is a decent communicator, particularly in an age where "stream of consciousness" communication is "in." I have heard that is Nooma videos are very interesting, though I have never seen them. But making sense to people while distorting the biblical teaching is hardly admirable, at least in my book.
It is bad that in some churches, the messages don't make a lot of sense. They are great theological treatises, but they never touch the lives of the hearers. People who sit under that kind of teaching find people like Bell very captivating. At long last, they have found someone who uses the Bible and makes sense to them. But they don't see that Bell doesn't use the Bible as God intended it to be used. Bell tends to use the Bible as a prop to support some "cool ideas," rather than as a hammer to break rocks, a fire to burn chaff, authoritative word to be submitted to.
What Bell has done is gotten away from the simplicity of Christ crucified. And when we get away from that, we begin to compromise on doctrines such as the value and necessity of the death of Christ, such as the nature and accomplishment of the death of Christ, and the awfulness of sin in light of the holiness of God.
So to conclude (the second time), as a preacher I am constantly trying to make sense to people. Having grown up in Christianity, it is far too easy and comfortable for me to fall back into church words and Christian-ese language, to the patterns of traditionalism, and the ways of a by-gone era.
If we are to reach a new generation, suckled on post-modernism, we must examine the way in which we communicate. We dare not change the message, not even by compromising it through form, but to use Christianese (in language and in practice) to a people who do not speak it is ecclesiastic suicide.
So let's try to become better communicators of the word God has given us, rather than trying to use God's word to help us communicate our own message. And let us learn from the danger of Rob Bell.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Follow-up on Baptism, Obedience, and Separation
This post is in response to a comment on my previous post. It posed the issue this way: Based on your logic (i.e., "If Christ said 'Do X' and someone does not do X, then we must call them disobedient."), we are all disobedient!
Here's my extended response:
If we were not disobedient in at least some areas, wouldn't we be perfect?
I think we are all disobedient, at least sometimes. So at the root, a disobedient Christian is someone who does not obey God in whatever area that might be.
We then move on to levels of sin as in degrees. Wasting time reading blogs is not the same as a adultery, though both are to some degree poor stewardship of God's gift to us. That is not to excuse wasting time reading blogs (hey, what are you doing right now?). It is simply to say that not all sins are equal, but all sins are sins.
I do not see certain areas reserved for "disobedience" and others for "matters of conscience." I think a matter of conscience is something that is legitimately okay (i.e., God permits it), but the untrained conscience cannot do it in faith (cf. Rom 14). I do not think a "matter of conscience" can be invoked in an area of something God commands us to do that we do not do, or God forbids to do that we do do.
So the question is, Does God command that believers be baptized as a profession of their faith in Christ? I think he does. And if I am right, those who do not get baptized upon belief are disobedient to that command. They may not be disobedient to any other, but they are certainly disobedient to that one.
So the question arises, how do we treat them?
Well, I don't think that failing to be baptized as a believer is the same as failing to preach the exclusivity of Jesus. And in a conference on the exclusivity of Jesus, I may well be able to preach with someone who has not been scripturally baptized. But in a conference on Baptist distinctives, that would be immeasurably harder.
Obviously, the more a sin strikes at the heart of the gospel, the more central it is in terms of fellowship and separation. Having a man in my pulpit to preach who may be lazy a few mornings a month is not the same as having a man in to preach who believes that there are other ways to God apart from Jesus.
I think the more something undermines the "whole counsel of God," the more central it is. A man who is a public adulterer brings more shame on the whole counsel of God than a man who knowingly kept an extra penny he received in change from the cashier, though both have taken something they were not entitled to.
I think the more public a sin is, the more of a difference it makes, at least to some degree. That seems to be the point of 1 Tim 3:7 and "having a good report." It doesn't mean perfect, but it means that public sins are not what a man is known for in the community.
I think the relationship of obedience to core distinctives of our denominational beliefs matter. How much? I am not entirely sure. After all, we are Baptists because we think believer's baptism is an important matter of obedience. At the same time, to me at least, believer's baptism seems more important than two ordinances.
So I guess the short answer to that question is, I am not entirely sure how all this breaks down. It is something I think about because I am concerned that we do things biblically. I want to grant as much latitude as the Bible does, but no more.
In the end, we must all answer to God for our obedience and stewardship of our lives and ministries.
Here's my extended response:
If we were not disobedient in at least some areas, wouldn't we be perfect?
I think we are all disobedient, at least sometimes. So at the root, a disobedient Christian is someone who does not obey God in whatever area that might be.
We then move on to levels of sin as in degrees. Wasting time reading blogs is not the same as a adultery, though both are to some degree poor stewardship of God's gift to us. That is not to excuse wasting time reading blogs (hey, what are you doing right now?). It is simply to say that not all sins are equal, but all sins are sins.
I do not see certain areas reserved for "disobedience" and others for "matters of conscience." I think a matter of conscience is something that is legitimately okay (i.e., God permits it), but the untrained conscience cannot do it in faith (cf. Rom 14). I do not think a "matter of conscience" can be invoked in an area of something God commands us to do that we do not do, or God forbids to do that we do do.
So the question is, Does God command that believers be baptized as a profession of their faith in Christ? I think he does. And if I am right, those who do not get baptized upon belief are disobedient to that command. They may not be disobedient to any other, but they are certainly disobedient to that one.
So the question arises, how do we treat them?
Well, I don't think that failing to be baptized as a believer is the same as failing to preach the exclusivity of Jesus. And in a conference on the exclusivity of Jesus, I may well be able to preach with someone who has not been scripturally baptized. But in a conference on Baptist distinctives, that would be immeasurably harder.
Obviously, the more a sin strikes at the heart of the gospel, the more central it is in terms of fellowship and separation. Having a man in my pulpit to preach who may be lazy a few mornings a month is not the same as having a man in to preach who believes that there are other ways to God apart from Jesus.
I think the more something undermines the "whole counsel of God," the more central it is. A man who is a public adulterer brings more shame on the whole counsel of God than a man who knowingly kept an extra penny he received in change from the cashier, though both have taken something they were not entitled to.
I think the more public a sin is, the more of a difference it makes, at least to some degree. That seems to be the point of 1 Tim 3:7 and "having a good report." It doesn't mean perfect, but it means that public sins are not what a man is known for in the community.
I think the relationship of obedience to core distinctives of our denominational beliefs matter. How much? I am not entirely sure. After all, we are Baptists because we think believer's baptism is an important matter of obedience. At the same time, to me at least, believer's baptism seems more important than two ordinances.
So I guess the short answer to that question is, I am not entirely sure how all this breaks down. It is something I think about because I am concerned that we do things biblically. I want to grant as much latitude as the Bible does, but no more.
In the end, we must all answer to God for our obedience and stewardship of our lives and ministries.
On Presbyterians, Baptism, and "Disobedient Brothers"
I recently had a great conversation with a friend that migrated to a number of different topics, including Presbyterians, baptism, and the designation of "disobedient brother." (I sincerely hope my friend will agree that I have rightly represented him, and invite him to contact me privately [or publicly] if I haven't.)
My friend asked me if I would call a Presbyterian who did not hold to believer's immersion a "disobedient brother."
I said, "Yes."
He was somewhat astounded by that, mentioning by name a Presbyterian for whom we both have a great amount of respect. He said he agreed with me that the Scriptures taught the immersion of believers. He believes, however, that infant baptism can be considered a matter of conscience since it is within the stream of orthodox Christianity.
My response to him was simple, and along two basic lines of thought:
First, if we believe that the Scriptures truly teach the immersion of believers, then we at some level have to call someone who is not immersed as a believer disobedient to the command of Christ, as well as out of step with the pattern of the early church in the NT. If Christ said "Do X" and someone does not do X, then we must call them disobedient. (And if you believe that infants should be baptized, then you must call credobaptists disobedient.)
That does not necessitate placing them in the same category as adulterers, or heretics. So long as a person does not hold to baptismal regeneration, or "washing away the stain of original sin," they have not compromised the gospel by sprinkling an infant, and baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation. So an unbaptized Presbyterian (or Baptist, or anyone else) can still have genuine salvation, and be a faithful witness to the gospel of Christ while still being disobedient. However, failure to make a public confession of Christ as Lord through baptism is a matter of obedience, it seems to me.
I think we need not be afraid to recognize that there are various levels of obedience. While on the one hand, all sin is sin, on the other hand not all sin is equal. The Law of Moses, given by God, has varying penalties for various sins. This shows that, at least in the community life of Israel (relationships with one another), not every sin had equal societal or personal affects. While we must be careful of pressing this too far, we must also stop short of treating all sin as if it has the same affect in the community of the church.
Second, making something a "matter of conscience" can very easily lead to an existential theology, where conscience becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth rather than Scripture, where truth is only truth when it means a particular thing to the individual. Now, let me be clear—my friend does not believe in existential theology of any sort. He is fully committed to the authority of Scripture. Let me also be clear that I do believe that there are matters on which believers may differ because of conscience. But let me be clear (yet again): These differences do not mean that both are right, or that both are obedient. One can, in good conscience, be disobedient to Scripture. That is because the conscience can be poorly trained. The Baptist distinctive of conscience was never intended (so far as I understand it) to be a rationale for living in disobedience.
Let me sum it up this way:
1. As for separation and Presbyterians, at some level we (Baptists) have to separate. That does not mean that we are antagonistic, that we cannot have Christian fellowship, or that we cannot even share a pulpit. We can still appreciate their contributions in other areas. It simply means that we have differences about a core matter of scriptural distinctives. I believe that separation takes place on a continuum. It is not an all or nothing proposition. And we, as separatists, need to be very careful in making it such. But if the Bible teaches the immersion of believers, and someone does not get immersed as a believer, what else do we call them except disobedient in that area?
2. We need to be very careful about our consciences, and the leeway that is sometimes granted. We need to be careful that we rightly understand the Scripture, but the conscience is not the authority; Scripture is. And while that may be too fine a distinction for some, it must nevertheless be a distinction, it seems to me. The fact that someone may, in good conscience, do something does not mean that they are correct in doing it.
3. When we disagree about a matter of biblical distinctives, we need not be graceless or tactless about it. Let's just disagree. I have been called disobedient by Presbyterians for not baptizing infants. I am okay with that. It's not personal, to me anyway. We all must decide at what level and over what issues we will separate. We must work to preserve the unity of the body only after honoring the commands of Scripture.
My friend asked me if I would call a Presbyterian who did not hold to believer's immersion a "disobedient brother."
I said, "Yes."
He was somewhat astounded by that, mentioning by name a Presbyterian for whom we both have a great amount of respect. He said he agreed with me that the Scriptures taught the immersion of believers. He believes, however, that infant baptism can be considered a matter of conscience since it is within the stream of orthodox Christianity.
My response to him was simple, and along two basic lines of thought:
First, if we believe that the Scriptures truly teach the immersion of believers, then we at some level have to call someone who is not immersed as a believer disobedient to the command of Christ, as well as out of step with the pattern of the early church in the NT. If Christ said "Do X" and someone does not do X, then we must call them disobedient. (And if you believe that infants should be baptized, then you must call credobaptists disobedient.)
That does not necessitate placing them in the same category as adulterers, or heretics. So long as a person does not hold to baptismal regeneration, or "washing away the stain of original sin," they have not compromised the gospel by sprinkling an infant, and baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation. So an unbaptized Presbyterian (or Baptist, or anyone else) can still have genuine salvation, and be a faithful witness to the gospel of Christ while still being disobedient. However, failure to make a public confession of Christ as Lord through baptism is a matter of obedience, it seems to me.
I think we need not be afraid to recognize that there are various levels of obedience. While on the one hand, all sin is sin, on the other hand not all sin is equal. The Law of Moses, given by God, has varying penalties for various sins. This shows that, at least in the community life of Israel (relationships with one another), not every sin had equal societal or personal affects. While we must be careful of pressing this too far, we must also stop short of treating all sin as if it has the same affect in the community of the church.
Second, making something a "matter of conscience" can very easily lead to an existential theology, where conscience becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth rather than Scripture, where truth is only truth when it means a particular thing to the individual. Now, let me be clear—my friend does not believe in existential theology of any sort. He is fully committed to the authority of Scripture. Let me also be clear that I do believe that there are matters on which believers may differ because of conscience. But let me be clear (yet again): These differences do not mean that both are right, or that both are obedient. One can, in good conscience, be disobedient to Scripture. That is because the conscience can be poorly trained. The Baptist distinctive of conscience was never intended (so far as I understand it) to be a rationale for living in disobedience.
Let me sum it up this way:
1. As for separation and Presbyterians, at some level we (Baptists) have to separate. That does not mean that we are antagonistic, that we cannot have Christian fellowship, or that we cannot even share a pulpit. We can still appreciate their contributions in other areas. It simply means that we have differences about a core matter of scriptural distinctives. I believe that separation takes place on a continuum. It is not an all or nothing proposition. And we, as separatists, need to be very careful in making it such. But if the Bible teaches the immersion of believers, and someone does not get immersed as a believer, what else do we call them except disobedient in that area?
2. We need to be very careful about our consciences, and the leeway that is sometimes granted. We need to be careful that we rightly understand the Scripture, but the conscience is not the authority; Scripture is. And while that may be too fine a distinction for some, it must nevertheless be a distinction, it seems to me. The fact that someone may, in good conscience, do something does not mean that they are correct in doing it.
3. When we disagree about a matter of biblical distinctives, we need not be graceless or tactless about it. Let's just disagree. I have been called disobedient by Presbyterians for not baptizing infants. I am okay with that. It's not personal, to me anyway. We all must decide at what level and over what issues we will separate. We must work to preserve the unity of the body only after honoring the commands of Scripture.
Common Love for God?
In the New York Times on Sunday, November 18, there appeared a "A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You." This Christian Response was written by scholars at Yale Divinity School's Center for Faith and Culture (which may, in and of itself, call into question the Christianness of this response).
This open response can be read in its entirety here. Let me quote a couple of highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be).
First, the article uses a Muslim designation for God (the All-Merciful One) as the one from whom these Christians are asking forgiveness for the Crusades as well as the excesses of the "war on terror" (quotes in the original). It reminds me of just how flawed our view of sin is when we think we can meaningfully ask forgiveness for the sins of someone else. Of course, I am assuming that none of these people who signed this letter were involved in the Crusades or the "war on terror." It also makes me wonder why they are using a Muslim designation for God rather than a biblical one. God is full of mercy towards those who repent. But he has none for those who do not. But why not just use biblical terms?
Second, they say "It is therefore no exaggeration to say, as you have in A Common Word Between Us and You, that 'the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.'" Later they say, "The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that “our eternal souls” are at stake as well."
This is a troubling view of world peace. It is true that so long as Muslims (or any people) wage war against non-Muslims (or any people) that there will not be peace. And it is true that at times in the past, nominal Christians have waged war against others in the name of religion. That was a misguided venture then, just as it would be now.
But to say that the future of the world depends on our ability to live with Muslims in peace is a fairly direct denial of the sovereignty of God and the prophecies that a King will come to bring peace by destroying his enemies. The future of the world depends on God, not on our ability to forge peace with someone else. Now, that does not mean that we should not pursue peace. But neither does it mean that we should think that if we could somehow strike peace with Muslims that the world would suddenly be set for the future.
To be sure, the greatest problem in this world is not external and physical warfare, whether carried on by nations or terrorists. The greatest problem is the sin of the human heart, and only Christianity has an answer for that.
Third, these scholars and signatories note "our common love for God." This is perhaps the most disturbing of all. Since Muslims have denied the person of Jesus Christ, the God that they love has nothing in common with the God of Christianity and the Bible. Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Lest we should underestimate the intent of his words, we should note that those who lived with him clearly understood what he was saying. That's why they tried to kill him, as John 5:19 tells us: "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
The idea being espoused by many that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is unbiblical. It provides no hope for eternal salvation. It is blasphemous to God because it denies his incarnation, it denies his atoning work and resurrection, and denies his promise to return in judgment and salvation.
It is also troubling to see the signatories noted on this document. We should expect names like Robert Schuller and Brian McLaren. But also appearing are names like David Yonggi Cho (Yoido Full Gospel Church), Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School), Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Community Church), Duane Litfin (President of Wheaton College), Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Theological Seminary), John Stott (All Souls Church, London), and Rick Warren (Saddleback Community Church).
How can these men profess any knowledge of or allegiance to the biblical gospel while signing on to something that speaks of Muslims and Christians having a "common love for God"? Is that not, at some level, a denial of the person of Jesus Christ? I can see no other option.
They conclude this document with this: We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another.
The fulfillment of the requirement for loving God and loving others is to preach the gospel of salvation in Christ alone. We do not need for leaders (or followers) at every level (or any level) to meet together to determine that. We need only to open the pages of Scripture and take seriously the command of Christ to preach the gospel to all nations and to make disciples.
That these signatories would propose something else is most certainly a step of compromise. How can this be acceptable to these men? Why can we not say, "We love you in the name of Christ and do not intend to bring physical or national warfare against you. But in the name of Christ, we call you to salvation through Christ alone"? That was the message of Christ, the apostles, and the early church. Throughout church history, countless Christians have given their lives to the point of death for the sake of the gospel and the call to preach it to all.
It is a false dichotomy to suggest that living in peace with Muslims requires us to profess that we love the same God. We do not. We love and worship the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ, who is God. And to love and worship him is to preach him as the only way of salvation.
We should live in peace with others, as much as is possible (Romans 12:17). But we must also never compromise on the truth that the one true and living God is the God who revealed himself in his son, Christ Jesus. And it is he alone that we trust in for salvation, and we must preach the exclusivity of Jesus to all nations. We must do it with love and grace, but we must do it with courage and boldness. We dare not compromise, not even for the sake of peace.
This open response can be read in its entirety here. Let me quote a couple of highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be).
First, the article uses a Muslim designation for God (the All-Merciful One) as the one from whom these Christians are asking forgiveness for the Crusades as well as the excesses of the "war on terror" (quotes in the original). It reminds me of just how flawed our view of sin is when we think we can meaningfully ask forgiveness for the sins of someone else. Of course, I am assuming that none of these people who signed this letter were involved in the Crusades or the "war on terror." It also makes me wonder why they are using a Muslim designation for God rather than a biblical one. God is full of mercy towards those who repent. But he has none for those who do not. But why not just use biblical terms?
Second, they say "It is therefore no exaggeration to say, as you have in A Common Word Between Us and You, that 'the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.'" Later they say, "The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that “our eternal souls” are at stake as well."
This is a troubling view of world peace. It is true that so long as Muslims (or any people) wage war against non-Muslims (or any people) that there will not be peace. And it is true that at times in the past, nominal Christians have waged war against others in the name of religion. That was a misguided venture then, just as it would be now.
But to say that the future of the world depends on our ability to live with Muslims in peace is a fairly direct denial of the sovereignty of God and the prophecies that a King will come to bring peace by destroying his enemies. The future of the world depends on God, not on our ability to forge peace with someone else. Now, that does not mean that we should not pursue peace. But neither does it mean that we should think that if we could somehow strike peace with Muslims that the world would suddenly be set for the future.
To be sure, the greatest problem in this world is not external and physical warfare, whether carried on by nations or terrorists. The greatest problem is the sin of the human heart, and only Christianity has an answer for that.
Third, these scholars and signatories note "our common love for God." This is perhaps the most disturbing of all. Since Muslims have denied the person of Jesus Christ, the God that they love has nothing in common with the God of Christianity and the Bible. Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Lest we should underestimate the intent of his words, we should note that those who lived with him clearly understood what he was saying. That's why they tried to kill him, as John 5:19 tells us: "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
The idea being espoused by many that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is unbiblical. It provides no hope for eternal salvation. It is blasphemous to God because it denies his incarnation, it denies his atoning work and resurrection, and denies his promise to return in judgment and salvation.
It is also troubling to see the signatories noted on this document. We should expect names like Robert Schuller and Brian McLaren. But also appearing are names like David Yonggi Cho (Yoido Full Gospel Church), Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School), Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Community Church), Duane Litfin (President of Wheaton College), Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Theological Seminary), John Stott (All Souls Church, London), and Rick Warren (Saddleback Community Church).
How can these men profess any knowledge of or allegiance to the biblical gospel while signing on to something that speaks of Muslims and Christians having a "common love for God"? Is that not, at some level, a denial of the person of Jesus Christ? I can see no other option.
They conclude this document with this: We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another.
The fulfillment of the requirement for loving God and loving others is to preach the gospel of salvation in Christ alone. We do not need for leaders (or followers) at every level (or any level) to meet together to determine that. We need only to open the pages of Scripture and take seriously the command of Christ to preach the gospel to all nations and to make disciples.
That these signatories would propose something else is most certainly a step of compromise. How can this be acceptable to these men? Why can we not say, "We love you in the name of Christ and do not intend to bring physical or national warfare against you. But in the name of Christ, we call you to salvation through Christ alone"? That was the message of Christ, the apostles, and the early church. Throughout church history, countless Christians have given their lives to the point of death for the sake of the gospel and the call to preach it to all.
It is a false dichotomy to suggest that living in peace with Muslims requires us to profess that we love the same God. We do not. We love and worship the God who revealed himself in Jesus Christ, who is God. And to love and worship him is to preach him as the only way of salvation.
We should live in peace with others, as much as is possible (Romans 12:17). But we must also never compromise on the truth that the one true and living God is the God who revealed himself in his son, Christ Jesus. And it is he alone that we trust in for salvation, and we must preach the exclusivity of Jesus to all nations. We must do it with love and grace, but we must do it with courage and boldness. We dare not compromise, not even for the sake of peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
