Why do they think God is a failure? A question for those who think they alone have the true Gospel

 

One of the things that the First Fruits of Zion (HRM), Christian Fundamentalists (KJV Only zealots), and Latter-Day movements (JW, LDS, etc.) have in common is the belief that they alone have the Truth with respect to Jesus Christ.

But what are the implications of such a belief?  What does it say about God if 99% of those who have ever put their hope in Jesus Christ were actually in fundamental error?

The answer is that in their view God is weak, a failure.

But that's not what the Word of God proclaims.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #28: John 12:31

 

John 12:31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 

When you think about it, a blind squirrel would be able to smell where the acorns are, so I'm not sure that this idiom is all that useful.  Nevertheless, it came to mind when thinking about this verse.  How's that you ask?  A valid question.  When thinking about the need to remember that Satan has power within this present age, that the kingdoms of this world cannot be sanctified or holy because of that power (and human nature), it made me think of those groups who view government with a jaundiced eye because of that evil influence, which led my mind to the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to participate in government because they believe that we are already living in the End Times and thus the world's governments, even your local school board, are controlled by Satan.  This belief makes them unlikely candidates to support a 'Christian' Nationalist movement, {That they're a cult and not a part of Christianity being another reason} just for the wrong reasons, hence the blind squirrel.  That may have been a long journey for a short reward, but hopefully it has you thinking about the connection between human governments and institutions and Satan.  While it is not Christian orthodoxy that they are controlled by Satan, which would necessitate the sort of withdrawal enacted by the JW, it is in keeping with a proper Christian worldview to remember that both corrupted human nature and the influence of spiritually evil powers exists within all human created institutions including governments.

The tie in with 'Christian' Nationalism is thus a fundamental one.  It goes to the heart of the question of whether or not a "Christian Nation" is even possible in any generation with any form of government.  The answer, when considering these limitations (not to mention Jesus' lack of endorsement of any such project) is a definitive, "No".  Thus 'Christian' Nationalism is working against reality, trying to complete a project and erect a system that is impossible given the prevailing conditions.  It isn't about hope, it isn't about effort, it isn't about zeal or sacrifice, it just won't work, period.  When Christ returns, when he sets up his kingdom here on earth, everything will change, until then we've been given a more a more important mission than trying to build a house of cards.

Sermon Video: "Be on your guard! Be alert!" - Mark 13:20-37

In this second half of Jesus' teaching on the End Times is contained several important truths: (1) That the tribulation to come will be 'shortened' for the sake of God's chosen people, (2) that in those days God will gather his elect from the ends of the earth, (3) and that nobody but the Father, Jesus included, knows the day/hour of his return. With that in mind, Jesus reiterates his call to his people to take precautions, to live as faithful servants (i.e. righteous and holy lives) here and now, lest we be caught off guard. In the end, we are all mortal, none of us knows how many days, months, or years we have to live. We need to spend that time, as individuals and as a church, as wisely as possible, both making the most of today and planning for the future.

Sermon Video: The problem with fake Christians

Having warned about the danger of those denying Christ and using God's grace as an excuse for sin, Jude concludes that 'these people' (false teachers, divisive troublemakers, fanatics, and other fake Christians) are harmful within the Church because not only do they fail to produce the Fruit of the Spirit (nor could they, not having the Holy Spirit), they also confuse the Gospel message. Our response, as a Church, to fake Christians? (1) Don't let those without orthodox belief AND a demonstrated commitment to righteous living have any role in church leadership. (2) When necessary, remove from fellowship those who refuse to abandon heresy or renounce gross immorality. Lastly, and crucially, STOP believing the lie that a person can be a Christian without acting like Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Supremacy of the Son of God - Colossians 1:15-20

Having finished his introduction, Paul now turns in his letter to the church at Colassae to the budding heresy there that prompted the writing of this letter.  The proto-Gnosticism at Colassae denied the full deity of Jesus Christ, Paul chooses to confront this error head-on by repeatedly emphasizing the nature of Jesus as the one in whom the "fullness" of God dwelt, and the one who was intimately involved in the creation of everything that exists, both in the physical and spiritual realms, going so far as to say that "all things" were created, by, through, and for him.  In addition, Paul confirms that Jesus was both the means and the end of God's reconciliation of humanity to himself.  In the end, Paul rejects soundly the still to come Arminian heresy, a heresy that will later be revived by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A review of: "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World by Dr. Richard Olson

On February 1st of this year, Judson Press published a book by Dr. Richard Olson, retired seminary professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas, entitled "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World.  The following is a review of that book that I'm writing as a Christian pastor who is intimately and regularly involved in the related, and often confused with inter-faith ecumenism, topic of intra-faith ecumenism.

My evaluation of Dr. Olson's book is of two kinds, while I find much to admire concerning inter-faith dialogue, peace, justice, and the plight of refugees, at the same time, the further step taken beyond these by Dr. Olson to embrace religious inclusivism is a bridge too far.  It is not an easy task to promote dialogue and peace between religions while at the same time holding firm to one's own belief that the Gospel is the Absolute Truth for all mankind.  It was just this sort of delicate balance that has sparked vicious unwarranted criticism by a few zealots of Christian apologist James White's willingness to debate Muslim apologists in a respectful way while both speakers maintained their claim to absolute truth.  It is an uncomfortable and difficult place to be, defending Truth while also promoting tolerance and peace, but it is the role given to us as disciples of Jesus Christ.  If we reject peace and embrace hate, we quench the fruit of the Spirit within us, if we reject Truth and embrace inclusivism, we set our understanding above that of Holy Scripture.  The goal of tolerance and peace is to be applauded and deserves our active participation, however the method to achieve it of saying, "We all worship the same God", must be rejected if the Gospel of the Apostles is to remain at all attached to its historical foundation.

Let me interact with quotations from Dr. Olson's book, highlighting both that which I agree with and those things regarding which I believe him to be in error.

In the introduction, Dr. Olson writes of an experience from his youth as the son of Baptist missionaries in South Dakota.  A friendship between his father and the local Roman Catholic priest, in a pre-Vatican II setting, and the improving relationships between Catholics and Protestants post-Vatican II, led to this conclusion, "If Catholics and Protestants can overcome ancient barriers, learning from one another and developing deeper bonds of fellowship, we may experience unimagined results in our interfaith relationships." (p. XIII)  The step being advocated by Dr. Olson, from intra-faith relationships/dialogues/worship to their inter-faith equivalent is in the end a comparison of apples to oranges.  Those who engage in intra-faith ecumenism, that is bridge building and cooperation including worship along fellow Christians be they Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, may also be willing to extend those same activities with non-Christians in inter-faith efforts or they may not, but the basis for that choice is not the same unless one is committed to the notion that all religions are participating in the same God and seeking the same Truth.  If religious exclusivism is maintained, there is indeed a basis for inter-faith dialogue, peace, and efforts concerning justice and poverty, but there is not a basis for inter-faith prayer or worship.  Confusion over what is being discussed, whether it be inter-faith or intra-faith, especially from critics not overly concerned with giving the benefit of the doubt, only makes it more difficult for sincere adherents of exclusive theology to reach out to those of other religions without being labeled an inclusivist/pluralist.  Dr. Olson also wrote, "The need for personal relationships with those of other faiths and a deeper understanding of one another's faith and heritage grows more urgent by the day." (p. XV)  In a world of rising violence and polarization, this is certainly true as hatred grows most readily in ignorance.

Regarding effective dialogue, Dr. Olson quoted the guidelines of the World Council of Churches, "Partners in dialogue should be free to 'define themselves'" and added to it, self-serving descriptions of other people's faith are one of the roots of prejudice, stereotyping, and condescension." (p. 7)  This is certainly true, not only is the cause of peace hampered when adherents of a religion are not allowed to define themselves (often instead being defined by their enemies) but so too is the cause of evangelism.  If a Christian believes a false stereotype of a Muslim to be true, and then actually meets a Muslim, how effective will the witness of that Christian be if he/she is acting upon false and likely derogatory impressions?  As Christians, we ought not be afraid of reality, facts, history, and truth.  We must interact with the world as it is, for that is the world we have been called to be salt and light to, not the world as we wish it to be.

In regards to the three faiths who claim Abraham as a forefather, it would be foolish of us to ignore or downplay what we have in common, and at the same time foolish of us to pretend we do not have fundamentally relevant differences.  Dr. Olson acknowledges both aspects of the issue saying, "We have a similar starting place, but we need to be sensitive about presumptions of sameness and instead ask many questions related to beliefs about God's nature and what we mean when we affirm God as one." (p. 32)  Indeed, the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim belief that God is one, i.e monotheism, is a common bond, but what we mean by declaring that God is one is surprisingly different, perhaps a startling revelation those who simply assume that all three are worshiping the same God.  Dr. Olson quotes Stephen Prothero who, "contends that those who write about the oneness of all religions 'are not describing the world, but reimagining it.  They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood." (p. 32)  Our world could use an increase in brotherhood and sisterhood, assuming that leads to more peace and less violence, but not at the expense of lying to ourselves about reality.  Dr. Olson goes on to summarize Prothero's words in God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World - and Why Their Differences Matter by saying, "what we share most fundamentally is the conviction that something is wrong with the world.  Life is out of balance; something has gone awry.  Religions differ, however, in diagnosing what has gone wrong, and, therefore, what the prescribed solution is." (p. 33)  Including Prothero's viewpoint acknowledges how this issue undermines the notion that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could be worshiping the same God and yet understand both humanity's problem and the necessary solution so differntely, nevertheless, Dr. Olson will later attempt to bridge that gap while leaving Prothero's objection unrefuted.

There isn't much in "Side by Side" regarding intra-Christian ecumenism, but one comment is worth noting, "We Christians are a varied lot today.  Within Christianity we find those who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox...and a wide variety of Protestants...as well as less orthodox traditions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 42)  White there are some within the Church who struggle to see Orthdoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism as all being "within" Christianity, wrongly in my understanding but I understand the objections, it is a whole different set of issues to assert that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are "within" Christianity and simply "less orthodox".  Less orthodox?  Both are non-trinitarian, both have an extra-biblical authority, both see themselves as the only true remnant of the Church.  Less orthodox is far too generous a term, non-orthodox would have been more accurate, for how can something which defies the Nicene Creed be "within" the Church?

One observation from Dr. Olson should hit many Christians squarely and accurately with an uncomfortable truth, "It is easy to see (or imagine) what's wrong with another's religion...And it is even easier to take the inherent goodness of one's own religion for granted...this practice of religious self-justification and criticizing the other is resurfacing with urgency in our interreligious world." (p. 59)  We ought not be shocked to learn that this is true, after all Jesus spoke about planks in our own eyes and specks in the eyes of our brother, how much easier to ignore our own faults and focus upon those of people we consider strange, different, even a threat.  Once again, Christians must be grounded in truth and reality, for example: Are there aspects of Islam today that are steeped in violence?  Absolutely, are there aspects of Islam today that have rejected violence in favor of tolerance?  Yes.  Those unwilling to acknowledge that not all Muslims are cheering on the Jihad against the West, are also likely to ignore or gloss over the horrendous history that Christianity has not too recently emerged from of violence, persecution, slavery, and antisemitism.   We cannot have a productive discussion about Islam and terrorism if we fail to disavow the stereotype that all Muslims think alike and refuse to acknowledge that our own family tree has some real ugliness, some of it not that far from where we sit, just visit a Holocaust museum if you need a reminder.

In a precursor to the eventual rejection of the New Testament passages expressing the exclusive claims of Jesus, Dr. Olson correctly writes that, "Those using absolute truth claims may choose particular texts from their Scriptures, read them selectively (and probably out of context), and them apply them absolutely." (p. 64)  While agreeing that such things happen, far too often and with often disastrous results by all manner of people, not just those seeking absolute truth claims, it is not apparent, nor does Dr. Olson make a concerted effort to demonstrate, that such out-of-context interpretation has been done by the majority of the Church historically which has understood the New Testament to proclaim Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life.  In that same section where Dr. Olson is explaining how a religion can have evil followers, he also rightly points out the dangers of blind obedience, focusing upon a soon to come utopia, believing that the ends justify the means, and ultimately choosing to engage in a holy war.  Extremism that embraces such practices is a threat to any religion.

Dr. Olson attempts to paint a positive view of Jesus in the Qur'an, and while it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Qur'an portrays Jesus as an important figure and a prophet, even as "Messiah", the Jesus of the Qur'an is not in any real way the same as that of the New Testament.  The Qur'an specifically denies the Incarnation (Surah 112), the Trinity (Surah 5:116) and the Crucifixion (Surah 4:157)  Dr. Olson concludes with a quote from Tarif Khalidi (from The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature) that Jesus, "ceases to be an argument and becomes a living and vital moral voice, demanding to be heard by all who seek a unity of profession and witness." (p. 99)  Yet as C.S. Lewis famously pointed out, Jesus must be either God, a fraud, or a madman, for he is clearly portrayed as divine in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament (Muslims claim these are all corruptions of the original Biblical text).  How is it that Jesus can be a "moral figure" to unite Christians and Muslims when such a role would have been antithetical to everything we know about Jesus from the Scriptures?  The only way for such a middle-ground with Muslims concerning Jesus would be to concede that critics like Bart Ehrman are right and everything about Jesus' divinity was added later by a corrupt Church intent upon securing its own power over the people.  Unfortunately for Ehrman, and Muslim apologists who have latched onto his arguments, the crushing weight of historical evidence regarding N.T manuscript production and distribution, prior to the Council of Nicea, denies such a conspiracy theory.

The ultimate question from Dr. Olson, beyond less controversial matters of inter-faith dialogue and efforts at peace and justice is simple, "Do I believe that persons devoted to these religions can be in a right relationship with God, both here on earth and hereafter in eternity?  In other words, is salvation possible within these three religions?  These aren't simple yes-or-no questions." (p. 113)  Before answering the question, Dr. Olson briefly interacts with the N.T's many exclusive claims as typified by John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12 where he says regarding John 14:6, "I do not believe that Jesus intended the rest of the verse ('no one comes to the Father but by me') to be an absolute statement of exclusion for all people for all time...I also believe that the unconditional love of God, mediated by Jesus to us, has led some closer to God, even though they may not name Jesus as their Savior." (p. 119)  The basis for saying, "Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant", {I can almost hear Vizzini from The Princess Bride saying "inconceivable" and Fezzik replying, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."} is to say that John's Gospel "offers a mystical reflection on the meaning of Jesus for the world." (p. 119)  In other words, John's words don't really mean what those words normally mean.  Also, how does the notion of "the unconditional love of God" fit with Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world?  How can God's love be so unconditional if he cares about sin and holiness, and why would Jesus die for anything less than absolute necessity?  If salvation is to be found elsewhere, through other means, why would Jesus die?  Lastly, what does "led some closer to God" mean?  Is closer to God enough?  How is God's love through Jesus leading people closer to God who have no idea who Jesus is or who reject Jesus explicitly?  In relation to Acts 4:12, Dr. Olson rejects the universality of Peter's words as hyperbole intended to sway his Jewish audience, nothing more, "Is it intended as an  inclusion-exclusion statement for all believers of the various religions for all time?  Each reader will have to decide.  In light of the context of this statement, I personally don't think so." (p. 119)  Thus the nature of John's Gospel and the audience for Peter's words negate the plain meaning of the text within their own given context in both instances.  While I recognize that this is necessary to move to an inclusivist viewpoint without claiming that the Scriptures are tainted, it is an example of eisegesis not exegesis, putting into the text a meaning one hopes to derive from it rather than letting the Word of God speak for itself.  The rest of the N.T.'s exclusive texts are mentioned later (on p. 146) but no effort is made to interact with any of them (1 Corinthians 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 John 5:12, Romans 1:21, 3:9, and John 3:36 just to list the ones Dr. Olson acknowledges).

In the end, Dr. Olson openly and honestly admits, "I am an inclusivist...I also believe that the prophets of these other religions received authentic revelation from God and that persons can be in a right relationship with God within those religions." (p. 122)  Leaving out the more complicated questions of "authentic revelation" between Judaism and Christianity {For example: Yes, Isaiah's revelation was certainly authentic, but we differ greatly on what it means}, how is that possible with Islam?  The diagnosed problem with humanity and mandated solution in Islam is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.  Islam offers a list of things to do, Christianity requires a cessation of self-righteous effort in order to accept by faith what has already been done on our behalf.  If God spoke to both Jesus and Muhammad, how did the message become so garbled?  Either humanity is fallen or it is not, either works are the answer or faith is, this is a fence that cannot be straddled unless we jettison any effort at logic and consistency.  Dr. Olson goes on to say, "One other factor contributes to my conclusion - probably the most powerful and important one: my experience with persons of these other religions...As I sense the goodness of these persons...and as I worship as a guest in their places of worship, I have a clear sense that I am in the presence of God and of God's saints, whatever their religion."  (p. 122)  In the end, this is a choice to embrace experience over revealed truth, a feeling of having found "good people" over the Church's two thousand years of preaching the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  And while I don't doubt that Dr. Olson knows "good people who follow other religions, it is odd to hear a Baptist say that the most important factor in making a monumental theological change is belief that he experienced the presence of God in a mosque and a synagogue, there is no sense here of an allegiance to Sola Scriptura, let alone Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, or Solus Christus, which leaves one to wonder, how can this then be Soli Deo Gloria?  Inclusivism is by necessity a clean-break from the Reformation along with an abandonment of the Early Church as typified in the ecumenical creeds.

The section relating to the Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR's) as well as the "nones" does not offer anything beyond what is already known, that the Church is struggling to connect with Millennials, but it does offer a sense that those who like Dr. Olson have drifted toward or to inclusivism, if not outright pluralism, are doing so in part because they feel it is a necessary tactic for the Church to woo back this "lost" generation.  If that is the case, Churches which abandon their Gospel heritage to embrace the minority within a generation who seem content to leave "organized religion" behind will likely only succeed in driving away the roughly 2/3 of Millennials who remain committed to their faith.

"Side by Side" ends with a story of a pastor whose church went where most will be unwilling to go: they allowed neighboring Muslims who were building a mosque to use their church for prayer during Ramadan.   (p. 151-52) This episode is presented as an example of "love they neighbor" but one does not need to reject the sacred nature of our places of worship in order to love our neighbors.  On the other hand, Dr. Olson offers four challenges for followers of Jesus Christ that we should all be able to embrace, "- To become more deeply involved in friendship, conversation, and dialogue with persons of other faiths where we live and work. - To be aware, supportive, and proactive when negativity, threats and attacks happen to persons and places of worship of other faiths. - To be compassionate and active in responding to the worldwide refugee crisis, including at the local level. - To offer understanding, care, and support to the vastly growing number of interfaith marriages and families."  (p. 153)  These four goals are noble and worthy of followers of Jesus (with only one caveat, that the Church should not encourage new interfaith marriages {which are not the same as intra-faith marriages like my own where we share a devotion to Christ} while it supports those who already are a part of an inter-faith marriage in accordance with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 712-16).

There is much to appreciate in Dr. Olson's personal experience with, and sharing of, other examples of inter-faith dialogue, friendships, and cooperation regarding peace and justice.  We certainly need more of this attitude in the Church today and less confrontation and hatred.  This goal can, and should, be accomplished, however, without abandoning the exclusive claims of the Gospel. I as a Christian ought to be fully capable of calling a Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist my neighbor, and yes friend, without at the same time letting go of my concern for the salvation of his/her soul.  The focus of Dr. Olson's book was primarily the Abrahamic faiths, but inclusivism within them naturally leads to pluralism as well.  If there is no Truth, then there isn't any truth either.  Mankind is lost, fallen and depraved, with this diagnosis only a fool or one ignorant of the world today and man's history would disagree.  The most important question for humanity thus remains: how can what is wrong with us be fixed?  Only Jesus offers a solution that is within our power: salvation by grace through faith in him.  Thus while I appreciate the openness with which Dr. Olson address the topic of inter-faith relations, and laud his goals of peaceful coexistence, I cannot cross the bridge that he would construct to inclusivism, for the Church and the Gospel are on this side of the river.

Judson Press link to "Side by Side"

Saved in spite of, not because of, their church

Last night was the first of three classes I'm giving on What Every Christian Should Know About: World Religions (You can watch the video, read materials here: World Religions class ) During that discussion, we talked about two religious groups that are associated with, but not a part of, traditional Christianity: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.  It was my conclusion, and I believe a fair and accurate one, that the theological differences  between these two groups and traditional Christianity (as typified by the Nicene Creed, as both of them are non-trinitarian) prevents them from being considered a part of the Church/Christianity.  It should be understood that such statements, whether coming from a simple local pastor like myself or an official body like the Southern Baptist Convention, the UMC General Assembly, or the Vatican (to name a few), are pronouncements directed at the official organization and its stated beliefs.  Such assertions ought not, and cannot, in a blanket way apply to individuals belonging to those groups anymore than they could speak on behalf of an American Baptist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian.  What applies to the whole does not automatically apply to its parts.  The reason why is very simple: Not everyone in any given church believes what that church officially believes.  I know, shocking, right?  Each church has people who rebel against official teachings, those who mistakenly believe things other than what their church officially believes , and those who are simply ignorant on the issues.

Which brings me to the point that prompted this post: The further that a church is from the heart of the Gospel, the more likely it will be that those who are a part of it who are/will be saved (however many that might be), were/will be saved in spite of not because of that church.  This could be true at a local church under the sway of a false teacher or faltering under a culture of apathy or pride, in a denomination which has forsaken its Gospel roots, or with groups that like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who seem Christian to the general public despite their rejection of that which is affirmed by the Church as a whole.  God, and God alone, will judge the living and the dead.  He alone knows what level of belief and understanding (about who Jesus is, how redemption works, etc.) is necessary for salvation, what level of mistaken ideas can be present and yet the Spirit will still regenerate and indwell that person.  It does not seem radical to me to recognize that there are people in even the most theologically correct church/denomination who are unsaved due to an unrepentant heart (they have not heard the Gospel though it was preached to them), and at the same time, that there are people in some of the worst examples of theologically warped churches (even cults) who despite being exposed to false ideas about Jesus or salvation, have been called by the Spirit of God, have repented of their sins, and have been saved by his grace.  Far better, of course, for a church to be working with the Gospel than against it, far better to dwell in truth, than to see dimly through falsehood.  Far better to be a part of a church where the Biblical Gospel is preached and affirmed, than one where it can barely be glimpsed.

In the end, God will judge hearts and welcome those into his kingdom whom he has called, and he isn't asking us for our opinion on the matter.  As a people called to witness to the Gospel, we can only weigh statements and pronouncements whether from individuals or churches, judge them according to the Scriptures, and seek to promote truth and counter falsehood wherever it be found.  May the whole Church of Christ be a benefit not a hindrance to the Gospel.