After learning of the struggles in the United Church of Canada about defrocking a self-proclaimed Atheist minister named Gretta Vosper, those unfamiliar with this denomination (like myself, an American) were probably left wondering, how did they ever get to a place where a minister could openly denounce belief in God without being thrown out by his/her own congregation, let alone the denomination? In its article on her "coming out" as an Atheist, the Toronto Star provided the answer: "In her sermons each Sunday, Vosper spoke openly about how she did not believe the Bible was “the authoritative word of God for all time” — a conviction she’d held long before her ordination, and one that is not uncommon among United Church of Canada clergy." To Vosper, the Bible had long since become secondary.
If the authority of the Scripture is laid aside, if it becomes the words of men instead of the Word of God, there is nothing left to build upon, sooner or later, the whole edifice of the Church will come crashing down. It is evidently not uncommon for a UCC pastor to view the Bible as optional, a position that Vosper learned, horrifyingly enough, in seminary. There is no doubt that a similar story could be told about several American denominations, we have the same problem of abandoning the Bible here as well.
For those who don't understand all the hub-up about Andy Stanley's recent comments that we need to downplay the Bible and instead emphasize Jesus, it is the mess like the one the UCC finds itself in that frightens those who have taken umbridge with Stanley. Andy Stanley has since responded that, “the Bible is without error in everything it affirms” and that he “believe[s] what the Bible says is true, is true,” Where Andy Stanley was hoping to go with his message, and where those critical of that message were afraid his idea would lead, are not one and the same, but one would hope that both his supporters and his detractors can see why such comments aroused the response that they did.
As a Church, and for myself as one of its many pastors, we must always be on our guard against the devaluation of the authority of Scripture, it is the Rubicon that we cannot ever cross. Once that river is crossed, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is essential, Christianity without the infallible Word of God is Christianity in name only.
This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Why both right action AND right belief matter
In response to the action taken by the United Church of Canada against the self-proclaimed Atheist minister Gretta Vosper, a blogger named Christian Chiakulas wrote that their decision to defrock her for her beliefs (technically, lack of any belief) is why mainline denominations are dying. The full blog post explains his position, but in a nutshell it appears that he thinks that judging someone for his/her beliefs is wrong and that only our actions matter. In the post Chiakulas quotes an author named Roger Wolsey as saying, “[Progressive Christianity] emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas…and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God.” While this may fit the definition of Progressive, it certainly doesn't fit any historically relevant definition of Christianity. And that is the whole point, what we're dealing with here is an attempt to redefine Christianity by refusing to define any belief, or lack thereof, as being out of bounds. In other words, progressives like Chiakulas and Wolsey want to remain a part of Christianity whether or not they believe in Christ, whether or not they believe in God, and whether or not they believe in the Gospel, belief evidently has nothing to do with it.
To accept the notion that right belief doesn't matter you have to surrender to two fundamental presuppositions both of which are extremely dangerous and both of which are anathema to what the Church has been and stood for during the past two thousand years. The first premise is this: There is no such thing as Truth with a capital T. All truth must be relative, the Bible must be a collection of stories, not a revelation from God. If there really is an absolute Truth, it would certainly matter whether or not a person embraces or rejects it, so Truth has to go. The second premise: That mankind is inherently good. If right behavior is all that matters, mankind must be capable, on his own, of being good. This however flies not only in the face of human history, but of the explicit teachings of the Bible. We cannot possibly please God, on our own, simply by doing what is right, because our very nature is sinful and we cannot fellowship with a holy God until we are reborn in Christ.
Lastly, in his blog post, Chiakulas claims a remarkably stunning thing, "Jesus welcomed everyone who was willing to follow “The Way.” Everyone. And there was no religious test to becoming an apostle, other than a willingness to forsake all for the Kingdom of God." What Chiakulas is failing to understand is that the disciples whom Jesus called to follow him were already believers in the God of Abraham, in the LORD, they already believed. That Jesus allowed them to follow him until they saw that he was the Son of God, instead of requiring it first, was certainly not an affirmation that such a affirmation must come from them eventually. That this claim of Chiakulas can be refuted by Jesus' own words, easily, ought to prevent someone from claiming it about how he conducted himself, but here it is. If Jesus cared so little about what his followers believed, how could he say to them, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14;6) And how could John end his Gospel with, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) The list of Biblical quotes that utterly refute such an asinine assertion that Jesus didn't care what his disciples believed, could go on and on and on.
What we belief absolutely matters, for as anyone remotely familiar with the writings of Paul knows, it is by grace we are saved, not by our works, when we call upon the name of the Lord.
To accept the notion that right belief doesn't matter you have to surrender to two fundamental presuppositions both of which are extremely dangerous and both of which are anathema to what the Church has been and stood for during the past two thousand years. The first premise is this: There is no such thing as Truth with a capital T. All truth must be relative, the Bible must be a collection of stories, not a revelation from God. If there really is an absolute Truth, it would certainly matter whether or not a person embraces or rejects it, so Truth has to go. The second premise: That mankind is inherently good. If right behavior is all that matters, mankind must be capable, on his own, of being good. This however flies not only in the face of human history, but of the explicit teachings of the Bible. We cannot possibly please God, on our own, simply by doing what is right, because our very nature is sinful and we cannot fellowship with a holy God until we are reborn in Christ.
Lastly, in his blog post, Chiakulas claims a remarkably stunning thing, "Jesus welcomed everyone who was willing to follow “The Way.” Everyone. And there was no religious test to becoming an apostle, other than a willingness to forsake all for the Kingdom of God." What Chiakulas is failing to understand is that the disciples whom Jesus called to follow him were already believers in the God of Abraham, in the LORD, they already believed. That Jesus allowed them to follow him until they saw that he was the Son of God, instead of requiring it first, was certainly not an affirmation that such a affirmation must come from them eventually. That this claim of Chiakulas can be refuted by Jesus' own words, easily, ought to prevent someone from claiming it about how he conducted himself, but here it is. If Jesus cared so little about what his followers believed, how could he say to them, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14;6) And how could John end his Gospel with, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) The list of Biblical quotes that utterly refute such an asinine assertion that Jesus didn't care what his disciples believed, could go on and on and on.
What we belief absolutely matters, for as anyone remotely familiar with the writings of Paul knows, it is by grace we are saved, not by our works, when we call upon the name of the Lord.
Atheist Minister Gretta Vosper is being defrocked, why wouldn't she be?
A 23 person committee of the United Church of Canada voted 19-4 recently that Gretta Vosper, minister at the West Hill United Church in Scarborough, is "unsuitable to continue serving" as a minister in the United Church of Canada. By her own proud admission, Vosper does not believe in God, nor Jesus Christ, nor the Holy Spirit. Vosper responded to the decision, according to the Toronto Star, by saying, “My sadness is for the many clergy and members and individuals currently studying for leadership in the UCC who are now also being told they need to keep quiet about their true beliefs or risk censure...The majority report said nothing about ethos and spoke exclusively to theological belief. A very sad day for the UCC.”
The United Church of Canada, "a historically inclusive and open-minded Protestant denomination" according to the article in the Star, has at least been willing to take a stand that its ministers need to believe in God. Vosper in an interview with the Washington Post said, “We don’t talk about God,” and then added that the church needs to give up “the idolatry of a theistic god.”
The correct term for Gretta Vosper is not atheist, but apostate. She has, like Bart Ehrman to cite a famous example, abandoned the faith that she previously professed. It doesn't really matter what Vosper wants to replace God with, according to the Star interview, it is "adopting a more metaphorical interpretation of religious symbols and a greater emphasis on humanist, environmental and social justice causes." Without God, whatever you put in his place, is meaningless and void. This shouldn't be controversial in the least, that Vosper has been allowed to continue down this path for years should be shocking.
There is no way, at all, to apply the term "Christian" to what she is doing. What we believe matters, for our hearts determine our actions, not the other way around, as Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45) The heart of the Gospel is that mankind apart from God is lost in sin, we are hopeless on our own, and thus our ONLY hope is in salvation by grace through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. These beliefs are not optional, they're essential in every way.
A "Christian", let alone a minister, who does not believe in God, AND more than that, who does not embrace the Gospel, would be a nonsense proposition to John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, and of course Jesus himself. For two thousand years the Church has proclaimed the Truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in victory over sin and death. To share the Gospel and make disciples of Jesus' followers, is why the Church exists.
Gretta Vosper may think that it is a "sad day" when 19 out of 23 members of a committee vote that an Apostate minister is unfit to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, I happen to see it as a "sad day" that 4 of the 23 voted to allow her to remain.
For additional consideration, Vosper's Church, West Hill, officially ended its use of the Lord's Prayer among other prayers, rewriting them along with classic hymns, for example:
The United Church of Canada, "a historically inclusive and open-minded Protestant denomination" according to the article in the Star, has at least been willing to take a stand that its ministers need to believe in God. Vosper in an interview with the Washington Post said, “We don’t talk about God,” and then added that the church needs to give up “the idolatry of a theistic god.”
The correct term for Gretta Vosper is not atheist, but apostate. She has, like Bart Ehrman to cite a famous example, abandoned the faith that she previously professed. It doesn't really matter what Vosper wants to replace God with, according to the Star interview, it is "adopting a more metaphorical interpretation of religious symbols and a greater emphasis on humanist, environmental and social justice causes." Without God, whatever you put in his place, is meaningless and void. This shouldn't be controversial in the least, that Vosper has been allowed to continue down this path for years should be shocking.
There is no way, at all, to apply the term "Christian" to what she is doing. What we believe matters, for our hearts determine our actions, not the other way around, as Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45) The heart of the Gospel is that mankind apart from God is lost in sin, we are hopeless on our own, and thus our ONLY hope is in salvation by grace through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. These beliefs are not optional, they're essential in every way.
A "Christian", let alone a minister, who does not believe in God, AND more than that, who does not embrace the Gospel, would be a nonsense proposition to John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, and of course Jesus himself. For two thousand years the Church has proclaimed the Truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in victory over sin and death. To share the Gospel and make disciples of Jesus' followers, is why the Church exists.
Gretta Vosper may think that it is a "sad day" when 19 out of 23 members of a committee vote that an Apostate minister is unfit to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, I happen to see it as a "sad day" that 4 of the 23 voted to allow her to remain.
For additional consideration, Vosper's Church, West Hill, officially ended its use of the Lord's Prayer among other prayers, rewriting them along with classic hymns, for example:
From The Lord’s Prayer...
Then:
Our loving God, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses …
To Words of Commitment...
Now:
As I live every day, I want to be a channel for peace. May I bring love where there is hatred and healing where there is hurt; joy where there is sadness, and hope where there is fear …
From “How Great Art Thou Art …”
Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee,
How great Thou art! How great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, My Savior God, to Thee,
How great Thou art! How great Thou art!
By Carl G. Boberg
To “Then Sings My Soul …”
Then sings my soul in wonder, full and free,
amazed at all I hear and see!
Then sings my soul in wonder, full and free,
a sacred gift is life to me!
By Gretta Vosper and Scott Kearns (2007)
Sermon Video: The Prideful Presumption of Uzziah - 2 Chronicles 26
One of the oldest and ongoing conflicts in human society is the struggle to define and maintain morality. In the pride of the wickedness of the human heart is the presumption that we can overthrow or ignore that which God has decreed concerning righteousness and wickedness. All those who attempt to do so, will fail, they must fail, for God has revealed what is holy and what is sinful in his Word, and all human attempts to circumvent this are but vanity.
As a king of Judah, Uzziah was a great success, both in foreign policy and domestic policy he was a wise and capable ruler. Uzziah might have gone down as one of the greatest kings of the people of God, and he would have had he continued to walk in the ways of the LORD, but as his success increased so did his pride. When God had granted Uzziah great blessings because of his obedience, Uzziah's pride brought about his downfall. Uzziah decided to usurp the responsibility of the priestly descendants of Aaron by offering incense in the temple of the LORD. While this might not seem like much of an offense to us, it was clearly forbidden in the Torah, making Uzziah's actions an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
God chose to respond to Uzziah immediately by striking him with leprosy after Uzziah had spurned the correction of the priest Azariah, a condition that remained with Uzziah for the rest of his days, days which he lived apart from his people and cut off from the temple. It was a sad ending to a life of great accomplishments, but Uzziah paid the price for ignoring the Word of God by thinking that his will was above that of Almighty God. For all those who follow in his footsteps, ignoring what they don't like about what the Bible says to them, the result will be the same: the judgment of God.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
As a king of Judah, Uzziah was a great success, both in foreign policy and domestic policy he was a wise and capable ruler. Uzziah might have gone down as one of the greatest kings of the people of God, and he would have had he continued to walk in the ways of the LORD, but as his success increased so did his pride. When God had granted Uzziah great blessings because of his obedience, Uzziah's pride brought about his downfall. Uzziah decided to usurp the responsibility of the priestly descendants of Aaron by offering incense in the temple of the LORD. While this might not seem like much of an offense to us, it was clearly forbidden in the Torah, making Uzziah's actions an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
God chose to respond to Uzziah immediately by striking him with leprosy after Uzziah had spurned the correction of the priest Azariah, a condition that remained with Uzziah for the rest of his days, days which he lived apart from his people and cut off from the temple. It was a sad ending to a life of great accomplishments, but Uzziah paid the price for ignoring the Word of God by thinking that his will was above that of Almighty God. For all those who follow in his footsteps, ignoring what they don't like about what the Bible says to them, the result will be the same: the judgment of God.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Thursday, September 29, 2016
If God hasn't forgiven you, you're not a Christian, period.
"I have great relationship with God...I like to be good. I don't like to have to ask for forgiveness. And I am good. I don't do a lot of things that are bad. I try to do nothing that is bad...I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."
The above quote is typical of a post-modern, "I'm good enough for God" attitude, one sadly often acquiesced to in some Christian circles, though they certainly should know better. What would Paul's response be to such twisted thinking? A few simple quotes from his letter to the Ephesians ought to illustrate it: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace (1:7)...As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins (2:1)...Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. (2:3-5)...For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (2:8-9)"
We are not good enough for God on our own, never, ever does the Bible say anything of the sort, the idea is anathema to the Gospel. We must be forgiven for our sins, period, and this only by the blood of Christ, only through faith, only by grace. Anything less, and we remain dead in our sins, to pretend otherwise is to leave the sinner separated from God.
The initial quote is from a famous person, somebody who claims to be a Christian, who is accepted as a Christian by many people, but who most certainly is not a Christian if those words reflect his/her heart. The true follower of Jesus Christ knows that he/she is only a sinner saved by grace, and knows that God's forgiveness means everything.
The above quote is typical of a post-modern, "I'm good enough for God" attitude, one sadly often acquiesced to in some Christian circles, though they certainly should know better. What would Paul's response be to such twisted thinking? A few simple quotes from his letter to the Ephesians ought to illustrate it: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace (1:7)...As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins (2:1)...Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. (2:3-5)...For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (2:8-9)"
We are not good enough for God on our own, never, ever does the Bible say anything of the sort, the idea is anathema to the Gospel. We must be forgiven for our sins, period, and this only by the blood of Christ, only through faith, only by grace. Anything less, and we remain dead in our sins, to pretend otherwise is to leave the sinner separated from God.
The initial quote is from a famous person, somebody who claims to be a Christian, who is accepted as a Christian by many people, but who most certainly is not a Christian if those words reflect his/her heart. The true follower of Jesus Christ knows that he/she is only a sinner saved by grace, and knows that God's forgiveness means everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)