|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2010 17:09:42 GMT -8
elsewhere marcus wrote:
Philippians 1:7
for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.
1 Timothy 6:20-21
20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.
Discussion point:
If it's true that Christianity has no threat, then why are we to guard the gospel? What are we to defend it from?
I realize that this is probably a semantical paradox, but, of course, that's what makes some of the best discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 29, 2010 17:29:11 GMT -8
We would have to define "Christianity" I think to fully discuss this. Are we talking about religion or lifestyle? The Philippians quote speaks of defending "the gospel"? Is there a distinction between "the gospel" and "Christianity" at least semantically? Does this refer to intrinsic (personal) reactions/thoughts/feelings or extrinsic (corporate) community/church/kingdom? This could go on forever...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2010 19:24:44 GMT -8
I tend to define Christianity and the gospel as synonymous, though I realize that "Christianity" to is a broader term and has a lot more baggage.
But I'll guess that in his claim Marcus is talking about the purest elements of Christianity- because of course the less pure elements can be threatened, right?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 29, 2010 20:26:31 GMT -8
So, if Marcus meant that the Kingdom will ultimately go forth and be victorious no matter what people do, I agree with Him. Jesus and the NT writers affirmed that.
But if you're saying Christianity (read: the Church) cannot be corrupted by what people do, then I believe history itself proves that a false assertion.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2010 21:14:34 GMT -8
If you originally meant that someone's sin can't threaten Christianity, what do you make of Paul's statement in Romans 2:24 that our sin (in the particular context, hypocrisy, which is interestingly germaine to the discussions we've been having recently) leads to "God's name being blasphemed among the Gentiles"?
I would call that a threat to Christianity in some sense, though not in all senses. Obviously, ultimately, the gates of hell will not prevail against God's bride. But we can certainly lose battles and the consequences are serious.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 29, 2010 21:44:03 GMT -8
That's beautifully poetic.
I think there's a large difference between the individual's experience and the Church/Kingdom/Community as a whole. The latter is solidly undefeatable, while the individual is vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 30, 2010 1:31:04 GMT -8
That's beautifully poetic. I think there's a large difference between the individual's experience and the Church/Kingdom/Community as a whole. The latter is solidly undefeatable, while the individual is vulnerable. The individual who practices Christianity is not vulnerable so long as he practices. Christianity cannot be threatened. If false teaching infiltrates the Church and leads it astray, it becomes vulnerable, precisely because it is no longer Christian. Jesus was very specific about the two paths. If you walk the righteous path, you have nothing to fear. Leaving the righteous path is another matter, but at that point, can you call your journey a Christian one? Not if you use Jesus' standards.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 30, 2010 2:29:40 GMT -8
Pretend that Christianity is a perfectly run airport. It has a perfect plan, to receive travelers at the front doors and to place them on a plane to their destinations without a hitch. It has a contingency for everything. If there's an ice storm, the planes are ready with chains and plowed runways. If too many people want to travel at once, there is an unending supply of extra planes and crews and terminals to accommodate. If there is a bomb threat, it is detected at security, and even if it is not, the planes are bomb proof. You get the idea. It's a perfect airport.
But what if someone shuts down the security department? Well, now it is no longer a perfect airport. Now its just a regular, flawed airport with vulnerability. It loses its shiny title.
The point is, so long as we practice Christianity as individuals and as the Church, we have nothing to fear. We have no known predator, no substantial enemy. My problem with baby Christians is that they act as if we are the protectors of some fragile ancient sculpture that is cracked in three places. That's not true. God doesn't need us to react and defend against the threat of the day. Fear mongering is a joke when you understand and practice what we're taught to practice. Jennifer Knapp isn't a threat, she's our sister. BUT WHAT IF SHE CONVINCES ALL THE OTHER GAYISH CHRISTIANS THAT GAY SEX IS OKAY? WE SHOULD FIGHT HER MESSAGE AND DROWN IT OUT WITH TRUTH! Uh huh. If Christians who are struggling with homosexuality think its a good idea to turn to someone else who is also struggling with homosexuality, then the Church has failed, and the problem isn't JK - the problem is the Church's own failure to disciple those who struggle.
Here's one of the most valuable things God has ever beat into my stubborn head: The Church being the Church is all we need. We never, and I mean never, need to react to the world. Christianity is proactive by nature. We just need to be faithful and trust God.
The fact that Jennifer Knapp came out of the closet should not change a thing we are doing. Give me a reason we should react in any way? (obviously excluding the fact that her church leadership should do or should have done a better job discipling her through a difficult issue)
It reminds me of the argument in favor of war, where Christians must support the cause to overthrow Hitler because of his crimes. But of course, the real question is Why weren't Hitler or any of his followers taught Truth long before they became criminals? Did German and European Christians drop the ball so much that an entire nation turned to evil why people turned a blind eye? It's like the criminal who walks out of an unlocked jail cell past a sleeping security guard, enters a grocery store and buys an assault rifle off the 99 cent rack, crosses the street and strolls into a bank past another sleeping security guard and robs the place while aiming his rifle at the head of the manager. Quick, what should be our reaction in the midst of this crisis?
Communists were going to take over Christ's church in the 50's. Free Love and hippies were going to take the lost souls of the 60's. Roe v Wade was the end of our society in the 70's. New Age was going to steal away all of the influential teens of the 80's. Moral relativists were going to destroy the Church in the 90's. Gay people planned to destroy the few remaining sacred institutions in the 00's.
If Christianity functioned as Christianity should, Hitler never receives the support he needs. Jennifer Knapp is quietly discipled by those who love her. Post-9/11 Christians show amazing amounts of love and forgiveness to terrorists who receive heaping coals of love upon their heads. Saul becomes Paul.
The Church doesn't need to fear or react or respond to the current hulabaloo. The Church needs to be the Church. Whom shall we fear?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 30, 2010 7:26:55 GMT -8
Marcus, that seems a bit contradictory. The point is that the Christian is vulnerable to be tempted to not practice. If there is a chance that that he/she might "fall" and go unrepentant, that's vulnerability. We are all vulnerable in that regard because we know not what tomorrow will bring.
However,
Very much agreed. That's why I tried to make a distinction between the individual and the church as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 30, 2010 7:56:34 GMT -8
Phili
Marcus, maybe I'm missing it in your response, but how would you actually answer my question point-blank?
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 30, 2010 13:38:16 GMT -8
How do we guard the gospel?
In every case above, we do so by practicing it. Turn away from godless chatter, do not look for guidance elsewhere, maintain the faith.
Besides fear, the misconception that I am writing against is the need we feel to defend the parameters of our faith in the public realm (stand against the public threat, so to speak). There was no Biblical call to form a Christian society. There was no call to be reactive. Yes, there are two ways of approaching the issue when someone is watering down the gospel or teaching falsely or "falling away". One, you can speak out against it at every turn, making sure nonbelievers remain correctly informed about the stance of the Church (which they don't really care about anyway). This is what Christians naturally tend to do - OH NO! WHAT IF NONBELIEVERS THINK ITS NOT A SIN TO BE GAY! WE HAVE TO PUBLICLY REITERATE OR STANCE ON THE ISSUE LEST NONBELIEVERS BE FOOLED! Why would nonbelievers need to know the Church's stance on homosexuality? They don't recognize Church authority anyway!
The second approach is to ignore that publicly, knowing that at any given time there are like a million different celebrities and a million different errant pastors and a million different false doctrines being proclaimed to the masses. We can't respond verbally and if we do, it just becomes more noise and makes us look snobbish and Phariseeish anyway. Sadly, Christians operate under the same misconceptions that the Pharisees had, like our job is to publicly declare and defend a set of sins vs non-sins and be a secular society's moral police. Jesus hated that. Our lives are our testimony.
All we need to do is be the Church, and the rest will take care of itself.
I'm struggling to be clear. In the recent Knapp debacle, look at the huge public outcry by the Church to reinforce homosexuality as a sin. Is that helpful? Are less people going to be gay or are more people going to be impressed by the way Christians policed the issue? What do we have to gain? But had the church been the Church, JK would not have been seen as a threat. She would have been discipled through a difficult (nearly impossible!) issue by those in her church. Had she not submitted to her church, then she could have stayed and continued sinning like every other unrepentant person in the congregation, or she could have left to seek a church that approved of what she wanted to do anyway. If she leaves, the church continues to pray for her and show her love and pursue her. No scenario exists where we publicly outcry against her. There's no need and no benefit. Jennifer Knapp isn't a threat. She's our sister, and she wrongly believes that the love she feels for a woman means she must publicly crusade against the church. And the Church wrongly feels that the love she feels for a woman means we should publicly crusade against her sin.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 30, 2010 13:48:45 GMT -8
Marcus, that seems a bit contradictory. The point is that the Christian is vulnerable to be tempted to not practice. If there is a chance that that he/she might "fall" and go unrepentant, that's vulnerability. We are all vulnerable in that regard because we know not what tomorrow will bring. However, Very much agreed. That's why I tried to make a distinction between the individual and the church as a whole. Oh wait! I know what I want to say to clarify about the individual being threatened. Christianity, even on the individual level (which is a shaky term, being that individuals apart from the church cannot be Christian - the kingdom was the point!), has no real threat because Christianity by its very nature is a method for turning threats into blessings. It's like a business owner feeling threatened when people dump their trash on his property. Why should he feel threatened, when his business is named East Portland Waste Management and Recycling? That help?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 30, 2010 14:56:49 GMT -8
yes. That makes more sense. I still have a hard time not separating the individual from the group though. I know, I know...the body of Christ analogy (1 Corinthians 12 is it? ). But my free will is so powerful and I don't want to sacrafice this gift.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 30, 2010 19:02:02 GMT -8
Ha ha, fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 11, 2010 1:10:04 GMT -8
Thoughts from Riley's chromosome donor?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 12, 2010 11:48:03 GMT -8
I'll keep it bookmarked for later.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 14, 2010 21:41:11 GMT -8
You sound as if there is no place for "preaching" or "teaching" it ala:
Acts 9:8-10
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.
Acts 18:4-5
Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
As to whether we need to be letting the world know where we stand on everything, I think you have a point in that that is not our primary objective to the world. And I certainly agree that it's not our job to be society's "moral police".
I think you're underestimating how many Christians are beginning to see deny that homosexual behavior is sin. I don't care so much about what the public thinks about it, but I do care what other Christians are saying about it.
Where is this public outcry you speak of?
|
|