cubedemon6073 wrote:
Quote:
Honestly, actually THINK about the error in their own reasoning and contemplate the possibility that there MIGHT be more than what they’ve been willing to accept. I’m more interested in minds who choose to believe in the supernatural and are willing to seriously consider Christ. I don’t know that I’ll succeed, but maybe it’s enough that I at least discuss it openly.
Here is the thing. Let's assume all of these things to be true.
1. I'm autistic with it's various traits some more severe then you and some less severe.
2. All Humans are sinners according to the bible.
3. If all humans are sinners according to the bible and I'm human then I am sinner.
4. Sin clouds the mind from the truth.
5. Autism can cloud the mind from the truth.
6. Since, I'm both autistic and a sinner then my mind is more clouded then the average person.
Minor nitpick, first off, you aren’t wrong. Just be careful with making assumptions in logic. In reality, it’s less likely a machine will break down the fewer moving parts it has. You can state this much more simply—sin corrupts the mind and renders it untrustworthy. I believe neurodiversity is a good thing. But ND’s are often at a disadvantage compared with normies. Neither of us are perfect, neither have any inherently better view of God. I think some people have a stronger divine sense than others. Either way, all people face the same epistemic problem of how one can know anything. There’s no need to assume anything else. You aren’t wrong in your assumptions here because you basically repeated the same assumption after the first one. Conciseness isn’t my strength, but I do try to keep things on the simplest level I can.
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Since my mind is more clouded then the average person then how can I use both my autistic mind and my sinful mind to actually THINK about the error in my own reasoning and contemplate the possibility that there MIGHT be more than what I've been willing to accept? How can I be reasonably expected by you, other Christians, other conservatives, Jesus and God himself to be able to do this at all?
I’m tempted to cut here and just hit one issue at a time. Posts like this quickly turn recondite.
Sinful mind or not, you do possess the ability to process information from the senses and form conclusions. Even if your conclusions are unreliable, you still have the ability to make them. You CAN think. You can become aware that there are problems or flaws in your thinking and discover degrees of reliability. Consider this statement: No human thought is reliable. This is a human thought. Therefore, not even the thought that “no human thought...” is reliable. It is paradoxical, yes? The problem for us is that it happens to be true in spite of its apparent contradictory nature.
Let’s try this from a different angle. Remember, this is problem of epistemology. Let’s say this: Nothing can be known with certainty. Now the problem is I’m making a truth statement that is self-contradictory. It can’t possibly be true. Why? Because I have to be sure that nothing is certain in order to say that. How do I KNOW that? So at least ONE thing can possibly be known while at best most other things can be questioned as to their certainty.
You accused me of mental gymnastics earlier. I disagree. Real mental gymnastics happen when people make false assumptions that “nothing can be known” and proceed to live life as though they do know something. You don’t KNOW you’ll wake up tomorrow, so why bother falling asleep? You don’t KNOW your food isn’t poisoned, so why eat? You don’t KNOW gravity works, so why bother leaving your house? So when I say “nothing can be known with certainty,” I have to both deny the certainty of my own statement, which is absurd, and live AS THOUGH that statement is true, which is cognitive dissonance. That really would require some intense intellectual juggling, but that’s not going to make it any more true.
Now, to answer your question...
It would be true if I said, “humans cannot know anything with certainty” as long as that statement is contingent on the human mind being clouded by sin influence. That means humans cannot even know that they cannot know. It’s a paradox, meaning that while apparently contradictory, in some sense it can possibly be true. Even if you accept that in the human mind SOME things can be known, as long as there is at least one thing that is unknown, you cannot claim to know anything with certainty. To claim to know anything, it must be known in absolute terms. As long as there is anything unknown, you cannot claim any absolute knowledge. That means for as long as we’re discussing the human mind, we really cannot know anything at all, not even God.
In order to know anything at all, one would have to be omniscient. Human beings aren’t omniscient, hence why we don’t know anything. Only God can know anything because only God knows EVERYTHING. And that’s the solution to the paradox. Because God knows everything, He has the ability to reveal something to us. God does reveal Himself to us, among other things, frees the human mind from its sin nature, and allows us to know SOMETHING. If we have SOME knowledge revealed to us by an omniscient God, together with the renewal of our minds, other things can become known to us. Those things ARE reliable.
Earlier I said that nothing can be known, not even God. It’s only through God’s revelation of Himself to us and the cleansing of our minds that He becomes known to us. The big question is how do we know that it’s God who reveals Himself and not something else? How do we know that’s not just some other trick that sin plays on the mind? That’s a matter of faith and why evidence/proof is no good.
For lack of a perfect analogy, consider this: You’re a mental patient locked in an institution. You are plagued with hallucinations. But in your experience, those hallucinations are very real and your world makes sense. You are aware that you are locked away and you aren’t free, but you don’t understand why. From your perspective, everyone else is insane.
Now imagine a nurse comes along and gives you a pill that’s “going to make everything better.” You take the pill because you don’t think you have a choice. As you’d expect, the pill alters your mind. The voices in your head go away, certain people you see and talk to vanish like ghosts. This new reality is strange to you and difficult to accept. On the one hand, a lot of things become easier because there aren’t all these voices telling you conflicting things and you don’t get distracted by these people who follow you everywhere. At the same time, people seem to expect more from you, you have to adjust to rules you’re not used to, and you miss the company of people that others tell you only exist in your head. After a few hours the pill wears off and you’re back in a more familiar reality.
Do you prefer to go back to how things were with more difficulties and no freedom but at least everything is familiar? Or do you stay on the pill, make some adjustments, and go free? More relevant, do you TRUST that the pill frees you? How can you be sure that it’s not the pill that actually causes hallucinations and that your present reality without the pill is the correct reality?
God reveals Himself to us, but that doesn’t mean we actually want to accept Him any more than a lunatic would actually want to accept reality as it is. And because in either case you don’t get a completely satisfactory solution to the epistemic problem, you ultimately end up accepting one path or the other purely on faith. There’s no getting around it.
cubedemon6073 wrote:
And, doesn't the Bible say to beware of false prophets? We have many different denominations of Christianity today. Who is right? How do we tell?
If the Bible says beware of false prophets, doesn’t it make sense that the Bible would adequately describe the difference and what to look for? The OT qualifications for prophet are stringent enough I don’t understand why anyone in his or her right mind would ever claim to be one. I think all Christians are essentially prophets, so I prefer to think in terms not what makes a false prophet, but rather what makes a false prophecy. A true prophet has to reveal a future event that can be confirmed in a reasonably short period of time. I’d be wary of anyone who claims some new, grandiose message from God. That’s the short answer.
We have so many denominations because of so many false claims and uncertainty. They are all right and simultaneously all wrong. Speaking in tongues in Acts meant everyone heard the gospel in their own language. There’s a distinction between speaking different languages and what the Catholics used to call “ecstatic utterance.” Pentecostals practice the latter, not the former. They accurately teach that speaking in tongues was the first evidence of the Holy Spirit in the Christian church. They’re just unbiblical about what it actually meant. Catholics believed that ecstatic utterance was divinely inspired. There was just no way to show how much of glossolalia was inspired and what was not since there was no single, reliable way to interpret it. That’s why plainchant is so melismatic. Pentecostals and others have come up with alternative ways of expressing this in worship. I don’t personally care if someone chooses to express himself in worship in the form of glossolalia, but don’t expect me to believe you’re speaking some “spirit language” and don’t tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t choose to engage in it. Some denominations do that, and it’s unbiblical. Assemblies of God seem to me a lot more chill about it, so I wouldn’t rule out joining an AoG. Presbyterians don’t really offend me, either. I like the openness and simplicity of Southern Baptists. A little known fact about Baptists is that we aren’t defined by lockstep agreement on everything. We can discuss and debate things, and we don’t necessarily reach a consensus on everything. We’re ok with that. It’s just that most religious people in general don’t care to debate things; they’re more concerned with coping with secular life and find comfort in worship. For most, the Bible is about daily practice and guiding life. The only thing you can really say about Baptists is we believe that only believers should be baptized and that full immersion is the only proper way to do it. There are a number of things we do find consensus on, but all that COULD change. We also like drawing our own conclusions—you don’t hear Calvin and Armin being discussed in Sunday school. What I dislike about SBC is how Pharisaic our leadership has become. I dislike how some Baptists can get hung up over what music to sing, debating pipe organ versus guitar (in much older churches), and lighting. And then, of course, you have Mainstream Protestantism that has strayed so far off the Biblical path I don’t understand how it is they can even claim to be Christians anymore. Some aren’t Christian at all but claim to be—I don’t consider Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christian. I don’t consider United Pentecostals to be Christian. Unitarian/Universalists may occasionally have Christians wander in off the street, but it’s not really a Christian church. Adventists are walking the fence, but they risk running off the Biblical rails. Sometimes they do, as was the case with Branch Davidians.
In ANY case, something to watch out for anyone who gets too specific and too hung up on details. All you need to know is the atoning work of Christ is sufficient for salvation. That’s it. And that makes the question of being Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Catholic, non-denom irrelevant. You’re not going to hell if you believe in free will or double-dipper predestination. You’re not going to hell if you only get sprinkled or never get baptized at all. There are people who teach things like that. If you dig a little deeper, there’s always some other agenda, and it doesn’t work to your benefit. The only thing that benefitted from Branch Davidian was David Koresh’s penis. The Family International is really just a New Age sex cult. Watchtower just rewrote the parts of the Bible they didn’t like, and good luck leaving them if you were raised JW. United Pentecostals (“oneness”) are anti-trinitarian, Modalistic, and depend on glossolalia for salvation. Church leaders in these situations tend to be very controlling over their congregations. Not surprisingly, they are often wealthy. It’s not that being wealthy is a bad thing, of course. It’s how you go about getting it. Wealth accrued through guilt is parasitic. Are you comfortable giving someone a ton of your hard-earned cash for either making you feel ashamed of yourself or selling you on false promises? Or would you rather buy someone’s book for practical insight and proven success? Stephen Covey was a Mormon. His book 7 Habits builds on objective truths, and I’d go so far as to say much of it is even Biblical. It’s at the intersection of where Mormon faith and Christian faith agree and stops short of selling Mormonism outright. I don’t mind buying his books or his company’s products. Theologians (using that term loosely) such as Rick Warren (supposedly Southern Baptist) and, especially, Joel Osteen, are highly questionable. Then you have RC Sproul, van Til, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Norman Geisler who I think are rock solid in developing a personal theology. Many of these guys have done well for themselves and, I believe, have done so honestly. I’m more hesitant to listen to prosperity gospel preachers and televangelists. Not all televangelists are bad, exactly, but it becomes about the money rather than sound teaching. I don’t really have anything against, say, Brian Houston, but pastors of megachurches put themselves at high risk. Rick Warren and Joel Osteen don’t get quite so much criticism in the media, but you have former church staff and members coming out of the woodwork relating to Hillsong’s international campuses. I suspect most of this is really just jealousy—people want their slice of pie they don’t want to work for. So yeah, I think a lot of the negativity is all just a big setup. But that also means when you consider people who teach theology and pastor churches, you have to be vigilant. Brian Houston doesn’t have quite the hang ups that an Adventist has, but then you might want to watch out for blab-it-and-grab-it theology. Pastors like Brian Houston tend to hang right on the edge of that, and it’s not Biblical when they go off the edge and teach health-and-wealth outright.
Pastors that get hung up AGAINST health and wealth are highly suspect, also. Why? I think it’s because they’re jealous of rich pastors, not because of unbiblical teaching. The Old Testament has a lot to say about believers who follow in obedience and thereby receive material blessings from God. Can Biblical teaching make you rich? Of course it can. But at the same time, the point of the Bible is about faith and obedience, not about manipulating God into granting you wealth. You receive blessings for being willing and obedient; there is no indication that God promises health and wealth to everyone just because people ask. Some people will become rich and some people will be poor. So I think it’s wrong to look down on someone just for being rich. I’d first ask what it is a rich person is doing right before I accuse them of something improper. In the case of Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn, the theology is beyond dodgy. Criticizing someone on wealth alone is equally so.
cubedemon6073 wrote:
And, what does it mean we must accept Jesus as our lord and savior? Does it simply mean we accept him? Does that me we accept what he commands us to do and do what he commands us to do as well? If I have true faith does it mean that I'm supposed to do works as well?
Does my merely going up to the pulpit and declaring to the pastor and the congregation "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior into my heart" is considered enough or do I have to do more?
I think that’s an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Does one accept the atoning work of Christ as enough to remove sin or not? Faith is basically accepting that and acceptance is enough. Asking Jesus to come into your heart might be one way of looking at it, but I rather think that’s a consequence of faith. Nowhere that I recall reading in the Bible does it ever say that in so many words. But if you believe Jesus atoned for your sins personally, if you believe the gospels, then you understand Jesus to be a real person that you have access to. You don’t have to ask Jesus to come into your heart; He’s already there. Most people don’t talk about these kinds of things the way you and I do. They understand it in more simplistic terms, so for them asking Jesus into their hearts makes more sense. It works. You and I know that the reality is slightly more complicated than that, but we can also be guilty of overthinking it.
I think most people like the comfort of ritual, so repeating a prayer (sincerely meaning it, though), walking down the aisle and making a public profession of faith, being baptized...all those things make it easier and make it clear that you are a believer. The way we do things in a typical Baptist church isn’t exactly spelled out in the gospels. Those kinds of things are helpful and are an external means to a scriptural end. Just be careful that you don’t make all those things something they are not—a means to salvation for their own sake. It’s grace that saves, not works.
The role of works is not to save a person. Works are simply evidence of faith. If you go skydiving and profess faith in your parachute, it accomplishes nothing if you don’t actually jump out of the plane. Without jumping out of the plane and taking a literal leap of faith, you cannot call yourself a skydiver. Skydiving, of course, presupposes your success in jumping. If you have no faith in your parachute and don’t deploy it after you jump, you’re most likely dead once you reach the ground. If you DO have faith in your parachute, why WOULDN’T you use it? Now, of course, a parachute could fail. But the point is you EXPECT the parachute to work and you act on those expectations. If you believe that Jesus is the Savior, why would you keep that a secret? If you believe that God expects kindness and you want to please God, why would you be unkind to people? Or if you believe God expects justice, why would you want to withhold justice? I use those two examples of works because kindness and justice often seem to be at odds, and it angers me that Christians sacrifice justice on the alter of compassion. Denial of justice IS NOT COMPASSION, and we tend to assume that God’s mercy presumes that justice never comes for those who do evil. Christians who sidestep justice act just as faithless as those who sidestep mercy. Someone who genuinely does have faith doesn’t have to tell everyone they have faith—their actions are motivated by faith, and so you do see Christians who show kindness and mercy and can balance mercy with eventual justice at the right time.
As an example of what I mean by justice: Someone commits a minor crime. The penalty for all sin is, unequivocally, death. The liar or thief deserves to die. Mercy asks why the crime was committed and whether the criminal could be forgiven. Was food stolen because the thief was starving and desperate? Then maybe his victim can forgive him, maybe someone else can pay for the stolen bread, maybe he can work it off. The real problem is dealt with and the thief never has to steal again. But suppose one thief gets away with stealing bread and nothing happens, because MAYBE he needs it more. Then the next thief steals bread, and the next, and the next, until the baker goes bankrupt and ends up starving and desperate himself. Altruistic (secular) mercy says that the baker has to die because another’s needs (thieves) are more important. Divine justice steps in and says, “NO MORE! Round up all the thieves and chop off all their hands. That’ll teach them, and they should count themselves lucky their lives are spared.” Divine mercy says, “Hold up, bossman. Let’s first see why we have so many people starving to death and what we can do about it. Meanwhile, let’s get the bread back to the baker and maybe pay a slight penalty for his trouble. Let the thieves keep their hands, but let’s put those hands to actual work to compensate the baker for his losses. Set them free when they’ve worked off their debt, and we’ll revisit if the problem shows up again.” This view looks at both sides to see what if any malicious act has been committed, offers forgiveness first, and extends a remedy to those who have been harmed through the actions of others. Punishment that fits the crime is never deserved; evildoers always deserve much worse. But both criminals AND their victims must be granted mercy and compassion. Extending mercy to evil people without justice for victims is neither merciful nor compassionate. God’s justice never ignores the victim. And so to offer forgiveness for evil deeds without providing relief for victims is NOT acting in faith. Deniers of justice do not make you Christlike, no matter how merciful you claim to be.
Jesus said, “do not judge or you will be judged; you will be judged according to how you judge others.” It’s often interpreted to mean we should let people go and do whatever they want without consequence. The inherent problem is that by denying judgment you deny YOURSELF judgment, meaning that by withholding justice for others you forfeit justice for yourself. Christians, if they truly have faith, are compelled to judge others. When we mind our own business, ignore the suffering of others, and refuse to protect each other, we hurt others and ourselves. It is mercy that we only punish according to the severity of the crime itself, that we implement due process, and that justice applies equally and fairly for all people, victims and criminals alike.
Those things and things like it are acts of faith MOTIVATED by faith, and corrupting justice by denying it is symptomatic of a lack of faith or dead faith. I would call the faith of a person who refuses to stand up for himself against enemies into question. Turning the other cheek when you have a choice is wrong because NOT correcting someone and seeking justice simply enables a person to abuse someone else. By not responding to an enemy you give the rest of the world blanket permission to abuse others. This was never God’s intention for human beings. Jesus DID teach to turn the other cheek and was correct in doing so; it doesn’t contradict what I just said. In what sense did Jesus intend “turn the other cheek”? In the sense Jesus intended, it was a matter of being forced to do things against your will. There are times when we must choose between SOME suffering or death. In the case of force, the Christian is more effective alive than dead. It DOES NOT MEAN that Christians are commanded to be doormats.
Kindness, compassion, mercy, justice, obedience, love, teaching, discipline, seeking truth, value for others, honesty...all those things and more being things you should expect from someone who has faith. Of course I’ve met atheists and witches who exhibit those traits—doesn’t mean they are saved. And being saved doesn’t make you perfect or a nice person. It just means you WANT all those things and value them for their own sake because of the value you know God has for you—and for all people. I’m attracted to Objectivist philosophy because of its emphasis on this exchange of value over sacrifice: the exchange of a deity’s material life for the souls of all humanity, the worth a husband places on his wife that he’d rather die than live without her, the ongoing exchange in kindness in every human relationship for mutually beneficial causes—it is all written into objective reality from the beginning, and can only be because God intended for it to be. I can’t follow the Peikoff branch of objectivism because of their denial of this fact. For that reason, I find them lacking in compassion, something that runs contrary to objective reality. People like David Kelley and Nate Branden could understand it. They got it right, though I’m not sure it’s enough to convince them to believe in God. However, I find it difficult NOT to find that Christianity properly understood is the only logical conclusion based on reality.
I should add my initial reasons for believing were not any of that, but those things have reinforced my faith as I’ve gotten older. The more I think about it, the more ways I can understand it, and that makes it more exciting to talk about. Objectivism reinforces the notion that the individual matters—Jesus died for ME, therefore it is wrong for me to live for anyone else. It is wrong for me to ask or expect anyone to live for me. Then it becomes about what I want for myself for my own reasons, and I realize that my relationship with God means more to me than anything else. From that follows a willingness to discuss my faith and do “good things.” If you cannot do good things on your own terms out of YOUR faith in Jesus, then it’s not really faith. For me, asking myself why I sometimes DON’T act on faith is synonymous with asking why I don’t want good things for myself. I’m not perfect, and being fallible I withdraw from good deeds like I withdraw when I get a severe cold. I’m sick and need time to renew my strength. That’s not a bad thing, and something to consider when Christians don’t act Christlike. Don’t judge too harshly, we are all works in progress. It is a person’s willingness that matters that outwardly reflects on inward faith. You don’t need works for salvation. It’s just you know a tree by its fruit. A nominal Christian will be known by his inability to produce fruit, and that is how you’ll understand the faith of another person.
cubedemon6073 wrote:
To a person who was never taught the meaning and context of the terms in the Bible and how we arrive to that particular meaning and context when you say things like "invisible qualities of God can be seen "you're talking over their heads.
One young lady on one of my facebook groups interpreted "eating from the body of Christ" as requiring us to be cannibals' and found that disgusting. I know that's not what it meant.
And, that's the thing with the modern church. They preach and they bash us for all of our sins but they never truthfully teach and teach in a way that is meaningful for people. And, all a lot of them do is preach in the safety of their church walls yet people out there are homeless.
Truth is a number of non-believers and younger folks have listened to you (church, preachers, conservative parents and family, etc) growing up and found you all lacking, hypocritical and wanting.
Ok, but one’s willingness to understand is his problem or her problem. That’s not my problem or concern. Questions that lead to greater understanding for the purpose of understanding are one thing. Questions that are intended to complicate, obfuscate, mock, mislead, etc. are something else entirely. Regarding cannibalism, transubstantiation basically IS cannibalism. Jesus knew His words would be interpreted that way and it cost him thousands of followers. No, that’s not what Jesus meant, but Catholics DO teach that. Your statement “they never truthfully teach and teach in a way that is meaningful for people” is false, btw. You have to be pretty darn selective to back that statement up, kinda like saying “the Bible is full of errors.” I think maybe a lot of teaching is misguided, but that’s not something that can be applied universally. I’m sick and tired of negativity from the pulpit, which had a lot to do with me leaving that job and that church. Things improved over time, but then it got so I couldn’t stand some of the people. You shouldn’t be miserable in church, and there were people who were insistent on making my life miserable. I don’t think it was anything personal against me per se, more like I felt I had to set aside my principles. You’ve seen me write about money and value, but no amount of money is worth compromised principles. Values of love, gentleness, kindness, compassion, and mercy always transcend dollar signs. And that’s when you stop caring that this is your friend, or family, or even your RELIGION that something has to change.
In other words...you think preachers are bad? I’ve been on church staff for nearly two decades now. I promise you, those people sitting in the pews can be MUCH worse!! !
Hypocritical? Try going to the Southern Baptist Convention national conference sometime. Actually...association meetings are really amusing. They tell you it’s not a competition, then IMMEDIATELY start discussing Sunday school average attendance. My point is you’re going to find that everywhere. The fact is that people who don’t want to believe aren’t going to. If you’re looking for hypocrites, you’ll find them. If you assume theology is over your head, you aren’t going to try to understand it. Protected by church walls instead of reaching the homeless? I’ve been homeless. Nobody turned me away. Prior to being homeless we did experience an incident when my wife was forced to leave the church building. The people involved soon after realized it was a mistake and it never happened again. Within a few short years all those people left the church. But rejecting the homeless? psshhh... The doors were always open. Homeless and drunks could come in any time...and sometimes did. As long as they didn’t disrupt church they could stay.
I remember one mentally unstable guy that decided to play drums for us. We all gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while until we noticed some odd behavior, then he demanded money for a volunteer gig. Then one day he started wandering through the sanctuary, which unsettled several people, and he tried to completely take over sound check. He became completely out of control. So the first thing we did was kick him out of the band. We had to, we couldn’t work with him. Within a week he’d moved on elsewhere, but he honestly needed professional help. Last I heard he’d made it back to his parents’ house and got his meds straightened out. But the thing is...we honestly gave this guy a chance. I don’t blame him for having a mental illness, that’s not his fault, but flaky behavior and disturbing others is not something we can have in the praise and worship band. Heck, bar bands kick you out for less than that. Heck, I’VE gotten fired from a band for less than that. You can’t condemn the actions of someone for wanting to maintain order in a worship service, especially when the person causing a disruption is ON THE PLATFORM.
But we didn’t say he couldn’t stay at church. It was his decision to leave. We have turned away people who were drunk or high because they DID pose a danger to themselves and others. We’ve had homeless and beggars show up asking for money, and we did what we always do: Invited them to worship with us. Why? Because we believe that the condition of the soul is more important. We believe in supporting each other. How many times did anyone stay? I think MAYBE I’ve seen someone stay ONCE in over ten years with that church. Not our choice to run them off, but their choice to leave. Despite some things I’ve said about that church, they did support a community counseling center (with licensed therapists), food drives with members volunteering to deliver food door-to-door, outdoor events that the surrounding community was invited to, community basketball teams that met on church grounds, and programs that did help people with food or poor travelers with gas to get them to the next town.
Besides, I don’t think you can reasonably fault Christians for the plight of OTHER people. I didn’t make someone homeless, or drunk, or drug addicted, or mentally ill. I’ve seen the church treat these people better than they treated me and and my family. Nobody ever helped me with a motel room when I didn’t have a home. Nobody ever filled up my car with gas. Nobody just handed me a job when I was desperate. Nobody bought me a meal when I was pulling leftovers out of someone’s garbage can. Yet perfect strangers got all these things and more. Do I have an explanation for that? No, I don’t, except sometimes people just suck. But I never got anywhere being jealous of these people or feeling sorry for myself. But my church didn’t make me homeless or hungry. The church didn’t take away my day job or fire my wife for getting pregnant. And the homeless, insane, and impoverished people in the neighborhood surrounding that church were not made they way they are by the church. There is nothing wrong in creating a safe space for worship.
The kinds of people who are going to blame the church for things that the church didn’t cause aren’t going to see anything any differently than how they want to see it. If that’s you and you meet ONE hypocrite in the church, then you’ll assume we’re ALL hypocrites. Well...as long as the church is doing what’s right, then what’s objectively good for the individual is good for the church: we don’t need to worry about what everyone else thinks of us. We have a collective memory of persecution, mockery, and abuse, so popular disapproval is among the least of our worries. Historically, a church that met with secular grace was at high theological risk. Genuine seekers don’t feel the need to be so disparaging.
27 May 2021, 6:24 pm
