check out this blog from Pastor Craig Groeschel, someone I hold in high esteem.
I was talking to a guy on a plane about God. When I asked him if he went to church, he explained politely that he wasn’t interested. I asked him why he wasn’t and he said matter of factly, “Because I’ve already been and nothing happened.”
Maybe he went to a “safe” church.
In a safe church:
The message makes you feel better.
You’re never confronted about your sin.
No one rocks the boat.
You don’t have to change.
You may never truly encounter our Holy and Life-giving God.
When I read about the New Testament Church, it was filled with people with a dangerous faith. While we certainly should make our environments welcoming, our message should remain dangerous.
We’re called to leave everything to follow Christ.
We’re invited to believe God for the impossible.
We’re told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
We’re told that to find our life we have to lose it first.
There is nothing safe about that message. May our churches become a safe place to encounter a dangerous message.
What are some of the ways you offer a welcoming environment while presenting a dangerous message?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
YES.
Jesus is not a hippy with flowers in one hand and waving the "peace sign" with the other. He is fearless. Peter was dangerous, Paul was courageous, Stephen was amazingly fearless and full of wisdom. I want to be like that...like Jesus!
That is why we are a part of Mosaic.
Good posting!!! I fully agree with this.
I have been to Catholic churches, most Protestant churches (no 7th Day Adventists or Pentacostals yet), Jewish synagogues, Buddhist temples, a Muslim mosque and have invited Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses into my own home to discuss their religious claims.
Most of their claims, in my view, are equally as dangerous because they assert that humans are flawed from birth (through no fault of their own) and that they need to submit to representative authority in order to find self-worth and real value.
I find it extremely strange (and a bit disturbing and dangerous) that many western and middle eastern religious adherents list their deity "first and foremost" in importance and their real live and loving families (including their children) second followed by the actual community in which they live.
"Oz never gave nothing to the Tin Man that he didn't already have" nearly always comes to mind when this topic is discussed.
By the way, a rather humorous tangent is that I am named after Stephen, the first Christian martyr!
;0)
"Most of their claims, in my view, are equally as dangerous because they assert that humans are flawed from birth (through no fault of their own)" -Steve
That dangerous to what? One's ego? One's sense of self-righteousness?
"and that they need to submit to representative authority in order to find self-worth and real value."
-Steve
That is dangerous to what? One's abiility to do what they want, when they want, free from an objective standard of morality?
Hi Matthew!
It is dangerous in that it intentionally and without evidence reduces humanity to a primarily despairing condition which, in my view, is immoral.
It has little to do with self-righteousness or an inflated egotistical selfishness.
It is psychological abuse that asserts *less than* any good value, by default.
According to the Christian mythology, humankind is born flawed because of the condition of "sin" and that simply isn't true.
We are thermonuclear rarities within a brilliant cosmos and participating in the wondrous flux of the universe in plain view.
The limiting imagery and symbolism of most religions, in my opinion, reduce us to some sort of badly scripted fiction novel by Tim LaHaye or L. Ron Hubbard that requires believers to feel worthless so that they can then be offered the alleged "cure" provided by the relative representative authority.
It is classic cult training methodology no matter the size of the ideology or group.
"God and Satan, angels and demons fighting it out on planet Earth for the eternal souls of a cursed race of primitive clay people."
I find such mythology uninspiring and rather dull given the grand adventure of life, the universe and everything in plain view.
I understand that you may disagree.
Now, please define (if you can) what is *your* definition of an "objective standard of morality"?
Thanks!
Steve
Yes Steve,
The idea that we are all sinners does play well into the idea that we need someone, namely Jesus, to save us from sin.
Like Jesus said: "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." -Mark 2
So yes, confessing you are a sinner is a pre-requisite to becoming a true Christian.
"Now, please define (if you can) what is *your* definition of an "objective standard of morality"?" -Steve
I'm really not sure how else to say it. The phrase, "objective standard of morality" is about as clear and concise as I was shooting for.
Please define what *you* believe is an "objective moral standard", Matthew.
Is it moral to eat a cow?
Do you eat cows?
Is it moral to eat a cat?
Do you eat cats?
What methodology did you use to come to the conclusion that Christianity provides a superior moral standard?
If one Christian says that slavery is condoned in the Bible and another Christian says that it is not, who is promoting the correct moral standard?
If one Christian says it is acceptable for loving human beings of the same gender to marry and another Christian says it is not, who is promoting the correct moral standard?
Isn't the existence of assorted religions, each asserting divine moral standards, proof that even religious moral standards are subjective and relative to things like culture or modernity or interpretation?
Given the primary assertion that humans are flawed with sin and cannot know everything, how can you be certain that you are correct regarding what an unknowable deity beyond space and time actually has as a moral standard?
If you merely mimic the behavior of such a deity as depicted in the Christian mythology and declare it "objective morality" and this being is said to murder first born male infants in their cribs, isn't that just the tyranny of "might makes right" and not any real objective morality at all?
These are not rhetorical questions, by the way, so feel free to try to provide your answers directly.
Thanks!
Steve
"What methodology did you use to come to the conclusion that Christianity provides a superior moral standard?" -Steve
I was raised Catholic, then became an athiest during high school some time after believing in evolution as taught in my 8th grade biology class.
A first saw a glimmer of hope for God's existence during an open forum at Oregon State University. A man claimed that the bible is the only 'sacred text' that dares base its validity on fulfilled prophecy. That started a gradual process of my coming to faith.
So to answer your question, I do believe that Christianity provides a superior moral standard, but honesstly this is not the primary reason I came to faith. I believe in the moral standard because I first believed in God and His only begotten Son Jesus as portrayed in the bible. Acceptance of and adherence to biblical morality follows from this faith (although I have a long way to go in this!!).
"how can you be certain that you are correct regarding what an unknowable deity beyond space and time actually has as a moral standard?" -Steve
Because that Deity beyond space and time sent his Son to the Earth, who provided an extremely challenging moral standard (ref Matthew 5 and 6)
Hi Matthew!
“Atheist” is spelled “ei” and not “ie”.
I don’t mean to be overly pedantic, however, in my many years of discussion with religious adherents, that particular observation really has come to be an indicator that the claim of ever being an “atheist” could be just rhetoric.
All atheists I have met know how important it is to (at the very least) spell the word correctly.
Of course, there *are* notable reasons why some folk would sincerely and very honestly assert that they are “atheists” at some point in their lives based on emotional issues, perceived injustices, the problem of “evil” (PoE), etc., that are not related to actual diligent research and a deep critical analysis of all religious claims, so it is reasonable for me to accept that you really and wholeheartedly did perceive yourself as a non-believer in Christianity for a time.
As for the theory of evolution, you may find the following link handy:
http://ncseweb.org/
It is a foundation made up of 4000 scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious affiliations so it should be considered a valuable open resource not limited to any offensive sectarian agenda.
So, to be clear, you are saying that the stories referencing already annotated Jewish ancestral tradition that asserts concluding “prophecy” and which was then voted into existence based upon such “conclusions” (assertions) by Roman authority in 325 CD Nicaea, convinced you of the veracity of Christianity over *all* of the other religious claims which do the same thing?
I just have to add that “might makes right” is the Christian ethical standard as evidenced by the horrible behavior of such a deity.
Isn’t “the son” *also* “the deity”?
I ask this because not only does the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Mormon deity fail the test of decent morals and ethics (as depicted in the tales), but it also fails the test of basic fifth grade logic.
Let me be clear, for *all* who have expressed an interest in our discussions by clicking on the links and reading our words here:
From the beginning story of a *beguiling talking serpent* that deceives clay people created as fully formed adults, to the story of a burning bush *that does burn* but speaks divine messages to a desert nomad, to the divinely etched stone tablets from *a harbinger beyond the universe*, to whispers of new *absolute* directives to another desert nomad in the middle east, to ever more new private messages and *absolute* directives etched onto golden plates, we should easily observe that these are merely manipulative fables crafted by representative authority with dubious intent.
Again, sending an innocent human being to be sacrificed in a brutal and tortuous way so that others can be absolved of their own behavior is *not* justice.
Further, it is not (in my view) an acceptable moral tenet that *any* society on earth (even the most totalitarian and abhorrent brutal regime) would accept as a practical jurisprudence.
Thoughtfully yours,
Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS
So, to be clear, you are saying that the stories referencing already annotated Jewish ancestral tradition that asserts concluding “prophecy” and which was then voted into existence based upon such “conclusions” (assertions) by Roman authority in 325 CD Nicaea, convinced you of the veracity of Christianity over *all* of the other religious claims which do the same thing? No. You are the only one saying that the New Testament scriptures were 'voted into existence'. What is your source? What is your reasoning? What does this have to do with Nicea and 325 AD? Please be specific.
Post a Comment