Al Mohler has caught up to a controversy that’s been talked about for years in Christendom. In a post last week at his website ¹, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president — I’m sorry to say this — breathed new life into the issue.

Without outlining my own position just yet, here’s an overview of three Christian views on yoga.

1. Pagans came up with yoga for false-religious reasons. Its belief basis, meditations, ideas about the human body, poses and breathing methods do not honor God. Therefore Christians should shun everything about the practice, not wanting to worship idols.
2. While pagans may have come up with yoga for wrong reasons, I as a Christian should be able to do it, even the meditating and whatever, and I’m okay. What’s wrong with it?
3. Yoga began as a system of exercise based on anti-Christian beliefs. Wise Christians will employ Biblically based discernment to weed out the junk, not wanting to dishonor God (and waste their time!) with false religious beliefs. However, although almost any Thing in the world (such as food) may be invented or sold with anti-God motivations (definition: any motivation not sanctified by the Spirit!), a Christian may stretch or exercise in a way that yoga practitioners just happened to popularize first, and not dishonor God.

Mohler takes a stance

This past spring I joined an anti-yoga Facebook group and participated, not because I believed in the group-starter’s beliefs (ahem), but because I wanted to stretch my mind (ahem) and take part in an intellectual exercise and learn (ahem!). That didn’t go over too well with other group “members,” most of whom were anti-Christian activists, polite and otherwise, who had more-crucial issues to complain about. But I did get a column out of it (plus a short sequel).

Still I stand by my conclusions then, that yoga poses, stretches and even breathing techniques and the like are almost direct equivalents to the “meat offered to idols” the Apostle Paul talks about in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.

It seems Mohler doesn’t bring up that issue. To him, perhaps, not discerning yoga as a false religion is the main Problem in Christendom.

Do I agree this is likely Christians’ biggest problem? Yes.

Will I also ask rhetorically whether Mohler may be skipping over potential lesser problems? Yes.

He won’t know anyway, that I’m about to first, quote from his column:

[A] significant number of American Christians either experiment with yoga or become adherents of some yoga discipline. Most seem unaware that yoga cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in yoga, and the exercises and disciplines of yoga are meant to connect with the divine.

… then rework it just a bit, like so:

[A] significant number of Corinthian Christians either taste-test meat offered to idols or become adherents of some pagan temple worship service. Most seem unaware that eating these meats cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in idol-worship, and the exercises and disciplines of eating such meats are meant to connect with the divine.

This changes things somewhat — especially if we also remember that Paul did not say this or anything similar. Rather, the apostle said that while evil is real and we should not participate in actually worshiping demons, nothing is intrinsically wrong with the meats.

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10: 19-30

Spiritual freedom restrictions

A Christian’s only restrictions on doing something that could look evil but is not actually evil, are not based on the possibility that they’ll actually honor a demon by accident. Instead a Christian should avoid eating because another brother, with a conscientious objection, might be hurt.

That’s the catch. Freedom is what we have in Christ, Paul says. But as he himself gave up his freedom for His sake, we should take into account a Christian brother’s honest difficulties.

As I disclaimed in my first column on the issue:

[L]et us assume you are a newer Christian, or truly a more-sensitive sister. Such a person could have experience with an actual pagan-saturated practice of yoga, and want to avoid it. Why? For the same reason that a new Christian with an alcoholic past might avoid any restaurant with a bar: He might be tempted to fall back into that sinful habit that dishonors the Lord he loves.

So if you had a background in New Age practices, paganism or religion-saturated yoga, I would not be telling you like this that certain parts of yoga might be okay. Instead, I would encourage you to think about where the real sin comes from — as I’m doing now. But then I would back off and let God and you make your own decisions and whether it would be sinful for you.

Will the real compromise stand up?

Yet what about Mohler, and other Christians — such as a pastor friend of mine — who either merely bypass another potential problem of the yoga issue (blaming a neutral Thing for sin), or else directly state that you simply can’t have yoga’s physical part without its spiritual part?

For example, Mohler seems to acknowledge an inherent neutrality of yoga-esque positions:

There is nothing wrong with physical exercise, and yoga positions in themselves are not the main issue.

… yet then immediately adds:

But these positions are teaching postures with a spiritual purpose. Consider this — if you have to meditate intensely in order to achieve or to maintain a physical posture, it is no longer merely a physical posture.

Agreed with the meditation part: any connotation, in or outside of Christendom, of meditation without a preposition (we meditate on Christ, on His Word!) comes not from Scripture but from false religion, and has no place for a Christian. It’s also a tremendous waste of time.

But how can a position of the human body teach anything, especially if it is undertaken by a Christian who can and does separate it from its pagan origins?

Isn’t this equivalent to saying “even if you don’t eat meat in a temple as part of a false religious ceremony, the meat itself would teach you to worship idols”?

Furthering Mohler’s point, a pastor acquaintance of mine — whom I much respect — asked this:

There is a difference between accidentally striking a pose and deliberately learning and imitating yoga techniques. To think that we can separate the physical from the spiritual in this matter is to not understand eastern religion.

In response I asked: “But why should we assume that what Eastern religion believes is right?”

Put another way, let’s consider only two of the yoga positions, ruling out the second, which both no. 1 and no. 3 believe is wrong (i.e., Why can’t I practice everything about yoga, it’s okay, right? and I can meditate — without a preposition — and still love Jesus!).

1. We can’t separate the physical and spiritual components of yoga, so we need to avoid it all. Eastern religion says the physical and spiritual components of yoga can’t be divided.
2. We can indeed separate the physical and spiritual components of yoga, and perhaps assume a yoga-esque position, intentionally, for exercise, rejecting false beliefs.

Now I ask: which view here has actually bought into Eastern religious beliefs?

As for me, I say the Eastern-religious can’t-divide claim is hokum, just like the notion that meat offered to idols automatically gives credit to idols wherever it goes. And while I don’t believe Christians who take the Eastern-religious concepts at their word do so intentionally, I have also begun to wonder whether they’re not avoiding Things not out of concern for weaker brothers, but because the Bad Guys say they’ve “claimed” them and the Christians just go along with it.

What testimony are Christians giving to others about where we believe sin actually originates?

By the way, quasi-sabbatical over. Back to work, now writing three entries three times a week.

Catching up with other things after returning from a writers’ conference over the weekend. Whether I continue with daily columns, weekly or twice-weekly here, I’m not sure, but I need a few days to re-work my schedule. I’ll be back on the other side! …

Today I’m making my first-ever cross-post. That’s partly because I’m still preparing for that conference, and partly because today my topic on Speculative Faith relates to nonfiction Christian doctrines (including vocation) just as much as the fiction field.

So go and read Learning from bad books, part 2, which begins like so:

When I grow up, get old, and very likely die, and go to Heaven, I anticipate at least three things:

1. Finally getting to see the face of Jesus.
2. Reunions with Biblical saints, other faith heroes, perhaps household pets, etc.
3. Novels will surely be published based on their inherent virtue, not Big Christian Names.

No. 3 is an issue of what Christian theologians (and writers who want to use theology terms) call adiaphora. Unlike, say, plagiarism or claiming to write a book you haven’t, it’s not sinful for a Big-Name Christian to try his hand at writing novels, and have an advantage over others because he has a Big Name.

Yet I wonder if it’s wise. And perhaps it’s even a violation of the Bible’s direct and implied teachings on spiritual gifts and God-glorifying vocations.

Paul wrote that the hand shouldn’t say to the eye, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12). But what happens when the eye (say, a famous pastor or nonfiction author) says back to the hand (in this case, a novelist), “Hey — I want your job”? And what does Scripture tell us about Christians who have different gifts and callings — are some of these more “spiritual” than others? Read more …

This week won’t bring longer, original columns to YeHaveHeard. I’m preparing for the American Christian Fiction Writers’ conference this weekend, which involves balancing several tasks:

• Trying to get actual sleep, and not lie awake thinking about Projects.
• Keeping up with two blogs, one for fiction and mostly taken care of by other writers, the other nonfiction-based.
• Keeping up with my day job as community journalist (these are not necessarily listed in order of priority!).
• Packing up actual, physical supplies for my pending trip: clothes, books, electronic chargers, papers, more books, etc.
• Revising a blurb and longer synopsis for my fiction work in progress.
• Anticipating meeting well-known authors, and fellow writers in “speculative” genres, and wondering how we’ll all get together.
• Praying to maintain a Biblical balance between humility and Godward ambition.

Meanwhile, fellow fiction-writer and blogger on Speculative Faith, Rebecca Miller, has been switching between fiction and nonfiction topics on her site, A Christian Worldview of Fiction. Recently she overviewed the very real, and frankly irrefutable, differences between Christian and Mormon understandings of vital doctrines, especially who Jesus Christ is.

It seems that while many people are hastening to say they love Jesus and don’t want to be labeled “Christians,” Mormons are chasing after the “Christian” label. We’re not that different from you evangelicals! I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad.

Rebecca summarizes Mormons’ teachings about God and Jesus and things, presenting their quotes for comparison. Then she notes:

Need I go on? There is more—much, much more. But here’s the point. When a Christian listens to what Glenn Beck says about his faith, it’s easy to be confused. Here’s what one pastor said about Beck:

I have listened and watched very carefully regarding clues to Glenn’s spiritual condition. I have interviewed several people who have been with him and have talked very specifically with him regarding his own personal salvation. Glenn has said unequivocally that that he relies on the atonement of Jesus on the cross for forgiveness for his sins, and those are almost the exact words. Few people use the term atonement. Glenn did.

I’m sure he did. The problem is, when he uses the word atonement, he doesn’t mean the same thing a Christian does any more than when he says Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the ensuing comments are most interesting, from Christians to be sure (including a professing former Mormon), but also from a man who, judging from his defense of Mormonism, seems to adhere to their beliefs. This commentator, named Seth, said that such claims about Mormonism’s differences are grounded in the (supposedly false) notion that one can be a Christian and not believe in salvation by grace alone.

Which seems to me to be rather sketchy on your part. It is quite obvious from the New Testament that Jesus required baptism at least, no matter how you are reading what Paul later said.

And given the work being done by Protestant scholars on the “New Perspective on Paul” – I think your biblical basis for declaring grace-alone is somewhat suspect as well.

I wonder what N.T. Wright would think if he knew his “new perspective” work was being used by Mormons to defend their views. Many maintain Wright’s ideas undermine the truth that our righteousness is Jesus alone, not our own works we offer Him.

Anyway, my replies are reproduced below, though it’s well worth heading over to A Christian Worldview of Fiction for the rest.

Seth, it doesn’t seem like you’re providing much direct Biblical support to back up your points. So far it’s not adding much to the discussion — nor does it seem to respect the words of Jesus, Who never made baptism a condition for salvation (?); or even the words of Joseph Smith, who couldn’t have been clearer when he started Mormonism that it was in opposition to Biblical Christianity.

[Referring to Rebecca's earlier summary of Christian essential beliefs:] Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all tenants of Mormon doctrine and things we would have no disagreement with.

Number 1 posits that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all One and always existed. This is contrary to Mormonism, whose tenet is that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and as a human He is the result of physical union between God the Father and Mary (one of who-knows-how-many unions that have taken place in parallel universes). God is not eternal; He was once a man in a world like ours, and has a “Mrs. God,” and they birth spirit children.

Number 2 directly contradicts the Mormon notion that Jesus saves all the way, then people add works. This steals glory from God and taking it for ourselves, and detracting from His revealed glory and the horror of any sin in His sight.

That’s enough for now. I hope you will consider these, and not just wait for an emotional signal that this is true, but search the Scriptures.

#5 sets the uniquely Protestant notion of “grace-alone” as a requirement for being considered “Christian.”

Which seems to me to be rather sketchy on your part. It is quite obvious from the New Testament that Jesus required baptism at least, no matter how you are reading what Paul later said.

Please show from a Biblical text when Jesus said baptism was required for salvation, and not merely a sacrament that (like works) confirms one’s new life.

And given the work being done by Protestant scholars on the “New Perspective on Paul” – I think your biblical basis for declaring grace-alone is somewhat suspect as well.

Please also show from Scripture that the “old perspective” on Paul wasn’t Biblical.

Another point worth exploring is why Paul took the time to admonish the Galatians so severely if they actually were pretty close to the truth that once they were saved, they could take off with their own works and not worry so much about grace alone.

[...]

[I]f we want to move forward with this discussion, I wonder if perhaps we might focus on what Scripture says, and not necessarily whether a belief system has Internal Consistency.Hyper-Calvinism has Internal Consistency, but it’s not Biblical; and Mormonism may have Internal Consistency, but also be inconsistent with Scripture.

Therefore, I suggest that we test these things with Scripture and see if they are so. Game for that? It might be a more interesting discussion for certain, rather than some of the more-heated rhetoric on whatever that other blog is.

(For the record: some evangelicals seem confused about whether to work with Mormons, such as Glenn Beck, politically. Based on Scriptures such as Romans 13, I believe Christians can ally with those of other religions on political and even moral issues, but Christians should avoid giving the connotation that they and Mormons worship the same God or believe in the same Jesus and Gospel. So it seems Becky and myself share a similar view.)

My questions above, about if Jesus said baptism was a requirement for salvation or why Paul admonished the Galatians, seems a good place to start. …

He still hasn’t gotten back to me about when “Jesus required baptism” for salvation. Perhaps someone can explain the source of this claim?

Even before all the uproar over Qur’an burning activists, Time magazine was patiently trying to explain to ignorant reader that they ought not take seriously those who read the Islamic book a certain way:

The arguments marshaled by Islam’s detractors have become familiar: Since most terrorist attacks are conducted by Muslims and in the name of their faith, Islam must be a violent creed. Passages of the Koran taken out of context are brandished as evidence that Islam requires believers to kill or convert all others.¹

Just one problem, noted author Mike Wittmer. Neither the Time writer, nor others who often claim “the Qu’ran is taken out of context,” specify a true context — or defend the notion that the Qur’an even contains a context from which to depart:

Taken out of context?  The Koran does not tell a developing story, as does the Bible, but arranges its chapters by length, from larger to smaller.  So unlike the Bible, where it is inappropriate to pull a verse from Leviticus to say that Christians shouldn’t eat Gulf coast shrimp (God gave us common sense for that), there is no such context in the Koran.  How can you take something out of context that doesn’t have a context? ²

Already I’d been reminded by a church friend that the Qur’an is not like the Bible. She witnesses to moderate-Muslim friends and has herself read the Qur’an. It’s very random, she has said in our Bible study group. A lot of exhortations and commands strung together. It’s not like the Bible, which has so many different kinds of books: narratives, poetry, prophesies, doctrinal expositions, each of which follows specific rules of meaning discernment, and each of which tells more of the main story: the Gospel of Christ.

So who is right about the Qu’ran: moderate Muslims who emphasize tolerance, or those who run with verses encouraging physical jihad? And if the book isn’t internally consistent, or even subject to provable reading-for-original-meanings methods, does it even matter?

In Passion and Purity, Elisabeth Elliot uses her love story with her first husband Jim Elliot to illustrate the practical principles of the book’s subtitle: bringing your love life under Christ’s control.

For five years she and Jim waited to pursue their relationship, because Jim knew he needed to be single for the missionary work he was undertaking at that time. During this period, Elisabeth kept detailed diaries recording her thoughts, prayers, and struggles with submitting to God’s will. It was not an easy road, but through Christ Jim and Elisabeth were able to offer their love to God and accept when His answer was “not yet.” It’s a profound lesson, and all the more when the blessing denied is such a wonderful one.

I was disappointed somewhat because I thought this book would be primarily about how to move toward purity, with some examples from Elisabeth’s life to illustrate her points. But instead it was the other way around — very autobiographical, with the principles of submission and holiness explored more incidentally.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. I just found myself not quite so interested in the details of her relationships with God and Jim; I wanted more focus on Scripture and practical purity. More structure would have been helpful, too.

Another thing I found problematic were some of Jim’s letters that Elisabeth quotes. Several were extremely open and honest about his sexual desire for her. I’m not a prude and I think physical desire is a gift of God and absolutely has to be addressed in any book about purity, but the desire expressed in his letters was so intensely private and very suggestive — not sinful, but not to be placed before the public eye. Some of it was so explicit as to conjure ideas that I needed to instantly dismiss. I think this places a huge limitation on how we can use and recommend this book, especially with teens.

Elisabeth frequently quotes old hymns and poems, and I found this wearing after awhile. The spiritual principles represented are timeless, but not every hymn or poem is. I like many old hymns and enjoy archaic language in poetry, and I understand they were extremely meaningful to her as she worked through these issues. These elements are just overused to the point of near-tedium.

So that’s a lot of negativity about the book. The things I liked can best be explored by quoting Elisabeth’s own words:

I am convinced that the human heart hungers for constancy… There is dullness, monotony, sheer boredom in all of life when virginity and purity are no longer protected and prized. By trying to grab fulfillment everywhere, we find it nowhere. (21)

So long as our idea of surrender is limited to the renouncing of unlawful things, we have never grasped its full meaning… (Lilias Trotter, 37)

Waiting on God requires the willingness to bear uncertainty, to carry within oneself the unanswered question, lifting the heart to God about it whenever it intrudes upon one’s thoughts. (59)

Waiting silently is the hardest thing of all… But the things that we feel most deeply we ought to learn to be silent about, at least until we have talked them over thoroughly with God. (60)

God gives us material for sacrifice. Sometimes the sacrifice makes little sense to others, but when offered to Him it is always accepted. (64)

Our vision is so limited that we can hardly imagine a love that does not express itself in protection from suffering. (84)

It is the control of passion, not its eradication, that is needed. How would we learn to submit to the authority of Christ if we had nothing to submit? (90)

There are some good principles here and I did not dislike the book overall. But this is mainly an autobiographical work and those who want a structured, organized, practical approach to biblical purity should probably look elsewhere.

Christmas is coming early this year for those who enjoy knowing and applying Biblical doctrine, and engaging in the day’s political issues from a Christian perspective.

That’s because Politics According to the Bible, 600 pages of Scripture-and-modern-issues magic, has recently released. Perhaps it comes just in time, just when some had begun wondering: okay, we know there are issues with Christians partnering with false-religion types like Glenn Beck, but how can we ally with other people for political and not religious reasons?

Politics According to the Bible may help answer this question. And especially for those on the young-restless-Reformed side who might be tempted to overcorrect for evangelical political excesses — “let’s just preach the Gospel!” — this is the perfect author for them.

Why? Because it’s written by Wayne “Systematic Theology” Grudem.

I’ve already added this book to my Amazon cart, and it is very rare I do that so fast — or that I do little more in a blog post besides shell for something new. Currently the book, listed at retail for $39.99, is on sale for $26.39. Get it while it’s hot (and with this Beck stuff ongoing, it is).

Here’s how I found out about this: from Justin Taylor, just Wednesday after the book released. Taylor summarizes Grudem’s chapter titles, and offer a free download (PDF) of chapter 1:

Part 1: Basic Principles

Chapter 1: Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government

Chapter 2: A Better Solution: Significant Christian Influence on Government

Chapter 3: Biblical Principles Concerning Government

Chapter 4: A Biblical Worldview

Chapter 5: The Courts and the Question of Ultimate Power in a Nation

No, that’s not the entire book. Those titles encompass its first 157 pages. Chapter 1 critiques “Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government.” So far I’ve focused on C and D:

A. Government should compel religion 23

B. Government should exclude religion 29

C. All government is evil and demonic 36

D. Do evangelism, not politics 44

E. Do politics, not evangelism 53

Under “Do evangelism, not politics,” Grudem actually critiques someone close to his own side, John McArthur, whom I hadn’t known took such a just-preach-the-Gospel approach to political involvement. (This seems to downplay the nature of our role as dual citizens, of the After-world and the current Old Earth, and our multiple vocations, primarily as God’s adopted sons but also as workers in different fields — including Ministry, business, art, motherhood, and/or politics.)

In response, Grudem does not offer a gospel of Better-Christianity-through-Politics, but shows that the Gospel, though based vitally in the message of God saving sinners, brings more results:

1. Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God

While I agree with Thomas and MacArthur on many other things, I cannot agree with their disparagement of the value of Christian political involvement for God’s purposes on this earth. I think it represents too narrow an understanding of the work of God’s kingdom and of the nature of the Christian gospel message.

“The Gospel” in the New Testament is not just “trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven” (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message). No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life! Jesus said,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20).

The phrase “all that I have commanded you” means more than John 3:16, as wonderful as that verse is. All that Jesus commanded includes everything that he taught as recorded in the four Gospels. This is because Jesus promised his disciples not only that the Holy Spirit would “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26), but also that the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things” (v. 26) and will “guide you into all the truth” (16:13).

Grudem goes on to question McArthur’s belief that modern governments’ natures don’t matter:

The ideal human government can ultimately do nothing to advance God’s kingdom, and the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s Word.

I think of the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Even if the dictatorial, oppressive government of North Korea has not completely halted the spread of God’s Word, its severe persecution has hindered it so much that millions of North Koreans are born, live, and die without ever hearing of Jesus Christ, and North Korea sends out zero missionaries. By contrast, the church in South Korea, where the government has allowed freedom, is growing, thriving, and sending missionaries around the world. Or compare the relatively small, repressed church in Cuba, which is unable to send out any missionaries anywhere, with the growing, thriving churches throughout many Latin American countries that have more freedom. Governments do make a difference to the work of God’s kingdom. This is why Paul urged that prayers be made “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). That is, good governments help people to live a “peaceful” and “godly” life, and bad governments hinder that.

Can a theologian and Kingdom citizen be a patriot in an Old-Earth nation? Grudem seems to think so, and offers to prove his case from Scripture — along with secondary appeals to less-overt Biblical implications, and also references to facts.

So I highly anticipate reading his work, and catching up on something Christians may too easily miss: the Gospel is not a social gospel, and not a political gospel, but it does have implications for society and politics. Moreover, God’s people are indeed called, while they wait for the Kingdom, to be good citizens and teach His commandments on Old Earth.

I am well aware that the Bible is not an American book, for it was finished nearly 1,700 years before the United States existed! The principles and teachings in the Bible contain wisdom that is helpful for all nations and all governments. Therefore I have tried to keep in mind that people in other nations might read this book and find it useful for formulating their own positions on the political issues that they face in their own nations. Yet in my examples and my choice of political issues, I focus primarily on the United States, because that is the country I know best, the country I am proud to be a citizen of, and the country I deeply love.

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6.)

Salt, light, leaven

Given our proclivity to define Christianity in terms of the stupendous and cataclysmic—miraculous deliverances, Damascus Road conversions, Great Awakenings—we are uncomfortable with metaphors that speak of imperceptible growth and gradual advance. However, these are the metaphors given to us.

Green Beret Christians often prefer the quick fix to painful surgery and long-term recovery. They hate the notion of patient plodding. In fact, given their addiction to the intense feelings produced within the renewal movement, they refuse to accept any so-called wisdom that plans in terms of organic, seasonal growth. The only metaphors they find acceptable are military ones. But even with this metaphor, we must remember that not everyone is called to be in the Special Forces.

God has called all of us to be salt, light and leaven.

To be salty is to have godly character, to be a faithful person. Salty people display covenantal love and loyalty to God and to others. By letting our light shine we display His grace by our good works so that the world will see and glorify the Father. As leaven, we seek to obey God in every area of life. We. are good seed planted in the soil of our neighborhoods, cities and nation.

Neither my specific calling and gifting, nor yours, are the standard for all Christians to aspire. Even if some are Green Berets, they make up only a very small portion of God’s Army. Let us all run the course set before us and try not to run someone else’s race or require that everyone compete on our track.

You may be a rogue Green Beret if …

You are obsessed with The Cause more than with Christ.

You judge churches and fellow believers by the standard of your Cause.

You are driven rather than inspired.

You rarely leave the battlefield, and, when you do, you never take off your uniform.

You define yourself solely in terms of your Cause.

Your house is a boot camp rather than a home.

You go through friendships like a nicotine fiend goes through a pack of cigarettes.

You define “enemy” as all who disagree with you.

You judge other Christians by the intensity of their personalities rather than by the godliness of their character.

You have more commandments than God does.

You feel it your mission in life to rid the church of tares.

You believe that Sabbaths are for wimps.

You believe that those who indulge in hobbies are failing to “redeem the time.”

Your motto is, “It all depends on me.”

You believe that stoicism is a godly attribute.

You always describe the faith in terms of military metaphors and similes.

You cannot laugh at yourself.

You cannot sit alone quietly in a room and do nothing.

You secretly admire the Inquisition’s treatment of “heretics.”

You think General Patton would have made a great pastor.

Author

Dr. Monte E. Wilson is director of Global Impact, a ministry that teaches developing nations how to apply biblical truth to every area of life. He is also editor of Classical Christianity, a teaching publication designed to introduce ecumenical orthodoxy to the evangelical church. Dr. Wilson can be reached at Classical Christianity, P.O. Box 22, Alpharetta, Georgia 30009. He can be reached by E-mail at: MonteThird@aol.com. He has previously contributed to Reformation & Revival Journal.

By Monte E. Wilson ^{1 2}

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.)

Repelled or attracted?

One day at St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, I was sharing the gospel with a young man. He had struck up a conversation about something he had seen on television, and the conversation had turned to spiritual matters. In the twinkling of an eye a bus filled with overzealous young people pulled up and disgorged the occupants. Before you could say, Just-as-I-am-without-one-plea, they had passed out gospel tracts to about a hundred shocked people and were back on the bus pulling out of the parking lot. As they drove off into the sunset, they hung out the windows yelling at everyone, “Jesus is Lord!”

What made those kids (and us) think that unbelievers will be attracted to the gospel by strange behavior? Why did we think that someone who is biblically illiterate will respond positively to the question, “Have you been washed in the blood of the Lamb?” Do we actually think someone will be motivated to seek salvation because he read a sign taped on the side of a car that reads “John 3:16”? Do people run to their prayer closets when they read a bumper sticker that says “God Is My Provider” on the back of a rusted out 1988 Buick?

To help us ascertain our ideas of true “spirituality,” consider two ministers. One man fasts quite often; in fact, he borders on being an ascetic. He preaches to everyone he knows, and is constantly challenging them to repent of , their sins or to expect hell. He rarely passes up an opportunity to expose the immorality of the state’s political leaders, and he never passes up the chance to expose the hypocrisy of church leaders. He is a “Type A” sort of guy who lives an in-your-face religion. His testimony is one of a “prophet” who burns with holiness.

The other man frequents parties and loves socializing with unbelievers. At these parties he frequently refrains from confronting a single soul with the message of the gospel. Other than one protracted fast in the beginning of his ministry, he seldom practices that spiritual discipline. He doesn’t preach often and when he does talk of spiritual matters he tells stories about everyday life. Unlike the first minister, his testimony is a bit muddy. There are questions about the propriety of his having women travel with his ministry team, and the word is that he may like wine a bit too much.

Question: Given our ideas of spirituality, which of these men is more spiritual? Is it John the Baptist or Jesus? Why is that we believe John the Baptist’s lifestyle is the one God expects of us all? Both were obeying God, both fulfilled their calling.

In the early days of the church, when one could be imprisoned and executed for confessing Christ alone as Lord, how did the Christian community “let their light shine”? Did they engage in door-to-door evangelism? Did they hold open-air crusades? How did the average Christian become “salt and light”? Did you know that their church meetings were closed, private affairs?

How did Christians in the first century influence their communities? When the Romans threw their unwanted newborn babies under the bridges, leaving the infants to be carried away by wild dogs, the Christians waited in the shadows, took the children home and raised them as their own. This testimony, over a period of time, won the hearts of many.

What else did they do? They lived peaceable and self-governed lives. When conflicts arose that could not be resolved, the aggrieved parties went to the elders, the church court (1 Cor.). These courts were renown for providing justice. You can imagine how attractive this would be to a society that was utterly corrupt. Gradually, many of the Romans began appealing to these courts for adjudication of their conflicts.

What did these people do to disciple their nation for Christ? They acted justly, they loved mercy and they walked humbly before God (Micah 6:8). They lived their day-to-day lives as Christians. They married, had children, went about fulfilling their vocations, went to church and watched for opportunities to do good to others. No big marches, no boycotts of grocery stores who sold meat to be offered to idols, no Christian entertainment at the Colosseum. Political offices were not an option.

I am not suggesting that organized evangelism is wrong. I am not saying that a John-the-Baptist style of confrontational or sacrificial living is wrong. I am saying that not everyone is called or gifted for such things. I am also saying that for the vast majority of Christians, what God expects of us is to live our normal lives as Christians.

(Tomorrow: Wilson’s conclusion, and “You may be a rogue Green Beret if …” checklist.)

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.)

Green Berets vs. the Apostles and Prophets

Consider what the apostles demanded of the newly converted Gentiles. At the end of the debate considering what requirements to place on the incoming Gentile believers, the apostles decided to lay no burden on these people other than to require that they abstain from things offered to idols, from blood and from things strangled, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15). Watch your testimony, watch your diet, watch your morals. That’s it.

Can you imagine if one of us had been there? “Now, Jim, my boy, this won’t do. These folks need to be called up to a higher place in God. You apostles go up.to the temple every day to pray, and so should these Gentiles. You own only one coat, one pair of sandals, give most all of your money to the poor, and every time I turn around you are fasting. Why not require the same thing of all these new believers? At least let them know that there is a deeper life to which they can attain through a more spiritually rigorous lifestyle … that is, if they can attain the same level of revelation that we have.”

Or what of Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians regarding walking in love with their fellow believers? They were to lead a quiet life, mind their own business and work with their hands (1 Thess. 4:11). Isn’t this the route to true spirituality within a community? Shouldn’t Paul have added that they needed to have special Sunday evening services for the lost, Wednesday night prayer meetings, Thursday night deacons meetings, Friday night home group meetings and Saturday visitation? How in the world did Paul expect these people to grow in love if they weren’t constantly in church together?

Of course, one of the greatest attributes of many modern Green Beret Christians is living as if Jesus were coming back today, Being a disciple of Hal Lindsey, I knew this was it. We had only a few years left. (This was 26 years ago.) Why, pray tell, should we give ourselves to such mundane matters as developing a career, raising a family, seeing our children get married, building an inheritance to leave our grandchildren and getting involved in matters that concerned the welfare of the cities we lived in? What were these lukewarm Christians thinking about when they so easily tripped off to work or bought a new car or put money in savings or ran for a political office? Had they no sense of the times in which we were living? Obviously they must be in need of a revival or the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Or maybe they are not even saved!

I remember one day reading where Jeremiah told the people of Israel who were captive in Babylon to get a life. While the false prophets were running around telling the Israelites they were about to escape from their captivity, Jeremiah said, “Go build houses and live in them, plant gardens and enjoy their fruit, build families so you can multiply in number, and seek the welfare of the city where God has caused you to be carried away captive” (Jer. 29:4-9). Are these words of wisdom for a people who are to come-out -from-among-them -and-be-separate? Certainly we can’t take this tack, can we? This passage was the beginning of the end of my running around the country telling people they had better live like those who were not long for this world. The burning question became, “What if we are still here one hundred years from now?” What sort of world have we left our great-grandchildren? What sort of churches will we leave the generations who follow? Have we left a business to expand, or debts to payoff? Have we left a good foundation for our children to build upon, or will they have to live their lives clearing away the rubble of debris left through our disinterest?

(Monday: Whose ministry style was “better,” John the Baptist or Jesus Himself?)