(Catch up with the start of this series Answering [Bill] Gothard defenders, part 1.)

More questions for ‘Anonymous’

Alas, should have known one of the above comments had a delay in appearing. Anonymous, if you’re still about, it seems I answered your latter points first. But perhaps it was better that way — those seemed to be more important.

Argumentum ad hominem?

Yes, the cover is a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" reference.

I do note, joining some of the others here, that you haven’t attempted to show why I’m wrong according to Scripture, which is something I would be more eager to hear if indeed I’ve missed something. Rather, questioning-the-source and he’s-a-nice-man just aren’t fitting defenses — especially when you’re inconsistently forgetting to do the same with me. Again, I’ll go through, hoping to offer firm yet friendly suggestions for things you might have missed, not just because I’m a Nice Guy, but because the truth of Scripture is at stake here.

1. Quoting from the article “Taliban Dan:. . .” by Sarah Posner, hardly gives this author credibility. Sarah Posner writes for RD (Religion Dispatches). Here’s a bit from their “About Us” page:

“Religion Dispatches is an online magazine devoted to exploring the intersections of religion, values, and public life, nationally and globally. It aims to provide a platform for expert, critical exploration of religion in the contemporary world for a general readership. The goal of RD is to inform public debate by analyzing and critically engaging the role of religion and values on the most vital issues of our time. This will involve bringing a wider spectrum of perspectives into the conversation, especially voices that have been marginalized in most media, and increasing attention to progressive expressions of religion and values.”

This is not a publication aimed at glorifying God—simply analyzing (from a worldly perspective) religion and it’s affect on society.

I knew that already. But that does not mean Gothard isn’t responsible for saying what he said, which denied what Scripture was really saying. In my column, I did allow for the possibility that Gothard said more than what was quoted. However, regardless of her intent, that reporter pricked him, and he failed to bleed Gospel. He also directly contradicted what Jesus was saying about “the servant of all.” This had nothing to do with women secretly ruling the world through “submission.” What He said had everything to do with His male disciples leading through servanthood of others, emulating His own humility, becoming lower than all so that He might later be exalted above all (Philippians 2).

2. Sarah Posner also writes for The American Prospect, among other publications. The American Prospect is, according to the Google description: a “Monthly magazine covering politics, culture, and policy from a liberal perspective.

Is guilt-by-association a Biblical way to discern?

I checked through the article to see if its author treated all Christians that way. Surprisingly, she didn’t. Witness the quotes from other Christians, Don Veinot and Ronald B. Allen, whose rebuttals to Gothard are repeated fairly. They’re not being attacked along with Gothard simply because all claim to be Christian. The author, though admittedly a liberal, is fair. To follow an ad hominem approach without (or even before) dealing with the actual material is neither Biblical nor fitting here.

‘He’s only human’: not an excuse for not discerning

3. Of course there’s going to be sin in the camp—Bill Gothard is human, as are those women and men writing and blogging.

My objection is not to the presence of any “sin in the camp” (Old Testament metaphor) or whining about how Bill Gothard Should be Perfect and Isn’t. My objection to his, and many of his followers’, steady pattern of twisting Scripture to fit spiritual, moralistic Systems, and trusting some unknown Other (if even that) to take care of all that trifling Gospel stuff.

I know some of these women. By and large, they are writing under their husband’s oversight, and have no overt desire for power over others (as in the pyramid scheme model mentioned.)

That’s good to know. Yet in this case, then, it’s Anecdote versus Anecdote: your Anecdote that some women are indeed “submitting” from the heart, while others say they have known women who do it the exact opposite. Rock versus rock — no one wins. Thus my primary objection was not anything like “all women who claim to believe this are hypocrites” (although that’s true in too many cases to be coincidence). My primary point was instead: Gothard himself is inconsistent with his own profession to believe the Gospel, and has twisted this Scripture.

If they are out from under authority, perhaps those select individuals are in sin. By casting the stone does this author assume his own sinlessness?

This is a misapplication of the John 8 passage about the woman caught in adultery (itself a matter of some debate!). Even if accepted as part of the original book of John, this in no way overthrows Christ’s and the apostles’ commandments to be discerning, even if they themselves are not perfect. The apostle Paul knew of his flaws, yet opposed the apostle Peter “to his face” because Peter was clearly in the wrong (Galatians 2).

The presence of sin does not invalidate a ministry. It simply makes that ministry a product of humanity, like every other.

This is a straw man, Anonymous, though my guess is that you didn’t mean it. Your assumption that I’ve argued “Gothard / anyone else sins, thus we reject them” is flawed. Read the above for a reminder of the true reason I objected. And a true believer, even who is accomplishing good ministry elsewhere, should want to seek gracious correction and change accordingly. Sorry, “we all sin” is no excuse. God’s Word calls all believers to seek holiness in the Spirit, even if we are not actually perfect until the resurrection and New Earth.

If this premise were valid, we would have to disestablish or debunk every Christian institution in existence.

Fortunately, no one here has argued that premise; it exists only in your perception. I do wonder, though, why is it that you have (by accident, I’m sure!) “projected” an expectation of perfect teaching on others here?

Twisting Scripture: the real issue

4. The author admits he doesn’t know the rest of the quote.

And has also clarified to say that Gothard here not only missed some other trivial, optional teaching about how Christ is actually the greatest Servant — Gothard actively said something opposite. Even if he scrambled to cover up later, that would have been a self-contradiction as well as a Scripture contradiction. Let us not argue from silence either way. The fact remains: Gothard was pricked, and failed to bleed Gospel. This is understandable for a “baby Christian.” For a popular Christian leader, an elder, it’s inexcusable.

Being a published author, I know that it is dangerous to pull out random quotes from arbitrary sources. That’s just plain poor journalism.

Quite an accusation there. Refer to the above about Gothard’s overt contradiction to Scripture, regardless of whether he corrected himself later. Prove he did do that in that interview, and I’ll issue a correction. The only real objection that could be made is that I’ve misunderstood what he said about women being the real top dogs on Earth because of all their “submission.” So far I haven’t seen that defense attempted.

5. I have spoken with Bill Gothard, and he is not the man this author represents him to be. Of course if you call him on the phone and put him on the spot about a particular issue, and then isolate his comments, you can misrepresent any person in any desired light.

How he speaks in person and whether he is a Nice Guy is irrelevant. I’m sure Joel Osteen, Bart Ehrman and many others are very decent fellows — that doesn’t rule out them being false teachers who need correction.

Another straw man, though: I did not say he’s a rude chap, based on that interview. I said he twisted Scripture. Still that point has not been addressed. As for “it was taken out of context” type defenses, show me the real context, what exactly I’ve misread, to strengthen that charge.

I have friends who know this man well, and know him to be humble, winsome, caring, and personable. He is human and fallible, but no power monger or mind controller.

Again, My Anecdote versus Other People’s Anecdotes. Rock doesn’t beat Rock. I haven’t argued with Anecdotes. But Paper — Scripture — beats everything in this little game. Gothard twisted Scripture. Sadly, game over — unless he were to repent and change. Even more sadly, this has been a pattern.

What he knows of husband-wife relationships and parenting, he knows from extensive study of scripture—a pretty reliable source.

Twisting of Scripture, ignoring simple hermeneutics and the Gospel narrative, as demonstrated in this column, on this site and in other sources (available upon request).

The very sentiment they quote—they mention that he laughed—being light hearted about it—that was his way of trying to lift up a segment of humanity that is often trodden on.

That is only opinion, and again, another Anecdote that doesn’t apply. Lifting up the Downtrodden is a great sentiment — just like Following Authorities or Respecting Your Parents. But do NOT lift these things above the most Downtrodden One of all, the Greatest Servant. Gothard did that, and it was stepping out from under the “umbrella” of Christ’s authority.

Not because he puts any emphasis on that idea, but because he was called and cornered with a specific question about this topic.

Another opinion, which I do hope you’ll revise — not offering Alternate Interpretations or Anecdotes, but showing, from Scripture itself, what I might have gotten wrong and how Gothard is actually right that “being a servant of all” is more about women’s submission than about all Christ’s disciples and especially Christ Himself.

Though I know these latest comments of mine have carried a more-firm demeanor, I still mean them in love and caution, and wish we had the chance to discuss these matters more personally and with a background of relationship and trust in other ways.

YeHaveHeard has been branching out.

Late last month my feature column Bill Gothard and Patriarchy: Re-routed Feminism? appeared on Quivering Daughters. That prompted much discussion about Christian homeschooling/ “character first” teacher Bill Gothard’s public pronouncement that Jesus’ the-greatest-among-you-must-be-the-servant-of-all statement means “that makes the woman the greatest of all because she has served every single person in the world by being in her womb.”

An excerpt, before getting to a few responses to critics (most of them from anonymous):

Perhaps [Gothard] said more, which isn’t shown, about Christ being the greatest Servant, Whom both men and women honor in the ways they serve one another. But if not, he rejected a prime opportunity to point to the Savior his organization claims to follow. Instead he pointed to humans, and to women in particular as in effect the world’s secret rulers — something Christ never meant whenever He taught on true servanthood.

Three passages in Scripture contain Jesus’ reminder that if one wishes to be truly great, he must become the servant of all: Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9:33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48.

In each account, of apparently the same dialogue about seeking servanthood as true greatness, Christ was speaking to His disciples. They were men. Women aren’t mentioned. He used a trusting child’s conduct as an example of true humility. Mark 9:37: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” And in Luke 9:48 He adds, “For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

What are the contexts here? Not gender roles. Not family. Not which gender should serve the most in a human way and thus be greatest. Jesus is pointing to Himself. These passages are about Him. And later, from the minor gift of washing His followers’ dirty feet to His earth-shaking, epic death on a cross for the salvation of His people, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sin — He proved Himself the One Who saves us, changes us, the Servant of all.

This exegesis shows Gothard’s view to be in flagrant error. But unfortunately this is not unusual for him — Gothard has often proved that salvaging Scripture verses and principles, out of context, is certainly not a practice limited to liberals or emergents.

What might have been equally disappointing, though, is that his defenders in the column didn’t even try to prove he was right.

Instead I read some of the same defense mechanisms I’d heard before, such as:

1. He’s a nice guy.
2. Have you tried to talk with him personally? (Implied: that is required, before you say anything negative.)
3. We’ve followed his teachings and we’re doing find (therefore our Anecdote simply surpasses yours).
4. Various ad hominem attacks against other Gothard critics, either real or perceived.
5. Gothard uses Bible verses in his teachings; therefore he’s touching Base and shouldn’t be questioned.
6. (Implied) Hmm, you must be one of those Christians who doesn’t believe in trying to live a holy life.
7. A derivative of the Gamaliel Game, a frequent (and fatalistic!) defense, based on Acts 5: 33-40, which in essence says “if he’s a bad guy, just ignore him and let God handle it.” Scripture neither condemns nor endorses Gamaliel’s specific advice in that passage, but certainly does elsewhere contradict the notion that Christians should just ignore false teachers!

Part 1 will consist of my response to Anonymous’ second batch of well-written questions. Part 2 will show my response to his/her actual first portion of questions and responses, which had initially been hidden by the site’s spam filter.

Responses to Anonymous

Thanks for stopping by, yet-another-Anonymous. Like most online-only conversations in which I engage, I wish we had the time and ability to add some semblance of relationship as the basis of our interactions, rather than the drive-by-debating common to the internet. Shall we imagine a brief visit between you, and my wife and I, in our living room with coffee or your beverage of choice, as I try to address your concerns?

6. Simply because the author of the article “Taliban Dan…” omits any reference to Bill Gothard teaching about walking in the good works God has created us for or honoring God with our lives does not mean that Bill Gothard (just a sinful, fallible instrument) omits them in his teaching.

From my experience with Gothard’s programs, I recall very little Gospel. This error is not unique to Gothard, but to many Christian leaders: they simply assume their followers/disciples will get that Gospel-of-Grace stuff out there somewhere, and can now move on to the “walking in good works” stuff without emphasis in the work Christ accomplished for us.

I don’t share that (often well-intentioned) perspective. A lover of Christ will be doing all he can (knowing God is at work in him — Philippians 2: 12-13) to preach the Gospel to Himself, living in light of what Christ has done and will do, not keeping that in the past and moving on to the supposedly more-important truth of walking in good works. Grace, as Gothard defines it, does include the power to obey God, but that is not the most important definition. Gothard in practice acts as thought it is.

We used the ATI curriculum for 12 years, and chose to get out—not with some personal vendetta against Bill Gothard and the program—but simply because God was leading us to other things—further training for His Kingdom.

Neither do I have a personal vendetta. But those who purport to teach the Bible should be held to high standards. While quoting verses, setting up systems purported to be based on truth, etc., are they applying right hermeneutics? Respecting God the Author of Scripture by reading and understanding it rightly?

The curriculum was full of scripture, and full of teaching about honoring God, His established authorities, and our fellow man.

I’ve shown above how Gothard severely twisted a single Scripture to make it man- (or woman-) centered, instead of echoing the deeper truth Christ was clearly teaching. Unless the reporter was making up that quote, Gothard is guilty of abusing the Word of God, not like a naive “baby Christian” but as a Christian leader.

In saying this, I take what he said at face value: he believes women are the greatest because they “serve” the most. That’s just not Biblical. Jesus was talking not to women, but to His own (male) disciples, saying they should strive to be the servant of all — and He Himself showed them how, and became the Servant of All, exalted over all: men and women.

Gothard is guilty of salvaging other Scriptures to further other goals, and that is wrong, no matter how Biblical those goals might be (such as Opposing Rebellion or Reminded us of Authority). Gothard’s woefully wrong reading of the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s son, for example, is a flagrant violation of how Scripture should be read: emphasizing Christ, as the narrative does, and not simply the Human Authority Structure.

The program was, as accused, full of steps, also, toward success in various aspects of Christian living. Some view this approach to problem solving as legalistic

Some might, but that’s not what I argued above. Similarly, Jesus faulted the Pharisees not merely for solving moral problems in step-by-step ways, but for making up laws and calling them God’s Law, and rejecting the point of the Law anyway: Christ Himself.

but others (and it’s just as valid a perspective) view the step method (merely breaking a problem into bite-sized pieces) as helpful.

Ordinarily I would agree. This would simply be seen as optional methods for doing our part, as Christians, to work out our salvation. But again, two issues:

a) Gothard doesn’t see these steps as optional. He calls them “life principles” and has continued to do this day to say they’re not optional.

b) The steps are often not only extra-Biblical (optional) but anti-Biblical. And adding to what Scripture says and calling it Scripture is just as bad as ignoring what Scripture does say.

Grace-oriented individuals should be careful not to condemn those who prefer a more structured approach.

Whether structured or not, all Christians are called to be grace-oriented individuals. That part is indeed not optional!

And whether or not a parent/person has a specific “structured approach,” if it’s not based in grace, it’s not Gospel-minded — and would warrant a Galatians-style letter from the Apostle Paul asking with love but passion: “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). Or he would write a letter repeating what he told the Colossians (in 3: 20-23) about wrong, anti-Biblical “structures”:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—’Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

Neither is more righteous as long as both look to Christ as THE problem-solver and THE SOLUTION.

Which, as I’ve argued above, Gothard in-practice and even in-writing does not do.

However, perhaps you, most excellent Anonymous, were able to take what you found good about Gothard’s materials and see them through the lenses of God’s grace. If so, I rejoice! Yet I would ask that you recognize that others have not been so blessed, and are trapped on a graceless treadmill, trying to earn their sanctification through Gothard’s anti-Biblical materials. IBLP does not seem their whole System of beliefs as optional as you and I might see them, free to choose which ones to follow — or even to depart the whole thing and find better curriculum elsewhere.

7. It is simply Ungodly to undermine parents in trying to “rescue” daughters from what we perceive to be an oppressive lifestyle.

I don’t oppose that. Are you referring to something I wrote?

In fact, it’s a main mission of Quivering Daughters here to help carry out such rescues, of daughters who are trapped in not only what’s “perceived” to be an oppressive lifestyle, but what is — according to the Gospel, aided by sanctified common sense! — oppressive and grace-rejecting lifestyles. To see this further, I encourage you to look more on the site, and perhaps read Hillary’s book Quivering Daughters and Don Veinot’s book A Matter of Basic Principle: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life.

You see, the God of the universe gave each daughter her parents and each wife her husband. If we are willing to cease trying to give God and Ishmael, and trust Him (Jer. 29:11), He will complete his unstoppable plan of mercy and grace in the ultimate manner.

But the sovereign God works through means, Anonymous. He has given and encouraged (nay required) Christians to practice discernment, rather than being more passive (a la Gamaliel in Acts) and simply let things happen. Should we also apply the more-passive mindset to the pressing issues of our day, such as sex trafficking, racism or abortion? Surely not. Scripture doesn’t leave Christians with that option — though some of us may have different callings in this.

As an aside, I hear Jeremiah 29:11 quoted a lot, but out of context: that promise God made to the Israelites then is weakened when we apply it straight to ourselves without the background that He fulfilled it for them. Furthermore His perfect plans for them also involved plenty of hardship and learning from the ways they had rejected Him — only through better discernment and growth did they have “hope and a future.”

When we interfere in order to help him, we just mess things up.

Again, the point here is not simply reaching out to women (or anyone) who’s in a merely “perceived” oppressive lifestyle, but showing how this lifestyle is not only dangerous, but flagrantly anti-Biblical and not actually honoring to Christ and the Gospel.

8. When we are on the outside looking in to a situation, we make a lot of assumptions. My old English teacher used to say “To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.” Wouldn’t the Christian way be to spend our hours and days spreading the good news of the gospel and discipling young believers in a God-honoring way to aid in their sanctification instead of devoting entire ministries to breaking down or attacking the ministries of those we don’t understand (and thereby are suspicious of)?

Again, if you are referring to Quivering Daughters, I would ask:

a) Then why are you trying to oppose this ministry? Perhaps you don’t yourself understand what they see, what they know, and to whom they’re reaching. The problem with a Gamaliel-like “if it’s of God you can’t stop it anyway” notion is that it can’t be suggested consistently without self-refuting, and it’s not what Scripture says to follow anyway.

b) Yet again, these are about whether a professed Christian and supposedly Biblical organization is actually following Christ and the Bible. I’ve shown above how Gothard has violated both (as is a proven pattern in how he salvages other Scriptures to fit into moralism machines). If you’d like to engage my ideas in that area, Anonymous, I’d love to listen and reply.

Where is the glory for God in a ministry like this?

The glory to God is the same as Paul gave when he publicly opposed Peter for sucking up to legalistic Judaizers (Galatians 2) or called out a professing Christian for anti-Biblical behavior (1 Corinthians 5) or, in love, warned believers to avoid false doctrine and grow to be like Christ with all truth and discernment (Philippians 1, many other epistles). The God of love is also a God of truth, and a Christian’s discernment can be practiced with love and hope that the deceptive teacher will repent and correct his false teaching.

I know God has used others to correct my own wrong notions about “perfect” families, and even what the future eternal existence of a Christian will be (hint: it’s not just a spiritual nonphysical realm!). Thus I hope also that those professing to believe the Gospel of grace will speak and listen to one another accordingly, not making or hearing arguments based on man-made logic or inference from Scripture, but based on Scripture rightly applied, pointing to the Gospel.

Grace and peace!

An excerpt from last year — read the complete column here.

Time for a seasonal issue. Ho, ho, ho! Does the Bible say it’s wrong to have Christmas trees?

Ye have heard that it was said …

It’s wrong to have and decorate a Christmas tree (Jeremiah 10: 1-5).

AKA: Having a Christmas tree could be like having an idol.

What’s the Word?

But who was Jeremiah’s audience? What was their situation and motivation? Are their trees-as-idols really the same as Christmas trees today, and are all Christians who enjoy Christmas trees thus automatically guilty of the same sin? Some solutions …

First, an admission: I probably qualify as a young Reformed, or as author Collin Hansen puts it, “young, restless and reformed.” And yet I’m slowly also becoming one of those pundits who wonder what, in all this wondrous excitement over God’s sovereignty, YRRers might be missing.

For weeks I’ve considered assembling a quick-hits, basic list of suggested problem areas. Now, just today, Justin Taylor linking to a 2008 John Piper video brought this to mind.

Piper’s emphasis: what could cause the young-adult Christian resurgence to break open and “dribble away into nothingness” is a failure to connect God’s majesty to everyday choices. “The disconnect between the majesty of God and the movies you watch, just to choose an example. … Between the majesty of Christ and the carelessly attended, default weekend movie — no questions asked, it’s just the thing to do.” ¹

Taylor prefaces the video:

As you watch it, I’d encourage you to avoid judgmentalism (if the things he mentions don’t apply to you) or defensiveness (if the particular examples are something you seek to do in moderation and any critique feels like fundamentalism). Rather, I’d encourage humble self-examination, and to see if the Lord might be using this older, wise, father-brother in the faith to exhort us and encourage us in a new direction.

Separated from the context of Piper’s ministry, and moreover Scripture itself, any critique of immodest dress, going to bad movies or drinking too much beer will sound “fundamentalist.” And indeed, I think that is included in one of the top risks to “young, restless and Reformed”: basing what we believe on being anti-this or that, rather than being pro-God and His truth.

But Piper hits on a specific risk I hadn’t thought of — though it’s not the worst I worry about:

1. Not connecting God’s sovereignty to everyday discernment.

Another admission: it’s easy for me to feel self-righteous when Piper references “the carelessly attended, default weekend movie.” So far, no movie I’ve attended is from carelessness. But I have a reason: I’m a story nerd. Almost any film I have seen (and now, my wife and I have seen) in theaters has been after anything but careless planning. Inception: anticipated for weeks in advance. Toy Story 3: anticipated for months. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1: anticipated for years. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: anticipated for decades.

It’s rare that we just show up at a theater, pick a movie from the marquee, and go inside and get surprised. To this day people who say “we went to the movies” cause me no little amount of irritation. That’s like saying “we went to the foods”! Why would you do that? No, you choose your foods, taking care not to eat junk that could be poison or that at least you don’t even like!

We went to The Movie — that is, the anticipated-in-advance blockbuster can’t-miss-it incredible story spectacle of the year, that we have researched to make sure there’s no crap, or at least to know which parts to avoid — now that is much better to say. And that’s what I do. Ha, safe!

Or not. Because, you see, my home-viewing preferences just rose up and called me a hypocrite.

Did I really need to see Prince of Persia while eating lunch from McDonald’s that Wednesday afternoon? Not really. It may not be a sin, but did that waste of time honor God in my life?

What about my viewing the entire Avatar: The Last Airbender series over the past few months? Oddly enough, that’s a little different. While the cartoons’ mystical elements don’t mesh with Biblical truth, a surprisingly powerful and emotional theme of sin, repentance and forgiveness quickly emerged and, to me, not only honored God the ultimate Reconciler, but makes me tear up even now to imagine the depth of sin for which He forgave me — and similar forgiveness I should give others. Also the writers’ storytelling genius has helped in my own writing.²

One can’t connect God’s sovereignty to everyday discernment by simply trying to avoid the Bad Stuff. Instead a Christian’s basis is mostly proactive. Yes, it’s good to ask whether God would be displeased by a particular movie, TV show, story or song. But isn’t it better to ask whether God would be pleased? Paul didn’t encourage us to avoid the bad stuff nearly as much as he said Christians should focus on the Gospel, and with that in mind, focus on truth and beauty.

Yet frequent opposing notions of discernment, in theology or anything else, lead to risk no. 2:

2. Basing most beliefs upon reactions.

A common theme at YeHaveHeard and my personal rhetoric has been this: Christians should not base what they believe about God on what the Bad Guys have done. That could devalue God into merely the positive alternative to Bad Stuff, or just as a means to beat the Bad Stuff.

Rather, our emphasis should be on loving and seeking God for His own sake. Getting rid of the bad stuff — our own evil hearts before we’re saved, and our sin-shrapnel after — is vital, but ultimately tangential. After all, we’ll spend less than 120 years doing that. For eternity we’ll only have God Himself and His new created-world. No sin to fight. No Bad Guys to debate against.

No matter what one’s theological persuasion, “Calvinist,” “Arminian,” or whatever, the constant temptation is there to reduce truths about God, or even zeal and love for Him, into a means for other ends: beating the bad guys.

I see this a lot among theological liberals, or “emergents.” Many of them seem to have gone back over their more-orthodox Christian backgrounds, found the legalism (real or perceived) and then based what they believe now on a reaction against that. Now their mode of existence is fighting against Injustice (again, real or perceived) and telling other Christians how they’ve got it wrong in the past. I want to ask them: what would you do if Christ returned tomorrow, eliminated all injustice, and ushered in the New Earth? Are you sure you wouldn’t be bored?

But many “new Calvinists” share similar attitudes. Struck anew with Biblical evidence for God’s sovereignty in salvation, they see the difference between this and others’ previous failures. Some obviously overshoot, calling for the abolishment of altar calls, Billy Graham movies and the Left Behind series. Others are more subtle and don’t realize it. They might be angry against the Church for its (real or perceived) failures, and miss what previous Christians did get right.

That same question applies to us all, especially those who — like myself, I hope! — love deep doctrines, correcting errors and helping others: What would I do if Christ returned tomorrow, eliminated all wrong beliefs, and ushered in the New Earth? Am I sure I wouldn’t be bored?

If my answer is that such an existence sounds boring — “Ugh, no one to fight” — then my priorities are definitely out of order. I’ve confused the means for the end, and it’s time to realign. Yes, we destroy arguments that raise themselves up against God’s truth (2 Cor. 10:5), and preach the Gospel despite false beliefs (2 Tim. 4: 1-5), whether from secularists or wishy-washy Christians. But the conflict isn’t the end of the story. Christ Himself is that end.

Friday: Young-restless-Reformeds may forget that in Christ they are no longer totally depraved — thus guilt should lead first to gratitude in Christ, not just desires to do better. Also, might some young Reformed Christians forget the coming New Earth, which will transform more than just human souls?

Catch up on yesterday’s introduction to an idea that can be easily misunderstood: that “avoid the world,” as true as that is, becomes a half-truth when separated from the whole of Scripture.¹

A certain YouTube video has been making its rounds about my online friends, posted by the Wretched TV program and host Todd Friel. This organization is one of the best when it comes to Biblically based discernment, and that remains mostly true in this video.

However, view this video yourself and consider: is this letter writer perhaps accepting the error of asking only, “WWTWD?TDTO — what would The World do? then do the opposite”?

A flawed foundation

What does our culture celebrate on October 31st?

Is that where Christians should begin to build their cases? I contend that will lead to more wrong thinking than right thinking that keeps the Gospel in the center, along with the fact that Christians are, like it or not, still in this world and must sometimes deal personally with sinful people (1 Corinthians 5). The apostles did not give cautions about worldliness by encouraging Christians to be contrarian: figuring out what’s popular in the world, then doing the opposite.

Yet many Christians haven’t discerned that this is exactly what they’re doing — nor do they, or can they, do this consistently without giving up all media, technology, working, breathing, etc.

Without knowing this is a potential flawed and imbalanced way of thinking, might we fall into our old instincts — the “default setting” even Christians have of lapsing toward legalism — and neglect to fix our eyes, not first upon the world we should avoid, but first upon Christ?

Shunning made-up sins

The letter-writer, Aric, continues to base his argument mainly on What the World is Doing:

If we look around at the decorations and advertising, then it is clear that death, horror, evil, and occult symbolism is the focus of the holiday. Because the evil celebrated is general, perhaps it doesn’t offend our sense of holiness as much as it should. But what if the holiday celebrated a specific evil?

“I wonder if he’s onto something here,” Friel remarked. “Yeah, it’s kinda — ghosts and goblins, and yeah, we stay away from the dark stuff. But at its core is it possible that it is the very stuff that God says He hates in Deuteronomy 18? He gives a laundry list of sins.”

Yet does that list of sins include even scary creatures such as “ghosts” and “goblins”? None of these exist. Occult practices and “witchcraft,” as in trying to contact spirits, manipulate events or be At One With Nature, do exist, and these are displeasing to God. Yet can anyone prove Biblically that dressing up as a “goblin” (a mythical creature) is also sinful by association? It might be pointless, or the person may have sinful motives. He may be saying that an imaginary bad creature is actually good in its badness — that is a sin. But imagining such a creature is not a sin. Writing stories about goblins is not a sin. Even dressing up as a goblin may not be sin.

An imaginary parallel

The letter-writer next finds more imagination, asking what-if, and positing a nonexistent world:

What if Halloween was a celebration of, oh say, abortion. The country celebrated abortion by dressing up as doctors, nurses and pregnant women. Kids went door to door, knocked and shouted, “Roe v. Wade,” and were given candy. The stores were filled with pro-abortion decorations. Advertising was centered on abortion. If that were the case, would most Christians still have their kids dress up (as alternative characters of course: farmers, princesses, bible [sic] characters, etc.) and go seeking candy just like the rest of society?

Notice I’m not saying imagination is wrong, or that what-if scenarios are always flawed. But they’re tricky to suggest in a debate, if you do not, say, prevent all analogy loopholes or take into account the fact that your made-up parallel does not exist. For the same reason, Star Trek episodes that ask what-if, and then have a story about an actual biologically androgynous alien, fails to give any legitimate challenge to Christian morality about gender roles. If such a scenario occurred in the real world, Christian ethicists would surely struggle. But so far, it is imaginary.

The same is true of National Celebrate Abortion Day. Yes, if such an event actually occurred, Christians would be wise to avoid it entirely. But what if the occasion had actually begun as a celebration of life and health care, and it just so happened that 90 percent of people ran off with perverting it into a celebration of murdering children? If most of The World takes a good Thing, such as a hospital or doctor, and tries to corrupt that into only a representation of evil, should Christians simply go along with them? ²

“We don’t want to make something a sin that is not a sin,” Friel acknowledged, adding that of course Christians are under grace. “But I’m kind of wondering if Aric is maybe, just maybe, onto something, that we have been a little desensitized to evil. … We’ve lost sight that it is a category, if you will, that God absolutely hates.”

That may be true. And I certainly don’t want to contribute to the wrong notions many well-meaning Christians have: that it’s no problem, or even fun, to glory in things like purposeless violence and horror.³ What I’m showing here is the other side. Some Christians have surely become desensitized to evil, but others have become desensitized to the real sources of sin: not Things, especially imaginary Things, but their own sin-shrapnel in their own hearts. And getting that wrong will lead Christians right back to worldliness.

Letting Christ, not the world, lead the way

Moreover, our letter-writer isn’t only suggesting that in this imagined parallel world, Christians simply avoid trick-or-treating on Celebrate Abortion Day. In effect, he’s suggesting that no Christian should even consider Wholesome Alternatives that contradict the world’s celebration of death and violence. Thus, we’d not only focus first on the world, we allow it to set the agenda.

PS: just a parting shot at the “harvest parties” thrown by many churches: is it really an alternative, or just a way for us to tell our kids that participation in Halloween is so important that we should come up with a way to still celebrate something on that specific day rather than actually not participate.

Perhaps Aric has only ever seen megachurches falling all over themselves to be popular, or in their own way to let The World set the agenda to follow. Yet it does not follow that all churches have this motivation, or that Christians who enjoy a “harvest party” ought to feel self-doubt or guilt. To correct obsessive world-gazing with more of the same defeats Christians’ whole point.

Fortunately, rather than pushing this mindset completely, Friel suggested Christians simply wrestle with this issue afresh. That seems good counsel, and I hope I’ve done that here.

Many wise Christian theologians (and Todd) have remarked about the “pendulum swing” many Christians take, going first to one extreme, then overcorrecting for that one, then coming back again in the next generation, and so on. I write not to defend Halloween (which I don’t even particularly care for, any more than yoga-esque stretching!) but to question whether “what would the world do? then do the opposite” is a Biblical concept, and if it makes sense to drag imaginary creatures, such as goblins, and practices, such as flying on brooms, into the debate.

This Halloween, let’s not fix our eyes upon The World and all that professes to be creepy and scary, at which point we try not to look, and avoid it all with legalism or “harvest parties.” Let’s instead fix our eyes on Christ. He doesn’t change us by being the world’s opposite, as if it somehow sets the agenda and leaves Him and us to contradict it, but by being Himself.

Moreover, even a sinful world can reflect some truths, even by contrast. All this “celebration” of death and destruction is often the result of pure evil. But often it is also because people truly fear death — so they laugh at it, trying to shake the thought away with feigned carelessness. Deep inside they may be hurting and genuinely frightened. What a conversation starter! Christ has vanquished all power of death and openly shamed evil spiritual forces (Colossians 2). And continuing to fear darkness, either real or imagined, makes little sense in that glorious light.

Some months ago I — politely, I hope — replied to a Bible study question, not with an answer, but with another question. The question was something like, “How can we avoid the world?” And suddenly I realized something I had not previously considered so directly. ¹

“Could I instead question the question?” I asked. “Does Scripture encourage us to base how we believe, and what we do, on ‘avoid the world’?”

I’ve been hearing this a lot, especially this time of year. The recent resurgence of the Yoga Controversy — thanks to Al Mohler, who added some balance in a more-recent column — has also brought on more responses akin to: Christians should avoid the world.

This is not a myth. But it is a half-truth.

Similarly, these two statements are also not myths:

• You must repent of your sins.
• God’s love is what saves you.

But take either one of those, apart from other truths and the context of Scripture, and try to build beliefs out of it, and you’ll likely end up with a System that may be internally consistent, yet not consistent with all of God’s Word. So it is with “avoid the world” and misreadings of this:

Many Christians say this clearly indicates we must avoid anything “worldly.” Yet they can’t avoid applying this verse selectively. Christians on the internet who say everything about Halloween, including candy and costumes, is “of the world” and thus should be avoided, don’t consider if the same applies to their of-the-world internet use. Few Christians would go to the extremes of groups such as the Amish — yet even the Amish have concluded that practices like wearing clothes, as most of the world does, and farming, also a continually popular occupation in the world, don’t count as being “in the world.”

1 John 2: 15-17 is not talking about avoiding every Thing in the world. Instead John refers to Christians loving worldly things more than they love God. His specific phrases show actual sin: “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions.”

Saying “Christians must avoid the world,” without Biblical balance, ends up ignoring 1) sin’s ultimate origin (Mark 7), and 2) the goodness God has left in the world, such as governments (Romans 13), kind parents (Matthew 7: 9-11) and God’s glory shown in nature, which even in a sin-cursed world reflects His love and creativity (the entire book of Psalms).

But because of sinful hearts, people use and abuse good things in the world for sin: costumes, food, media, travel, family, churches, even Christian doctrine. The sin comes from within. And it continually surprises me that some conservative Christians, often by accident, accept the liberal-theology idea that sin does not come from within, but without, from The Environment.

Moreover, Christians who say only “avoid the world” have a wrong foundation: figure out what’s wrong with the world, then avoid it. This mindset turns our focus off God as our positive, and to “avoid the world” as our negative. That’s a sure way to get both truths wrong.

Grace prevents that. Instead of fixing our eyes upon “the world,” however that is defined, and trying to deduce how we must avoid worldly things, we should fix our eyes on Jesus Himself.

Only then can be discern Biblically what counts as un-Godly worldliness, and avoid it. But our reasons should not be based on reaction, emotions or mere “logical” deductions of what may or may not be sinful, based on possible associations with bad guys or actual bad things. Our reasons should be based on glorifying God, delighting in Him and seeking Biblical balance.

(Tomorrow: why do Christians, in boycotting Halloween, label as “evil” things that don’t exist?)

Today I must cross-post, referring to my column about a column over at my favorite Christian-fiction site, Speculative Faith.

Subbing for author and contributor Kaci Hill (Lunatic and Elyon, with Ted Dekker), I found the perfect chance to reference a 2007 column about Harry Potter, Boggarts, Christians, Halloween, and Satan’s scariness — whether real or, sometimes imagined. Once again, it seems a near-perfect crossover between the “nonfiction” of Christian doctrine and practice and the “fiction” of stories.

A certain “holiday” is coming up, and recently I read one of the best columns I’ve ever found on the subject. This comes from alastair.adveraria and its three-year-old column to which an online friend had linked, and disarmingly titled, Of Boggarts.

I wish I could reprint the whole column here, and not just because of the Prisoner of Azkaban screencap showing Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) in a dress.

The author’s suggestion: the Harry Potter series, by virtue of its created-world and with its third book’s specific subplot about fighting against certain magical creatures, can help Christians react better to some evils.

When it comes to the accusation of witchcraft, I actually believe that Rowling can help us arrive at a more Christian view of witchcraft. The world that Rowling writes of is a world of Weasleys’ Wizard Wheezes, self-shuffling cards, flying cars, wands hidden in umbrellas, bat bogey hexes, Whomping Willows, Quidditch, owls who deliver the mail, wizards who wear the most ridiculous garments to pass themselves off as Muggles, and the like. It is a delightfully humourous and playful portrayal of a magical world. It is not intended to be taken seriously. The fact that many Christians do take it seriously is a sign that something is badly wrong with us.

Read the rest at Speculative Faith; and read the original 2007 alastair.adversaria column here.

America’s Pastor is all over the place.

Seeking to understand what he’s getting at in his Oct. 1 sermon-by-video at the Desiring God conference, I’ve continued listening. And it’s nearly impossible to tell what his point is. As many others who’ve heard the message have said, Warren is all over the place, issuing platitudes rapid-fire. First he’s talking about you-do-this, then do that, here’s a verse to support whatever, now here’s another one that sort of applies from another translation, then over here …

Quoth the immortal (as a character) Captain Jean-Luc Picard, from Star Trek: The Next Generation: “He just kept — talking-in-one-long-incredibly-unbroken-sentence-moving-from-topic-to-topic-so-that-no-one-had-a-chance-to-interrupt-it-was-really-quite-hypnotic.”

Perhaps I’ve previously left unclear why this bothers me so much. Let me summarize what may be two underlying issues with what Warren said. First, Warren’s kind of topical preaching rushes over or ignores foundational truths of Scripture verses, and equally problematic, assumes the Gospel. Second, and closely related, that results in more than imbalance, but legalism and lies.

1. Warren doesn’t follow basic Biblical hermeneutics.

Though I enjoy and learn so much of God’s Word through verse-by-verse exegetical preaching, sometimes I do like a topical sermon. More often I enjoy reading doctrine-intensive books that focus on a particular issue, such as Christ’s atonement, or Christian vocation, or predestination.

For example, recently I ordered and received a new book by Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible. Systematic theology on any Scriptural subject, by definition, tends to be topical. You collect all the Biblical texts you can find about a particular topic, such as how God uses civil governments to keep some order in a fallen world, and try to understand them all together.

Yet such understanding must be according to the Bible. And reading the Bible, exegetically or topically, requires certain “rules” of engagement. For example, you don’t take poetry and try to read it “literally.” That would actually be reading it nonliterally, like a liberal, for the Author (and authors) meant the text to be poetic, expressing truths in artistic forms that sometimes include metaphors. Another example: you don’t take a narrative meant to describe a historical event, and turn it into a “metaphor” for moral living, or a simple moral instruction for all Christians.

In his topic-surveying, Warren did not adhere to these rules of Scriptural engagement. That was probably the root problem of his talk: not that it wasn’t exegesis of a single Bible passage, but because despite appearances, his summary of verses and thoughts was not mindful of context. This includes the context of immediate verses, and Scripture’s main story-of-stories …

2. Warren did not even give passing reference to the Gospel.

Contrasting Warren with other pastors, whether they’re preaching topically or exegetically, will help to show and not just tell the difference more clearly. While other pastors, including those at the Desiring God conference, would constantly show how thinking about God constantly ties back to the Gospel — that Jesus, the perfect God-man, died for rebel sinners for His glory — Warren just assumed that.

Thus everything Warren said about discernment, ministry, bearing fruit, etc., became by default not a means of drawing closer to God for help, but a simple mantra to do-do-do more, try harder, here’s how I do it and you should too.

Perhaps without intending to be that way, Warren had lapsed into preaching legalism.

Without having inside information (thank God) about what the Devil is up to, it would seem one of his greatest successes is Christians assigning a certain image to Legalism, and then doing all they can to avoid that. In this view, the sin of Legalism is in behaviors or appearances: refusing to go to movies, “courting” instead of “dating,” wearing suits or dresses in church while also insisting every other Christian do this, preaching only Hell and damnation and not enough about God’s love, shunning non-Christians, homeschooling, and Pharisees (or Puritans) with beards, furrowed brows and hoods over their heads.

Avoid all those things, or looking like that, comes the assumption, and you won’t be a Legalist.

If I were the Devil, I’d be cackling and snorting sulfur at that. For without me even having to try, I’ve just seen a Christian, in the very name of “avoiding legalism,” act just like a legalist!

Author Michael Horton refers to Legalism is the “default setting” of any person. Even a Christian can fall back into this attitude. “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” Paul rhetorically asks the Galatians (Galatians 3:3). Treating the Gospel as assumed, or back in the past somewhere, after which point we can take over now and work, work, work to think better about God, ignore lies or even avoid legalism — all will lead right back to legalism.

And because the attitude of legalism is so inherent in our hearts, Christians in Christ must fight it constantly. I don’t think we’ll ever be free of it in this life. It’s like pride: constantly there, and annoyingly ready to claim one’s own awesomeness even at the thought of achieving humility!

But Warren did not focus his sermon on the Gospel. Overcorrecting, perhaps, for Christians who wrongly sit back and fatalistically wait for God to change them, Warren committed the opposite error. He pushed for work, work, work, succeed, bear fruit — all of the “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” parts but without Paul’s immediate reminder (in Philippians 2: 12-13) that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

If Warren could somehow be assured that his audience had so completely mastered the Holy-Spirit-works-in-you-because-of-Christ’s-salvation part, and they only needed to hear the you-must-do-this stuff, he could be excused for simply emphasizing one truth over another.

But as with talking about subjects like Law and Gospel, or God’s wrath and love, showing only one “side” doesn’t become just an imbalance. It becomes a lie.

Yesterday commentator Kaci Hill, in reply to a previous column about Warren, remarked:

Either he’s spinning half truths or he isn’t, I suppose. And half truths are lies.

Reluctantly, I would say Warren was preaching half-truths, which can too quickly become lies.

Next week I hope to go through more of what he said, particularly about the topics of what God expects of Christian leaders, and how we ought to practice media discernment. Does God really expect more than simple “faithfulness” from Christians? And for those who watch TV shows that show violence— are they really sinning and giving the Devil free reign over the brain?

Yes, I’m sorry to say that those are among the notions Warren repeats. And they leave me curious, not about why Warren is so popular, but why this impression exists that he’s one of those “nice” loving guys, a more-enlightened Christian leader who isn’t into legalism.

What little myths did Rick Warren, in his address at a certain conference, let slip through the cracks?

Many others, including Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio, have already pointed out the biggest problems. Warren is a Pelagian, Rosebrough noted, and thus that assumption about human nature underlies all Warren teaches. His sermons, deeds, ministry, anything, assume the notion that humans can simply learn a truth and thus change their moral behavior.

But while listening to Rosebrough’s rundown of Warren’s message, I kept also hearing more little lies. It seems that even while trying to talk about the battle for Christians’ minds, Warren is allowing several wrong beliefs to influence his moral behavior and judgment.

What follows are some more errors, often very subtle, in Warren’s assumptions and quotations.

For the sake of time, I’ll mostly limit them to those I haven’t yet heard specifically rebutted.

Warren started with descriptions of difficulties in his life — the most recent of which was a family’s member’s illness, which prevented him from attending the conference live.

I’m confident that God has given me a message. I believe that Satan didn’t want me to teach it to you, and I believe that Satan didn’t want you to hear it.

Myth 1: We can make a good guess that the Devil is causing specific bad things.

It’s already hard enough to figure out what God’s up to, and He’s revealed so much about Himself. But we do know He is working despite whatever the Devil does, and even through what the Devil does. It is very risky to say “the Devil is doing this.” Why not cut out the middle man and try to discern why God is allowing difficulties to happen?

Myth 2: If it’s bad, hurting me, preventing ministry, etc., the Devil must be doing it.

The Devil is not even equally as powerful as God. Even if he is behind a difficult circumstance, shouldn’t we disclaim that God is more sovereign and not even partly endorse the subtle suspicion that God only causes good things to happen?

I have seen the face of mental illness. I have seen what it’s like to see people not able to hear God because their minds are broken and aren’t connecting to God even when they want to connect to God.

Myth 3: God often speaks directly to our minds.

This isn’t stated, but heavily implied. I hope Warren is not endorsing the belief that in addition to the final revelation of Scripture, God directs His people by use of inner “nudges” or subtle directions about His will. Warren could have easily said that it’s tragic when people undergo mental illness and aren’t able to study God’s Word or pray to Him in response.

I know that whatever gets your mind gets you. …

Myth 4: Our battle is primarily against evil’s assault from outside, not from inside.

“Jesus said, by the way, that sin comes out of a person,” Rosebrough cut in. “It develops inside of his heart. It comes from within” (Mark 7).

The battle for sin always starts in the mind. […] Every one of us has a mental illness.

This leaves out the truth that nonbelievers have sinful hearts, and even Christians fight most of the battle in their own hearts. (Even posters for the film Spider-Man 3 echoed this truth.)

Yes, the Devil is a liar and he causes temptations. Scripture is clear that much of our battle is external (cf. Eph. 6). But without understanding what’s in our hearts, sin, people will go around swatting at demons and imagining only external sources of sin, while the worst source festers inside. That applies to Christians, who still fight against sin-shrapnel, but even more so to non-Christians who must be first raised from spiritual death and resurrected to life in Christ (Eph. 2).

Why not at least distinguish between non-Christians whose chief problem is mainly in the heart, and Christians who are saved but who still fight wrong thinking? That would have been helpful.

But after so much damage done by Christians who assume if you aren’t a Christian, you must have simply not heard the right information! or even, non-Christians are basically good and just need to have their thinking corrected, it’s sad to hear Warren repeating these errors.

The reason we have so many ineffective Christians today is because they don’t know how to fight the battle of the mind.

Myth 5: We have so many ineffective Christians today.

That many people claim to be “Christians” and are ineffective is undisputed. Many others would dispute their claim to be Christians. Why not at least make allowance for false believers?

Myth 6: We must address battle-of-mind issues based on (a) perceived Problem(s).

Several times Warren goes on to talk about how Christians are failing, what the church is doing wrong, how we too often learn all this stuff but don’t apply it, etc. His rhetoric is all based on generalizations; he doesn’t even back up his claim with Barna surveys. Either way, this could be the result of Ministry Myopia. Here are the Problems I’ve seen in my ministry (views that often lead to more exposure only to these problems, because of a leader’s specific focus) so therefore they must be the same all over. Furthermore, we must do all we can to Fix the Problems.

Warren floats over several Scripture texts, emphasizing obedience, an implicit goal not of fixing our eyes on Christ, but Fixing the Problem. This leads to Law, either God’s true Law — which is fulfilled in Christ — or manmade Law, not the fact of dead hearts and our need for the Gospel.

Now the old cliché from the computer early days, GIGO, “garbage in, garbage out,” is still true today. The amount of garbage you put in is what you’re gonna get out.

Myth 7: Wrong thinking comes primarily from external sources.

This is very similar to myth 4. Warren has some good things to say about discernment, but citing this catchphrase without a foundation of humans’ sinful nature repeats a myth promoted by conservative and liberal professing Christians: if you put sin inside you, it will come out from you. Its implication: your main job is to avoid sinful Stuff. Its refutation: same as above, Mark 7. Jesus did not endorse that notion. He said garbage inside your heart comes out.

Warren even sounds like a dreaded “fundamentalist” when he talks about Christians needing to avoid junk in movies and on TV. He doesn’t say Christians do this mainly to honor God, but to Avoid Bad Stuff. Again it’s an emphasis on Fixing the Problem, not on glorifying God — and ignores the true source of sin, which doesn’t come from a Thing, but from the heart.

And here we thought it was only big bad Al Mohler and other “fundamentalists” who say this.

(Likely continued on Wednesday. …)

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?