I have decided that I am going to be a social activist. It’s important. If no one stands up for the little guy, then they will be crushed. So I am going to do it. Yep, count me in . . .
Now, don’t get me wrong here. I can’t take time off work. I am all for the little guy, but am not going to become one myself. I can’t take time off work. I don’t think that I am going to be using my vacation time for it either. I need that time to rest so as to be able to do my work well. Same with my sick leave. I need that time to manage my health. But don’t worry, I am here for you little guy!
Also, weekends are mine. ESPECIALLY during football season. There are only 12 Longhorn and 16 Cowboy games a year. That is not too much to ask. Little guy understands. Yep, I am a social activist. Big Time!
Also, money is tight right now. I mean, I can pay my bills and all but the rest is ‘claimed,’ if you will. You know, movies, dinner, etc. I’m sure you get it.
Can someone really call themselves something when they hold NO RESEMBLANCE to the thing itself? Shakespeare said the rose would smell as sweet if you called it by another name- but his point was that it would still be a ‘rose.’ You can’t call a pile of poop a ‘rose’ and expect the smell. It just doesn’t work that way.
I don’t understand these people who reject almost EVERY single distinct Christian thought, yet call themselves ‘Christians.’ If you don’t like Christianity’s distinctions, why call yourself one? It makes no sense. I’m sure that it is part ‘social construct’ and part ‘self preservation.’ They like the trappings or pleasures of Christianity without any of the duties of Christianity. If doesn’t work that way. Call yourselves ‘theists’ or ‘monotheists’ or ‘badaplapbadians’ (I made up that word). But ‘Christian’ does and must come with certain assumptions and requirements.
This ‘calling oneself Jesus’ follower with no regard to Jesus Himself’ is not new. Not at all. In fact, Jesus had to deal with it Himself.
In John 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000. A well-known miracle story. The people come and, in one of the weirder sentences in Scripture, try to ‘make Him king by force.’ (Does that mean “You’re King and we are going to revolt against Rome” or “You’re King!” “No, I’m not!” “Yes, you . . . are. Say it!”?) Jesus then tells them they are just following Him because they ate their fill. He then tells them that to have any part of Him they will have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, abhorrent to the Jews. It proves His point because most of the crowd, called by John Jesus’ disciples (meaning not just people who had shown up. These were ‘followers.’) leave and, to quote John again, ‘no longer walked with Him.’
They liked the bread. They liked the idea of Him being King. They didn’t like the “I am God and will tell you things that you might not understand. But you need to obey and believe. Why? See point ‘a.’” They wanted to be ‘Christians’ in name, comforts and relationships but not in obedience to the Word. They were ‘social activists’ with no time or money to give.
Don’t get me wrong here. It is very important to note that the Bible itself (Rom 14, for example) says that Christians can disagree about a wide variety of topics and that BOTH sides are still Christians. What I am talking about here is not disagreements about certain doctrines or practices. At the same time, Paul would say to some who disagreed about crucial doctrines that they were the voices of Satan, dogs who he wished would emasculate themselves. So what boils down to ‘can disagree’ doctrines and ‘can’t disagree’ doctrines? I think I will post more about that later- but we will start here.
The Gospel.
If ever there was a ‘can’t disagree’ doctrine, its this one. When Paul writes his most punishing critiques of his opponents, its not about ‘drums in worship’ or ‘topical vs. exegetical’ or ‘abstain from drinking vs social drinking permissible.’ It’s when the Gospel is at stake.
Then, when that is the topic, there is no quarter. No prisoners.
Someone who says “I’m a Christian, but I think all ways are valid.” No. Jesus directly refutes that.
Someone who says “I’m a Christian, saved by grace. But you have to make sure you do ‘x’ or it doesn’t count!” No. Paul directly refutes that.
Someone who says “I’m a Christian, but I think that you can live however and just know that you are forgiven.” No. Jesus and Paul directly refute that.
All of this to simply say- a Christian is a Christian. Someone who says they are a Christian but isn’t a Christian . . . wait for it . . .
isn’t a Christian.
June 21, 2010 at 11:36 pm |
Hey Greg,
I definitely agree that intellectually assenting to and trusting in the Gospel is the heart of what makes a Christian a Christian. And so I’m assuming that you are proffering that justification by faith and penal substitutionary atonement are key to the Gospel? Now, I agree with you, but hold on for a second.
Catholics and Arminians would take issue with justification by faith alone and penal substitutionary atonement, respectively. And while I have problems with that, shouldn’t we both extrapolate a little more broadly to be a touch more inclusive of what we accept as legitimate Christians?
In other words, every serious Christian would assent to the Apostles or Nicene Creed, right? I would argue that this is the starting place….
And though intellectual assent to important doctrines is imperative, the experiential and relational trust-as-belief element to what constitutes a true Christian is the truly essential thing.
Thanks Greg- always incisive and clear!
June 22, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
Dave-
Thanks for posting. I always appreciate your thoughtful responses.
I’m not aware of an ‘Arminian-wide’ rejection of penal substitution. Wesley downgraded it into a hybrid of a governmental view but it would be wrong for me to act like I am fluent in the intricacies of Arminianism. I do know that traditional Arm has insisted on a PS view.
Catholics disagree with Protestants about ‘sola fide’ and both sides have said the other is out of the faith. Why? Because the differences ARE FUNDAMENTAL. Catholics can talk about Vatican 2 and ‘Luminem Gentium’ (no idea if that is spelled right) all they want, likewise Evangelicals the ‘ECT” document- neither came about until Existentialism and Postmodernism had played havoc with foundational ideas about truth.
And that is precisely the point. No. We don’t ‘widen’ the gap in any way, shape or form. We take our lead from Paul here. Regarding the Gospel, Paul said things like-
“If anyone is teaching a Gospel other than the one you received, let him be accursed (damned).” Gal 1:9
Regarding adding circumcision to the Gospel- “I, Paul, tell you if you accept circumcision Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Gal 5:2
“I am confident in the Lord you will take no other view than mine.” Gal 5:10
The desire to be ‘inclusive’ is a modern one. Paul and Jesus’ idea of ‘inclusive’ was to go and make disciples, teaching them to obey what Christ commands and taught. They were ‘exclusive’ in that no one was ‘ok’ and ‘inclusive’ in that the Gospel makes no distinctions about who it will or won’t save. It is precisely this modern idea of inclusiveness that values the “experiential and relational trust-as-belief” as being “truly essential.” There is NO hierarchy between intellectual assent and experiential relation. Both are essential. We all agree that one can have perfect doctrine and not know God; see the Pharisees. Somehow, that has come to give primacy to the experiential. But Paul debunks that when he says the Jews are zealous for God. By that, he means truly desiring. But then he lowers the condemning aspect- it is zeal without knowledge. Consequently, Paul believes them as condemned.
All this to say, we must seek grace and unity in the peripherals and doggedly defend the essentials. The very Gospel is at stake.
July 5, 2010 at 11:53 am |
Hi Greg,
I think you need to sacrifice your weekends watching Cowboys football and spend some time being a community organizer. I hear the local ACORN chapter is actively recruiting. And, I am not sure how you can be a Christian and a Longhorns fan at the same time since it is obvious to the most casual observer that Mack Brown is an agent of the devil. The devil has “long horns” as well – coincidence? I think not.
When I was selected by the News-Sentinel to be a Community Columnist a few years ago, they asked us to give a quick bio of ourselves to be placed at the end of each of our columns. One of the words I chose to describe myself was “Christ-follower”. Although I don’t share your same theology, I think this is a fair word to use since that is a term that I think accurately describes my journey. I intentionally chose not to use the term Christian since I thought that would be misleading to those who read it. Was the term “Christ-follower” misleading? Maybe/probably, but I didn’t intend for it to be. I was hoping people would notice I chose to use that term instead of Christian and infer that I differentiated between the two somehow. Later on in the bio, I also listed myself as a spirtual refugee. I was limited to so many characters; and I felt that a word or two to desribe my spiritual journey was needed.
I am probably more like Meister Eckhart (who considered himself a Christian) in my thinking, but if I used the term “mystic” I think most of the readers would have conjured (pun intended) up merlin / gandalf type images which would have been even more misleading.
Although you believe the term heretic would be best used to describe people like me, I choose to not use that label for myself even though many great men have worn such a label (e.g. Martin Luther). I don’t think they would have used that term to describe themselves either.
Just thought it was worth sharing how at least one person reconciles using the term “Christ-follower” to describe himself even though his understanding of what that means differs from your interpretation.
Unlike Pat Riley who got the word “Three-peat” copyrighted, it is my understanding that as of this writing, the words “Christ-follower” and “Christian” are still open to the public domain. Who knows – someone like Jerry Jones might even use words like these to describe himself. At least in that case we would be in agreeement as to their mis-application.
Take care,
Chris