Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsRogue Gospels
Posted by chevas | Leave a comment at the end of this post.Christians: What is your gospel? Initially, most everyone will explain God’s saving grace through Christ’s death and resurrection. A great answer indeed, but then something unspoken happens in relating to others, in Church, through word of mouth: we add more to our gospel than the gospel. Many of us have our own rogue gospels that help us feel comfortable or safe. The problem is that when we add anything to the gospel, Jesus gets nerfed, and we endanger the message of Grace. I see this happen primarily in two ways. The first addresses our actions and convictions, which Paul discusses this in Romans 14:
- One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind [emphasis added]. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. - Romans 14:5-9.
The second addresses who we follow:
- I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.
This passage in 1 Corinthians does not undermine our Church leadership nor those to which we esteem, but no person, action, or conviction (or anything) should get in the way of the gospel of grace, that Christ was crucified and resurrected for the whole world. Here are some modern rogue gospels with which I’ve been confronted:
- Our Church really is the best church to attend because of xyz theology. This is by far the most common rogue gospel. Somehow we believe the Church in which God has placed us is the Church that God should be placing everyone, or everyone in your city, and so on. Did you really just “should on” God? Churches are instruments used by God and we must look upon them and accept their value. The Church on the other side of town is doing a different work that your own lacks and yes, the Church you attend is likely doing a great work that other Churches lack.
- How can you be a Christian and not a republican? Conservative republicans have long felt they are the keepers of the evangelicals. This simply isn’t true as there are many faithful believers who land on both sides of the political aisle.
- All Christians should believe in creation science. Many Christians elevate creation science to Jesus. God is above creation and above evolution. He is way too high.
It’s good to have convictions and be “convinced in our own mind” as to how we should go about our business, teach our children, and even to teach others your secondary beliefs. However if we lace the gospel with these things, or they become as important, or we are not careful with our language around these subjects in proximity to the gospel, we risk rejecting our brothers and sisters and we risk rejecting seekers who might have otherwise chosen to believe. Paul addresses this specifically:
- For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel [emphasis added], that I may share with them in its blessings. - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Paul sets himself aside, he chose to lose himself for the sake of Christ. In turn he was able to “share with them in its [the gospel's] blessings”. This is another topic for another post. What are some rogue gospels with which you’ve been confronted?
It’s interesting you mentioned “creation science” in there. I spent my senior year at a Christian high school where I was taught geology from a young earth Creationist perspective. The teacher believed it was necessary to “indoctrinate young people” (her own words.) with creationism since evolution was a horrible heresy. It pretty much became a “rogue gospel” and it became as important as the knowledge that Jesus’ work on the cross happened for our salvation. I once had a conversation with a guy in a bar (yes.. a bar.) who told me he had evidence that the earth was the center of the universe and that science had been conspiring for centuries to keep that under wraps. He had a website and everything and he had Bible verses to back him up. He said to me, “The bible says narrow is the way and few find it. I don’t care about these thousands of scientists that say geocentrism can’t be true. Narrow is the way.” Of course, I’m pretty sure the Bible is talking about the way to salvation being narrow not knowledge about the true structure of our universe. I personally believe creation science probably creates more atheists and agnostics than anything Richard Dawkins could ever write but that’s another story.
I think its sad that evangelical has become a word that is synonymous with supporter of George W. Bush. When people hear the word evangelical especially in this area I wouldn’t be surprised if people say, “Oh.. you’re the jerks that put Bush in office to kill all those kids in Iraq.” The sad thing is that some of them would definitely have ears to hear the message and are spiritually starved for something but they think evangelical means Bush. I think Jesus transcends our politics and sometimes being a follower of Jesus doesn’t mean being a good conservative or a good patriotic American.
Thanks for the post.
Paul, I’m really going to enjoy your insightful comments on my blog. The example you provided was perfect. The guy in the bar spent all of his effort and energy trying to convince you of his science. Does the alleged “fact” of the earth being the center of the universe have any power to save you from sin or enable you to be the man you want to be? Well put.
If you’re going to enjoy it.. I’m going to stop since my intention was to troll
I’m just kidding. Thank you and I enjoy reading your thoughts on the God related stuff.
I think the essential truth of the faith is so incredibly simple and all the things we tack on like the politics or the “science” just serve to distract people from that simple truth that Jesus is who he says he is and that encounters with him will change your life forever.
Even as cynical and sarcastic as I am I still cling to that.
Peace
Hey Chevas. Nice blog!
I think your thoughts here are in good harmony with Apostle Paul’s in 1 Timothy 5-7: “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain deception, desiring to be teachers of the law without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.”
Many churchgoers today perceive what many of us consider secondary issues–those for which “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind”–to be important for salvation. In some cases we who are spiritual should restore their understanding of the simple Gospel as Paul did to the Galatians. But we must be very careful that we correctly discern the Truth and are not ourselves quibbling over secondary issues.
I have often encountered claims from apparently sincere Christians that I didn’t fully understand the Gospel, and some of the claims require careful thought and study. For example, some say that a Gospel that emphasizes our personal choice to respond to God elevates our will to God’s will and works against the claim that Christ accomplished salvation on the Cross. Others remind me that works are a necessary sign of faith, and if I persist in sin I was either never really saved or have become apostate.
When you say “xyz theology” is unimportant enough that it shouldn’t decide which church you attend, I cringe because having incorrect doctrine really can have eternal consequences in some cases. In Acts 20 Paul warns the church of Ephesus, “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” In this case Paul was anticipating that false doctrine would cause apostasy, and surely that is reason to carefully guard good theology. If a church’s theology is not important enough to choose one church over another, what would prevent us from choosing a church that teaches a different gospel, or even a cult?
Many of the bits of theology we may regard as unimportant actually marked the boundary of apostasy in church history. For example the esoteric doctrine that Jesus has both a divine and human nature was challenged by those who wanted to call Jesus something less than Lord God. The various creeds (Apostles, Niocene, Athanasian) came about to counter challenges regarded as significant enough to drive the whole church in the ditch. So to speak.
You mention creation science here, which is a tricky issue for which I don’t have all the answers. But it is significant to note that Darwin’s ideas were so influential in 19th century Anglican circles that by 1870 most Cambridge intellectuals considered themselves agnostics or hesitant deists. Westcott and Hort, top Cambridge men who were the first to collate and edit the New Testament from Alexandrian manuscripts, fell away from the faith and both cite Darwin’s theory as being important in forming their post-Christian worldviews.
Hi Mike, thanks for you comments! I agree with a lot of what you say. When I mentioned “xyz theology”, I should have clarified “secondary xyz theologies.” There are primary fundamentals of doctrine that are absolutely important, particularly the ones that hold up Jesus as Lord God. The previous post briefly discusses this topic. Primary issues, in my mind, are things like Jesus is divine, the trinity, virgin birth, and so on. If any of these are altered, the person of Jesus gets nerfed, again see previous post.
When Jesus is nerfed, you’re usually dealing with a cult. However, I do believe that well meaning Christians hang on to some secondary issues so tightly that they end up elevating these issues too much and flirt with nerfing Jesus. As you said, and as Paul says “we who are spiritual should restore their understanding of the simple Gospel.”
Regarding creation, the Bible is very clear that God created the universe, by His Word. I believe Jesus, being the Word of God, took part in that creation process and therefore, if one rejects that God created the universe, again Jesus gets nerfed. Genesis states that it was done in 6 days. Psalm 90:4 states “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.
Is this completely out of context? Perhaps. But I choose not to judge how one resolves how God created the universe. I personally adhere to a literal six day, dinosaurs and humans coexisted, young earth theology and science, but I’ve met seemingly faithful Christians who believe in old earth evolution. I bring to attention my friend Paul’s comment above who grew to be very disenchanted by the over-emphasis of creation science and how his teacher equated it with work of Christ on the cross. I’m thankful that she had not completely turned him off to the gospel, but it does speak to our frustrations. Christ must reign supreme, even over our current modern understanding of creation science. Who knows what scientific discoveries might come about in the future.
Sorry to be so long winded about something we actually agree on! I guess I’ll have to read some of your other posts.
BTW, Paul didn’t say the “…should restore their understanding of the Gospel.” bit. Close, though.
Concerning Darwinism as a theory of origins, some Christians have been able to harmonize this with the claims of the Bible, but far more leave or consider Christianity obsolete because of it. If you deny God specially created man, you simply have to theorize that intelligent life evolved through natural processes. So even though creation science is a secondary issue, if you don’t engage people carefully with reasonable answers to their burning questions, they may leave and never find the love of Christ. In other words, for some people in some situations, this can be a salvation issue.
I really appreciated your lengthly comment. You made me think about some things I only skimmed. This kind of thing is exactly what I want to see happen on the blog!
I don’t want to start a battle over creation science but in my experience I’ve seen too many people who were indoctrinated with creation science just decide everything was all a pack of lies once presented with compelling evidence about evolution. I think there is a ton of evidence for evolutionary theory and unfortunately a lot of people who attack it for reasons of faith I believe are attacking a “straw man” and don’t have a real understanding of what was being proposed and its unfortunate because its acidic to faith for people when they find out the arguments that they were presented with such fervor are rife with logical fallacies. It gets to, “This wasn’t true. Ken Hamm came to my church. I wonder what else isn’t true” and then you have an atheist, virulent anti-theist or wishy-washy agnostic.
For me I see that “godless” science is responsible for IPods and other trappings of the first world society we enjoy but science really cannot address the human heart in any meaningful way. All of that said there are clearly those who I think misuse evolution and other scientific theory and I think Richard Dawkins and other atheists and anti-theists definitely are guilty of this and it sucks quite frankly.
The hostility towards Darwinism I think does much to feed the perception that Christianity is anti-intellectual and just simply against reason. That doesn’t help win a lost world and I cringe when some mega-church somewhere hosts Ken Hamm or a screening of Expelled. I mean seriously you guys! Really?
All of that said.. it is about Jesus and my experience of him has been real and people can take or leave that and I would not consider someone a heretic or something for believing that I am dead wrong on this.
Peace
Paul, your perspective is probably one of the most relevant given that you have been directly exposed to creation science education.
I think the topic title speaks strong for itself. In my opinion, the biggest rogue gospel that people face whether they recognize it or not is the rogue thought that their sins are forgiven but others’ sins surely are not. Not only does one face this rogue gospel, often we perpetuate the same. Every time we decide that someone else is truly bad, or has done some really bad stuff and consequently decide that they are not worthy of being considered a true Christian we perpetuate a extremely damaging rogue gospel. For example, I have sinned. Some that are aware of my sin have decided that I am not, or should not be considered a Christian. On any instance that I decide in the truth of my own mental wrongness that a person is not a Christian, based upon my knowledge of their sin, or even worse based upon what rumor I hear about their sin, I have created an extremely dangerous rogue gospel in my head. I think you will agree that what we keep in our mind often drops to our heart.
This comment is such a breath of fresh air. Thank you! This is so true and has been an immensely frustrating thing to witness in our modern church. I really believe our suspicion of others’ sin is a result of our own self-condemnation, our own shame with our own sin, and our discomfort with intimacy (which I talk about here: http://chev.as/2006/10/18/what-it-really-is-without-the-anger/).
Once we realize that God accepts us right where we are and he loves us no matter what we do, all cylinders start to fire and we no longer are afraid of others or their sin.