“10 Gut-Wrenching Observations from a Former Church Insider”–by Shaun King

Posted by Dan C. on

This is an article I found at ChurchLeaders.com this morning and what I thought might/or might not be a salient comment.

10 Gut-Wrenching Observations from a Former Church Insider

by Shaun King

A powerful look at church from the outside by a former pastor.

(This post has not been edited for errors.  These are my raw, honest thoughts. In a hurry?  Scroll down for my 10 observations.)

I didn’t grow up in church.

It wasn’t until I was assaulted in high school and required several spinal surgeries that I even knew I needed God.  But from 1996-2011, from the time I was 16 until I was 31, church was CENTRAL to my life personally and professionally.  I became a church insider almost instantly.  Here is a bit of my church history…

At the age of 16 I was baptized @ Antioch Baptist Church in Lexington, KY by my best friends dad, Willis Polk

At the age of 17 I was licensed to preach by Willis Polk at his new church, Imani Baptist Church

At the age of 17 I moved to Atlanta.  My first mentor in Atlanta was Howard Creecy, the chaplain of the city of Atlanta and pastor of an urban church – St. Peter Baptist Church.

At the age of 18 I decided I wanted to be like a man named Dr. Aaron Parker.  I revered this dude.  He was a religion professor @ Morehouse College and a local pastor of Zion Hill Baptist Church.

At the age of 18 I started preaching all over the country and became active @ Zion Hill Baptist Church

At the age of 22 I visited Union Theological Seminary in NYC and thought long and hard about going there for my Master of Divinity.

At the age of 23 I started attending Total Grace Christian Center after several friends of mine from Morehouse and Spelman insisted it was an amazing place.  The pastor, Johnathan Alvarado, whom I have since spoken out against very strongly, was actually great to me during most of time there and put me on the fast track to leadership.  I was ordained as a pastor by him, became his personal assistant, and eventually helped launch a new campus of the church.

At the age of 25 I was approved and trained by the Evangelical Covenant Church denomination to become a church planter.

At the age of 28 I was approved and trained by ARC (Association of Related Churches) to become a church planter.

At the age of 29 I launched Courageous Church in downtown Atlanta.  I thought I’d pastor there forever. It sounds crazy to me now, but I loved that church and the people.  I’d do so many things differently if I could do it all over again. We had something special there.

In 2011 I stepped down from my role as Pastor of Courageous Church.  Man that hurt.

———

In the nearly 2 years since then I’ve visited a lot of churches with my family.

We’ve visited churches we’ve heard about for years, places we just learned about on the fly, we’ve sat in the balcony and down front, we’ve been to churches of all cultures and backgrounds, we’ve tried out all of the children’s ministries, we’ve seen church every way you can make it in America.

We’ve lived in California, Kentucky, and New York these past 2 years and have pretty much seen it all.  All of that considered, I have 10 observations that I’d love to share.

I like to always give this stipulation when I offer what may sound like a self-righteous critique of church. I love the Church. I love God. I am flawed. This is not me saying I’m perfect and that the church sucks. With that said, here goes…

10 Honest Observations of Church Now that I am an Outsider

10. This is going to sound terrible, but I’m surprised how little church means to me now that I’m not a church insider.

When I was a church insider, I operated under the assumption that what we were offering people was going to fill some deep gap that they had and knew that they had, but now that I am a church outsider, I’m a perfectly content guy. I don’t feel like something is missing. Maybe it is, but it doesn’t feel that way. 

I think pastors and church leaders too often assume that people that don’t show up on Sunday are lonely or deficient in some way, but it’s just not the case in my world and probably isn’t the case with others.

I listed this first because I think if I knew that people felt that way when I was a pastor I would have offered them something different and talked to them differently. 

It changes everything.

9. Most church nurseries stink. 

I mean like outrageous funk hits you in the face right away type of stink. They smell like crap and instantly make me not want to drop my baby off there.

Listen, I know diapers are changed there, but I’ve seen it done where it doesn’t smell like an old man crapped on the floor. Dropping a baby off to strangers is already a weird and difficult proposition – please dispose of the diapers in a close container and use air freshener.

8. I’ve gotten lost in every church I’ve ever attended. 

I can’t find the bathrooms, I can’t find where to drop off the kids, and when I find the bathrooms and where to drop off the kids, I can’t find my way back to my seat. 

Directional signs are SO DOGGONE CHEAP. You can seriously go as cheap as laminating some paper and taping them on the walls or go super fancy and have them professionally done. 

Just do it.

7. The sermons are rarely memorable.

This is a huge problem because in every church we’ve visited the sermon is clearly designed to be the crescendo/centerpiece of the entire service. 

I won’t tell you where we went last, but I can’t tell you even one sentence from the sermon and I listened the whole doggone time.

6. In my church training, I always learned that parents will go to a church that they like just a little bit if the kids LOVE it…

But that parents will leave a church they like a lot if the kids don’t like it.

It’s true.  I preferred one church in New York personally but the kids didn’t like it at all.

We went back one time. The kids didn’t like it again. I love it. We never went back. 

DOUBLE DOWN ON WHAT YOU DO FOR KIDS. Make it even bigger and better than what you do for adults!!

5. I honestly don’t remember if I acted this way when I was a pastor, but I’ve had a few pastors act really weird over their church members volunteering to help with something I was leading outside of the church. 

Each time it baffled me. Don’t act like you own your members. I’m not going to start a church with them. They can volunteer outside of your church. 

It’s healthy. Don’t be weird and don’t act so insecure fellas.

4. When I pastored Courageous Church we spent an outrageous amount of time on announcements. 

I was slightly aware that we spoke of our announcements too many times. Now that I am on the other end of things, IT IS CRAZY. 

Don’t have an announcement video, then an announcement flyer, then have the pastor restate all of the announcements, then have a host come do it at the end. 

Cut almost all of it out. 

Do it once and have a flyer. If the pastor has to emphasize something, have them only say something about one thing, but my guess is that unless it’s urgent, let the pastor just preach. It goes in one ear and out the other, it drags the service on an extra half an hour, and it’s just not effective.

3. I feel like I’m going back in time when I go to most churches. 

Listen, I know God is unchanging, but the world changes.

I hear pastors make illustrations with references from the 80s that go right over people’s heads. 

I hear music that was popular in the 90s (which is getting to be a long time ago). 

A ton of churches make zero references to social media during the services, but it’s a big part of people’s lives.  I hate to say this, but when I visited some churches, it felt just like it did when I visited them 10 years ago and gave me very little motivation to go back.

2. Most churches have NO IDEA what to do with the true skills and gifts that men and women have…

if they don’t involve singing, doing camera work, or running lyrics on a laptop. 

I rarely feel challenged in church and rarely hear of any opportunities to use any of my skills, gifts, or talents in a remotely meaningful way. I am sure people felt this way when I was a pastor as well, but it totally went over my head. 

Your church is full of smart, experienced, skilled people. It’s OK for them to be ushers and greeters, but if somebody is an expert at something, take the time to figure out how to use that. 

It will engage them on a deep level and make the commit like never before.

1. All of that said, I’m still so proud of you pastors. 

Your work is so important, but so hard and it can be nearly impossible to get outside of your bubble to know what the world truly thinks and feels. 

I am rooting for you in every way!

Keep getting better. Figure out how to have regular, unbiased feedback from visitors or even from 3rd parties that you bring in. It will keep you sharp! 

What I heard in this article was someone who ‘joined church’ and a lot of complaints from a still young man, based mostly on personal preferences\likes being satisfied. Well, I’m not a young whippersnapper anymore. I repented of my sin and believed in Christ as a young teenager, however was a prodigal for nearly 10 years from about ages 18 – 26 having left organized church because of what I thought was wrong with it. God hauled me back in while I was in the US Army Special Forces and I remained within that elite military community for nearly 30 years. I retired about 15 years ago and am still just a regular working man at age 63. But this isn’t about me. I just wanted to provide a bit of background.

I learned about 30 years ago now that locating a church to attend wasn’t a matter of finding what ‘fit’ my personal likes/desires. It was a matter of asking God where he wanted me to serve as I moved around serving in the military (and probably a bit more than the young fellow who wrote the article)  . For that reason, although no church/chapel has met all of my personal expectations, I have always found a place where I could add what talents and gifts I’ve been granted for the building up of the body.

I’ve never been to a regular Bible college or seminary, but I’ve read through and the Bible a few times and did a bit of studying on my own. Because laborers are always in demand, I’ve had the honor and privilege to teach Sunday School and various small group Bible studies, provide a message when all the chaplains have been deployed, be an usher, join prayer teams, cook for lots of people and clean up afterwards.

I’ve heard a LOT of sermons, some from popular, exciting and gifted preachers/teachers, but many more from just ordinary pastors and servants. God has spoken to me in many ways through most of them. If I didn’t hear God speak to me somehow, I probably wasn’t listening.

Along the way, I’ve learned a thing or two about ‘church’ and ministry in general. About churches – they are either founded on the pure unvarnished gospel that Christ died for our sins (built by Jesus), or they are merely works of men, some of whom preach a different Gospel, like Christ died for OUR dreams (that was in actual sermon I heard once). About ministry – all true ministry is God’s ministry, and we still flawed mortals are blessed to help, no matter where we find ourselves on the ‘food chain’.

A last word about this article. The young man who wrote it spent a lot of time talking about himself and his accomplishments, as if he was establishing his credentials, so he could gripe about what he thought was wrong with most churches,the need to ‘get with it’ and then tell young pastors he was proud of them anyway? While it did make a couple of good points, it seemed to be more about churches men build rather than the one Jesus built, and is still building.

The History Channel’s “The Bible” Part 5 – An Adventure in Missing the Point. . .again

Posted by Dan C. on

Well, I made it through all five episodes of this ‘epic’ miniseries and can breathe a sigh of relief. I don’t know if I could handle another round of glaring deviations from, and ‘interesting’ additions to the actual text of the Bible. In this last episode the worst of those started after the passion, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the representations of which weren’t that bad.

The first huge disappointment was at the appearance of Jesus to the disciples, and Thomas’ recognition of Jesus. Rather than the hugely significant confession by Thomas in which he recognized Jesus as “My Lord and my God!” we are given more of a simple “It’s you!” moment. Considering that the demonstration of the Trinity at Jesus’ baptism was omitted in the miniseries, it’s perfectly consistent that Thomas’ proclamation was also left out.

Then we have Pentecost. In the film version, instead of the Holy Spirit coming to a group of followers patiently waiting as Jesus had told them to do, ‘it’ (that’s right – the Holy Spirit is called ‘it’ in the film) came to a group that seemed to be upset it was taking so long. The Holy Spirit did come with a mighty rushing wind, which was also apparent to everyone in the streets, but the ‘tongues of fire’ were completely absent.

The disciples’ speaking in tongues was portrayed as unlearned real languages that could be understood by the people in the streets of Jerusalem, and that was good.  Perhaps not so good was depicting the disciples speaking in unknown languages to the crowds outside through the walls of the room. Completely absent was  Peter’s impassioned speech in those same streets, in which he not only accused the listeners of crucifying Christ, but also commanded them to repent and be baptized.

Next we have the healing of the beggar and the arrest of Peter and John, followed by their appearance before the ruling council and religious elders. In this scene Peter does give credit to Jesus for the healing of the beggar, but he also says that Jesus didn’t die! Also completely absent is Peter’s second accusatory sermon and the declaration that the name of Jesus is the only name under heaven by which men may be saved.

We now fast forward to the episode of the arrest and stoning of Stephen, in which Stephen declares, concerning Jesus, “They tried to kill Jesus, but they failed! Well, words are words and those words say that Jesus was not killed. More confusion, even if they really meant that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Leap forward again to the conversion of Saul, who is baptized by Ananias in the name of Jesus and told that God had chosen him to ‘change the world’. In Acts 9, however, there isn’t an account of Paul’s baptism, nor was Paul told to be a ‘world changer’ by Ananias.

Fast forward one more time to a scene in which Paul is mingling with other believers who are quite skeptical about Paul’s conversion, which would be quite natural considering Paul’s history as Saul and persecution of the church. Paul is apparently accepted by the crowd after he delivers a speech about love that sounds just like 1 Corinthians 13, which in reality was in a letter he wrote to the church at Corinth.

That’s all we see of Paul’s missionary career, leaving you with the impression that Paul’s beloved gospel was nothing more than the gospel according to the Beatles and “all we need is love” to change the world.

‘Nuff said. Part 5 confirmed my earlier fears that The Bible would completely miss the overarching story of redemption that begins in Genesis and runs through Revelation, as well as the specific message that fallen men are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ alone. According to The Bible, Jesus came to this Earth to be the great ‘world changer’, the one who would succeed where all of Israel’s previous leaders had failed. The end. Th….th…..th…..that’s all, folks!

P.S.

If you missed some of the TV episodes, or just want to watch them again, there will probably be reruns on The History Channel. If you miss those and/or you like to waste money, you can purchase the series on DVD and/or Blue-ray for around $50.00, as well as ‘The Bible TV Series 30-Day Experience DVD Study’, for under $17.00. Alternatively, or in conjunction with purchasing the aforementioned DVD/Blue-ray products you can also buy the companion novel, “A Story of God and All of Us”, which is – you guessed it – based on the miniseries.

What was the purpose of this miniseries again?

‘The Bible’ series on History Channel: Review of Part 4, March 24

Posted by Dan C. on

By Margaret Minnicks, The Examiner

The fourth episode of “The Bible” series aired on the History Channel on March 24. Many stories were packed into two hours.

Last night’s episode was jam packed with a lot of stories from the Bible; however, they were just snippets and if people didn’t know the stories already, they sure wouldn’t have recognized them by the quick flashes that were shown.

Admittedly, the series is making for good discussions about the Bible, but there are so many discrepancies. If the Bible is to be told, why not tell it as it is written?

Part 4 compacted the stories of Jesus feeding the multitude and raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey on what we have come to know as Palm Sunday. Then on the first day of Holy Week, Jesus turns on the money-changers in the temple.

By the way, in the feeding the multitude story, the fish and bread were nothing like the Bible describes. Not to be picky, but the fish were big and they looked raw. The bread was big, round, and flat. The Bible clearly said there were 2 small fish (similar to our sardines) and five small barley loaves.

The next segment was about Caiphas coaxing Judas into betraying Jesus; Jesus throwing the disciples into turmoil at the Last Supper; Jesus is arrested and condemned to death as the disciples scatter.

The biggest misconception in this episode was the fact that Mary Magdalene was popping up in scenes that she wasn’t supposed to be in. Some of the scenes could have been labeled, “What’s wrong with this picture?”

In the Bible, Mary Magdalene was definitely not in the boat when Peter walked on water; however, she was in last night’s episode. In the Bible, during the Sermon on the Mount, one of the disciples and not Mary Magdalene asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, and He responded by reciting what we know today as the “model prayer” found in Matthew 6. Mary Magdalene showed up at the feeding of the 5,000. Mary Magdalene is in the Garden of Gethsemane scene with the disciples when Jesus was praying before He was taken by the guards. She was not included in any of these story in the Bible. So, what were the producers thinking to add her to these scenes?

One of the more powerful scenes was when Jesus healed a leper by a simple touch where you could actually see the healing taking place.

Not only was the story of Nicodemus visiting Jesus by night out of the biblical sequence, but in a conversation Caiaphas asked him, “Can anything good come out of Galilee?” In the Bible that line belongs to Nathanael who asks Philip, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46)

The raising of Lazarus was nothing at all like it is depicted in the Bible. For instance, Jesus doesn’t go in the tomb and touch the top of Lazarus’ face to get him to come alive. The biblical account says Lazarus was wrapped in grave clothes and Jesus said in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” (John 11:41-46) The series didn’t have Lazarus in grave clothes at all, and Jesus did not call him forth.

No doubt, the dramatization of “The Bible” series is great. The concern is that if the producers took time to do it at all, why not do it according the written word.

People are falling in love with this series. It has been said that President Obama and the first lady have given it “thumbs up” after meeting with Roma Downey.

The reaction of “The Bible” series is like “The Emperor New Clothes.” Everybody is saying what everybody else is saying because no one wanted to admit that the emperor was wearing no clothes at all.

Bible scholars know there are discrepancies in the series; however, not many people are willing to say so.

Overall, “The Bible” series on the History Channel is not sticking to the text no matter how high the ratings are.

 

The Seismic Shift in OUTREACH You Need to Know

Posted by Dan C. on

by James Emery White

As much as this article, posted at ChurchLeaders.com  unsettles me, I am including it in it’s entirety and commenting afterward. I think it defines much of today’s evangelical culture on several levels – at least the purpose driven/seeker friendly segment, which is quite large.

The Seismic Shift in OUTREACH You Need to Know

There has been a seismic shift in outreach that few church leaders are understanding, much less pursuing.

From the 1950’s to the 1980’s, the vanguard of evangelistic outreach was direct proclamation of the gospel.

Whether it was in the crusades of Billy Graham or the creative approaches of Willow Creek Community Church, presentation led the way.

This led to joining a community, and, eventually, being discipled into participation with the cause.

From the 1990’s thru the 2000’s, community took the lead.

People wanted to belong before they believed. Skepticism was rampant, and trust had to be earned. Once enfolded, Christ was often met in the midst of that community.

Cause, again, was the last to take hold.

From the 2010’s forward, “cause” has become the leading edge of our connection with a lost world, and specifically the “nones” (and it is increasingly best to replace the term “unchurched” with the “nones”).

Consider the recent Passion Conference in Georgia. What arrested outside media attention was the commitment to eradicate modern-day slavery, not the 60,000 students in attendance, much less the messages related to the Christian faith.

In a word, “cause.”

This made the gathering of 60,000 college students in the Georgia Dome for that cause become attractive. In other words, then and only then did “community” come into play. Then, after exploring that community, Christ could be — and was — introduced.

Think of this shift in terms of moving people through stages of introduction:

1950’s-1980’s:

Unchurched >>> Christ >>> Community >>> Cause

1990’s-2000’s:

Unchurched >>> Community >>> Christ >>> Cause

2010’s and on:

Nones >>> Cause >>> Community >>> Christ

It is important to note how far the message of Christ is from the mind and sentiment of the average “none.”

It’s not that the church should “bury the lead” in terms of putting Christ at the end of the line — remember, we’re talking strategy. It’s just that leading with Billy Graham’s simple “the Bible says” was a strategy designed for people in a different place spiritually than many are today.

The more post-Christian a person is, the more evangelism must embrace not only “event/proclamation,” but “process” and “event/proclamation.” Earlier models were almost entirely “event/proclamation” oriented, such as revivals, crusades or door-to-door visitation. As I’ve written about in other places, this is only effective in an Acts 2, God-fearing Jews of Jerusalem context.

“Process” models are needed in Acts 17, Mars Hill, nones/skeptical contexts.

Like the one we live in today.

The presentation of Christ must remain central to our thinking, to be sure. That is the only reason we are even talking about strategy; the goal is to present Christ and Him crucified. But is that where we start? On Mars Hill, the spiritual illiteracy was so deep that Paul had to begin with cultural touchstones, lead in to creation, and work his way forward.

It took him a while to get to Christ.

And community? It matters, but the average person has tastes of that already. Maybe it’s not functional, but they don’t seem as drawn to it as they used to be. Perhaps it is because of the lure and illusion of social media, or because they’ve simply given up on it, but it’s not the great “search” it once was.

So there has been a great seismic shift. Today, it is cause that arrests the attention of the world.

Which brings us to the challenge.

First, to recognize the seismic shift, and begin to strategize accordingly.

Second, to realize how difficult this will be. If cause is in the lead, and community close behind, the church is at a deficit. In the minds of many, our causes have been mundane (let’s raise money for a fellowship hall!) or alienating (Moral Majority!). And the close second of community? Our reputation for dysfunction in that area is legendary.

But there is great irony in the challenge. Jesus wed mission and message together seamlessly, proclaiming the Kingdom that had come while healing the leper and feeding the hungry. He mandated concern for the widow and the orphan, the homeless and naked, the imprisoned and hungry, while speaking of the bread of life and a home in heaven.

In other words, we should have been nailing this all along.

And if community is lurking in the back of the minds of people as a felt need, that should be a calling card as well. Jesus challenged his followers about the importance of observable love toward one another as the ultimate apologetic for His life and ministry and message.

And even if it takes a while to get to Christ, He should be presented raw and unfiltered in all of His scandalous specificity; as Moltmann proclaimed, “the crucified God.”

So as we ponder the rise of “cause” as the cultural bridge over which to walk, perhaps the greater truth is more elemental:

Do all three.

Imagine a church that had community, cause and the undiluted message of Christ in the vanguard of its efforts.

It might just become the church Jesus had in mind all along that would reach the world.

_______________________________

So we need to understand the ‘seismic shift in outreach’ and develop strategies to adapt to it, in order to become the church Jesus had in mind? There might be a scripture that applies here:

“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19 ESV)

I suppose it works if the church Jesus had in mind solves all the world’s social ills and fallen men have the natural ability to love and serve God. In that case, it might be the perfect plan. So we  ask a few simple questions.

1. Why DID Jesus come into the world?

The Angel who appeared to Joseph has something to say about that:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:18-21 ESV)

The preeminent missionary of the NT church, the Apostle Paul, reaffirmed the Angel’s words to Joseph years later:

“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1 Timothy 1:15 ESV)

2. Do fallen men have the natural ability or desire to love and serve God?

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” – (Romans 8:7 ESV)

    “The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
        to see if there are any who understand,
        who seek after God.
    They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
        there is none who does good,
        not even one.”
(Psalm 14:2-3 ESV [See also Romans 3:11)

“And even if our (Paul’s) gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV)

Do the ‘nones’ of America love causes and community enough to ‘volunteer’ for the Jesus who came to solve the ills of society, as the article proposes? Sure they do! We even have the latest Passion Conference as an example. According to a report at the CNN Belief Blog Passion 2013 raised $3,170,639 to fight human trafficking.

3. Is is true that “Process” models are needed in Acts 17, Mars Hill, nones/skeptical contexts, as the author suggests?

Here’s Paul addressing the Areopagus in Athens concerning their idols and imaginings:

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:29-30 ESV)

To think that we need to follow the ‘seismic shifts’ and develop strategies to see lost people saved, is clever imagination, nothing more. For lost sinners to be saved only two things are absolutely necessary; a ‘God-opened’ heart and the application of the true gospel message to that heart. (See Acts 16 and the story of Lydia)

One last thing needs to be said here – get the gospel right! The Apostle Paul speaks one last time:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ESV)

4. What should we do, as believers and followers of Christ?

We should pray that God open hearts to hear the gospel as we connect with people in our daily lives, and we should be ready and eager to present Christ to those with whom we connect.

Have a wonderful today and rest of your lives, as you labor in the vineyards!

The Bible: “Viewer discretion is advised”

Posted by Dan C. on

by Lutheran Pastor, Ted Giese

The Bible Logo

As might be expected, Lutherans are keen on the Bible. Our churches read aloud from the Scriptures every week during worship. In those same services our pastors preach sermons based on the readings for the day. We encourage our members to read their Bibles in personal devotions, and to attend Bible studies at our churches so that they can grow in their knowledge of God’s Word.

Helping people know the Scriptures better is the goal behind Mark Burnett and his wife Roma Downey’s new television adaptation of the Bible for the History Channel. In a recent interview, Burnett says he believes there’s a growing “Biblical illiteracy” among young people. It is admirable that someone would want to tackle that problem, not just among young people but among all people.

Each episode of the new series begins with a disclaimer. “This programme is an adaptation of Bible stories,” it says. “It endeavours to stay true to the spirit of the book. Some scenes contain violence. Viewer discretion is advised.”

That warning—to use your discretion—is good advice. The best advice is to watch this programme with your Bible next to you. Use your Christian discretion, your gift of discernment, while you watch (Matthew 24:4-5). Or, if this is not a strength of yours, turn to a fellow Christian with this gift (Luke 24:25-27).

Jesus talks about the need for discernment in Matthew 24: “See that no one leads you astray,” He tells his disciples. “For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.” Discernment then is about being able to look at something and tell if it’s accurate or not, if it’s true or not, if it’s genuine or not.

St. Peter tells us that we should “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:14). One way to be prepared is to know your Bible and know it well. When your co-workers say, “I was watching that Bible thing on TV last night,” you will be a help and a benefit to them if you’ve both watched the episode and followed that up with careful reading of the biblical passages it was based on. Just be sure to bring the conversation back around to “the hope that is in you.” That hope is Jesus.

Jesus Himself explained that all of Scripture was about Him. After His resurrection, He traveled the Road to Emmaus with two of his followers. They were discussing the events of the previous days (they didn’t recognize Jesus) and were sad because they could not understand what had happened. “O foolish ones,” Jesus says to them, “and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into His glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:25-27).

What does this mean? It means that no matter what part of the Bible you find yourself in, it will be about Jesus. This is an important detail to consider as you watch the Bible miniseries; every part of the show should be about Jesus.

Abraham and Isaac

Abraham-Isaac-webKeeping this in mind, let’s look at a familiar Bible story that appears in the first episode of the series. In “Beginnings,” Abraham and Sarah give birth, despite their advanced age, to a son they name Isaac. Isaac came as the realization of God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of the night sky. But as the Scriptures continue, God commands Abraham to sacrifice this special son Isaac; you can read the story in Genesis 22:1-18.

In the new television series, when asked by an inaudible voice to sacrifice his son, Abraham replies: “Sacrifice? No, no! Have I not shown you enough faith?” These are not words spoken by the biblical Abraham.

In other parts of this television series, the writers have God speak audibly. Here, however, they do not make God’s voice audible even though His words are present in the biblical account. This is a small detail but an important one; it informs the rest of how they tell the story of Abraham and Isaac. The Scriptural account has Abraham as an obedient follower of God’s command; he trusts God even in the face of this difficult request. The miniseries, however, presents Abraham as deeply conflicted. This is all speculation on the part of the writers.

Moreover, they show Isaac struggling with his father when he’s put on the altar. This too is not in the Biblical account. And just as he’s about to sacrifice Isaac in the television series, Abraham begs him to forgive him—again something not in the biblical account. The series does have Abraham being stopped at the last moment by the angel of the LORD, but it cuts out what God tells Abraham through that angel: “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him,” the Scriptures record, “for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:12).

On the surface, the television programme resembles the biblical account; but it fails to accurately portray what the Scriptures say happened. Sarah is shown rushing to the mountain top in a series of scenes not found in the Bible. The sacrifice provided by God to Abraham in place of Isaac is not a ram with its horns caught in a thicket, as the Scriptures record, but instead a little lamb standing beside a small tree. At the very end of the story, the narrator tells us that “Abraham has passed the ultimate test” and that “he will become the father of God’s nation.” It then passes on.

The book of Genesis was written by Moses, and Jesus says that Moses wrote of Him; so where is Jesus in this? If all the Scriptures were written concerning Jesus, as He says they are, then Jesus should be in this story. In the biblical story, Jesus is found in a number of ways. One way He is found is in the obedience of Isaac who goes willingly without complaint to the place of sacrifice trusting his father, just as Jesus would later do. Jesus is also found in the ram caught in the thicket, which prophetically points to the substitutionary nature of Jesus: just as the ram dies in the place of Isaac, Jesus dies for you. The television series curiously replaces this ram with a lamb. And while Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “Lamb of God” in the New Testament, there is no lamb in the biblical account of Abraham and Isaac. Why the change was necessary is unclear.

The Book of Hebrews tells us that it was “by faith [that] Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Hebrews 11:17-19). From this we see that the story of Abraham and Isaac is ultimately about trust in God and the promised resurrection of the dead: Abraham knew that God could raise his son Isaac from death even if he sacrificed him.

The story is also about God’s love for us. It points to God the Father’s willingness to sacrifice His beloved Son, Jesus, for us. But the Bible miniseries here and in other Old Testament stories misses Jesus and salvation history.

What to make of the series?

jesus-on-cross-webWhat then can be made of the Bible miniseries? Sadly, the focus is not on Jesus but instead on examples of God testing people’s goodness and leadership skills. The Bible miniseries is, in the end, more about you than it is about Jesus for you.

On a technical note, the production values for the series are adequate but pale in comparison to other recent epic television and films projects. The acting is uneven and includes some cringe-inducing moments. The writing frequently moves away from the text of the Bible: there are many things subtracted and many things added to the biblical account. Fight scenes not in the actual biblical stories are added, apparently for entertainment value. And there are significant passages of biblical dialogue absent which would help the audience to make sense of the narrative. This last criticism is particularly puzzling because the producers sought out the help of Christian advisors in making the miniseries.

One positive thing to note about this series is that the History Channel is notorious for airing documentaries that are openly negative and hostile towards Christians and their faith. While the new Bible miniseries is by no means perfect, it certainly isn’t deliberately negative in the way some other programmes on that channel are.

The question then is this: “Did the Bible miniseries do what it intended to do? Did it fulfill its purpose?” Mark Burnett’s desire to stem the tide of “biblical illiteracy” is not greatly helped by this miniseries, unless it gets people interested in reading the actual book itself. If it sends people back into the pages of the Bible to see what’s there, then maybe it will have served its purpose. It would be great if people young and old could be encouraged to pick up their Bible and do some fact checking while they watch the production.

If you are planning to watch or are watching this miniseries, be careful to use viewer discretion; it is both advisable and recommended. You can also use the series as an opportunity to encourage others to read their Bibles and get involved with a Bible study in their church.

Does the series succeed in staying “true to the spirit of the book,” as it claims in its initial disclaimer? That question requires discernment. Thankfully, you are blessed to have God’s actual written Word to see for yourselves.

________________________

NOTE: There is a short but good interview with Ted Giese at the Issues, Etc., a Christian Talk Radio program.

“Part 3 of The Bible gets a 4 star review”

Posted by Dan C. on

Author: Donna Sundblad, Atlanta Bible Study Examiner

Part 3 of the History Channel‘s The Bible aired on March 17 with the prophet Jeremiah warning Israel’s King Zedekiah about the coming siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians. Jeremiah’s warnings go unheeded and he delivers a final message to Zedekiah. “Surrender to Nebuchadnezzar or die. God is bringing disaster.”

The biblical account of this historical time explains that Zedekiah was placed on the throne as king by Nebuchadnezzar, after King Jehoiachin was taken captive and brought to Babylon. As the television miniseries fast forwarded through the remainder of the Old Testament and into the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus and the start of his ministry on earth they did a good job.

“In the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon advanced against Jerusalem with his entire army. They laid siege to the city and built a siege wall against it all around. The city was under siege until King Zedekiah’s eleventh year” (2 Kings 25:1-2 HCSB)

The prophet Daniel

The Bible offered a realistic portrayal of the massive Babylonian army camped outside the walls of Jerusalem. No one escapes the city and after 18 months the Israelites start to starve. The TV miniseries showed the Babylonians shooting fiery arrows over the wall and King Zedkiah turning to the prophet Jeremiah for help. The prophet tells the king to “repent and all will be well. God will save us.” Then almost in the same breath he says, “You’re too late,” and the scene moves to a battering ram at the gates. Jerusalem is destroyed and the temple is plundered and burned to the ground. The Jewish people flee including a man named Daniel who is taken captive. This works for the miniseries for the sake of time constraints, but in actuality he was taken captive to Babylon when Jehoiachin was deported.

“Nebuchadnezzar deported Jehoiachin to Babylon. Also, he took the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officials, and the leading men of the land into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon” (2 Kings 25:15)

The Daniel in episode 3 of The History Channel’s the Bible looked old compared to Daniel of the Bible who was taken captive as a youth (Daniel 1:3). The condensing of events is understandable for TV, but in actuality Daniel was in captivity about three years before he was to be “evaluated” by the king. The miniseries did a good job of showing Daniel’s visionary powers, and how Nebuchadnezzar grows to trust him after none of the other wise men, sorcerers, or seers could tell him his dream. Daniel not only tells him his dream, but what it means. Of course in the Bible more than one dream is interpreted, but the miniseries did a great job with the condensed version.

A large gold statue is constructed and everyone is expected to bow to it. When the music is played all the people bow except three Jewish men who remain standing. This was a powerful scene that created a strong visual of the faith they lived. Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar, “They will only worship God.” An angry Nebuchadnezzar vows that he will “make them bow.”

The scene of the fiery furnace left a little to be desired but overall the producers got the idea across when Daniel’s friends do not burn in the fierce flames and a fourth “man” appears in the fire with arms outstretched. His friends are not harmed and the miracle unites the people. They reaffirm their trust in God.

Daniel and the lions’ den

Cyrus, King of Persia conquers Babylon without a fight, and Daniel finds favor in his sight. Others who serve the new king are jealous of Daniel, and develop a plot. They know the only way to bring Daniel down is his God. The men flatter the king and trick him into creating a law that forbids the people to pray for a month. They know Daniel will not abide by this man-made law, and it will mean his life. Daniel goes up to his room, puts on his prayer shawl, faces east, and prays. Through lattice work in the room, his enemies witness the breaking of the law and Daniel is arrested and thrown into the lions’ den.

Cyrus does not sleep and asks for the door to be open. In the miniseries this happens the same night, but in the biblical account he waits until the following morning because it is the law. Daniel is found unharmed. Cyrus calls for Daniel to come out and says, “God is with you. You’re God is real. Your God has saved you. Your people will return to Jerusalem. Sadly they no longer have a temple to worship him.”

The Jews get to return to Jerusalem, but Daniel stays in Babylon. He says, “I fear for their future. I saw a great beast. It had great iron teeth and it devoured the whole world, but I saw one … this isn’t the end. It’s the beginning.” The narrative was a nice lead in to the New Testament.

Birth of Jesus

The miniseries featured flash scenes covering the next 500 years including information from extra-biblical texts. This worked as a segue to the New Testament times where Mary and Joseph are introduced through a modern day lens as Joseph thinks about how pretty Mary’s eyes as they gather in worship. Romans crash in and Joseph tells Mary to go back to her Father’s house. On the way she hears a voice. A burgundy-caped angel says, “The Lord is with you. Don’t be afraid. You will soon give birth to a son. He will be the son of the most high. The Holy Spirit will move in you. Don’t be afraid.”

By the time Joseph and Mary are shown next, he sees she’s is pregnant. She explains it is the work of God, but Joseph grows angry and says, “I thought I knew you.” When she explains that it is God’s child, he says, “Mary God doesn’t do this to people like us,” but an angel tells him, “Joseph son of David, be at peace. Take Mary as your wife. She is pure. The child she carries is from God.”

Joseph returns to Mary, where a crowd is surrounding her and calling her “whore.” Joseph shouts, “I believe her and I will still take her as my wife if she will have me.” This is much different than the biblical account where Joseph learns of Mary’s pregnancy but it does get the story across.

The miniseries depicts Mary and Joseph alone against the world, as the birth of the king of the Jews is announced in the heavens. Wise men quote scripture, “a scepter will rise out of Israel.” Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem and are caught in a fierce rain storm as she goes into labor and they can’t find a place to stay.

Herod

While the Bible doesn’t name the wise men, tradition names them: Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. The miniseries cuts to the astrologer Balthasar as he stands before Herod. He asks, “What can you tell me of the new king?”

Herod is portrayed as a crazy, self-indulgent King disturbed by this inquiry. “King of the Jews? Did you not come here to see Herod, King of the Jews. Then who is claiming to be king.”

Balthasar answers, “No one. He is not born yet. Surely your scribes have received the prophecy.” He returns to his companions and they follow the star as Herod goes into a tirade. This scene is rushed as Herod learns through the Scribes that the king will be born in Bethlehem. He sends his troops to kill all the babies in Bethlehem before Jesus is born.

“Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His origin is from antiquity, from eternity” (Micah 5:2)

In the biblical account, Herod doesn’t order the babies killed until he realizes the wise men are not returning to tell him where he can find the baby. In fact, in the Bible, when the wise men come to Jesus and Mary they are in a house and he is referred to as a “child” not a baby. This is why Herod’s order is to kill the baby boys two years and under.

In the miniseries, Joseph has a nightmare. He sees all the babies in Bethlehem being killed. “We have to leave now,” he says to Mary. “I can’t explain. Just trust me.”

Return to Galilee

After Herod dies, the people sense an opportunity to win their freedom, but the Roman response is brutal. The uprising is crushed and in Galilee alone, 2,000 people are crucified. In the scene where Joseph and Mary return to Galilee, Jesus looks to be about four or five years old. They come upon victims of crucifixion. Joseph reminds Mary that they must trust in God’s plan.

John the Baptist

At the River Jordan crowds flock to John the Baptist in the desert. Some people call him the Messiah, the Redeemer of the Jews, and the anointed by God, but he makes it clear “There is one to come, greater than me. I’m just a voice in the wilderness preparing the way.”

Jesus walks on the scene and tells John, “John what you are doing is right. Baptize me.” Following his baptism, Jesus goes into the wilderness. For 40 days his spirit is tested, preparing him for the challenges to come. He walks like he is about to faint, then collapses with labored breathing. A snake slithers up beside him. Jesus trembles. A black robed Satan walks up to him, and Jesus stands. Satan tempts Jesus, but Jesus resists Satan’s temptations and gets ready for his ministry which will be without John the Baptist who has been arrested.

Jesus returns to his home region and goes to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. His mission begins here with Peter, a fisherman. When Peter asks, “What are we going to do?” Jesus answers, “Change the world.”

John the Baptist beheaded

John the Baptist continues to preach in prison. This part of the miniseries is quite different from the biblical account, but it ends with the prophet losing his head.

The History Channel’s The Bible part 3 overall did a good job of depicting biblical events within the time constraints needed for a project of this magnitude. While the miniseries is very good, it is important to remember it is not a replacement for actually reading God’s Word.

 

Donna Sundblad has read through the Bible more than 20 times in her life, but reading the Bible isn’t enough. In 2 Timothy, 2:15 we are told to “study.” Study involves many aspects including a look at the original …

_____________

My thoughts:

I’m stll enjoying engaging in discussions around the miniseries. Not a bad review, but still glaringly MIA (Missing In Action) is the story of redemption! I had hoped that the angel who told Jesus’ earthly dad Joseph would have included the rather important statement concerning the child in Mary’s womb “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

I was disappointed that the demonstration of the Trinity at Jesus’ baptism was omitted. to me that would have been something NOT to leave out. On the other hand, since the miniseries has in no way attempted to teach any actual doctrine in the first three segments, perhaps I should be complementing the miniseries on its consistency.

Also, I don’t remember hearing in this episode Jesus’ words recorded in the NT at the beginning of his ministry, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”, which is perhaps the best demonstration of the Trinity in the NT, if not the entire Bible.

Lastly (not really, but enough for now), the allegedly episode ending climactic answer to Peter’s question about what they would do, “Change the world.” is nowhere in scripture and probably sets the stage for Jesus’ ministry being portrayed mainly as a the ‘social gospel’ so prevalent in today’s liberal minded evangelical climate. Rick warren is undoubtedly proud of the miniseries and his own contribution as a technical;/spiritual advisor for the project.

According to the Apostle Paul,

    “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1 Timothy 1:15 ESV)

The miniseries still has a couple of more episodes, but my hopes that it will get to the MIA plan of redemption are becoming dim.

Evangelistic Thoughts

Posted by Dan C. on

“If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on public preaching of ‘the plan of salvation’ in America for one to two years. Then I would call on everyone who has use of the airwaves and the pulpits to preach the holiness of God, the righteousness of God, and the Law of God until sinners would cry out, ‘What must we do to be saved?" Then I would take them off in a corner and whisper the gospel to them. Don’t use John 3:16. Such drastic action is needed because we have a gospel hardened generation of sinners by telling them how to be saved before they have any understanding why they need to be saved.”  – Paris Reidhead

“The gospel of submission, commitment, decision, and victorious living is not good news about what God has achieved but a demand to save ourselves with God’s help. Besides the fact that Scripture never refers to the gospel as having a personal relationship with Jesus nor defines faith as a decision to ask Jesus to come into our heart, this concept of salvation fails to realize that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified coheir with Christ and adopted child of the Father.”  – Michael S. Horton

“Let eloquence be flung to the dogs rather than souls be lost. What we want is to win souls. They are not won by flowery speeches.”  – Charles H. Spurgeon

“Our business is to present the Christian faith clothed in modern terms, not to propagate modern thought clothed in Christian terms. Confusion here is fatal.” – J. I. Packer

“The Holy Spirit can’t save saints or seats. If we don’t know any non-Christians, how can we introduce them to the Savior?” – Paul Little

“Evangelism is not salesmanship It is not urging people, pressing them, coercing them, overwhelming them, or subduing them. Evangelism is telling a message. Evangelism is reporting good news.” -  Richard C. Halverson

“Love your fellowmen, and cry about them if you cannot bring them to Christ. If you cannot save them, you can weep over them. If you cannot give them a drop of cold water in hell, you can give them your heart’s tears while they are still in this body.” – C. H. Spurgeon

“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46)”  ― Jesus Christ

The Blogs, the Battles and the Gospel

Posted by Dan C. on

by Tim Challies

The blogosphere in general and the Christian blogosphere in particular has had its share of successes, but also its share of failures. Many of its most egregious and public failures have been in the realm of polemics—discussing or debating controversial topics. Many bloggers have mastered all the practical rules of blogging, the short paragraphs, the use of subheadings, the best times and dates to post their articles. But these same bloggers, myself included, would do well to work toward mastering the spiritual rules of blogging.

I recently found help in an unusual place, Robert R. Booth’s Children of the Promise, a book on the always-controversial subject of baptism. He says

We know we understand an opposing view only when we are able to articulate it and receive the affirmation of our opponent that we have accurately represented his position. Only then can we proceed to argue against it. It does not take a big man to push over a straw man—little men are up to this simple task. Nor is it enough to say that our brother is wrong, or silly, or that his arguments make no sense; we must be prepared to demonstrate such claims. Some argue that they do not need to demonstrate such claims. Some argue they do not need to understand opposing views. But they cannot expect to engage people who disagree with them.

Indeed, and this applies to discussions far beyond baptism. In a recent article Tony Payne turns to football (soccer) to provide the helpful illustration of playing the ball rather than the man. “As in football, so in debates and arguments, we should strive to play the ball not the man; to discuss the issue itself rather than attack the person presenting the issue. This is not easy. It requires the ability to separate the pros and cons of a particular argument or issue from the personality who is presenting them, and to subject your own arguments to the same honest scrutiny that you bring to bear on the alternative view.”

You know you’re dealing with someone who is playing the man not the ball when he makes a straw man of your view; that is, when he presents your side of things in an extreme or ugly light, or describes or illustrates it in such a way as to make it unattractive. By contrast, a ball-player endeavours to describe and present the opposing view as fairly and reasonably as he would like someone to present his own view.

Ball-players also freely and honestly acknowledge what is good and right in the opposing view, and avoid intemperately damning the whole because of a defect in the parts. They seek to stick to the issue at hand, and not broaden or generalize the disagreement into a questioning of character or bona fides.

Playing the ball also means seeking to remain in good relationship with the person you’re disagreeing with, so that you can hopefully shake hands and share a coffee after your debate, or continue to work together on other projects or platforms. This is the ideal, and we should strive for it—to avoid targetting the person, and to deal instead with the issue, in the hope of coming to a common mind.

A very helpful and extensive word on gospel polemics comes from Tim Keller. It bears regular and repeated readings. Keller looks to D.A. Carson and several other theologians and arrives at seven rules that should guide our discussions, our polemics, our controveries, our words.

#1. Carson’s Rule

The first rule comes from D.A. Carson and states You don’t have to follow Matthew 18 before publishing polemics. ”[I]f someone is publicly presenting theological views that are opposed to sound doctrine, and you are not in the same ecclesiastical body with this person (that is, there is no body of elders over you both, as when, for example, both of you are ministers in the same denomination,) then you may indeed publicly oppose those without going privately to the author of them. Carson does add a qualifier, but that comes under the next rule.”

#2. Murray’s Rule

The second rule comes from John Murray and states You must take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of someone’s views. “In our internet age we are very quick to dash off a response because we think Mr A promotes X. And when someone points out that Mr A didn’t mean X because over here he said Y, we simply apologize, or maybe we don’t even do that. John Murray’s principle means that polemics must never be ‘dashed off.’ Great care should be taken to be sure you really know what Mr A believes and promotes before you publish.” To rule #2 I might add that if you have a relationship with a person with whom you disagree, it may be wise to attempt to contact that person to ensure that you have, indeed, understood their position and are now able to accurately represent it.

#3. Alexander’s Rule

The third rule comes from Archibald Alexander and states Never attribute an opinion to your opponent that he himself does not own. “[E]ven if you believe that Mr A’s belief X could or will lead others who hold that position to belief Y, do not accuse Mr A of holding to belief Y himself, if he disowns it. You may consider him inconsistent, but it is one thing to say that and another thing to tar him with belief Y by implying or insisting that he actually holds it when he does not. A similar move happens when you imply or argue that, if Mr A quotes a particular author favorably at any point, then Mr A must hold to all the views that the author holds at other points. If you, through guilt-by-association, hint or insist that Mr A must hold other beliefs of that particular author, then you are violating Alexander’s Rule and, indeed, Murray’s Rule. You are misrepresenting your opponent.”

#4. Gillespie’s Rule A

The fourth rule is from George Gillespie and states Take your opponents’ views in total, not selectively. “Just because someone says (or fails to say something) in one setting—either for good reasons or because of a misstep—does not mean he fails to say it repeatedly and emphatically in the rest of his work. Gillespie is saying, ‘Be sure that what you say is Mr X’s position really is his settled view. You can’t infer that from one instance.’ If we build a case on such instances, we are in danger of falling afoul of Murray’s rule as well. We must take responsibility for misrepresenting the views of others.”

#5. Gillespie’s Rule B

The fifth rule also belongs to Gillespie and states Represent and engage your opponents’ position in its very strongest form, not in a weak ‘straw man’ form. “Do all the work necessary until you can articulate the views of your opponent with such strength that he says, ‘I couldn’t have said it better myself.’ Then and only then will your polemics not misrepresent him, take his views in toto, and actually have the possibility of being persuasive.”

#6. Calvin’s Rule

The sixth rule is Calvin’s and states Seek to persuade, not antagonize, but watch your motives! “It is possible to seek to be winsome and persuasive out of a self-centeredness, rather than a God-centeredness. We may do it to be popular. On the other hand, it is just as possible to be bold and strongly polemical out of self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. And therefore, looking very closely at our motives, we should be sure our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents. We should seek to win them, as Paul did Peter, not to be rid of them.”

#7. Everybody’s Rule

The seventh and final rule belongs to each of the previous six theologians and states Only God sees the heart—so remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology. Keller goes to John Newton and says “no one has written more eloquently about this rule than John Newton, in his well-known ‘Letter on Controversy.’ Newton says that first, before you begin to write a single word against an opponent, ‘and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing.’ This practice will stir up love for him and ‘such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.’ Later in the letter Newton says, ‘Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who ‘when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.’ ‘It is a great danger to aim to ‘gain the laugh on your side,’ to make your opponent look evil and ridiculous instead of engaging their views with ‘the compassion due to the souls of men.’”

I commend these seven rules to my fellow bloggers and to all of us who engage in online discussion. May we exemplify gospel-centered and God-glorifying polemics.

____________________

Online Source