What I would like to share with you is the concern and awareness that has been building on my part for several months. This book serves as a powerfully illustrative tool. The free grace "crossless gospel" debate is nothing really new. From what I have learned it is a reincarnation of a more primal and longstanding dispute. I considered the reviews and summaries of the book, available online, which threads I link here:
good reads
amazon.com
The title of this book is: The Grace Awakening: Believing in Grace Is One Thing. Living it Is Another by Chuck R. Swindoll.
This reviewer[1] describes the content of the book:
Exhibiting candor and conviction, Swindoll contrasts liberty with legalism and warns readers to be wary of the three tools of legalism, or grace-killers, as he calls them: doctrinal heresy, ecclesiastical harassment and personal hypocrisy. As he explains it, legalists disturb and distort by twisting truth, spying and enslaving, and lying and deceiving others.
In the chapter titled "The Grace to Let Others Be," Swindoll compares the two different dimensions of grace. "Vertical grace centers on our relationship to God. It is amazing. It frees us from the demands and condemnation of the Mosaic Law," he writes. "Horizontal grace centers on our human relationships. It is charming. It frees us from the tyranny of pleasing people and adjusting our lives to the demands and expectations of human opinion."
To encourage readers as they awaken to grace, Swindoll reminds them that at least three things are involved in the process: it takes time, it requires pain and it means change. He also includes a helpful chart listing qualities of shame-based spirituality versus qualities of healthy spirituality, highlighting for readers the distinct differences between the two.
Swindoll is associated with free grace theology, and was the editor of the book titled "Salvation," by Dr. Earl Radmacher. Read his biography, here.
On page 563 of the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, by Randall Herbert Balmer, it says that Swindoll was heavily influenced by R. B. Thieme before attending seminary at DTS. In one of the reviews rated mediocre in the thread at Amazon.com, someone makes a claim which I do not have means to verify that in his book "The Grace Awakening" Swindoll has Thieme's orthopraxy in mind as he describes those forces that hinder the practical living out of grace amongst fellow Christians. Pastor Stegall and Pastor Rokser's congregations are theological descendants of Thieme teaching. Though, at this time there are no professional publications measuring the preservation of Thieme distinctives by these pastors.
On November 6, 2008 Rev. Lou Martuneac wrote a post titled, "Continuation of Discussion over the Closing of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College." In this post readers may notice that the "Grace Awakening" so-called mindset is said by Martuneac to be influential. Beginning in 1987, the college's president began to shift in approach. Swindoll's book is the representative reason why this fundamentalist college shut its doors, Martuneac alleges to his fellow Independent Fundamentalist Baptist brethren.
Readers might also notice in his post, that Dr. Earnest Pickering has written a critical response to Swindoll's "Grace Awakening." According to his biography Pickering is associated with Independent Fundamental Churches of America and also the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.
At the time serving as a board member of the Grace Evangelical Society, Ed Underwood wrote a review of "Grace Awakening." In it, he writes:
One of the primary frustrations of the Free Grace Movement has been the popularization of Lordship Salvation over the past decade. Though many high-profile evangelical leaders have voiced their personal concerns privately, none has been willing to risk alienating his audience by standing up for the pure Gospel of Grace. Until now.
At the outset Swindol refuses to treat grace as simply another "theological football kicked from one end of the field to the other" (p. 4). "Enough of this," he cries. "It’s time for grace to be awakened and released, not denied … to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated" (p. 4).
The purpose of this volume, to infect believers with the liberating grace of God, makes it one of the most effective weapons available to combat the bondage of legalism that the Grace Evangelical Society was founded to arrest.
I find it curious that Swindoll's experience with free grace (dispensationalist) fundamentalism (i.e. Thieme), inspired him to publish this book. His personal exit from the "grace-killing" qualities of our churches took place some forty years ago. This teacher of free grace has written the book on the matter. Here we are today, standing at the brink, considering taking the same step... for the same origination of conflict in the "crossless gospel debate?"
On the other hand, I recall Martuneac asking me not to accuse fundamentalism of legalism, and I think there is an avenue in which this is wise. (After all, if we had a well-saturated environment of grace, perhaps we could handle a staunch brother here or there who had an eye for the drift of compromise and error. Especially as new doctrines are written free of Calvinism and bad hermeneutics, I imagine men with discernment will be indispensable.) I am curious whether Pickering discusses this in his response (which is available through the links provided at Martuneac's post).
There are so many which need Spiritual liberation as taught by scripture. In online reviews of Swindoll's book, Christians of a variety of denominations acknowledge that grace is missing in discussion and practice while confessing Christ.
How can we be men and women of a free grace gospel, without demonstrable grace? It's base hypocrisy if we do not find it.
* Several anonymous readers of this blog have emailed me, encouraging me that I am roughly on the right track regarding fundamentalism. I apologize because just within free grace issues there are many interests I have and I am only one person. I know I just don't know all the issues which some readers would. I appreciate your grace. I also encourage you to fact-check my posts on any items in discussion here. This is material meant by me to encourage readers in awareness and to deeper investigation.
[1] Review written by Sean Fowlds, "FaithfulReader.com," NY, NY.
31 comments:
Very interesting, Michele,
I remember hearing Swindoll on the radio when he was preaching on the content of this book. I got my feathers really ruffled by something that he said, to be quite honest. :~)
You really are doing your homework, Michele. I find your articles to be very informative and thoughtful.
"On page 563 of the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, by Randall Herbert Balmer, it says that Swindoll was heavily influenced by R. B. Thieme before attending seminary at DTS. In one of the reviews rated mediocre in the thread at Amazon.com, someone makes a claim which I do not have means to verify that in his book "The Grace Awakening" Swindoll has Thieme's orthopraxy in mind as he describes those forces that hinder the practical living out of grace amongst fellow Christians. Pastor Stegall and Pastor Rokser's congregations are theological descendants of Thieme teaching. Though, at this time there are no professional publications measuring the preservation of Thieme distinctives by these pastors."
This is very interesting, and something that I was not aware of. Another issue you might be interested to know is the fact that Rokser DISCOURAGED my dad from reading Swindoll while we were still attending DBC. I don't remember the details of what Rokser has against Swindoll, but I do know that Swindoll was the first person my dad was able to read regarding spiritual things after he left Rokser's church. Chuck Swindoll is still someone that my dad reads and is encouraged by. Like I said, I wasn't aware of the Swindoll - Thieme connection, but since it's there, it's surprising and rather strange that Rokser would be so opposed to him.
However, I'm encouraged to read what you have dug about his focus on grace. Granted, I grew up with grace on my lips, courtesy of Rokser's teaching. However, my memories leave me with hardly any occurances where I was taught the importance of a grace-filled life, as in actions, over the importance of a RIGHT grace-based theology.(Emphasis on being RIGHT.) What good is a theology, even a perfectly Biblical one, if it does absolutely nothing in regards to your relationships with God and with others.
This post has encouraged me, and it's nice to know that not everyone influenced by Thieme has turned out the way most of them have seemed to.
Hi Rose,
Why did your feathers get ruffled? It must have been something you disagreed with. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective especially since you have that middle-ground, the GARBC background.
Thanks for commenting,
Michele
Hi IndweltDaughter,
I suspect the reason why Rokser warned your dad from reading it is the same reason Lou warns young fundamentalists at the Sharper Iron message boards. They call Swindoll a part of "new evangelicalism," but I don't agree with that. Nevertheless, they see his gracious tolerance for others to learn, make mistakes, disagree, and even be wrong, as "ecumenism". ...I believe.
They call this the "slippery slope" toward compromise. People usually don't decide to move, it happens a little bit till one day you realize you no longer believe and practice as a fundamentalist.
I'd be really happy to read Pickering's reply to Swindoll's text. I bet a legitimate case might be made in pointing out that being influential for the truths of God's word should never be called "legalism."
I would never want to see a believer grow up with some knowledge-only understanding of grace.
Grace is faithful in time to beget authentic obedience, and precise doctrine, IMO.
Thanks for commenting,
Michele
oops. The husband was signed in.
Michele,
I will try to pop back in and type out the story of why I was feather-ruffled.
But real quick I wanted to tell you that I have Pickering's response to that book in printed booklet form and can scan it to you if you want. It would be easy cause I am going to my office and I have a copier that makes it very simple to do. I don't know if it is online or not, but if it isn't and you want to see it, I am a resource you can count on. :~).
Michelle,
You said "I would never want to see a believer grow up with some knowledge-only understanding of grace.
Grace is faithful in time to beget authentic obedience, and precise doctrine, IMO."
Amen, sister. :) And thanks for the background. I'm afraid people like Dennis and Lou could categorize me as one of the "slippery slopers." Although I'm not really sorry. I haven't read this book either, but I do also enjoy the other writings of his that I have read, and I find Swindoll's "gracious tolerance for others to learn, make mistakes, disagree, and even be wrong" very refreshing.
Rose,
I'd also be interested in reading that response by Pickering. I believe you have my email. If not it's on my blogger profile. Could you send that to me as well?
~Amanda
Hi, Michele - just wanted to pop in and ask if Rose could include me on that list??
Hi there Michele. I just dropped in to say howdy, & noticed your review of this book. I believe I have read it through 3 times so far, possibly 4. Sure, there are some things that I had asome problem with, since I consider myself fundamentalist at least in doctrine. But, iverall, the book was to me such a breath of fresh air, I suppose becuase it was at the specific time I found it, I SOOOOOOOOOO needed its message! Anyway, maybe more later, I just wanted to chime in! God Bless.
Hi Michele,
Great research! I read Swindoll's book in 1990 & like David Wyatt it came at a time I really needed it. It is a great book and well worth reading.
I have heard Mr. Thieme's name mentioned by many who hold to free grace. Did you know that Hal Lindsay studied under R.B. Thieme also after he(Hal) left New Orleans and moved to Texas?
I really appreciate your time spent on digging in to the history of these sometimes tireless debates. But I really believe what your doing will help us see where the people are coming from, especially those who seem to be the most influential right now. I think your time spent will produce fruit.
You are such a blessing.
Grace & Peace
Kris
Hi Michele,
I'd like to comment on the same quote indweltdaughter commented on:
"On page 563 of the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, by Randall Herbert Balmer, it says that Swindoll was heavily influenced by R. B. Thieme before attending seminary at DTS. In one of the reviews rated mediocre in the thread at Amazon.com, someone makes a claim which I do not have means to verify that in his book "The Grace Awakening" Swindoll has Thieme's orthopraxy in mind as he describes those forces that hinder the practical living out of grace amongst fellow Christians. Pastor Stegall and Pastor Rokser's congregations are theological descendants of Thieme teaching. Though, at this time there are no professional publications measuring the preservation of Thieme distinctives by these pastors."
It appears that Chuck Swindoll was writing against the legalism of R.B. Thieme. Swindoll apparently had some connection with Thieme, but I get the impression that Swindoll could see the legalism in Thieme's ministry and eventually spoke out against it.
I was floored to hear that Rokser discouraged a member of his congregation from reading Chuck Swindoll! This disdain for Swindoll is a characteristic of abusive and legalistic environments. For example, there is a Christian radio station here in Milwaukee, WI called WVCY. The radio station is ultra-conservative and legalistic. And no surprise, they took Chuck Swindoll off the air because he was emphasizing grace!
I knew the leadership at Duluth Bible Church (DBC) had problems - but it appears the problems are bigger than I had thought.
JP
Rose,
I would definitely appreciate a copy! How neat is that. I hope it isn't too much trouble for you, it appears Missy and Amanda want a copy too. If it costs, let me know and I'll send some money your way, no prob, K?
Thanks!!
Michele
P.S., Another friend in the blogosphere emailed me and is going to send me a copy of Pickering's biblical separation text. What a gift, what thoughtfulness! Oh! :D
Amanda,
You said:
I'm afraid people like Dennis and Lou could categorize me as one of the "slippery slopers."
I am pretty sure from experience that it is grace which opens the ears for whatever is being preached.
There are a number practices that come along this variety of "fundamentalism." I am not sure what differences might exist between Lou's IFB version and Stegall/Rokser's post-Thieme version. But so far I have seen a bunch in common.
I just would like to mention two. Both practice wholesale announcement (to the community of Christ) of those who disagree.
Both also practice a high level of alarmism, when they stumble upon theological error of some kind.
Thoughts?
Michele
Hi Missy,
I haven't checked your blog lately, I saw you have a new post. Have to check it out.
:) Michele
David,
You may not realize this but you actually confirmed my pre-reading suspicions, about this and Pickering's response.
You said:
Sure, there are some things that I had some problem with, since I consider myself fundamentalist at least in doctrine.
That means that grace can be over done. I myself can testify that I am coming out of this. I have overdone grace. I think I have. After realizing how much fundamentalism was wrong, I headed toward grace, but it went a little too far. The truth is absolutely critical for spiritual transformation.
You also said:
But, iverall, the book was to me such a breath of fresh air, I suppose becuase it was at the specific time I found it, I SOOOOOOOOOO needed its message!
I wish... I could go back and pull up all the old threads at My LDS Stuff. I used the Word of God as a cover and excuse to keep on violating normal rules of relationship. That's the kind of fundamentalism which I personally never want to practice again. (The admins at the forum keep rejuvenating the site about every year or two and never get around to reloading all the old threads. But I was abusive. It's easy to do as an evangelical. Popular culture has made picking on LDS with scripture, like a sport. This saddens me tremendously.)
Thanks for the howdy, howdy yerself!
Michele
Kris,
Thank you so much!! Seriously. It's not fun to be alone....
You said:
I have heard Mr. Thieme's name mentioned by many who hold to free grace. Did you know that Hal Lindsay studied under R.B. Thieme also after he (Hal) left New Orleans and moved to Texas?
But that (Thieme training) was before he went to DTS, right?
Did Hal Lindsay remain fundamentalist after training at DTS? It seems to me that while Thieme became distinct in his fundy after graduating, those who went in after knowing Thieme, came out replacing their ways with a manner of grace.
Do you think this is true? Do you know much of the history of these things?
Thanks so much - Michele
JP,
You said:
I was floored to hear that Rokser discouraged a member of his congregation from reading Chuck Swindoll! This disdain for Swindoll is a characteristic of abusive and legalistic environments. For example, there is a Christian radio station here in Milwaukee, WI called WVCY. The radio station is ultra-conservative and legalistic. And no surprise, they took Chuck Swindoll off the air because he was emphasizing grace!
Well, I picked up on his specialness before I knew he was associated with free grace. I too am "exiting" fundamentalism.
I knew the leadership at Duluth Bible Church (DBC) had problems - but it appears the problems are bigger than I had thought.
There certainly is a whole other world, lying right below the surface. Right now I have about ten items in my mind which I could blog or comment at your blog or mine right now. It's hard.
Can you share where you are at? Were you once fundamentalist (forsaking graciousness)? How did you begin to "come out"?
Thanks for stopping in,
Michele
Yes I believe you are correct, many of those did come out replacing their ways with grace.
I cannot ever remember Hal being extreme fundamentally at all. I think R.B. Thieme had more influence on dispensation issues than fundamental, especially with Hal.
I think a persons conversion experience and early discipling plays a big role if they fall into hyper-fundamentalism and stay trapped in it.
IOW I don't know if R.B. Thieme layed the groundwork for these hyper-fundies because many didn't stay in it. The evil one is pretty good at using our flesh to promote this. And our flesh is always willing to promote self which is why we are easily deceived.
I've been where these guys are and I knew in my spirit that it wasn't right. But is was a battle in my mind to be convinced of what was the Spirit and what was actually my flesh.
I think Legalism is the root cause and if a persons early discipleship is rooted in legalism then the enemy has a much easier task of deception.
Thanks
Kris
Michele, you know the back drop of my early discipleship. And because of that I wholeheartedly agree with what Kris just said.
I like the realm of this discussion (and the tone!). There is a delicate balance to fundamentally living a life in the light of a scripture fundamental in grace. I think Jesus is a beautiful - perfect - example of what it is to live one's own life holy for God and yet offer the ultimate grace to all others. Jesus said, "I'll take the blame." And in encouraging us to take up the cross, asked us to do the same for one another - not hand out guilt or blame, but accept it as our own.
Yes, I know that many can decidedly exclaim that Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees. It's true.
One might also point out that the apostles rebuked the church. That's true, too.
I would in turn point out, that they also died for those same people. They were not lacking any unconditional love.
OK, I just got the scan done and I will be sending it to you ladies by tomorrow.
The name of the booklet is called "Are Fundamentalist Legalists?" A Reply to Charles Swindoll
I also scanned a couple of other small pamphlets by Pickering that I am going to send you:
"Baptist Principles vs. Interdenominationalism"
and
"Is Controversy Christian?"
That oughta give you something to digest :~)
Kris,
You said many good things. I liked this a lot:
I've been where these guys are and I knew in my spirit that it wasn't right. But is was a battle in my mind to be convinced of what was the Spirit and what was actually my flesh.
Yeah, I remember having that same inward struggle. It was tough but I thank the LORD! that I got through to the other side.
With that heavy heart I posted a new blog post on what I've learned.
-Michele
Missy,
You said:
Michele, you know the back drop of my early discipleship.
For that reason your comments mean a lot more to me.
You also said:
And in encouraging us to take up the cross, asked us to do the same for one another - not hand out guilt or blame, but accept it as our own.
Yes! I often think of the meaning of the word "Meek." Having the power to take someone out, but exercizing restraint and not using it.
Thinking of Jesus being hung on the cross, "the nails hung him there."
Thinking of Philippians 2:5-7
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant...
I may bring these points up in my next post... if anyone is interested in talking about it that is.
Thanks for your affirmation,
Michele
Rose-
I just got the scan done and I will be sending it to you ladies by tomorrow.
Woohoo! I'm going to be Pickering'd !
Thank you so much!! :D Michele
Hi Michelle,
You said:
"I am not sure what differences might exist between Lou's IFB version and Stegall/Rokser's post-Thieme version. But so far I have seen a bunch in common.
I just would like to mention two. Both practice wholesale announcement (to the community of Christ) of those who disagree.
Both also practice a high level of alarmism, when they stumble upon theological error of some kind.
Thoughts?"
I don't know much about the typical behavior of the IFB, but I can definitely apply wholesale announcement and high level alarmism to what I grew to expect and accept as normal behavior at DBC towards those who are "wrong". I don't want to cause any more problems... you know that I'm struggling to decide how involved I should be in all this. I do want the truth of what I believe to be problematic to the Body in reality spoken though.
After coming home from college after my first year, the very first service I was able to attend at DBC that summer was a Wednesday night service. What was preached on that night wasn't by any means the norm, it's usually a Bible study, but it unsettled and discouraged me none-the-less. I remember afterwards being so sad and discouraged that the only encouraging thing the whole service was the hymn at the end. The entire message, and I'm not exaggerating, was an extensive list of different theologians - past and present - and what they believed. It wasn't for educational reasons though. After introducing each theologian/pastor and what he believed, they were each picked apart and we were treated to an explanation of where each one was wrong theologically, and how their misunderstandings had ruined this seminary or another, and why you shouldn't ever read anything they'd ever written or written by those they'd influenced. (Another way to prove why going to a seminary isn't probably the greatest idea. You can't be sure to receive all-around perfect theological teaching.)
My memory isn't perfect, and I'm sure there are things I read into that message that weren't meant to be there, but that's how it was translated to me. And anyway, any misperceptions I might have had do nothing to change the fact that the Word of God was only opened that night to a verse to illustrate the danger of false teachers. Nothing that came over the pulpit was encouraging or did anything to point me toward my Heavenly Father. It was all negative, and it was probably the real beginning of my misgivings about the church.
Jonathan,
I guess I should be happy that you were surprised by what I mentioned. It means that you didn't experience the same in your contact with DBC and her Milwaukee sister-church. I'm sorry to say though that it wasn't until I left DBC that I even felt safe entering the Christian book section at Barnes and Noble. Anything that I read that was non-secular, I found in the church book store. I know that when my dad went through the GIBS program at DBC, several of his assignments constituted reading books that were mostly right, but that he had to read through only in order to find out where they were wrong. The reading of these books would never have been condoned for any other reason.
It's so sad the way fundamentalism finds it so hard to trust the individual's soul and spirit to the protection of the Holy Spirit. Yes, there should be warnings against obvious false teachings and dangerous beliefs that contradict scripture and undermine who God is. But policing what is ok for the individual to read because you don't agree with it completely is denying the wonderful way the Holy Spirit can commune with a believer as they work through something they've never heard before, so they can make a decision for themselves. My, what a novel idea!!
~Amanda
Hi Amanda,
I hope your family is well. I miss Aletheia but I know eventually when life gets a little less tricky she'll come and comment again :D
You said:
I can definitely apply wholesale announcement and high level alarmism to what I grew to expect and accept as normal behavior at DBC towards those who are "wrong".
:) I see what you are meaning. Don't worry about it. If you and JP ever get around to comparing notes I am sure it will bring you "backward" toward needing more to proclaim error and cling to truth for a small while. That's okay. You have sufficient graciousness and the rest is there, just a little out of reach for right now, like practicing an instrument. The more cycles completed between alarmism toward grace, the shorter they get. You obviously have a heart for ministry as soon as you find grace. Fortunately by you sharing a minimum one time the concerning things going on, others have the option at least to travel through the facts and feelings and arrive alongside to this new place.
You said:
The entire message, and I'm not exaggerating, was an extensive list of different theologians - past and present - and what they believed. It wasn't for educational reasons though.
Yeah. I'll let someone like JP address the apparent flaws there, though I see them too.
You said:
My memory isn't perfect, and I'm sure there are things I read into that message that weren't meant to be there, but that's how it was translated to me.
This was the most interesting thing you said, in my ears. It made me think.
Someone who is resentful of you sharing this publicly will want to attack the story at the level of your accurate memory or how biased or wayward you are or how you selectively remember the bad things and not the good times. And while that's a relevant observation, it still misses your point.
Your point is that there was also a problem in your relationships with the people who taught these things. Any one sermon on a long list of false teaching is not a big deal, but, there was much, much more behind this story that can only be felt and accounted with back history.
This may have been your "aha" point for the whole picture....
This is all just conjecture. I don't know if it is helpful or annoying. Let me know. I don't want to say anything harmful. It is difficult to brave cold winds and look in the face and deal with stuff.
Blessings, Michele
Hi Michelle,
You said:
"This is all just conjecture. I don't know if it is helpful or annoying. Let me know. I don't want to say anything harmful. It is difficult to brave cold winds and look in the face and deal with stuff."
Thank you, Michelle for acknowledging the things I hurt for and the concerns I have, and the desire to do something about them while not being sure. No, this was not annoying, it was very helpful, and encouraging. Posts like this one that you have written are one's that I feel comfortable commenting on; I feel safe to say what I think and apply it to my own life and my own experiences, without feeling like there's a danger or an expectation of me to "demonize" those that I disagree with. I really do appreciate that.
You also said:
"Your point is that there was also a problem in your relationships with the people who taught these things. Any one sermon on a long list of false teaching is not a big deal, but, there was much, much more behind this story that can only be felt and accounted with back history.
This may have been your "aha" point for the whole picture...."
You just hit the nail on the head. :)
Like you said, it wasn't necessarily the message itself, even though it greatly discouraged me, it was the first time I felt safe with entertaining the thought that maybe not everything was what I thought it was. That led to much more critical listening on my part. Not that I was looking for there to something wrong, but I realized that it was ok for me to examine everything that came over the pulpit, and that disagreeing with something that was being taught didn't automatically mean that I was carnal and unwilling to listen and learn and be taught.
As for someone attacking me for what I have shared, it's possible, and I can't say it's not something that doesn't scare me. But like you said, an attack on my memory would effectively miss the point. If I feel convicted to share something I believe to be relevant to the truth, I can't base my reasons for sharing it on how other people will respond. If my identity is in Christ, He is the one I should base my reasons on.
Thanks for discussing this with me, it's very encouraging.
Blessings
~ Amanda
Hello Amanda,
I had many of the same experiences at Stegall's church as you had at Rokser's. Except that I never remember Stegall discouraging people from reading Swindoll. That is what suprised me about Rokser. Other than that, my experiences were very similar to yours. And, by the way, I agree with your thoughts and concerns.
JP
Amanda,
I was thinking now about the content as you said:
The entire message, and I'm not exaggerating, was an extensive list of different theologians - past and present - and what they believed. It wasn't for educational reasons though.
It seems that it would have been better to list their accomplishments.
I state that so simply, but you know how much mmph goes into saying it.
Thoughts?
Michele
Hey Michelle,
I personally think you're right, that it would have been better to list their accomplishments, but looking at the way DBC has responded to the current Gospel debate... can you really see them praising anything about someone they disagree with theologically, no matter what the issue is? (It's been over a year since I heard the message, but if I remember correctly, Billy Graham was also on the list.)
I obviously don't know the hearts of the DBC leadership, but based on what I grew up hearing over the pulpit and in Sunday School and youth retreats, I think the elders truly believe it is part of their "guarding the flock" job description to expend a large amount of energy in warning against anything they see as a dangerous theology, or as unBiblical.
While I definitely believe in warning against false teachers when they become obvious and harmful to the flock, there's a big difference between the focus being pointing out everyone and everything you disagree with, and teaching and emphasizing God's love. Once someone has a relationship with God firmly grounded in the security they have in His love, the more their ability of discernment grows. Fellowship ALWAYS comes into play with discernment. Believers will always benefit from loving, graciously given discernment, even if it's given as a wake-up call. But discernment from other believers, even from spiritual leaders, should NEVER overshadow or take the place of the role of the Holy Spirit. Such militant policing of theological jargon, like I mentioned, I believe does that.
Caring and compassion for the flock should also included a willingness to trust the individual to the caring of the Holy Spirit.
And anyway, we can trust Him to never make a mistake, and we are in the Father's hands after all.
What do you think? How do you think it should all balance out?
~Amanda
Amanda,
If you will permit me to be a little quirky, I'd like to respond to your good questions both immediately and then also again much later. I have some thoughts at first but then your comments saturate my thinking and much more interesting things often come out. Is this alright?
:D
My thinking confirms yours. I have gotten caught at many points along the way seeing the lesser aspect of the Duluthian mission - which is probably okay - even more likely, indispensable. It's been my goal, though, to be so much more aware of the larger picture so that I can paint it for others when the need arises.
Yes, theological precision is a duty which glorifies God. But it can also be a mask or an excuse to carry out evil.
In this case theological precision (good) is mixed up in persecution of God's people. The ends do not justify the means.
Wherever people are in real-time, needy or excluded even though they have union (by faith) with Christ, I believe God's ire is raised. Acceptable worship is determined for each person by his inner man. Matt 23:26-
"Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also."
Also: What is the thrust for which theology is designed? 1 tim 1:5-7 -
Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
We have a large book called the Bible to draw the definition and demonstrations of love, faith and hope - the three things that remain (1 Cor 13:13). I wonder if these are the only enduring materials which will be revealed by fire on that Day...?
Now, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. So theology is critical for helping us arrive into intimacy with Christ. But even Satan used scripture to draw us away from God. So we need to be discerning of those who use the Word of God, for their intentions and where they draw the attention of the flock. We ought to be conscious of the fruit their ministry bears.
Nice talking to you,
Michele
Post a Comment