Lingering Question(s)...

[go4tli]

Okay. I think I missed something that should have been obvious during
the discussion this morning.

Let me leave aside for the moment whether or not it's a valuable thing
to add one's voice to those trying to change things. (Given my
propensity for writing, I think you can probably guess what I think
about that anyway.) Unless I missed the point, it was asserted that
the change is only worked on the individual level, and that even the
Protestant Reformation was aimed at criticizing the Church's attempts
to influence the group.

In other words, trying to work positive change by influencing a group
is a pointless waste of effort. This argument was being advanced, I
must point out, in a *group Christian breakfast*.

If that's true, why are we meeting?

If God can change the direction of a group, why don't we do what we
can to effect godly change in addition to praying and studying on our
own? Why, specifically, is that a pointless waste of effort?

Why did Jesus preach? Why did Paul write? Why is the Most Important
Commandment all about how we regard and treat *others*? (One could
argue that the Bible teaches that following this commandment is done
in the hope of effecting change in others -- see Romans 12:20.) Even
the Evangelicals' favorite verse -- John 3:16 -- starts out, "For God
so loved *the world*..." (emphasis mine), and 2 Corinthians 5:18-19
reveals that God was in Christ reconciling *the world* to Himself and
that we now bear that responsibility. For a God Who works exclusively
in individuals, He sure seems to express a lot of concern for the
general group.

The only conclusion I can reach is that I must have missed something
major. What did I miss?

(Side note: I think God can make changes in people's direction, even
if they're not consciously trying to follow Him; consider 2 Kings 5:1
-- or countless other places where God is shown to be the agent of
change in individuals and in groups. I also don't mean to say that I
think we ought to identify our faith with a certain political movement
(or vice versa); that's a separate issue. I only mean to question the
points (a) that God is a solo operator, and/or (b) that attempting to
reach out with a Christian perspective to the society is pointless.)

[Rusty McGowan]

Sorry, you did miss the point, I was saying, that he spends all his time
looking for faults in others, and only in others which he can then rail
against, and that won't change anything, but never looks at himself for
changes he could make. Not so say we should never try to effect change,
but simply Criticizing seldom does the trick, especially when you refuse
to acknowledge your own obvious faults.
Please keep this response to yourself, I would never want him to see it.
I plan to help him change with patience and love.
Thanks

Rusty McGowan

Desktop Support

Global Technology Services

Morrisville, USA

PPD

Phone 919 456-4962

This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return email and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

[go4tli]

If I can go in reverse order...

> Please keep this response to yourself, I would never want him to see it.
> I plan to help him change with patience and love.

(I'm guessing that by "to yourself", you're referring to the group,
since that's who you replied to. If not, let me know, and I'll shut
up right away.)

No problem. It wasn't my desire to single him out anyway. My
questions were more directed towards the question of how one ought to
direct one's energies. To that end:

> Sorry, you did miss the point, I was saying, that he spends all his time
> looking for faults in others, and only in others which he can then rail
> against, and that won't change anything, but never looks at himself for
> changes he could make. Not so say we should never try to effect change,
> but simply Criticizing seldom does the trick, especially when you refuse
> to acknowledge your own obvious faults.

Okay. That's a relief; it really seems to me on reading Scripture
that God works both individually and corporately. I worried that we
might not be seeing the forest for the trees if we focused exclusively
on one or the other.

But how does that relate to the Protestant Reformation? (Side note:
Luther himself was a bit of a jerk. He was quite the racist, for
example. Perhaps in spite of that, his actions changed a lot. Not
that I mean to defend being a jerk, either... but the line between
trying to shine light on deeds of darkness and being a jerk can be a
fine one. I'm sure the religious authorities in Jesus' day thought
that our Savior was quite a jerk, especially considering that they
*knew* they had the truth.)

Isn't the point of railing against influential people in the wrong
specifically to encourage others not to follow those influential
people, as when Paul confronted Peter in front of everyone in the
church for teaching damaging doctrines (Galatians 2)?

Or is this a different sort of railing that we're talking about here?

[Terry Burroughs]

The relationship with Christ is an individual thing. What the
Protestant Reformation said was that you as an  individual could come
to Christ apart from the church that Christ himself is our
intercessor. I did not need a church or a group or a priest other than
Christ. Without that relationship it is just a set of rules that may
or may not be better than someone else rules.

--
Terry Burroughs

terr...@gmail.com
Unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which
we have in moments of shame must be the only true one. C.S.Lewis

[go4tli]

On Jan 4, 4:54 pm, Terry Burroughs <terry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The relationship with Christ is an individual thing.

Well, yes, but this doesn't exclude Christ's relationship to the
church or God's relationship to the world. In other words, I don't
think the relationship is a *completely* individual thing. (Nor, of
course, is it a completely corporate thing.)

> What the
> Protestant Reformation said was that you as an  individual could come
> to Christ apart from the church that Christ himself is our
> intercessor. I did not need a church or a group or a priest other than
> Christ. Without that relationship it is just a set of rules that may
> or may not be better than someone else rules.

Yes, of course. I agree completely.

But how does this relate to the idea of an individual influencing a
group? Isn't the Protestant Reformation itself an *example* of the
notion that an individual's energy is not completely wasted in an
effort to influence the group in a direction one believes will honor
Christ?

Or did I miss the context of why the Protestant Reformation was
brought up entirely?

[Terry Burroughs]

Because the main focus is the individual and Christ and from that
group relationship flows. If it is the other way around people look to
groups and other individuals to give them their identity, rather then
looking to Christ.

--

[go4tli]

On Jan 4, 5:41 pm, Terry Burroughs <terry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because the main focus is the individual and Christ and from that
> group relationship flows. If it is the other way around people look to
> groups and other individuals to give them their identity, rather then
> looking to Christ.

I don't contest that, either (though the group has its own identity,
in a sense, as identified by both Christ and Paul); Paul pointed out
the fallacy of identifying one's faith with something besides Christ
way back in 1 Corinthians 1. But I fail to see any of that addresses
my questions. What I'm looking to have answered is why it was
asserted that a person -- any person -- spending energy and time on
attempting to influence a group is pointless. If someone's identity
is in Christ, and he perceives a particular group action as
dishonoring Christ, is it permissible/advisable for him to address it?

The impression I got was that the general consensus at the table was
"no". Did I misunderstand? And if I did not misunderstand, why is it
not permissible/advisable? If I did not misunderstand, what does the
Protestant Reformation have to do with it?

[Terry Burroughs]

Many people (including myself at times) have looked to other people
like Mike Warnke, Bob Larson, Josh McDowell etc.... because they are
putting the focus on other things besides Christ. The same with
looking to churches the Catholic, Connection Church, the Assembly of
God etc. Your question was "What should an Evangelical do to encourage
his fellow believers not to be deceived? " The answer I (not the
breakfast group) am saying Put the focus not on who is the right
leader or group we should be listening to but our relationship with
Christ. And Christ will lead us into the action we should taken on a
specific issue.

--

[go4tli]

> Your question was "What should an Evangelical do to encourage
> his fellow believers not to be deceived? " The answer I (not the
> breakfast group) am saying Put the focus not on who is the right
> leader or group we should be listening to but our relationship with
> Christ. And Christ will lead us into the action we should taken on a
> specific issue.

Ah. I apologize. That "What should an Evangelical do to encourage
his fellow believers not to be deceived?" question was asked under a
different Subject line in our little discussion group, and I didn't
realize you were answering *that* question and not the question I was
asking *here*. Sorry about that. :)

So how about we assume that my question *here* was based on some kind
of misunderstanding (unless new information comes to light) and move
on to addressing the topic of your response?

I agree with your answer generally. I mean, focusing on your
relationship with Christ should be in the answer to any given problem
a Christian faces. It should really be part of the background of how
one lives life generally, not just when one is facing problems.

But this particular *kind* of problem is interesting for two
particular reasons I can think of, and there are probably more.

First, the problem is more specific than the sort of solution
mentioned. Consider this exchange, assuming both people are
interested in following Christ:

Person A: "I'm going to a job interview. What should I say?"

Person B: "Focus on Christ, not on the company or the manager."

While Person B's advice is true and sound, it doesn't provide the sort
of additional information Person A was seeking. This is because
Person B's advice is true and sound whether or not Person A goes to
that job interview *at all*. (Person B's advice is good no matter
*what* activity Person A undertakes.)

True, there are specific circumstances where Jesus tells His followers
not to overthink what they'll say ahead of time (Luke 12:11-12), but
it seems to me -- though I may be wrong -- that this prohibition is
more specific than I want to go. I think Jesus meant to keep His
followers from scheming something like, "I'm going to say XYZ -- and
*that'll* show 'em!", or from worrying too much about our own welfare,
e.g., "What can I say to save my own bacon?" (I know, Jews don't eat
bacon, so they wouldn't worry about saving bacon. Just stay with me
here. <g>)

To go back to the interview analogy, Person B's advice can be true and
sound and yet avoid things like scheming, self-interest, and even
specifics -- for example, "You're applying to a field where experience
is important. Emphasize yours." That's around the same level of
specificity I'm looking for when I ask for advice about how to talk to
fellow Evangelicals about being deceived.

Second -- and this is where things get odd -- the *nature of the
deception* means that people have a vested interest in remaining
deceived and in spreading the deception. (To the point, it's dealing
with deception of this nature that I'm looking for advice on.)

For example -- and I say this because I remember it from when I was
there -- someone putting his faith in Josh McDowell's apologetics
would argue that they're putting their trust in Jesus, not in
McDowell. After all, McDowell's arguments are ostensibly *about*
Jesus, and what's important in this mindset is not what something *is*
(an argument), but what it's *about* (Jesus).

There's an emotional currency attached to this kind of thinking,
because it's laced with an "us versus them" mentality -- kind of like
conspiracy theories(1). It's interesting to examine statements people
make about things like this:

"There's a secret society of Incandescents(2) who stand against
everything pure, noble, good, and true."

If a person says this, there are several things implied by it. By
pointing out some *other* group that is Responsible For All The Evil,
they have, by implication, distanced themselves from everything that
might commit evil. They're also, by implication, asking *you* to
confirm that *they* are pure, noble, good, and true. There's a real
emotional need to have *you* believe in the conspiracy as well.

Plus, there's a little self-interest entangled in there. If you agree
that this statement is true, then *they* are the *initiator* into the
conspiracy, and *you* are the *initiatee*; as such, they have some
kind of unstated power over you in the conspiratorial structure. This
feeds them emotionally.

Conversely, if you don't agree to believe that their statement is
true, it is often perceived by them as an attack on *their* nobility,
purity, truth, and goodness. You've also denied them the emotional
sustenance they were specifically seeking from you at that point.
They can feel as if they reached out to help you, and you smacked them
away and insulted their character. The natural response is usually
anger, hostility, accusation, or silence.

Now, please don't think that I'm trying to restrict this sort of thing
*only* to assertions of conspiracy; it also applies to statements like
"The Lord/liar/lunatic 'trichotomy' *proves* that Jesus is God". In
cases like these, rather than a cadre of conspirators, the "Other" is
some wholly-invented and imaginary group who recognizes the obvious
truth of the statement, but perversely and stubbornly denies it
because they'd prefer to think/act/believe/feel a certain way.

But whether it's a conspiracy theory or a claim of self-evident truth/
logic, believers may believe in whatever they believe in out of some
kind of innocent, misdirected mistake; they may not realize what
they're putting their faith in, or they simply may not have
investigated to find out whether or not their statements are a
reasonable conclusion from the available evidence. But their
emotional investment means that my hesitation to accept their claims
hurts them.

Let me just state that I couldn't care less what they think about *me,
personally*. As we've discussed, my ultimate responsibility is to
Christ -- so if they end up thinking I'm deluded, compromised,
dangerous, or whatever, that's a *shame*, and I'd argue that it
doesn't help us fulfill the Great Commission generally, but I'm not
looking for some kind of witty thing to say that will "save my
bacon". I'm also not out to gain some kind of weird conversational
upper hand.

I'm looking for strategies that will (a) preserve their emotional
health as much as possible -- I'm not out to hurt people here -- and
(b) encourage them to seek the truth of the matter, since a commitment
to the truth can only help us in our attempts to minister to each
other and to reach the world for Christ. What sort of thing is
*specifically* useful to say/emphasize when one encounters a
commitment to a demonstrable falsehood that someone may not know to be
false?

----------

(1) Which is kind of apropos, actually. Consider the conspiracies
that are typically lambasted but never supported in Evangelical
discourse -- the Satanic conspiracy pulling the strings of musicians,
authors, producers, politicians, or businessmen to steer society
towards evil; the atheistic conspiracy to convince people of evolution
and steer understanding away from Genesis; the liberal conspiracy to
undermine Christmas and steer the country away from its Christian
heritage; et cetera, et cetera.

----------

(2) To the best of my knowledge, there's no actual Incandescents
conspiracy theory out there; I was just trying to play on the term
"Illuminati". ("Illuminate". "Incandesce". Get it? <g>) You don't
find many John Birch Society-type conspiracy advocates in
Evangelicalism anymore -- they were much more popular several decades
ago, and have since fallen out of fashion -- but a few persist, and
continue to issue very influential media in tangentially-related
subjects.

[Terry Burroughs]

What else I am I going to say other then what I have already said.
"The best way to encourage his fellow believers not to be deceived"
in most cases to encourage them toward Christ not try to push them
away from the one doing the deceiving. How the Reformation fits into
it is simple two of main points of the Reformation where.(1) a man can
have a direct relationship with God thru Christ by faith. Having this
relationship causes Christ to send the Holy Spirit to lead the
believer into all truth. (2) People can read the Bible in there own
language and understand what God is saying.

--
Terry Burroughs

terr...@gmail.com
"We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. But mere time
does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin."

--The Problem of Pain C.S.Lewis

[go4tli]

On Jan 5, 1:02 pm, Terry Burroughs <terry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What else I am I going to say other then what I have already said.
> "The best way to encourage his fellow believers not to be deceived"
> in most cases to encourage them toward Christ not try to push them
> away from the one doing the deceiving.

In some cases, that works, certainly. But as I mentioned above, there
are other cases where the person perceives getting closer to the
deception as getting closer to Christ. In these cases, is it not
useful to drive a wedge between the deceiver and the deceived, as
Christ Himself did in, for example, Matthew 16:5-12, or Matthew 23?
(There are many other examples in Scripture of this sort of thing from
other prominent Biblical characters, but this is an easy one.)

See, in Christ's day, it would have been easy to see emulation of the
scribes and Pharisees as a means to get closer to God. Christ
specifically pointed out that this is not the case.

Perhaps it *ought* to be manifestly obvious to someone who wants to
follow God whether or not a given person claiming to speak for Him is,
in fact, doing so. Unfortunately, it's not. Neither do God's people
treat it as though it is manifestly obvious in Scripture.

> How the Reformation fits into
> it is simple two of main points of the Reformation where.(1) a man can
> have a direct relationship with God thru Christ by faith. Having this
> relationship causes Christ to send the Holy Spirit to lead the
> believer into all truth. (2) People can read the Bible in there own
> language and understand what God is saying.

And, as I've mentioned, I don't contest these things. Let me see if I
can clarify.

What you say is true, but under these circumstances, I'm not sure that
it's very effectual. For example, part of how the Holy Spirit works
in (1) above can be through a willing servant, or perhaps through the
community He has established on Earth. The Holy Spirit is not absent
from these things; and the relationship one enjoys with Christ alone
is not, by its existence alone, the way God has chosen to solve
problems among His people or to bring them closer to Himself.

Consider a more extreme case. Someone comes to you explaining that he
fears that an acquaintance of his is planning to commit suicide. What
should he say?

It's not *wrong* to tell him to advise his acquaintance to get closer
to Christ. It's also not wrong to point out that the Protestant
Reformation was based on the notions that people can have a direct
relationship with Christ, that this relationship enables the Holy
Spirit to guide the believer into all truth, and that people can
understand the Bible in their own language. But to what extent is
this useful? Is this advice the best possible to prevent the suicide
attempt? Is this advice even effectual to the problem of the suicide
attempt itself? (Can't this advice be applied whether or not suicide
is even at issue?)

I likewise question whether this advice is the best possible, or is
effectual to, avoiding falling for this specific type of deception.
For that, it seems clear that we need *each other* -- because people,
even God's people, are easy to fool. (Yes, God is *capable* of
fulfilling those things that He uses others of His own to accomplish
-- yet even He recognized that one man's being alone is *a bad thing*,
even for a sinless man. He has opted, for whatever reason or
reaasons, not to do things this way.)

[Terry Burroughs]

It is only thing that is usefull Matt

--

[go4tli]

On Jan 5, 2:01 pm, Terry Burroughs <terry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is only thing that is usefull Matt

I agree that it's essential, even of primary importance. But, with
respect, I think that the spirit of James 2:14-26 would indicate that,
for a vibrant faith, it can't be the only thing. (Perhaps I'm
misinterpreting.)

[go4tli]

I've noticed something interesting about our respective debating
styles, and I think it's relevant if this particular discussion is to
move past the level of simple back-and-forth. Maybe I'm off the wall
here, but I think it's worth considering.

Our basic difference, as I understand it, is that you think asking for
further, more concrete advice on the issue of reaching out to the
deceived is inappropriate, given the kind of spiritual understanding
outlined in stated stances of the Protestant Reformers. I acknowledge
that these things are important, even primary, but do not think these
descriptions of the means of spiritual understanding to be complete,
and believe I have reason to seek out understanding from those who
might have deeper wisdom on this matter.

Your argument, in its totality as far as I can tell ("What else am I
going to say other than what I have already said"), is that the
Protestants stood for certain things, that those things are important,
and that we should restrict our spiritual wisdom to certain ideas that
they specified.

One of these things is that "People can read the Bible in [their] own
language and understand what God is saying". Thus far, though, I've
been the only one to cite principles and precedents that I believe I
see in Scripture to explain why seeking widsom on this matter is
appropriate. (The assumption is that God gave us these instructions
and anecdotes so that we could learn from them. I'm trying to seek
greater insight, to find out what general ideas we can draw out and
use in outreach.)

That's not proof that I'm right. Not by any stretch. I'd be the
first to acknowledge that my understanding is both limited and
flawed. But it *is* interesting.

In that vein, why don't we take this discussion to another level?
Rather than simply repeating a teaching that we both agree on, why not
appeal to some source we can both recognize as authoritative to show
either (a) why my understanding is wrong or (b) why your understanding
is right?