Being Offensive is Being Obedient?
Mike Ratliff’s recent post on CRN reveals and unfortunate mistake that so many in the discernment camp have made. In his blog entitled What My Obedience to God Costs Other People, he writes the following
When God turned me around and put me on the right track with Him back in 2004 I naively assumed that all of the Christians I knew would automatically see the truths God was revealing to my heart and rejoice in their own revival. However, that was not the case. In fact, most of them quit talking with me. I found myself isolated and separate. The more I obeyed God the more separate I became.
I have heard this now from Mike Ratliff, Ken Silva, Mike Corley and countless others who feel it their duty to inform the world of the heretics in the church. It is the belief that the godlier you become, the more people will reject you. And, if you are not experiencing some degree of persecution, you are doing something wrong. They capitalize on the few verses that say the gospel will offend and fail to look at the whole picture. Could it be that it is not the message that Mike and others are offending people with? Could it be their method of sharing the gospel offends? What was it again you were hoping for in a recent blog Ken? Oh yes… “Hell-fire and brimstone preachersâ€
What about the times where 3,000 came to Christ in one sermon? Apparently the gospel was not so offensive there. I am sure that Peter would be named a man-pleasing, seeker-sensitive fool on the Christian Research Network for that event. What about the countless times where “many were added to their number that day†in the book of Acts? You see, the gospel actually brings life, not offense. And, while there are those that are offended by the message because of their pride and arrogance, it should not be expected and definitely not desired and cherished as a check mark on the road to one’s own superior spirituality. It’s as if when you become offensive, you are doing something right.
When I read through the blogs and essays on Apprising, CRN, The Expositor, and other watch dog blogs, it seems that they actually want to make the way much narrower that it is. They want less people to be evangelized (after all, the elect is such a small number). Anyone who is actively doing mass evangelism is obviously doing something wrong. And, when that many people are coming to Christ, there is no way they could understand or experience what is happening at a deeper level. This simply is not true. And quite frankly, it grieves me. It is also worth noting that those who were offended in the New Testament were the religiously pious. These were the people who thought that their theology was from God, and anyone who thought otherwise should be punished. Ring any bells?
I leave you with this haunting response from Mike when I questioned him about my experience of growing closer to a Christian community when I am growing closer to God. He actually goes as far as distinguishing between “Christians” and those who are obedient to God. This should at a very minimum raise some questions.
If you are being obedient to God and you are actually drawing closer to the majority of professing Christians then you only THINK you are being obedient to God.
41 Comments(+Add)
So apparently our ultimate goal is to become monks? But wait, aren’t they heretical too? So confusing…
One of the roots of this Martyr Complex is what I believe to be a faulty isogesis of the latter part of John 6, which fails to take the political ramifications of Jesus’ message into account.
I’ve written about this topic a few months back here: http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=88
You need to change “Begin” to “Being” in your title.
I had a hard time reconciling Jesus’ popularity with his ability to offend until I realized the people most offended were the ones who thought they knew it all: the Pharisees.
The hypocrisy of CRN is astounding. Matt Ratcliff lists Shawn McDonald as one of the Christian musicians he like to listen to. Shawn McDonald is an emerging singer/songwriter and recorded his live album at Mars Hill Seattle, home of Mark Driscoll.
And here is Mike’s response:
“Good grief. I like his music. I had no idea he was emergent. I really don’t think he is. I’ve heard him speak. He speaks the same obedience message that I write about. Why did he sing at that church? I have no idea. John Piper is one of those I read a lot. Will I quit reading him because emergents like him as well? When God tells me to stop listening to someone then I will. On the other hand, if I have the freedom to read or listen to whoever God directs me to, but it is a stumbling block to one with weaker faith then I must not do so. Do you understand?”
Does that mean I have freedom in Christ to read McManus, Miller, McLaren, etc? I feel safe knowing that God speaks directly to Mike and others at CRN.
Matt, please continue to push back on this with Mike. They need to be responsible for their actions and decisions.
RayJr – what an incredible observation!
Neil S.
RE: Mike’s response…
That about sums up the hypocrisy and double standard. He likes the music, therefore it can’t be emergent? I thought guilt by association was enough of a crime… things that make ya “Arrrrghhh!”
Neil S.
That response is scary. It follows absolutely no logic. But then again…it makes sense for the slice crew. After all…isolation means no accountibility (discernment…har har).
So much for the body of Christ.
Wow, double standard alert!!!
First of all to Chris L. get off the 1st century judaism kick. We are not first century jews. I think a totally omniscient/prescient God would have taken this fact into account. The Scriptures “transcend” all culture and history. they come from above like Christ and the kingdom. The political climate of Jesus’ day is interesting to study, but uneccessary in understanding Scripture. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, not you, nor modern day historians.
With that in mind;
3000 were saved on Pentecost, however we have no idea what percentage of the actual ones who heard the message that equates to. It is possible that many more were offended than saved.
What all of you fail to notice is yor own man made piety. I know many especially at our church who are brand new believers. Guess what? I never address them the way that I would and do address you. You are posting information that is questionable at best. Why post unless you believe that you have a valid point? The Lord never asked for opinion, although the postmodernists love to dispense it.
Mike’s post is fine and so is Chambers observation. Chambers also had an apt expression, “pious blether”.
That should be in the title of this blog.
The pharisees were the ones who made scripture of no account by adding to, completely re-writing, and/or ignoring them altogether. Those who negate God’s literal authorship, (I don’t care what man put it on paper), who spin them with cultural and historical diversions, and who deny their authority are the pharisees as that is exactly what they did. in their own way. They were into methods not the foundation. Does this sound familiar? Matthew 7:24-27
The gospel is an offense to all who deny it. It is the smell of death to the dying.
Calling yourself a “christian” is irrelevant, as there is no verse in the book telling us to so. Many will say in that day, “but Lord…..” His response is essentially, “who are you?”
Even the demons believe and tremble. Not all who claim to be His, are His. They are known by thir fruit and Jesus said we WILL know them on that basis. Now fruit does not equal good works alone. The fruit of your lips (your keyboard?) also gives you away. We are supoosed to know who is true, and who isn’t. We are supposed to know His word, and His will (Deut 29:29) other wise we are as useful as udders on a bull.
The relativist, experiental, feel-good, clap trap of all that is liberal and emergent is what makes God “AAAAAAAAAAAARGH”
Can you say Laodicea?
“The Lord never asked for opinion, although the postmodernists love to dispense it…Can you say Laodicea?”
No, but I can say Slice of Laodicea.
Chris, this comment is truly the most revealing I have ever read. You talk of double standards and literally create one with almost every paragraph you wrote.
We aren’t to use historical context as a lens for scripture, but we are to take the interpretations of 19th and PERHAPS early 20th century theologians?
We fail to notice our man made piety and yet you claim to receive direct communiques from God, instructing you to condemn those with whom YOU disagree?
You say that we are know for our fruit, but when reading your fruit, all I see is hate, anger and condescension.
RE: “The political climate of Jesus’ day is interesting to study, but unnecessary in understanding Scripture. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, not you, nor modern day historians.”
True the Scriptures came from the Holy Spirit, and he leads today – yet the Scriptures were delivered to a particular people at a particular time. Therefore, the more a person knows about their sitz en leben the better that person can be led to understand Scripture. While applications change, meanings do not – a passage cannot mean something today that it did not mean then.
RE:
“What all of you fail to notice is yor own man made piety. I know many especially at our church who are brand new believers. Guess what? I never address them the way that I would and do address you. You are posting information that is questionable at best. Why post unless you believe that you have a valid point? The Lord never asked for opinion, although the postmodernists love to dispense it.”
Anybody have any idea what the heck this means?
Chris P,
You said
I’m sorry, Chris, but some folks like me happen to care about what was written and what it meant when it was written, rather than ripping it completely out of context to mean something never intended.
The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky, so get over it.
“The relativist, experiental, feel-good, clap trap of all that is liberal and emergent is what makes God “AAAAAAAAAAAARGHâ€
Can you say Laodicea?” – Chris P.
“BYAAAAAAHHH!” – Howard Dean
While I admit it amuses me to see a member of the slice crew ramble about …well…just about anything, it’s this particular brand of attempting to be the gatekeeper of righteousness that must make God put his head in his hands and sigh.
And I don’t care what anyone says…if 3000 people came into the fold today, the slice gang would be ALL OVER that particular ministry…no matter how many people were actually “offended” instead.
Anyone hear of that going on in a reformed church?
But this isn’t the point of this post anyway. Back to Chambers. Good thing he isn’t around to refute anything, eh Mike? While most of the watchdoggies start off with a good, scriptural grasp on things…it’s their inevitable conclusions that mark them ridiculous. Mike’s implication that a believer is only obedient when he is dividing other believers and/or pushing them away is just ludicrous. I can’t think of one biblical example where God leads someone into permanent divisiveness or isolation.
sigh, but then again…i don’t have the corner on truth like slice does. oh, well.
RE: “Mike’s post is fine…”
It’s a fine example of the double standard – had Mike not liked the style of music in question he easily could have taken the artist’s appearance at Driscoll’s church as evidence of his apostate musical style – yet, since he likes the music Mike must rationalize, that is, not employ the GBA tactic as is the normal procedure. If the artist was just liked by driscoll, then Mike’s argument might hold water – that just being likes by an emergent is not enough GBA to condemn – but the guy actually played at an emergent church! Therefore, using the watchblogger playbook – he should be considered apostate – yet he’s not – therefore, double standard for someone Mike likes.
RE:
“The relativist, experiental, feel-good, clap trap of all that is liberal and emergent is what makes God “AAAAAAAAAAAARGHâ€:
from this statement it is obvious you have not bothered to study the nuances within the churches that are considered emergent or emerging – some are, as you say liberal and very well may displease God – on the other hand many are very orthodox in their teaching.
The fact that you fail or refuse to discern the difference pretty much renders the rest of you arguments unreliable.
And yet again, I have no idea what Chris P. is trying to say. I pretty much choked right about here:
“The Lord never asked for opinion, although the postmodernists love to dispense it.”
That whole comment about the historical setting being unecessary show a very very mystical, arogant, and a poor hermeneutical method.
Basically, what is being said is, how I think the Holy Spirit leads me trumps everything that came before. This is particularly easy when you believe your interpretations cannot be questions becaue the Holy Spirit tells you what’s what.
It’s also very convenient when you want to codemn the ministry of others…
Now… where’s that verse in Roman’s about not judging the servant of another…?
Neil,
you are right on! They condemned Ed Young Jr. for joining forces with T.D. Jakes and his oneness Pentecostalism. Why not condemn McDonald for partnering with an “emergent church”? Corley also uses Crowder for his bumpers… there’s a double standard as well.
As for Chris P., I think enough has been said about the holes in your rant.
“The Lord never asked for opinion, although the postmodernists love to dispense it.”
Here is a classic example of where the CRN/Apprising people go wrong. They believe that their opinions on scripture, church practices, etc. are THE truth. Therefore everyone else’s beleifs are just opinions.
Well Chris, my OPINION is that the gospel brings life, and is attractive to souls that are craving it and willing to hear it. I am sorry that you have attached yourself with people who would much rather see people burn in the fire and brimstone of hell than do something to affect change in this world. The church was NEVER supposed to be an elitist club, where the initiation rights are so hard to obtain, that Jesus himself can barely make it in. Enjoy you metaphorical cigars and brandy in the Christian County Clubs you are creating. The rest of us have a mission here on earth to accomplish.
Neil,
I think it means that Chris P has everything right (and therefore what he dispenses isn’t “opinion”), but anything (even direct exegesis) that disagrees with him can only fall into the realm of opinion and therefore is wrong.
Once again, he’s pulled out the broadest brush he can think of and goes about attacking and accusing, rather than just discussing.
Funny, but since this blog is just uncensored discussion on topics raised by Slice 2.0, should the title of this blog actually be “commentary on pious blether”?
Apparently Chris P knows about as much about Pharisees as he does about the Catholic church (which is to say, not all that much, but just enough to be dangerous to the truth). The sin of the Pharisees was in -praxis, not -doxy (see Matthew 23). And it wasn’t all the Pharisees, but just certain types (of which Slice and Chris would fit into the ones addresses in Matthew 23:13.
Here, Chris P. seems to have decided to go off on nobody in general, because the things he seems to be so vehemently criticizing are those that tend to appear in CRN/Slice 2.0 – denying the power of Christ and slamming the door in judgement to prevent others from entering the kingdom.
Yes, the gospel is offensive to those who do not believe, but then extrapolating that to mean that all but a tiny remnant of Christians fall into the category of “those who do not believe” – as Mike seems to do – is mistaken at best and monumental hubris, at worst.
Hmmmm. I guess we can add Chris P to the list of those who speak for God.
I certainly wish we just had a book that would show us how God has spoken, and how He would want us to live. Then, we would no longer have to wait for Chris P. or Ken to declare for God what is offensive to Him in straw-man fashion…
ChrisP – both the words “liberal” and “emergent” have become so all-encompassing of anything you disagree with that they have become meaningless. Perhaps you should be more specific, less bombastic, and actually treat other brothers as just that – brothers. I consider myself neither “liberal”, nor “emergent”, and none of the writers of this blog would describe themselves thusly, either.
I have tried a number of times to be civil in my discussions with you, but all that seems to come back is holier-than-thou, sanctimonious “blether”…
Julie,
The irony is – we all dispense opinion…
Or as Carl F. H. Henry as fond of saying: “There are two kinds of presuppositionalists: those who admit it and those who don’t.”
Chris’ comment shows how true this is…
The below quote is from Mike. My first response is that I am not emergent. Great, I read Donald Miller. Doesn’t make me emergent. Just like reading C.S. Lewis doesn’t make me Anglican, or reading Tolkien doesn’t make me Catholic. In fact, I have huge problems with McLaren’s universalism.
“One of my recent posts on Possessing the Treasure was a devotional by Oswald Chambers titled: What My Obedience to God Costs other People. I had no idea that it would create such a firestorm of criticism. The criticism is all coming from the emergent camp. Why? Their apologists are bent of saying that Christians must never rebuke other Christians. My post had nothing to do with that. My intro to and and my intent was to show the divisiveness of the Gospel. When we preach the truth of the Gospel, it divides people. It does not create instant unity. Why? There are many professing believers who are obedient to their own idea of what their idea of God is. However, that is another God, another Jesus, not the one found in scripture. I was asked to preach in a church in Missouri this last Sunday. I preached the Gospel as it is found in scripture. I could see the faces of everyone in the auditorium. I could see God working on the hearts of the people there. That is what we are called to do. We must preach the truth from His Word and not be concerned about who we offend. I don’t think anyone there was “offended†to the point of rejecting that truth, but I do know that when the Gospel is preached it will change people’s lives. Jesus said that he came not bring peace, but a sword. When we are obedient to God it will always cost those around us because they must make a decision. Will the believe the truth or reject it. I have posted a prayer from the Valley of Vision on my blog addressing this. Please prayfully read it.”
Matt, where did you get that response from? I would really love to respond to him.
Where on earth did he get this from
“Their apologists are bent of saying that Christians must never rebuke other Christian”
This has nothing to do with rebuking other Christians. It is about Mike saying that the majority of Chrsitians are wrong, and that the more godly you become, the more offensive you must become
RE: Mike’s comment that “The criticism is all coming from the emergent camp. Why? Their apologists are bent of saying that Christians must never rebuke other Christians.”
Again – this shows a complete lack of recognition that there are very divergent opinions w/i the so-called camp. It’s really too varied even to employ the campground metaphor.
So, like Ken and Chris P – either Mike is too lazy to discern the difference, to uninformed to see the difference, or too dishonest to acknowledge the difference.
Which of these three is closest to the truth is pedantic – any one of them disqualifies their opinions – yes they have opinions too – as being irrelevant.
“I certainly wish we just had a book that would show us how God has spoken, and how He would want us to live.”
It’s called the Bible.
I am glad you picked up on the sarcasm Ken.
Why does Ken Silva remind me of Dwight Schrute, from The Office?
To see Pastor “Dwight” Silva in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq34jShhIBs
Wow, Ken. Your missing the sarcasm there was SO revealing of your reading comprehension skills. It explains SOOOO much…
And Ken says we miss the point…
Matt, that was hilarious!!
Wow
1.The Bible is meant to be taken within the context of itself,not in light of when or where it was written. This would mean that it has absolutely nothing to say today to us, which is of course, the goal. What did Jesus say about making the word of no effect?
I read it literally, not in light of 18th or 19th century theologians. Sorry but the Lord has never asked any man “what do you think about what I am doing?”
Also when it comes to label’s and “sweeping” generalizations, you folks are masters.
2. On this or any other postmodern rag I have yet to see any true exegesis. Scriptural exegesis comes fronm scripture not from Hillel’s Finishing School.
3.No one has said why 1st century political climate is important. I do see a lot of people throwing the arms out of joint bvy patting themselves on the back.
What is being done is a concerted effort to put the Scripture back in the hands of the “clergy/elite” i.e. the new magesterium.
What it all boils down to is, the “faith” has been reduced to personalities, opinions, historians, cultural anthropologists, socialogists, but no true, spirit-filled men of God. Post-modern christianity is a secular religion and is devoid of the power of God and the Scriptures. Laodicea translated from the Greek is what we have here, i.e. the church where the people speak, where the “conversation” and opinions of man take precedent.
BTW Slice of laodicea has been gone for awhile. Get something new to rant about.
RE: “1.The Bible is meant to be taken within the context of itself,not in light of when or where it was written. This would mean that it has absolutely nothing to say today to us, which is of course, the goal.”
This is both incorrect and leads to a non-sequitor.
It is incorrect that the Bible is meant to be taken within the context of itself – this is true as the primary context, but no the sole context. To ignore the historical setting, the author, the audience, the purpose, is to invite all sorts of meanings that were never intended. It cannot mean something to us that it did not mean to them.
The non-sequitor is that this leads to the Bible not meaning anything to us. Of course it does. The application of meanings will change with the times.
Basically, your method is to say it means what it means to me, and what it meant to others is no meaning at all – which is the purest of postmodern hermeneutics – ironically.
I was just censored from Mike Ratcliff’s blog. I pointed out how Mark Driscoll’s sermon was all about suffering for preaching Christ. Mark gives some examples of how he needs body guards during the service because people have tried to attack him while he is preaching Jesus Christ.
I don’t consider being censored persecution, however. Mike can do what he wants with my comments. I don’t really care.
You can hear Mark’s sermon here:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/070311_Nehemiah4.mp3
It occurs to me that, those who are committed to the idea of the gospel offending people, should allow the message to be the offense and not the attitudes and actions of those presenting the “offending message”. If it is true that the gospel will always offend, and I for one think that the message that God loves us enough to die for us, would be attractive rather than offensive to at least many people who hear it, then we should do all we can to stay out of the way and not to add offense. We are not called to offend people. We are told to love them. If offense is called for, let it be the Holy Spirit that offends and not us in the name of God.
Chris P.
I’ll try and overlook your tone and address you questions – though I have to admit, I don’t think you rally desire any information…
A lot of your comments can be dismissed as just taking a statement of someone else to an illogical and unintended end. Like the lack of seeing the difference between emerging and emergent – this is either an inability to discern or the ability to do so, but lack of honesty to admit what you see – since the difference between the ing and ent easily proven (all you have to do is read them) only you can give the real reason for not acknowledging any difference.
Now to your question:
The first century meaning is important because it gives the context into which the revelation was given. Without this historical setting it is significantly more difficult to understand what was meant, or why a particular word was used. Failing to take this into account also allows for the reader to just read into a passage whatever meaning is correctly popular – so in a sense, what you are advocating is the most post modern of approaches.
We can understand the letter to the Corinthians without knowing who wrote it or to whom it was written. But knowing these things, knowing what it was like in Corinth, where was Paul when he wrote it, why did he address these particular issues – all these things serve to inform the exegete on what Paul was thinking, as well give parameters as to what it cannot mean.
It is true that some may over apply what other scholars have said (notice my tone here), but you push it too far to imply or actually say that this reduces the Word to “personalities, opinions, historians, cultural anthropologists, socialogists, but no true, spirit-filled men of God.”
Many of the men whom we read were spirit-filled – are you saying we should disregard their insights? And I’m a firm believer that the sciences which find insight into the world also can shed light on the Creator as well – when spirit-filled people (like you and even me) take their knowledge into account – assuming such knowledge is not contra-biblical – of course.
To say that we need not bother with the giants of the faith that came before is the height of arrogance and naivet̩ Рand may I add, another hallmark of the postmodern person.
RE: “Post-modern Christianity is a secular religion and is devoid of the power of God and the Scriptures.”
Statements like this are completely devoid of any real meaning. First you make a so-called truth statement like this, then label whomever you dislike so that they fit your definition.
I could say similar things about your modern-Christianity. for example – Modern-Christianity relies solely on the post enlightened reader to determine meaning void of any historical setting or spiritual input.
The fact that this is so broad as to be meaningless notwithstanding…
Chris P.,
RE: “Also when it comes to label’s and “sweeping†generalizations, you folks are masters.”
Why the hostility? How about an example or two and we can clear this matter up?
Neil S.
Chris P,
I think my brothers here have said enough. However, it is obvious that you have no formal theological or biblical interpretation training. I am not boasting, but I have a B.A. in Theological Studies, emphasis on Biblical Exegesis. The very first step in biblical interpretation is to consider and discover what the text meant to the people when it was written. Covenant, language, historical events, culture and setting all must be taken into account first. We actually get really skewed interpretations if we do not start there.
For example, so many people misinterpret verses from the prophets about God promising to heal the Israelites. These verses have been used by the word of faith community for a long time to prove that God WILL heal every wound. However, we must take into consideration the historical fact that the Israelites we taken into captivity for their sin. God was promising this to them when they turned from their sin. It is not a blanket eternal promise to mankind that God will heal everyone.
Also, if we didn’t take history into account, women would not be allowed to braid their hair, wear jewelry, and, not speak in church at all. We should also be drinking wine to cure our illnesses, but that is a whole other discussion.
Anyone seen Mike’s latest? Apparently all you have to do is define someone as “not a genuine Christian” and then you can say that you’re right and they’re wrong. Never mind the fact that he’s judging your relationship with Christ, which he has no right or ability to do.