As I have been perusing the comments at Slice, I have been deeply saddened. These are usually in response to a piece on how evil the seeker sensitive church is, and how the church is being taken over by the devil as we speak. Some have good content, others are obviously written out of ignorance or hate. There is one common though that I see throughout them. It is usually something to the effect of, “Lord, how much longer can we endure this? Come Lord, come!â€
I obviously don’t agree completely with their assessment of the church today. But, as I read that, I think to myself how much more selfish can that statement be? Here they are pointing out that people are being dragged to hell left and right. They have the answer to solve the problem. And what do they want to do? Leave the scene! I am not to sure if this is a product of reformed theology or just a self-seeking heart.
Imagine watching a building burn with thousands of men, women and children in it. You have the fire hose in your hand. But, you cry out, “The fire is too hot! I gotta get outta here!†To me, that is exactly what many of these people are doing. They are too concerned with their own comfortable way of life being preserved, that they leave the situation in fear of being burned while saving someone. I would rather smell of the smokes of hell in an attempt to help bring someone to Christ, than stand by and watch people I love fall away. “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothersâ€
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
16 Comments(+Add)
Their entire goal is to preserve the individual churches that their grandfathers grew up in. Change of any type, even the most superficial, is never preference, its always anathema.
Obviously, that’s the correct position to take. But remember, we’re talking about a theology that truly believes that our actions are of no consequence in the end. We evangelize because we’re told to, not out of an attempt to save anyone from hell. If we just so happen to be chosen as the vessel God uses to bring someone to Him, consider yourself lucky. If not you, then someone else. The salvation of the soul is not our business. We do as we’re told and if some are saved, great. If they don’t respond, keep doing what you’ve been doing. Forget about coming up with new ways of reaching people … if they go to hell, God wanted them to go there all along anyway.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that this theology would lead to that attitude. Perhaps it didn’t in the past, and perhaps it shouldn’t, but it does now, and that is unfortunate indeed.
Nate,
That’s a good point. When you combine a wapred view of predestination with Dispensationalism, you get a view that says the world will get worse and worse with the Church powerless to do anything about it. At least nothing useful. Some seem totally content to sit back and complain about it.
Isn’t it funny we have a theology that is pretty well accepted about escaping this world? I mean it reminds me of the parable of the seed…
I read this and thought of that theology as fitting what Jesus stated in the parable of the sower and seed…
” The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.”
It seems that many cannot take the heat… which seems to not be a good thing according to what Jesus is teaching.
Just a thought out loud…
blessings,
iggy
“Their entire goal is to preserve the individual churches that their grandfathers grew up in.”
You are an idiot.
My grandfathers grew up in the RCC I would love nothing better than to see St. Peters Basilica collapse on itself.
This post assumes that the contributors at CRN are doing nothing in evangelism. Quit assuming facts not in evidence.
Chris P,
Ok, maybe not your grandfather.
But it doesn’t change the fact that you’re painfully mewling about the style of what you saw, not the content.
And it doesn’t change the fact the people you defend and identify with nearly always include stylistic issues, sometimes exclusively.
“Quit assuming facts not in evidence.”
I didn’t. The facts are inevidence. Your specific complaint was about style. You didn’t specifically complain about a single issue of actual content.
PS Chris P,
This article was about Ingrid, not you. My comment was about her, not you.
You are an idiot, please stop assuming facts not in evidence.
ouch.
It reminds me of when I asked a man ranting about God’s judgement on a Soviet leader after his death during the Cold War.
I asked him about the command to love and pray for your enemies. (Isn’t it a tragedy when someone dies without Christ?)
He said:
I do pray for them. I pray for their destruction.
Wow.
I’ll never forget it. And I wasn’t even 10 years old yet.
It struck me as wrong then. Still does now.
Because it is.
We all deserve destruction.
I don’t get where any of us get off wishing for the people’s destruction or the collapse of buildings, etc.
This does not seem compatible with the heart of Jesus.
Maybe YOU don’t want to preserve particular forms for the sake of particular forms, but I think you’re response is over the line from curmudgeonly to just downright mean spirited.
It’s one thing to throw accusations around…it’s another to call names.
Nathan,
I was ironically repeating Chris’ caustic remarks back to him almost word for word. If anyone is offended by what I wrote I apologize, I meant them as a rhetorical device to illuminate the nastiness of what had been written to me.
Meanwhile Chris P offered his in all seriousness.
oooops…our comments came in at the same time…
I was responding to Chris P.
Such is the ambiguities of the meta…
To me, intent is key to the use of words.
Name calling should be avoided where there is a demonstrated tendency to go all over the map.
I understand your explanation, Tim.
Again, I was responding to ChrisP
best to both of you…
=)
Is it possible to disagree — even STRONGLY disagree — without turning into three-year-olds and calling people “idiot”? I discipline my kids when they stoop to that level.
OK, about the idiot thing – I’m declaring it a tie!
LOL…
Henry, that’s hilarious.
A joke, guys, a joke. Are we not idiots for Christ? And Robbymac, you certainly are not an idiot. A moran, yes, but no idiot!
And with that spelling, I stand self indicted!
LOL!