Recently I was honoured by having someone “concerned with my salvation” from a comment I made. Whoooohoooo!
Martin Luther (founder of Protestantism) politely suggested in 1517 that he had a couple of issues with commonly held belief in the Church and would love an opportunity to discuss this with others.
It triggered wars, rebellions, torture, atrocities, redefined the political structure of all of Europe and split the church.
In the 1700’s, the Wesleys and in the 1800’s the Booths had similar experiences (to name just a few).
What’s interesting is how all of these people were against rebellion, tried as much as possible to live in peace with all people and were vilified, attacked (verbally and physically) and generally spat on, mainly by “Christians”.
JC himself was persecuted mainly by the religious leaders of the day. Starting to see a pattern?
Now I’m not comparing myself with them (well, I suppose I am, aren’t I?). If I can see far, it’s because I’m standing on the shoulders of mighty men (and women).
I can understand the mindset behind this, as I use to have it. One day I realised, however, that there is one big problem with assuming you’re right. It’s that you’re actually wrong.
Last time I checked, God didn’t die & make someone else god (He did die, but then He took His place in Heaven) nor did He abdicate because of someones bible teaching program…
One of the problems is that “main stream” Christianity has based a whole lot of stuff on an assumption that God has abdicated all sorts of things. One of the most contentious would be scripture (I can imagine the tar & feathers being warmed up already).
For years we would say the bible is inerrant (without error). Then as we discovered that we needed to be a little more “accurate”, this became “the bible is inerrant in its original language”. This allowed for the fact you can get a dozen different translations of a verse with a wide range of understanding in English.
The problem today is that when someone says “the bible is inerrant”, they usually mean that their interpretation of the bible is inerrant. To then compound the problem, they will insist that God is limited to their understanding of their interpretation. They will very easily consign anything that they disagree with to the “devil” basket.
Take “tongues” for example. I’ve seen the arguments for and against. Many of the arguments against this have a basic assumption that the person is either wiser or able to control people better then God can. Then there is the classic “If God doesn’t do it through me then it isn’t God” – this usually manifests itself through the “tongues were for the transitional stage till we had the scriptures” arguments. I remember one conversation that left me speechless (which for those who know me is quite an accomplishment). The Holy Spirit had been opening up to me a stack of understanding about God and especially the early church. A leader was talking to me about it (actually it was more like a scene from the Inquisition, but anyway) and made the comment that if that was true then God would have spoken to them first, before me, because they were “higher”. A number of the arguments for tongues are just as bad, especially when people start to try and make tongues a prerequisite for salvation.
Why can’t we just let scripture stand? Paul says that tongues are good for us & that he wished everyone spoke in tongues. I remember when I was arguing against tongues just before I received the gift. I was struck by how those who argued for were using the same scriptures, just the interpretation differed.
Of course rarely is any of this so blatant. Usually it’s couched in “wise council” or “tradition”. Most of it more closely resembles the “emperor’s new clothes” then anything else.
Scripturally, the Word (Jesus) is inerrant. The written word (the Bible) is to be interpreted to us by the Holy Spirit, whose council is inerrant and whose job is to lead, teach, admonish and comfort us. I am not saying that the Bible is wrong. But I am saying that anyone other than the Holy Spirit should not be dogmatic about it. Even when the Holy Spirit reveals something to me, he is doing it in the context of my understanding, maturity and walk. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve grown to the point where I can be embarrassed about what I use to believe. I remember hearing a quote from a famous author recently wishing that there was a way of unpublishing a book, because some of their early works make them cringe ever time they see them. Amen.
Now all of you who are suddenly concerned with heresy, stop and think for a moment. Scripturally, the Body (us) is supposed to be in respectful, servant-hearted organic relationship with each other. We are supposed to be submitted to each other and in close relationship with the Holy Spirit. In this environment heresy is a smaller problem. It’s in an authoritarian context that heresy becomes endemic.
We have created a hierarchy based organisation instead of an organic body, where process and authority replaces love and respect. This is so entrenched in the church that even our translations are put through this filter. This had led to the necessity of centralising interpretation because of the marginalising of the Holy Spirit. I was listening to someone who has a lot of my respect the other day and they said that God once challenged them by asking them if the service would have been any different if He didn’t turn up. This leader immediately repented and has strived to allow God to do what He wants, regardless of plans, schedules, etc, since then. Another person i respect related an incident where they decided to make sure that the service didn’t put people off. After 2 dead weeks they went to God to find out the problem. God’s responce? “Are you embarrased by me?” Again, repentence, throw out the caution, let God be God.
God is infinite, huge, immortal, eternal, etc, etc. We’re not. Therefore any understanding that we have of God has to be at best “limited” and at worse down right wrong. To try and enforce our limited understanding on others is at best foolish and at worse evil. We lead when we capture the people’s hearts, not their minds, consciences or religiosity.
I’m finally reached the point where I care more that the Holy Spirit was able to use me when talking to someone then whether or not I “won” the discussion (well, usually, anyway). If I want someone to grasp what I understand I have to rely on the ability of the Holy Spirit to impart that, not my ability to convince them.
Grat
Share on Facebook