Okay, before I start, let me admit: I'm guilty of this. Very guilty of it.
I hear a lot - and have said - well, this ministry is doing such and such correctly, and God may be using it, BUT this is what they're doing wrong...
Okay, seriously, when I say that, or you say that or whoever says that - are we REALLY celebrating what God is having someone else do right? Are we REALLY celebrating how God is glorifying himself? Do we REALLY think that our ministries or lives are that much more holy than someone else's?
Or are we just trying to give ourselves license to pick on someone by saying something nice first?
With me, I know a lot of times, it's the last one. We need to not do that. We need to be honest, and have an authentic, heartfelt praise of God for what he's done through people and ministries that we see as having problems.
http://www.tabernacleexperience.com/video.html
ReplyDeleteOk, here's a ministry that is causing people to fall on their knees and reflect upon how awesome God is.
BUT it's completely idolatrous and dishonoring to Christ. Let's worship like they did in the OT!!!
Now isn't that "but" statement appropriate?
Ha! Maybe. I might not have anything good to say prior to the 'but,' though....
ReplyDeleteJoking aside - the point is saying 'but' - the point is my heart in what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteAnd my point is that the "but" doesn't necessarily imply anything about the heart at all.
ReplyDeleteYour original post seems to undermine, in my perception, the value of insisting on theological orthodoxy.
Imagine if the Reformers had said of Rome, well, the Roman church is doing such a great work. Look at how they've baptized all of Europe!
BUT those they're baptizing have never heard the gospel, and as such don't trust in Christ for their salvation but rather their own works combined with the magical/mystical/alchemical activities of the priest at the altar to transform bread and wine into something that saves us. But of course we're all going to purgatory anyway.
Yes, Rome was used by God - BUT it has become a synagogue of Satan. God used the 9-11 attacks to bring people to church too. That doesn't mean those attacks aren't evil.
MG
Sure, it doesn't imply anything about the heart, necessarily. But sometimes it does, no? I know it sometimes does when I say it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, in your example, you're talking about stuff that's straight up heretical. I think we need to hold things with varying degrees of zeal.
I'm talking about the way we talk about people that believe in the Gospel. For instance, if someone brings up RC Sproul, and my immediate reaction is, "Well, he does some good things, BUT he has pictures of Jesus all over his church and rejects Van Tilian apologetics..." I think I should probably ask where my heart is on the issue.
I'm not necessarily saying it IS always bad - just saying we should probably be asking the question. Are we being gracious, humble, believing the things we received we've received by grace? Or are we being self-righteous?
I think we do need to ask the question of ourselves. At least... I do. :) I was assuming others might as well.
Well, I guess it matters how passionate you are about the truth, or what you call heretical and what you call error.
ReplyDeleteIn Galatians, Paul took Peter to task publicly for undermining the gospel because of who he sat with at dinner.
To some eyes, Paul looks like he's making a mountain out of a molehill. But he isn't. Peter's separating himself from the Gentiles in favor of the Jews, which is a direct denial that Christ's coming has changed anything about that. Paul was right to be offended.
In the case of RC Sproul, I think you're right to be offended at his use of images of Jesus. It's a crystal clear violation of the 2nd commandment. CRYSTAL clear.
In Deut, Moses is very emphatic to the people: "You saw no form...you heard only a voice". And what did Aaron do? He made a golden calf and said, "This is Yahweh, who brought you out of Egypt."
See, a common misconception about that is that they were worshiping some other god. They weren't worshiping another god, they were worshiping Yahweh, but they were using this golden calf to do it.
RC Sproul is doing the exact same thing. He's making an image and saying, "This is Jesus". Now, everyone knows Jesus isn't IN the image. But the Israelites also knew that about the golden calf. The sin here is wanting to SEE God, even though God has not allowed that (which is why Moses could only see his back).
If you're mad at RC Sproul for what he's doing, you're in good company with Moses who was mad at his brother Aaron (even though Aaron had done a "good" thing by getting all the people to worship Yahweh). When Moses saw it, he didn't care about the fact that the people were worshiping Yahweh. He cared that they were using an idol to do it. And what did he do? He smashed it and ground it up and made the Israelites eat it.
And what happened to Aaron's sons? They were doing a good thing by bringing incense into the house of the Lord. They were worshiping Yahweh in his Temple. But the fire they used was "strange" somehow. We don't know what was strange about it, but it was just a little different. It was just a small innovation. And what happened? Poof, they were incinerated by fire from the altar.
But, you say, that's Old Testament, right? Then why does the author of Hebrews remind us to worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a CONSUMING FIRE? Those words, "consuming fire" recalls Old Testament imagery, doesn't it? Doesn't it recall the fire that appeared on Mount Sinai, and the fire that consumed Aaron's sons?
You are right to take RC Sproul's use of images of Jesus in worship seriously, you are right to be offended at it. You are right to qualify RC Sproul that way, because that's serious business.
Nevertheless, we should be glad for RC Sproul, because he does a lot to bring people into the Reformed circle. He's a stepping stone to more serious reformed theology.
Lots of Arminians and Pentecostals read him. One of the reasons they aren't offended by him is because in a lot of ways, he's not true to the Reformed faith.
His rejection of presuppositional apologetics makes the same point. RC Sproul in many ways is a medieval theologian. He wants to go back to the way it was in the first millennium. But there is no going back. To go back after what the church has figured out at such tremendous cost - well, I've got nothing good to say about that at all.
I guess I would say it depends on your audience. If you're talking to a Pentecostal, you might advocate RC Sproul and recommend his books to them as a step in the right direction. But to someone who's a member of a Reformed church, well, you might say that they should be reading something else.
I don't think your heart is in the wrong place at all simply for critiquing Sproul. But it depends on your audience.
Completely agreed on images and the apologetics issue, though I do think Sproul as of late has come around a bit on the latter.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you're right - it is okay to point out error where there is error for the sake of the glory of God and the well-being of his Church.
What I'm more getting at, though, is care in how we speak. I'm not saying that we should never evaluate a ministry. Perhaps, practically, what I'm saying, is that when there is opportunity to do so, we stop, check and see where our hearts really are, pray for wisdom and compassion and a love for God, and then move forward.
The reason I say this is because I know that I'm self-righteous. In matters of doctrine and practice, even, we can act, think, and feel as though we are responsible for our own sanctification - and that is evil.
So what I'm advocating isn't never evaluating a ministry/teacher, etc - what I'm advocating is careful speech that results from keeping a watchful and prayerful eye on our deceitful hearts.
Indeed, just about anything that can be uttered may be unwise in certain contexts.
ReplyDeleteExactly. That's what I'm getting at - the heart, not the content. Sorry for the confusion!
ReplyDelete