Of Hell, Heaven, Sikhs and Christian education for little kids

Sikh Temple Shooting

What’s the goal of faith-based work: Getting people to believe something or offering help and healing regardless of beliefs?

The recent experience of Elly Scott, a brilliant young writer in Knoxville whom I’ve known since she was her preschool daughters’ age, raises this question for me.

A neighbor boy, 7, regularly climbs onto a church bus to ride 25 minutes from their inner-city neighborhood to a church in Knoxville’s suburbs. This child’s father is in prison. The grandmother who raised him died last year. He now lives in a run-down house with his mother, who, Elly says, seems to always be asleep.

In his case, what is meaningful religious education and what is psychological abuse?

Here’s Elly’s account:

“The little boy told my girls a few moments ago that a preacher said that if they didn’t believe in God, they were going to Hell. My girls just stared at him round-eyed and open-mouthed.

“I broke a personal rule to not dispute other people’s religions and told him I thought that was a mean thing for the preacher to tell a little kid – and that I didn’t believe it anyway.

“Then I said ‘Um, why don’t you kids go outside and eat a Popsicle?’”

Now Elly is trying to figure out how to deal with this topic the next time it comes up.

“Can I tell a child that what he hears at church is mean and total bull? What is this church trying to accomplish by busing in all these vulnerable kids to listen to hate and fear?

“Late that evening the kid came back. He wanted to talk about the nightmares he had been having, how he was worried about what would happen to him after he died, and worried what would happen to our family after we died (as nonbelievers.) He said he had been waking up crying.

“My conclusion is that the church is a hostile and poisonous entity in the community. As far as I know, they don’t do any other kind of charity work in the neighborhood.”

Yikes. “Hostile and poisonous entity.” Are we Christians really like that?

I know John quotes Jesus as saying, in John 14:6, that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” But Jesus also says, in John 6:45, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me,” reversing the order of learning.

It’s interesting, in this week of the hate-based killings in the Wisconsin temple, to contrast the teachings of Sikhism with the need of some believers of any stripe to assist God with the divine saved-lost lists.

Sikhs – the word means “student” – spend early morning hours daily studying, praying and meditating to nurture and recognize the divine in themselves and in all creation. Learning about the one God of all creation, combined with a life of service to others and a dedication to justice and equality for all, means that Sikhs concern themselves not with heavenly passwords, but with earthly hospitality.

In the wake of that awful shooting in Wisconsin last Sunday, while bodies of the people they had just prayed beside were being carried away, a reporter friend of mine told me that some of the members of the gurdwara stayed behind to offer journalists and police officers food and water, the “langar” community meal that concludes every Sikh service.

Consider this boy in Knoxville who scavenges for security despite his grandmother’s death, mother’s neglect and father’s absence. Using the Sikh measure, wasn’t it the “casual atheist,” as Elly calls herself – who offered a Popsicle on a hot summer’s day and the patience of a listening ear that evening – and not the preacher who showed divine love?

In fact, Elly’s credo is probably more life-building for those around her than that of many people of faith. As Elly puts it: “We believe in the power of love, the miracle of beauty, the wonder of creation, the awesome unknowability of the universe.”

And even though my personal creed is more detailed than that, to her statement and to her life of service to her neighbors, I say, “Amen.”

—-
Kay Campbell is Faith & Values editor and reporter at The Huntsville (Alabama) Times and an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Most recently, she was awarded the 2011 Award for Commentary from the Religion Newswriters Association. You can reach her via email at: kay.campbell@htimes.com

Print Friendly

About the Author

Kay Campbell

Kay CampbellKay Campbell reports on religion for The Huntsville Times and al.com. Her commentaries were named best in the country in 2011 by the Religion Newswriters Association. She can be reached at KCampbell@al.com and on Twitter @KayTimes.View all posts by Kay Campbell →

  • Medicalevangelist

    Warning someone of the judgement to come is not hate and assuring a kid who was concerned about his eternal soul that everything would be alright is not love.

  • http://twitter.com/brucearmstrong1 Bruce Armstrong

    It’s disappointing that the preacher managed to take a message of love – the opportunity of eternal salvation through the tremendous sacrifice and gift of Christ – and turn it into a message of fear and hate.

    But Elly’s message, loving and peaceful as it may have been, is ultimately a hopeless one. That Popsicle on a hot summer day will provide no relief in an eternity separated from God.

  • Frank

    There is only one purpose for Christian mercy- restoration and there is no restoration without Christ.

    • Jay Jones

      To the first three commentators. Please carefully read (and then re-read) Matt. 25:31-46. It simply does not verify what you are
      saying. It doesn’t even say one must be baptized to inherit the Kingdom of God—does it? Look twice, look ten times, at who Jesus said will inherit the kingdom: 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”37 (Matt. 25: 34-37). Those who will be blessed and who will inherit the Kingdom are those who welcome the stranger (the immigrant), visit the imprisoned, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the ill, and give drink to the thirsty (even with a Popsicle on a hot day). Why dispute with the words of Jesus?

      • Drew

        This is a satire, right? If so, thank you for sharing the definition of proof-texting with us.

        • Jay Jones

          “In the case of other religions, they are doing works for a false God.” In your finitude, you’re not in a position to know this—God alone is in a position to know this. I’m wondering why you even visit this blog–given that you seem so out of step with its spirit and ethos. Are you here simply to spew narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and arrogance? Go stick to your own kind—you have nothing of value to contribute to these discussions, except dissension and bigotry.

          • Frank

            You seem to be reflecting your own ignorance back on Drew. You might want to focus on yourself for awhile.

          • Jay Jones

            Don’t you find it a little odd, Frank, that
            Drew has no criticism of your proof-texting—but only has criticism of what he
            perceives as proof-texting by me? Don’t you find it odd that your only comeback
            is your own form of proof-texting? What
            does that suggest to you?

            Better to do
            proof-texting on the side of God’s own unbounded, unreserved, inclusive grace
            and love, than on the side of narrowness, bigotry, and arrogance about one’s
            own religion (or denomination).

            It is precisely this type of arrogance and
            smugness that has turned off a whole generation of young people, and driven
            them from the church, and away from Christianity. Do you read the literature on the Emerging Church? I recommend it to you. It so happens that I have advanced degrees in
            theology (from an ivy-league university), and am an ordained pastor. The God of scripture that I preach and teach is
            much, much larger, and much more magnanimous in love and grace than your narrow
            interpretation.

            I don’t normally respond with this much
            harshness, but at the moment I’m simply tired of reading drivel from
            narrow-minded people who are full of hubris and self-pride rather than humility;
            full of arrogance rather than the generosity of spirit that scripture invites;
            full of certitude that they—above and beyond anybody else from any other faith
            tradition (or even from any other denomination)—have a corner on the fullness
            of God’s truth once and for all—as though they are mind-readers of God with a
            direct pipeline to all ultimate knowledge and truth.

            “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with
            humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the
            humble.” (I Peter 5)

            And finally, I’m tired of reading posts by
            people like you who apparently spend their time trolling blogsites, looking for
            so-called “liberals” to lambast. I’m tired of seeing so-called liberals treated like whipping posts. Apparently,
            if anyone disagrees with your narrow belief system you dub them “liberal” and
            then handily dismiss them. That way, you
            excuse yourself from give-and-take dialogue, from the possibility of ever changing
            your mind about anything, from potentially learning something from people whose
            experience of God is very different from your own. Oh, but then, why should you seek to learn
            anything new, or why should you be open to changing your mind about anything—given
            that you already have Ultimate Truth all nicely and tidily bagged up?

            I ask you, why spend time at blogsites so obviously out of sync with your own
            belief system? Is your aim simply to go around looking to discredit and trash
            articles written by intelligent, reflective, committed Christians and other
            thoughtful people? You, my fellow human being, along with Drew, can benefit
            from some basic theological education. I’d be glad to recommend some good
            textbooks to you. Of course, this would require you to open up your mind, and
            to bring “a teachable spirit.”

          • Frank

            I am sure that made you feel better! The question is did you learn anything? Apparently not.

          • Jay Jones

            Indeed, I’ve learned something from the likes of people like you and Drew. Most of all, I’ve learned deeper empathy with voices of young, disaffected evangelicals who represent the Emerging Church. You and Drew give me insight into what they‘re complaining about. You’re not an evangel and harbinger of Good News. You spew bigotry, hubris, hatred of diverse others, and arrogance—and it’s been so oppressive to young people that they’re leaving Evangelicalism in droves. The ones who are hanging on are the voices of the Emerging Church. Please read Robert E. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World. You are the sine qua non of what the younger evangelicals are rebelling against. It is to their credit, their tenacity of faith—and most of all a testament to the power of the Holy Spirit—that they hang with the church instead of dropping out—DESPITE bigots like you. When I see discouraged young adults hanging onto the church, and hanging onto Christianity, despite narrow-minded, self-righteous, arrogant, prideful bigots like you, then I know there really is a triune God at work in the world. Glory to God in the Highest.

          • Frank

            Ah it all sounds very noble. I am sure you are very proud of yourself.

            Enjoy the dead movement called emerging.

          • Drew

            Frank,

            Jay does not have salvation, so let’s pray for him instead of engaging with the demonic forces that control him.

          • Frank

            Drew you know we agree on much but I would not go so far as say that. Is he confused, biased, blinded, yes obviously but I am not comfortable questioning his salvation.

          • Drew

            He does not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation; he believes that there are many ways to salvation… that if you are a good Hindu, or a good Muslim, or a good Atheist, that you will be saved… that it depends on your works, not in faith in Jesus. This isn’t a small error; this is a wholly false doctrine.

          • Frank

            I agree but is that what he is saying?

            Jay are you saying that?

          • Jay Jones

            Drew and Frank: As a minister, I’m
            grieved that you feel your time as Christians is best spent trolling on the
            internet as the self-appointed arbiters of who’s saved and who’s not
            saved. That job is already taken; it is
            God’s prerogative. “Do not judge, so
            that you may not be judged” (Matt. 7:1).

            I would encourage you to refocus and reinvest your energies, and to devote
            yourselves to what the “Red Letter Christians” is all about, in the words of
            Tony Campolo:

            “…Red Letter Christians…embrace a
            broad range of social concerns, giving special attention to legislation that
            provides help for the poor and hope for the oppressed. Declaring that there are
            more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice
            for those who are poor and oppressed, we promote legislation that turns
            biblical imperatives into social policy. We again concur with Gandhi when he
            said, “Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know
            what religion is.”

            You can read the full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-campolo/who-are-red-letter-christ_b_86887.html

            If this isn’t at the heart of why you’re at this blogsite, then I ask you,
            are you here simply to find whipping posts, and to judge people? Or, are you here (as I hope you are) to be
            edified in order that you may more faithfully take part in the mission and
            message of Jesus Christ: “The Spirit of
            the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the
            poor. He has sent me to proclaim release
            to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go
            free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19).

            Red Letter Christians, as described in the Campolo quote above, and in the
            article, is a resource whose aim to help you more faithfully participate in
            this mission. May God be with you.

          • Drew

            First of all, you never answered Jay – do you believe there are many paths to salvation besides faith in Christ?

            Second of all, instead of quoting HuffPo, why don’t you read what Tony posted on this website about the movement:

            http://www.redletterchristians.org/history/

            The movement was created by Evangelicals to reform Evangelicalism, not a movement for liberals to redefine Christianity.

          • Jay Jones

            Drew: I didn’t quote Huff Po (it’s a
            website—it doesn’t speak). I directly quoted
            Tony Campolo himself, one of the founders of Red Letter Christians, from his
            article in the Huffington Post. I
            challenge you to open up that article and read it, and respond to it. What was it about Campolo’s quote that upset
            you?

          • Drew

            I will ask you a second time to stop avoiding and switching topics and answer Jay’s question – do you believe there are many paths to salvation besides faith in Christ?

            Jay, I own the book RLC, so you can get off your condescending high horse. I have read that article; I was merely pointing out the absolute fact that if you want to know what a website is about… why don’t you click on the “about” section of the website? Not a difficult concept.

          • Anonymous

            Jay,
            I’ve been reading your responses to Drew & Frank. You should probably turn in your ministry credentials for your smug & condescending posts here.

          • Frank

            Jay your unwillingness to answer my simple question about the path to salvation makesme think Drew is right about you. Why don’t you answer and clear up any confusion? We can only assume your silence is an affirmation of your universalism. After all there is no point in following the red letters if Jesus is not who he says he is.

          • I Love Jesus

            Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

          • Drew

            Hope that made you feel better.

          • Billy G

            No wonder Jay got so upset. Your arrogance and self-righteousness leaves me speechless. Who in the world are you to decide who does and does not have salvation?

          • Frank

            Some of the red letters read:

            John 14:6 (ESV)6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
            John 3:16 (ESV)16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
            and non red letters:
            Acts 4:12 (ESV)12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
            Romans 6:23 (ESV)23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

          • Drew

            I hope you don’t respond to everyone you disagree with anger and insults and intolerant taunts of “sticking to your own kind.

            The Bible is clear that the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ, and that nothing we do separate from Christ pleases God. Even when we do the right thing, apart from God, we are doing it for the wrong motivations. If you are unsure of this, I would enroll in an Introduction to Christianity course at a local Bible College or in a local Church.

          • Doctor of Theology

            Drew, as I read through all the posts, I see that you attribute a number of things to Jay that he never said, and that you actually can’t deduce from what he did, in fact, say. Here are some of your outright fabrications:

            “He does not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation; he believes that there are many ways to salvation… that if you are a good Hindu, or a good Muslim, or a good Atheist, that you will be saved… that it depends on your works, not in faith in Jesus.”

            “Jay Jones believes that salvation is earned through good works regardless of fait in Christ” [and so this] “…guarantees that he is a false teacher.”

            “Jesus does not matter; there are many paths to God.”

            These are inflammatory charges. I completely agree with the observations of Carl Williams (if you saw his post). You don’t listen well, you distort what is actually said, and then you make accusations (about false teaching) based on your distortions. That’s both pathological and sinful.

            You need to be called out and held accountable for the irresponsible (libelous!) statements you make about Jay. You sound like a far right-wing fundie– and if I understand correctly, that’s not what the RLC site is about. On the whole, Jay’s theology resonates much more closely with the founders and the boggers on RLC than does yours. What’s going on with you?

      • Frank

        Isn’t Jesus talking to those who have already received salvation through Him? Isn’t this article about those on the receiving end of mercy?

      • http://www.facebook.com/mavis.duncanson Mavis Duncanson

        Thanks Jay for your wisdom. I’m sure the little boy will remember the popsicle and teh friendship offered by this family long after the nightmares have ceased.

        • frank

          Yes but the popsicle does nothing for him after he has eaten it. Christ offers eternal life.

          • tarl_hutch

            I know what you guys are saying here, but you are being overly literal about the popsicles. It is about kindness, innocence, and love. The popsicle is a simple gesture that acknowledges the humanity and Christ within the boy, allowing him to enjoy a simple and beautiful moment of childhood. This kind of action can open more doors to faith sometimes, than the most fervent preaching. Even in the hands of a non Christian the love of God can be shown through simple acts of folly.

          • Frank

            I agree but it’s not an either or, it’s a both.

            And who was suggesting that fervant preaching at the boy was the answer? My point is the popsicle alone is not Christian love.

          • tarl_hutch

            What if it were one with a bible verse on the stick? Haha…jk.

          • Frank

            Haha! That is funny!

            I would question the effectiveness of that but it’s better than nothing. At least the person would know where the love was coming from.

        • Anonymous

          I remember as a kid I ate lots of popsicles and other sweet things. And each one was great for a time, but I always ended up thinking about how & when I might get another one. But a life with Jesus is a satisfaction that never stops. Hopefully the boy will find that.

  • Drew

    Why do liberals refuse to use the Bible when they make a case for something? Jesus clearly explains the reason for good works – when people ask us why we do good works or thank us for good works, and we share the Gospel with them and tell us why we do good works, they will glorify God. In the case of other religions, they are doing works for a false God. In the case of atheists, they are doing works to glorify themselves and to feel good about themselves.

    • Jay Jones

      “In the case of other
      religions, they are doing works for a false God.”

      Drew, what do you do when someone reminds you that Jesus was a
      Jew (another religion), and that he didn’t come first and foremost to found a
      new religion, Christianity.

      But let’s put that aside for the moment. You’ve created a mindset wherein anybody you
      perceive as a “liberal” is going to be damned if they do, in fact, appeal to
      scripture. You will point your finger,
      and accuse them of “proof-texting” if that portion of scripture happens to call
      into question or threaten your little narrow belief system.
      Of course, the liberal will be damned by you if they suggest a sound
      piece of theology that threatens your belief system—you’ll discredit the
      theology because the so-called liberal didn’t quote scripture. Face it, anybody who happens to disagree with
      your tight little belief system is a liberal—and you’re going to find some
      reason to dismiss them.

      I’m wondering what you have to say to (or
      about) Frank, who stepped in to defend you by doing his own proof-texting? Do you have equal criticism for him? I thought not.

      All the things I wrote to Frank I’m going
      to repeat to you. I say that it’s better
      to do proof-texting on the side of God’s own unbounded, unreserved, inclusive
      grace and love, than on the side of narrowness, bigotry, and arrogance about
      one’s own religion.

      It is precisely your type of arrogance and
      smugness that has turned off a whole generation of young people, and driven
      them from the church, and away from Christianity. Do you read the literature on the Emerging
      Church? I recommend it to you.

      It so happens that I have advanced degrees
      in theology (from an ivy-league university), and am an ordained pastor. The God of scripture that I preach and teach
      is much, much larger, and much more magnanimous in love and grace than your
      narrow interpretation.

      I don’t normally respond with this much
      harshness, but at the moment I’m simply tired of reading drivel from
      narrow-minded people who are full of hubris and self-pride rather than
      humility; full of arrogance rather than the generosity of spirit that scripture
      invites; full of certitude that they—above and beyond anybody else from any
      other faith tradition (or even from any other denomination)—have a corner on
      the fullness of God’s truth once and for all—as though they are mind-readers of
      God with a direct pipeline to all ultimate knowledge and truth.

      “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with
      humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the
      humble.” (I Peter 5)

      And finally, I’m tired of reading posts by
      people like you who apparently spend their time trolling blogsites, looking for
      so-called “liberals” to lambast.
      Apparently, if anyone disagrees with your narrow belief system you dub
      them “liberal” and then handily dismiss them.
      That way, you excuse yourself from give-and-take dialogue, from the
      possibility of ever changing your mind about anything, from potentially
      learning something from people whose experience of God is very different from
      your own. Oh, but then, why should you seek
      to learn anything new, or why should you be open to change your mind about
      anything—given that you already have Ultimate Truth all nicely and tidily
      bagged up?

      I ask you, along with Frank, why spend time
      at blogsites so obviously out of sync with your own belief system? Is your aim simply to go around looking to discredit
      and trash posts by intelligent, dedicated Christians and other thoughtful
      people? Are you here just to mock and
      needle people? You, my fellow human
      being, are precisely the one who can benefit from some basic theological
      education. I’d be glad to recommend some
      good textbooks to you. Of course, this
      would require you to open up your mind, and to bring “a teachable spirit.”

      • Drew

        I will pray for your salvation, Jay.

        • ben

          you’re a pharisee

  • Eric

    I love the original article and the discussion of Sikhism. I am infact a disenfranchised believer who is extremely comfortable with my growing relationship with the Big Good and have completely abandoned all churchiness. I am sorry to read the post article discussions and feel the emotions that it brings to me. I would encourage Drew and Frank especially, and everyone who hears these words to spend some disciplined time on their knees ( which can include everything from complete prostration with arms forward, to standing on knees with arms raised to heaven toward the Aboveness you boys seem to be so fond of saying you believe in the god of. Spend this time LISTENING, not talking, quieting the mind and body and breathing deeply of the breath of God in whom we live and breathe and have our being. I appreciated your article very much Jay, and I even appreciate the enthusiasm with which the others discussed it. Their trolling is evidence that they are questioning their beliefs and God is challenging them to bring in to synch their belief and their understanding. Understanding coming through experience, somatic experience, the aha of enlightenment when God speaks and we become something better.

    • Drew

      “I am infact a disenfranchised believer who is extremely comfortable with my growing relationship with the Big Good and have completely abandoned all churchiness.”

      So in other words, you’re not a Christian. Fair enough. However, this is a Christian website.

      • eric

        love ya bro. been right there.

      • Jesus

        “So in other words, you’re not a Christian. Fair enough. However, this is a Christian website.” Wow. Well with that reasoning, Drew, you’re not a progressive. Fair enough. However, this is a progressive website.

        • Drew

          It’s not a progressive website; it’s actually a movement to reform Evangelicalism from within, although it is starting to be hijacked.

      • Job

        Drew, you’re not a Christian.

    • Anonymous

      Eric, when you claim to be proudly disenfranchised, you should not be trying to counsel others. Christians are commanded to meet together, and it looks like you are proudly disobedient to that instruction.

      • eric

        The assembling of ourselves together, comes in the mind of God, being in one accord, in mind, and possibly in breath (Spirit)

      • Eric

        you are the only one who used the word “proud”. (and you used it twice)…? And the idea that everyone doesn’t need encouragement to spend time before their maker is ludicrous. It’s where we all claim we want to go. So why not start now?

        • Anonymous

          Eric,
          To forsake meeting together with other Christians…is to disobey your Maker. When you are disobedient and unwilling to return to obedience, you are not honoring your Maker.

  • tarl_hutch

    The extremes some commenters take on this page is laughable, if it werent so disheartening. The cries of bigot and questions of salvation make me sick and I would bet God would agree.

    • Drew

      Jay Jones believes that salvation is earned through good works regardless of faith in Christ. This is one of the most heretical statements that an individual could make and guarantees that he is a false teacher.

      If you want to disagree with me on the way I approached his apostasy, that is fine, but if you want to argue with whether or not he is an apostate, please use some discernment. We need to stop letting false teachers say whatever they want because we worship the idols of post-modernism and the secular liberal definition of tolerance.

      • tarl_hutch

        You know me, I am fine with disagreement and debate, but the petty name calling, arrogance, and disdain that gets thrown around here is embarrassing. It makes me hope that non Christians don’t see our squabbling here. I know you are better than that, use discernment in the tone, language, and statements you use, you never know who is seeing it and how it comes across. Too many on both sides bicker like spoiled children on here and I know I for one get sick of it.

        • Drew

          I could not disagree with you more strongly, Tarl. We can debate and disagree on 2nd degree and 3rd degree issues, but that assumes that we all agree on the fundamental aspects of Christianity. When a false teacher comes to this website, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, saying he is a “minister” but teaching false doctrines with a lot of venom and anger, there is no room for “debate” and “discussion.” The individual needs to be prayed for and called out as a false teacher.

          • tarl_hutch

            Whatever you say boss.

          • Drew

            “With the wolves you cannot be too severe; with the weak sheep you cannot be too gentle.” –Martin Luther

          • Jay Jones

            Drew, like me and all human beings, you’re finite and fallible. Like all humans, you are a creature of God; you are not God. God alone has the freedom and prerogative to save whoever God wants to save. Sorting people into bins labeled “saved” and “unsaved” is not your job; it’s not the primary calling of Christians.

            On the final judgment Jesus will not ask you, “Drew, did you go around demanding that people answer your litmus test as to whether or not they believe there are many paths to salvation?” I quote Campolo here in reminding you of what Jesus is going to ask you: “On the day of judgment, the Lord will not ask theological questions so much as He will ask if we fulfilled our social obligations. He will ask whether or not we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, received and cared for aliens, and brought deliverance to captive peoples (see Matt. 5:31-45).” On that day, Drew, are you going to have answer Jesus by saying, “Lord, I didn’t have much time or energy for poor people. I spent my time sorting people into bins ‘saved’ and ‘unsaved.’ I went around demanding that people tell me whether or not they believe there are many paths to salvation. I thought that’s what I was supposed to be doing.”

            I confessed Jesus as the Christ and was baptized at the age of nine. That didn’t give me license to go around finger-pointing and declaring who God will and will not save. Moreover, I suspect your view of “salvation’ is way too narrow to do justice to the full scope of biblical witness. In terms of a scriptural understanding, “salvation” is not a mere ticket to Heaven in the after-life. If you take scripture as seriously as you think you do, then I’m wondering how much time you invest every week in the Gospel imperatives laid out by Jesus in Matt. 25:34-37. We don’t do these to earn salvation (as you falsely say I believe)—salvation is a free gift of Divine grace; we do these things because that’s what Jesus asks us to do as his followers. How much time do you invest every week in what Jesus has explicitly asked you to do? Trolling on the internet and declaring people with whom you disagree (or who don’t meet your litmus test) to be “unsaved” is not mentioned by Jesus as criteria he’ll be using to separate sheep from goats. On the basis of how you’ve spent your time this past week, are you a sheep, or are you a goat?

            Evangelism, mission, and Christian witness cannot be boiled down to going around declaring who is, and who is not, saved. Your attitude is precisely what creates the kind of atmosphere which allows bigots to decide that it’s okay to commit hate-crimes against Muslims, Sikhs, and other religious believers. Jesus ate with strangers and unbelievers; if you want to follow in his footsteps, share table fellowship with a Muslim or Jew or Sikh. Listen to what they have to say about their faith in God. After you respectfully listen, you can talk about Jesus.

            The best evangelicals today, such as Tony Campolo, are engaged in interfaith dialogue, and in cooperative efforts to serve the common good—rather than simply going around writing others off as unsaved. I urge you to go to the website of The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, and allow your mind to be stretched: http://www.newevangelicalpartnership.org/

          • Frank

            Jay if you go around and either teach or tell anyone they do not need Jesus as their one and only savior then you would be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I do not know what you are doing so I am not accusing you of anything but simply laying out a biblical truth.

          • Drew

            Frank,

            Jay is a false teacher, teaching false doctrine, bearing bad, hate-filled fruit to the world. We don’t need to engage Satan when we encounter Satan, but rather rely on Jesus and pray.

          • Drew

            I will continue to pray for your salvation. God bless you Jay.

          • Jay Jones

            Drew, the time I’ve spent interacting
            with you on this page has certainly given me insight into how the mind of a
            right-wing fundamentalist nut case actually works. Your natural habitat seems to be the dankest
            and darkest and most damning corner of self-righteous, arrogant, bigoted,
            Bible-thumping religious ideology which you sadly mistake for
            Christianity.

            “I will continue to pray for your
            salvation” you say. I told you I’m a
            baptized Christian. How dare you come
            across so arrogant—you twisted little
            self-righteous twit. I’m tempted to say
            that you’re totally not worth any of the time I’ve spent interacting with you–except
            for the value of deepening my understanding of what “the younger evangelicals”
            are complaining about, and why they are bitter about the likes of you and what
            you represent. If you think my anger is unseemly and
            inappropriate, just recall how angry Jesus got, and how he condemned the
            self-righteous and sanctimonious Pharisees and Sadducees.

            You can certainly count on me to pray
            for your own salvation, and for the untwisting of your mind and soul, lest you
            drive hordes of people completely away from Christianity.

            You and your cronies are a textbook case
            of what evangelical authors David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons write about in their
            acclaimed book entitled “unchristian.” Self-righteous
            bigotry like yours is precisely what has contributed to such a bad, bad
            reputation for evangelical Christianity in the public eye. The fact that you see Satan at work in every
            single fellow Christian who happens to think and believe in ways that differ
            from you tells me how pathological and sick your version of Christianity
            actually is.

            The good news is that your brand of
            right-wing self-righteous hubris is being criticized and replaced by a younger
            generation of evangelical Christian leaders.
            Thank goodness, you don’t
            represent the only face, and certainly not the best face, of evangelical
            Christianity in the U.S. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical
            Partnership for the Common Good, describes the new movement as a “slow
            earthquake.” Leaders of this new movement are fed up with
            how your group has discredited and marred the face of Christianity, making it
            appear to be repulsive to so many people, rather than a message that’s hopeful
            and life-giving.

            For the record, I don’t believe that
            we’re saved by our good works. Neither
            are we saved by correct doctrinal beliefs.
            We’re saved by the grace and power of God in and through Jesus Christ
            for the life of the world and its flourishing.
            Let God be God. Let God decide
            who is saved and who is not. Let us
            devote ourselves to the life-giving practices Jesus names in Matthew
            25:34-37—not in order to get saved, but to live in grateful obedience to Jesus
            Christ. Sorting people into bins marked
            ‘saved’ and ‘unsaved,’ bludgeoning people with a doctrinal litmus test, finding
            Satan in everyone who disagrees with you, are not practices Jesus names. To the contrary, he condemned
            self-righteousness and judgmentalism.
            Because you failed to corner me, and because I refused to play your
            little doctrinal game, you imputed things to me that I never said, and you
            deliberately and maliciously distorted what I did say. That’s your twisted little game, and it’s sinful. I don’t consider myself a liberal, but there
            are more nuanced options than turning to narrow-minded bigotry. Apparently you label everything and everybody
            that disagrees with you as “liberal” so you can turn them into a whipping post,
            and easily dismiss them.

            It was a relief to see Tarl
            differentiate himself from you, but then painful to see you unleash your
            self-righteous venom on him as well. I
            thought it was just me that you got crosswise with, but you were totally unable
            to receive and genuinely dialogue with the beautiful and very moving testimony he
            shared with you. That says a lot about
            your rigid defense system, and your self-righteous bigotry.

            This will be my last post on this particular
            page, and you can be assured that it will be the last time I even open and look
            at this page. Matt. 7:6 is good enough
            reason not to interact with you anymore.
            In the words of Jesus: “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls
            before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you”
            (Matt. 7:6). When Tarl shared his holy
            witness with you, you turned and mauled him.

            So go hold
            hands with Frank, and pray your falsely pious prayers; do your self-righteous
            finger-pointing and then be self-deceptive enough to call it “discernment.” Go maul someone else with your ignoramus
            bigotry.

          • Frankf

            You love to write long essays that only expose your own bias and hypocrisy, not to mention what appears to be false doctrine while refusing to answer questions put to you. I am glad you are going away and hopefully prayerfully considering your future words and actions. You need some guidance and I hope you get it.

          • Drew

            That’s the sad thing… Jay is so filled with hate and anger, and even Tarl is starting to get angry and impatient, but I am not angry in the least, and while I have leveled a serious charge of false doctrine, I have tried to avoid the grandiose language and petty name-calling used by the secular world. This is what happens when you challenge extremism, unfortunately.

          • Drew

            I didn’t read this post after the second paragraph, when you claimed once again to be a Christian, then started to trash me. By your fruit you shall be known. Good day, and again, I will pray for you.

          • tarl_hutch

            I am tired of this, so tired. I have been a Christian for a long while now and it has never hurt me more than it has recently to see us at each others throats. I have been through many stages in my faith journey, starting out like many in a more conservative setting. I felt comforted by the focus on absolutes and zealousness for defendung God. It taught me much and gave me a deeply personal base to form a relationship with God.

            Then I experienced death and a dark night of the soul, that lasted several years. I never lost God, but I wasnt sure if I wanted to be near him or even knew how. Needless to say, Jesus continued to work in me, whether i wanted to or not, and brought me back into a deeper relationship with him. I still had many remnants from my conservative and also neo calvinist days, but soon learned Jesus doesn’t fit our boxes and desires for him. I kept seeing him do different things and questioned what I thought I knew about him, only to find he was much more than I thought he could be. And good God, he loved me. He loved me so much more than I could believe and in ways I couldnt comprehend. I learned to abide in his love and to stop worrying about the faith of others. As Aslan says in Narnia, we are not to concern ourselves with smothered journey, but to focus on what he has for us. Loving others and sharing with them speaks the truth so much better than apologetics. Life based apologetics is the embodiment of your mind and spirits work.

            What you all believe now, may not be what you always believe. One day you too may find yourself the “liberal”, likewise Jay might become quite the conservative. All this crap lacks grace and love and sounds lije crashing trash can lids. We are so obsessed with the gods we have created, through our imperfect understandings, that we choose mudpies over heaven. We spew hate, instead of embodying truth. Truly, what difference does all this make? Are we going to change each others minds? Are we going to beat each other into submiss

          • Drew

            Tarl,

            I like you and respect you, but you are part of the problem. The Bible is clear about false doctrine and false teachers. However, due to political liberalism, secularism/atheism/agnosticism, and postmodernism, people like you allow false teachers and false doctrine to run rampant and to deceive the sheep. God forbid we offend Satan when we see Satan at work… we need to listen to Satan’s ideas, maybe embrace a few, tell other people to be tolerant and inclusive and open-minded towards Satan, right? Jesus had a lot of nice things to say about Satan and sin and leading the sheep astray, right?

            I strongly urge you to read Revelation. Jesus wrote letters to seven Churches, and he corrects the doctrine of at least two Churches. Doctrine matters! False teachers and teachings are serious business that can lead to hell! This isn’t a joke, this this is real and this is important. People are being deceived every day by people like Jay. The world does not need people to believe that can put their faith in Buddha and end up in heaven. That’s not love, that is hatred, and that person will end up in hell for leading others to hell.

            Wake up, Tarl, wake up.

          • tarl_hutch

            Why do you always assume I am less well read and knowledgeable about the bible? Is it because I don’t quote it every ten seconds and instead let it influence me from the core, working into what I say and do? I am not perfect, I don’t have it all figured out, and neither do you. Luther didn’t, Calvin didnt, Mclaren doesn’t, piper doesnt, no one does, not fully. Giod is beyond us and yet in us at the same time, that is incredible. I am awake and I want you to wake up too. Wake up to the fact that God works through all if us and all things, good, bad, and ugly. My faith is strong enough to deal with questions, to trust God to do His work, to play my small part without fear, to admit that I am flawed, but still loved.

            Listening to you is like hearing from myself 13 years ago, I know where you are coming from, the Passion and the concern. Don’t lose it, but know that the years and grace will temper it if you continue to follow Jesus. Look at Jesus’s ministry, what had more impact his words/teaching or his actions? Of course you cannot divorce the two, but love in action is more powerful than truth in theory.

            Maybe I am part of the problem and maybe I will be judged for my words and deeds, but I would rather be damned for erring on the side of love than bound by regret.

            You are right that this is serious and there are false teachers out there, but before accusing all “liberal” pastors take a look in your backyard, I bet you’ll find some strong contenders at your local church bookstore. But I digress, for I really don’t care what theory of atonement you believe in or whether some people are elect or not, I care about Jesus and if you follow him in teaching love and subversive grace. His has always been a counter cultural movement, but more in actions than words.

            I feel I know you well enough that these words will sound like the same damned liberal arguments I use all the time and are unlikely to change yours or frank’s or jay’s opinions, but I feel compelled to share and plant seeds. My life was changed not through guilt, but through love and I want to share that gospel. Am i just as guilty of trying to put him in my own box? Yes, but I continue to seek him and rest daily in his peace and love. That is why I share and what I pray for.

            I will continue to be a part of the problem by sharing with the homeless, breaking bread with friends of all sexualities, crying with the broken, praying with the other, and living an agenda of love and grace. In love we find truth, because God is love and through the love of Christ we are one.

            You may think me asleep, mislead, or even a teacher of false doctrine, but I encourage you to keep running after Jesus and abiding in his grace. Don’t ever become stagnant and remember grave when speaking with others. I see a lot of myself in you, which may terrify you, and pray for your continued growth in Jesus. Sorry to get so dramatic, it is easy when you are tired I am finding.

          • Drew

            “I would rather err on the side of love than truth.” How about trying not to purposefully err on either side?

            You said all you care about is Jesus, not theories of atonement or salvation. However, what Jay is saying is that fundamentally, Jesus does not matter, that there are many paths to God. This is not a secondary or tertiary issue like you imply; this is a primary, fundamental, critical issue. This is not just a “liberal” thing, because most liberal Christians still believe Jesus is the only path to God. This is more of a non-Christian thing.

            I don’t think you are a false teacher or believe in false doctrine, but I do think you are asleep or willfully ignorant of the issue of false teachers and false doctrines. You more or less side-stepped the entire issue, which shows me it is not very important to you. Well it is important to me, because when people are led astray, they are lead to hell, and that should be a concern to you.

            Let me ask you this – what does Satan look like? Satan is not a big scary devil dressed in red with horns with a pitchfork, intimidating people. Satan is pretty intelligent and extremely cunning. Satan didn’t try to scare Adam and Eve in the garden or Jesus in the desert. He befriended them, dialogued with them, tried to persuade and charm. Satan more often than not is a sheep in wolves’ clothing, in the form of false doctrine or false teaching that sounds good, feels good, but isn’t good. Satan is not usually in the form of Osama Bin Laden. Generally, it is in the form of someone like Jay, saying that you don’t really have to believe in Jesus to be saved.

            Again, you are asleep to this issue – wake up. Don’t you notice an increase in radical and false doctrines all around us? I certainly do. And if you’re too stuck on the Red Letters… Jesus has just as much to say on false teaching and false doctrine than a lot of other topics he discussed.

          • tarl_hutch

            It actually made me smile when you said, “too stuck in the red letters”, as if you could ever have too much emphasis on the words of Jesus.

            Yes there are false teachers out there and good teachers who sometimes teach wrong lessons. I have mentioned before the overly macho Jesus of Driscoll, the happy health and wealth of olsteen, and the neutering of Borg. As you say, Satan doesn’t always look like the devil.

            I don’t know what Jay believes, but he seems to be on a more liberal side of the “only God knows who God saves” conversation. He may be overly pluralistic, but even if you believe in possible universalism or inclusivism, while pointing to the redeeming power of Christ and even some scripture to back it up, as all sides are so good at using the bible to prove a point.

            Another point I would make is how does calling someone a false teacher on a message board really protect the souls of others being lead astray? Also, I know the bible refers to false teachers and people being led into myths, but do we discount the power of the spirit in bringing them back into the fold? Also what percentage of the right beliefs does one have to have to recieve salvation? There are a lot of questions here that i am not sure we have the answer.

            Of course, I don’t believe I am erring on the side of love, I only use that to illustrate a point. Obviously, i think i am following the right path or else i would not follow it. It is remarkable to me how we can have such different focuses on the same issues. We are at different spots in our journeys and different people, but its exciting isnt it? Maybe working as a team from opposite ends we will meet in the middle, who knows?

            Oh, most of the time I don’t try to side step issues, but forget as i tend to be long winded. Also, i have a crazy conspiracy that you and jay are the same person. Just to spice things up. Truly, I wish the best for you and i think God’s got some great things to shiw you on the rest of the journey.

          • Drew

            I do not agree with your worship of post-modernism. You might think there is no truth, or that everyone’s version of the truth is valid, but I cannot agree with that. There are false teachers, there are false doctrines, it is dangerous, and Jesus and Paul both speak about it. Universalism is a false doctrine that leads people to hell because it says that people do not have to put faith in Christ. Then again, a lot of liberals do not even believe hell exists or that hell is eternal, because they are so corrupted by false doctrine.

            I would hate for you to continue to throw truth under the bus because you think it is loving. To be clear, there is Biblical “love”and there is the world’s definition of love. They are often not the same. Being flexible on primary doctrine might make other people love you, and will help you avoid persecution, but it’s grounds for damnation.

          • tarl_hutch

            You really don’t listen to anything do you? Reading into what I say to make me some liberal love hippie isn’t conducive to conversation. Your worship of your definition of “truth” and “biblical love” is disconcerting, if you took a minute to truly think about what myself and others are saying, you might not agree but at least undrstand what is being said.

            You do realize that before you said you didn’t think i was a false teacher, but now you are calling me a heretic. That is fine. My faith journey is between Jesus and myself, I have never felt so sure of my faith and so emboldened by love. I have had many years and many experiences to mature in my faith, and am not sacred by your accusations. I listen to them, examine them, pray about it, and leave it to faith to correct any of my actions.

            Truly, I thank you for your concern and conversation, but your spiritual arrogance is misplaced. Neither of us has all the answers, not that there aren’t any, but the bivle is not a rule book to order our lives, it is a narrative of God’s relationship with humanity and an inspiration to think and question and find that God loves you. I know from all your other comments on variius issues that you are a great guy, but know that every human believes thungs in a slightly different way, because we are individuals and God interacts with us all uniquely. Anyway, I know this will illicit the same kind of response, but know this heretic, people pleaser, is also a God pleaser and people lover. False doctrines dont scare me, because love and truth of God will prevail. P.s. have you ever considered in depth what false teachings are warned against in Revelation or really looked at the way Jesus describes the final judgement? You might notice some interesting things, thrn again, maybe not.

          • Drew

            I humbly suggest that you learn about post-modernism, as you affirmed it yet a third time as your worldview. We can’t move further in this discussion until you learn about it and affirm/reject it as your worldview.

          • tarl_hutch

            What is your world view modernism, Christian modernism, fundamentalism, or what? Maybe it is time to fully label yourself, as you want the rest of us to.

            I know you don’t really know me, but you insult my intelligence. You have yet to ever say anything that I didn’t already know or stump me with any point you have brought up. I will ask you not to belittle me with inane statements, as if I were a petulant, ignorant child. I like our discussions, but that arrogance really is trying my patience. Also, don’t say humbly before making a statement such as that.

            What we call “post modernism”, would you say it is in no way compatible with Christianity? Also, what do you say to the argument that we have already moved beyond post modernism and are entering an as yet defined period in our society? I would ask what makes you so sure your ideology is cirrect, but I know you will say the bible, so there is no point.

            I told you I am getting sick of this same old crap, its not making any new friends, and we are getting no where.

          • Drew

            You failed to address my post, so I will wait for you to respond to what I actually said in my post before I respond to this post.

          • tarl_hutch

            There are certain aspects of post modernism I agree with and certain aspects I do not. As most thoughtful people, I do not fully conform to any one particular label. You have debated with me enough to realize what ideas I have that mesh with post modernism and which don’t, at least in this arena. That is why i am a bit confused by your insistence on answering inane questions about a philosophy that is not incompatible with Christianity and is not strictly speaking, the current philosophical state most of society is in right now. The church is obsessed work PM because it is consistently 20 years behind, we are already transitioning into an, as yet named, period. But there you go, if you have more specific questions, I may or may not answer depending on time. Later.

          • Drew

            You still did not really answer the question; you gave a vague answer saying that you agree with some of it and disagreed with some of it, but did not specify where you agree and where you disagree.

            If you want to see where post-modernism leads, or what the new period looks like, look at Europe. A continent that has been Christian for thousands of years is now primarily secular, with atheism and Islam the only religions that are growing.

          • tarl_hutch

            The bare basic is that I do think there is “absolute truth”, but I am hesitant to claim that humans can absolutely know the full truth. I think the framework when ate born into and our experiences render it impossible for us to have an unbiased uninfluenced position. This is somewhat in line with post modernism, but still not full out. There are also smaller differences, as i have moved past PM, but that would be the influence.

            Europes example is more an indictment on organized denominations of over bearing Christians, than post modernism. The result in Europe is a backlash to years of oppressive, wrong headed “Christianity”. The church still exists there, but with a different focus and approach than americanized Christianity. In essance, they are 20 years ahead of what will transpire in America. There will be a backlash, it is up to the church to enter a time of reflection and renewal, not a defensive battle. I know you do not agree, but there you go, since you wanted to know. As evidenced by many other commenters here, much of the church is hungry for change and growth, the spirit is working againand who knows where we will end up.

          • Drew

            Well, nobody is claiming that humans can absolutely know the full truth, so I find that train of thought a bit disingenuous. I would also agree that humans cannot absolutely know the full truth, and we do not seem to share the same perspective. It would seem to me that you question whether or not humans can know the truth even when it comes to more basic issues.

            I think you are wrong on Europe. First, the Church is in steeper decline there than you probably realize. When you look at the headline numbers only, you see a modest drop in Christianity in Europe. When you look at the real numbers (Church attendance, daily Bible reading, other signs of mature Christians), the gap between Europe and the U.S. is remarkable. In a lot of countries, those numbers are in the single digits. Second, a lot of countries have separated Church and State a long time ago, and it has made no difference; the drop in religiosity has, if anything, accelerated.

          • tarl_hutch

            We can know basic truths as evidenced through the similarities between religions. Obviously there is an intrinsic truth that runs through most human religion and philosophy, we add other things to it and muddy the water. These underlying, principles, such as not murdering, kindness, prayer, etc, come from somewhere, i.e. God, and we can all find them to varying degrees. Then you come to the embodiment of those truths, Jesus, and you find what it looks like in life. The issue comes up when we make certain hard and fast statements that we really have no idea about. We do not read or learn in a vacuum, thus our interpretations are open to error. So even if the bible is infallible, no man’s reasons and doctrine are likewise infallible. We can find these underlying truths between our interpretations and logically conclude that at least some of them are correct. The problem comes when we start trying to guess who is in and who is out. Yes, the bible givew us clues, but also throws some curveballs about who comes to God. We would do well to concern ourselves with imitating Jesus’s life and growing in him through prayer, than worrying about the doctrinal rightness of others. Truth finds its embodiment in love and action.

            Most of this is a rehash if our earlier conversations, which is why i was surprised you asked. Round and round we go.

          • Drew

            I am not concerned about the doctrine of other people and how correct or incorrect they are. Like you said, this is not something to concern ourselves with, and in my opinion, I know I have a lot to learn and that a lot of people are light years ahead of me. However, you need to have a paradigm shift on this issue. We are not talking about holding false doctrine, but rather, a false teacher sharing false doctrine with others, which leads people astray. It’s a fundamental difference. It’s not just that Jay is wrong, but that he is encouraging other people to be wrong as well. Jay won’t answer my question, so we might never know what the truly believes, but if he believes in universalism and is telling other people to believe in universalism, that is a problem.

          • tarl_hutch

            This is what confuses me about all this, you say you don’t care about other peoples doctrine, but the whole back and forth is over your concern for someone’s wrong doctrine. Since Jay will not answer you fully, then why assume he is purporting this idea. Even if he is, isnt it enough to say “I don’t agree and here’s why”? Which you did, but then got pulled into an argument where you questioned his faith and a whole ugly spat continued. Jay was out of line, but there was no need to egg him on. A debate is good and healthy, but so many times we escalate beyond good natured debate and devolve into a shouting match. You may not have been angry, but from the feedback you can see that your words were taken as such. I get annoyed too, as you know, but mainly from repeating the same arguments and seeing people attack each other. It is a bad witness and does nothing to further the dialogue. Give your opinion and then give it to God to help us sort it out.

          • Drew

            Revelation 2:20, Jesus speaking – “But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who
            calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to
            practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.”

            You might want me to politely disagree, because that is what post-modernism and secularism wants, but the Bible says we are not to tolerate false teachers of false doctrines. I’ll stick to what Jesus says. I know it’s not popular, but I am not trying to win a popularity contest. I’ll also point out that if this were a secondary issue, we would not be having this discussion, as I would have gently disagree with Jay. I guess we may never know exactly what Jay meant, but everything he wrote suggested he supports universalism and that people can put their faith in other things than Jesus and get salvation because they have earned it vis-a-vis good works. You get upset at Calvinism because you think it can hamper missions; how about saying there are other paths to salvation other than Christ? Talk about hampering missions… if a Muslim can earn salvation via good works and belief in Muhammad, then there is no point to missions.

          • tarl_hutch

            Just curious what you think about the passages where Paul says it is not a sin to eat food sacrificed to idols? How would you square that with the aforementioned verse?

            Second, do you think you can change Jay’s mind by your argument?

            Third, if there were no chance of heaven or hell, would it be pointless to follow the way of Christ?

          • Drew

            I’m not sure how any of your questions are relevant to the discussion at hand.

            As for your first point, is that a real question or a trap? If it is a real question, ask a pastor. If you already have an answer in mind, why don’t you go ahead and share your answer.

            As for your second point, I care less if I can change Jay’s mind and care more about an appropriate response to false teachers and false doctrine.

            As for your third point, it’s mute. There is heaven and there is hell. I’m sure you’re trying to use some rhetorical device here as well, but I’m not much for rhetorical devices.

          • tarl_hutch

            They are all relevant to me, as they are root ideas for much of what we have discussed and illuminate some of the examples you use.

            1) I don’t really have an answer, it is just something that concerns me when using the “angel” letters in revelation. They seem to be at odds with some of Paul’s writing and i wanted to know how you square them together since you used the example. Also rereading the chapter, I noticed how different the tone and message of that chapter is from the words of Jesus presented in the gospels and wondered why that might be. Wanted to know if you had given it any thought.

            2) what is the correct response, if not to correct thr person whom you deem as spreading false doctrine? If that is not the point, why argue so passionately?

            3) I think this rhetorical question goes a long way to explaining what you think the ultimate message of Jesus to be. Was it only about an afterlife, or about a new way of living, or a mixture? How do you view it? It stems from a discussion I had with an agnostic friend of mine, where I said if there were no afterlife I would still be glad that I followed the way of Jesus.

            If you want others to answer your questions, it would help to answer a few as well. Hope that helps clear up my intentions.

          • Drew

            1) Rick Warren and John Piper had a fascinating discussion, and I like what Rick Warren said about contradictions in the Bible. He said something to the effect that there are no contradictions in the Bible and that we need to see how the ideas of the Bible fit together rather than choose one idea over another or just give up on both ideas, saying it is a contradiction that we can do nothing about. 1 Corinthians 10 actually seems to affirm Revelation 2, so I’m not sure where you find a contradiction. Also, Jesus in Revelation jives well with Jesus of the Gospel. Jesus corrected false doctrine, Jesus taught about hell, Jesus affirmed those that did good works and put their faith in Him.

            2) There are different ways to respond to false doctrine. It would be hard to come up with a comprehensive list. I admit it is somewhat situational.

            3) I follow Jesus because I believe he is God, not because he is an insurance policy or because he is a Buddha that we should follow the example of. Because he is God, I believe what he says about the afterlife, about how to live this life, ect. The question, to me, is kind of silly because if you assume no afterlife, you’d have to assume about a dozen other things.

          • tarl_hutch

            1) I agree we should always try to figure out “contradictions” and many of them will jive with a little in depth analysis, but there are some that seem like they cannot be squared away. That is a conversation for another day, but these differences can raise questions. There is another verse I am thinking of besides 1 cor 10, but without my bible with me I can’t remember. I think ehat Paul is driving at, and is repeated through scripture, is that it is not sinful to eat said meats, but the beliefs you and others have surrounding them. I feel that in Rev. It is more about the believers getting caught up in a harmful cult, and abstaining from the debauchery therein that he is warning against. It wasnt a doctrinal squabble about beliefs, but about engaging in sinful activities. He also threatens punishment, but not explicitly Hell.

            3) your answer could work for most religions as well, but I think it does well to clear the air from the accusations of believing salvatiin is a get out of hell card.

            Good conversation, thanks for responding.

          • tarl_hutch

            1) I agree we should always try to figure out “contradictions” and many of them will jive with a little in depth analysis, but there are some that seem like they cannot be squared away. That is a conversation for another day, but these differences can raise questions. There is another verse I am thinking of besides 1 cor 10, but without my bible with me I can’t remember. I think ehat Paul is driving at, and is repeated through scripture, is that it is not sinful to eat said meats, but the beliefs you and others have surrounding them. I feel that in Rev. It is more about the believers getting caught up in a harmful cult, and abstaining from the debauchery therein that he is warning against. It wasnt a doctrinal squabble about beliefs, but about engaging in sinful activities. He also threatens punishment, but not explicitly Hell.

            3) your answer could work for most religions as well, but I think it does well to clear the air from the accusations of believing salvatiin is a get out of hell card.

            Good conversation, thanks for responding.

          • Drew

            I think the tension is that eating meat sacrificed to idols is okay insomuch as what the motive is. If your motive is that the Lord says it doesn’t matter what we eat or drink, then it is pure. I think you are saying as much in your post.

            In Revelation 2, I do not think your take on the story is accurate. I think you had a Church that had correct doctrine on sexual morality, and in came Jezebel, teaching a new doctrine on sexual morality. Instead of rebuking her or excommunicating her, they tolerated her – inclusive, loving, diverse, open-minded tolerance to what is outside the Truth. Eventually, people started to believe what she was saying and act on what she was saying. The end result of the problem is sexual immorality, but the root cause was tolerating a false teacher. Jesus, as is consistent with the Gospels, tells us to eliminate the root causes of sin – whether it be your hand, foot, or in this case, a false teacher (metaphorically eliminate, of course).

            I think salvation as a “get out of hell” card is wrong, but that most people are wrong when they use this phrase. First, I think it is an over-used phrase. Second, I think the over-use of this phrase marginalizes what hell is. Hell is an eternal separation from God, the worst thing possible. Life is 100 years, eternity is infinite. While the goal is to believe in and have a relationship with Christ, salvation and heaven/hell is pretty important. A lot of people think hell is a joke or don’t believe in hell anymore or think that hell is actually a fun place or that eternity really isn’t that long. Oops.

          • tarl_hutch

            Out of curiosity, and you don’t have to answer here, when it cones to Hell are you a “Hell is a place of physical torture” or a “Hell is separation from God/all good” kind of guy?

            I think people also miss the opposite end of the false teachers in the bible, i.e. the judaizers. These were hardliners who wanted all christians to fall in line with the strict law following Jewish practices, before becoming Christian. These religious zealots were guilty of using the law to beat down grace focused gentiles. This of course was wrong and Paul spoke out vehemently against it. This is what some ultra conservative Christians must also guard against. Like the judaizers, they are rallying around biblical ideas, but missing the point and turning them into an exclusive tool to wield against dissenters.

            When we speak about false teaching, we should be wary of both extremes, not only one. Also, jezebel’s teachings obviously lead to sinful actions, if ones different beliefs do not trips similar bad fruit, should we judge them to be false teachers? If a Universalist’s teaching lead others to following the way of Jesus and out of sin, than are we to be sure they are truly heretical? Just an example, by the way.

          • Drew

            I do not focus too much on what heaven and hell will be like. I think the Bible is clear on some aspects but not all aspects. For instance, hell is definitely a place of physical anguish – Jesus says there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Really, I do not concern myself with learning the finer details of hell, as I do not plan to be there : )

            I realize people can go overboard; I listen to one radio show that has great guests and information, but whenever the guy does a segment on his own, he is usually trying to announce a new false teacher or false doctrine. He is usually paranoid, and often attacks people within his own denomination or those of a similar denomination. I don’t want to be *that* guy… at the same time, lines have to be drawn in the sand.

          • Drew

            I think the tension is that eating meat sacrificed to idols is okay insomuch as what the motive is. If your motive is that the Lord says it doesn’t matter what we eat or drink, then it is pure. I think you are saying as much in your post.

            In Revelation 2, I do not think your take on the story is accurate. I think you had a Church that had correct doctrine on sexual morality, and in came Jezebel, teaching a new doctrine on sexual morality. Instead of rebuking her or excommunicating her, they tolerated her – inclusive, loving, diverse, open-minded tolerance to what is outside the Truth. Eventually, people started to believe what she was saying and act on what she was saying. The end result of the problem is sexual immorality, but the root cause was tolerating a false teacher. Jesus, as is consistent with the Gospels, tells us to eliminate the root causes of sin – whether it be your hand, foot, or in this case, a false teacher (metaphorically eliminate, of course).

            I think salvation as a “get out of hell” card is wrong, but that most people are wrong when they use this phrase. First, I think it is an over-used phrase. Second, I think the over-use of this phrase marginalizes what hell is. Hell is an eternal separation from God, the worst thing possible. Life is 100 years, eternity is infinite. While the goal is to believe in and have a relationship with Christ, salvation and heaven/hell is pretty important. A lot of people think hell is a joke or don’t believe in hell anymore or think that hell is actually a fun place or that eternity really isn’t that long. Oops.

          • tarl_hutch

            There are certain aspects of post modernism I agree with and certain aspects I do not. As most thoughtful people, I do not fully conform to any one particular label. You have debated with me enough to realize what ideas I have that mesh with post modernism and which don’t, at least in this arena. That is why i am a bit confused by your insistence on answering inane questions about a philosophy that is not incompatible with Christianity and is not strictly speaking, the current philosophical state most of society is in right now. The church is obsessed work PM because it is consistently 20 years behind, we are already transitioning into an, as yet named, period. But there you go, if you have more specific questions, I may or may not answer depending on time. Later.

        • Infidel753

          Tarl Hutch: It makes me hope that non Christians don’t see our squabbling here.

          Sorry, but we do.

          And frankly you’d be wise to step back and take a look at the deeper implications, not just the bad impression it makes on outsiders. Here you see everyone accusing each other of being false teachers, working for Satan, etc. For that matter, Christianity has existed for almost 2,000 years and in all that time Christians have never stopped fighting with each other over what exactly they were supposed to believe in. Never mind what you expect outsiders to think — how can you yourselves take this belief system seriously when it’s clearly impossible for even fervent believers to agree on even the broad outlines of what it means?

          • tarl_hutch

            I have to say I agree with you and apologize for being a part of it. You have hit the nail on the head regarding the issue that kills me more than anything else, but I do choose not to throw out my belief in God, just because his followers are so human. Thank you for sharing and I hope your words are not ignored.

          • Frank

            Some fights are vitally important especially when people deceive others even in the guise of good and it in no way invalidates the faith. In fact it is a testament that the living Word of God continues to challenge us.

      • I Love Jesus

        “We need to stop letting false teachers say whatever they want….”

        So, Drew, you’re saying we should deny freedom of speech to anyone with whom you happen to disagree?! What committee is going to decide which teachers are false? Who would you appoint to this committee? How will you stop these so-called ‘false teachers’ from saying what they want? Shall we re-instate the Gestapo? Or better yet, let’s start a new Inquisition. You can be the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor!! Got any stakes in your back yard; I’ve got some matches.

        Your attitude is not the generous way of the Jesus I follow.

        • Drew

          I enjoyed the hyperbole. However, in all seriousness, I believe in First Ammendment rights. What I clearly meant is that false teachers need to be challenged, not silenced. I never once told Jay to stop talking.

  • Carl Williams

    I stumbled across this article, and then saw the posts, which I’ve read and re-read. Perhaps God led me here. I observe Drew making accusations against Jay in particular, and also against Tarl, that simply are unfounded. I’m a trained Christian therapist, and also have a spiritual gift of discernment. I’m especially praying for you Drew, and for whatever is disturbing your soul. For Heaven’s sake, my dear man, you’ve lost perspective. You went overboard in your serious accusations about false teaching, and about Satan. Jay never said “Jesus does not matter; there are many paths to God.” He never said (or even implied) that “that you don’t really have to believe in Jesus to be saved.” You simply became histrionic when he wouldn’t answer the question as you framed it. To make such accusations of false doctrine where there is, in fact, actually no real evidence of such, is itself a form of false teaching. You’re argumentative and appear to need to dominate others, and to win arguments at all costs. This psychological need leads to not really listening to others, to misconstruing what they say, and to putting words in their mouth. I call on you, Drew, in the
    name of Jesus Christ, to step back, to pray, and to reflect on what you’re doing. I’m going into a period of prayer for you, as well as for Jay and Tarl.

    • tarl_hutch

      Thank you Carl, your prayers are always appreciated. Peace, brother.

  • Peggy Jones

    Except for when Jay’s buttons get pushed by Drew (and understandably so, for Drew is so creepy and so overwrought about finding false doctrine), both Jay and Tarl are the only ones here with any sound theology. The rest of you are very poor witnesses to the grace and love of Jesus Christ. You’re frightening.

    • Drew

      So except for the two people you agree with, everyone else is a poor witness. Nice judgment.

      • Mercy Hernandez

        Why the sarcasm, Drew, given how hateful you are
        toward every single person on here who’s disagreed with you, And you even told Jay, a minister of the
        Christian Gospel, that he’s possessed by Satan, simply because his beliefs
        differ from your own. You’re criticizing
        Peggy for doing precisely what you consistently have done throughout this
        entire thread of postings. I call that
        hypocrisy.

  • Doctor of Theology

    Feedback to Drew:

    As I read through all the posts, I see that you attribute a number of things to Jay that he never said, and that you actually can’t deduce from what he did, in fact, say. Here are some of your outright fabrications:

    “He does not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation; he believes that there are many ways to salvation… that if you are a good Hindu, or a good Muslim, or a good Atheist, that you will be saved… that it depends on your works, not in faith in Jesus.”

    “Jay Jones believes that salvation is earned through good works,regardless of fait in Christ” [and so this] “…guarantees that he is a false teacher.”

    “Jesus does not matter; there are many paths to God.”

    These are inflammatory charges. I agree with the observations of Carl Williams (if you saw his post). You don’t listen well, you distort what is actually said, and then you make accusations (about false teaching) based on your distortions. That’s both pathological and sinful.

    You need to be called out and held accountable for the irresponsible, misleading statements you make about Jay. You sound like a far right-wing fundie– and if I understand correctly, that’s not what the RLC site is about. On the whole, Jay’s theology resonates much more closely with the founders and the boggers on RLC than does yours. What’s going on with you?

    • Anonymous

      “Doctor of Theology” We’re all impressed. I’m Sam, nice to meet you.

  • Morton Mitchell

    I agree with what Carl Williams says about
    Drew. Anyone that neurotic about Satan
    and false teaching surely must have deep down anxiety about the status of their
    own salvation, and fear of losing it on account of having one mistaken
    idea. What a prison to live in. Whatever happened to the affirmation
    that: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and
    where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17).” Drew seems likes a tortured soul, and most
    definitely un-free in the Lord.

    • frank

      Well i think that this is an unfair characterization of Drew. Doctrine matters greatly as it fuels everything we do. And as I said before there is no mercy with restoration through Christ.

      • Frank

        *without

    • Drew

      Healthy fear of the Lord as commanded by the Bible, sure, but naw, I’m not worried. : ) Have a nice day Morton.

  • Christopher Anderson

    Most of the posts here have lost touch with
    the actual article written by Kay Campbell, who posed the question: “What’s the goal of faith-based work: Getting
    people to believe something or offering help and healing regardless of
    beliefs?”

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s monumental Ethics,
    published posthumously, has marvelous insights that are relevant to this
    question. He leaves much room for
    Christians to sometimes engage in “unreflective” doing, in situations where
    they are engaged in serving their neighbors, but not always with Jesus
    explicitly being name. He writes: “Jesus gives His support to those who suffer
    for the sake of a just cause, even if this cause is not precisely the
    confession of His name; He takes them under His protection, He accepts responsibility
    for them, and He lays claim to them.” Further,
    Bonhoeffer asserts that the chief concern of Christian theological
    ethics is with baptized persons whose chief desire should be to please God
    rather than to nail down an airtight theological or philosophical system which will
    stand for all eternity. It sounds like
    Frank, but most especially Drew, could benefit from reading and reflecting on
    this book.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been reading the comments here, and regret to note that Jay Jones came on here with “virtual fists” swinging at Drew & Frank. Although I am not enamored with how Drew & Frank responded, I can empathize with their responses. It’s also unfortunate that others have jumped in and inappropriately come to Jay Jones’ defense, and presuming to know something more about Drew based on self-supported credentials. That should not be taken seriously.
    Jay Jones, if you’re going to come here & beat on people, even if you perceive your intentions as good – don’t be surprised when you get punched back – perhaps twice as hard. That’s the only way for bullies to learn sometimes.

    • Frank

      I am not always enamoured with the way I respond either. However when someone who is a faith leader won’t answer a simple, question about a tenet of Christianity and instead makes several speeches riddled with self righteousness and personal insults I sometimes get too pointed in my responses. I think they deserve it.
      We are talking about people’s eternal lives. There is nothing more important and I won’t stand by as someone obfuscates and distorts the gospel or only partially teaches the gospel.

      Now if someone who is not leader but simply questioning and trying to figure out what they believe I answer quite differently.

      And for the record Tony Campola writes on the Beliefs page:

      First, Red Letter Christians hold to the same theological convictions that define Evangelicals. We believe in the doctrines set down in the Apostles’ Creed, which states the central beliefs the church has held over centuries:

      I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

      And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord;

      who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,

      suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried;

      He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;

      He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand

      of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come

      to judge the quick and the dead.

      I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church;

      the communion of the saints; the forgiveness of sins;

      the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

      Second, we are Christians with a very high view of Scripture. The writers of Scripture, we believe, were invaded by the Holy Spirit and were uniquely guided by God as they wrote, providing us with an infallible guide for faith and practice.

      • Anonymous

        Based on the blog’s description, people who have a high view of Scripture and truthful doctrine should feel at home here. The original content should have those qualifications as well, but mileage seems to vary.
        Thanks for the response!

        • Drew

          More or less, this is no longer an Evangelical reform movement, but a Liberal Theology movement. It no longer matters what denomination you come from, as long as you are extremely theologically liberal and have something negative to say about those who hold Conservative Theology.

          • Kelly Jones

            The problem is that you label anyone and everyone with whom you disagree as “liberal.” Many of the statements in posts here aren’t “liberal.” Many of the statements which you repudiate and mock actually represent very sound evangelical theology. You’re behind on your reading—probably because of your strong anti intellectual bias,, and your hostility toward anyone who happens to mention that they hold a theology degree. I challenge you to enroll in seminary; it’ll shock you out of your little narrow mindset. Tell me in what state you live, and I’ll recommend a good evangelical seminary.

        • Drew

          More or less, this is no longer an Evangelical reform movement, but a Liberal Theology movement. It no longer matters what denomination you come from, as long as you are extremely theologically liberal and have something negative to say about those who hold Conservative Theology.

    • Drew

      In hindsight, I may have said nothing at all, and let the false doctrine go unchallenged. That seems like the easy thing to do. I may have also tempered my response a bit. However, at the core of the response, was me challenging the false doctrine of a false teacher, and I still stand by that. He refused to answer whether or not he was a Universalist on three occasions, but the implication from his posts was clearly that he is a Universalist, and believes that one need not believe in Jesus and that good works is enough.

      I do find the hypocrisy troubling. I get it if you disagree with me, but it’s pretty hypocritical to challenge my faith because I challenged the faith of someone else. It’s also hypocritical to perceive my response as being not Christ-like, then replying in a not Christ-like way to me. I saw a lot of angry responses, but I was never angry; if anything, I was sad that Jay felt the need to be so angry, to teach a doctrine that is false, to brag about “advanced Ivy League degrees.”

    • Drew

      In hindsight, I may have said nothing at all, and let the false doctrine go unchallenged. That seems like the easy thing to do. I may have also tempered my response a bit. However, at the core of the response, was me challenging the false doctrine of a false teacher, and I still stand by that. He refused to answer whether or not he was a Universalist on three occasions, but the implication from his posts was clearly that he is a Universalist, and believes that one need not believe in Jesus and that good works is enough.

      I do find the hypocrisy troubling. I get it if you disagree with me, but it’s pretty hypocritical to challenge my faith because I challenged the faith of someone else. It’s also hypocritical to perceive my response as being not Christ-like, then replying in a not Christ-like way to me. I saw a lot of angry responses, but I was never angry; if anything, I was sad that Jay felt the need to be so angry, to teach a doctrine that is false, to brag about “advanced Ivy League degrees.”

  • Blair Wells

    There are several theories of faith development that could help illumine the conflict going on in the posts below, especially the developmental theory articulated by James Fowler, and widely accepted by conservatives, progressives, and liberals alike, and taught in many seminaries. It sounds like Frank and Drew are in Stage 3, which is called synthetic-conventional. Neither one of them can comprehend Jay and Tarl, who are in a different stage, and who’ve apparently done the hard work of “unpacking” and “repacking” their beliefs. Stage 5 allows room for more paradox, mystery, and unknowing. This can be very threatening to persons in an earlier stage. There’s no value-judgment put on these stages; the only “abnormal” thing is to get stuck, and not keep examining one’s faith.

    • Frank

      My faith certainly has room to grow but my doctrine is eternal.

      • I Love Jesus

        Frank, the theologian H. Richard Niebuhr talked about the sin and fallacy of “henotheistic” type faith, that is, elevating something very good but yet FINITE up to the same level of our infinite Creator God. Doctrine isn’t eternal; it’s something crafted by finite human beings. Eternity is an attribute of God alone.

        • Frank

          The doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God and the one and only path of forgiveness and a reconciled relationship with God is an eternal truth.

          Eternity is an attribute of God alone and therefore His Truth is also eternal.

    • Anonymous

      I certainly applaud growth in faith as well, but it should not be disconnected from holding onto truth that has been tested & found to be sufficient.

  • Sydney Coleman

    It strikes me that Frank and Drew probably don’t have a seminary degree or any formal theological training, whereas Jay says he does, and Tarl possibly does. It’s difficult to emerge from seminary with theology that’s as simplistic and black and white as Frank and Drew hold to, or to be as threatened by diverse ideas as they are. Many first year theology school students go through trauma when exposed to a wide diversity of beliefs; it doesn’t sound like Frank or Drew have ever made this passage. It’s a shame that many pastors don’t do a better job at communicating what they learn in seminary with their congregants.

    • Rory Stephens

      I agree with you Sydney. But often what happens is that pastors who do try to encourage their congregants to examine their belief system often end up feeling like they’ve been bitten by a vicious attack dog by people like Frank and Drew who get upset by diverse or differing beliefs, and by theology that challenges their own little airtight system. The response of all too many pastors is simply to keep recycling and reinforcing what thecongregants already believe. This is why such simplistic, black-and-white beliefs hold sway in so many of our churches; there’s peer pressure not to ask questions. There’s pressure to think that
      there is one and only one airtight system of doctrinal beliefs that exists for all time and eternity, regardless of race, culture, or circumstance. And it’s also why many thinking Christians drop out of the church. The more tenacious Christians band with other congregants and they go underground to do their reading, thinking, questioning, unpacking, and repacking. What would happen to the pastor of a congregation if Drew and Frank both were their members? I shudder to think.

      • frank

        The black and white beliefs that hold sway and have for millennia do so because they are truth. Simply because our culture has created a generation of children who refuse to beleive anything does not change eternal truths. They don’t simply stop being truth because someone says so.

        • I Love Jesus

          Frank, there are many instances throughout history wherein Christians declared something to be a self-evident, black-and-white absolute truth, but it later turned out not to be the case. Lists of black-and-white beliefs change over historical time–and so you need a more nuanced and sophiscated way of talking about beliefs. Christians used to think that it was a self-evident black-and-white truth that it was okay for them to own black people as slaves. What happened to that black-and-white truth? At one time in history, Christians used their so-called eternal biblical beliefs to try to discredit Galileo’s theory about the shape of the earth. Christians face dilemmas all the time for which there’s no clear-cut black-and-white answer; only shades of grey. Deeply, deeply committed Christians get caught in ethical dilemmas for which the answer seems to be somewhere in the gray zone—-and it’s not because they are “lukewarm.” This is why Bonhoeffer kept insisting that Christians are set free by Jesus Christ to take risks when caught up in gray zones, where there are no black-and-white absolute answers. Frank, theologically speaking it’s a denial of finitude (and therefore a sin) not to be able to accept living in a gray zone sometimes. That’s precisely when trust in God’s grace comes in. Please go read Bonhoeffer’s Ethics—as another post suggests. It’s very helpful on some of these matters.

          • Anonymous

            You make some points here, but there are things in the Christian faith that would be considered essential & non-negotiable. Bonhoeffer, to my understanding, held onto those things. Points about slavery or scientific discoveries don’t work as valid comparisons to basic truths of orthodox Christianity that have held true for 2,000 years and counting. I believe the latter is what Frank is referring to.

          • I Love Jesus

            For you, 22044, of what do those “basic truths of orthodox Christianity that have held true for 2,000 years and counting” consist? If you polled everyone on that long list of contributing writers in the upper left corner, for example, you might not find consensus on a theory of atonement. So who gets to decide on the final list of the basic truths? (I’m not being sarcastic; I genuinely want to know what’s on your list.)

          • Anonymous

            this is not an all-inclusive list, but here are a few matters to work out & that the answers don’t change:
            the nature of God
            the nature of Jesus
            the nature of sin
            how to know God in a real & personal way
            the realities of heaven and hell

            growing in faith includes understanding the answers better, but the basic ones are simple enough that a child can understand them.

          • Anonymous

            regarding who gets to decide the answers – it is not me, you, or the authors listed on this page, but the Holy Spirit and the Living Word reveals the answers to those who genuinely seek them.

          • I Love Jesus

            I’m genuinely eager to hear you response to my latest question (see above), inasmuch as this dialogue is helping me think through some things. I await your response.

          • I Love Jesus

            Well, I agree with your general categories. But when you start getting into more specific beliefs about, for example, the nature of Jesus, then among the list of contributers (listed on the masthead above), beliefs vary. Those writers will say that their beliefs (about the nature of God, the nature of sin, the nature of Jesus, etc.) changed over a lifetime. So I ask, who gets to decide which list of specific beliefs (not generic categories, such as the “nature of God”) are ones to be considered black-and-white, absolute, and eternal? It seems that the formal categories (God, Jesus, sin, etc.) persist over time, but specific content changes. There are remarkable shifts going on today in terms of beliefs about the atonement. I think there’s too much idol worship of permanent lists of absolute beliefs. Scripture seems to be far more interested in whethere or not we related in love and justice toward our neighbor and toward God, than latching onto and defending to the death a list of absolutes:

            “Not everybody who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get
            into the kingdom of heaven. Only those who do the will of my Father who is in
            heaven will enter (Matt. 7:21, CEB).

          • Anonymous

            Check out my second response that deals with how different ideas/opinions should be handled. We are all charged with working out the answers, but we can find assurance.

          • I Love Jesus

            I appreciate that the Holy Spirit is part of the process of discernment; I believe that. The trouble is, three different people may hear and interpret the Spirit as saying very different things about the specific nature of the atonement. What do we do when there are three different beliefs about the atonement put in front of us, with three different authors claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? Saying that the Holy Spirits gets to decide is somewhat skirting the responsbility that God gives to us to make choices and decisions. What group (or groups) of human beings get to decide what is on our common list of absolute beliefs, and what is not put on the list? For example, in the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope appoints the Teaching Magisterium, and that is the group which makes the decisions as to what beliefs are recorded and disseminated, and are deemed to be binding on all Roman Catholic believers. So what I’m asking is, in your perspective, who gets to decide what the official list of absolute beliefs should be? We’re not Roman Catholics.

          • Anonymous

            I think Medical Evangelist’s answer is pretty good. I don’t have anything to add to it at the moment.

          • Medical Evangelist

            There are many non-negotiables in the Scriptures concerning Jesus. Here are just two examples.

            1. He is God. From John 1′s description of the preexistent Word to Jesus’ claim of the “I Am” title in 8:58 to Thomas’ declaration in 20:28, John’s Christology clearly emphasizes the divine nature. Paul, Peter and Luke’s Christologies are equally clear on this fact.

            2. He is the only means by which man may be reconciled to God. The discussion of Christ as high priest in Hebrews 5-10 is probable the most comprehensive example. However Jesus’s claim to be the exclusive way, truth and life in John 14:6 is equally narrow.

            It is sad to hear that some seminaries have sown seeds of doubt rather than incubate faith. However many institutions do take seriously their commitment to the faith once delivered to the saints. Holding that faith does not make us less evolved (as Blair seemed to intimate) and it is not in and of itself arrogant (that is determined by how we practice that faith). Instead orthodoxy is derived from the two postulates of theology (that God exists and that He has spoken) and from a serious historic-grammatical study of the book that proposes to be His revelation. I am not seeking to place God in a box of my own construction, I am seeking to place myself in His.

          • Frank

            Just because a segment of people who have called themselves Christians once believed that racial slavery was ok does not dismiss the reality that there are absolute truths that are eternal and unchanging.

            I am interested in knowing what beliefs I have posted that you disagree with. What “grey zone” am I denying? I have clearly told you what I believe. What do you believe?

    • Frank

      If my beliefs are unbiblical please point out where I am in error.

      And I wouldn’t hold up a seminary education as something that’s automatically valuable. Depends on the seminary.

      And much of our faith is indeed black and white. It’s only those that refuse to commit or are “lukewarm” that create shades of grey.

  • eric

    the deep truth that we are in fact all one, with the power to become the sons of God is cool. The bickering is childish and indicative of inner searching. If you are serious in your searching, turn your media connections off and seek a connection with Pop, the Big Good. On your knees. Really. Alone. Silent. Listening.

  • Jessie Kennedy

    Apparently there’s a subset within conservative evangelical culture where people think that it’s perfectly okay to say to a fellow baptized Christian “you’re not saved,” by which they actually mean, “your beliefs don’t match ours.” This is nothing short of spiritual abuse; it’s a form of violence. Yet, when Jay responded in anger at such abuse (from Frank and Drew), he was chastised. What kind of people are you? Is this what Christianity is all about? If so, count me out.

  • Jessie Kennedy

    Apparently there’s a subset within conservative
    evangelical culture where people think that it’s perfectly okay to say to a
    fellow baptized Christian “you’re not saved,” by which they actually mean, “your
    beliefs don’t match ours.” This is
    nothing short of spiritual abuse; it’s a form of violence. Yet, when Jay responded in anger at such
    abuse (from Frank and Drew), he was chastised.
    What kind of people are you? Is
    this what Christianity is all about? If
    so, count me out.

  • Jessie Kennedy

    Apparently there’s a subset within conservative evangelical culture where people think that it’s perfectly okay to say to a fellow baptized Christian “you’re not saved,” by which they actually mean, “your beliefs don’t match mine/ours.” This is nothing short of spiritual abuse; ]it’s a form of violence. Yet, when Jay responded in anger at such abuse (from Frank and Drew), he was chastised. What kind of people are you? Is this what Christianity is all about? Your vitriol brings to mind the classic quote by Mahatma Gandhi: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

  • Jaimie Evans

    There’s such a radical and stunning difference between the spirit of the article by Kay Campbell (a Presbyterian pastor), and the spirit and attitude of so many of the posts below.

    In scripture I can’t find any explicit commandment that literally says we must talk about Jesus and ask people to believe in him each and every single time we do a loving deed for a neighbor in need. The burden of “proof” is on those making this claim—not those of us disputing with it.

    Of course we’re exhorted by scripture to engage in witness, evangelism, and mission; but, scripturally speaking, there’s not the rigid set of instructions that some people on this blogsite seem to assume there is.

  • Zach Lewis

    These posts have strayed away from the point of the article, which was a breath of fresh air. No wonder there are so many hates crimes in America against Sikhs, Muslims, and diverse others—given the number of so-called Christians who harbor such thinly disguised disgust and hatred of other religions, as seen below. Such hatred contributes to an environment where nut cases see Christians despising other religions, and get the cue that it’s okay to kill them, so as to send them to hell sooner rather than later. Thank you, Drew and Frank, for your contribution to world peace. NOT.

    • Drew

      I fail to see how having a strongly held non-violent conviction leads to violence. I also fail to see how identifying atheism as false means that I hate atheists, or identifying Islam as false means that I hate Muslims.

      • Morton Mitchell

        First of all, Drew, putting
        atheists and Muslims in the same category is despicable. Atheists deny God; Muslims worship God and
        give reverence to God. Second, you’re so
        narrow that you told a fellow baptized Christian who’s also a minister of the
        Gospel that he was “unsaved,” merely because you couldn’t force him to say, along
        with you, that everybody and anybody who doesn’t share your selfsame set of
        beliefs is damned to hell. That’s
        spiritually abusive. There are many
        forms of violence and abuse (psychological, emotional, verbal, physical, etc)—but
        they all are fed by (and feed back into) a larger system of abuse and violence against
        diverse others.

        You completely missed Kay
        Campbell’s point; she was not talking about a universal script that should apply
        to every single situation in life. She
        was talking about one concrete situation, where discernment was needed as to
        what the most loving response would be to a six-year old child tormented by
        nightmares. Please re-read the
        article. Nowhere in scripture does it
        say that when you “give drink” to a six year old child who’s in deep anguish “Oh,
        by the way, as I give you this drink, you must accept Jesus and believe the way
        I believe or you’re damned to hell.” Christians
        have to use judgment (discernment) as to what is the most loving thing to say
        or do in each situation they face. Jesus didn’t give his followers a
        prefabricated script to be rigidly and mindlessly repeated in each and every
        single situation they face. Sometimes disciples
        have to improvise on the spot.
        Essentially, that was the point of the article.

        • Anonymous

          Morton,
          Drew can speak for himself if he chooses to, but where is the comparison between atheists & Muslims?

        • Drew

          Why would Jesus warn about wolves in sheep’s clothing? False teachers are generally not fringe lunatics; they are generally “ordained ministers of the Gospel” who at some point become apostate or mix false doctrine with true doctrine. Too often we think of the devil as a red guy in a suit with a pitchfork; rather, he is the serpent, asking gentle questions, saying great-sounding lies.

          I was not comparing atheists to Muslims; you jumped to an unfounded conclusion there. I might believe other religions are wrong, but I still have respect for other religions and try to learn about other religions.

          As for the article, I get the point… another article where Christians are bad and atheists are good and “get it.” However, I think Kay kind of skimmed over the part where the atheist told the kid that the preacher was saying mean things and she didn’t believe him. Jesus didn’t like children to be led astray; in fact, he has some tough words in the Bible for that. You can make the argument the pastor also led the kid astray but not being an effective minister, but I think that is a wholly different charge (ministering poorly) than denying Christ to a kid altogether. Maybe I’m wrong.

  • Reverend Jack

    I’ve never seen such a cesspool of self-righteousness and spiritual hubris as I see in many of the posts below. It’s sad to see people like Frank
    and Drew reduce Jesus to a fire insurance policy. I wish they knew the Jesus I know.

    • William Graham

      I agree with you Reverend. Just because people keep chanting the name of Jesus doesn’t exonerate them when they’re guilty of abusing people spiritually. Some of the people here, such as Frank
      and Drew, use religion abusively. For them, doctrines are billy clubs, whose primary purpose is to exclude and damn people.
      (The proper function of doctrine is formation of the character of Christians; these aren’t supposed to be bludgeons). The church needs to figure out what to do with spiritual abusers in its midst; this is serious.

    • Ruth Robinson

      Here’s something for you to meditate on Drew: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…” (Matt. 7:21). It just may turn out that you’re in for a big shock when you get to the pearly gates

      • Frank

        We all should mediate on that. Especially those that will not proclaim:

        John 3:16New International Version (NIV)16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
        John 11:25–26 (ESV)25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

        Matthew 7:13 (ESV)13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

        John 17:3 (ESV)3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

        John 14:6 (ESV)6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

        John 6:35 (ESV)35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

        John 10:9 (ESV)9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

        John 3:36 (ESV)36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

      • Drew

        I like that passage.

  • Frank

    You know its really funny that the following posters all are posting for the very first time on this thread, many around the same time.

    Reverend Jack

    Ruth Robinson

    William Graham

    Zach Lewis

    Jaimie Evans

    Jessie Kennedy

    Sydney Coleman

    Rory Stephens

  • Matthew Turner

    Frank, the link to this article was just emailed to a large national group of us who work to promote interfaith dialogue, and who share concern over the recent shootings at the Sikh temple (gurdwara). (Our group includes a wide spectrum of Christian believers.) It’s likely that many in our group are, in turn, passing it on. If you’re seeing new traffic here, that may be why. I, for one, am glad to have discovered the RLC site in this fashion (though I find many of the comments below to be terribly disappointing).

    We affirm that it’s possible to confess faith in Jesus Christ, and at the same time be in dialogue with diverse others without thumping them over the head with the Bible—which, I’m sorry to say, you appear to do. Touting a list of Bible verses every time someone says something challenging to you, or with which you disagree, is no substitute for authentic give-and-take dialogue, which you appear to resist. There are more inspired and life giving ways to use scripture.

    • Frank

      That sounds like a reasonable explanation.

      I agree with you. I am not speaking to people of other faiths. I am speaking to those that claim to be a follower of Jesus but refuse to acknowledge what they believe or refuse to share that the love that they are showing to others is the love of God as demonstrated by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

      The irony is that scripture seems to be frowned apon while human opinions and reasoning seems to be idolized.

      You cannot pick and choose what red letters to commit to and what red letters to ignore. It’s all of the above.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for the reply & explanation Matthew. I think there is much to agree with.
      However, I think Frank makes an important distinction in his reply to you between conversing with fellow believers and conversing with people of other faiths.
      The comments of the other folks are welcome, but they have misunderstood the points that Drew made and have pushed back way too hard, based on their misunderstanding and the distinction noted above. Spiritual abusers? This is an internet forum, for crying out loud.

  • Kimberly Prance

    Okay so some may accuse me of herasy but here goes. Jesus gave us a new comandment “to love one another as I have loved you” wether we call ourselves athiest, christian, hindu, shikh or muslem Jesus called us children of God, and I really feel it is about time we realise we are loved as we are, not for who we say or think we are, we are all to love and be loved in the universe.

    • Frank

      How can you love like Jesus without knowing, accepting and following Him? Only Christians have accepted Jesus love and is able to potentially love like Him.

  • Morton Mitchell

    Although there are key differences,
    there are also striking similarities in the dynamics that drive fundamentalism in
    both Islam and Christianity (and in far right-wing conservative Christian circles).
    The list below is based on general
    tendencies (because there are varieties of Islamic fundamentalism, and of Christian
    fundamentalism).

    In many of the posts here,
    such as those by Frank and Drew and others, you can see dynamics operating that
    also drive Islamic fundamentalism –whereas mainstream Islam is peace and
    justice oriented, as is progressive Christianity.

    If it weren’t for key
    differences in wider societal norms between the U.S. and Muslim countries, Christianity
    would have its own homegrown counterparts to jihadists, from among the ranks of
    right-wing and fundamentalist Christians.

    –Both groups (fundamentalist
    Muslims, fundamentalist Christians) split good and evil (‘we’re good, others
    are evil), and have an ‘us versus them’ mentality. Both groups divide the world into believers
    and unbelievers, saved and unsaved, and claim to know exactly who’s who.

    –Both groups show a high
    degree of hostile, ferocious intolerance toward other religions and worldviews,
    arguing that their particular religion and beliefs provide the one and only way
    to get to Heaven (or “Paradise”). Anybody who doesn’t believe exactly what they
    believe is eternally damned.

    –Both groups are utterly obsessed
    with a list of eternal, unchanging, divinely given “absolutes” which must be
    defended at all costs.

    –Both groups have a shallow,
    simple formula for getting converts, who must verbally repeat certain words.

    –Both groups work overtime
    to get others to verbally subscribe to their doctrines and beliefs (notice how
    hard Frank and Drew work to get Jay to say out loud ‘all other religions are
    false and damned.’) There’s no room for a variety of beliefs under
    the same tent.

    –Both groups harbor as much
    vitriol against people within their own religious ranks who dare to question
    conventionally-accepted beliefs as they harbor against outsiders, infidels, and
    atheists. (Notice Drew’s attacks on Jay,
    an ordained minister).

    –Both groups use methods of
    rigid indoctrination. From a very early
    age children are drilled in the recitation and memorization of scripture (the
    Bible, or the Koran).

    –Both groups subject people
    to hellfire and brimstone exhortations (Frank and Drew thought this was
    perfectly okay in the case of the six-year old child mentioned by Kay
    Campbell).

    –Both groups go around looking to identify
    and weed out false prophets, infidels, heretics, and apostates; they are
    ferocious guardians of religious truth (for Islamic extremists, this is at the
    expense of one’s own life). There’s deep need to keep the enclave of true
    believers pure and untainted (notice Drew’s comments about silencing Jay).

    –Both groups engage in the
    demonization and damnation of diverse others.

    –Both groups tend to
    attract poorer, uneducated people, who unconsciously look forward to the day
    when they can look down on damned people in hell the way they feel looked down
    upon in the here and now.

    –Both groups fail to teach
    believers how to think critically and analytically, how to entertain possible
    new ideas and how to assess and weigh them. Instead, they teach believers simply to reply
    to everything by reciting scripture (Koran, or Bible). They are strict literalists.

    –Both groups use scripture
    selectively, and choose texts to emphasize the exclusion of others, rather than
    texts that promote generosity and peace.
    (Notice that Drew and Frank draw on scriptures to damn non-Christians,
    whereas the RLC founder, Tony Campolo, draws attention to the some 2,000
    scriptures that reveal God’s special concern for the poor and oppressed).

    –Both groups spout
    memorized scripture as an incantation and refutation against new ideas that are
    challenging and threatening to their present belief system.

    –Both groups grossly
    over-simplify issues, and see everything in strictly black-and-white terms;
    they deny there are any gray zones. Their
    thinking style is very rigid and inflexible.

    –Both groups are incapable
    of engaging in authentic give-and-take dialogue; no concessions are ever made
    to the viewpoint of others (you’ll never hear them say “you may be right—I’ll
    seriously consider that….”). (Drew ALWAYS says to others, ‘you’re part of
    the problem, you’re wrong.’).

    –Both groups fiercely and
    ferociously teach that God is on their side alone, and no other.

    –Both groups exhibit an inability
    to cope with modern society (there’s the constant chant, “we’re an apostate, godless
    generation.” For Frank and Drew, modern
    institutions, including seminaries, are apostate).

    –Both groups attract the “authoritarian”
    type of personality.

    If all religious traditions were
    to practice the selfsame intolerance, exclusivism, and absolutism shown by
    Frank and Drew, it won’t be long before we blow up planet Earth. I certainly hope that Frank and Drew do not
    typify regular contributors and respondents at the RLC website.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry Morton, but you continue to misunderstand Frank & Drew. I hope they stay, they’ve been posting here for many months. I’ve never seen you here before though.

      • Morton Mitchell

        I see the same mentality at work in your
        comments that I see in the posts below:
        an insider vs. outsider, us-versus-them mentality. All of you who already agree with one
        another’s beliefs and who are regular commentators are the insiders. Any first time visitors who happen to
        challenge your beliefs are seen as unwelcome outsiders. That pretty much sums up right-wing congregations
        and groups.

        • Anonymous

          Interesting. Continue to be clueless & add things to what is said, if it makes you feel better.

      • Morton Mitchell

        And by the way, 22044, if you skim down and look at the votes under the various comments, it should tell you something. What do the votes suggest to you?

        • Anonymous

          I really don’t care what the votes say. Everyone has an opinion, and many of them are wrong.

        • Frank

          Votes? Really? That’s what important to you? Thats what determines truth for you? How sad.

          It’s not really relevant when a bunch of liked minded people vote in mass. When links to this article are emailed to like minded, and confused apparently, groups.

          You can stick with what’s popular I’ll stick with the biblical truths.

          • Pastor Luke

            I saw the note from Matthew Turner, but I belong to an evangelical group which has shared this article.
            Some of the comments posted here are members of our group who are tired of seeing Christianity misrepresented in wider society. I dare say, we’d consider you and Drew to be the ones who’re confused about how to engage in authentic, life giving witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ. I think
            you’re confused as to what Tony Campolo stands for; he wants conservatives to move beyond their narrow and rigid fixation on absolutes, and get more involved in God’s own special concern for the poor and oppressed.

            Your reply to Lee Campbell (about doing both) is off target. As Lee points out, nowhere in scripture does Jesus exhort us to go around looking for Satan behind every tree, damn to hell people who disagree with us, engage in judgmental finger pointing, and attempt to silence people who hold different belief (per Drew: “We need to stop letting false teachers say whatever they want….”).

            Constantly you use empty. sarcastic phrases like “you can stick with what’s popular.” I don’t know if it’s popular to ask people to refrain from self righteousness, spiritual hubris, and judgmentalism, but it’s certainly biblical.

          • guest

            Pastor Luke,
            Maybe you should refrain from self righteousness, spiritual hubris, and judgmentalism, as shown in your post.

          • Frank

            I am tired of Christians that refuse to simply, honestly and boldly proclaim the full Gospel.

            I am tired of Christians that think that their emotions, desires and intellect should be given the same weight as scriptural truth.

            I am tired of Christians that think they can help the poor and oppressed through their efforts without the saving grace of Christ.

            I am tried of Christians who serve in the name of Jesus but refuse to give Him credit.

            I am tired of the hubris of Christians who think they somehow are the ones who finally got the bible right.

            You see? We are tired of the misrepresentation of Jesus, the Gospel and the bible too.

            And I believe Tony can speak for himself if he chooses to.

          • Hennie Caraway

            Frank: You wrote the following—-

            “I am tired of the hubris of Christians who think they somehow are the ones who finally got the bible right.”

            Do you realize you’re actually describing your own self with that remark?!!!!

          • Frank

            And Jesus was most concerned with the spiritually poor and the spiritually oppressed. People need the Gospel not just a meal.

  • Lee Campbell

    Instead of fixating on Bible verses about doctrine, why don’t Drew and others here use all that energy and focus instead on the some 2,000 verses about God’s own care and concern for the poor and dispossessed of this earth? (Have they memorized those with the same gusto?)
    Just think—what if all the Franks and Drews of this world were to devote themselves to reducing poverty and human suffering instead of running around looking for Satan under every rock, and finger-pointing at so-called false prophets (i.e. people who disagree with them)? How different the world would be!

    • frank

      Oh please! We should be doing both!

      Imagine what a world we would have if every Christian actually believed every word of Jesus instead of following their feelings and picking and choosing? How different and wonderful our world would be!

    • Drew

      Maybe we are, Lee… maybe we are…

  • Rachel Reed

    Interesing discussion, to say the least. (Much of it doesn’t seem to be related to the article above.) Could someone who knows please tell me what the arrows mean (on the left side, under each comment)? Also, if you hit the button “share” on a particular comment, who can you share the comment with? thank you.

    • Anonymous

      Hi Rachael. Welcome. The arrows under the comments give you the opportunity to essentially give a thumbs up or thumbs down to comments depending on whether you like the comments.

      Generally, I think it’s good to stay away from giving thumbs down to a comment just because one disagrees with it. I usually don’t do it unless the comment is really nasty. Apparently some people, like Morton, are really concerned about votes, but most people aren’t.

      As for the sharing feature, I don’t facebook or twitter, so I don’t know what happens if you “share” the comment.

  • guest

    To those who keep posting comments critical of Drew & Frank, be aware that you’ve already compromised your message. You claim to have a new ethic of love & inclusiveness, but your posts unfortunately look like a lot of trite arrogance and hubris being displayed. Perhaps going off-line and repentance is in order. Blessings anyway.

  • Brother Spencer

    Frank, you wrote this: “…Jesus was most concerned with the spiritually poor and the spiritually oppressed.”

    I’m sorry, but your claim that Jesus was MOST concerned with the
    “spiritually poor” and the “spiritually oppressed” distorts and misrepresents the witness of the Bible. Not only is Jesus concerned with our spirituality, he is EQUALLY concerned with the material, economic circumstances of our lives, and with economic and other forms of justice. You’re right, people need to hear the Good News as announced by Jesus, namely this—-
    “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19).

    The “year of the Lord’s favor” refers to the year of Jubilee (see Lev. 25), where the worship life of the Hebrew people and the practice of socio economic justice were woven together in a holistic way of life. Leviticus 25 outlines the socioeconomic practices of justice that were to be followed. When Jesus proclaims the “year of the Lord’s favor,” he’s announcing the fulfillment of the practices of socioeconomic justice.

    Further, in the eschatological passage of Isaiah 65:17-25 (Jesus stood in the prophetic-eschatological tradition), we see that the inbreaking Reign of God is much very concerned with the material conditions of human life. The passage talks about (and promises) adequate housing for all, good health (which implies good healthcare), enough food, and labor practices marked by justice.

    This I not something that anybody should write off as goofy liberalism; there’s wide consensus among contemporary evangelicals on these points. They lie at the very heart of the lifelong work of evangelical scholars and writers such as Ron Sider and Tony Campolo and many others.

    Read the great eschatological passage in Isaiah 65:17-25: it talks about God’s promises for adequate,economic and material resources (in addition to spiritual ones) that people need in order to live in dignity, and to flourish in their God-given call and vocation.

    • LWell

      Luke 19:10
      “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
      Spiritually, NOT economically, or physically [Note the passage just above it]

×

TRENDING: The Biblical Definition of Marriage and its Relevance to Marriage Equality>>