Today I received an invitation to come to a Bible Study while I was listening to The Jakes and reading about Apple’s iPhone OS 4 event. I decided to go. It took about the first track of Crash King’s self-titled album for me to make my way to the meeting area.
The girl who invited me had told me they were meeting in room 210, but when I got outside of room 210 I saw a sign about a Vietnamese club. I back tracked a bit to find a Crusade for Christ group meeting in the room next door, so I entered to find a group being led by a gentleman in his 40s or 50s leading the group. They were discussing the Easter story before deciding to go around the group and ask everyone what their spiritual background was.
I shared that I am a worship leader for my church’s high school and college groups. While I had an early background in the Reformed Church due to my Dutch ancestry, I grew up in a non-denominational church. I made the decision to start going on my own in junior high and began leading a bible study in high school after our leader left the church. I explained that my leading the Bible study forced me to read a lot of the Bible (which the leader applauded), it led to issues with pride, etc. I can’t recall if I shared anything beyond this, but apparently it wasn’t important.
Other members shared, mostly with apathy at their own stories, with the exception of one of the leaders of a local Catholic group. His story included a (literal) vision of Christ and a (hypothetical) vision of things to do on campus for Jesus.
The leader of the group then proceeded to pull out a 4 Spiritual Laws pamphlet. It was originally published in 1965, with some additions made most recently in 2006. I think the first time I saw these pamphlets was at some point in my tenure at Los Osos as the president of Grizzlies for God (something I don’t like to readily admit).
We went over the last few sections, and he spoke a lot about how Jesus’ death and resurrection meant that we could go to heaven. Christians, especially evangelicals, have been talking about this ever since I’ve been aware of Christianity. It’s almost always been about either us getting to heaven or getting other people to heaven.
When the leader asked for feedback, I responded that I think the pamphlet and his subsequent explanation were flawed for emphasizing heaven and not talking about Jesus’ actual teachings, which make up the majority of every Gospel narrative included in the canon. The president of the club agreed with what I had to say, while one of the persons sitting in the group nodded to sleep and the Catholic spoke about agreeing with the message in general, especially in opposition to the Catholic Church’s past emphasis on paying for your salvation (I assume he was referencing indulgences, though he apparently was not familiar with them).
The leader of the group then identified himself as a professor from Biola (specifically their seminary, Talbot). I thought to myself that this explained him using such an old tool (the 4 Spiritual Laws). He then further explained that someone else in the group and myself had actually been invited to another group, Church of Christ or something like that. He explained that they were actually one of 5 heretical groups that he recently did a class on (which also included Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Only Pentecostals, and Seventh Day Advantists [who usually aren't considered a cult... Walter Martin and Donald Gray Barnhouse did the original research on the group and considered them to be Christian... but I digress]). He said that the group taught that in order to go to heaven one had to be baptized by their church, and that this added to the gospel preached by Paul.
Now, I mentioned before that I spent a good deal of time studying and reading the Bible after my junior high leader left. That part is true. But I really spent a lot of time studying other versions of Christianity. I listened to a lot of Walter Martin and browsed through a couple of his books. I thought that it was really important to make sure that people were believing the right thing. I thought that that was all that was important. My gospel was one of dividing people into right and wrong, heaven and hell.
I responded to his criticism of the group, saying that many churches have taught that their group is the only correct group, and that many churches have taught that baptism is essential for salvation. After some debate over these issues I noted his lack of consistency in his definitions of sanctification and disciple and some other terms (in my opinion), and so I said that we could play around with definitions and semantics all day. I said that I disagree and he maintained his caution that groups like the one we were invited to were dangerous.
Now, I don’t know anything about this group. I’ve actually only encountered them through friends who have spoken with them. I don’t know what they really teach and preach and believe. To be honest, I don’t really care.
4 years ago I would have. I would have tried to find their group and try to inform them (a.k.a. show them that I was right and they were wrong).
The last few years I’ve been in the process of trying to define my faith and what it means for me to follow Jesus. I’ve left an emphasis of doctrine for an emphasis on actually trying to live as a Christian.
And I haven’t really changed.
Sure, I’ve made some concessions. But that’s a part of going to college and becoming idealistic.
I’m still mulling over this meeting, but I left with a sense that there was a reason that I began my Christian life with an emphasis on what is truth and what isn’t. I’ve abandoned that. I don’t look for truth. I don’t try to discover what really happened. I still think it’s a vain pursuit. But maybe there’s a reason why the Church has had to defend certain beliefs. Maybe there is a faith that was handed down that ought not to be altered.
Maybe it’s not just about being right.
And it’s not just about trying to be a Christian.
Maybe it’s both.
And more.
God, please open me up to hearing your voice. Help me to discern what of my past rightfully belongs there, and what I need to remember as my upbringing in the faith. Help me to love you and to know you.
Comments on: "Campus Crusade for Christ and My Past" (8)
I think there probably is a fine line between debate that just hurts the Church by making unnecessary fights between believers that make the Church look bad and defending faith. For instance, I think saying that people who hold a sacramental view of baptism are heretics is probably worth a discussion (I especially hold that b/c I have a ton of friends that do). I think when an issue doesn’t have a huge real effect on the average Christian’s every day life (such as the pre/mid/post trib debate or the exact nuances of a word and the like) that it’s fine to have friendly discussion but to get to intense is pointless. But if it has real life or eternal significance I think it is something we do need to defend
I heard Greg Laurie tell a story once about when he was a new believer and he went out street witnessing with a couple of “seasoned” believers so he could learn the ropes. He said one guy began talking with a man on the street about Jesus and the man seemed interested and listened intently. Then all of a sudden the two “seasoned” believers had a disagreement on a doctrinal issue and began arguing with each other! Greg said the guy they were witnessing to stood there for a while looking surprised than eventually chuckled shook his head and walked away while the two veterans continued to argue there point.
When I read the title of Rons blog I (and anyone else that knows ron) knew Ron got in an argument with the campus crusade for Christ guy, even before they read the blog!:), I’m just sayin its not always a good idea to prove your right and win an argument and lose a soul. A lot of times people invite non believers to those christian club meetings.
“I’ve left an emphasis of doctrine for an emphasis on actually trying to live as a Christian. ”
How would you say you go about living as a Christian without doctrine?
I am on staff with Campus Crusade (full disclosure) but I find the sentiment that you can somehow not have any “doctrine” but still be a Christian a bit troubling.
I’d also be interested in what, in your opinion, is specifically wrong with the 4 spiritual laws booklet, and how it differs “from Jesus’ actual teachings” Because that seemed like a bit of a stretch. That’s not to say I think the 4SL booklets have the market cornered on truth. They are certainly older tools, but I think they are faithful to the Bible.
I’m not trying to start an argument, like others above have said. Fruitless arguments are not exactly where I’d like to aim. But you took a pretty big swing at a group that I feel is pretty faithful both to Christ’s mission and the Bible, on the whole.
And regarding the group that you almost went to, it sounds like the practices of the International Church of Christ. Started as the Boston Movement, with a leader named Kip Bream (I think). Very much so a cult. They encourage people to cut off contact with their family members, to stop associating with non-members, and as you mentioned they consider not just Baptism to be essential, but Baptism in THEIR church. They are known for bullying people who want to leave the church, and have other overly aggressive practices.
Ben,
I appreciate your concern. I’ll try and answer your questions as best I can.
“How would you say you go about living as a Christian without doctrine?”
I apologize if my words came off with that meaning. That was not my intention. I was trying to explain that in my past I had placed an emphasis on doctrine alone. I spoke like a Christian, but often did not act as one. I was trying to explain that I have been trying to move in a direction (with God’s help) that means me acting like a Christian and not just talking about being one or about doctrines. I didn’t mean that I don’t have any beliefs or don’t assent to the doctrines or creeds. I do.
I’d also be interested in what, in your opinion, is specifically wrong with the 4 spiritual laws booklet, and how it differs ‘from Jesus’ actual teachings.’”
Again, I apologize for any miscommunication on my part. I didn’t mean that the Four Spiritual Laws booklet was against Jesus’ teachings. That would be hard to argue since the majority of it consists of quotations from the Bible. I was trying to say that his interpretation of the pamphlet was troubling to me.
He emphasized the idea that salvation is about whether or not you go to heaven or hell. The overwhelming majority of Jesus’ teachings and those of the writers of the New testament is about how we ought to live, not about how we get saved our heaven being our ultimate goal (which itself is against the New Testament’s teaching that Jesus was bringing heaven to earth). Salvation is certainly part of Christianity, but there is more to it. I was troubled in particular when the booklet quoted Ephesians 2 verses 8 and 9, but neglected to quote verse 10, the climax of that section of Paul’s letter. Paul is saying that we were once evil and did evil things, but that God saved us. It is a gift given to us of God that we did not and cannot earn. He does not conclude that we were saved so that we could go to heaven. We we recreated in Christ to do good works, which God had prepared for us to do. Christianity isn’t about heaven and hell as much as it is about how we can live in harmony with God.
As for the International Church of Christ, while I don’t agree with their practices, I don’t think that they make them a cult or heretical. If we want to use such terminology it needs to be reserved for exceptional cases. He listed Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Oneness Pentacostals in particular. I have no disagreement with those groups. Among other things, they all deny the Trinity and deity of Christ, doctrines that have been defended as orthodox from the beginning. As for ICC, I can’t personally confirm or deny what you say they believe, but I personally wouldn’t call them a cult of heretical. Again, I don’t agree with them, but their practices are not all that foreign. Demanding baptism within a particular church is not new (the Catholic and Orthodox churches have demanded it in the past in order to maintain a definition of orthodoxy). As for separating from non-believers, that was also a tradition that many Christians maintained. I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t call it heretical. As for bullying, I think we both know enough Christians to know that isn’t behavior restricted to their group alone, much less missing from the lives of what we might consider orthodox Christians.
All of that is said in response, but I echo your call against fruitless arguments. My intention is not to debate you or argue, but just to try and explain my thoughts further. I hope this helps. Thank your for your comments and concern.
-Ron
Good thoughts. I was angry at you until you wrapped it up at the end for me. I had the same concern as Ben. I was interested in how you proposed Christian living without Christian doctrine. The quote he found certainly seemed that way.
That being said, you were absolutely right when you brought it together at the end. The Christian life is absolutely about orthodoxy (right beliefs) and orthopraxy (right practice). We absolutely need both. We must refuse to pick between the two because they cannot be separated.
As for the ICC, I can never tell what churches with names like theirs believe. Some of them deny the deity of the Holy Spirit, which would definitely put the out of the bounds of orthodoxy. However, if the issue is an emphasis on baptism as closely tied with salvation, the dude at your meeting would have to kick out the first 1,000 years or so of church history. Ignatius is out, Polycarp is out, Augustine is deifnitely out, all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians are out, the framers of the Nicene Creed are way too ambiguous to be safe, St. Luke needed to be more careful in Acts, and the early reformers (Luther and Calvin) are probably out. We all need to be careful not to make the gate so narrow that none of us get in.
The question, though, which is imperative for unity, is, “What must be held (or not held) by Christians? What can’t we compromise on? What is worth separating over?
Great questions. I’m working on them. We should all be. The unity of the bride of Christ depends on it.
“I’m still mulling over this meeting, but I left with a sense that there was a reason that I began my Christian life with an emphasis on what is truth and what isn’t. I’ve abandoned that. I don’t look for truth. I don’t try to discover what really happened. I still think it’s a vain pursuit. But maybe there’s a reason why the Church has had to defend certain beliefs. Maybe there is a faith that was handed down that ought not to be altered.”
Found this post through some googling, and I know it’s an old one, but I don’t understand how you can throw truth out the window. How do you pick and choose what to believe if you don’t know or can’t find evidence for its truthfulness? The strive to know what’s “true” is the most important thing we (people) have as educated individuals. With so much knowledge available to us, how is a deliberate ignorance of truth a good life lesson? Has your opinion changed at all since this was written?
Jason,
That may have been some poor wording on my part; I was employing a bit of hyperbole. I believe that there is a truth, but I also think Christians as a whole have pursued opinion and interpretation over unity. Unless it’s the creeds, I’m not interested in debating truths in Christianity. There is too much room for division and not enough of a desire for unity. I think there needs to be a balance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but I haven’t seen that it many Christian interactions, especially across denominations.
I hope that clears up some of my admittedly murky language. It’s not that I think we shouldn’t pursue truth, but rather that I think we need to avoid debating divisive issues in the open. We should be pursuing Church unity more than denominational integrity. Feel free to look through some more recent posts to get a better feel of what I believe or send me a message. Thanks for the comments and feedback!
Ron