|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
jennyjm
|
04/25/2011 15:41 |
Wait a minute. Did you read 1 Corinthians 15? According to that, we are *not* to deny the truth of the resurrection. This includes inviting people to speak who deny its truth. I completely disagree with you. Is this your idea of being supportive?
|
| |
Ted C
|
04/25/2011 16:37 |
Wow, Jenny, that would be heart-breaking. I can see where someone would think they were being open-minded and even doing back-door evangelism, trying to be sensitive to seekers, in doing this. I agree with you though that probably sends the wrong message.
I would present your concerns to the elder's board in person at one of their meetings, prayerfully and with Bible in hand. I would also try hard not to take offense or be angry. If you feel that from an intellectual honesty point you can't be associated with this kind of dillution of the message of the church, then I would gracefully part ways, giving honor where honor is due and where you have seen good, and then find a body that aligns with your personal convictions about the Gospel.
Bravo for your sensitivity and convictions.
Ted
|
| |
jennyjm
|
04/25/2011 17:14 |
Thank you so much, Ted. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to be seeker sensitive so much as just indulging in excessive intellectualism for their own amusement. You are right: I must try not to be angry. I am just so frustrated, and wonder if I am the only one who feels this way, which is hard to believe. I am leaning toward just finding another church with more Biblically-aligned teaching. It just feels like the beginning of a grieving process, which is probably necessary in the this case, but painful. Thanks again for your encouragement.
|
| |
Bibleman
|
04/25/2011 18:14 |
is this an academic or not - so - much academic church? In an academic setting, I appreciate showing opposite arguments. For some people, however, it is more harmful. I was bluntly stating what I believe. I suppose I should have asked the above question first. Sorry.
|
| |
jennyjm
|
04/25/2011 19:01 |
Well, I'm sorry as well. I think I was a little harsh. It can be an academic church, but previously, the teaching was Biblical and solid. I personally don't mind an academic flavor, but not when it directly contradicts one of the essentials of the Christian faith. Thanks.
|
| |
Calico
|
04/25/2011 19:35 |
Hi, Jenny,
In your heartfelt posting, you wrote "Please tell me if you have ever heard about anything like this. If you have any advice to offer, please share it."
In 2007, our church went through a series called "The God Debate?" which was engaged upon as a thorough look at "the new atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al.). We took up this material for the matter of an equipping-of biblical truth and tactics for our church body, so as to have us able to knowledgeably engage people who claim an agnostic or atheistic stance.
Much of the presentations were decidedly either scientific or philosophical, since those are the fronts upon which atheism in general attempts to confront religion (ie. specifically, "the Christian belief in a relational God"). It was a bit of a learning curve, for sure. As a help to us, though, for the needed thinking-on contrast, and for the equipping comparison of the biblical teaching, we also sold these author's best-selling books in our bookstore (Dawkins' "The God Delusion," Hitchens' "god Is Not Great," and Harris' "Letter To A Christian Nation"). And we raised eyebrows from some for doing so.
Yet the intent was not to confuse the church, nor was the leadership trying to dilute the truth of the resurrection/Gospel of Christ. It was quite the opposite, in fact: to robustly inform and teach the church, and to assure and stabilize "what one believes about the Father, Son, and Spirit" with Spirit-led biblical thoroughness.
I believe some of the discomfort, unease, and anxiety we experienced throughout the span of the teaching was worth the effort, since those who had initial reservations came through a maturation process wherein biblical truth invigorated and grounded them in what they believed.
We've had several very challenging series very much like "The God Debate?" over my years of attending our church (issues such as the matter of worldly relativism, the problem of suffering, religious pluralism & universalism, just-war vs. pacifism, practical evangelical training, etc.). Personally, I look forward to the tackling of "hot potato" issues - not only my own betterment, but also for the solidification and stability of building upon the foundation of Christ in the church body local.
You, Jenny, of course, are far more familiar with the situation you've described of your church than any of us on this chime in on this thread. I wouldn't claim to know the full extent of the details other than what you've described. If your discernment is accurate that "it was a mistake to host this art show" and that it may have caused harm to the church local, then that is indeed troubling. But I pray that more good comes of the situation while you and your husband are found in the midst of it, as people such as yourself and clear-thinking others engage the leadership AND the disciples of Christ in dialog about the whole matter. I share with you my above story as an illustration of what it can be like for a church to do "the heavy lifting" of confronting controversial issues. Perhaps your work of engaging the leadership and the congregation there is not yet done?
Praying with you, Jenny, for the good outcome God already has planned,
Tom
|
| |
Calico
|
04/25/2011 19:52 |
Another thought, too, if it could be considered, Jenny:
You'd stated "The other artist in the show is a professed agnostic. The theme of his art is the *non-existence* of eternal life."
- agnostic (ag·nos·tic - noun \ag-'näs-tik): a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
In light of this, I wonder if instead of turmoil and a troubled heart, there isn't instead a fabulous opportunity here for you and your husband to perhaps also engage this artist, outside of the "church" context; in order to find out more concretely what he (she?) believes/doesn't believe, and build a relationship through which you might then share the Gospel?
:-)
Still praying with you, Jenny,
Tom
|
| |
jennyjm
|
04/25/2011 20:15 |
Thanks for sharing your experience, Tom. These two situations don't sound the same. My church displayed the art and allowed the artists to comment on their work without taking any particular stance as to which viewpoint was actually Biblical. I am not comfortable with the approach that the church is taking, and feel strongly led to run fast in the opposite direction. I know what I need to do, but I am not at all happy to have to do it. Thank you for you prayers.
|
| |
John T
|
04/25/2011 20:39 |
I would say that Bible believing church should, if presenting non-biblical ideas, at least editorialize or comment on the fact that they are not scriptural. Everybody is at different maturity levels in their faith. Some may not know which view is correct and may need to be told to make it clear -- leaving it up to the listener is about as silly as saying that we need to not teach the Bible to our children but instead let them decide if they "like" it -- that's ludicrous! There will be "children" in the church who need to be shown what is true. Only when they are firmly rooted in the truth are they ready to strengthen their faith by battling these other things. It's like giving a new believer one of Dan Brown's books about the lies of a fictional church and then expecting him to be able to sort it out -- it's crazy! But give that book to a mature Christian, and a good discussion can start.
|
| |
jennyjm
|
04/25/2011 20:56 |
That's what I think too, John. What does this teach to those who are new believers? Also, I have a doubter in my own family, and this kind of confusion in the church is not helpful for him. If my church wants to be a Unitarian Church or something like it, that is their choice, I suppose, but they should change the sign out front at least.
|
(page
1
2)
|
