Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Test of Spiritual Genuineness


    One of the standard village atheist arguments against religion involves the bad behavior of people who claim to be religious. The atheists love to dredge up the muck of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and modern sex abuse scandals. The criticism is a little hypocritical – they generally do not like to talk about Stalin or Mao. If we may paraphrase Scripture here, if the Catholic Church has killed its thousands, the Communist Party has the blood of literally millions on its hands. But nevertheless, the record of organized religion is hardly unblemished, and requires some sort of response.
    Jesus made it clear right at the outset that there would be such a thing as a false Christianity. "Beware," He said, "of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Matt. 7:15; NKJV). Not all is what it seems to be.
    A "false prophet" is someone who purports to be speaking on behalf of God, but really is not. In the Old Testament the prophet Jeremiah was told by God "The prophets prophesy lies in My name. I have not sent them, commanded them, nor spoken to them; they prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a worthless thing, and the deceit of their heart" (Jer. 14:14).
    The character of these false prophets is insidious. Disguised as sheep, they are really "ravenous wolves" ("ravenous" in the sense of "rapacious" or "voracious"). In other words, their true aim is not to promote the truth and welfare of the people, but to advance a hidden agenda, usually for their own profit or benefit. They are a deadly cancer, eating away in secret at the vitals of the Christian community.
    How then, can we tell them apart? Jesus offers a remarkably simple, common sense solution to the problem: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16). Look at how they live – how they think and behave. "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit" (v. 18). In other words, the inward character will eventually reveal itself; we need to look for the signs of inconsistency, signs of behavior not in keeping with the character of Christ Himself.
    The use of religious rhetoric, and even the ability to perform miracles, is no sure indication of spiritual genuineness. "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (vv. 22,23).
    Churches, if they claim to be Christian churches, must screen their candidates for the ministry more carefully. It is not enough merely to have a theological degree. To be a spiritual guide the pastor himself should be a man of God – a man of prayer, of Scripture, of holiness and heart-felt compassion. He must "walk the talk." Most people will go by what they see, not by what they hear, and what they need to see in their pastor and the other spiritual leaders of the congregation are clear models of what the Christian life should be like. The blind cannot lead the blind, and the lust for power, wealth and fame has no place in the ministry.
    In choosing our spiritual leaders A.W. Tozer put it well when he said, "Listen to no man who fails to listen to God" (The Root of the Righteous).

7 comments:

  1. The criticism is a little hypocritical – they generally do not like to talk about Stalin or Mao.

    Well no.
    Being an atheist does not mean that you are taking on a "worldview" or "code of conduct" or that you have to follow a set behaviour either good or bad.

    It's the same with being an A-pinkunicornist or an A-Lochnessmonsterist.
    Could an A-lcohnessmonsterist be a good person?
    Sure.
    But the fact that they are a good person has not bearing on them being A-lochnessmonsterist.
    They are not connected in any way.

    Could an A-Lochnessmonsterist be a thoroughly terrible person?
    Sure. Yet that has nothing to do with their A-lochnessmonsterism.

    However, when you join a religion, there's invariably a set of rules you are supposed to follow and a worldview you are culturally expected to adopt.
    Not so for atheism. It's not comparable to a religion.
    It's far less complicated.

    How then, can we tell them apart? Jesus offers a remarkably simple, common sense solution to the problem: "You will know them by their fruits"

    Worthless, purely subjective hand-wringing.
    It's the ol' "No true Christian" dodge.
    Did someone who calls themselves a Christian or has others call themselves a Christian do something that you don't approve of?
    Then, hey presto, they can be kicked out of the club after the fact.
    Very convenient. Very self-serving.
    Everybody has 20/20 hindsight.

    Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Jones, Jimmy Savlie etc. It's easy to kick them out of the club AFTER the fact. It's really, really easy.
    It takes no talent or special insight whatsoever.
    Cleaning house to prevent scandals is the tricky part.
    Preventing children from being raped at church in the first place is the tricky part. Stopping institutionalized torture and reigns of terror in the name of religious orthodoxy from happening in the first place is the tricky part.

    Gushing over a "real Christian" will continue right up until the moment they are no longer a "real Christian".


    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that with both evolution and Christianity the question is whether or not ideas have logical implications. The root question is whether or not the design in nature is real. Darwin said that it was not, and that idea has logical implications. It leads naturally to atheism which certainly is a worldview (naturalistic materialism). If there is such a thing as design in nature, however, that points inevitably toward an intelligent Creator, which is another worldview - Theism. Obviously on both sides there is certain amount of variation -- Theists can be Jews, Christians, or Muslims. On the evolutionary side there was an attempt to combine evolution with Idealist philosophy, but I'm not sure there are many philosophical Idealists around anymore.
    It is also painfully true that there are many people on both sides of the issue who are logically inconsistent. Most modern day evolutionists generally disavow Social Darwinism and the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, but I think that Spencer, Nietzsche and Rand were being more logically consistent. And unfortunately what often happens with Christianity or any other major world religion is that people will pay lip service to the ideals but ignore them in practice. Here in the US many "Christians" will try to combine their professed allegiance to Christianity with a materialist lifestyle.
    The "True Christian" argument can be approached from two angles. One is doctrinal -- what is consistent with what Jesus actually taught? Jesus certainly has a right to define His own religion. This is why I wrote the series on the Sermon on the Mount -- to focus attention on what Jesus Himself actually said.
    The other test is experiential. The apostle John put it this way:"God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth" (I John 1:5,6). If someone has had a genuine experience with God it will transform him. Thus when we see a professed Christian whose life stands in blatant contradiction to Christian ideals we know that he is a fake. And in the final analysis what we are all interested in is the real thing. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It leads naturally to atheism...

    No it doesn't.
    One can be an atheist and no absolutely nothing about evolution. Long before Darwin was born, there were atheists.
    Votaire? Hello?
    Accepting scientific theories like Evolution does not make people atheists. Otherwise, there be...an awful lot more atheists.
    There's no connection.

    ...atheism which certainly is a worldview (naturalistic materialism).

    No it isn't.
    Atheism is not a secret synonymn for naturalistic materialism.
    Nor is A-Lochnessmonsterism a secret synonymn for naturalistic materialism.
    Atheism means...just atheism.
    It's really, really basic stuff.
    Atheism is not a "worldview". It can't be. There's nothing to work with.

    If there is such a thing as design in nature...

    The key word here is "if". It's a very big word.

    Obviously on both sides there is certain amount of variation...

    What "sides"?

    Theists can be Jews, Christians, or Muslims.

    There's more. A lot more. A whole more. The world is filled with all sorts of wacky stuff.

    On the evolutionary side...

    No. Accepting a scientific theory is not a "side".
    Nor is accepting Germ Theory or the Theory of Gravity a "side".

    I'm not sure there are many philosophical Idealists around anymore.

    It's not really much of a topic for the kids nowadays. Nor is "naturalistic materialism" or Nietzsche. People have moved on. Christians bring up these terms all the time but the rest of us just fall asleep and move on with the rest of the conversation.
    Drop it.

    Most modern day evolutionists...

    Oh really? What do the gravatists disavow? How about those Round Earthists?
    (...facepalm...)

    ...but I think that Spencer, Nietzsche and Rand were being more logically consistent.

    (snore)
    Wha...? Who? I'm sorry. Did you say something?
    Bob, I don't care. I don't give a monkey's butt about any of those people. I get it that you do but I don't. I really don't.
    Yes, I'm an atheist.
    No, don't care about Spencer and whoever.
    Are we clear about this now?
    Can we please, PLEASE move on?

    Here in the US many "Christians" will try to combine their professed allegiance to Christianity with a materialist lifestyle.

    I have no idea what you mean by a "materialist lifestyle". I don't care.

    One is doctrinal -- what is consistent with what Jesus actually taught?

    It's a subjective thing. It's all rubber and bendy.
    Sure, Jesus taught "X" but did he really teach "X" or did he teach "Y"?
    It's a never-ending spiral.

    If someone has had a genuine experience with God it will transform him.

    Which can be claimed by anybody with fake sincerity. There's no way to know for sure. It's a purely subjective claim. There's no way to objectively test it.

    Thus when we see a professed Christian whose life stands in blatant contradiction to Christian ideals we know that he is a fake.

    According to whom? You? Do you get to decide? How about the Pope? Does he get to decide?
    What about if they are an excellent fake and fool all the people all the time?
    (Yes, it happens.)
    Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Jones, Jimmy Savlie etc. It's easy to kick them out of the club AFTER the fact. It's really, really easy.
    Everybody has 20/20 hindsight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, do you think that it is possible to be a theistic evolutionist and be logically consistent? What do you make of Francis Collins' argument for theistic evolution? Is it possible to believe in Intelligent Design and evolution at the same time?
    If naturalistic materialism isn't much of a topic for the kids nowadays somebody ought to tell Jerry Coyne -- he just doesn't get it. Here's what he said:"The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of materialistic naturalism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time." (Why Evolution Is True, p. 224).

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, do you think that it is possible to be a theistic evolutionist and be logically consistent?

    Nope.
    Read what I wrote.
    Accepting evolution does not magically lead to atheism.
    They are two different things.

    Plenty of people out there are theists...and accept the Theory of Evolution. It would be nice if they went "Oh hey, maybe I should demand evidence for other stuff in my life too" and then drop the superstitious mumbo-jumbo...but sadly, they don't.

    One can be an atheist and...NOT accept the Theory of Evolution.
    Yep, it happens.
    I think they'd be wrong but that would not make them any less of an atheist.
    It's not a package deal.

    If naturalistic materialism isn't much of a topic for the kids nowadays...

    It isn't. Have you ever heard me once ever mention it?
    What happened to the "materialist lifestyle" bit or did you just make that up?

    ...somebody ought to tell Jerry Coyne -- he just doesn't get it.

    Bully for him. Why should I care? Nothing to do with me. You seem to be obsessed with it though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The question was, is it possible to be a "theistic evolutionist" and be logically consistent, and you answered "Nope," but then proceeded to argue that evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism. So which is your real position?
    If you have the time you might want to take a quick look at the review I did in July of Collins' book (I broke it up into three separate blog posts - 7/17,7/18, and 7/20).

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...to argue that evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism

    Yep.

    The question was, is it possible to be a "theistic evolutionist" and be logically consistent, and you answered "Nope,"

    Sure, I stand by that answer. People are logically inconsistant all the time.
    For example, it's entirely possible to believe in a magical being way up in the sky...and...accept Germ Theory.
    It happens all the time.
    I don't agree with it but it's easy enough to observe again and again in real life.
    People want their cake and eat it too.
    There are even people who will take modern antibiotics and then swear black and blue that they don't believe in evolution.
    (facepalm)
    It's a sad, silly fact of life but it happens.
    There are people who fill their car with gas and then will tell you that the Earth is 5000 years old.
    (shrug)

    You can be an atheist and no nothing whatsoever about evolution.
    It's not a package deal.
    Nobody can expell you from the club because...
    1) There's no club and...
    2) Being an atheist is not part of a set package. It's a single, solitary issue thingy.

    Further, you can accept evolution and not be an atheist.
    There are plenty of examples of both.

    It leads naturally to atheism...

    No it doesn't.

    ...atheism which certainly is a worldview...

    No, it isn't. It really isn't. Take a good hard look at atheists and listen to how they define atheism. It's really, really, REALLY simple. Skip the cloying creative re-interpretation of the Christian community and go straight to the atheists themselves.
    They won't bite.
    Plenty of good stuff on youtube.
    Listen to what they are actually saying as opposed to what you've been told they say or what you imagine they say or what you would like them to say.

    ReplyDelete