Ok. I was not going to get into this kind of thing, but I just read a post on Facebook written by a friend who is still part of the Oneness Pentecostal movement. He said something that is a classic example of what happens when you are taught something for so long, you don't even realize when you are saying something that simply isn't true. He had unwittingly added meaning to scripture.
Most of you that read this post either have a history in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, or you know some of my story, so you are acquainted with how intense indoctrination works (I don't mean to offend, but that is how it works--even if the indoctrination is good and true, it is still indoctrination). The problem with indoctrination (especially when it misses the mark) is that it causes the indoctrinated to read additional meaning into (in this case) scripture. For all the preaching and teaching against doing that very thing, Oneness Pentecostals are as guilty as any other group at adding meaning to scripture.
For those of you well-versed in the doctrine of salvation associated with Acts 2:38, I am going to ask you a question. Before I ask it, I want you to answer it quickly without looking at the verse in question. No cheating. In this format (rather than face-to-face), it will be easy to move right along and see the point of the question, so this may not work real well, but let's give it a go anyway.
As you are aware, Acts 2:38 says (in the KJV), "Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here is my question for you. The men who had gathered to listen to Peter had asked a question in the previous verse (vs. 37) What was their question? Don't look (and don't read ahead). Just very quickly answer the question. What question had the men who had gathered to listen to Peter's sermon asked? What prompted Peter to say what he said? Ok. Got your answer?
If you are a good Pentecostal and learned your salvation doctrine well, you probably answered something to the effect of "What must we do to be saved?" Your answer may have varied, but you probably said something regarding "salvation." The men were asking how to be saved. Again, if this was your answer, you learned your doctrine well. That is what my friend on Facebook said in his post.
Here is the problem. The men did not ask how to be "saved." They asked, what shall we "do?" Nothing more. You may say at this point, "You are splitting hairs. Of course, the implication is that they wanted to know how to be saved, because Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation." Again, that proves my point. You add meaning to verse 37 because of what you believe about verse 38--what you've been taught about verse 38. But, Acts 2:38 is NOT the plan of salvation (gasp!). I don't want to go into any kind of extensive Bible study here on salvation (you can read my previous blog posts addressing different issues surrounding salvation--A primer on the New Birth, The baptism connection, among others, not sure of the exact titles). The point is that Acts 2:38 has meaning added to it (and so does the previous verse), so that you can't read it any other way than seeing it as the answer to the question of how to be saved.
First, please note that Peter quotes the Old Testament in verse 21, when he talks about "how to be saved" in his sermon (even the idea of "how to be saved" has loaded meaning that we will discuss shortly). You probably never learned that in your Oneness Pentecostal indoctrination--that Peter preaches "how" to be saved in verse 21. Read it. It's there. I don't think I even knew that verse 21 said anything about salvation. Second, please know that the men (and women) gathered to listen to Peter preach on the day of Pentecost, would not have asked "how to be saved" anyway--at least not in the way we in 21st century evangelical Christianity would. Those first century Jews would not have thought of being "saved" from sin so that they could avoid a lake of fire and make it to a heavenly home in the sky. That idea would never occur to them. So, whatever else they "meant" to ask by asking "What shall we do," they definitely weren't thinking of salvation as we think of it today. The question stands on its own. They were convinced by Peter's sermon, and so, in essence, ask "Now what?" Just like the men asking the question wouldn't have conceived of "salvation" as we do now, Peter's answer wouldn't have been trying to communicate some "formula" to escape Hell and get to "Heaven."
Incidentally, for Oneness Pentecostals, it is interesting to note that the one time in the book of Acts when someone does ask specifically "What must I do to be saved," the answer is simply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:30, see also Acts 15:11). Again, please understand that the salvation requested in Acts 16:30 is not a salvation from Hell, it is a "deliverance from the present circumstance," (which is also the idea behind the Old Testament concept of salvation as Peter quoted it in Acts 2:21). These Jews understood the idea of needing to be delivered, and they understood the teaching that God promised deliverance for those who called out to him in their distress. But I digress..
As I said earlier, please read my other blog posts to delve deeper into what biblical salvation is (in the sense we use it today). The point of this post is to, hopefully, help you understand how "meaning" has been added to so many scriptures for you--meaning that is not biblical, nor theologically sound. Yet, when we read Acts 2 and John 3, we are able to only understand these passages in the way we've been taught--in the way we've been indoctrinated. We seldom take the time to ask if we've been taught the wrong meaning.
So, if you feel like you fit into the category of people who have had meaning added to scripture for you, the next question is "how do I unlearn it." Well, that is a more difficult question, for which there is no easy answer. Suffice it to say, if you can first acknowledge that what you have learned may not be true, you are well on your way. Also, please be patient with yourself. It took you a long time to learn what you have learned, it will take a long time to undo that indoctrination. Think of how former Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the like, feel when they realize that what they were taught and always believed is wrong. Even when they know it is wrong, it takes awhile to figure the "why" and "how" of it all.
I hope this post isn't too confusing. I am writing very fast as I want to get my thoughts down. I may be able to clarify any confusing points when you ask questions. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Socialism and the Early Church
Have you ever thought about the similarities between the precepts that the early church lived by and the tenets espoused by socialism? Of course, there are major differences. For one, the church declares that a theocracy is the ultimate goal, with God ruling and everyone joyfully following his every command. In socialism, no one person is the "boss." Everyone is equal in socialism. There are other differences, but I want to focus on some similarities.
Socialism recognizes the inequities of life--especially for the poor and marginalized. It seeks justice and equity for all. The early church did the same. We read that they sold all of their possessions and had all things in common. We read that those who were being pushed to the side were to be given special attention and cared for. We read that they strove for equality (2 Corinthians 8). We also read Jesus admonishing us to give food, drink and clothing to the "least of these" (Matthew 25).
I know that in various churches, these verses are qualified. In other words, we recognize the history behind the narrative. When it says that they had "all" things common, we "know" that they didn't really sell "everything"--some people still had homes and other forms of wealth. And I am certainly not a proponent for ripping scriptures out of their context in order to fulfill my own agenda. But I do believe that we are missing something in the modern American (Western) church.
We focus on church growth and all things "powerful." We love a great experience in our church services, and it seems that most evangelical churches teach some form of a prosperity doctrine--to one degree or another. "If you give, God will bless you." "If you live a holy life, God will bless you." "If you are faithful, God is faithful, and (again), He will bless you."
What a sad commentary on those in the early church who obviously weren't faithful or giving enough, because they suffered a great deal. Many died cruel and unimaginable deaths. Of course, we know I am being sarcastic to make a point. They were faithful, and their giving puts us to shame.
I know that many churches give "a lot." I know that many individuals give "a lot." But how many give to the point that their lifestyles change because they want there to be "equality?" Will the wealthy in the suburbs give up their homes and move to the inner city so that those in the inner city can be raised up out of poverty? It has been my observation that many who give until it hurts are those who are already hurting. I am sure someone can give one or two examples of wealthy individuals who gave up their privilege to serve the poor, or to provide opportunities for others. But that is not the story of the modern American evangelical church as a whole. That is the exception (wonderful, though it is). When will this modern church turn back to the spirit of that early church? When will we give up our wealth, our large ornate buildings, or our church growth capital campaigns, and start using that money to lift up the downtrodden and outcasts in our society?
I am not one to judge others, or even to sit in judgment over the American church. But as I see the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer, and our churches getting bigger, I see a problem. We need to collectively examine how we are doing church, and ask some really hard questions. And start making some very radical changes. I think that's what Jesus would want--at the least.
I am not a socialist--yet. But I am also not looking to Republicans or Democrats to save us. I also don't want to look to Wall Street or the corporate world to save us. I understand that capitalism "can" help many people, but it isn't playing out that way as the gap between rich and poor widens. We have to set a different standard in the church. We have to approach the problems in our society in a different way. If we are going to get involved politically, let's get involved to the extent that most people benefit. At least socialists (that I am acquainted with) are focusing daily on changing things for "the least of these." What is our focus as a church in America? Matthew 25 gives some pretty good guidance.
Socialism recognizes the inequities of life--especially for the poor and marginalized. It seeks justice and equity for all. The early church did the same. We read that they sold all of their possessions and had all things in common. We read that those who were being pushed to the side were to be given special attention and cared for. We read that they strove for equality (2 Corinthians 8). We also read Jesus admonishing us to give food, drink and clothing to the "least of these" (Matthew 25).
I know that in various churches, these verses are qualified. In other words, we recognize the history behind the narrative. When it says that they had "all" things common, we "know" that they didn't really sell "everything"--some people still had homes and other forms of wealth. And I am certainly not a proponent for ripping scriptures out of their context in order to fulfill my own agenda. But I do believe that we are missing something in the modern American (Western) church.
We focus on church growth and all things "powerful." We love a great experience in our church services, and it seems that most evangelical churches teach some form of a prosperity doctrine--to one degree or another. "If you give, God will bless you." "If you live a holy life, God will bless you." "If you are faithful, God is faithful, and (again), He will bless you."
What a sad commentary on those in the early church who obviously weren't faithful or giving enough, because they suffered a great deal. Many died cruel and unimaginable deaths. Of course, we know I am being sarcastic to make a point. They were faithful, and their giving puts us to shame.
I know that many churches give "a lot." I know that many individuals give "a lot." But how many give to the point that their lifestyles change because they want there to be "equality?" Will the wealthy in the suburbs give up their homes and move to the inner city so that those in the inner city can be raised up out of poverty? It has been my observation that many who give until it hurts are those who are already hurting. I am sure someone can give one or two examples of wealthy individuals who gave up their privilege to serve the poor, or to provide opportunities for others. But that is not the story of the modern American evangelical church as a whole. That is the exception (wonderful, though it is). When will this modern church turn back to the spirit of that early church? When will we give up our wealth, our large ornate buildings, or our church growth capital campaigns, and start using that money to lift up the downtrodden and outcasts in our society?
I am not one to judge others, or even to sit in judgment over the American church. But as I see the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer, and our churches getting bigger, I see a problem. We need to collectively examine how we are doing church, and ask some really hard questions. And start making some very radical changes. I think that's what Jesus would want--at the least.
I am not a socialist--yet. But I am also not looking to Republicans or Democrats to save us. I also don't want to look to Wall Street or the corporate world to save us. I understand that capitalism "can" help many people, but it isn't playing out that way as the gap between rich and poor widens. We have to set a different standard in the church. We have to approach the problems in our society in a different way. If we are going to get involved politically, let's get involved to the extent that most people benefit. At least socialists (that I am acquainted with) are focusing daily on changing things for "the least of these." What is our focus as a church in America? Matthew 25 gives some pretty good guidance.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
I'm baaack...sort of
It's been over 6 years since I've written anything here. I'm surprised it's been that long. I do know that when I started this blog, it was therapeutic for me. When the therapy was over, I stopped writing. I am picking up my "pen" again to communicate ruminations that have been accumulating for a long time. This first post is just to re-introduce myself and this blog. For those who are interested in once again following me--until the therapy is once again complete--welcome.
In the coming days, weeks and months, I want to write about a variety of topics--all from a theological point of view (at least my theological point of view). As I've said before (6 years ago), I am not a biblical scholar, though I have aspired to be one (maybe when I grow up). So, my thoughts really are my own and don't carry any true authority or scholarly weight. I do hope that you enjoy reading them, and I look forward to engaging with you as you respond with your thoughts. The topics I want to cover range from more thoughts on grace, to marriage, abortion, the current political landscape as it relates to Christians, and again, the "end times." I have become a great fan of N. T. Wright, so thoughts gleaned from his writings will undoubtedly come through (though I won't put on him any misunderstandings that may arise as I interpret his writings for myself).
If you have questions or subjects you would like me to talk about, please let me know. As always, feel free to challenge me on any and every subject. I enjoy the exercise. In all of this, I do hope to bring some honor to the One who called us and saved us by His grace, the Lord Jesus Christ. More posts coming soon, so stay tuned.
Your friendly neighborhood theologian wannabe,
Jon
In the coming days, weeks and months, I want to write about a variety of topics--all from a theological point of view (at least my theological point of view). As I've said before (6 years ago), I am not a biblical scholar, though I have aspired to be one (maybe when I grow up). So, my thoughts really are my own and don't carry any true authority or scholarly weight. I do hope that you enjoy reading them, and I look forward to engaging with you as you respond with your thoughts. The topics I want to cover range from more thoughts on grace, to marriage, abortion, the current political landscape as it relates to Christians, and again, the "end times." I have become a great fan of N. T. Wright, so thoughts gleaned from his writings will undoubtedly come through (though I won't put on him any misunderstandings that may arise as I interpret his writings for myself).
If you have questions or subjects you would like me to talk about, please let me know. As always, feel free to challenge me on any and every subject. I enjoy the exercise. In all of this, I do hope to bring some honor to the One who called us and saved us by His grace, the Lord Jesus Christ. More posts coming soon, so stay tuned.
Your friendly neighborhood theologian wannabe,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)