Were you raised in church? (part 1)

In my short tenure of being a Christ follower (6 years), I have started to notice a disappointing pattern in Christian circles. But before I completely show my hand, let me take you through the quick process of how I got to the realization of this trend. 

Melissa and I got married in July of 2010 and moved to Kansas City where we now live and where I attend Calvary Bible College. Since then we have become friends with several new people that God has blessed us with and we have continued friendships with those we met back home in Sedalia. 

Many of our friendships have been formed through young, married, childless couples like ourselves (though several of our friends have/are having children). As we got to know these couples more and as we shared our lives with them, I started to recognize a common thread between us all. The most obvious "tie that binds" us is that we all are Christians who love and serve the same God. However, there seemed to be another dynamic I was sensing. 

As I thought about it, we each had the same husband-wife history in our relationships. Starting with the first real friend I made at CBC and his eventual marriage, to the next married couple, to the next, and so on, the husbands and wives were seeming to have the same type of pasts. Each of the husbands (my friends) is a lot like me-- they were either non-Christians growing up or they were "prodigal sons" belonging to parents waiting for them to return to God. The wives (Melissa's friends), on the other hand, are like Melissa-- they were the good girls raised in Christian homes who never strayed, but loved Jesus and loved their daddies.

I can honestly say that off the top of my head there are five couples (not including my own marriage) that fit this mold and with whom we are friends. Why is this so?

Well I asked myself this and my immediate thought was that women who love Jesus desire a husband who loves Jesus and guys who have been saved later in life tend to carry more passion in their lives than those who have been going through the motions for years. 

Now this is obviously a generality and by no means an absolute blanketing truth. However, Jesus touches on this issue in Luke 7. Jesus had been invited to a Pharisee's house for dinner. The Pharisee, whose name was Simon, likely wanted to quiz the Christ and catch Him in err. However, when a sinful woman found out about the meeting she came to the Pharisee's house to show her love for Jesus. 

The woman took an alabaster flask of ointment and came to the feet of Christ. Broken and full of devotion, she began to cry and wet His feet with her tears, wiping them with her hair. She then took the ointment and anointed the holy feet. She kissed His feet and, as if the Pharisee was not even there, showed Jesus the love He is due. 

The Pharisee responded negatively, saying that if Jesus really was who He said He was, He would shew off the woman because she was sinful. At that point, Jesus tells an interesting parable. Here it is in the NLT:

“A man loaned money to two people—500 pieces of silver to one and 50 pieces to the other. But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose loved him more after that?”
Luke 7:41-42

The obvious answer to this question is that the one forgiven more debt would be the one who loves the forgiver the most. This was Simon's answer and Jesus tells him that he has judged rightly. Now look at what the Messiah goes on to say:

Then turning toward the woman He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she has anointed My feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”  
Luke 7:44-48

Now think back to my quandary concerning the married couples. These guys who have been saved later in life, as I said, "tend to carry more passion in their lives than those who have been going through the motions for years." In light of this passage, how could this be?

The answer appears to be that the formerly non-Christian and the prodigals have experienced more of the world and have built up a bulkier list of sins than the others. They have gone out drinking, done drugs, had sex, listened to the worst music, etc. They were of the world and had, as Jesus says "many" sins. Therefore, because of their many sins which have been forgiven they now, like the woman, love "much."

This conclusion seemed incredibly logical to me and appeared to fit Jesus' words. But it was unsettling for a couple of reasons:

1) It cannot be necessary to go out and rack up a long list of sins in order to be enabled to love Jesus "much."

and 

2) There is no such thing as being "forgiven little" in the eyes of God. 

In addressing the former, it would be impossible for the Holy Father to will for men love Him very much via sinning greatly and, in turn, being forgiven of that sin. Speaking to the latter, anyone who is forgiven of their grave and evil sinful actions against God through the grace of Christ has not been forgiven "little."

So what in the world is Jesus talking about?

Well I think the answer lies in the outward expression that I have been seeing patterned by the Christians I hang out with. 

Some of my absolute nearest and dearest friends have been to jail/prison. They have used/sold drugs. They slept around. They did not want anything to do with Jesus or "religion."

They were forgiven. They are now absolutely on fire for Christ.

Some of my other friends grew up in church and have no remembrance of being absent from church for any length of time. Some of them went to Christian school or were homeschooled. They never tried drugs (for the most part) and never slept around. 

They were forgiven. The majority are sadly incredibly apathetic. 

Neither one of these groups were any more condemned than the other before being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Neither one of these groups were forgiven of a small matter at the point of salvation. Both groups consist of men who were once enemies of God but have now been brought near by the blood of Christ. Both groups are indwelt by the Holy Spirit-- God Himself. 

So if neither group was "forgiven little," why does one group tend to love "much" whereas the other tends to be complacent? 

It all has to do with understanding what you have been forgiven of.  

Are you a believer in the resurrected Christ for the remission of your sins? If so, you are a new creation-- you are the righteousness of God-- you are ready and set to walk in the good works that God prepared for you before the foundations of the world. 

However, if you do not understand that at one point in your life this was not you, you have no reason to express joy, gratitude, love, or devotion to God because of the conversion. 

You see, Jesus did not mean that the Pharisee was a "good boy," who, if he were to eventually be forgiven, could not love much because he kept such a good track record. Pharisees were the "brood of vipers." Matthew 23 is sufficient to prove what Jesus thought of these Jews. 

Jesus meant that the Pharisee needed to realize that he was no better than the woman. The "keeper of the law" needed to understand that he was a violator of the law and no good deeds could ever reverse that. When he takes on this reality and believes Jesus for the hope of salvation he too loves much because of that incredibly deep forgiveness. 

I imagine the conservative homeschoolers and former AWANA cadets struggle with this. If this is you, you've heard this Jesus stuff your whole life. You have been in the light as long as you can remember and the darkness seems completely foreign. A lifestyle of sin feels contrary to everything you've ever known. 

If you feel like you struggle with the same sin as the Pharisee, then to you I would say to think of your sanctification. Not only were you made a friend of God in salvation, but you are continuously being made to conform to Christ's image despite your sinful tendencies. As you repent of your pride, selfishness, greed, lust, what have you, God is granting you forgiveness through Jesus Christ, the Advocate. 

You have been forgiven much. Love much. 

Now I should say here that these are generalities. My former youth pastor, who discipled me, was raised in a Christian home, got saved when he was four, went to Christian school, and graduated from Bible College. However, he is a devoted man of God who was used to influence me greatly by the Word of Christ. 

Inversely, there are those "real bad" sinners who get saved and never really catch fire for Jesus. So just know that these are generalities, yet they are patterns that I have been noticing. 
  
Anyway, there it is. It has been on my heart lately and I hope you have been encouraged in the Lord. We are all tempted to become apathetic, but in Christ we have an upward call to be on fire for the Father by the power of the Spirit. 

Ask to be filled with with the Holy Spirit who is able to guide, teach, direct, and comfort you. 

God bless. 

Little Ones to Him Belong: A spiritual response to Sandy Hook

There has been so much said about Sandy Hook Elementary School since the tragedy took place December 14. I'm sure that several people do not want to hear any more conjecture surrounding the devastating situation; but I hope that this article offers more truth than theory and more reason than reaction.  

The Killer

Adam Lanza no doubt suffered from mental disease, regardless of the degree. He had thoughts that were evil, though not beyond what we can imagine. He had troubled feelings, but they weren't sentiments foreign to our hearts. Adam Lanza's heart was deeply darkened and no one questions that. 

In fact, Scripture confirms it.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9

And Jesus said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness."

Mark 7:20-22

You see, when Scripture speaks of the sinful desires of the human heart, it is speaking of all humans-- mankind as a whole. It is easy for someone who has never physically murdered someone to sit back and say that what Adam Lanza did was extraordinarily evil; however, look at what Jesus says:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

Matthew 5:21-22

Is Adam Lanza's sin so extraordinary now? Jesus just said that whoever calls "his brother" a "fool" out of anger is "liable to the hell of fire." Who among us has not hated another person from his heart? We are all guilty.

So how could Lanza have been stopped? The answer is found in the person of Jesus Christ. 

I'm not a part of the camp that places the blame fully on governmental authorities. Jesus has established the authorities (Romans 13:1-6) but He has not commissioned them with the gospel. The power of evangelism has been bestowed upon His people, the Church (Matthew 28:19-20). Therefore, it is the individual believer's responsibility to reach the lost with the good news of Jesus Christ. 

However, the government is not exempt from judgment because God definitely has expectations for them, as He has given them great responsibility. 

In the past five decades, starting with the Supreme Court ruling in 1962, the teachings of God have slowly been shut out of public schools. So let's cut all the ramblings and get to the point: Would a nativity scene outside of Sandy Hook Elementary School have stopped Lanza from going in and slaughtering innocent children? I have no idea. 

But think about what our schools do teach children today: Adam Lanza was only human in the sense that he evolved to a higher state of being than apes. The way that he survives is by competing with fellow man-- because the fittest, most equipped species will rule the day. He is just a rung on a proverbial ladder, known as the evolutionary process, leading to an unknown future. There is no hope or accountability in this life because he is just an animal seeking his own interests here and now. There is nothing absolutely true, for God is just a foreign concept, left for philosophers to straighten out. This life is all about individual gain with a slice of charity. 

This worldview is terribly sad and inevitably leads to disaster. 

We all must understand that this is the context from which Adam Lanza arose, therefore, coupled with the sick heart we all have, evil actions must follow. So many people have called this act "senseless," but it actually does make sense when the truths of the situation are considered.   

Where Are They Now?

So then we think of the children, the ones that lost their lives in Lanza's shooting spree, and wonder where they are now. 

I believe in the absolute innocence of children. In Deuteronomy 1, God is speaking to an "evil generation" of Israel that He was disallowing to enter into the Promised Land because of their sin. He allowed Caleb and Joshua to be the exceptions to this rule because of their faithful obedience to Him. Then He spoke of the next generation. Read carefully what He said:

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
Deuteronomy 1:39

The children have no knowledge of good or evil. Therefore, they were allowed to enter into the Promised Land. Jesus said of the children, "for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 19:14). 

I don't want to try to reinvent the wheel here, so please take the time to listen to Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. He explains this predicament beautifully, bringing up a very important point which speaks to the hypocrisy of our culture:

Our Response

Finally, we must figure out our response to this ordeal. Do we blame God? Certainly we should not. Do we blame the gun Adam was holding? Foolishness. Do we blame the culture? They didn't pull the trigger. 

The responsibility of these killings falls on Adam Lanza himself. If he were still alive, he would certainly be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. The whole nation would affirm his guilt and desire justice to be served. 

But Adam, like the children and teachers, is gone. And we have not satisfied our need for justice.

We tend to turn to everything else involved in the massacre (guns, mental health, federal laws, church, etc.) and place blame on those in order to "right wrongs." However, Jesus is the only One who can right our wrongs.

We  have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). No one is righteous, not even one of us (Romans 3:10). The wages of our sin is eternal death, but God's gift in Jesus is eternal life (Romans 6:23). If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9-10). 

Jesus is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, and all-loving. He is God. Christ desires everyone to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). God wants everyone to repent and come to Him (2 Peter 3:9). 

Turn to Christ. 

Come to God.

He loves you.

The Emerging Church

This is a somewhat uncharacteristic post for me. I recently wrote a summary of the emerging church for a class at school and thought that it would be a good essay to share with the world. If you have been introduced to any part of the emerging church movement, then this post will certainly cause you to have thoughts that I encourage you to share. Either way, this phenomenon is pertinent to every believer in the American culture today.

THE EMERGING CHURCH

Introduction

            The emerging church phenomenon has changed a reasonable amount of the church ministry landscape in America over the past decade. The concept of the emerging church was formulated with the purpose of addressing the post-modern philosophy, along with its various aspects, that have emerged in the United States’ culture. Titling the movement as “emerging” creates a banner under which several branches identify. Mark Driscoll, one of the chief spokesmen of the movement describes the emerging church as consisting of liberal emergent churches, monastic and communal home churches, trendy evangelicals, and Reformissionists (which is what his church claims to be).^[1]

Misunderstandings

            Perhaps the biggest misunderstandings concerning the emerging church movement are that (a) it is, in fact, a movement and (b) it is separate from the term “emergent,” which refers to specific churches.

            Just as the charismatic “movement” has become trans-denominational and varied in degree, so is the emerging church movement. Acts 29, the emerging church planting network started by Driscoll says that its goal is to “[network] with men in different denominations and networks for the kingdom good of the city.”^[2] The description continues,

Acts 29 is not a model or a style. We have classical church plants with a preacher and a congregation, we have video-delivered sermons, we have missional community models, replants, and existing churches that want to plant churches with us. We seek to be a movement of church-planting networks - that is, decentralized and empowered networks to lead men of all different types of churches in order to make disciples of all people groups.^[3]

            Obviously, this self-description has certain implications. Firstly, the fact that this network (which is the leader in producing emerging churches) has no set methodology proves that it has flexibility working in and out of different cities and denominations across the country. Secondly, their focus is on diversity and multiplication. At an Acts 29 Boot Camp in St. Louis last month, three of the six speakers were minorities and the selection was intentional.^[4] A mark of the emerging church (at least in the Acts 29 camp) is that churches should look like cities-- populated and diverse. Lastly, and most dangerously, this movement has shaky safeguards against false doctrine. This is evidenced most blatantly by the associations made by Acts 29 pastors.^[5]

            It is important to note that “emerging” is different than “emergent.” The titles are confusing and, at the end of the day, unimportant. Driscoll started out on the same page with those in the emergent camp (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren) but broke away when their theology progressed into liberalism. Thus, the emergent church represents skeptical and unbiblical theology, as seen in books such as Love Wins, Velvet Elvis, and others. “Emerging” refers to a style, or method, of church and “emergent” refers to a theology that is left of center.

Theology and Contextualization

Emergent

            The emergent church branch is essentially symbolized by the Emergent Village, which is a skeptical movement emulating neo-liberalism, as evidenced by its values.^[6] Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan serves as a prime example of an emergent church. Their “doctrinal statement,” which appears in the form of a theological narrative on their website, discusses man’s sin but mentions nothing of hell or any kind of eternal punishment. The only time judgment is brought up is in their eschatological beliefs which is stated as follows:

We believe the day is coming when Jesus will return to judge the world, bringing an end to injustice and restoring all things to God’s original intent…God will wipe away all our tears. Our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation will be whole. All will flourish as God intends. This is what we long for. This is what we hope for. And we are giving our lives to living out that future reality now.^[7]

Monastic

            The communal/monastic branch of the emerging church is quite strange in its beliefs, rendering it few in number. Some of the beliefs (known as the Twelve Marks) of New Monasticism, led by Shane Claiborne, are “relocation to the abandoned places of Empire,” “nurturing common life among members of intentional community,” and “commitment to a disciplined contemplative life.”^[8]

            As stated, monastic contextualization is not incredibly popular; however, Claiborne, the leader in this doctrine, has spoken at many conferences across the country, including the popular Urbana Conference in 2009.^[9] Interestingly, Chris Heuertz, who is of the same persuasion as Claiborne, is speaking at the Urbana Conference this year (December 27-31).^{[10] [11]} The Urbana Conference is a part of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, which, like emerging churches, is inter-denominational. The Urbana Conference, which has been gathering every three years for decades now, is currently seeking to gather thousands of students “to follow Jesus by committing their lives to God’s global mission.”^[12] 

Trendy

            This third branch of the emerging church is the broadest in nature. Driscoll has described this type of church as being one that enhances the quality of the music and causes the atmosphere of the church to be appealing to the post-modern mind.^[13] Though it is inconclusive as to whether or not all “trendy emerging churches” agree with the forthcoming statement, David Murrow speaks to the necessity of a church’s quality in his book Why Men Hate Going to Church:

Why is quality so important? Because church growth depends on people inviting their friends. Men will not invite their friends to a church service that’s corny, hokey, or half-baked. John Lewis has dubbed this the ‘cringe factor’-- defining it as ‘what happens when a Christian finally gets up enough nerve to invite his unbelieving friend to church, and the Christian quietly cringes through the service because of the off-key singing, out-of-tune piano, bad acoustics, malfunctioning microphones, and disjointed sermon.’^[14]

            Murrow then goes on to talk about the church’s image, branding, and décor which makes it, as Driscoll says, “trendy.” This section of Murrow’s book is specifically talking about mega churches and it is likely that most trendy emerging churches are large, if not “mega.” Therefore, it can be deduced that the trendy emerging church is one that is evangelical in theology, but very image-driven in its contextual ministry.

Reformissionist

            Mark Driscoll, whose name has been necessarily overused, is at the core of the Reformissionist branch of the emerging church because he is the founder of it. The word is an infusion of “Reformed” and “missional.” Acts 29 churches are typically this way because they are Reformed in their theology, but very contextual in their outreach.

            The heart of the Mars Hill Seattle contextualization comes from their belief that Jesus was the perfect missionary. A missionary is one who comes into a foreign culture to spread the gospel. Thus, Jesus left the culture of heaven, came to the earth’s culture by emptying Himself (Phil 2:4-6) and taking on human flesh in order to convey God’s message to His image-bearers. Driscoll says that he and the other leadership at Mars Hill are missionaries to the Pacific Northwest and they should contextualize with the people in that area as they would in any other area of the world. His views are expressed in more detail in a recent message he gave titled “Jesus is a Better Missionary.”^[15]

Relation to Other Movements

Seeker-sensitive

            It is quite curious that although emerging churches are very focused on reaching post-modern people in their culture that they are still somehow very much against seeker-sensitive churches for the most part. It could be said that emergent churches are more aligned with the seeker-sensitive movement due to their sacrifice of theological positions (which is also a characteristic of seeker churches).^[16] Acts 29, evangelical, and monastic emerging churches all reject the idea behind seeker-sensitive churches because of their methodology that seemingly keeps truth minimal and elevates style.

Fundamentalism

            Emerging churches are not connected to fundamental churches because their methodological ideals could not be any farther apart. In the eyes of Driscoll and the boys, fundamentalists are the Parasitical sect of today’s Christianity and, in turn, they become the butt of many of his jokes. Fundamentalists like John MacArthur do not appreciate this kind of tomfoolery from the pulpit.^{[17] [18]} In turn, fundamentalists disconnect themselves from the emerging church movement, sticking to their own methodologies of contextualization in their churches.

The Future

            The emerging church movement will not last forever. Many of these pastors are young (under 50), cool (stylish clothes, use social media), and energetic. Eventually, the pastors will turn grey, the style will seem forced and not genuine, and the energy level will undoubtedly decline. It is possible that others will carry on in the tradition of Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Steven Furtick, and the other emerging pastors around America, but the movement has bound itself to the culture, so as the culture changes, the movement will change. As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun,” (Ecc 1:9) and no culture or method is “new,” but just a different version of an old concept. Thus, the emerging church concept will continue adapting within the movement and one can only hope that there will be enough sensible believers to hold on to conservative theology. 

---

^[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCUdIBaZig

^[2] http://www.acts29network.org/about/

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] I heard this personally while at the boot camp. Much was said about race and ethnicity. It is clear that there is an “Affirmative Action” mindset among these ministers.

^[5] Mark Driscoll was fine with T.D. Jakes’ presence on James MacDonald’s Elephant Room conferences which were “by Christians and for Christians.” Driscoll approved of Jakes’ Trinitarian theology in the latest volume of the video series. Also, Matt Chandler recently spoke at the Catalyst Conference in Atlanta alongside a female pastor and television producer Mark Burnett, whose faith is unclear. 

^[6] http://emergentvillage.org/?page_id=77

^[7] http://marshill.org/believe/about/narrative-theology/

^[8] http://www.thesimpleway.org/about/12-marks-of-new-monasticism/

^[9] https://www.intervarsity.org/page/urbana-09-audio

^[10] http://www.wordmadeflesh.org/prayer-letters/new-monasticism-new-friars-and-the-third-order-61/

^[11] https://urbana.org/urbana-12/speaker-and-team-bios/urbana-12-seminar-speakers/chris-heuertz

^[12] http://www.intervarsity.org/features/jesus-came-so-we-go

^[13] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCUdIBaZig

^[14] Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church, 137-138

^[15] http://marshill.com/media/esther/jesus-is-a-better-missionary

^[16] http://www.equip.org/articles/pro-and-con-the-seeker-sensitive-church-movement/

^[17] http://www.challies.com/articles/john-macarthur-wants-us-to-grow-up

^[18]http://www.gty.org/blog/B111028

Doubtful Things: What's true for you (part 2)

Note: As we go through the series on doctrinal perspectives, I will constantly be referring back to the chart I posted in the opening article. It is a chart that I made over the course of a year concerning the three types of doctrine. Remember that it is man-made, nowhere near infallible, and arguable in a few (a few, not many) areas. As we start in Primary Doctrine, the conservatives among us will be pleased. As we move into "Doubtful Things," more liberal believers will probably enjoy what I say more. However, I hope that all of us will learn and grow in our relationship with Christ.
___________________________________________________________

I find the area of "Doubtful Things" particularly challenging for several reasons. 

First, I enjoy having opinions and defending things to the death (slight exaggeration).

Second, the idea of certain opinions being just opinions-- or the whole concept of a "grey area"-- is not my predisposition. Black & white seems natural to me. Everything must be right or must be wrong. 

Third, I've been convicted of some of the objects I give as examples in the chart lately. 

Take the first item on the list for example-- alcohol. 

I used to just believe that Christians can drink if they want as long as they don't get drunk. I even thought that I would eventually drink casually and it would be no big deal. The Bible says nothing about casual drinking, but it forbids getting drunk, so the whole argument doesn't even matter, I thought. 

Then I listened to this 3-part sermon series by John MacArthur.

So now I believe that Christians have no biblical basis for drinking the alcohol sold in 21st century American stores. But do I have a Bible verse/passage strictly forbidding it? Nope.  

Therefore, I can't treat this issue as though it were clearly laid out in Scripture like Christ's resurrection or the mandate of baptism. I can't say that it is an issue that would cause me to break my worship or ministry with another. However, it will affect my close friendships with people, as I will not be comfortable with somebody drinking a Natty Light during devotionals or making much of the fact that their Christian liberty allows them to drink whatever they wish.

"So what's the point?" you may ask. I mean, what was wrong with where I was in the first place? I was an unassuming bystander in the arena of liberated Christian consciences, was I not?

Well, though it may seem like my study on this topic caused me to be more legalistic, it actually caused me to grow in my relationship with God. I say this not because of my conclusion, but because of the process.

God wants us all to have convictions. Each of us has a conscience given to us by God Himself and we are responsible as to how we live out personal persuasions. 

Think about all of the different issues that fall into this category:

• Bible Translations- KJV vs. the world (or perhaps ESV snobbery)
• Clothes- Jeans in church? Oh snap.
• Contextualization- Can a pastor adapt to the culture he lives in without sinning?
• Food- The Daniel Diet Cookbook?
• Mission Field- "You're going where to do ministry?? You should go here."
• Music/Media- If the Baptist Hymnal was good enough for Peter, it's good enough for me.
• Politics- Use your imagination.
• Personal Appearance- Men with ponytails and/or beards to their knees...
• Personality- That guy joked around too much. And she needs to smile more.
• Schooling- "Public schools are of the devil." ... "Homeschoolers don't develop social skills."
• Social Networking- MySpace just became non-sinful. Facebook is pending.
• Sunday Morning Worship Style- How much music? How much preaching? How much shaking hands and fake smiling?

 See what I mean? The list goes on and on. These are things that we certainly have opinions on but hardly ever question if they are truly biblical or if we have thought them through as we should. 

Remember the key passages:  

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.  
Romans 14:13

But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 
1 Corinthians 8:9

The last blog post discussed what "weak" meant and how that plays into the situations we find ourselves in concerning "doubtful things."

But do you see the theme between the two verses? We are to consider others when we live out our convictions.

When you are in the presence of another believer, your convictions about the appropriate haircut for a woman or the best way to educate a child really does not matter. What matters is that you do not judge the other believer on this issue and that you do not say or do something that would cause him to stumble in his walk with Christ. 

It is here that we should once again remember the idea of "improper column transfer." Last time I said that we should not treat something in the third column like something in the first. We should understand that certain things are, in fact, doubtful, not plainly true. 

However, the reverse is also sure. We cannot treat something in the first column like we would something in the third. The uniqueness of Christ is not something we keep out of the way of others because it is a stumbling block to them. In fact, Paul made no apologies in discussing his preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  
1 Corinthians 1:22-24

There are, without a doubt, personal convictions that fall into the "grey area" of truth in our faith, but these things are certainly limited. If you feel confused or lost about how we should separate these issues, I suggest you read through the blog series again to better understand what is essential to the Christian faith, what is secondary, and finally, what is doubtful.

I hope this series has blessed you as much as it has me. Hopefully I will be starting something new soon.

All for God's honor and glory-- may Jesus be known as He desires to know each one of us!