Right beliefs or right actions?

Another debate from the Global Pastors Network -

Bill DeDual • Just a quick reply if you don't mind and an observation, John.
You seem pretty hooked on the new pontiff, If you are a Protestant and Evangelical you would know they view the pope as Jesus on earth and pray to Mary for salvation, your article is about wounds? Have they changed to include Jesus? And praying to the Father? No? They keep the divide and send people to hell? Salvation is through Jesus alone, not through Mary and not through the pope, it doesn't matter of your feelings toward the man, of which your lengthy reply was about.
I am after souls for the Kingdom of God! Not write feel good speeches and watch as they go down the road to hell.

John Deacon • Your heaven and hell are different than mine.
We have too little in common to continue this exchange.
If Catholics are going to hell...thinking of the likes of Dorothy Day, Jean Vanier, Henri Nouwen, Mother Theresa and others then I hope to go with them. These are just some of our Catholic brothers and sisters who have inspired not only me but millions of Christians - Protestants and Catholics - to love Jesus and live like Jesus in our time.

William Mayor • Bill, I would question just where you gain all your knowledge about the Roman Catholics. It seems to me that you have a distorted view. But then I guess we could carefully study probe the doctrines taught in your church and likely conclude that they have many non-Christian elements also. At least every church I am aware of has questionable points within its teachings, as none of us are perfect. Some churches that loudly proclaim that they are evangelical Protestants and strongly against Satan tolerate demons being present during their worship services, some even praise the demons when the demons play Holy Spirit for them. Might your church be like that? Just asking, not accusing.
I could either debate you on your eschatology or your insistence that all Catholics are going to hell.

Peter Nagy • If Catholicism is not the false religion from Rome that John and Daniel prophesied, then we must still be waiting for "some other" false religion to rise and take Catholicism's place.
And won't that new false religion basically have to reproduce everything that the Catholic church has already done, in order to re-fulfill prophecy?

John Deacon • So your interpretation of biblical prophesy relies on all Catholics going to hell?
I think your eschatology could use an overhaul. It belongs in the same trash bin as Hal Lindsay's 'Late Great Planet Earth' and the 'Left Behind' series which thankfully most Christians have left behind.

Peter Nagy • Really Mr Deacon? You would wish to join Catholics in hell? Are you sure?

We gotta ask, are Catholic doctrines really that distorted and unbiblical? There is more written about this subject than you can read in your lifetime. Let’s condense it enough to consider a few significant observations and comparisons.

Call no man Father on the earth, for you have one Father in heaven (Matt. 23:9). Priests are called father and the pope is even called “the holy father.”

A pastor must be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2). Catholic priests are forbidden to marry. We all know how well that has been working for them. But it isn’t widely broadcast that even some popes had wives and children!

We must keep ourselves from idols (1 John 5:21). The Vatican condones and promotes idol worship.

We are supposed to love our enemies (Matt. 5:39, 44). The papacy thought Protestant Christians should be crushed like venomous snakes in the Inquisition.

Don’t pray using vain repetitions like heathens (Matt. 6:7). Don’t they say the “hail Mary” prayer about 50 times in a row?

Yeshua is the Head of the church (Eph. 5:23). The pope says he is the head of the church.

We should study the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Pope Pius 4th didn’t think the Bible was proper for the people and should be renounced. It is a forbidden book, and Bible students are Satanic.

Pope Nicholas 1st and Pope Gregory 7th put a ban on Bible reading. Pope Gregory 9th forbade Bible possession and ordered them entirely wiped out (1229). Pope Innocent 3rd ordered all who read the Bible should be put to death. Possessing or reading the Bible was forbidden according to the Council of Tolouse and the Council of Trent.

Pope Pius 7th said the Bible was a pestilence back in 1816. Pope Gregory 16th condemned the Bible and ordered priests to destroy as many as they could find (1844). The Council of Tarragona ruled Bibles should be given to bishops to be burned. Pope Pius 9th thought Bible societies were pests and must be destroyed by all means (1866).

The Council of the Vatican declared the infallibility of the popes in the mid 1800’s.

Since the 16th century, the Vatican declares the Virgin Mary absolutely sinless, making her a female god. They even say she was caught up to heaven without dying and crowned queen of heaven. Do you really think Mary wanted millions of people to pray to her? Is praying to a dead human woman found in the Bible?

We only pray to the Lord our God. But, the Vatican promotes praying to dead people (saints) like St. Christopher for protection. Do you really think a saint can protect you?

Is that enough to consider for us to make an educated decision? It’s a little hard to believe, huh? This is the institution you wish to defend?

Peter Nagy • Speaking of the prophesied false religion from Rome.......Do you remember (Dan. 7:24) the 10 horns? The Roman Empire was divided into ten Gothic tribes or kingdoms. There were Heruli, the Suevi, the Burgundians, the Huns, the Franks, the Ostragoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons. 

Do you remember the little horn (Dan. 7:8) that plucks up or subdues three kingdoms? When the Roman Empire fell, the papacy rose to power, still ruling and reigning from Rome. The papacy overthrew three of the kingdoms; the Heruli in 493, the Vandals in 534 and the Ostragoths in 553. 

The little horn wears out the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:25). Who else is responsible for torturing and killing as many as 50 million Christians and Jews than Rome and the papacy? 

The city of Bezier was besieged by men from the Pope that killed 60,000 people in 1209. 
The estimates are that 100,000 Albigenses were slaughtered in one day. After attending high mass in the morning, the crusaders accomplished this massacre at Lavaur, in 1211. 

People were dragged through the streets, hurled from cliffs, and children murdered in front of their powerless parents. 500 women were locked in a barn and set on fire. If any tried to escape out the windows, they were met with points of spears at the massacre of Merindol. 

Pope Pius 4th had men, women and children killed with tortures of every imagination in Orange (1562). 

In 1572 10,000 Protestants were killed in St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. The French King went to Mass to give thanks that so many heretics (Huguenots) were killed. The Pope rejoiced with the news and ordered coins made to commemorate this “great event.” 

“The Inquisition of Spain” by Llorente, acknowledges more than 300,000 suffered in Spain alone. Over 30,000 died in flames and millions were slain for their faith throughout Europe. 

There were priests, bishops and cardinals who were registered members with the Nazi party. For years the Vatican was heavily involved with smuggling numerous Nazi war criminals to safety in South America, both during and after World War II. 

This is only a fraction of the bloody history of the big church in Rome. Don’t get mad at me. All of these events happened way before we were born. Just look it up and verify it for yourself. Where are the torture dungeons in Europe? Under Cathedrals! 

And this is the institution you wish to join up with, and defend? Are you really sure, John?

John Deacon • Peter - I could either debate you on your eschatology or your insistence that all Catholics are going to hell.
But either would result in gnat straining when clearly there is a camel in the room.

Given that you not only believe all Catholics are going to hell but also anyone who believes in the trinity risks going there, let alone those who disagree with you as to who carried Jesus' cross. 
Can I sum up your theology by saying that anyone whose theology differs from yours if not bound to hell, risks at least feeling the heat from its flames?
As the writer Anne Lamott notes - you know your theology is wrong when your god hates the same people you do.
Put another way, you know you've missed the mark when the only ones going to heaven are those whose theology agrees with yours.

That's the camel I referred to earlier. 
That heaven is earned by the rightness of what you believe rather than what the apostle identifies as 'a more excellent way.' 
Whenever Jesus was asked how one might inherit heaven, he never once responded with 'having the right beliefs.' 
Instead he answered with how we are to love our neighbour. In drawing a line between the blessed and the cursed, the line he drew without exception was between those who loved and those who didn't.

Now you may insist that such is works and not faith, but I say it is faith working by love. Our actions give witness not only that we love our neighbour but reveal the God who both wills and does the loving of our neighbour through us. For no one can truly love his/her neighbour without God being at work within.
This love works regardless of our theology. Otherwise those who are mentally impaired from having the right beliefs would be incapable of either giving or receiving God's love. 
The Pharisees had their theology as close to being right as any but they were the ones who most hated Jesus because he repeatedly insisted that love and not right doctrine was the ultimate issue.
Having a sound theology is good but without love it is knowledge puffed up and knowledge puffed up is pride and pride is the devil incarnate.

Yes there are huge discrepancies between what some Catholics believe and biblical orthodoxy just as there is between what some Protestants believe and biblical orthodoxy. But it is not the discrepancy there that delineates the damned from the blessed; it comes down to this one thing: 'he who says he loves God must love his neighbour.' 
If we don't love our neighbour the rightness of our orthodoxy doesn't matter. We are doomed by the hatred we have for our neighbour (Catholic, Muslim, gay whoever) rather than saved by the rightness of what we believe.

I lament with you the grievous actions of the Catholic Church in past. Just as I lament that equally grievous actions of the Protestant Church against First Nations people, blacks, women and the poor. Too often the church regardless of denomination has turned a blind eye if not outright sanctioned genocide against thousands, if not millions of innocents. Need I remind you that the biggest supporter of Nazism in Germany was the German Evangelical Church? So many of those involved in these heinous crimes had 'the right theology.'
What they didn't have was the right 'orthopraxy', the right love.

Our orthodoxy does give us a standard by which to judge doctrine and in many instances to judge actions. What it doesn't give us, is the right to judge on God's behalf the eternal destiny of others, especially those who differ from us. In this we are 'to judge not, lest we be judged.'

Peter Nagy • First of all, brother John, 
I never said all Catholics are destined to hell. I just pointed out some plain information that if they are following Rome's teachings to the letter, they are in direct opposition to, and in contradiction of Scripture. They may have also joined up with the prophesied Roman false religion, which is described as an enemy of Israel, the Lord's believers, and the Lord (Rev. 17). If that will in fact, be a deciding factor on judgment day, that is not up to me. 

Since Protestantism is an offshoot and branch of Catholicism, are some of the Protestant denominations also at the same risk, because of their incorporating some of the Catholic doctrines? Such as the trinity? 

But are we not responsible to at least give any with the ears to hear, a heads up on a few of these critical and well documented discrepancies that should not be ignored? 


And just for the record, what did I say that you could not look up and verify for yourself? That is long documented information, not only in history books, encyclopedias; but in the Vatican archives as well. I didn't write it, it was already written way before I was born!

John Deacon • Two things please me about your response Peter. 
One that you would call me brother given my avowed love of Catholics, Mother T and all. 
Two that you have corrected me on my misunderstanding that you think all Catholics are going to hell. 

And just for the record - I didn't dispute your catalogue of wrongs committed by the Catholic Church. I merely disputed that Catholics are to be judged by their history. Catholics are to be judged by the same standard we all are, 'do you love your neighbour?' 

I agree heartily with you that we are to test what we believe. But the end result of testing still results in this litmus test - 'does what you believe have you loving your neighbour, most especially the neighbour who believes differently than you do?' 
Clearly the Samaritan in Luke 10 would have failed a 'do you have the right theology?' test. But it didn't matter. What did matter is that he passed the test of having loved his neighbour, a neighbour whom both his culture and his religion would have identified as the enemy. 

Unless we do likewise, we are no better than the priest or the Levite, ones closer to having the right theology than the Samaritan but as far removed from God's kingdom as even the worst of Catholic popes!

William Mayor • Since there was an observation about certain titles, might I inquire as to what happens to all those people who use a common term to refer to their male parent? It would seem that they are violating the words of Jesus. That is unless Jesus was meaning something other than what could be taken literally.

Peter Nagy • No sir, I do not think Catholics will be judged for the wrongs committed by the big church in Rome, but their dedication to what the institution believes and teaches is the real question. Of course we love them, but not so much what their institution teaches, right? 

I was raised basically Catholic-ish, and have had a very eye opening last few decades, when I began to discover the Jewishness of Scripture, and how different groups have taken the Bible and made their own respective alterations to it. (referring to the JW's, Mormons, and yes, the Catholics too, who have simply done it for a longer period of time)

I have a 94 year old Catholic theologian neighbor for over 45 years, and he approved and verified all the stuff I posted from my book. He said it was all accurate as far as he knew, and not to change a word of it. He won't call any priest "father" and he won't pray to Mary. He knows the trinity doctrine is not biblical and won't confess to a priest. I said, that makes you a non-Catholic and the Vatican would excommunicate you for that! He laughed and said he was like Luther, and since he was so high up in their ranks, he wanted to try to make a difference from within the system. (I haven't seen a difference so far!) 

John Deacon • Knowing your background is helpful in understanding where you're coming from. 
Does your 94 year old Catholic neighbour like the current Pope? I'm sure he likes Hans Kung! 
I saw a fascinating youtube video featuring Noam Chomsky, who until today I had always thought prophetic but not a professed Christian. 
His take on religion is fascinating and one I highly recommend you set aside the 6 minutes it takes to view it. See Noam Chomsky

Peter Nagy • I figure that if a watchman sounds an alarm, it is up to the people to check the validity. If the people fail to heed the alarm, their blood is on them. 

If I fail to share what might be alarming, isn't their blood on me? I think there's a verse for that too. I was fairly upset that for the first half of my life, NOBODY said anything about this. Even if they knew there was more to it than what Rome teaches, they kept silent. And that isn't fair to those who are honestly seeking, is it?

William Mayor • I would note that whenever any of us reads the Bible we make some assumptions about what it means. Our assumptions may or may not be correct. The assumptions made by the Roman Catholic Church may or may not be correct. Now if one wishes to decree that the assumptions made by someone else are incorrect, that individual might do well to examine their own assumptions because we are warned that we will be judged by the standards we use to judge others. Does anyone wish to gamble their eternal salvation on their ability to know what assumptions are true and which ones are not?

John Deacon • It's a dance I recognize. 
But so often our attempts to inform are excessively alarmist and only add to old prejudices which widen the divide between Catholics and non Catholics rather than help to bring us closer together. 
I have met Christians who have left the Evangelical ranks for the very same reason - that unless their politics and beliefs were militantly anti-gay, anti-pro-choice, anti-unAmerica, anti-social justice; they were not true Christians and were best to find their religion elsewhere. 
One hope I have for this forum is that it gives people of various convictions to hone what they believe as well as occasion to shape what others believe, allowing that the church would be the unhealthiest of institutions were we to agree on everything! 
As the current Pope puts it: 
"We must walk united with our differences: there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus." 
He's right. You think of those first disciples - as varied as any 12 you can imagine - from Zealots, to tax collectors, to fishermen, to romantics - there were probably many days when the only thing they could agree on was who they were following. 

If we can agree on who we are following, the unity will come. From the Catholics I know they are following the One I am, and in many instances better than I am.

Hungry

When a crowd of thousands upon thousands had gathered so that they were crushing each other, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples: “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees—I mean, the mismatch between their hearts and lives. Nothing is hidden that won’t be revealed, and nothing is secret that won’t be brought out into the open. Therefore, whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and whatever you have whispered in the rooms deep inside the house will be announced from the rooftops. “I tell you, my friends, don’t be terrified by those who can kill the body but after that can do nothing more. I’ll show you whom you should fear: fear the one who, after you have been killed, has the authority to throw you into hell. Indeed, I tell you, that’s the one you should fear. Aren’t five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them is overlooked by God. Even the hairs on your head are all counted. Don’t be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows. Notice how the lilies grow. They don’t wear themselves out with work, and they don’t spin cloth. But I say to you that even Solomon in all his splendor wasn’t dressed like one of these. “Don’t be afraid, little flock, because your Father delights in giving you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to those in need. Make for yourselves wallets that don’t wear out—a treasure in heaven that never runs out. No thief comes near there, and no moth destroys. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be too. You also must be ready, because the Human One is coming at a time when you don’t expect him." The Lord replied, “Who are the faithful and wise managers whom the master will put in charge of his household servants, to give them their food at the proper time?"  Luke 12:1-7, 27, 32-34, 40, 42 CEB

Reading the gospels you get the sense that Jesus was the only tree that was blooming. Everywhere he went the crowds would press in on him as though he was the only one with real food. In a world filled with stuff, he had substance.
I think the same to be true today.

Sin and the Gospel

Global Pastors' Network is an evangelical LinkedIn site that I am certain I joined just to be contrary. There is always the possibility that such discussions and debates widen the perspectives of all who contribute, but for the most part the site is characterized by a doggedness of opinion that doesn't seem inclined to bend much...

Chris Harbin • Why Must We Begin a Gospel Presentation with Sin?
Paul certainly presents his argument this way in Romans, but he is presenting an answer to Jews caught up in a battle of legalism. Jesus speaks on the issue of sin, but it does not appear to be his normal starting-point. It is an issue to wipe off the table, but what He wants to present is an alternate perception of God. For Jesus, God is not Judge, so much as a loving Father, desiring relationship and willing to do whatever it takes to ease our human distrust of God.
When we begin the gospel presentation with sin, doesn't that say more about our hang-ups than with the Good News of grace?

Scott Ingram • I never start with sin because even starting there doesn't explain the problem. I always start with creation. God made everything and it was good. When sin and the fall happened, all of that was lost. Salvation, then, is the way by which the goodness of creation is reclaimed and ultimately restored. That is why the Bible says Jesus came to seek and save "that which was lost." Not just "those" who are lost. 

Starting with creation, then, helps me demonstrate why we need a savior to cover our sin and fix us as individuals, but also to demonstrate the global need for a Savior, explaining why injustice happens in the world, and that we get to stand against it as the body of Christ. 


On another note, in preaching against "religiosity" demonstrated in the Pharisees, Jesus even points to the creation to supersede the law of Moses in Matthew 19:3-9. It is the discussion on divorce. The Pharisees ask, "why did Moses allow divorce." Jesus responds that it was for their hardness of heart, but that "from the beginning it was not so," which points to the original intention of God at creation. I say that to say that the creation of all things by God also calls us to repent of our self-righteousness, not only our sin.

Jose Ruiz • The content of the "good news" is that God motivated by love has provided an answer for the effects of sin. Not that he is a loving Father. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Joseph and told him to take Mary as his wife, he gave him the reason why: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Matthew 1.21 NIV If it was important to mention the main point of Jesus' birth is salvation from sin twenty-one verses into the first chapter of Matthew, we should follow the Holy Spirit's example as well. Until someone recognizes their miserable state, there is no good news to deliver.

Arthur Shady • As a man thinketh in his heart so is he. Proverbs 23:7 If a man is drowning, but he thinks he can swim, he doesn't want a life raft. He only wants salvation when he first understands he needs one, when he knows he's in trouble. A lot of people are in trouble with God, they need the Saviour, but they think they are ok. That is why we must convince them that they are lost so they will run to Christ for the cure. Before Moses made a brass pole with a snake on it representing the healing of Jesus on the Cross, He send poisonous snakes to bite the people, and He was the only cure. Jesus said it was an illustration of Him on the cross. The people did not do anything, but believe. All they had to do is look and live.

Bruno VAN de VLIET • Go to Acts and read their presentations

Chris Harbin • Bruno, I see sin often dealt with in Acts, but not everywhere. In Acts 10, sin is not an issue. The issue is Peter's discomfort in entering the presence of the "uncircumcised" or unworthy. God demonstrates no such qualms. 


Arthur, Jesus does not appear to deal with the term "lost" in regard to sin from a standpoint of judgment and condemnation. He seems to deal with the concept in terms of reconciling the distance between humanity and God. God takes that initial step and offers approach without condemnation. As in Isaiah 6, the issue of sin enters on the human side of feeling unworthy, while God as father of the prodigal wishes to wipe the slate clean in order to bring the unworthy creature into fellowship and secondarily make the creature more "worthy" or whole.

John Deacon • Chris - I couldn't agree with you more. We have become so formulaic in our presentation of the gospel that we exclude the creativity and the timeliness of the Holy Spirit in our expression. So when people hear the formula it quite registers with them as something archaic, something irrelevant, something on the verge of demise. 
We who are used to the old wine are terrified of the new. We are bound to old wineskins and hence we cling to 'the old is better.' 

But the Holy Spirit is ever bringing new wine - it is wine as it has always been wine, but it is wine for our generation, a wine which to taste and savour precipitates a new day for the church, with new expressions of grace, and new people saying yes to the call of Christ for their time.

Arthur Shady • Chris, Jesus puts it a little stronger than "lost," He uses terms like condemned and those that perish (John 3). We are lost and confused about the mystery of the gospel in this life, but if we reject Christ we will perish, and that is more permanent.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 

Ephesians 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 

The Bible does refer to unsaved or unconverted people as "lost" though. 

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 
Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. 

Some times we can get too hung up on the terms, certain words, that we miss the point. Words are important, every word in Scripture is important, but let's not split hairs if our only difference is semantics. 


I need to talk to a preacher who is in my office,... will post more later.

Arthur Shady • All you need to know to be saved is who Jesus is (God, Creator, Only way, Isaiah 9:6; John 14:6) and what He did for you (Became our High Priest and made a blood atonement, Hebrews 9). Salvation is by grace alone, or it doesn't exist (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). 

The Bible is clear about us being sinners though: 

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. 

The word here does not mean what the secular dictionary says repentance means. μετανοια "metanoia" means a change of attitude. It's a change of mind that leads to action or decision. Usually metanoeo is used for repentance in relation to salvation of the soul, and that just means a change of mind. 

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. 

Not the sins, but all our righteous works are as filthy rags in His sight. The Hebrews knew He was referring to the filthy stench from the rags lepers used to wrap their sores. That's what God thinks of our religion, tradition, or good works. We could never do enough good works to match what Christ did for us. 


Romans 10:2-4 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Deacon Mike Chesley • If you look closely at the Gospels, how Jesus evangelized, the person alway's had an "encounter" with Jesus. The apostles- Jesus invited them to follow him, the women at the well- an encounter, the blind man, gradually "saw" who Jesus was. Take that as your model for evangelization. If you start with sin, first, you become moralistic, and drive people away. Alway's begin with the Good News, an encounter with the Lord, then the subject of sin makes sense. ( what holds us back from God). This is what Pope Francis has been talking about in the media. The Church doesn't always "need to talk about abortion, artificial contraception, same sex marriage," Is he minimizing those subjects like the media tries to play out? No, what Francis is saying is, "Everyone knows what the church teaches, we don't need to keep repeating it, Show God's mercy, God's love, then a moralistic dialogue can take place. Without an encounter with the Lord, morality will sound only judgemental and outdated in a culture that put's so much emphasis on individualism and relativism.

Arthur Shady • Mike, I would agree with you generally, but inspiration without education leads to frustration. Others may know what we believe, but occasionally, not all the time we need to show them why we believe what we believe so they can see it in the Bible. If they are just following a man then their motives are wrong, but if it is a Biblical conviction they will believe it even if they get another pastor. 


We are to repent of our righteousness. Our righteousness is "self-righteousness" and in God's view that is competition for redeeming your soul. He wants you to repent of your self-righteous self-sufficient pride, and admit you are lost and indeed deserve hell. Therefore you need a Saviour. The only Saviour is Jesus.

John Deacon • I have to admit, much of my thinking on this subject comes from the experience of preachers insisting that sin be the topic in the most inappropriate situations. 
I remember a funeral of a very humble saint whose dying wish was that her funeral make no mention of her. 'Just speak about my Jesus', she insisted. 
So the preacher took the occasion to talk about sin and how we were all sinners in desperate need of Christ's forgiveness. Other than that one reference to 'forgiveness' there was nary a word about Jesus and certainly nothing which reflected why the dear departed loved Jesus the way she had. 
If the preacher had spoken about Jesus he would have done both the deceased and the Lord she loved a great service. But instead all we got was a brow beating that was offensive to anyone there who loved the Lord as she had, and a lifeless testament to an angry god to anyone there who wasn't Christian. 
When I expressed my concerns to the preacher afterwards he insisted that he was just 'preaching the gospel.' He was so accustomed to the gospel being about sin he had lost the ability, the imagination and the love to preach about the person of Jesus. This is tragic and chief to the reasons why so few of the next generation are drawn to the church.

It has been my experience that when the youth hear about Jesus, lover of the outcast, whom no one but the highly religious were reticent to approach, defender of the woman caught in adultery and hard on the religious elite, they come running!

The most destructive sin in our churches

from the Independent Baptist

God will judge us upon how we have treated the most needy. 
The culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial; they offer a fleeting and empty illusion which results in indifference to others; indeed, it even leads to the globalization of indifference. In this globalized world, we have fallen into globalized indifference. We have become used to the suffering of others: it doesn’t affect me; it doesn’t concern me; it’s none of my business! 
Today, and it breaks my heart to say it, finding a homeless person who has died of cold, is not news. Today, the news is scandals, that is news, but the many children who don't have food - that's not news. This is grave. We can't rest easy while things are this way.  Pope Francis

It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view. The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is even beyond our vision. We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God’s work. ... We may never see the end results, but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker. We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future that is not our own.    Oscar Romero

The link to an article entitled 'What is the most destructive sin in our churches today?' was posted on the Global Pastors LinkedIn group. In the opinion of its author, the most destructive sin in the church is gossip.
Those who responded had other sins in mind:

Peter Nagy • Just like it says...His people are destroyed by "lack of knowledge." If wisdom is the knowledge of God, then being ignorant of that wisdom is the sin of a lazy and indifferent attitude towards the things of God, which will be to one's ultimate detriment, right?

John Deacon • The most destructive sin in our churches today is our indifference to the poor, the homeless, the refugee, the single mother, the LBGT communities, those in prison and those advocating at great personal expense for justice and equality for all.

Peter Nagy • I have seen people from Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, and Judaism be very generous and caring to single moms, the poor, homeless, and imprisoned. 

But these various groups all preach, teach, and believe in a different Jesus, than what the other groups believe. The poor still got assistance in each case, but there is the question of "which" Jesus was served, and which Jesus was the real biblical one? 

At least one or more of the above groups would have done proper biblical activities by helping the poor, but to which Jesus was the credit and honor given? If they can confidently accuse each other for serving a different Jesus, who will in reality be blessed for their efforts by the Lord, if they can each show how the other groups are basically considered cults? 

That would mean at least one or more of the groups were doing good things, yet actually serving a different Jesus, wouldn't it?

John Deacon • Good points Peter! 

But the question was: What is the most destructive sin in our churches?' Your response suggests the greatest sin in our churches is the lack of truth being taught. On that point - the point of orthodoxy - is a serious issue for all churches. But the greatest sin? No. 

The greatest sin is as it has always been - our failure to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. Jesus spoke of it as the basis for the Final Judgment. Do we love the least or no? Our love of God is only true if we love our neighbour. 

One other point - which is linked to that incredible passage in Matthew 25:31-46. There is no religion which addresses the issue of poverty, care of refugees etc. as does Jesus. Jesus owns these issues. 'Welcome a refugee into your home,' he says, 'you're welcoming me.' 

For God, the issues of hunger and abandonment are not extraneous to his Person. 

There is no portrait of God anywhere else but in Christianity where God is homeless, a refugee, someone hungry, someone beaten, someone longing for justice, someone dying on a cross. That is the reproach of the gospel. What God becomes in order to rescue us. 

Hence when we as Christians distance ourselves from those in need, we are in fact distancing ourselves from God himself. Hence, our greatest sin.

Peter Nagy • OkeeDokee, I get it. But what about the right act being done from each group, done to serve their respective God? Not all of them can be serving the true God of Scripture, can they? 

The right thing done for the wrong reason, or to serve a God other than the specific one in the Bible, would be hay, wood, and stubble, wouldn't it?

John Deacon • I'm not sure I understand your question. 

Are you suggesting that God only answers our prayers or rewards our kindness to others if we have our theology right? That's a terrifying prospect, given that even among the most orthodox of Christians, it is rare that when any 2 of us think of God we are thinking the same thing. Even if we are agreed as to his attributes, those attributes vary widely among us - some see only His love, others his wrath, others his mercy, others his holiness. 

Are you as well suggesting that God only answers our prayers or commends our good works if our intentions are right? Again - woe is me if that is the case. Were I to wait for assurance that my motives were pure, I'd never do a damn thing to help anyone! 

For me it's the reverse - so reverse that to some it will sound like salvation by good works. 

Gravity works whether you believe in gravity or not. Gravity works regardless of whether you understands how it works. 

So too with God. God works whether we believe him or not and He rewards whether our theology is right or not. 

When God see someone helping another in need, he rewards that person. That reward may be in his drawing that person closer to a truer understanding of who God is; it may be in God's bringing peace to that individual's troubled household. 

The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) who Jesus presents as one whose actions are worthy of 'eternal life' probably had the wrong theology assuming he believed as most Samaritans believed. 

But what he did have right, and sufficiently right that Jesus tells his inquirer that' he is to go and do likewise' - is his demonstration of mercy. 

Apply that to our time and what is Jesus telling us? That if a Muslim shows mercy to someone beaten on the side of the road and left for dead whereas two Christians walk by without caring, the two Christians will have denied the most basic tenet of what they believe thus meriting Christ's rebuke whereas the Muslim with all the wrong theology will merit Christ's praise.

Peter Nagy • Hasn't Christianity drawn the firm line in the sand, that unless someone believes in the Jesus of the Bible and what He did, they are not saved? 

Even a Baal worshiper gave their children food, tried to give them medicine when they were sick, may have helped out a neighbor, and comforted someone when they fell. Will a Baal worshiper be blessed and honored by God for doing those basic acts of humanity?

John Deacon • In answer to your first point - there is no other name. (Acts 4:12) Jesus is both the Saviour and Judge. 

But allowing that Jesus exercises the same latitude in drawing people to himself as the God of the Old Testament - see Luke 4: 24-28; Cornelius in Acts 10 is told that because of his 'prayers and gifts to the poor' he is to summon the Apostle Peter. In part his good works prepared Cornelius for receiving the gospel. 

Thinking as well of Romans 2:10,11 we can't discount the possibility that for many people the first evidence of God's working in a person's life is their being drawn to people in need. 

I have seen this repeatedly in my near 30 years of befriending homeless people and meeting the people who help them. I have also seen many Christians revived in their faith as the direct result of their engaging themselves with those in need, gradually shifting from what might be called a charity orientation to a justice one. I have discovered that sharing my faith with people of differing faiths (principally Muslim) has added weight when we are otherwise linked in the common cause of advocating for people without a voice (see Proverbs 31:8,9) 

That's the great mystery and great beauty of Matthew 25:31-46 - Jesus isn't teaching salvation by works but he does illustrate that we make ourselves accessible to God's grace and mercy when we show mercy to others. Regardless of our theology. 

In a strange way good doctrine and genuine faith is as much shaped by love of neighbour and good works as it is the reverse. 

Jesus taught that it is the putting into practice what he taught that makes us the children of heaven, not merely our acceptance of some theological propositions about his divinity and our need for his intervention in our lives. And he also taught that there is no way we can love our brother and sister without our living in him. They are not mutually exclusive practices; indeed they as needful of one another grace is to truth. 

Not sure this helps - but it is as close as I frame it.

Peter Nagy • That's all fine and well, but take mother Theresa for instance. She tended to countless people's needs and ailments, but throughout her life, taught nothing except Catholicism. 

She did all the things in the physical world you list and more, but served other gods by praying to Miriam (her name was not Mary!) the mother of the Roman god. And she did nothing but lead people away from the true God of the Bible, and straight to condemnation. 

Will people be surprised to see her burn in the lake of fire, if serving the god of Rome instead of the God of Israel is the criteria and a deciding factor on Judgment Day?

John Deacon • If your theology has you sending Mother Theresa to hell, then plainly our theologies are poles apart and there is little else worth discussing. 

Though Protestant myself, I have drawn much inspiration for Christian activism in keeping with Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25:31-46 from people like Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa, Jean Vanier, Dorothy Day, Henri Nouwen and other Catholic Christians. The current Pope's emphasis on the church becoming poor for the sake of the poor should resonate with all Christians. 

If there is no room in heaven for them, then certainly there is no room for me. 

If heaven is only as big as your theology it is a very tiny heaven indeed. 

You need to get out more, engage with the hurting and the mentally challenged more, find what you have in common with people of diverse beliefs to ensure the walls you've built around Christianity aren't walls excluding Jesus himself. Given your passion for being right you don't want to be on the wrong side of 'Lord, Lord when did we see you hungry and not feed you? When did we see naked and not clothe you?' 

Love covers a multitude of sins even the sins not getting our theology right, should that be the case with Mother Theresa. But getting our theology right at the expense of our not loving our poor neighbour covers no sins at all. We only end up condemning ourselves. 

PS - You are selling Mother Theresa short if you think she lead people to someone other than Jesus. I’d encourage you to read Malcolm Muggeridge’s ‘Something Beautiful for God’ (see http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17437.Malcolm_Muggeridge )

Deacon Mike Chesley • Peter,Most of the comments ( if not all) you make on Catholicism are not rooted in historical fact or biblically correct. If you don't like Catholicism that's your choice, but if you choose not to like Catholicism, at least don't like it for the correct information, not distorted fundamentalism that cant stand that test of history.

How Christian is the Tea Party?

"This is the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were proud, had plenty to eat, and enjoyed peace and prosperity; but she didn’t help the poor and the needy." Ezekiel 16:49 

In response to Kenneth's concern yesterday of Christians fighting over politics at the expense of preaching the gospel, I have a counter. 
Jesus was killed for his politics as much as he was killed for his theology. And not just his politics but for how he acted politically. This is central to one of the best Christian books ever written ' The Politics of Jesus' by the American theologian John Howard Yoder. 

It's too obvious to be overlooked but we miss it all the time. Jesus would have never been elected for any political office. How could he? 
With a fiscal policy insisting that the rich sell their possessions to provide for the poor. 
With a defence policy that insisted we were to love our enemies and not kill them. 
With a social policy that stipulated that we are all brothers and sisters having only one Lord and Master, that contrary to the politics of Cain, we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper. 
With a monetary policy that insisted that one could only serve either God or Money, not both. 
With a law and order policy that insisted we forgive one another 70 times 7 even if the wrong being committed was a repeated one. 
With a civics policy that committed all its citizens to visiting those in prison, welcoming into our homes refugees and immigrants, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry etc. 

I repeat - Jesus would never be elected to any political office anywhere - whether Israel, the Vatican, the US, not even here in Canada! 

So when a political party insists in promoting a politics which claims to reflect 'family Christian values' and adopts as its platform 
- the cutting of social programs to the poor 
- the increase of military spending to safeguard the American way of life 
- a law and order policy that increases the number of inmates in what is already the most incarcerated country in the world 
- insists on the constitutional right to bear arms even as year after year more and more of its innocents are being tragically killed; 
you have to question whether that party is advancing the politics of Jesus, or the politics of Empire. 
In my humble opinion, the Tea Party is the politics of Empire so divorced from anything Jesus stood for, it isn't Christian at all. For one's politics to be Christian, it must reflect Jesus - and I think we'd all agree, there is no political party anywhere, which comes anywhere close. 

It is just as important we get this right as we get the matter of Jesus' divinity right. 
Bad politics makes for bad societies whose policies are driven by fear. 
Good politics makes for good societies whose politics are driven by the concern for our neighbour's welfare. 
Christians should ever be advocating the politics which got Jesus crucified but are in the end, the only politics that really matter.