While I find it silly to pit one against the other, I’d like to lay out a reasonable argument for trusting Paul more than the Gospels, rather than the other way around. Again, let me repeat, I don’t think we should trust one more than the other–I think they are equally trustworthy, but I am doing this to make a point. So here are the reasons for trusting Paul over the Gospels:

1. The letters of Paul were written earlier than the Gospels. We should be aware that as time goes by, the possibility of something losing its truth becomes greater. The earliest views of Jesus should be trusted over the later views, which have more possibility of being invented ideas, rather than truths.
2. Paul’s words are his own words. Jesus’ words in the Gospels were written down by other people, not by Jesus himself. How can we trust that they are what Jesus really said or what He was trying to say? With Paul’s words, we have first-hand teachings.
3. The Gospels sometimes frame Jesus’ teachings, so that in one gospel, Jesus’ teaching seems to mean one thing, and then in another, the same teaching has a different meaning. Even if Jesus did say these things, can we trust that the writers of the Gospels are framing Jesus’ words as He intended them? Are we sure they are being used in context?
4. Luke wasn’t even a disciple of Jesus, so he didn’t even hear Jesus’ words first-hand. We don’t know who wrote Matthew. And we are petty sure that Mark was a student of Peter, so he wasn’t a follower of Jesus either. So Luke and Mark aren’t even second-hand accounts. At best, they are third-hand. There is debate as to who wrote John. It may have been written by one of Jesus’ disciples. But even so, it was written very late–probably 90 AD or so.
5. Paul’s teachings are much more systematical and well-argued. It’s pretty clear what he’s trying to say as he goes into long explanations so as to not be misunderstood. With Jesus’ words in the Gospels, He’s constantly throwing out one-liners that can be interpreted in many different ways. Or He’s telling stories without explanations. Paul’s words are more concrete, and can be better trusted for matters of theology and doctrine.
6. Paul was constantly warning the church that others were telling a Gospel different than his (based on works, not grace) after he left them. If there’s anything that contradicts Paul in the Gospels, shouldn’t we consider Paul’s warnings? Especially if those parts of the Gospels seem to make salvation based on works (how you live your life).
7. Jesus didn’t speak Greek (the language of the NT), but Paul did. So the Gospel writers are taking Jesus’ words originally spoken in Aramaic and translating them into Greek. There’s always the risk of a loss of meaning or misinterpretation of meaning when you translate.

Like I said, I don’t agree that we can trust Paul’s words more than Jesus’ in the Gospels, but my point is to cast doubt on people who seem to minimize Paul over Jesus’ words. Is that justifiable? I think from a textual criticism point of view, absolutely not. I think it’s more logical/sensible to cast doubt on the Gospels.

It definitely feels uncomfortable to dismiss the Gospels like this. Shouldn’t we feel equally uncomfortable with those who would do the reverse by minimizing other parts of Scripture?

Before anyone things I’m a heretic, let me explain:

Unlike many other religions, Christianity is based on truth. For example, if Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, Christianity is a lie. And if Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, I refuse to continue as a Christian. That’s because I want to know the truth.  I’m a Christian because I believe it is the truth.

Some people just want to find a religion that makes them happy, or that agrees with their sense of right/wrong, or that brings them fulfillment. Christianity for them is a good option for choosing how to live one’s life. But that’s not the basis of Christianity.

It’s basis is that the events recorded in Scripture actually happened, and that Jesus is who He said He is. That means we can trust Jesus and we can trust His word. The apostles didn’t die for their faith in Jesus, because they could “dig” His way of life (it was actually a difficult way of life). They died for the faith, because they knew He had risen and He was the Son of God who died to save the world from its sins.

If you are currently struggling to figure out which religion one should follow out of the many choices out there, let me give you some advice: go with the truth. Don’t go with what simply appeals to you. If after investigation, you determine that Jesus was a liar, or that He had deluded himself into thinking He was some sort of savior/messiah, then what can I say? But if you are convinced that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, then be confident in Him. Don’t shy away from the truth.

Christians shouldn’t be afraid of the truth, even when it contradicts what we’ve always believed to be true. Either what we’ve always believed is a misrepresentation of what Scripture says, or the “truth” which contradicts the belief really isn’t true, and in the end will be proven as such.

Or, the final possibility is that Christianity itself isn’t true, and as a result isn’t worth committing to. Because the only thing worth committing to is the truth. I believe Jesus is true, and that Scripture is true. While it is a step of faith to believe that, I would rather have faith in what I believe is true than to play it safe with what is false.

(My next post will give some reasons as to why I believe Christianity is true.)

I suspect by the term “evangelical,” he meant a church that takes the Bible literally. At least, that’s my simple definition, although it’s a little more complex than that. By and large, however, evangelical churches tend to view the Bible more literally than mainline or liberal churches. That’s why they evangelize.

Yet with words like “evangelical” or “literal,” pretty soon words like “conservative” or “liberal” start coming up, and it starts to sound political. And general lay-folk start to check out as the discussion starts to sound divisive or unimportant.

That’s why I’m thinking that in order to avoid such language (which can be misleading or confusing), I propose that we start talking about how “seriously” a person or a church takes the Bible.

After all, some parts of the Bible aren’t supposed to be taken literally–they are written in a genre of figurative language, etc. Yet, even parts of the Bible that aren’t supposed to be taken literally–even these passages must be taken very seriously.

For example, when Jesus says that it would be better to gouge your right eye if it causes you to sin, so that you go to heaven with one eye instead of hell with two eyes….there are very few people, evangelical or not, who would take this passage literally and walk around with only one eye in their sockets. Yet, this passage surely should be taken seriously. Jesus, while speaking in hyperbole, intends for his audience to take him very seriously.

Unfortunately, many churches have decided that the Bible shouldn’t be taken too seriously. For example, they marvel at the beautiful language of the prophets, but they don’t realize that the whole point of the prophets speaking is that the nation of Israel wasn’t taking God’s Word seriously. They felt it wasn’t necessary to follow Scripture, but just to appreciate its existence. The prophets declared, “Since you won’t take God’s words seriously, you will soon be crying out seriously.”

Oftentimes, the prophets were speaking at a time when the nation of Israel was experiencing great success and peace from their enemies. As a result, the people would mock the prophets. “What do you mean that God is upset with us? Don’t you see how He’s blessing us–we’re fine!” As a result, many prophets spoke what God told them to say without ever being vindicated during their lifetime. I wish I had that kind of faith in God. I don’t yet, but I seek to be that faithful to God.

Let’s commit to take the Bible more seriously than we do right now–and follow it more seriously. If we find we as churches or church leaders cannot do so any longer, we should reflect on the words of my bro-in-law: What’s the point anymore?

1. Passages that are controversial when you compare them to other passages in the Bible.
2. Passages that are controversial when you compare them to today’s culture.

Unfortunately, many people don’t see the difference between these two types of controversial passages. With the first type of controversial passages, we might have opinions one way or another on how to interpret such passages (even strong opinions), but in the end, we must realize that these passages are interpreted several different ways by scholars who all appreciate the authority of Scripture. As a result, when we discuss such passages, we should make room for disagreements and maintain a “think and let think” attitude toward those who might disagree with us. Such verses deal with issues like:

• Calvinism vs. Arminianism
• Eschatology (pre/post/a-millennial, pre/post/mid-tribulation, etc.)
• Roles of men/women in ministry
• How charismatic gifts operate today

Often, people have strong opinions on these matters, which isn’t bad at all. However, we should all recognize that many strong, Bible-believing Christians may disagree with us. These disagreements shouldn’t prevent us from having fellowship with one another. Some people think it is best to avoid discussions/sermons on such issues because of the divisiveness it brings. Personally, I don’t shy away from controversy. I’d rather provide my audience with all the different viewpoints out there, and also give my own opinion in the matter. Then I leave it up to the audience to make up their own mind. I think this is better than avoiding these issues, because I think that does us a disfavor. Ignorance isn’t bliss. People have a right to delve deep into these issues if they so desire. However, I understand the idea to avoid such discussions, and I don’t think that’s a wrong strategy to have–I just personally don’t gravitate toward that method.

However, that second category of Bible passages which are controversial to today’s culture–we would be gravely mistaken if we treat them the same way as the first category of controversial passages. These passages aren’t controversial because other verses in the Bible question their validity–it is today’s fallen society that questions their validity. The following issues aren’t controversial within Scripture itself, but are extremely controversial in today’s society:

• God created everything.
• Human beings are fallen creatures, evil in the sight of God.
• Sexual relationships with one another outside of marriage is sin (adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, pronography, lust…)
• Heaven and hell exist and human beings will find their place in one or the other when our life on earth has ended
• Without faith in Christ, human beings remain headed for hell.
• It is possible to have a real relationship with our Creator.
• A real relationship with God is only possible when we are cleansed of sin.
• Only through Jesus’ death and resurrection can we be cleansed of sin.

I could go on. All of these are truths that the Bible clearly and uniformly spells out, but our culture finds disturbing. Unfortunately, many churches do as well. They treat these issues the same as the first type of controversial passages: 1) avoid talking about them or 2) embrace people’s rejection of these truths.

The Methodist Church has been heading down this road for quite some time now. As a result, it is often rightfully ridiculed for being passionless and purposeless. In its defense, there is a strong remnant of the Methodist Church that refuses to be this way. They still believe the Bible is God’s Word and that the Gospel as revealed to us in Scripture is true and of utmost importance. I have seen both sides. To the rest of Methodists, such a remnant of believers are extra-zealous or fundamentalists or just plain loopy. The latest example occurred a few days ago when I was videotaping a recent deposition. One of the attorneys was making small talk during a break and shared that her son is going to a Methodist camp this summer for a month. She then qualified by stating that although the camp had religious affiliation, “It’s not over the top, so that’s good. It’s more based on historical things.”

“How unfortunate,” I thought, “that this is all Methodists seem to ever offer.” Then, throughout the day, anytime she was frustrated about anything, this attorney would carelessly and repeatedly exclaim, “Jesus Christ!” It demonstrated to me how we as Christians must not shy away from the great truths of the Gospel and of Scripture, even though they are rejected by the world. If we continue to do this, we will make no impact on the people around us. This is easier said than done. I feel the animosity of the world toward the things of God. People don’t want to hear it. Yet somehow, their hearts must be changed and softened.

The way Jesus commands us to remember Him isn’t by receiving a book of sayings He writes for us; it’s by actually receiving Him. Although He didn’t write us a book, He did commission His apostles to spread the good news. He knew He was leaving, and that it was now the Holy Spirit’s job to speak through the Apostles’ hands and mouths in taking the Gospel to all the world for all times. We can’t get around the fact that 2,000 years later, if there was no written documentation of the life and teachings of Jesus, as well as the Apostles’ Spirit-led understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings, where would we be today? How much truth would be lost by now? Just look at what the Catholic Church today claims was passed down orally by the Apostles–much of it isn’t found in Scripture, and some of it seems to even be opposed to it. How much crazier would Christianity look like today if the Apostles hadn’t written anything at all? Would it at all be faithful to Jesus’ teachings? Would it even still be around?

That’s why, several blogs and days later, I have come to the conclusion that the major difference between orthodox Christianity and other “better” versions of Christianity all boils down to this:

OPTION 1:

You come to the discussion assuming that the Old Testament Prophets/authors, Apostles and Gospel writers got it right. They accurately recall the history between God and His people, and interpret who Jesus was, what He did, and what His life means for the world. If modern-day thinking seems to contradict Scripture, that thinking is in error no matter how attractive or compelling it sounds. Authentic Christianity comes by understanding more fully what the authors of Scripture were trying to say, because they were writing under the expiration (breathing out) of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is ultimately authored by God. New ideas of Jesus’ message cannot be accepted if they contradict the message of Scripture. These types of “new ideas” have been occurring throughout history, and each of them have faded away in time, because God’s Word alone lasts forever. Following Christ is as clear as reading the Scriptures, and following them, because they all point to Christ. Those who do will find new life in Christ in this world and in the world to come. Those who refuse to follow Scripture are refusing to follow Christ, and can expect devastating consequences.

OPTION 2:

You come to the discussion assuming that humanity’s understanding of who God is and what He wants from us continues to progress, and therefore when we look to both the Old and New Testaments, which indeed contain many great truths about God, we will yet continue to find misunderstandings, rabbit trails, and errors of thinking as more time goes on. The Old Testament is quite outdated and mistaken; much of it is better laid aside in light of Jesus’ revelations. Yet, since Jesus himself didn’t leave written materials behind, we mustn’t fully trust everything from the human authors who recount his life and teachings. They couldn’t help but interpret their perceptions of Jesus’ words and life, according to their limited understandings. People like Paul, who also lived in such an ancient culture yet didn’t even follow Jesus’ earthly ministry, are even more susceptible to misinterpreting Jesus’ message. While we didn’t live and walk with Jesus ourselves either, we have the benefit of 2,000 years of theological discussions to enlighten us. Even ideas and stories in other religions may shed some light on God’s truths. Perhaps Jesus’ message was intentionally fluid enough to be able to change and adapt into the sensibilities of each time period–so let’s not write a “gospel” down in stone. As we continue to grow in knowledge and wisdom, the message of the Gospel will show other sides and new ideas that we have not yet seen.

THE CONCLUSION

In other words, I now realize that while Christianity has always been described as trusting Jesus–Christianity really is this: do you trust everything that the Law, Prophets, and Apostles say about Jesus? It seems that many people within our churches today feel they no longer can. This makes me so sad, and is the reason so much of my blog continues to be devoted to these issues. I know as a result of what I have witnessed firsthand, I will never be the same. This experience has changed me for life.

While I always have maintained that the center of our faith is the Gospel message, I realize more today that the Gospel message is found where? In Scripture. So when Scripture is doubted and picked apart, it is inevitable that the Gospel ends up a bloody casualty. I see it happening. Deep inside, I am in mourning. Jesus was already crucified once–are we trying to kill off his message once again? Today, we hear yet again a “new” or “better” Gospel that reflects only portions of Scripture that appeal to us. We discard the rest. There is nothing new about this. These things pop up all the time. There is nothing better about this either. We are breezing over our only hope for salvation, and I don’t know what else I can say except: God, please do something to wake us back up to the truth.

1. He claimed to be the Son of God, even though he knew full well that he wasn’t. He was a liar or deceiver.
2. He honestly thought he was the Son of God out of self-delusion, which makes him a lunatic.
3. Or he was indeed who he claimed to be–our Lord.

Many Christians, including myself, find this argument quite compelling, as long as you believe that the Bible accurately records Jesus’ teachings/words. Remember, Jesus didn’t write any of the Four Gospels, his followers did. This is one flaw many people find in this argument for the divinity of Jesus. They hold out the possibility that Jesus never made these claims for himself, but his followers later attributed these notions to him. However, I believe that Jesus did indeed make these claims, so the argument is solid for me.

We don’t have this problem with Paul. Paul actually wrote some letters, and those letters written by his own hands are contained in the Bible. As a result, I think this argument is even stronger for Paul than it is for Jesus. Let me lay out why I think this, and anyone who sees a fallacy in my logic, I’d like to hear it.

Some people try to pit Paul against Jesus, saying that Paul’s gospel of salvation contradicts Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom of God. For example, Paul’s gospel emphasizes that one needs to only believe in Jesus Christ as Lord in order to be saved. They would say it is hard to find such notions in the Gospels (except the book of John, which is a completely different topic). Jesus, on the other hand, seems to have a message more about how we ought to live, and if we don’t forgive, or if we don’t feed the hungry, we won’t be saved.

Much of the Church’s theology of salvation, sin, the Old Testament Law, and explanation of what the Gospel is comes from Paul’s writings. Yet, he wasn’t one of Jesus’ disciples while on earth. As a result, many scholars feel like Paul sabotaged Christianity and Jesus’ message, turning it into something that Jesus never intended. They feel that Paul took Jesus and his message, and using his own logic, ingeniously formulated conclusions and theologies that reflect more of his contemporary culture and upbringing. They would say that we must only follow what Jesus says himself (although we have already seen that Jesus never wrote anything down in Scripture himself–we are still trusting that his followers got it right).

Well, let’s see what Paul says about himself. In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul says this about the Gospel he preaches:

I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I never received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul is claiming that his teaching didn’t come from another person, or even his own head, but that he received it by revelation. And look at the first verse in this letter to the church in Galatia:

Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)

Wow, Paul is saying that not only is his Gospel not from men, but that Jesus himself–and God the Father–called him to be an apostle. He is not giving us much room here. Either Paul was a liar, a lunatic, or he really was an apostle of Jesus Christ to be trusted with the Gospel of Jesus just as much as those who followed Him while He walked on this earth.

He goes even further with claims concerning himself in chapter 1, verses 15-16:

God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles…

Wow, either this guy really is a big liar, or really self-deluded, or…could this be true? He later says in this passage that three years after Jesus converted him by supernatural revelation, he met Peter and James, but no none of the other apostles. To eliminate our first possibility that Paul is lying about all these things, he says in verse 20:

Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.

He is basically swearing by God that he’s not lying about all of this. If he is, he is a liar of such enormous degree now, that anything he writes is simply laughable, if not blasphemous to the highest degree. And if he is delusional, it’s pretty severe. In verse 24, he claims that the Jewish churches where the apostles were serving, who hadn’t yet met him but had heard of him, were “glorifying God because of me.” Then in chapter 2, verse 2 he states that 14 years later:

It was because of a revelation that I went up, and submitted to [the apostles] the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.

Once again, he claims that it was by a revelation, not because of any human desire on his part or anyone else’s. In verse 9 of chapter 2, Paul then states:

And recognizing the grace that had been given me, James and Peter and John, who were respected as pillars [of the church], gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Now he claims that after he explained to them the Gospel as he preached it to the Gentiles, he received the approval of the apostles who followed Jesus on earth to continue doing so, and their only request was that he “remember the poor–the very thing I also was eager to do” (verse 10).

So he is claiming what again?

1. God the Father, the One who raised Jesus from the dead, called him to be an apostle.
2. Jesus called him to be an apostle.
3. He received his Gospel by revelation from Jesus himself.
4. The Gospel he preaches is indeed from God, not his opinions.
5. Peter, James and John approved him as an apostle alongside them.
6. Peter, James and John were in agreement with his message.
7. He was called by God before he was even born.

Unlike the claims of Jesus, these are not claims written by someone else who is trying to remember what Paul said about himself. Paul is writing these claims himself. So there is no question that Paul is making these claims.

In this book of Galatians, Paul attacks those who would teach a different Gospel than the one he teaches. He warns them of the danger of straying from what he taught:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting God who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which really isn’t another gospel.

He is saying that if we desert Paul’s Gospel, we are really deserting God himself. Wow. And he says there is no “other” Gospel than the one he preaches. There’s only one gospel. He continues:

There re some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Once again, he says his Gospel is really Jesus’ gospel. And he says that even if Paul himself returns to them and changes the gospel or contradicts the gospel as it was preached to them–even if an angel from heaven were to do so–don’t believe them! Let that person or angel be accursed! Can he make it any clearer? Paul believed that his Gospel was the gospel truth. And he instructed the church to test what other people say based on what Paul taught them, because he is saying that it wasn’t really Paul teaching them, but actually Christ through Paul.

Why should it be any different today? Why shouldn’t we test the claims of Christian teachings today against what Paul teaches us is the Gospel? We should do so, unless you think he was a liar or a lunatic.

If not, he was who he claimed to be: one of the Lord’s Apostles. And his Gospel message then is that of the other apostles, because in Paul’s own words, there is no “other” gospel.

If I haven’t made myself clear that there shouldn’t be a distinction between Paul’s gospel and that of Jesus or the other apostles, I’ll let Paul speak for himself again from his letter to the church in Corinth:

Each of you is saying, “I follow Paul,” and “I follow Apollos,” and “I follow Peter,” and “I follow Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

By following the Gospel, as Paul lays out, we are not following Paul. We are following Jesus. What Paul wrote didn’t come from himself–it came from God.

———————————————————————————

TRUST JESUS, NOT THE BIBLE
The idea goes something like this: Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, not the Bible. Jesus is the word of God (John 1:14), not the Bible. The Old Testament tried its best to describe who God is, how He acts, what He wants from us. But it was written by people who didn’t have the knowledge of God given to us by Jesus, and therefore they attribute things to God that aren’t really in His character. And it’s not just them that do this. Even in the New Testament, various authors in their zeal of God over-reach themselves. People like Paul, for example, who is trying his best to understand what it means that Jesus has come in the flesh and how we should respond to that truth. But we also have something better than the writings of people before Christ and the people after Christ (who are humans like the rest of us). We have the very words of Christ himself! Paul wasn’t the Son of God. Paul didn’t die for our sins. Paul isn’t the Way, the Truth, the Life. He didn’t come down from heaven. He isn’t our Savior, and he isn’t the Messiah. Jesus is! So, sure, it’s great to read what Paul or Old Testament writers had to say–just like it’s great to read what any Christian philosopher has to say down the centuries. But we aren’t to trust Paul or his words with our life–we’re supposed to trust Jesus and his words with our life. We should really focus on the teachings of Jesus, and as long as you do that, you’ll be fine. But once you start to trust and follow Paul’s teachings–watch out! Because he was a man just like the rest of us. And let’s not even get started with the Old Testament. It was all written by other men too–and all centuries before Jesus, the light of the world, ever came!! They were writing under much misunderstandings about who God is–stick with the words of Jesus. He showed us who God really is.

———————————————————————————

To be clear, I don’t think that people who believe this way would throw out the Old Testament or the Epistles completely. Just like they wouldn’t throw out Max Lucado or Koran completely either. Instead, it seems to be more of a continuum. We can trust Jesus’ words to be true the best. I am curious if they would say that we can trust all of Jesus’ words to be true, however. It seems even his words are “pick and choose.” Then next comes perhaps Paul or some other New Testament writings. They can be trusted to contain quite a bit of truth about God as well, although not all of it. It is all rather insightful however, though some parts seem to misrepresent the message of Jesus. The Old Testament has some light about God as well–although we find many more sketchy parts than we do in the New Testament. In fact, there are some parts of the Old Testament that just aren’t insightful at all and quite possibly grossly misrepresent God. The Koran, other spiritual writings,  I would assume, follow below that.

How does this play out? What’s the big deal? One example is if Jesus is silent on an issue, even though the rest of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) speaks uniformly and plainly. Since Jesus doesn’t outright discuss His viewpoint on the matter, we cannot be sure whether the position taken by the rest of Scripture can be trusted or not. As a result, we shouldn’t have strong convictions on those matters. An example I encountered deals with the issue of homosexuality. Jesus never specifically says that homosexuality is a sin. Yet everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bible, it is declared to be sin. In light of this, my church decided to go with Jesus, rather than the Bible. If Jesus didn’t speak against it, neither should we. If He didn’t speak or preach about it, neither should we. It was so determined that we should allow Christians to practice this lifestyle. It was also permitted for Christians in homosexual relationships to serve in leadership capacities at the church. Church leaders congratulating and supporting homosexual couples who chose to commit to monogamous relationships by attending their civil union ceremonies was considered appropriate and Christ-like. After all, Jesus hung out with sinners and drunkards. Not that we mean that homosexuality is a sin…

Following this logic can get even more messy…what other things did Jesus remain silent on? Well, for starters Jesus is silent on quite a bit of alternative sexuality (although he addresses adultery): He never mentions incest. He never says that having sex with animals is wrong. He also never says anything against rape. I personally wouldn’t lump homosexuality in with some of those things, but I list them to make a point. Even beyond sexuality, what other things does Jesus never address? He never says that it’s wrong to build an idol and worship it as Yahweh. He never said it was wrong to get drunk/wasted. Only the rest of the Bible talks about those things.

Of course, this “better” Christianity pits Jesus against the rest of the Bible beyond the issues of homosexuality or any particular sin. It is bigger than that. The idea is that Jesus was a person who was loving and accepting of everyone, whereas the Old Testament reveals a God of wrath and judgment. For example, when the Old Testament claims that God told the Israelites to destroy man, woman, and child–today, through Jesus Christ, we realize that God would never have commanded them to do something as evil as that. That’s how the argument goes. It makes me wonder about their position on bloody, smelly animal sacrifices. God surely wouldn’t have commanded them to sacrifice animals for their sins to be forgiven. That’s just animal cruelty. The Israelites just felt guilty for their sins, and sacrificing animals made them feel better by easing their guilt. Of course, once you eliminate this as coming from God (as bloody, gross, disgusting, revolting as animal sacrifice is), you eliminate the idea of Jesus’ death on the cross as being the fulfillment of the sacrificial system ordained by God. Jesus’ death loses its significance. Do we sacrifice animals today now that Jesus has come? No, because Jesus’ sacrifice ended that need any longer! But not because Jesus somehow corrected the Jews for thinking it was from God and enlightened them of a better way. Just because we don’t do it today doesn’t mean that God didn’t ordain it for that time. In fact the book of Hebrews declares that the animal system was ordained by God INTENTIONALLY imperfect, to point to Christ. God ordained it–that is, if you believe the book of Hebrews.

Of course, people who hold this claim — that Jesus is all about grace, while the OT God is about judgment — fail to realize that Jesus spoke of fiery hell far more than any other person in Scripture. In fact, the Old Testament never mentions it–it just talks about Sheol/Grave–the place where good and bad people go alike. Jesus was much more “judgmental” than that. Even Paul doesn’t come close to talking about hell as much as Jesus does. And there are numerous places in the Old Testament that refer to God as merciful/gracious–Jesus’ teachings were not new on these points. Beyond this, in the New Testament, God kills Ananias and Sapphira in “Old Testament barbaric” fashion. Luke, who wrote one of the gospels of Jesus, writes this account as well. Do we trust him when he writes the book of Luke, but not when he writes the book of Acts? Which raises the question–why do we even trust what Jesus says in the gospels if He didn’t write them? We don’t even know who wrote Matthew or Mark, although some people have their opinions. And many question the book of John too. So can we really trust that any of it is what Jesus really said if Jesus didn’t author the books? (Yet we have books of Paul’s teachings that were actually authored by Paul.)

Speaking of Paul, why do we feel the need to pit Jesus against Paul? Like I laid out in the last post, most of these arguments center around taking Jesus’ words out of context, such as “Do not judge.” Sure, Paul said things that Jesus didn’t. And Jesus said things that Paul didn’t.  In fact, they seem to complement each other quite well! Jesus himself said that the apostles would receive the Holy Spirit after He left, and that the Holy Spirit would teach and guide them in all things (John 16:12-15). If Jesus really said that, why can’t we trust the words of the apostles, even if they weren’t said by Jesus himself? Can’t we trust what is written by the apostles after Jesus left? That includes Paul, who was also appointed by God as an apostle. In Acts (once again, written by the same author who wrote the words of Jesus in the book of Luke), we see how Peter and the rest of the apostles who followed Jesus embraced Paul (Acts 15:25-26). Paul mentions himself that Peter, James, and John–Jesus’ closest disciples–recognized him (Galatians 2:9-10).Of course, maybe Paul was just a flat-out liar…but then why would his books have been so revered and protected by the early church if it were so? If it became known that Paul was lying about his apostleship or harmony with the other apostles, he and his writings would have been discredited.

Even after Paul blatantly calls Peter out publicly for his hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-21), later on Peter himself recognizes Paul’s writings as on a similar level as Scripture!!! (2 Peter 3:15-16) And he also forcefully warns his readers about people who will try to distort Paul’s writings, as they distort the rest of Scripture. Distorting Paul’s writings and the rest of Scripture–that sounds eerily familiar. Why should we assume Jesus contradicts Paul, when His own disciples affirm both what Jesus said and what Paul taught? And why should we assume that Jesus contradicts the Old Testament when Jesus’ apostles use the Old Testament to prove He is the Messiah? Obviously they did not view the Old Testament like this “better” Christianity. Jesus himself, on the way to Emmaus, opens the Old Testament Scriptures to show people he is the Messiah (Luke 24:25-27).Jesus calls them foolish and slow of heart for not believing the Old Testament Prophets. And He shows us today that we can trust the Old Testament when He reveals to them on the road to Emmaus that Moses and all the prophets were inspired by God–not just writing their own words.

At the end of the day, the question being raised here is “Did God really say…?” Did God really say that homosexuality was a sin? Did God really say that all who do not turn to Jesus will be tormented in eternity? Did God really say, “No one gets to the Father except through me?” Did God really say that the way is narrow and only a few will find it? The first temptation the devil used as the serpent was to ask “Did God really say…?” We must both know what is in God’s Word, believe it, and battle our flesh so we do not repeat Adam and Eve’s mistake of giving in. We’ll neglect what God says in His word, because we no longer believe He would say something like THAT! And we would be wrong.

In fact, it is quite ironic that, when I was told that “my” view of Christianity (as if I’ve come up with something new) and my attitude was narrow-minded, judgmental, and arrogant, the very people telling me that I was judging were doing exactly that–and to an even greater degree.

In other words, I did in fact “judge” their positions by stating that I completely disagree with their positions on matters that I believe are central to the Christian faith, and that I firmly believed they go completely against the whole of Scripture. I made judgments on their positions, for sure, but did not belittle them as persons in doing so. In return, those who would say that we shouldn’t judge responded by making judgments not only on my positions (which is completely fair and appropriate), but also belittling who I am as a person when they stated I was judgmental, arrogant, and narrow-minded for believing that Jesus is the only way, for example.

This is what too often happens by those who say “Don’t judge.” When someone tells you that you are judging–by saying this, they are now judging (and not just judging your beliefs, but sometimes even your motivation, intelligence, or character). The reason for this circular conundrum is a misunderstanding of what Jesus means by “Don’t judge.” Almost anything we say is considered a “judgment.” By this definition, that last statement itself is a judgment. See how quickly absurd this can get? This “better” Christianity distorts the intent behind Jesus’ command, and judges any kind of judgment to be against Jesus’ teachings. (Which makes their own assertion go against Jesus’ teachings, if you follow their logic.) Their logic goes something like this:

…………………………………..

DON’T JUDGE!
Shouldn’t Christians be loving people instead of judging people? Jesus said it plainly–’Do not judge, or you will be judged.’ Jesus taught us clearly to love one another, not judge one another. Yet that’s what so many “Christians” do. They judge other people. Jesus said to let the ‘wheat and tares’ grow together, and God will sort it out in the end. We’re not supposed to do the sorting. We don’t know who is the “good wheat” and who are the “evil weeds/tares.” Only God does. Our job is to love people and accept them for who they are. Not to make judgments on their lifestyles, decisions, attitudes, actions. Jesus ate with sinners. He didn’t judge them. He loved them. But that’s not what we see today from Christians. We see Christians confidently declaring that homosexuality is a sin (even though Jesus never said that). If that’s not judging–what is? And they use Bible verses to tell other Christians that what they are doing is wrong. Hello? Can we say judgmental? Jesus summed up the entire Scripture by only two commands:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Let’s stop the judging, and start loving like Jesus lived and taught.

…………………………………..

This all sounds good (because there is quite a bit of truth in this argument), but not all of it is true (I’m judging again!). And it is also leaving out quite a bit of truth (another judgment!).

In the same chapter (Matthew 7) where Jesus says don’t judge, He tells us to not cast our pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). Jesus says we should realize some people are swine? That’s judging! In that same chapter, He also says to beware of false prophets. And He name-calls them wolves (Matthew 7:15). What? Jesus says we should look out for false prophets? That’s judging people! Also in that same chapter, He warns that only a few people will find the narrow way that leads to life, but that most people will follow the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14). Whoa! He’s saying that most of us are going to hell! Now Jesus himself is judging! He’s not even following His own teaching–He must be a false teacher and hypocrite! Especially when He calls other people hypocrites over and over throughout his teachings–that’s judging if I’ve ever heard it! Or how about when He says that it would be better for a millstone to be tied around someone’s neck and then thrown into the sea, than for someone to lead a little child astray from the faith (Mark 9:42)? That sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me! Of course, those who say “don’t judge” pick and choose which passages of Jesus they like and don’t like. You’ll hear quite a bit from the ones that sound “nice” and “non-judgmental,” but as a result you get a severely skewed picture of the message and person of Jesus.

Apparently, when Jesus says not to judge, He doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t judge someone’s message (false teachers). And He doesn’t mean that we should judge if someone is worthy of “our pearls,” or if instead they are a dog or swine (whew, harsh!). But what I believe He does mean is that we are not to set ourselves in a higher level of spiritual authority than everyone else, as in the position of judge of people’s souls. That’s God’s position, not ours. It’s not our place to condemn anyone to hell. We pronounce punishment upon them like only a judge should. Instead, we must help each other out like brothers and sisters ought to (James 5:19-20). This, of course, requires using our judgment. But James also warns us, like Jesus does (Matthew 7:2), that teachers will receive a stricter judgment (James 3:1), because by being a teacher/leader/guide, we now carry more responsibility than just our own souls, but also a certain level of accountability for others’ souls (Mark 9:42 again). But it doesn’t say that we shouldn’t be teachers! It doesn’t say that we shouldn’t guide people in the way they ought to live their lives. We must help one another (love your neighbor as yourself), and that may mean confronting them in order to bring them back into truth (James 5:20).

This must not deter us from loving our neighbor as ourselves. Yes, “don’t judge” has been used to argue against correcting brothers and sisters who are in sin. “Don’t judge them–love them!” But if we are indeed to love them, we must see their soul as just as important to God as ours. If we are not to correct each other in love…why do we preach sermons every Sunday? Do we not in this way instruct one another on how to live for Christ? Why be in small groups? Why be a parent to our children? Why not just live in isolation from everyone else? When Jesus says not to judge, He surely doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t judge/recognize a tree by its fruit, since He commands us to do so (Matthew 7:15-20). When He says don’t judge, He means that we recognize that we are just as much sinners as our brothers and sisters. We are no better off.

Remember when the adulterous woman is presented to Jesus? He dares everyone to cast stones. We all realize we must not do that. Jesus shows love, forgiveness, and compassion on the woman. And the last thing He tells her is, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). He describes her sin as what it is–sin. And He instructs her to leave her life of sin. But He does it in love, not condemnation. This is how we are to love one another. Not by dismissing their sin and allowing them to continue disobeying the will of God. But by lovingly showing them that although we recognize their sin, we love them like God loves them. He asks us to walk away from our sinful life and follow Him instead. And we encourage/instruct everyone else in love to do the same. Don’t stone someone. (That would be judging them.) But help them recognize their sin and leave it. You may have to point it out to them. You may have to be firm with them. That’s not the same thing as stoning them. And that’s not “judging.”

Jesus himself says that we will notice when our brother or sister sins. He doesn’t say to ignore it. Matthew 18:15-17 says that we should instead go to our brother or sister when this happens. And at the end of this method that Jesus teaches, if they still refuse to “go and sin no more,” we are to treat them as a “Gentile and a tax collector.” Sounds pretty harsh, huh?

When Jesus says not to judge, he clearly doesn’t mean we aren’t to use our judgment. He simply means what He says about the tares and wheat–it’s not our place to evaluate someone’s life and determine who is going to heaven and who isn’t. First, we don’t know everything about that person–only God does. And we must also remember–He’s knows everything about us too. No, I refuse to throw stones at anyone. I refuse to pronounce judgment on anyone. But I will love my brother and sister enough to tell them that Jesus is the only way! I will love them enough to warn them about eternity without Jesus. I will love them enough to walk with them when they struggle in their sin. I will love them enough to not give up on them when they give up on their struggle with sin. I will try to be the voice of truth and love. I will speak out, and am doing so even now.

Of course, I had been teaching this to the youth, and was dismayed to learn that the church felt this was unnecessary and not beneficial to do so.

Through this experience, my eyes have been opened to realize that churches like this really do exist out there. Sure, I’ve always known that, but I never thought it was so prevalent that I would actually be part of one.

In addition, I discovered that the arguments given to me for why I was wrong for my beliefs would be rather persuasive to anyone who doesn’t read their Bible, which is very scary to me. Because statistics show (and people’s understanding of the Bible show) that most people who go to church don’t read their Bibles regularly.

In the weeks that have followed my resignation, I’ve been looking hard at Scripture–and what I’ve found has amazed me. Of course, I knew that Scripture preaches that Jesus is the only way, etc. so that didn’t surprise me. But what has surprised and encouraged me is how powerful, alive, and transforming the gospel is.

It’s like I’m experiencing it anew all over again. A re-genesis of sorts.

But I lose sleep almost every night thinking about the people who remain at Genesis. Some of them have come to the conclusion that this issue is unimportant, and amounts to nothing more than simply parsing doctrinal hairs. They would say, “We can get along with you and your beliefs–why can’t you get along with us?” Then there are others who have no clue that the church feels this way about the gospel, because the gospel is never presented. Like me, they probably have wondered why we don’t talk about it, but assume that it’s because our sermons are more seeker-friendly. Yet they don’t realize the danger of not hearing the gospel on a regular basis. Pretty soon, if you’re not careful, you devalue the gospel in your own life, because it is no longer central in the life of your church (especially if you’re also not reading Scripture regularly). And when someone starts to feel strongly about the gospel, you start to wonder as well if they are being narrow-minded and judgmental. I hope many more begin to wake up to the awesome truth of the gospel of Jesus!

My prayer for the church is that it would experience a re-genesis as well. Square one is the most important, and can’t be skipped over. It’s the foundation for everything else we try to build upon. When I first joined Genesis, I believed that God told me that it would not only “survive” as a new-church plant, but that it would indeed become the church that God desired it to be in the face of many mistakes and seeming impossibilities. I still believe that for Genesis, and at this point am learning to have hope against all hope. Praying for a Re-Genesis!

In upcoming blogs, I’m going to clearly show how sharply convincing, yet dangerous, it is to no longer believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to God. Not only is it appealing to people in today’s culture, it’s appealing to people in today’s church. I think you’ll quickly realize that the root for this belief begins with a devaluing of the authority of Scripture. Some might think that this isn’t a huge deal–but in the end, once you’ve cast doubt on Scripture as being divine revelation from God, a whole bunch of craziness begins–like doubting faith in Jesus as the only way to God and much more. We start to trust our own fallen reason, or the attractive philosophies of people around us, over what God has revealed himself.

What does a Christian have at his/her disposal to trust and follow?

1. Scripture

2. Oral tradition from the Catholic Church, which they claim came from the Apostles

3. Opinions of Christians down the centuries

4. Opinions of present-day Christians (i.e. pastors, scholars, etc.)

5. One’s own opinions

I would much rather trust and follow what the Apostles/Scripture writers taught in their writings than any of the others on this list when they seem to disagree with Scripture. Why?

Simply, the Scripture-writers were there at the beginning of the faith and warned us against others who would come after them and would deviate from their teachings. If you doubt the writers, how much more should you doubt any who follow if their teaching seems to disagree?

I believe this is one of the reasons why the Jews had so much difficulty accepting Jesus. His coming and preaching made many of the commands in the Law seem trivial. The Jews refused to deviate from their Scriptures, simply because some man who came thousands of years later showed up. The only way they could entertain the idea of adjusting their view of Scripture is if that person had more authority than Scripture itself. That person would have to be greater than the prophets who wrote Scripture. If Jesus was not truly the Son of God, the right thing to do was to continue following Scripture as it had been passed down to them.

If you would trust and follow something else on this list in spite of what Scripture says, I would like to know why. Do they claim to be the Son of God? Do you think they, like Jesus, deserve to have more authority and credibility than Scripture?

In short, if Scripture is wrong or misleading, Jesus himself will need to clarify–not someone else on that list.