Commentary on "Garden of Love" by William Blake

Garden of Love by William Blake

I need to disagree with most commentators on this poem. Certainly, this poem is about how the church opposes the "natural" state of "love" (at least, sexual love); yet I believe that Blake, like most romantic poets, was almost totally wrong.

First, they put up the bogeyman called "the church" and attack it, yet the church is not original here. Rather, it's the Bible that clearly supports some forms of sexual love and says "thou shalt not" about others.

But the more basic problem is that they assume, without argument, that the current natural state of sexual love is good and that the church (following the Bible) is wrong in stating "thou shalt not." This is far from obvious to me. There's no rational way of proving it. And, regarding our actual experience with life, a simple look at what is now the "natural" state of sexual love indicates this is not so: all the murders and infidelities and treacheries that have been committed in the name of "natural" sexual love, the hundreds of extant venereal diseases.

Blake is right on one point: in the "garden" (assuming he was referring to Eden), natural love was good; but we are clearly not in that garden any more. It's not "the church" that bars us from re-entering: it's your sin and mine. And that's not a simple problem that is easily solved by writing emotional panegyrics on the goodness of unbridled sexual love: it's a problem that's only solved by the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross.

In summary, by all means read and analyze the poetry of Blake: but if you want to get to the truth of the matter, I urge you to throw off the easy emotional answers chosen by Blake and look for deeper rational answers. Perhaps you'll find the church (and neither Blake's caricatures of it, nor your own emotions) was really right in the first place.

I'm sorry Christians do things in church that annoy you ...

But frankly, church is primarily for believers, and not primarily for unbelievers. That's the tough truth. This all started with a posting by a fellow who calls himself the Friendly Atheist. Mr. FA really seems quite a reasonable fellow, and probably a nicer guy in person than I am myself. Truthfully, I know where he's coming from: I can understand some of these things annoying him. Some of them annoy me, too. But emotions and thinking are two different things, and I think it's important to rationally separate things that annoy one about church (or anything, for that matter) into several categories:

• Things that annoy for purely emotional reasons
  
• Things that annoy because they are unbiblical
• Things that annoy because they are biblical, and the annoyee is unwilling to accept Biblical authority

I submit that items in the three categories are completely different. In a spirit of "friendliness" myself (hopefully), I'd like to examine each of the items on his list of things that annoy him about church, trying to use the above categories as a filter.

1. Wave their hands in front of my face making it impossible to see the stage.
   
   Many Christians would agree with you on this one. Of course, for Bible believers, there is 1 Timothy 2:8 to deal with. I've heard this exegeted as referring to how Christians live their lives in general and having nothing to do with actually raising one's hands. Yeah, but ... the rest of the passage is not only about general behaviors but also about specific ones. Certainly, you can interpret "holy hands" as meaning "general works"; on the other hand, I am not familiar with a lot of uses of the word "hands" alone to mean "works." In all the passages this site quotes, the Scripture does not use "hands" as a synonym for works; in fact, each of them specifically says "the works of [one's] hands." This relates "hands" to "work" but at the same time contrasts them.
   
   Now, I do understand that "hands" may be used metonymically, and "holy hands" mean "undefiled actions"; thus I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw that God does want our actions to be undefiled. However, I'd want a little stronger support for the thesis that the believer's works are all Paul had in mind when he mentions "hands" here. What I'm saying is that it seems to me at least as plausible to interpret this use of hands literally as metonymically, especially given the existence of similar prayer positions in the Old Testament.
   
   On the other hand, actually waving one's hands in somebody else's face is just plain rude. "All things are permissible but not all edify."
   
   
2. Yell out random words (“Praise Jesus,” “Hallelujah!”) while I’m trying to listen to the sermon.
   
   This one I agree with. I don't see any Biblical precedent for doing such a thing.
   
   
3. Walk in after the music— or worse yet, the sermon— has started.
   
   I agree with this, but unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way. Everybody knows Sunday morning is the most hectic time of the week. I would suggest a bit of grace in dealing with people, a little less judgmentalism - "Judge not, etc."
   
   
4. Look at me with anxiety because I’m brown.
   
5. Look at me with excitement because I’m not white.
   
   I haven't seen such things personally, but I agree that they have no place in church. The only thing I'd say about point number 5 is that many believers want less self-segregation on Sunday mornings, more worshiping the Lord together regardless of race, and that leads to that reaction. Again, I would urge some tolerance here of #5; for #4 there is no excuse.
   
   
6. Assume that because I know about the Bible, I must believe in the Bible.
   
   Well, as a first cut, is this an unreasonable assumption to make? After all, if you were to walk into an atheist's meeting a good first guess would be that you were there because ... wait for it ... you were an atheist? If you go to a meeting of Spanish speakers, wouldn't a good initial assumption be ... that you speak Spanish? Now, if they persist in thinking you a believer after you make your position known (gently and thoughtfully, one would hope), they should change their opinion. But as a first guess, this seems perfectly reasonable to me.
   
   Additionally, you have to understand where some of these thoughts come from: churches that have fallen into the abyss of seeker-sensitivity. I have to say, it's obvious from many of your comments the kind of churches you've been visiting. In those churches, the assumption is that there's a small set of people who are serious believers, a certain set of people who are unbelievers, and a great mass of people who are what one might call semi-believers (see next point). In reality, of course, there is no such thing: either you is, or you ain't. They naturally therefore assume that if you know the Bible you fall into the first category.
   
   
7. Perform a skit that is supposed to tell the day’s message.
   
   All I can say to this one is "Amen, preach it brother!"
   
   
8. Tell me I’m on the “right path” by being there.
   
   It depends on what they mean by this. If they are following the typical seeker-sensitive semi-Pelagian idea that you're moving yourself ever closer to Christ, then I totally disagree with them. But if they mean that by being there you may hear something that may change your life and they're glad for that, then I totally agree with them. (See #13.)
   
   Now, I should say that I don't think this is a good thing to say something like this to somebody, and likely would not say it myself. However, the reality is that most people who you might have heard say this are probably just opening their mouth before engaging their brains. I mean, think about it from their point of view: they meet you, and based on your apparent knowledge of some of the Scripture, assume you're a believer. Then you rock their world by telling them (gently, I hope) that you're an atheist. Many people would be slightly flummoxed in this kind of situation, especially for those who have not encountered many atheists before. An awkward silence ensues, and they want to say something, anything. So, to fill the silence, they (unwisely) say the first thing that pops into their minds.
   
   I don't know about you, but I've later kicked myself for saying many of the things I have said in such situations in my life. Perhaps you are better composed than the rest of us; but have a little tolerance for those who without as strong a constitution.
   
   
9. Pass out Christian business directories.
   
   Well, there are various schools of thought on these directories. I don't think they're appropriate to "pass out" in church, and I haven't seen that literally happen anyway. But, while I don't use them myself that often, I don't see a problem with having them. There are two valid ways of looking at them, and your purely utilitarian examples are not either of them. First, some people interpret 2 Cor. 6:14 specifically as applying not only to marriages and close friendships but also to business relationships. For them, a natural outworking of their faith in their life requires them to work with Christians wherever possible. So can't you be tolerant of their sincerely-held convictions even if they differ from your own? Second, we are called to be good stewards of our money. Some people feel that wherever possible, it should be kept in the Christian community. I am not sure whether I feel the same way; but let's turn it around. I do wonder what your take would be on things like the Black Business Directory? Is that a valid discrimination to make? If that kind, why not this? Even if we conclude that neither is a valid discrimination, it seems a "live and let live" attitude is probably appropriate here.
   
   On the other hand, I don't know whether to react to your strawman example of "brown lawyers" with laughter or pity. I don't know where you have been, but I have been in a large number of churches since my conversion from Buddhism/agnosticism/Unitarianism 13 years ago; and I cannot think of a single one of them where "brown" people have been looked down on.
   
   
10. Ask me if they can pray for me.
    
    All I can go by here is my experience, and my experience in the responses of people (both believers and unbelievers) when I ask this question is an unbroken string of positive responses. Everybody I have said this to has responded with thanks for my thoughtfulness, even if they do not share in my belief; this is true whether they are Christian, agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or Wiccan. Where I come from, it's customary to thank people for thoughtfulness. Maybe that's just me though.
    
    
11. Ask me if they can pray for me, then put their hands on my shoulders and begin praying.
    
    There is clearly Biblical precedent for this, whether for the purposes of blessing or invoking the Holy Spirit. As with item #1, not all will take such Biblical uses of "hands" so literally, although the New Testament is pretty clear that it was a normative practice at one time at least. Certainly, the Bible does not support performing this action when the other person is clearly uncomfortable or annoyed by it, so it would probably be best to not practice it in encounters with you specifically. Again, though, I urge you to have tolerance of those who take this as a natural practice, and appreciate their thoughtfulness and intentions even if you disagree with them. A friend who is of uncertain-to-me faith (as far as I can tell, sort of a roll-your-own Buddhist/Wiccan) recently told me that she was going to send prayers for my healing to an uncertain destination and I believe do some ritual involving candles. I don't accept her belief or practice, but I am sincerely appreciative of her intentions, and thanked her that she would think enough of me to offer prayers for me, even if I think she's offering them to the wrong place.
    
    
12. Mischaracterize people of other faiths or no faiths.
    
    I have never heard anybody say that Muslims really want to become Christians; I think the Bible is clear that unbelievers are perfectly happy in their state until God regenerates their hearts. As for the atheists comment, there is both Scriptural authority and experience to back such a comment up. I hang around on Yahoo! Answers a lot, and I can tell you that the vast majority of atheists I meet up with there are totally ignorant about what Christianity and the Bible really teach (irrespective of how many years they "served" in Christian ministries, or how many out-of-context factoids from the Bible they know) yet hate it with a passion. (Please understand that I am not putting you in the same category with these neo-atheist fundies.) Now, do they know God is there? Obviously, I don't know for sure, but that explanation is the best one I can think of for their irrational blind hatred of Christianity.
    
    
13. Assume that everyone who is not Christian must be “saved.”
    
    You answered "I’m quite alright." Actually, friend, you're not. I know you think you are alright. But you, being an intelligent and thoughtful person, should understand something that, in my experience, so few atheists have a grasp on. That's a shame, because it is at the crux of this whole discussion. And that is this: You believe that you're alright the way you are; but any Christian cannot possibly believe that. There's a clash of fundamental worldviews going on here. You believe that Christianity is nothing real and objective; it's a man-made practice that some people may choose to follow, and others may not, and good luck to them all. (After the tiring tirades of people like Richard Dawkins, this is a welcome change, believe me.)
    
    But please understand that a Christian cannot believe that. We believe in Christianity not because we like it, or because it makes us feel good, but because we believe that it's true. The founder of our faith said that nobody comes to the Father except through Him. We must believe, if we are Christians, that the fate of those who are not reconciled to God through Him are destined for the lake of fire. Which, I hasten to add, is where every single one of us deserves to go, Christian or non-Christian. It's only by being saved by the grace of God, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that I myself was literally saved from the hell I most richly deserve.
    
    I must ask you: once I believe that this is all true, how can I not believe everybody needs to be saved?
    
    Now, I'm not asking you to accept this worldview and make it your own. I understand that you don't and won't. But I am asking you to not assume, without argument, that Christians should accept your worldview. We don't expect you to accept ours; grant us the same luxury.
    
    
14. Bring their children, then proceed to fall asleep during the sermon.
    
    Again, amen, preach it brother!
    
    
15. Say that those of other Christian denominations aren’t practicing “true” Christianity.
    
    This is another one that I don't know how to respond to. On the one hand, it is true, we ought to practice love and tolerance of people who interpret the Bible differently than we do. On the other hand, this is an old saw, and one that, in my experience, is brought up by unbelievers as a justification of why they are not believers themselves far more than it's actually said by Christians. On the other other hand, if you believe that something is real and objective, there is a "right" way to describe and practice it, and many "wrong" ways. Again, it comes down to worldview. If something is personal and subjective, there is no right and wrong; not so if it's something real and objective.
    
    Even this doesn't mean, of course, that everybody who has a different understanding of the Bible is totally wrong in every way. It doesn't even mean that everybody who practices other faiths (or no faith at all) is wrong in every way. Obviously, that wouldn't make any sense, if for no other reason that one cannot come to an understanding of the goodness of God without having the same basic standard of "goodness" to use. Still, there are right beliefs and practices, and wrong ones, and it's perfectly Biblical to be discerning in recognizing the difference. Just don't let it separate you from other believers.
    
    
16. Look at their watches mid-sermon.
    
    Heart attitude here, as with most things, is front and center. I agree that one should not be counting the minutes until the end of the sermon; but everybody is probably guilty of this once in a while. I, for one, am intensely interested in what the preacher has to say, following in my Bible and/or taking notes. However, I have probably glanced at the clock before, either purely out of habit or because some specific event is looming large in my mind. Chalk it up to human frailty.
    
    
17. Pray for things they can just as easily take care of themselves.
    
    Honestly, where did you get the idea that just because somebody is praying for a promotion, they're not working harder? That people pray for good grades on testing instead of actually studying? For a smart and apparently experienced guy, you don't know very much about actual Christians and their behavior. In every situation like this I've ever seen, the Christian will pray (because the Bible tells us to) and then work their hardest to make the desired situation a reality. I know you don't think the prayer will do any good, but we do. We don't see prayer as alternative to work, but an adjunct. Surely, if God is what Christians say He is (real, good, omnipotent, etc) it's a reasonable thing to ask for His help/protection/etc?
    
    I'm afraid the old saw "so heavenly minded they're no earthly good" is just that, an old saw. The most heavenly-minded people I know are also the ones working hardest for their and others' earthly good.
    
    
18. Pastors tell stories without giving citations.
    
    I generally agree with this one. In fact, I don't think "stories" of any kind should be a major part of what goes on in a sermon. Again, it appear that you have been visiting a lot of seeker-sensitive churches, so you've heard a lot of stories; but a large number of churches think Biblical exposition should be front and center instead of stories. Occasional stories can help illustrate a point; but they should not make up the bulk of the sermon.
    
    On the other hand, would you really expect any person making a speech or presentation to stop every time he referenced something to read the associated bibliographic entry for the point? Let's not go overboard here.
    
    
19. Pastors ask questions with obvious answers.
    
    I agree with you. But I'd most likely take the kind of example you cited (“Who here believes the Lord is going to save them today?!”) as an annoying but pardonable personal eccentricity on the part of the preacher. Charles Stanley says "Now listen" a lot; Guillermo Maldonado says "Vamos aca, iglesia" (loosely, "now stay with me, church"). One shouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill. On the other hand, this is number 19; I don't take an example given to fill out the magic number of "20" as being the main argument. :-)
    
    
20. Pastors take an hour to analyze a simple, straight-forward Biblical verse.
    
    Some preachers can certainly over-discuss a single verse. I remember in a comparative religions class I took in college, the professor giving us an example of a preacher who made an entire sermon out of the King James expression "and it came to pass." He explained how this meant that everything passes away, nothing is constant. (I note that even the Mormons are getting into that act.) C'mon, it was just a common expression used at certain times. On the other hand, there are many verses that are difficult to understand without grasping the whole Sitz im Leben of the passage. Lacking this understanding, going "proof-texting," is behind many misunderstandings of Biblical verses. For example, only by ignoring the context in the entirety of Scripture can Tony Campolo reach some of his conclusions.
    
    So, a balance is necessary between too much and too little. Unfortunately, one person's "too much" may be another person's "too little"; and most tragically of all, one person's "too much" may actually be "exactly what that person needs, whether they want it or not."
    

My own theological position

I thought it might be useful to lay out exactly what my own theological position is. I have said repeatedly that I am a monergist or Calvinist, but I should probably define a little better what I mean by that.

• The basics: I believe in One God revealed in Three Persons eternally distinct; I believe God created the world by His word and sustains it by His power; I believe God the Father has planned all history and superintends it, and has a will and plans for all history; I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man, was born of a virgin in Israel around 1 CE (give or take a few years); I believe Jesus suffered and died on the cross as a substitutionary atonement (or expiation), paying for the sins of myself and all believers throughout history, both before and after the cross; I believe that on the third day He rose again and ascended into heaven; I believe the Holy Spirit is God and is given to all believers as a Seal and a Sign of salvation; I believe the church consists of all believers throughout history from the Garden of Eden through the end, and God saves each one of us in the same way (solely by His grace, solely through faith); I believe that only through personally repenting of our sins and exercising faith in Christ's atonement can we be saved, although the body of believers has a real part to play in not only the discipleship and growth of Christians but also their conversion itself (e.g., loving others, preaching the Gospel, teaching God's word, holy living);I believe Jesus is coming again in righteousness to judge the living and the dead and to usher in the fullness of His kingdom, and that He will create a new heaven and a new earth (though at present we cannot really imagine what that will be like). In short, I believe what historic orthodox Christianity teaches, because I think that's what the Bible teaches.
• As regards soteriology, I am a monergist (aka five-point Calvinist). I take the first point (man's total depravity due to the influence of sin) very seriously, and I believe that if you do take that point seriously, the only conclusion you can draw is the monergist one.
• As regards eschatology, I don't have any dogmatic position. I believe the Bible is (intentionally) unclear on eschatology, and I think we should not be any more dogmatic than the Bible gives us warrant to be. I think the Bible generally teaches pre-millenialism, but I generally lean toward a post-tribulational understanding rather than the popular pre-tribulationalism of the "Left Behind" series and the dispensationalists. It seems to me the pre-trib position is plausible, but neither required by nor does it explain best the Biblical text.
• As regards baptism, I believe the Bible indicates believer's baptism. I understand the arguments for paedobaptism but the lack of real examples or mandates for it in the Bible leans me toward credobaptism.
  
• As regards pneumatology, I certainly believe that every believer in Jesus is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and also believe that as believers we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to do God's will. I do not believe there is any specific "second blessing" (e.g. speaking in tongues as at Pentacost) but rather the daily empowering by the Holy Spirit to do what God wants us to do. I am not a cessationist in the strict sense, since I believe the spiritual gifts (including sign gifts) have a place today as in all church history. However, I do not believe certain people have specific sign gifts - tongues, healing, etc.; that sort of individual gifting ended with the apostles, the foundation of the church. Now, I believe God can (and does) endow certain people with certain sign gifts at certain times; yet I don't think that any person can say "I have these sign gifts, you don't." I've found that this middle-of-the-road position ends up putting me at odds with both cessationists and continualists.
  

I lay these out because you have to have specific positions on specific points. Anybody who says they don't (and who is sincere) is not being truthful with themselves. However, I am also a great believer in "mere Christianity": that we are not saved by this or that theological position, but by the blood of Jesus Christ shed on Calvary, and that is more important than any particular theological position one may hold. I greatly respect many people whose theology I would differ with, and I confidently expect to see many of them in heaven one day. This is because the Bible says that to be saved we must repent of our sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; not that we must be Calvinists or Arminians or Pre-Tribulationalists or Process Theologians.

In fact, I think it is a very interesting question exactly how much you must know to be a Christian or, to put it more properly, how much error God will allow you to hold to after He saves you. I have discussed this with my friends, but I do not pretend to have an answer; in fact, I think nobody does. That will have to be another blog posting. What I do know is that if we really realize our sinfulness, confess that sinfulness to God, and cry out to Him to be saved, then He will save us; this is why I believe so strongly in evangelistic methods like the Way of The Master and why friendship evangelism without conviction of sin is just friendship, not evangelism. That I believe the Bible teaches that at that point He has already saved us, and we are appropriating that salvation through our repentance and faith is rather less important. Important, but not That Important.

Are you a Red-Letter Christian?

Have you heard this term? It appears to be basically a term for people self-identifying both as "Christians" and political liberals. There was an excellent article in Christianity Today entitled When Red is Blue, where author Stan Guthrie makes the excellent point that the term "Red-Letter Christian" would better be called "liberal Christian." Well-known "Red Letter Christian" Tony Campolo responded to Guthrie's article - or rather, perhaps I should say he side-stepped Guthrie's article with double-talk saying, is essence, "I agree we'd be better called 'liberal Christians' but we want to pretend it's not true." Where do I get off saying that? Just read Campolo's article on the subject on beliefnet, where he says:

Because being evangelical is usually synonymous with being Republican in the popular mind, and calling ourselves “progressive” might be taken as a value judgment by those who do share our views, we decided not to call ourselves “progressive evangelicals.” We came up with a new name: Red-Letter Christians.

In other words, we're really best called "liberal Christians" but we don't use the term for political reasons. Give me a break.

Anyway, I thought that I would go through Campolo's response to Guthrie's article paragraph-by-paragraph. What I find interesting is that for a really smart guy, Dr. Campolo comes off sounding really dumb. I mean, some of what he says leads me to only one of three conclusions: (1) Dr. Campolo does not know what he's talking about, (2) he's being intentionally deceptive, or (3) his liberal fundamentalism is skewing his thought processes. I don't know which is least flattering. I am well aware that most of Dr. Campolo's audience does not have the theological muscle to understand this; but that makes it no less excusable. Let's look at his response:

I have to say, "You got us right!"

Ok, well at least he admits this.

While we, like you, have a very high view of the inspiration of Scripture and believe the Bible was divinely inspired, you are correct in accusing Red Letter Christians of giving the words of Jesus priority over all other passages of Scripture. What is more, we believe that you really cannot rightly interpret the rest of the Bible without first understanding who Jesus is, what he did, and what he said.

I don't have a problem with giving Jesus's words priority over places where Jesus said He was clarifying. What I have a problem with is your giving your interpretation of Jesus's words a higher priority than the rest of Scripture. Jesus said we should help and serve the poor. Great. I am all for that. Did Jesus say that the government should do it, through stealing money from people under its thumb? No, He told us personally, not the government, that we should take care of the poor.

Now, I understand that your interpretation is that the government, our government, is the one who should take care of the situation. You may feel that government can do it more efficiently than us (although anybody with an understanding of how government normally works would question this, I would think), or some other reason. That may be a valid political position to take, but to claim that Jesus's words force this position is nothing less than a transgression of the third commandment: you are taking your own human interpretation as God's direct command.

In fact, the thing I find especially interesting about this is that this is exactly what these so-called "Red Letter Christians" constantly confuse the rest of us "Black Letter Christians" of doing! Don't they constantly whine that we make God a Republican? What is this other than making God a liberal? (Oops, sorry, I mean, "progressive." :-)

Likewise, we believe the morality in the red letters of Jesus transcends that found in the black letters set down in the Pentateuch, and I'm surprised you don't agree. After all, Stan, didn't Jesus himself make this same point in the Sermon on the Mount, when he said his teachings about marriage and divorce were to replace what Moses taught? Don't you think his red-letter words about loving our enemies and doing good to those who hurt us represent a higher morality than the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" kind of justice that we find in the Hebrew Testament? Is it really so hard to accept that, as God incarnate, Jesus set forth the highest law in the Bible, and therefore that law is more important than the Kosher dietary regulations we find in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

This paragraph is what really makes me wonder about Dr. Campolo's level of either intelligence, clarity, or veracity. He cannot mean what he seems to be saying here. No, Tony (if I may use your first name), Jesus did not say the same thing. In fact, he specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets ... but to fulfill them" and that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Jesus certainly does not seem to be abolishing the Pentateuch here. He changed a few things, true: but I think it's clear what's going on, and I am surprised that you don't know this. The things Jesus changed were primarily associated either with the ceremonial law or the government of national Israel.

Paul himself said this (see Colossians 2:16). I would think somebody as smart as Dr. Campolo would understand this. Or do Paul's words not count because they are not shown in red?

What's more, Dr. Campolo's "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" statement shows a shocking lack of understanding of the Mosaic law. Any study Bible will inform us that this statement was actually a limitation on the bounds of response to a crime. In fact, it limits the restitution to a response in kind, not the kind of unlimited vengeance that humans take on their own. We could use this kind of limitation in inner cities today, where (one could argue, largely because of the kind of big-government policies favored by Dr. Campolo) it is not unknown to hear of murders based on nothing more than an insult or a stolen pair of shoes, or among organized criminals. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would be a great improvement in both of these cases.

You got us RLCs right again when you suggested we were anti-war, pro-environment, and deeply committed to ending poverty primarily because we believe Jesus is anti-war, pro-environment, and deeply committed to ending poverty. The only mistake you made was to imply that thinking this way—or trying to influence our government according to these values—makes us the Religious Left.

Dr. Campolo obviously believes that Jesus was anti-war, pro-environment, and deeply committed to ending poverty. I am not sure which red words exactly tell us the first two, but let's leave that aside. Nobody ever questioned that you are sincere in your beliefs. If fact, I imagine you would give the "Religious Right" you hate the same credit; what you would question is the Right's alleged co-opting of Jesus's words for political ends. And, once again, is this not exactly what you are doing? You say Jesus was anti-war, but don't point out where Jesus's words tell us whether He support this one particular war that you are opposed to so deeply. You assume, without question, that this one war is one that Jesus would oppose. How do you know this? Because it is unwinnable? You'll excuse me if I question your fitness to evaluate this military objective.

You say Jesus is pro-environment; and we would most likely agree. I know of no red words that make this point; but the Pentateuch that you don't give much credence to says that God made the earth, and He made us stewards of it. However, you don't show how Jesus's words support the government taking away our property rights to do it, or how it supports the US government having to give into UN and other international resolutions that are clearly designed to injure the United States as much as to help the environment. You also don't show how Jesus's words support putting specific parts of the environment (say, a threatened forest species) over people's livelihoods.

Finally, you say Jesus was deeply committed to ending poverty. This has two (at least) problems that I would think somebody as smart as Dr. Campolo would understand. First, as pointed out above, why do Jesus's words unequivocally mean that the government should steal from some people and give to others, kind of like a huge, unstoppable, scary Robin Hood? Second, how does he know that we "black letter Christians" do not give our time and resources to helping the poor personally? That seems like a huge guess on Dr. Campolo's part, and one that is uncharitable in the extreme. I give a large part of my income, and a considerable amount of time, helping those who are less materially blessed than I am.

It seems to me that I am the one who is taking Jesus's words truly seriously. Simply allowing the government to do it is using Jesus's words for political gain; letting somebody else take care of the problem (although it's questionable whether the government has in fact ever played a positive part in eradicating poverty) is simply feeling better about yourself by having the government take care of the problem so you don't have to personally. Let's face it, Jesus's words were not spoken (or written down) to governments; they were spoken to us. Yes, we should do what can to help people, to help the environment, to avoid war where possible. But it is a purely political position to state that these things can only be done by government and Jesus had this particular war in mind, and that anybody who opposes your position is setting himself against Jesus's words. You are saying that a transgression against your political position is a transgression against Jesus's words; again, a violation of the third commandment.

That you think asking questions such as, "Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families?," or "Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it?," is partisan saddens us. We believe these are the questions that every Christian should be asking, no matter which political party or candidate has the better answers at a given time in history.

This not only confuses Jesus's words with your interpretation, it is very much along the same lines as political polls that ask questions like "Do you believe the government has the right to steal more of your hard-earned money" instead of a neutral "Do you think the government should raise taxes." The very phrase "reward the rich" is itself a politically loaded statement. It saddens me, Dr. Campolo, that you should be so mired in your political beliefs that you cannot see that. I am well aware, for example, that when I said "the government ... stealing money from people under its thumb" I was using politically charged language. I did that intentionally to counter yours; I would not normally use such biased expressions as these. And I certainly would not use them in an public advertisement such as the Sojourners ad mentioned by Guthrie in his article above.

I'm sorry you don't want to be one of us, Stan. In the struggle to convince our fellow believers to think, act, give, and vote according to the teachings of Jesus, we Red Letter Christians could really use a bright, articulate guy like you.

Sigh. I easily believe that you feel deeply about your struggle to convince your fellow believers that Jesus's words support your chosen political position. How is this not co-opting Jesus's words as you constantly accuse the "Religious Right" of doing?

In summary, Dr. Campolo, I'm sorry you don't want to be one of us Black Letter Christians. (One might simply say "Christians" but that would be unfairly critical; I certainly cannot judge his heart.) In the struggle to convince our fellow believers to take the teachings of Jesus and indeed the rest of the Bible seriously (and not mistake their political positions for the only possible interpretation of Jesus's teachings), we Black Letter Christians could really use a bright, articulate, committed, and energetic guy like you. Won't you join us?

Apologetics or the Gospel?

I wanted to post a short item today which came out of a discussion I was having with a teacher. Our kids both attend a Christian school, and I am in general very thankful for them. I believe that most of their teachers are saved, and the ones who aren't at least don't teach heresy. However, many of them (reflecting the Christian church in general) have been seduced by the whole seeker-sensitive belief system. The church that runs the school is very seeker-sensitive, doing the whole "find your purpose" thing, recently promoting luminaries such as Kate Campbell (touring with and promoted by Tony Campolo) and Brennan Manning (see my review of one of his books entitled "Half the Gospel" in the link above). I heard one person from that church complain that they save the people and then other churches steal them. I think it would likely be more accurate to say that people come in, and then they are either saved or bored; if they are really saved, they go where they can be fed; if they are bored, after the fluff wears off, they once again stop attending church. If you're not really saved, going to church is a salve to your conscience for a while, but in the end playing golf usually wins out.

Anyway, the aforementioned teacher and I were having a discussion about the Way of the Master method of evangelism. I have recently acquired the Way of the Master Basic Training Course and am very excited about it, so I naturally wanted to talk about it. I should mention that I have the great respect for this teacher, in terms of her salvation, teaching style, friendliness, love, holiness, and many other things. The last thing I wish to do is impute any kind of questioning of her salvation or motives: she is no doubt far better and purer than I am, and a lot more fun to be around.

However, I believe she has bought into the false gospel of seeker-sensitivity, which I have argued elsewhere is essentially semi-Pelagianism reborn. In our discussion, I said that it was important to help people get to where their conscience is awakened by God; because the Gospel can only be accepted - and even understood - when accompanied by true repentance and brokenness. She disagreed, saying that "friendship evangelism" is more important. My rejoinder was that it seems to me that friendship is important, but one should not confuse it with evangelism. She didn't articulate exactly why she disagreed with me, but it was clear she did. I probably should have listened more closely to what her objections were, but frankly I was nervous about disagreeing with her. So often, I am a people-pleaser and don't like to disagree.

She then told me what she had been studying recently, which is apologetics. Now, I agree with her that apologetics is very important. Every believer should know exactly what he believes and why. And when confronted with people who have honest questions and doubts about Christianity - and these do come along occasionally - we should always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is in us. Of course, the majority of unbelievers are not honestly questioning:

What do you mean Christianity is true? Well, what about the native in Africa? And if God is good, how come disasters strike? And how could a God of love send people to hell anyway? And what about all the contradictions in the Bible? And ...

When a stream of questions like that come out - and always the same ones, of course - you are probably not dealing with an honest doubter. But there are some, which is why I agree that studying apologetics is important. In fact, the Way of the Master video series contains a section on apologetics, answering the most common objections. So, Ray Comfort and I would agree with this teacher that apologetics is important.

However, then she made an statement that stopped me cold. She said that she was convinced that lack of apologetics training is what is causing so many people to come to their church, get "saved," and then fall away. Thus, to keep people "saved," you have to teach them apologetics. Now, I am not questioning that a knowledge of apologetics helps us to maintain a strong faith: clearly it does. We are all tossed like ships on the sea of emotion from time to time. But I don't think that's what she was talking about. I think she was talking about people who come to church a few times; "make a decision for Christ;" go to church a while more; and then fall away, presumably never to be heard from again.

At first I was stunned - how could a few intellectual doubts "unsave" a person who had been regenerated by God's Holy Spirit? How is it that Jesus can lose some that the Father has given Him, simply because of some intellectual difficulties? Then I realized the problem: I was up against semi-Pelagian assumptions. In this system, people can come, get attracted by Jesus, even choose to make Him their Lord (lucky Jesus!), but at the first intellectual doubt, their sovereign intellect will decide against the existence of God, and thus they will fall away.

I answered that I thought many times the problem is not that they have accepted the Gospel, but that they had never heard the Gospel. I think she was getting uncomfortable with the conversation, and we parted amicably for the night. I don't know when we'll have a chance to talk on this subject again, but I hope I can help her understand that the Gospel is not about us making a decision, but about the decision that God makes for our benefits.

Apologetics is good. It builds up our faith. What it does NOT do is create the faith in the first place; it does not turn an unbeliever who has never even really come to a realization of his utter sinfulness and lostness into a believer. Only God can do that, putting in a heart of flesh to replace our hearts of stone. In other words, apologetics is no replacement for the Gospel.

Seeker Churches and Book of Acts

My friend Joe Carr (and I do consider him a friend and a brother in the Lord, though we strongly disagree) talks about the church in the book of Acts and compares his own church, Lifepoint, favorably with the church in Acts. I totally agree with him about the folks in Acts. But how is that related to most seeker churches today, including, I am sorry to say but I am believing this increasingly, Lifepoint? Taking some of his points about the church in Acts:

• They were consumed with presenting Jesus: From what I've heard (two sermons now, more below), Lifepoint seems to me consumed with being cool, funny, and "relevant" with no real presentation of Jesus that I've heard so far; certainly no presentation that would convict somebody to repentance.
• They would go to any lengths to reach people: Yes, and this primarily included preaching the whole Gospel to the people. In the two sermons I've listened to now, the better one of the two spent just over 10 minutes of the 40 discussing anything from the word of God; the rest was personal experiences and emotional exhortations to practice "what if thinking." The worse of the two was 2.5 minutes of anything even remotely Biblical with the rest of the time spent in sexual jokes and self-help advice.
• They offended the Pharisees: Actually, a number of Pharisees came to faith in Christ, and it was purely by preaching the whole word of God to them. I know the Pharisees aren't in the demographic a lot of churches are trying to reach, but Pharisees need Jesus too. What's more, Jesus confirmed the Pharisees' understanding of several important issues against the more "liberal" Sadducees.
  
• The number of believers grew unbelievably. Yes, they did; but in every case the believers were made by taking them to the Scriptures, even the philosophers at the Areopagus. Remember too that Jesus had a large number of "disciples" who fell away at the first hard saying - in fact, most of his "disciples" did so, if you count numerically. This kind of "disciple" we don't need; and, if my experience with seeker churches is any indication, their "disciples" will never hear the kind of hard sayings Jesus gave them.
  

Now, a lot of what I hear at churches like Lifepoint is very nice. It pumps people up; maybe even motivates them to get off their rear ends and do something good for somebody else. That's great: I myself spend a good deal of time and money ministering to people in my community. "Making disciples" is all the rage today, which is good as far as it goes.

But making disciples is absolutely worthless unless their hearts are converted first. Paul had lots of good deeds, but he considered them all rubbish compared to the glory of really knowing God. The two sermons I've listened to from Lifepoint are enjoyable and motivational, but it pains me to say that no way would they ever bring the unbeliever to know God. And isn't that what the unbelievers coming to Lifepoint (and all other churches, I'm honestly not trying to bust on Lifepoint) need first? To come to know God? There's plenty of time for good deeds after their hearts are converted, and then you should exhort people to do them as much as you can: but the conversion must come first. And I have heard nothing in the 80 minutes or so that I've invested in Lifepoint sermons that would make the unbeliever realize that he is a sinner and needs the living Christ as Lord of his life.

Again, don't think I'm dissing the Lifepoint pastor's intentions here. I can hear his heart - and Joe's - for the lost and hurting people, and I appreciate it. I think what they're doing on this trip to Brazil is wonderful, I thank them, and I have been praying for their efforts there. Rather, I think it's a philosophical problem that has eternal consequences for people. It appears that many believe people can be motivated into being Christians by relevant talk and emotional exhortations. This is generally called semi-Pelagianism, and if it were true, the seeker method would work well.

Sadly, the Bible tells a different story. Only if God converts our hearts - which only comes through the solid and consistent preaching of the Word - do we become Christians. Will those people going out there and exercising their "what if thinking" help the world? No doubt they will. Meanwhile, the poor souls themselves will be smug in their belief that they're getting an "in" with God, while moving along briskly to Hell. That breaks my heart as much as the plight of the orphans in Brazil.

Confessions of an eBay Sniper

"Gary, welcome to ESA (eBay Sniper's Anonymous)."
"Hello. My name is Gary, and I'm an eBay sniper. (Imagine supportive applause here)

Ok, I said it. I love to get stuff in the mail, I love to buy stuff from eBay, and I love to snipe auctions. For anybody still living in 1997, sniping is the practice of bidding on an item in eBay at the last second (actually, when I did it manually I usually did it with about 10 seconds to go, although I have unintentionally submitted bids as late as 1 second before the end of the auction). To many people, this kind of practice is "in theory ... against the rules," not to mention mean, unfair, immoral, un-Christian, and perhaps "characteristic of mean Calvinists."

I totally disagree with all of these assessments. First of all, it's not against "the rules," even in theory, assuming by "the rules" you mean the rules of eBay and not "da rules" (which would presumably prevent any activity on eBay unless it's between you and your kid). eBay specifically says sniping is valid, and does not even discourage it: they call it "part of the eBay experience."

As for the charge of being unfair, there are, in fact, many different kinds of bidding behavior in an auction like eBay. I'll simplify it a bit by only describing three categories: Early True Maximum Price Bidders, Snipers, and Nibblers.

1. The Early True Maximum Bidders, or "Earlies": They submit a bid, generally "early" in the auction (a subjective term, but let's say that means anything earlier than the last day) that is the true maximum amount they want to pay for the item and take their chances. If a later bidder outbids them, they lose: but that's not that bad for them, because they didn't want to pay that much anyway. If later bidder's maximum price is less than theirs, then the later bidder loses and the earlier one wins.
   
2. Snipers: They submit a bid near the end of the auction (again, a very subjective term, but let's say in the last few minutes) that is the maximum they want to pay for the item and take their chances. If an earlier bidder outbids them, or another sniper comes along later and outbids them, they lose.
3. Nibblers: They don't know how much they want to bid, but watch what other people bid and keep bidding more little by little. If you look at the bid history of many auctions, you'll see many nibblers: 10 bids in a row from the same bidder, each one a dollar more than the last. Sometimes you'll see two nibblers in a bidding war (maybe we should call it a "nibbling war"), going up alternately.

I am now a Sniper, but I used to be a Nibbler, so I've been two of the three. Permit me to make a couple of observations:

• The primary reason people bid on eBay is to buy something for the lowest price they can. That is, they want something, and they don't want to pay any more than they have to in order to get it. This is exactly the same as walking through a mall and shopping several stores to see which one has the item for less and buying it there.
  
• The only difference between categories Earlies and Snipers is the time frame in which the bidder submits his bid. In both cases, the bidder is submitting a bid for the maximum he wants to pay for the item. In both cases, he takes his chances of being outbid; and in both cases, being outbid is not an altogether bad thing, because he wasn't willing to pay the amount that was bid.
  
• Most people are Nibblers, and they generally Many people consider Snipers bad but Earlies good. Why is this? As we've seen, they're virtually identical in both their intentions and their behavior: the only difference is the time they put their bid in.
• Earlies and Snipers are generally very happy with each other, and co-exist rather nicely. Nibblers like Earlies because they can see how much they're bidding; although, in my experience from when I was a Nibbler, having eBay keep telling me I was "outbid" because of Earlies with higher bids than mine is just as frustrating as being outbid by a Sniper. The only group that does not get along is that Nibblers don't like Snipers.
• Somebody may object: the Sniping method does not seem very Christian. I would take this charge very seriously. As I am a Christian, all my actions must be guided by Christian principles. But saying that the only Christian way of bidding on eBay is maximizing the seller's profit would mean, conversely, that a Christian seller's goal should be to get me the item for the least money. This is an obvious deadlock. It seems to me that as long as you're honest and above-board with everything, market transactions do follow Christian principles.

I believe that Nibblers hate Snipers not because we are doing anything illegal or immoral, but rather because we ruin their bidding strategy. They have just spent a long period of time bidding and counter-bidding repeatedly, just to come along and find out that since they didn't bid their true maximum amount (the maximum amount they really intended on paying), they "lost" the auction to a Sniper. I could just as easily complain that the Nibblers ruin my bidding strategy because their bidding wars pushes the price up farther than I want to pay. There is a simple solution, of course: either become a Sniper or (if you still think it immoral), an Early. Bid the maximum amount you're willing to pay and see what happens.

If somebody is still thinking "yeah, but Snipers are not fair to the sellers because they don't get as much money as they could," then I have three things to say. First, is my goal on eBay to ensure the seller gets the most money? If so, how does the seller get off not ensuring I get the item for as cheaply as possible? Second, should Nibblers also be obligated to bid as high an amount as possible (and what's more, get another person into the process with you) so that they can drive the price higher to benefit the seller? Why Nibble at all - why not just submit an astronomically-high bid to help out the seller? Finally, why are you on eBay in the first place? Why not just pop down to the mall and buy the item at the first store you come to, regardless of price?

I submit that buyers of all three categories have the same goals: the only difference is that we have different methods that we think will be successful. I won't complain about your bidding method if you don't complain about mine.

Are "seeker" churches semi-Pelagian?

In thinking about "seeker sensitive" churches, it seems to me that they would be best described as semi-Pelagian in the fullest, original sense. Sometimes people who consider themselves "Calvinist" in some sense throw around terms like "semi-Pelagian" simply meaning "synergistic" (as opposed to monergistic). I suppose most know what they mean when they use the term: but it's probably better to use terms according to their widely-accepted definition rather than a private definition which your listener may or may not share.

So let's Define Our Terms! I am using "semi-Pelagianism" to mean what I believe is the original definition: that it is necessary for humans to make the first step toward God and then God will complete salvation. I think you can make a scale of "Christian" beliefs about soteriology as follows. Note that I am using these terms for the purpose of classification only: I generally avoid using terms in direct reference to people because it's not profitable. I am also not using these terms pejoratively, but rather descriptively. I am not saying a semi-Pelagian person or even a Pelagian is "good" or "bad." I may reject them as holding a non-Biblical theology, but I am not making a value judgment on the people involved. Many of them are probably better and holier than me.

• Pelagianism: It's up to us to want to follow God and save ourselves. This is generally considered non-Christian, being rejected by virtually all church fathers and the church since. Since they completely reject God's sovereignty, they would obviously reject all five points of Calvinism.
• Semi-Pelagianism: We take the first step towards God, and then God saves us. This is probably on the border of what would classically be called "Christian." They would probably also reject the five points.
• Arminianism: God takes the first step to save us, then we have to accept (once and on a continuing basis for the rest of our lives) salvation. This is common in many types of churches, including Methodist and Nazarene. They accept God's sovereignty, but still reject all five points of Calvinism.
• Semi-Arminianism (my term): God takes all the steps to save us except the last one, the actual exercise of faith, which we have to do ourselves. This is common in "fundamentalist" churches such as the southern Baptists, but also many non-denominational churches and seminaries. They often call themselves "two-", "three-", or "four-point" Calvinists, generally rejecting Limited Atonement.
• Semi-Calvinism (my term): Similar to semi-Arminianism, except they generally accept Limited Atonement and divine election. However, they reject Irresistible Grace, the idea being that God elects us, but He gives us the free will to reject Him. They might typically call them four-point Calvinists. I have seen a number of these in Calvary Chapel.
• Calvinism/monergism: Accept God's sovereignty in everything, and thus all five points of Calvinism. I fall into this category.
• Hyper-Calvinism: Really a misnomer, because they do not follow Calvinistic/monergistic ideas, chief among them being that man has a real will and is thus responsible for his own sin. Rather, they have a fatalistic view of God. God elects us (or not), and we have absolutely nothing to do with it, no will of our own; thus no guilt for our own sin.
  

So, let's consider where "seeker" churches fit on this scale. Their whole purpose and method is to attract people's wills, to make themselves attractive to people. People's wills (they hope) will be turned to God. Once they get people to stay for enough services and perhaps take some classes, God's spirit will finally work on the people's hearts and convert them. I contend that this is semi-Pelagianism in a pretty pure form. People make their own decision to stay because of the cool music or "relevant" preaching, and eventually they get close enough to where God can save them.

Again, I am not saying that I am holier or better than these preachers, nor that I care about the lost more than they do. However, I would say that their methods are unbiblical, and simply do not work if the goal is to "make disciples of all nations." They may fill the churches; they may give help people live happier lives; they may be better for people than if they hung around in bars. (Same idea as the biker bar in my town that has a sign on the window that says Better Here Than Across the Street, referring to the courthouse across the street.)

But I contend that they do not truly convert men's hearts. Only the Spirit of God, working through the Word of God, can do that.