WOW. He is not sugar-coating it. There comes a time when the truth needs to be spoken boldly in order to save those who are being blown around by false doctrine and heresy. I was recently accused of being "mean" by questioning a reader's religion. It's sad that even fundamentalists are affected by the new-age philosophy of tolerance and gentleness.
There is a difference in loving those who are outside the faith, and snatching believers out of false idolatry! When those professing Christ are falling into danger, the Bible has a lot to say about our responsibility--and it isn't always gentle. It IS always about bringing others to repentance and restoration, but sometimes that takes an uncomfortable confrontation.
Paul Proctor has taken the challenge:
"...taking your kids out of the public school system is not enough; it's time to take them out of corrupt churches as well, with their Willow Creepy, Purpose Driven, Your Best Lie Now "instruction manuals" that turn them into spiritual liberals with "conflicting doctrines and ideas.
Many today are simply turning themselves and their kids over to the capricious care of "Manchurian Christians" who teach and encourage them to follow their feelings, follow the crowd and emulate the very culture Jesus Christ came to deliver us from - in the name of Jesus, of course. They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the new spirituality of Results and Relationships that they no longer know or really even care what "doctrines and ideas" are being taught at their church today or what activities their kids participate in, as long as everybody is having fun, making friends and occasionally hears that sugary, deceptive and egocentric cliché: "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."
Read the rest HERE
8 comments:
Interesting article. And I thought Family Radio were the only ones teaching people to leave their churches.
Wow, this is good. It kind of goes along with all the "youth" activities or children's church. One friend told me that they were having "Kids Rule" during children's church, where the kids decide what they get to do during their own worship time. It could include shoving pies in faces or whip cream fights, etc. My friend took her children out of it. She felt like they needed to hear the sermon rather than decide for themselves what their worship should be.
I was the commenter who criticised your approach. I did NOT call you "mean", and I do not appreciate having MY words twisted.
I said that I was benefiting greatly from the debate, but that BOTH sides arguing (I believe I was harder on Molly than you.. I was certainly less impressed by some of what she said) were being excessively personal and harsh. I said it was not uplifting.
I didn't call you mean. I have noticed that over the past few weeks my (I think, very gentle and slight) rebuke has morphed into an example of how Christians are forgetting Jesus's 'angry' (or more vigorous, perhaps..) side and getting too caught up in the lovey-dovey. I said nothing of the sort.
I appreciate that you feel that this lovey-dovey-ness is a great problem for the church, and you want to confront it. I agree with you on that. But I also think that you are so convinced this is a poison plaguing all or most Christians, that you are reading into things that aren't there. You are expecting to see lovey-dovey, and building it up in your own mind, when nothing of the sort was in my comments.
You initial reaction was to actually listen to what I said. I know you didn't entirely agree with me, and that's fine. I greatly appreciated that you listened. But since your initial reaction... I don't think you remember what I actually said. I think you just want to make me into another symptom of something you don't like in the Church. And I'm not.
Thank you for posting the link to the article. I also read the other articles linked on that page. This gentleman put into words what our family is seeing all around us. This solidifies alot of our concerns.
Cate l,
You're right...I didn't remember a lot about the "rebuke" (to be honest, I couldn't have recalled which reader without going back to look.) I certainly can't know your theology by the one rebuke, but yours isn't the only one I've ever gotten...I was kind of lumping them into one example of the common idea of "Christian tolerance", without qualifying every incident. Sorry you took it personally.
But Kelly, this can only be referring to my comment "I was recently accused of being "mean" by questioning a reader's religion."
Do you not see that lumping my comment in with 'all' the others is exactly what I was getting at in my previous comment? My comment had nothing to do with 'new-age tolerance'. Absolutely nothing. This is what I was getting at when I said "I also think that you are so convinced this is a poison plaguing all or most Christians, that you are reading into things that aren't there. You are expecting to see lovey-dovey, and building it up in your own mind, when nothing of the sort was in my comments..... I don't think you remember what I actually said. I think you just want to make me into another symptom of something you don't like in the Church. And I'm not."
This is a BAD approach, Kelly. You have diagnosed the disease before looking at the symptoms. And "sorry you took it personally" isn't an apology.
I certainly apologize, Cate. I deal with a lot of people, a lot of different comments and a lot of varying topics. (Not to mention my "scattered" brain.)
Sometimes for time's sake, I generalize. I didn't mean to do it at your expense.
I appreciate that, Kelly, and I'm sorry for being so irate! I just don't like my words morphing into something they're not. I don't want to be a symptom of new-age tolerance (though I do very much want to be an example of Christlike gentleness, where gentleness does not preclude firmness...).
Post a Comment