Five Deeply De-Christian Doctrines
A meme seemingly got started with 3-D’s: David Keen, David Ker, and Doug Chaplin—5 Deeply De-Christian Doctrines. Newly wed PeterKirk tagged me for this one:
The challenge of this latest meme is:
List 5 doctrines that are taught within the Christian church that you believe to be deeply de-Christian.
1. Cessationism. Though at one point I resided in the cessationist camp, primarily because of a particular reading of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, I must say with a free spirit, that I’m glad to be out of that camp. Why do I consider it de-Christian? Because it arbitarily sets limits on what the Spirit wants to continue to do in the church.
Tell me, How can a doctrine limit the work of the Spirit in the ministry of the church and not be considered deeply de-Christian?
2. Calvinism. Before you take off on this one—I’m actually speaking about militant Calvinism: Calvinists who love to pick fights and go all out to convert everyone else to their way of thinking. Why do I consider it de-Christian? Because of the tendency to divide the body of Christ over a system; yes, Calvinism is a system that is largely dependent on well-reasoned propositions.
3. The Prosperity Gospel—which by the way is no Gospel. It’s a hoax! Perhaps it’s “good news” for those who peddle the Word of God for profit (2 Cor. 2:17, TNIV). I don’t think I need to say more…
4. King James Version Onlyism. How can King James Version Onlyism or any form of Onlyism be Christian? It’s de-Christian, at best. If you’re not convinced, google the thing and educate or re-educate yourself.
Why? Because KJVO is nonsensical. It’s divisive. It’s graceless. It’s Christless.
5. Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen. This is actually akin to “the Prosperity Gospel.” Why is it de-Christian? Because its the second coming of Norman Vincent Peale with an infectious smile, cute illustrations, and a few Scriptures here and there.
If you’ve read this post and will like to contribute 5 Deeply De-Christian Doctrines, consider yourself tagged.
A Joel Osteen home:
Listening to Joel Osteen makes me long for the home mentioned in the State song of Kansas:
Oh, give me a home where the Buffalo roam Where the Deer and the Antelope play; Where never is heard a discouraging word, And the sky is not clouded all day.
The problem is…..
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/oh-give-me-a-home-where/
You have a great post on Osteen!
Just to give credit where it’s due, the meme started at the blog Evangelist Changing, after I challenged Joe (the author) to turn one of his posts into a meme, as I thought it might catch on…..
http://evangelistchanging.blogspot.com/2009/10/5-deeply-de-christian-doctrines-meme.html
David,
Well, this turned out to be some challenge.
What an interesting list. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Calvinism, the Prosperity Gospel, and Joel Osteen mentioned in the same category before.
I’ll have to ponder further what my answer would be.
This is a fun challenge. Useful too.
1. Soul Competency, the Baptist doctrine that suggests that the individual is competent before God to know his will. While the doctrine guards the idea of each one’s accountability before God and the individual’s need to respond to God, it opens the door wide to radically distorted interpretations of scripture as folks insist upon holding onto quirky readings because of their “soul competency.” Interpretation is a community exercise. America has always been the breeding ground for cults. This doctrine has been a contributing influence.
2. Persistent Individualism, “Jesus loves me,” rather than “Jesus loves us.” Our salvation is to a corporate unity in Christ, not to an isolated mansion in the sky where we go bowling alone and roll perfect games for ever. By the way, all those “you’s in the epistles are 2nd person plural!
3. Salvation Means Easy Street. There is a persistent notion that the sinner’s prayer means my work is done, all problems go away, and I get to join the gravy train. While I get John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism,” joy is one on the blessings of our salvation, in our context it can easily slip into “if I’m suffering something must me be wrong” rather than “something must be right.”
4. Hyper-rationalism. This rotten fruit of post-enlightenment modernism continues to fester. We are not saved by the application of “biblical principals.” Knowledge continues to puff up and substitute for the love that is the mark the divine presence in human community.
5. Passivity. This is the mistaken incorporation of magic in the church. If I pray well or rightly, the Lord waves his magic wand and takes care of my problems and the problems around me. We forget that we were saved for good works that God prepared before hand that we might walk in them. Authentic prayer passionately embraces my responsibility as I seek the Lord’s empowerment in what he has laid before me.
Except for the first perhaps these are not “doctrines taught in the church,” but they are persistent American foibles that distort orthopraxy.
Meto,
I had to come up with Five and I didn’t want to repeat what I’d already read.
“Poor” Osteen, for he has become an easy target.
Kyle,
“Soul Competency” is after all a natural outworking of the priesthood of all believers. And even when we engage in our private study of Scripture, it remains a community enterprise.
I’m with you on #’s 2 and 3.
#4 – Yes, Peter Kirk made a similar argument against precise doctrines for salvation, which he attached to a new crop of Calvinists.
Your #5 seems to be akin to the “Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel” folks.
Thanks for taking up my challenge. It’s interesting to see your choice of de-Christian doctrines. I was surprised to see Calvinism there, but with the way you defined it I can certainly agree. As for Osteen, I have friends who like him, so I can’t help wondering if those who target him have actually read his books or listened to his full sermons, or are basing their judgments on hearsay and snippets out of context.
Peter, it’s a tricky challenge. But I managed to come up with 5.
Osteen is an interesting fellow. He has set himself up for some of these criticisms. Here’s a video clip on Jesus as the Only Way
A bit of a dancing!
TC, if you ignore the title given (not by Osteen I assume) to that video clip and the comments made, and listen to what Osteen actually said, I think you will see that it is what the majority of Christian pastors would also say: many people are not going to be saved, but it is not for any human being but only for God to make that decision about any individual. Wise pastors will never say to anyone “You are going to hell!” They might say “You are going to hell if you don’t repent” – although that sounds a bit too like salvation by works. But anyone with the heart of a pastor will soon realise that they cannot know anyone else’s heart and so have to leave these decisions to the One who does know all our hearts.
Peter, I quite agree that a pastor needs to tread carefully and wisely on some issues.
Neither would I come right out and say, “You’re going to hell!”
But why the vacillating? Can’t we give a straightforward answer when we’re asked, “Are people who take different paths acceptable to God and therefore will share a home with him in eternity?
This is my contention.
But, TC, that wasn’t the question he was asked! First he clearly agreed with the telephone questioner, and the Bible, that Jesus is the only way to the God. Then he tried to answer the deduction made from this by his Jewish (?) interviewer “So then a Jew is not going to heaven?” He was clearly trying not to say “Larry, you are going to hell”, because that is pastorally insensitive and he didn’t know Larry’s heart. But he clearly says that he presents the truth, that salvation depends on a relationship with Jesus, and lets God be the judge of individuals. Whatever is wrong with that?
Peter, I took another listen. Yes, he begins fine. There was the Jewish question, alright.
But then he begins to say things like, “I don’t know,” after agreeing with the caller that Jesus is the only way.
And when asked about the atheist, he still was vacillating. Why couldn’t he have said that one needs a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Perhaps, even that is too narrow a view.
I thought that is what he said, more or less. But surely it is very dangerous to judge someone’s doctrine based on what they did NOT say on one particular occasion, especially under the pressure of a live TV show. Would you have done better in Larry King’s hot seat? Unless you can be really sure of that, don’t judge others for their performance being weak. It would be different if Osteen had said anything doctrinally wrong, but he didn’t.
Peter, perhaps I’m being too hard on the fellow. In the end, I guess you’re right.
But I was hoping he would have been more forceful and straight, not “I don’t really know.”
Fair enough. I won’t quarrel with what he said being disappointing. My problem is with this being used as evidence for him teaching a “deeply de-Christian doctrine”.
Peter, the video clip is really not at the heart of it. It’s his cheap grace and so on approach to the gospel.
I’m afraid that in his effort to be “positive” he has actually diluted the gospel. That’s my contention.
That may be true. But I haven’t seen evidence of it.
Peter, I believe need to give him both a read and a listen. Perhaps you might be unconvinced.
After some thought over the weekend, I posted my own list
Here
I just commented on your list. It’s spot on. I never thought five more were out there. You sure proved me wrong.