Wise as doves; harmless as serpents

I got kicked of a Christian message board last week. Technically I was banned for just a few days, but the reason I was banned was because I disagreed with a moderator about the interpretation of a few passages, and since non sequitur, ad hominem and ad nauseam arguments on his part failed to convince me, he simply booted me off. So the reason I say I was kicked off, is because being banned for simply disagreeing with a moderator about a point means posting there is fruitless. That kind of irresponsible abuse of authority makes discussion impossible.

And before anyone claims it's par for the course (being a Christian board) I've been banned much more quickly on Agnostic and Atheist board for pretty much the same reason.

What's even worse is that while some agreed with my point, and are aware of the moderator's abuse, they remained silent, choosing to allow the abuse rather than "make waves".

It made me aware of several points which seem to elude many Christians these days.

1. If a wolf's wearing sheep's clothing, then it's going to look a lot like a sheep.

Frank Abignale, at 17, decided he wanted to pretend to be a commercial airline pilot. He conned his way into an authentic uniform and strolled into an airport. Fairly quickly he learned that to pull off the masquerade he'd need to learn the jargon. So quietly listening, he learned the vocabulary pilots used, and eventually was able to convince hundred of airlines that he was a real pilot, got free air travel all over the world, and even wrote millions of dollars in bad checks using a fake pilot ID. Because he met the superficial attributes of a pilot, people made the assumption that that's what he was, and trusted him as they would any pilot. (incidentally, he never even tried actually piloting a plane, but all of the free trips he made, were in the cockpit of the plane)

The key here is: He had motivation to appear like a pilot, he assumed the look and talk of a pilot, he went where pilots were expected to be, and he exploited their trust to further his own agenda.

For a long time people have been infiltrating churches, denominations and even para-church organizations in order to crumble the effectiveness of those groups, from the inside. One story I heard was of a man who joined a church, lied about his past, stayed long enough to become a deacon, then convinced the church to abandon their Wednesday night prayer meeting for "Evangelism training". Without prayer, the church started to lose focus, and in a very short time it's effectiveness in the community vanished.

It's naive to believe that Satan would limit himself to a hand full of passive attempts at attacking the church. The zeal of anti-Christian bigots is clear in the actions we see in the ACLU, many local school boards, even many courts. There are even anti-Christian "missionaries" that go to third world nations attempting to convince natives to return to their animistic religions and away from Christianity. To naively assume that there couldn't possibly be fake Christians—working hard at trying to appear to be Christian, while undermining the effectiveness of the church—is to ignore the Bible...

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. — Matthew 7:15

Here are some guidelines I use...

1. Do they treat the Bible as a guide to follow, or as a ventriloquists doll to make say what they want? (moral absolutes v. moral relativism)

2. Do they emphasize obedience or "acceptance" as a the more Godly virtue? (As illustrated by the Emerging "church")

3. Do they counter criticism of the Bible with logic and truth, or appeasement and rationalization? (teaching the Bible as "spiritual" truism, but not historical fact)

2. Silence about abuse is neither polite nor Christian

In an effort to appear "peaceful" and "loving" many Christians stand quietly by and allow abusive behavior on the part of others. I've seen pseudo-Christians exploit this flaw with transparent glee. They are quick to label disagreement with their own ideas, contention, discord, "arguing for the sake of arguing", etc., but will never acknowledge that they themselves argue more than those they accuse of "sowing discord".

While at seminary I watch some of the most embarrassing behavior by self-proclaimed "moderates" (a term theological Liberals call themselves) imaginable. Much of it was undressed because the rest of the students didn't want to appear argumentative. What I never understood is why the very actions of Jesus Himself were not taken as an example for us. Here's a quote from my page on Common Excuses Given by Political Inactive Christians...

A quick read of Matthew, Chapter 23 provides an interesting look at Jesus' approach to those abusing the power God has entrusted to them. The Lord calls the Pharisees hypocrites, 6 times (vs. 13-15,23,25,27 and 29), blind guides, 2 times (vs. 16 and 24), fools and blind, twice (vs. 17 and 19), Blind Pharisee (v. 26), serpents and generation of vipers (v. 33), and child of hell (v. 15) each once. In verse 27 He compares them to whited sepulchres, about as offensive a remark as possible to an orthodox Jew. And that's only one chapter...

When confronted with people using the temple as their own marketplace for profiting from the sacrifices, he made a homemade whip, and beat the snot out of the money changers, driving them out of the temple. No quite the passive milquetoast we're led to believe Christians are supposed to always be, was He.

3. Failure to learn how to debate is failure to carry out the Great Commission

One of the discussion in which I disagreed with the moderator on this particular message board was over foot washing. I've always held that it's been abandoned by the modern church to the detriment of the spiritual growth of the church, and that I see little difference between the emphasis on the Lord's Supper (universally recognized as an ordinance of the church) and foot washing. Their arguments were a. it's was only a suggestion at that to do "like" Jesus, not to do that specific thing, b. rituals are bad, c. actually washing another person's feet is icky (my words not their, but the message was clear) c. it's more important to remember the "meaning" than repeat the action.

Their arguments sound nice, but are meaningless. The argument that it differs from the Lord's Supper is a non sequitur, since they provide no realistic difference. (had they mentioned 1 Corinthians 11 that might have carried a little weight, but not once did any that disagreed with me ever bother to go beyond a warped rationalization of John 13, showing that it wasn't about what the Bible actually said, but what they could make it say). The argument that rituals are bad they backed down on, then repeated as they attempted to straddle the issue, eventually accusing me of Old Testament legalism (a combination red herring/ad hominem attack), for pointing out that God chose to use rituals in both the Old and New Testaments (that was a last ditch effort, right before I was banned). That they find washing another person's feet unpleasant would be precisely the point why it should be done. "Why would I do something unpleasant for someone else in an attempt to remember that I should be willing to do unpleasant things for others?" Their last argument, that the meaning is more important than the action, is old hat. I've heard it a million times before by people who want to ignore both the meaning and the action. Remember Jesus' words...

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. — Matthew 23:23

What the Pharisees had done was to invent ways to avoid the real meaning of the law, by substituting their own meaning, then over-obey that. By avoiding the actual action of foot washing we run the very real risk of forgetting the real meaning behind it.

(In the interest of full disclosure, the church I attend does not practice foot washing, and I've never been a member of one that does. I wish they would, but they don't. Very few do. But while I see it's absence as a problem, I don't see it as a single issue determinant for which church I should belong to)

But the point here is that not one of the people arguing against me, in that threads and the other threads I was involved in, understood even the basics of logical debate. But they seemed to have been well versed in the misuse of logical fallacies.

If you look up the term "logical fallacies" in a search engine, what will you find? Links to a lot of Atheist sites, because they've found that that is a weakness among many Christians. Oh, they use them themselves, sometimes even on their own "logical fallacies" pages, but since Christians have been conned into believing that one need not actually prepare to defend their beliefs, many don't. Where does that false teaching come from? For the most part a mis-interpretation of Matthew 10: 19...

But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

But in context it takes on quite a different meaning. So as not to have to quote most of the chapter, we have Jesus instructions to the disciples for a specific mission trip He has asked them to take. Some of the verses seem to be of a more general nature, but some are obviously specific to that event, or to certain events in particular...

And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. — Matthew 10:18-20

When under that specific event—being brought up before a court (governors and kings)—in those days they most likely had no idea what they were even being charged with, so there was no opportunity to prepare. But contrasted with the whole of scripture, is obvious that this in no way meant that we need never actually study to know how to defend our faith.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. — 2 Timothy 2:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: — 1 Peter 3:15

The Great Commission is...

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. — Matthew 28:19, 20

If we can't give a logical explanation for what we believe, how can we expect to convince others of the truth of it? If we run from confrontation, aren't we running from the very thing Jesus has called us to? It's not that we argue, but how we argue. Paul debated people all the time, yet it's funny we don't even see that as an example to follow. It should be, but it requires preparation and training many want to avoid.

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 30, 2007 7:21 AM