Submit yourselves therefore to God...

The following was my response to a Calvinist who talked about "accepting Jesus into his heart." I thought I'd post it here as well.

I have a problem with the concept of US accepting JESUS. In my view, there is no place in the scripture which asks us to "accept" Christ. That's a worldly point of view. In fact, I feel like it's somewhat arrogant and presumptuous of any lowly human to feel that it's even his place to "accept Christ," as though we're picking and choosing saviors that meet our own style and wants. I do believe that's how a lot of the world looks at it, but it's simply not so. I mean, think about it... Christ was an innocent man (and he was also God to boot) and yet he gave himself to be cruelly and brutally murdered for the sins of the world at a time where he could've just chosen to call ten legions of angels and be done with it all. Does a guy like that deserve my "acceptance"??? No, he commands my full and unconditional OBEDIENCE, and if God didn't offer me heaven or any other reward for that obedience, I WOULD STILL OWE IT. I, a sinner, don't even get to rise to the level where I can deign to "accept" Christ. I simply owe him my allegiance and full servitude.

Christ accepts US, not the other way around. Saying that we "accept" Christ into OUR lives is wrong-headed. When we become Christians, we are not simply adding on a room for Jesus. We are supposed to be GIVING our lives to Him for His acceptance! I have trouble with this self-centered version of Christianity where Christ does this and that for us, we ever so graciously accept Him, doing lip service to him as our busy lives permit, and we give nothing of ourselves in return. I realize that this appeals to the worldliness and ego of many people who aren't willing to have anything to do with Christ if he doesn't fit THEIR wants, but simply we are asked to obey his commandments to show that we love him (John 14:15).

Those commandments aren't grievous, and essential to salvation (1 Pet. 3:21) is baptism (Acts 2:38). That is not "accepting Jesus." That is obeying His commands. "Accepting Jesus" is nowhere to be found in the Scripture.

I think the better word would be "submit." "Acceptance" implies that we're meeting Jesus on our terms, when in actuality Jesus calls us to submit to him on his terms and based on his commandments (which is especially emphasized in John 14:15--"If ye love me, keep my commandments." ) Jesus does not force his way in; he stands waiting at the door for us to come to him and join his body by our submission and obedience to his commandments. Everything is prepared, but it is our responsibility to follow the simple and non-grievous commands which Jesus has laid out in obedience to him. Otherwise, we do not truly love him.

I Thank Thee That I Am Not As Other Men Are...

I've had a lot of free time this Sunday. Not only are we on vacation, but we also were iced in, and the area congregations cancelled services. This turn of events afforded us the unique opportunity to worship at home with my wife's parents, siblings, and in-laws, and wouldn't you know it, even on vacation, I had to preach! It also gave me time to sit comfortably, get on the internet and spend some much-needed free time studying some things that are happening in the Church of Christ today.

I almost wish I hadn't done the research, if I'm being quite honest with you. The division that exists within the church today is appalling, and the attitudes displayed by those who profess to be gospel preachers are even worse.

I started my search today by googling for a list of brotherhood publications. I knew of a couple, but the only one I had read online was Seek the Old Paths, but honestly I've grown weary of their constant harping on other brethren for every little infraction and their Pharasaical attitudes. So I looked for more.

I found a great list of brotherhood publications. It has what is probably the most comprehensive list of magazines and newsletters published by Churches of Christ. It also denotes if the publishing congregations are subscribed to different "-isms" (i.e. no Sunday School, no eating in the building, etc.) And then I started to notice some labelled as "new Anti." I know what the "old" Anti-ism means: essentially no kitchens, no gyms, no support of orphans homes, no benevolence...basically if you can be against it, then they are. But I was confused about what "new Anti-ism" meant.

One of the paragon publications of the "new Anti-ism" movement, allegedly and according to this list, is Contending for the Faith. (Also referred to, aptly, as "Contentious for the Faith" among many brethren.) I was sad to find that this publication and their flagship congregation hold annual lectureships, which generally turn out to be little more than ultra-conservative neo-anti gab-fests and a listing of brethren who are...gasp..."false teachers" and should be "marked and avoided." Often the only qualification for marking and avoiding these "false teachers" are that these men have appeared on the same lectureship speaking roster with other men who have previously been marked and avoided (possibly for the same thing). Because as everyone knows, appearing on lectureship rosters with these men means that you are stating to the world that you agree with them on every single thing down to the appropriate color of socks to put on in the morning. That is unless, of course, you spend the entire balance of your lecture time refuting these men's liberal leanings with complete disregard for your assigned topic. And once you have "fellowshipped these false teachers" you cannot come back from it, unless you write a lengthy editorial (and it MUST be in their magazine, as no other periodical is "sound") condemning the first false teacher to hell and back again and quite possibly insulting their grandmother. (I suppose I am to be marked and avoided as well, because in my teen years I attended Winterfest and Jeff Walling--anathema to the neo-Antis--was the speaker. I didn't agree with him, but I also haven't repented of going, so I can never be a "sound" preacher now, I suppose.)

But I digress. I was moved to tears when I viewed online this past year's Open Forum. (You can view the entire lectureship here.) To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure how the issue at hand got started. From what I can tell, the entire argument started when someone on a Yahoo group accused a couple of preachers, Israel and Joshua Rodriguez, of going to yet another preacher to "gather ammo" to use against a FOURTH party. (I promise I'm not making this up. I fully realize that this could be the plot of an episode of Hannah Montana, or some other sophomoric high school drama, but these are men in their forties and seventies.) At the heart of this eighth grade conflict theological discussion is a preacher named Dave Miller, who I would find out through independent research had preached on the subject of re-evaluation and re-induction of elders fully EIGHTEEN years ago, and brothers still are shoving each other out of the way to distance and disfellowship themselves from here. Anyway, the brother that the Rodriguezes visited is a preacher by the name of Joe Metter, and they were visiting him to inquire if they agreed with Dave about the eldership thing, and oh, by the way, there was also the pressing matter of whether Joe had studied the secular psychological practice of gestalt therapy and/or practiced Hinduist yoga. (By the way, yes he studied it, no he didn't believe in all of it, and the yoga he practiced was a non-religious exercise done for his personal health.)

If your brain has already exploded, imagine how I must've felt after watching all three hours of it.

Anyway, Contending for the Faith baited invited the Rodriguez brothers to participate in the Open Forum at their lectureship to present their side of the story. The Rodriguez brothers foolishly accepted, and the fascist moderator, David Brown, barely let them speak, interrupting them constantly, rarely allowing them to finish a sentence, yelling at one of them to "SHUT UP!" and acting like a jerk for the better part of two hours. If ever there was an event that illustrated Luke 18:10-14, this Open Forum was it.

Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

I find it way beyond pitiful that there are large and vocal contingents within the church who have nothing better to do than to waste God's precious time with quibbles. I get that there is a need to preach the truth, but somewhere in the middle of all that, we've forgotten that we are to love each other. That's the second greatest commandment! (Mark 12:31)

Just looking at this debate, it's hard to tell what the doctrinal difference is all about. The whole of the conversation is who talked to who, and who went to the same parties with who. These same "new Antis" who preach so loudly about the autonomy of congregations then turn around and try to shout down other congregations who don't do things the exact same way that they do or who differ in opinion (not in doctrine). These "new Antis" have forgotten the second greatest commandment, and they've also forgotten the Great Commission of going into all the world and teaching the truth of Jesus Christ to every creature. Instead, they have appointed themselves to be the policemen of the church, the guardian against "error creeping into the church," and the avenging angels who war against "change agents" and "false teachers."

They'd do well to remember Jesus' words:

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Love one another and teach the lost. It's not that hard, folks.