Humanistic Thinking in Church Doctrine
This is a series of 7 posts about humanistic thinking has pervaded church doctrines today. Many of these doctrines were established on the reaction of a theological scholar against prevalent doctrinal positions in the church environment during the Reformation and Restoration movements. Many of these doctrines went too far in their reaction to their environment, but, rather than continuing to challenge and grow toward a better understanding, the interpretations formed by the scholar were accepted as inspired and were woven into the fabric of denominations and other groups. These doctrines have become idols, as groups dignify them by separating the body of Christ, elevating themselves, and condemning those who disagree.
092. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#1]: HAVE HUMAN LEGALISTIC COMMANDS BEEN FORMED OUT OF SPIRITUAL DOCTRINES OF GRACE?
Who, me? Rebellious? I just wanna do my thing.
God created mankind, male and female, in His image, and God said it was “very good.” Therefore, being human is good, and human nature is good – but only under one condition. Human nature is good when it has been placed under submission to the will of God; human nature not under the control of God will inevitably lead to trouble. To an extent, man is in control of his own destiny, not by determining his own outcome out of his own efforts, but by using the freedom of choice God gave men and women to make the correct decision. Man’s default behavior is his own human nature, and to improve on this pattern, man has to voluntarily submit to the will of God. But man can choose to remain under the control of his own nature. God created the world so that there are consequences to the choice made – an outcome of life following the will of God or an outcome of death and destruction for man following his own will. The consequence of choosing to rebel against God was first seen in the Garden. The Old Testament recorded many outcomes of decisions that were made for or against God submission to God. In the New Testament, it is a decision between either the control of the Spirit or the control of the flesh (Rom. 8:12-13).
It seems unlikely that the word “rebellion” was in Adam and Eve’s vocabulary. From their perspective, they just did what they wanted to do; they weren’t openly fighting God or shaking their fist in His face. “Rebellion” sounds active – like an uprising or a war against authority that is perceived as generating hardship and suffering. After Adam and Eve had sinned, they hid from God; they didn’t go after God and attack Him. “Now that He knows, we have to kill Him.”
Surely, we don’t rebel, do we? We just make a decision. By default, we are human and, therefore, always in the human nature, and from that nature we have to actively choose to submit to God. What if we don’t? If we do not intentionally choose to submit to God, it would seem that we should just “passively” stay under the control of the human nature. “Naaah. I’ll just stay here; but thanks anyway.” However, in so doing, by the definition of scripture, it is not a passive choice; we are making an active decision to rebel against God.
In the scripture, God’s way is often presented as the way that necessitates action, requiring a purposeful decision to be made and a change in direction. To not choose God is the same as rejecting God – it is the choice of the absence of God. Just like darkness is defined as the absence of light, silence is defined as the absence of sound, and cold is defined as the absence of heat, so hate is the absence of love, and rebellion is the absence of submission to God.
“Well, I’m not rebelling against God. I’m just choosing to do my own thing and make decisions the way I want to. After all, it’s my life. So, just leave me alone. Don’t try to push your religion on me.” That is a common attitude today, and that sort of thinking is only an echo of the words of that Gardenian serpent, “You shall not surely die.” Since the alternative to submitting to the will of God is rebellion toward God, rebellion results in separation, enmity, conflict, and sin.
Human nature resists control – submission is a ten-letter word
It is a characteristic of human nature to desire freedom and to resist oppression. We desire to cooperate and work together out of choice rather than from outside coercion or compulsion. This is not bad in itself; it is a trait that God created within us. But the enemy would have us believe that “freedom” is free to do my will and not God’s, that oppression comes from all those restrictive commands, and that coercion involves the threat of punishment. However, the love of God is the opposite of all these things. We are free from sin, free to be like God, and free from punishment.
Humanistic thinking exalts human control over God’s control, the created elevated over the Creator, rebellion instead of submission. In humanistic thinking, “submission” has a bad connotation. In natural thinking, submission implies slavery, ownership, and enforced obedience. This type of thinking started in the Garden.
Humanistic thinking in the Garden and the resulting rebellion. As first noted in the Garden of Eden, with the capacity for independent thinking came the authority to make human moral decisions, and with this authority came the choice of rebellion against the will of God. God knew the nature of man, because God had created man. Even if the Garden account is allegorical, the story still provides some interesting details. What is the natural human response to a rule or to a command of “Do not do this!” Doesn’t that evoke a natural response of resistance or rebellion? “Don’t cross that line.” “Oh, I hadn’t even noticed that line before; now I want to cross it.” “How close can I come?” “What is the definition of ‘cross’?” How much of my body has to be over the line before it counts as a ‘cross’?” “What is ‘is’?”
Paul said he wanted to do what was right, but he kept doing what was wrong (Rom. 7:21-23), and “wrong” wasn’t even defined until the law came and defined what was “sin” (Rom. 3:20). The law said, “Don’t do this,” and then people wanted to do it. This was a rebellious attitude.
It would seem that the susceptibility of Adam and Eve to make a choice that constituted a rebellion against the will of God was inevitable.
Gen. 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
It may just be the English NIV translation, but God didn’t say, “….for if you eat of it….” God said, “…for when you eat of it” (or, literally, “…for in the day that …”). In the story, God also used the rebellion-button-pushing words, “must not.” God didn’t cause Adam and Eve to sin, but I think He foreknew they would use their God-given image to rebel against Him just the same as He knew how everything else He set up at the start of creation would turn out. God set it all in motion by the natural laws He established. Obeying these laws, this universe came about by an evolutionary process over 13.7 billion years, and this universe still follows those laws. By setting into motion the eventual evolution of man, represented by Adam and Eve, God make His crowning creation with the mind to exercise choice, or “free-will.”
We know from child psychology that telling a 2-3 year old that “you can’t….” or “you must….” is not as effective as “you can do…” or “wouldn’t you like to….” Young children are more transparent in their rebellious attitudes than adults, who have a learned behavioral response to cover it up.
What if, instead of “… but you must not…,” God would have said, “Now, think about it Adam; you really want to keep all this, don’t you? Just keep thinking about this good life you have and you won’t even want to eat the fruit of this tree.”
Adam and Eve made a human response to God’s command for them to submit to His will concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve chose poorly, and they paid the price for that choice. But all that has changed for us. Jesus Christ came as God the Son and modeled the ultimate submission to the will of the Father. He paid the price for the sin of rebellion so that we could be free from the bondage of the desire to make the bad choice of being controlled by the human, fleshly nature. He provided us with the Holy Spirit to empower us to choose submission to God and to receive the blessing of fellowship with Him. And Jesus paid the price for the sin we would incur when we messed up by choosing to operate out of the flesh. We are free to choose to live and walk according to the Spirit, and in so doing we grow to be like God. And Jesus modeled the love of God so that we could love one another, make peace with one another, and by our unity show the world the love of God.
Does this sound like the rerun of an old sermon heard many times before? Are we so accustomed to these concepts that we just put our brains on “sleep mode?” “I know the drill.” Yes, but are we sure we are marching to the right tune? Is it the tune from God or the tune of the world? Do we have the discernment to know the difference, or have we gone “tone deaf.” How many would even hear the “trumpet call of God” over the roar of the world?
The deception of humanistic thinking. We have said in previous posts that elements of humanistic thinking and actions have entered the church and have become so familiar that they have become acceptable methods of conduct. It is subtle and deceptive. It’s like some people who move into a neighborhood and are really nice and friendly and helpful. They interact with all the existing neighbors and help them and share with then and gain their confidence. The neighbors get used to them and accept them. They’re so nice. The people help protect the other neighbors and watch out for them. Neighbors show them where their jewelry is kept and their secret cash and other valuables. They seem so trustworthy. Then, one day the new neighbors have disappeared and everyone else in the neighborhood finds that their houses have been robbed in a precise way – only their diamonds and jewels and most expensive collections and their cash. “But we trusted them. They were such nice humans.”
Humanistic thinking in doctrine. There are many examples of thinking within the church that has become infiltrated with humanistic elements of doctrine. And like hypocrisy – it’s always “somebody else.” Many of these doctrines are products of generations and centuries of a feedback loop, in which particular doctrines selectively attract those certain people who agree with them. This yields a group bonded by a close doctrinal agreement, with all the interactive confirmations that the doctrine must be correct because “everyone thinks so.” Thus, the doctrine is perpetuated, rehearsed, taught, and defended against outside encroachment by foreign groups who have their own different binding doctrine. Once groups identify themselves with a particular set of doctrines, which are usually based on interpretations of scripture originated by a founder of the group or other historically prominent members, they have a unique flag to wave, differentiating themselves from other groups. The competitive spirit between groups becomes apparent, as different groups try to outdo the others for limited environmental resources, such as media attention, physical plant facilities, size of ministerial staff, size of attendance or membership, and size of the annual budget and contribution. This competition for resources may also involve the elevation of one group’s self-righteous opinion of the correctness of their interpretations (for doctrinal purposes) and/or the judgment or condemnation of other groups who have a different view. In a civilized society, this may come across “only” as verbal demonization and vilification of other groups. There are examples in history where group competition led to open conflict, war, and killing.
Competition. This competition between groups for resources is the same expression of moral human behavior that allowed our evolutionary ancestors to survive and continue the species. Those who competed successfully survived. What does that indicate about competition between churches or denominations or congregations of Christians today? From what source does that human competition come? From the Holy Spirit? From Jesus? No, it comes from out of the control of the fleshly nature. It is natural behavior; it is human behavior; it is a product of evolutionary behavior. It is humanism at work in the church. It could also be called “idolatry,” “selfish ambition,” and “pride” (Gal. 5:19-21).
Tribal badges. One human behavioral trait said to have been inherited through an evolutionary process is the desire to form tribes, and as tribes, to have some sort of differentiating identification, like a badge. Do we have doctrinal badges that we proudly wear? We’re known as the people who do this …… or who don’t do this ….. We will protect that doctrine as though it is a badge of honor, because that’s what it is. We may claim that our badge is Jesus, but how well can that be substantiated? We substantiate our claim with the scripture, but we can’t admit that there may be a difference between our interpretation and the real truth in the word. We stop searching and “stand our ground” and defend our badge (as in “defending the faith”). That is an action that is identical with evolutionary humanistic behavior, according to Jonathan Haidt.
Is Jesus the only Lord? As we have said, it is human nature for people of like interest or thinking to form groups that compete with other groups. If the groups are too much the same, there is nothing to compete about – nothing to make one group superior to another. It would seem that agreeing on Jesus Christ as Lord is not enough for Christians. Christian groups need something in addition to Jesus to distinguish themselves from other groups. So it is Jesus + _(abc)_ . This “abc = something else” is usually called a “doctrine.” And every tribe group has a “something else” that is unique to them and that makes them better, more spiritual, somehow closer to Jesus, or maybe the only ones qualified to be saved. If we didn’t have that “something else,” what would our group be known for? What would make our group distinct? If we were only known as Christians, would we lose our identity? We have to be known by some other name, or else people wouldn’t know why we are different from those other groups. “Jesus only” becomes “Jesus plus.”
Do Christian groups compete over doctrines that are man-made to make one group unique over another? Do they ever interpret biblical passages in a way to extract commands out of the God’s word to back up their doctrine? How comparable is this to humanistic thinking?
Do Christian groups have “Jesus plus” doctrines? The “plus” part may not necessarily be written down; it may often be words and in practices instead. If one is a member of a Jesus plus A group, and the individual is Jesus plus B, the individual will eventually have a general feeling of unwelcomeness.
What about Jesus plus Calvinistic views, or Jesus plus Wesleyan views, or Jesus plus speaking in tongues views, or Jesus plus water baptism essential views, or Jesus plus the Pope views, or Jesus plus our popular, TV evangelist, book writing, church growing, dynamic, inspiring pulpit minister views, or Jesus plus anything else placed on our alters of human importance. It’s not just Jesus that’s important, one must approach Jesus using an approved methodology or else all those wonderful efforts don’t count for anything. How comparable is this to tribal thinking and sacalization of tribal badges and vilification or the opposition – comparable to humanistic evolutionarily-derived thinking. Chat pages and comment sections on web blogs give away what people really think.
Paul also dealt with humanism in the early church. Members in the Corinthian church seemed to like to play the “one-upsmanship game” on one another. The game that Paul addressed in 1 Cor. chapter 3 was called “Jesus plus who-had-performed-the-physical-baptizing.” (1 Cor. 3:1-9). Paul said the church members were being “worldly” because of that divisive, prideful, and competitive spirit. Most of the members in the Corinthian church had come from out of an evil, pagan, sin-worshiping culture; they carried some worldliness with them into the church that Paul had to point out for correction. How many of these same mistakes are repeated today, even after 2000 years of Holy Spirit operation in the church?
Humanistic thinking differentiates by worldly values, which are from out of the flesh even if their nature is camouflaged by spiritual names. “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.” (Luke 16:15)
093. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#2]: – ARE THERE COWBIRDS IN THE CHURCH BELFRY?
What is worse than having bats in the belfry? It's having cowbirds in the belfry. Every church, every denomination, every Christian group, every congregation has them to one extent or another. Virtually none of the groups know the parasites are there and if they were told, not only would they deny it, they would get fighting mad even over the very suggestion of such a thing. "Go and talk to those people over there; they're the birdbrains, not us."
Cumulative effect of over 2000 years of humanistic thinking in the church
Did human society evolve in complexity during the time between Noah and Nehemiah? Was there an increase in the spiritual depth of how God dealt with His people during that time -- in the expectations that God made of His people -- in the extent of revelation of Himself that He could give to the people -- in the leadership and organization of His people? Yes, these things certainly changed, and since that's the definition of evolve, evolution happened. There was a purposeful increase in complexity as people were able to handle God's revelation with reasonable expectations of responsibility and outcome. What was the goal of this evolutionary process? Holiness. "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them, 'Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.'" Lev. 19:2 (also Lev. 11:44-45 and 1 Pet 1:16).
God completed the revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15) we fulfill our created destiny (Eph. 4:24) by being transformed more and more into the likeness of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). This is done individually as the church, the body of Christ, builds itself up in love as, in unity, it grows into the full knowledge and maturity of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:12-16). To empower that process, God dwells in the church by His Spirit (Eph. 2:21-22).
So, although the revelation of God had been completed by Jesus and recorded by the Holy Spirit, our human understanding of God was certainly not complete. Some have interpreted "when the perfect shall come" in 1 Cor. 13:10 as the perfect revelation of God in the word (New Testament), but that verse refers to perfection or maturity in the love of Christ. Anyone who thinks the church has arrived at that point is kidding themselves. So, what revelation of the mind of God has the church allowed the Spirit of God to do in the last 2000 years? Has the church evolved more into the fullness of Christ? Has the church come closer to being fulfilling the prayer of Jesus for unity in John 17? Has the church filled the earth with its obedience to the command of Jesus, "Love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:34-25)? Or, has humanistic thinking been slowly seeping into the church over 2000 years, either unbeknownst to the members of the body or sometimes invited in by them? Inviting in the behavior of the world is not a very safe thing to do, since we have an example of what the Holy Spirit thinks of people who try to bring humanistic standards of conduct into the church in Acts 5:1-11 -- Ananias and Sapphira.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a human to totally get his(her) sinful nature out of the way so as to see only Jesus. That is one of many reasons why we need one another in the church to help cover our own deficiencies so that together we can have a clearer perspective of Jesus than we would have individually. Sometimes a particularly outstanding and gifted person comes onto the scene. To have the teaching of a spiritually prominent theologian can produce great gains and insights into our understanding of the will of God and the interpretation of the scriptures. However, that blessing is also a double edged sword, because there may not be anyone who can, or will, cover the flaws, errors, and omissions that are inevitable in any human thinking, irrespective of the extent of their gifting.
Humanistic thinking comes into the church
There are a number of ways humanistic thinking has come into the church since AD33. These have happened at various times, and often at the same time, over the 2000 years, and all could happen today. As this thinking becomes familiar and accepted over time, it becomes part of the group's traditional doctrine. Often changes in the church came as a response to environmental circumstances or as a reaction to the unscriptural nature of existing doctrine.
[1] The church adapts the ideas, thinking, organization, and measures of the worldly
environment in which it is found -- government, social, business, contemporary worldview.
[2] The church adapts the thinking of, or in heavily influenced by, a prominent theologian, or politician, of the time, who himself is a product of his environment.
[3] (combination of 1 and 2) The church follows the thinking of a prominent theologian who is reacting specifically to unbiblical teachings and who forms a new doctrine that is primarily a reaction to teachings perceived as erroneous.
There are many examples of the above general categories. Even toward the end of the first century, the church had begun to develop an organization of increased centralization patterned after the Roman government, which over the next centuries evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. This became accepted and enforced, and then it was the doctrine. The Roman emperor became the head of the church, as well as state, so development of other competing governments involved forming new state churches, with many church doctrinal errors preserved and others added. At the time of the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Wesley and others specifically reacted to certain doctrinal errors of the Catholic Church, and the groups they formed addressed these errors in a particular way. The solution in many cases was reactionary, overcompensating for the error, and forming a new extreme. These prominent theologians held considerable sway in promoting their views, and the writings of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others are used as doctrinal standards today. Calvinism, for instance, is known by particular facets or points of interpretation of grace, works, salvation, and safety of salvation. Pioneers of the Restoration Movement of the early 1800’s wanted to throw out the traditional doctrines, which, again, were thought to be biblically erroneous, break down denominational barriers, and have unity based on the Bible only. This movement started well but was soon corrupted by developing legalisms that became an unwritten, but enforced, creed. Today the American church is influenced organizationally by capitalism and business, and in many churches the governance resembles that of a corporation. The church today is also heavily influenced by the dominant postmodern worldview and by the same patterns of human moral behavior that divide Americans politically.
There are a number of characteristics that are common in the development during and following the patterns described above, particularly on movements within the last 400 years affecting most Christian groups in America today.
[1] A reaction to entrenched errors in doctrine of the dominant church at the time, often with an overcompensation to the problem and developing another doctrinal extreme or with such a focus on the problem under consideration that others errors are not addressed but still accepted.
[2] Proliferation of membership around the teaching of the dominant theologian who started the movement. Acceptance of the group's views. Gather a following around the views.
[3] Adopt the views and form tribes among those people who are pre-filtered by pledging agreement with the views. These incomplete views become doctrine and the search done by the pioneers of the group is accepted as truth.
[4] Views become traditionally accepted and then become doctrine. Views are written down and become creeds and statements of faith.
[5] Doctrine becomes defining for the group. The name of the group reflects the name of the pioneer(s).
[6] The doctrine becomes truth, those who disagree are excluded.
[7] Opposing groups are vilified and demonized, must be competition between groups for survival; must defend the faith (of the pioneer).
[8] Further develop scriptural proof of the group doctrine; publish some doctrine-friendly translations of the Bible. Continue to divide and separate from groups who do not agree. Sharpen differences between groups.
There are many denominational and other groups in the US today that are the outcome of such incomplete searches. The original search was limited in scope and was not continued by those who followed, who rather dug the foxholes and protected the doctrine. So, for the most part, this dig, bury, and define strategy has not produced any further advances toward the truth. Instead of combining strengths between groups as weaknesses are covered, the groups continue to compete with one another over their incomplete doctrinal interpretations.
We have been asking the question why the church doesn’t have more influence over human society today. Why is there less and less respect shown toward Christians and Christian teachings? Why does there seem to be a direct relation between how many years (centuries) a particular church has been in existence and the degree of calcification of its doctrine? Look at Christianity in most European countries and compare both the organizations and the people’s attitude toward them with the same in the US. America is still called “a Christian nation” today, depending on the poll taken and who interprets the results. But, the organized church in the US is headed in the same direction as the European churches are now. (Not headed for a combination of church and state, but the lack of relevance the church has on people’s conduct and behavior). And, what about the relevance on behavior in American society? Why is there a seeming degeneration in the behavior of those in the political arena, which has gotten bad enough that non-Christians are also asking “Why?”
Isn’t the population of the world increasing faster than the membership in the body of Christ? The church should have been growing spiritually during the last 2000 years of operation of the Holy Spirit. Has the influence of the church at least kept up with the increase in human population on the earth? Or, has the increase in the human population resulted in an increase in the pressure of humanism coming into the church? Is the church increasing the assault on the gates of hell as the world increases in population?
It seems that when new scriptural insights have been discovered by those in the church, so that an opportunity is presented to come closer to the meaning of the scripture, some type of humanistic thinking has been introduced into the universal body of Christ at the same time. At each plateau of the church’s growing into an understanding of the mind of Christ, another dose of the mind of man is also included. A new group is formed that then stops searching and starts protecting and defending. This group behavior is exactly like that described by Jonathan Haidt as being a human natural behavior derived from a successful evolutionary survival. Christians have embraced new spiritual truths, but have then have responded as a group in the natural, in the flesh, in the sinful nature, in the nature of Adam. Too many of these truths have been codified into doctrine which has been raised up in magnified importance like the serpent in the wilderness was later raised up by the Israelites as an idol. (Num 21:6-8; 2 Kings 18:4).
Humanism in the church -- travelling alongside the gospel of Christ – enjoying the same benefits of “thus sayeth the Lord” as genuine spiritual truths. It is humanism, masquerading as truth.
Are there cowbirds in the belfry?
The invasion of humanism in the church is like a cowbird, a brood parasitic bird that plants its eggs in the nests of other species of birds. The other “host” birds are fooled and think the eggs, and the hatchlings, are their own. They raise the cowbird chicks and feed them. Often the cowbird chicks are larger, louder, and more demanding than those of the other species. They eat more and dominate the resources at the expense of the “genuine species,” so that the alien cowbirds may be the only ones to survive. The cowbirds proliferate and form new generations.
Raising cowbirds in the church nest is bad enough, but are there more problems that the church invites for itself? The cowbird retaliates Some bird species will recognize the foreign cowbird egg and physically eject the egg from the nest. However, cowbirds often check on their egg deposits, and they have several retaliatory reactions – “mafia behavior” or “farming behavior” – in which cowbirds ransack the host nest or completely destroy it, forcing the host birds to rebuild. Will the host birds be left alone now? No, the cowbirds infest that newly built nest with their eggs, as well. Cowbirds exploit other birds. Cowbirds don't thank anybody, they are opportunistic and selfish and entitled to taking over. If you don't let them, they'll come back and do you harm. Give them a little and they want more. And "more" is not enough, either.
Humanism is like cowbirds placing their eggs in other bird's nests. Humanism plants its seeds in the church. and the church incorporates it into its doctrine and protects it, just like host birds raising the young of the parasite birds. Humanism grows and corrupts the nest and chokes out the truth and the offspring of the church. The church lets it grow and even feeds it. All churches.
Who is to blame for this?
Do we have cowbirds in the church? Are there elements of humanism embedded in our own doctrines? How could this be recognized? Is it Jesus Christ that separates different Christian groups, or is it the “PLUS” part our “Jesus plus” doctrine?
Do I claim that this a problem for everyone else except my group? I have the truth and they have the cowbirds? I once thought that; then God showed me that I had at least as much humanistic thinking as anyone.
The log and the toothpick analogy applies here (Matt. 7:3-5). If I were to remove the humanistic thinking from my eye, I would see more clearly to help others recognize and get rid of their humanism.
Or, we could continue to choose to believe a lie. “You will not surely die,” the serpent said (Gen. 3:7). "You will not surely have cowbirds."
Sometimes, the world can recognize cowbirds better than Christians, who tend to be more in denial about themselves. Maybe that's when there are also bats in the belfry.
094. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#3]: RESULTS FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST – FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT OR THE WORKS OF THE FLESH?
The Spirit of God defines unity, and God defines the body of Christ.
The church does not have the authority to define unity of the Spirit or to draw the boundaries of the body of Christ. The church’s job is to maintain the unity and to fellowship those whom God saves.
The body of Christ is all believers. What does “unity in Christ” for all believers look lide? Do the members love, make peace, and maintain unity among one another in the body? Do they serve one another by using the gifts of the Spirit? Or, is unity comprised of passing judgment, fault-finding, condemning, competing, even rejoicing over another part of the body being overcome by the enemy?
Be the chief honcho by limiting the scope of your universe to what you can control.
One scheme of human thinking is the self-delusional relation between control and universe. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. God is in control and God fills the universe through Christ. Humans, like Satan, want to be like God, not in righteousness and holiness, but in power and control. If someone has limited control, they can limit the size of their universe to only that which they have control over. Then, they control their universe. That works as long as they remain inside their little box.
If someone has an IQ of 120 and they want to be considered the great intellectual one, they can surround themselves with people with IQ’s of 100. “Oh, ask Big 120 about that – he knows everything.” Put Big 120 in a room with a dozen Bigger 140’s, and he will have less to say. The Bigger 140’s will vie for control until Biggest 180 comes in. So, Big 120 learns to limit his realm of interaction to the first group. Stay out of the other rooms. Now, Big 120 can get proud and puffed up and stay that way, as long as those other people don’t intrude into his limited universe.
A football team might be considered to be really good. They whip up on everybody that they play. They can brag about being the best in the whole world until they play a team in a higher league who defeats them. Better stay in their own league where they can be top of their universe.
People in an office group of four can all wear the same style of orange Halloween shirt, and as long as they keep to themselves, it’s “We’re in unity -- everybody wore one of these shirts.” They better not go down to the lunch room and find out that they are the only ones in the building of 400 people who wore that shirt – 396 people wore blue shirts.
But artificial discrimination between people, human authority and artificial differences, an the heads of all the mini-universes will disappear into oblivion when everyone stands in the presence of God.
Is unity defined as that which we can control?
Can you maintain unity if you define only a small group as being acceptable? Christians’ maintenance of unity is inversely proportional to the size of the group. We can talk about unity problems or about attitudes and someone invariably says, “My group doesn’t have that problem. We’re all in unity. We agree on everything. We help one another.” Etc, on and on. That’s great. If it is really based on the unity of the Spirit, spread your love, peace, and unity to the rest of the body of Christ. If it is based on uniformity masquerading as unity, as soon as you take it out of you group of three, it will fall apart.
When Jesus prayed for unity in John 17, it was for the unity of all believers, not uniformity upon doctrine within one group, or not even unity of the Spirit within the restricted universe of 25 people. Or 2500 people, for that matter. That is a start, but every group has its own influence of humanistic thinking that is intrinsic to its tradition methodology – that’s the way we’ve always done it. Even if there were a group called “Church of the ‘Never Do Anything the Same Way Twice,’” they would have to do something twice or else they’d break their own rule. (Avoid doing something twice two times in a row?) Anything built on a method to find Jesus, to follow Jesus, to define Jesus, to do Jesus right, to interpret Jesus’ words will have a doctrine made up of human effort. How many different churches in Christianity are separated, not because of Jesus, but because of an additionalmethod of human protocol? How many do this while vehemently denying it?
If we deny knowing (fellowshipping) another part of the body of Christ, do we deny knowing Christ, Himself?
Denial? That sounds familiar. “Oh, you’re like one of those Jesus followers who sing with a piano.” “NO, NO, I’d never do that.” “You’re one of those 1000 year reign …..” “NO, NO, I never knew these people.” “You’re one of those …..” No, No, I never knew the method that represents that man or the people who believe in using that method.” “Aren’t you a member of the same church that …..” “Oh, no! I don’t fellowship them. I even deny that they’re Christians.”
“I don’t know the man” (Luke 22:57). If we deny fellowship or deny that a part of the church is really attached to the body, are we really detaching ourselves from the body? If we are all part of the same body, and if one hand of the body says that it and that other hand cannot be attached to the same body, which one is detached? Does one hand decide whether or not the other hand is attached? The job of one hand is to integrate and coordinate with the other hand so that their combined service to the entire body is greater – not to judge whether or not the other hand should be rejected.
Denial of service because we don’t like your clothes?
Like the bartender in the first Star Wars movie said about Luke’s droids, “We don’t serve their kind here.”
Can we in the church be like those establishments that have a sign posted at the door saying, “We reserve the right to deny service to anyone who doesn’t wear a shirt and shoes.” Or, maybe at a level above that, “We deny service to anyone not wearing a tuxedo.” “We deny entrance to anyone who hasn’t been immersed in water in a way that we approve of.”
Do the words “As much as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me” apply only to visiting jails and handing out water? What about, “As much as you have denied one another over your human doctrine, you have done that denial to me?” (Matt. 25:40-45). We are to have unity of the Spirit -- the same Spirit that came to testify of Jesus -- a personal knowledge of God’s Son -- not uniformity over a human methodological approach to Jesus.
What is the outcome of 2000 years of the influence of humanistic thinking?
[1] The church has trended away from unity instead to toward greater unity. Has the number of Christian group that operate separately from one another become greater in number or less with time? Why are there more instances of group’s separating over doctrine than groups coming together because they have decided to elevate only Jesus Christ? When groups combine, it is much more often for financial reasons than theological. They can’t afford their building because their membership has decreased so much. The church’s message to the world about unity of the body of Christ is diluted with humanistic thinking – the message is confusing, chaotic, and conflicting. Unity in the body of Christ is supposed to be a primary way the church testifies to the world of the love of the Father (John 17). How can the church tell the world that there is one Savior when the church is splitting up the Lordship of Jesus and arguing about the pieces?
There are many denominations and other groups in the US today that are the outcome of such incomplete searches. The original search was limited in scope and an active search was not continued by those who followed; they rather layered more and more justification for what had been discovered and defended the doctrine as it had been passed down. Very few groups have continued a search for truth, challenging and re-challenging their doctrinal interpretations in light of what God might freshly reveal to them through the Holy Spirit. This approach is counterproductive to making deeper searches for the truth revealed in scripture. Instead of a sense of unity in the Spirit, allowing a combining of the strengths of groups, they continue to compete over their incomplete doctrinal interpretations.
It seems that church history is full of instances when a group or a person was dissatisfied with the accuracy of the Biblical interpretation or the spiritual condition of the church at that time, so they started on a new search of the scriptures. They made new discoveries from the scriptures, but they were concentrated primarily in the doctrinal areas with which they most disagreed. Instead of continuing the search for new or deeper truth, people in subsequent generations circled the wagons around the doctrine previously discovered and protected it against contamination from the outside.
(1) The church was established in the unity of the Spirit, and it was charged with maintaining that unity in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). (2) By the end of the first century, the church was beginning to develop the organizational patterns of the Roman government, (3) which over hundreds more years, evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, combining government with state religion. (4) Because of doctrinal deviations from N.T. teachings that were so sacralized they would not change, other groups formed in a reaction to these errors. During the Reformation Movement, groups led by eminent theologians formed that addressed specific errors in Catholic doctrine. Many parts of Catholic doctrine were not challenged and were brought over into the new groups. Old errors were maintained and new errors introduced, but the error profile wasn't the same between all the groups. (5a) This would have been an opportunity to bring the different groups into unity to learn from the strengths each group brought to the table. (5) However, the groups separated and rallied around their own doctrine, found justification for it and reasons to defend it. (6) Frustrated by all the inflexible rules of denominations, the Restoration Movement began with the intent of going back to the Bible as the only authority for church doctrine. (7) However, divisions among groups occurred because people's interpretations became sacalrized as representing Biblical truth. (8) For a movement to be founded on unity, the resulting divisions were probably more bitter and acrimonious than any before. (9) Today there are many different groups, each with its defining doctrine making itself unique, separated from other parts of the body of Christ, often judging and condemning one another.
[2] The church’s impact on the behavioral standards of the world is decreasing, not increasing. Why is our political system in chaos because of special interest groups? Too many people and groups place themselves above the good of the nation. People act as though they would rather the whole nation go down financially than for them to have to give up something. Take it away from everybody else, not me. No need to point the finger at someone else, there is plenty of selfishness and greed to go around. When it comes around to passing out entitlements, everyone is qualified for labels of selfish and greedy.
According to behavioral psychologists, people are behaving as if they have socially de-evolved. They are using behavior that resulted in human groups in the past tens or a hundred thousand years becoming extinct. Those groups who could manage resources better were the ones who survived. Are we going to prove that “survival of the fittest” maneuver again?
If the church is supposed to show the world how things are done in the kingdom of God in heaven, why aren’t things in better shape? Too many characteristics of evolved human natural behavior describe group behavior in the church – separation, competition, self-interest, defend the group, judge others, condemn and vilify, define others as evil and demonize, refuse to believe anything other than group preconceptions, etc. The church would seem to resemble the natural world more than the world learns about the Spirit from the church. The world sees too much of a reflection of itself in the church rather than a reflection of Jesus Christ. The world recognizes itself because it recognized humanistic thinking in the church. Christians could recognize it, if the different groups were not so busy defending their doctrine from one another.
[3] The gospel is presented as a command instead of as an opportunity to respond to the love of God. In the gospels, people came to Jesus. They came to be healed, to be ministered to, to be taught, to ask him questions, to believe in Him. In most of the conversions in Acts, people who responded were looking for something – sometimes it was amazement about seeing miracles or conviction from seeing their own need.
The converts in the New Testament were seeking something more. They asked questions about what to do. Acts 2:37 -- “Brothers, what shall we do?” Acts 8:34 – The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Acts 9:5 -- “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. Acts 10:4 -- Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.” Acts 16:14 -- One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. Acts 16: 30 -- He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
A command comes from authority, so when a command about the gospel is issued, it needs to come from the authority of scripture. The Old Testament is full of commands, but what about the New Testament? The New Testament is built on the love of God expressed through Jesus Christ our Lord. Because of our response to His love, we want to do these things, and in so doing, we become more like God. But, if the gospel is presented as a “you must,” then commands need to be found in the New Testament, even if they aren’t really there. With these commands comes the debate over what is a work and what is faith – what is a work of obedience earning salvation in addition to faith vs. a work because one is saved to demonstrate one’s faith? What is the fruit of humanly derived commands? Humanly derived arguments. As examples of where this leads, just read the chat and comment pages on some Internet Christian blogs.
Two Christians are testifying about the love of God to an unbeliever. The unbeliever says, “Do I have to do anything?” The Christians begin to disagree with one another. “You have to obey something.” “No, that’s a work; you’re saved by grace.” “Even having faith is a work; accepting Christ is a work.” “No, that’s a response to faith.” The unbeliever walks out saying, “You guys get back to me when you get it figured out.” That little fable resembles Paul’s example in 1 Cor. 14:24-25 of an unbeliever coming into a Christian assembly when everyone was speaking in tongues at one another and leaving, saying, “You are all crazy.” To an unbeliever, a lot of the Christianese rhetoric about faith vs. works and grace vs. obedience, water and Spirit baptism, and ‘do it this way vs do it that way’ must sound like speaking in unknown tongues, because they view it as division and chaos and people who can’t agree on what they believe. Just like the immaturity of the church in Corinth. Where is the example of conversion in the book of Acts that authorizes that approach?
As we have said in earlier posts, Jesus gave one command, which He, Himself, identified as a command and which was later called a command in the New Testament church. Jesus said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35) Jesus is presented as the love of God (John 3:16). If Jesus and God’s salvation is presented as a command to be obeyed, it is because something has been humanly added. It is a command concerning the “plus” part of a “Jesus plus” doctrine.
We said in an earlier post that commands produce a human response of rebellion. That would be elicited if Jesus were presented as a command in the New Testament. But Jesus is presented in the New Testament as love, and the conversions in Acts were responses to the love of Christ. If human elements were added to the gospel, and Jesus was presented as a command for obedience, instead of love looking to be accepted and returned, shouldn’t a rebellious natural response be expected? If a person then rejects the gospel in rebellion because of the humanistic thinking in this method of presentation, who is responsible for that outcome?
The church is supposed to show the love of Christ so that the world sees and is attracted to the light on the hill. The world comes to the church and asks where this love, peace, unity, and joy come from. The church has the answers. But if the church goes out and commands the world to have the questions when there isn’t anything to see inside the church window but arguing and division, why shouldn’t the world have anything but a rebellious response? “Don’t push your religion on me.” This happens because a religious doctrine is coming out of the church that has been diluted with humanistic thinking. Human thinking = human response.
So, what does the world see in the church? Is the church the light on the hill for all to see? What image does the universal church show to the world – the fruit of the Spirit or the works of the natural flesh? The answer is “both.” But, somehow the message received is not “We know we’re not perfect but we are moving toward Jesus and we invite you to join.” The message seems to be “We declare ourselves and our doctrine to be perfect, or the best thing to it, and we have a list of things for you to do to get yourself qualified to join us.”
The same question might be asked the church that has been addressed to Congress -- How much worse does the financial situation have to get before something will be done? How much worse does it have to get before the pieces of the divided church decide that “survival by unity” is necessary?
The Lord’s church must be cleaned of human thinking before the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace will ever be maintained (Eph. 4:3). If the church can voluntarily unify around the love of God shown through the Lord Jesus Christ, it will have a much better outcome than if God has to bring discipline upon the church.
095. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#4]: PROGRESSIVELY INFILTRATING THE CHURCH FOR 2000 YEARS
We already know humanistic thinking exists in the church– it just might not be called by that name. It may be called “thinking after the world,” or “secular thinking” or “sectarianism,” “post-modern thinking,” etc. It might even be called a creed or doctrine. Labeling humanism with a spiritual name or a different term doesn’t change anything, except perhaps in the minds of those who already want to be convinced and are looking for a justification for their human doctrine.
First Century. Humanistic thinking was present in the first century. It took the form of human philosophical thinking, as Paul addressed in Athens; it took the form of legalistic requirements of human action, as addressed by the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) and by Paul in Galatians. It took the form of immaturity, selfishness, pride and discrimination as addressed in the letter to Corinth. It took the form of Gnosticism, as John addressed in his epistles. It took the form of self-righteousness, and also as debauchery and worship of the creation instead of the creator, as Paul addressed in Romans. It took the form of intellectualism (1 Cor. 2). Humanistic thinking entered and became a part of accepted church doctrine. Humanistic thinking invaded even when a revolution of theological discernment was exposing that type of doctrine in the church.
Therefore, elements of humanistic thinking have been progressively entering the doctrine of the church for 2000 years. When some of the more blatant forms of humanism are identified and tossed out by theological leaders during special times of discernment and revelation, such as during the Reformation Movement, new humanistic thinking is introduced which is enshrined and defended by the group started by this leader. Sometimes, steps are taken closer to the truth by a group, but then the doctrine becomes the identity of the group and the search for truth becomes more the defense of the status quo. At each phase of the creation of a new group that surrounds a new doctrine, the body of Christ is further fractured.
Reformation Movement. Most all Christian institutions derived from the Reformation Movement retained anywhere from some to a lot of Catholic Church practices, particularly in its central hierarchal administration and organization. As groups grew in membership and geographical location, those members in expansion areas were kept under the doctrinal leash by legal agreements and binding contracts. In many cases only the "central management" could buy and own property, so the local churches had to maintain the doctrine or else lose the rights to use the property. As in a corporation, some to most of the local tithes and money contributions were sent to headquarters, where it was used according to contract agreement which included the maintenance of doctrinal purity. Headquarters selected and paid the ministerial staff to serve locally. There were, therefore, many ways to keep the controlling strings attached to local congregations of each denomination. The ownership of land and buildings and the maintenance of clergy and personnel and the management of all these capital investments resulted in a need for perpetuation of the organization in similar fashion to other facets of worldly capitalism.
Restoration Movement. The deviation of this organizational structure from the New Testament pattern and the enforced doctrines were largely what motivated the leaders of the Restoration Movement to want to toss out all the encumbered traditional bondage and just go back to the Bible as the source for Christian unity. Similar to the motivations of the Reformation Movement, a number of points were particularly targeted for change. These included written creeds other than the Bible, special clergy endorsed and supplied by central management (special names for clergy, such as reverend, special ranks. and distinguishing clothes), enforcement of traditional doctrine of particular theological pioneers, organizational names other than or in addition to “Christian,” central organization and management that told the local churches what they could and could not do (including interpret the Bible for themselves), and infant sprinkling as the act of water baptism. All of these things were considered to be doctrines of men and not authorized by the New Testament.
Back to the Bible; unity on scripture; dissolving of denominational boundaries into the universal body of Jesus Christ – all sounded very good. But problems arose. Since governance of congregations was autonomous, there was no central authority to maintain closeness of doctrine, and there were no written instruments of agreement (i.e., creeds, constitutions, etc), internal groups began to differ in their interpretation of what scriptural authority meant. Was a missionary society above more than one congregation scriptural? Could two congregations pool resources to support one missionary? Was instrumental accompaniment of singing permissible? Factions developed over these and other issues which were debated verbally and in brotherhood periodicals. People went to the scriptures essentially to prove what they already thought was correct. All of the trappings of tribalism developed, including good vs evil, judgmentalism, and vilification. No central organization could prevent church splits, and the movement that began as a call to Christian unity degenerated into more divisions and chaos than most anything before or since. While the call for no creeds or centralized doctrine was good, the scripture itself was a creed and interpretations were sacralized. The scripture became a legal document, and interpretations regarding topics such as instrumental music, the necessity of water baptism, and the work of the Holy Spirit became church fellowship and heaven or hell issues. This approach is still seen today. Look at the comment sections of some Christian blogs.
This is illustrated in two diagrams, the first representing the development of “Jesus plus” doctrines over 2000 years – Jesus+government, Jesus+theological reactions, and Jesus & unity turning into Jesus+legalism. (The Y-axis represents time).
Is it “so what?” Why do we continue to harp on this? So what if evolved humanism influences the church? So what if it is more than influence – maybe even controls much of the church? So what if there is competition between parts of the body of Christ? It’s been going on for 2000 years and it’s still here, isn't it? What has the church done with the Holy Spirit that has been dwelling within for 2000 years? In terms of numbers of different groups, the universal church is likely more divided than it ever has been in history. Is that getting better? Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? Is the church preparing to be the bride of Christ? Is Christ going to come and select one of the denominations or other church groups to be the bride? Do we think we will play “Queen For a Day?” How much longer will God put up with this?
Christians have been washed clean by the blood of the Lamb. “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Eph. 5:25). The church is the bride of Christ . “I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” (Rev. 21:2). But the bride of Christ is choosing to wear soiled, dirty, and shredded clothing.
We must call the soiled laundry for what it is -- humanistic thinking. And the soiled laundry masquerades as clean spotless clothes, like we would wear when we clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ. But the clothes are soiled, and we have filters that prevent us from seeing the stains. And we want to wear the filters, because we have entire financial empires with names that have trade value, buildings, property, income, personnel, meetings, conventions, training, retirement benefits, and even goodwill. Groups with different filters compete between themselves for limited resources, and, as typical in saturated markets, one entity benefits at the expense of the other(s). No, too much investment has already been made around the light that selectively shines through that filter. We don’t advertise the light; we advertize the filter.
The organized church has humanism in it; the church defends its humanism and enforces its humanism internally; different organized groups within the church will vilify each other over variances in elements of humanism. Different groups consider that only they are the body of Christ – either that definition is in their doctrine or that attitude is in their actions.
Is humanism the Antichrist? How ironic that Christians would spend so much time looking for the Antichrist -- looking for the big “666” to appear -- rereading Daniel and Revelation for the umpteenth time and trying to find a formula that calculates the number 666 out of a person’s name or nation. The scripture says that people will want to follow the Antichrist; he will be convincing; he will fool many people; he will be powerful; people, including Christians, will voluntarily give their allegiance to him. He will seem like the Christ, but he will actually be the opposite.
Maybe the 666 Antichrist will be a real person or nation or financial system or computer. But, maybe 666 is sitting on the pew every Sunday morning in all of our organized churches. The Antichrist is present in the assembly because he is carried in on the shoulders of members of the body of Christ when they operate out of the human nature instead of out of the control of the Holy Spirit.
Humanistic thinking is a product of evolutionary development. Humanistic thinking is also known by other names that are uncommonly considered in most Christian groups. It is a product of evolutionary human development.
Humanity was created by God, and it was called “very good.” But that was before the Fall in the Garden; after the Fall, unredeemed human nature became separated from God (Isa. 59:1-2). Humanistic thinking produces human behavior which has been derived from the natural process by which God created the physical and natural universe. That process is called evolution and survival of the fittest, which began with the formation of the earth over 4.6 billion years ago. Ancestors to Homo sapiens began about 100,000 years ago to develop behavioral traits that helped some groups survive better than others. These traits were “ingrained” into the behavior of the progeny. Mankind today possesses many behavioral traits that have been proven to be beneficial for survival. But this is still “the natural;” this is still “humanistic;” and when this is in control of behavior, it is “sin.”
Therefore, when Christians do things their way and use their unspiritual, unredeemed, humanly controlled mind to choose works of fleshly behavior, they are setting aside the opportunity to use the Spirit to search the mind of God and are instead choosing to act like the natural, fleshly, sinful, evolved man of Adam. And they do not recognize humanism for what it is; they choose it; they pay homage to it; and they are prideful about it. And it is idolatry.
The Federal Church? Is the church too might like our Federal government, where organized representatives are controlled by special interest groups so much that not only can they not make a decision for the common good, the parties vilify and demonize each other instead? Get somebody else in there? It will make no difference. We are the problem, with our control and self-interest and entitlements. Some say that the problem will have to get still worse, until the pain of the problem is worse than the pain of the fix.
Does that also describe the church? Do the separate groups within the organized church, who are divided over their special interests and pride and doctrine, have their self-interest so elevated that it is above the common good of the body of Christ? Is the disapproval of the world not strong enough yet? Has the membership shrinkage not gotten bad enough yet to break through our ability to be in denial about our own humanological doctrines? Is the problem going to have to get worse until it is so bad that the separatist groups within the church have no alternative but to love one another? Actually, agape love doesn’t work that way. People choose to do love; they’re not forced into it over their will. Maybe it will be like the children of Israel entering the Promised Land – the old generation had to die out first.
Where has the church been? This country is getting further into a political and economic mess. Most of the rest of the Western world is further down the line of degeneration. Where has the church been? Much of the problem in both the economy and the political arena is related to selfishness and greed. What model has the church shown the world? Consider one another better than yourselves? Consider the needs of others? Love one another? Have the attitude of Christ? Or has the church model been competition for resources, glorify yourself, run down others, find fault, unforgiveness, chaos, division, and flat out idolatry? Or, at best, just passively ignore one another most of the time and call that unity? We’ll let the sleeping dog alone, because that is certainly what you are?
Which church is going to provide the model for pulling the United States out of disaster? Is it the Lutherans or the Methodists? Is it the Baptists (which convention?) or the Disciples of Christ? Is it the Roman Catholic Church? There is no church group that, by itself, will change the course of this country one degree. So what will we do about that – go down the tubes while pointing the finger at one another and saying – “It was your doctrine that is responsible for this.”
That's what happens when a person's self-interest and pride fills their universe. They will keep fighting, even until the whole thing comes down as long as it can be somebody else's fault.
Has the universal body of Christ gone so far into division that it is no longer reversible? Will the church economy have to collapse? Will Christianity have to become illegal? Will all church property have to be confiscated by the government? Will Christianity become controlled by a socialist government or by one operating by Sharia law?
God has set up laws within the natural realm that will bring to pass the statements by Paul,
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal. 6:7-8)
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: idolatry… hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions … (Gal. 5:19-20)
The church is not exempt from this spiritual law. If the church chooses to follow the control of humanistic thinking, the same laws that God set into place for control of the physical realm will determine the outcome for the church’s action. This outcome is plainly revealed in nature. “Destruction” in thermodynamic terms is “entropy.” It is a law. The God that created the universe is behind it.
The words still resonate across the ages:
“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. (Gen. 3:4)
096. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#5]: DISCERNING SOUND DOCTRINE FROM HUMAN DOCTRINE
Human doctrine in the church? Like in the old Western movies, “We know you’re in there. Now come out with your hands up!” We know human thinking is in the church, because humans make up the church. The question is, however: “Is human thinking in control; has human thinking usurped the authority of the Holy Spirit?”
As we have said before, human thinking is not bad; it is good. God created man in His image, and part of that image must be reflected in the human brain, mind, creative, and thinking capacity. The human mind has enormous potential that is yet to be discovered. But the brain functions according to the structures and pathways that have evolved within it; and all of our brains work in a similar way with same basic physical foundation. But, it is the human mind under its own control that cannot please God; the human mind under the control of the Holy Spirit does please God (Rom. 8:5-8).
However, placing (and keeping) our human mind under the control of the Spirit is not easy. It is well known that humans make decisions based on intuition, which is based on deep-seated emotions stored from past learning, experiences, and reactions to these experiences. We like to this we are rational and logical, like Mr. Spock, but our first impulse, our “default” intuitive response, to something has been already preprogrammed by our past. Our cognitive reasoning then brings in the rational troops, but their job is to defend and justify what we already think. Usually, we will operate in this manner “reflexly,” without “thinking about it.”
God-controlled intuitive cognition is important and necessary to function spiritually. Many of the conversions detailed in the book of Acts illustrate this type of thinking, because decisions to accept or reject Christ were mostly based on cognitive intuition, followed by cognitive reasoning. As one example, Peter’s sermon on Pentecost sounded logical enough, but the Holy Spirit had prepared the minds of the people to receive it, and “they were cut to the heart” by the message. Then their cognitive reasoning kicked in and they asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). A similar intuitive response was elicited from the Sanhedrin in response to Stephen’s sermon – the Jews were cut to the heart (Acts 7:54, translated “furious” by NIV), but their “reasoning” response was “they gnashed their teeth at him” and stoned Stephen. In the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), “the Lord opened her heart to receive Paul’s message,” indicating God worked through her intuition from past experience as a “worshipper of God.” Her cognitive reasoning then accepted that she should be baptized.
We use terms such as “I was moved to ….” (do or think something). People buy “on impulse” and get home and rationalize “buyer’s remorse.” The Christian phrase “I was led to ….” (think this or do that) is a tricky one, because our cognitive intuition may be giving the Holy Spirit an assignment to justify our thinking to other people. The Holy Spirit is used in the place of our cognitive reasoning, but just with “higher authority,” which makes it even better for our self-righteous purposes (in the flesh).
How much of our doctrine has been placed under Holy Spirit control? Sacralization of doctrine is dangerous, because it places a concept that has been filtered through human interpretation on the same level as “inspiration,” complete with the “Holy Spirit Seal of Good Doctrinekeeping.” Since this process defines “good (sound) doctrine,” it follows that “evil” must be opinions of men that do not agree with this view. This justifies those views being condemned, so off to the range for target practice we go.
In the business world, some objectivity in this process is introduced by using “measurable standards” of productivity or progress toward a goal (hopefully, clearly stated). Sometimes these “standards” may have dubious value because either they are inaccurately performed or they may measure something only tangently related to the evaluation, because a genuinely precise measure can’t be made.
Human-based evaluation of behavior, attitudes, actions, or thinking that is from out of the spiritual realm is not valid, because those things of the Spirit of God do not subject themselves to our human measure. However, Jesus did give us characteristics of the kingdom of God to look for as well as of the people of God within that kingdom – some things they will be doing and some other things not. Paul gives further details in his letters, and the book of Acts and 2 Cor. gives more examples.
The characteristics that Jesus gave describing His followers apply to all believers. Jesus did not give contingencies, such as “these characteristics can be just within your own group in case the kingdom of God divides into pieces.” The entire universal body of Christ will have these characteristics, if Jesus is Lord and if the Holy Spirit is indwelling the church. If these characteristics are missing or compromised, there is a very good possibility that humanistic thinking has entered into the process.
Light from one city on one hill.
Matt. 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Does this passage only apply to individuals? “This little Christian light of mine; I’m going to let it shine.” Why should this apply only to each individual member of the body of Christ, and not also to the body as a whole? Jesus didn’t say to establish 1000 cities on 1000 hills that compete with one another, that criticize each other, that have different names and different doctrines that they pridefully advertise, who argue about who deserves the most electricity? No, the light comes from the whole church-- not just a denomination; not just the Catholic Church; not just the churches of the Restoration Movement. The light the world sees comes from the one body of Christ. Any doctrine that quenches the light or turns part of it out or divides it up must be examined for humanism. The Holy Spirit power does not suffer “brown-outs.” A doctrine adulterated with humanism does.
Relationship between light, love, fellowship, truth, and purification from sin
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
1 John 2:9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.
1 John 2:12 I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
Vs 12 says that this is addressed to those associated with His name – Christians. That’s the entire body of Christ, unless some parts of it should want to exempt themselves. This is not just letting the light shine -- it is walking in the light; and it involves all Christians (vs 12), unless a group wants to say they haven’t been forgiven. Whoever walks in the light has fellowship with others who are also walking in the light. It doesn’t say that they argue who is really in the light and who just thinks they are. It doesn’t say there are 1000 different lights, and those who walk in each light can have fellowship with each other but not with any other light source. It’s all the same source; it’s all the same light; and it’s all the same fellowship. Either we’re in or we’re out. Those in fellowship with one another love one another; otherwise there is hatred and darkness. If a part of the body, a group or a denomination or anything else, places stumbling blocks in the path of others, if they have barriers and qualifications necessary for the extension of their Christian fellowship, they are in darkness and not in fellowship with Jesus. If they think they are the only ones on the path to the light, then they have blinders so they can’t see anyone else because they are in darkness. They have the blinders – they have the logs in their eyes – even if they claim that it’s everyone else’s fault.
What else could these verses mean? Humanistic doctrine in the church places stumbling blocks and blinders of darkness on people. Social psychology has shown that it is natural evolutionary human behavior for groups to bind on some teaching (doctrine) and to be in denial of anything that might contradict its validity. In his book,“The Righteous Mind,” Jonathan Haidt has an entire section entitled, “Morality Binds and Blinds.” (And, by “morality” he means what we would call human self-righteous thinking). Christians who claim to be in the body of Christ but who cannot walk in the light with other Christian brethren are wearing blinders of humanistic thinking. It has to be there; look for it.
Love one another
John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
John 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.
John 15:12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19 This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence
We give our lives for our brothers, if we love as Jesus did. A hallmark of the church and of its witness to the world – all men are watching – you are my disciples. Jesus didn’t give His life for some select groups. John 3:16 doesn’t say, “For God so loved some of the world ….,” or, “For God so loved the Baptists and the Nazarenes that ….,” or “For God so loved those adult believers who qualified themselves by getting water baptized …”
How do we lay down our lives for one another? If the body of Christ can’t come together before God brings discipline upon the church, we may have a more literal understanding of the answer to this question. But, in love, we serve one another and treat one another the way God through Christ has treated us. (See post #15 on “The Platinum Rule,” and post #16 on “How Has God Treated Us?”). the mercy and compassion of those in the kingdom of God is illustrated in Matt 25.
With greater detail later – anyone or any group that redefines the meaning of “brother” to those people who satisfactorily meet doctrinal requirements according to my or my group’s interpretation of scripture has a major problem. “Who is my brother?” is a question that the scripture does not authorize us to ask. The scripture authorizes us to provide the answer by proving that we are a brother to those in need. (See post#58 “Who is my brother?”)
Peace
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
2 Thess. 3:16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way. The Lord be with all of you.
Matt. 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
The world should notice the difference between the peace within the church, given by Jesus, and the peace of humanism, which is of the flesh. Isn’t most of the application of these verses at the person, individual level? Are Christians so bad at peacemaking, forgiving, and reconciling to one another, as God through Christ has done for us, that we cannot make an application of these passages to peace within the body of Christ? It is a huge challenge to have peacemaking between members of the same congregation. The chaos of conflict rises in proportion to the number of people involved. What sort of peace is there between denominations, between fellowship groups, between groups and the Catholic Church or the Restoration Movement churches? Is that such a foreign idea that we wouldn’t even know how to go about it? Do we even understand what peace means? The peace of Christ is not a passive co-existence of groups under a temporary cease-fire restraining order. Just because we don’t have an open warfare between different church groups, does that mean we have peace? If anyone thinks that, they are uninformed as to what the peace of Christ really means. How can we model peacemaking to the world if the church doesn’t know what it means to have the peace of God? A series of posts (#’s 30-37) discussed the love, peace, and unity within the church.
Unity
John 17:20 I pray for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Eph. 4:1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Eph. 4:12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Jesus didn’t pray that we could all be Methodist, Fellowship Community Church, Catholic, or Mennonite. Jesus didn’t pray that we could all sing with instruments or a cappella, that official clergy could wear liturgical robes to church and have ornate chairs to sit in, or that we could water baptize people. Jesus didn’t pray for a pope to appear or some modern apostles. He prayed that all His believers would be one with each other as He was with the Father. And then He went to the cross and died so that unity could happen. So, what have the believers in Christ done?
How can the divisions within the body of Christ apparently ignore that prayer while pointing the finger at everyone else? The world notices this. The world is not impressed by the divisions within the church divisions pointing fingers at each other with a “our interpretations are right” attiutude.
The world will recognize the value of the light of Jesus, the love of Jesus, the peace of Jesus, the unity of Jesus when it is operating among all members of the body of Christ. Not just the Pentecostals, not just the Assemblies, not just Saddleback, North Pointe, Willow Creek, LifeChurch.tv, and Brooklyn Tabernacle added together. All means all believers.
Sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is built upon the foundation of God’s gift of grace through Jesus Christ to His church providing light, love, peace, unity, fellowship, and the Holy Spirit. Anything more added to this foundation needs to be examined for elements of humanistic thinking. Sound doctrine is communicated by who we are in Christ and how we live that out in relationships within the His body. Sound doctrine is not a list of passages humanly interpreted into commands that must be obeyed to be acceptable for club membership. Legalists have things in the wrong order. Sound doctrine defines who we are, and who we are in Christ produces what we do. Sound doctrine does not define what we have to do in order to earn our status of who we are. That's not "sound." That's humanistic.
The unity of the Spirit is within the bond of peace. The chaos of division is derived from evolutionary humanism. The world’s already got that; so, why should the world be interested in what a fractured, divided church has to offer?
Why is the church as an organization destined to fail? What is the world looking for that the church is not providing? What is considered to be "valuable, useful information?" What are the signs and symptoms of humanistic doctrine that must be found and dethroned? What is the difference between inspiration and interpretation? How is the church abusing the grace of God?
What are the laws that God set in motion at creation that will provide the consequences for the church’s choice of human doctrine, division, and control by the sinful nature?
Why consider this?
Paul said, “You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things…” (Col 3:7-8)
097. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#6]: AN INVITATION IS EXTENDED -- “COME RIGHT ON IN THROUGH THE WIDE GATE”
Ways that the Church Invites Humanistic Thinking to Enter
[1] Sacralization of Interpretation until it is equated with Truth
My interpretation is truth. I ran track in high school many moons ago. Wasn’t good at that, either, although I did learn a few things. I knew that Coach Hill was a Christian -- at least he said he was. I wasn’t too sure about how genuine his conversion had been, because he didn’t belong to my group, so I assumed he hadn’t been water baptized correctly. I knew all the passages related to the important doctrines – all the water baptism verses, all the singing verses, all the Lord’s Supper verses, speak where the Bible speaks, etc. I was making the evangelistic point of the necessity of water baptism in order to have sins forgiven, and I had quoted a passage or two at him, with the obvious conclusion that I was right and he was busted. But he said, “What does that mean?” Of course, I informed him of the revealed truth illuminated by these passages. But, he responded,“That’s your interpretation of what those passages mean.” I said, “No, that’s just what the Bible says.” He responded, “No, that’s your interpretation of what those passages mean.” “But, it’s clear that these verses say that.” “No, that’s your interpretation of what these verses clearly say to you. I have a different interpretation. We have no basis to say that the other person’s interpretation is wrong.” After a few more rounds of the same, I finally said “Okay,” not because he was right (which I knew he wasn’t) but because he was the coach and I was the peon. But I knew it was the same old problem with denominational error – he had the interpretation = tradition and creed, but I had the interpretation = truth. I knew that my Sunday school taught meanings given to these passages were provable from the Greek, and his weren’t. Amazing how Satan could be so deceitful (for him, of course).
The collapse of a “humaneutic” (a hermeneutic with humanism). Following this interaction with Coach Hill, I spent over a decade convinced that my doctrinal beliefs were provable from scripture, which differentiated my doctrine from those other erroneous doctrines. A method of interpretation was published in 1958 (“We Be Brethren” by J.D. Thomas) in which the chairman of the Bible department at a Christian college explained the command-example-necessary inference (CENI) method of interpretation. All of the relevant scriptures from the N.T. of early church examples were binding on us today, and we had to do it in the same way. If nothing was said in the New Testament about that subject, the action was prohibited as unauthorized by scripture. Examples and diagrams were included. A second book (“Heaven’s Window”) was published by the same author in 1974, further expanding and explaining this method of interpretation to find the truth. With these two books, I had my “ready to give an answer for” defense (1 Pet. 3:15) sitting on the shelf. A few years later I had an opportunity to put the “provable from the Greek” theory to the test.
A colleague and I, with our families, had a Bible study that could get pretty analytical at times. We were studying 1 Corinthians, and I suggested we study the Lord’s Supper, including the commands about how frequently, when, and how it should be observed (I knew it was every Sunday, or else it was sin). My plan was to demonstrate how my doctrine was provable, and my “ace in the hole” was that Dr. Thomas had used the necessity of every Sunday to observe the Lord’s Supper as a specific example in his book – going down each word and each passage at each level of logical proof. We got out our Greek lexicons and looked up every word – meaning, grammar, everything – concerning the early church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper. No commentaries allowed. We were headed in the right direction to prove that I had the truth. We found a command “Do this in remembrance of me …” in the imperative. We found where the early church observed and carried out this command (taking “breaking of bread” to include the Lord’s Supper in Acts and 1 Cor. 11). But, what about “every” first day of the week? The proof for this was 1 Cor. 16:2, which had the word, “every,” and also mentioned other churches in Galatia, meaning this command/example was globally applied.
Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 1 Cor. 16:1-2 (NIV)
For the argument to be valid, “every” had to be associated with “an assembly, meeting the first day of every week.” Dr. Thomas said the definition of the Greek word thesaurizon, translated “should set aside” or “in store,” included the action occurring at an assembly – the “setting aside” (contribution) was performed at an assembly when the Lord’s Supper would also have been taken every first day of the week. The only evidence referenced for this meaning of the word was an opinion in a commentary by J.W. McGarvey, who was a scholar but also a Restoration Movement preacher. This definition of the word had to be confirmed objectively by at least one lexicon. We had 5 or 6 Greek lexicons between us, and not one gave even a hint of the involvement of an assembly. In fact, many suggested that the collection was done “at home.” My entire hermeneutic of doctrinal correctness was hanging on the subtle meaning of one Greek word, and it did not hold up. I was in shock. Then I recalled another book in my library by A.T. Robertson, “Word Pictures in the New Testament.” We had not referenced it in the study because it was a commentary, but A.T. Robinson was one of the great Greek scholars, so his opinion should count for something. I looked the passage up, and I can still remember staring at the words in disbelief, “They laid by in store at home.”
I had finally tested my belief that my doctrine of specific “hard-wired” requirements handed down from the early church was provable from the Greek, which had differentiated my interpretation as being the truth from other interpretations as being false. I had the books written by the man who had presented the argument with thestrongest example to prove the case for the hermeneutic of CENI being the truth. And it miserably failed the test. If the argument cannot be proven, then the interpretation cannot be identical with the truth, but only representing my best understanding of the truth.
Coach Hill was right. It was just my interpretation. And he had his interpretation. And we had our opinions about why each interpretation was best for each one individually, but it could not be proven that one was truth and the other was not. The whole landscape changed. I now saw a self-righteous person who had gloried in the provability of the wonderfulness of his very own doctrine and who had judged others because they were in error. I had lifted up the word of God, a hermeneutic, a doctrine, and my interpretations as an idol. And I had used my idol to divide the body of Christ because of who I would accept as saved and as a member of the body of Christ.
I have since examined many doctrines that I used to hold near and dear as essential truths to be pleasing to God. Instrumental accompaniment to singing in worship; a cappella music only; the necessity of water immersion to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit and to be added to the body; the five “acts of worship;” the protocol of carrying out the Lord’s Supper; church organization; church name; spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues; once-saved-always-saved or not; predestination or not; 1000 year reign or not; literal interpretations of Genesis and the Garden, Jonah, the Flood, and Job or not; miracles today or not; what your church building looks like or if you even have one; small groups or institution; and many more things. All of these types of things are based on the best human interpretation of the truth that a group can make, but it is all through a human filter. Therefore, to use any of these human endeavors to distinguish between or spiritually elevate parts of the body of Christ over others is sowing to fleshly corruption and blatant sin. Every interpretation that a group makes of scripture has a human element in it, because humans are making the interpretation.
So, my interpretation is not the same as truth. However, even if the difference between truth and interpretation is finally recognized so active division is not precipitated by matters of opinion, private interpretations can still produce lack of unity. Jesus prayed for unity, not just for believers who didn’t fight with each other. Unity is active cooperation, not passive avoidance.
There are ways that God has of working the humanity out of our doctrine, if we are in submission to Him. But to elevate the importance of anything except Jesus Christ, Himself, above the unity of the Spirit in the body of Christ is to oppose God and the prayer of Jesus in John 17. And we really can’t elevate Jesus over unity in Jesus, because they are the same. Jesus has one body.
[2] But This is What Makes Us Unique.
One still occasionally hears the argument that a certain group has to keep musical instruments out of the building because "a cappella only" is what we’re known for. That attitude is not unique to any particular group. Some have particular rituals, particular offices, particular revelations from God, particular manifestations of the Spirit (or particular denunciations of the same), a particular name, or other things that separate them from the rest of the body of Christ. Which of these doctrines are so important to any group that they would deny Jesus Christ as God’s Son before they would give up their interpretation of their doctrine? “Oh, no. We hold onto this doctrine toavoid denying Christ.” Actually, it’s the opposite. Jesus prayed in John 17 as the Son to the Father that believers would be one as He and the Father were one. Any person or group that holds any doctrine above the fulfillment of this prayer of Jesus is denying the Son and the Father are one and are saying that their divisive doctrine is more important.
We spend time looking for commands – verbs in the imperative. What is the authority carried by a prayer of Jesus to the Father concerning His followers? Is that optional? Is that not a prime directive to believers? All the relationships are covered in John 17 – Jesus and the Father; Jesus, the Father, and the disciples (apostles for the foundation of the church on Pentecost); and Jesus and the Father and all believers between themselves and Jesus – all one as the Son and the Father are one. John 14-16 contains all the statements of “I will ask the Father and He” will do whatever you ask, will send you the Comforter. The prayer of unity is one “ask the Father” that we as believers fulfill. It isn't "ask the Father and He will give you unity." Unity comes within the bond of peace which is out of the love of God through Christ that we manifest toward one another. How is the church doing with that one?
If anyone likes unique marketing labels -- how about a unique label like “those who place themselves and their doctrine above the unity of the Son and the Father?” What can there be that is right about a doctrine the fruit of which is division in the body? And “it’s everybody else who is wrong” is a humanistic excuse. There is no self-exoneration – it’s everybody’s fault.
[3] A Reaction to Someone Else’s Doctrine.
A friend told me about going to a indoor gun range and firing a revolver. He only had a short time remaining, so he aimed at the target and emptied the revolver, firing it six times as fast as he could repetitively pull the trigger. All six shots were aimed at the target, at least intentionally, but only one shot hit the target -- the other five weren’t even close. Which one was it? The last one, because he was more practiced by then? No, it was the first shot, which was the only one that was not affected by the recoil of a previous shot. Only the first shot was a new aim, fired deliberately after careful sighting of the target and squeezing the trigger. The rest of the shots were intentional, but not deliberate. They were intended to hit the target just the same as the first shot. If the target had not been examined, the person might have assumed they hit the target with each shot, since that was what had been intended.
We know that personal decisions are less likely to be good ones when they are made soon after some personal trauma. These decisions are made partly on immediate circumstances than on a logical evaluation of all the data. They may be reactionary, recoil decisions that miss the target.
People can do that in doctrine, as well. A group doesn’t like a certain practice of biblical interpretation, so they develop a hermeneutic that “proves” it to be unauthorized scripturally, and therefore sin. If proves it to the group’s satisfaction, because that is what the group wanted to believe in the first place. A group may decide they don’t like the claims of miraculous manifestations that some other groups make, so the first group develops a hermeneutic that says miracles ceased in the first century, which “proves” that all the present day claims are fraudulent. Neither of these approaches represents a search for truth but a search to react to someone else’s doctrine. It is likely that all are wrong in some respect.
Paul said that one of the signs of maturity in the church would be when –
Eph. 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
We can be very conscious of being influenced by someone else’s doctrine and very quick to point out the errors of that doctrine and not be taken in by it. However, we are apparently much less conscious of a reaction and recoil to someone else’s doctrine so that we are “blown here and there” to the other side of the extreme. We can be on the opposite extreme and think we are in the center, where the balance is. When we react in this way and develop doctrines that oppose the doctrines of other groups, we actually lose balance. Since perfect balance is one of the characteristics of the righteousness of God, when part of the church reacts to another part so that it becomes less balanced, the church actually moves further away from the righteousness of God and further away from maturity into the full knowledge of Christ. We think we aim at the target, but we miss it. That is one of the definitions of sin. That is sowing to the flesh, and from the flesh will come destruction.
In previous posts, we have discussed how reaction to the environment at the time influenced the doctrine of those in the Reformation Movement and the Restoration Movement. Leaders and theologians of that time made advances toward the balance of the doctrine intended for the church, but at each phase what they had discovered was boxed up and set up like a standard to protect and defend, limiting further discoveries of truth and revelation to the bounds permitted by that doctrine. So it still exists today.
[4] A Competition for the Survival of the Fittest.
From evolutionary history, those groups that can fit together over a belief system that makes them operate more efficiently in terms of resources for growth and reproduction will be those groups who will have the best chance of survival when the environment gets difficult and challenging. However, there are several behavioral traits of groups that may be eventually detrimental to the survival of all. One negative is the sacralization of beliefs so they are defended even though they may be wrong and so that anything contrary is rejected even though it may be correct. The other negative is the development of factions within the group so that it destroys itself or the development of rivalries between groups so that they war against one another until one or both is depleted. Sometimes, in the competition to be the fittest, the competitors may get so ruthless that they would not help one another even if a common enemy were to overtake and destroy them all. It would seemingly be more important for the demise to be someone else’s fault than survival. But the groups don’t recognize that because they have their attention so fixed on each other they are in denial of anything else.
This is a humanistic, evolutionary behavior and not a behavior of the love of God operating in the church. The church in the unity of the Spirit is one family. Members help one another, love one another, serve one another, count one another better then themselves, work together, and grow to be like God together.
All four of these invitations for humanistic thinking to be a part of doctrine come out of the natural flesh. They all are characteristics of evolutionary human group behavior as described by psychologist Jonathan Haidt in “The Righteous Mind.” It is humanism asking for more humanistic thinking which further dilutes out the work of the Holy Spirit in the church. By coming out of the flesh, the church places itself in a natural cycle under subjection to natural law. God has foreordained that the battle between the church and the forces of Satan require that the parts of the body of Christ operate together as one. If the church chooses to operate by chaos, competition, and division instead, the church will not prevail against the gates of hell, and the parts of the body of Christ will be beat back until they have no choice but to band together as one. Then the church will grow in strength and begin again to prevail against evil – at least until things get easier so that people can begin competing with one another again.
When will the church learn to be one, as the Son and the Father are one, voluntarily as an act of submission of the bride of Christ instead of having to be forced to unify because of active persecution?
Divide and don’t actively fight but just ignore one another is not unity. The enemy is not fooled by this. The enemy responds when the wide gate is opened and invitations are issued for humanistic thinking in the church.
The second diagram represents the landscape the world sees of the universal church, not as a temple of stones rising into Jesus as Lord, but as a field littered with individual pieces that can’t seem to cooperate or get together.
098. HUMANISTIC THINKING IN CHURCH DOCTRINE [#7]: AND, NOW, A PROPHETIC MESSAGE FOR THE CHURCH, SPONSORED BY POLITICAL CHAOS
It has been observed and discussed many times, even on this blog, how the American political system seems to be at an opposing, conflicted, unyielding impasse. Issues and votes in Congress go down party lines, and it seems that any idea one party comes up is a signal for the other party to howl. Almost everything seems to get canceled out by something else. One financial crisis comes due after another, and the parties seem to find another way to put off doing something about it. Any tactic to get one’s way seems to be justified – showing classic evolutionary behavior of sacralization of the ideas of one group and the demonization of other groups. Rejoice in the problems and downfalls of the other group, and again we say, rejoice.
Many of these problems have resulted from decisions in the past and reactions to those decisions. Cycles have been amplified because people had their eyes on their own interests over the common interest of the nation. The basic underlying issue in everything is financial, as would be expected in a capitalistic society, but it’s not just money – it’s more who gets to control the money for their own advancement and agenda. It’s about power, control, and promotion of self-interest over the interest of the common good. Each party has its definition of both “common” and “good,” but their definitions are neither common nor good, except to their own identified ideological group and the self-interests of the specialty groups they represent. It’s about successful competition of special interest groups for a limited resource – money. Why isn’t there enough money to go around? Isn’t everybody stimulated enough? It’ll never happen. Greed increases in greater proportion to resource availability. Going from 20% of $100 to 20% of $200 isn’t enough. It needs to be 25% of $200, and then 30% of $300. Since everyone wants a greater percentage share, so borrow and print more money to go around so people will think they have more. Eventually the debt outweighs the collateral.
The national debt has been fodder for political cartoons for generations. Families can’t live in the red, but the federal government can because it just prints more money. Economists 50 years ago said, “It’s not a big deal. It’s just money that we owe to ourselves.” But the debt is owed to special interest groups within “ourselves,” which do not have the common good as highest priority; and much of the debt is owed to other countries, not to “ourselves.” It would seem to be a form of financial warfare to see what country can own more of the debt of other countries, because ownership is control.
So, special interest groups yank the chains of members of Congress to do things in a way that serves that group. The need to work together for the good of the country, the cry to avoid the pending financial disaster, the call to patriotism and flag and country – sound like old scratchy recordings to play while the real negotiations with special interest groups can take place.
Not only is the interest of one group magnified, but the interests of other groups are minimized. Their motives are condemned and their patriotism to the common good is brought to question. The problem is that all groups use the same approach. And even when this obviously doesn’t work, no group can give any ground because everything is the other groups’ fault. Greed does not assume self-responsibility.
It has been said that, as bad as the problem seems now, it is still at the rhetoric stage. We haven’t seen bad, yet. The problem will have to get worse. Special interest groups are still in the stage of self-deceit, thinking that they will survive and the others will sink, and they will have everything. When it becomes obvious that no group will survive, people will then be forced to come to the table for a solution that benefits the common good. By that time the better solutions may have expired.
How bad do things have to get before something in done in the national interest – before groups will come together to find common ground while giving up as little of their uncommon interest as possible? One just has to look at some European counties to see what “worse” looks like. Encroaching on the personal turf of special interest groups produces violence and chaos, which essentially says “It would be better for the entire system to come down if we can’t get our way. We’ll just give you a sampling of what we could do.”
It’s like saying, “I can hold out as long as the problem will cost you more than it does me. That’s seems morally defendable, since all of this mess is your stinking fault, anyway. You are stubborn and selfish and are preventing my righteous solutions from being implemented.”
Dr. Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma, said that nothing will be done about the financial crisis in this country until the pain of the problem becomes worse for the groups than the pain of the solution. “I can wait. It may be a headache now, but maybe they’ll have to pull more of your teeth than mine.” Not enough pain? Just wait until the trigeminal neuralgia kicks in. No pain; no gain?
Jonathan Haidt has characterized the above situation in his description of the evolution of human behavior as that which has proven successful for the “survival of the fittest.” But the behavior has been extended to the point of self-destruction when groups protect their self-interests to the detriment of the common good.
But this is how the works of the flesh operate – this is the result that is prophesied – “those who sow to the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption.” The flesh is never satisfied, because sinful desires only further corrupts with the desire for more.
Galatians 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Our political system is giving the church an object lesson. “Oh, yoo hoo, church. This is how it turns out.” Does the church not notice, or is the church in the same denial pattern as the political parties? Is the political system changing in the direction of the righteousness of God as manifested by the church, or is the church changing in the direction of the self-righteousness of the political system, that manifests behavior derived from natural human evolution? Is the body in the phase of individual church group denial of responsibility? “It’s their fault – that group over there. They just will not be reasonable and listen to the truth like we do.” Never mind that no one is listening to their “cognitive reason” anyway. Everyone is listening to their “cognitive intuition,” which has already been grounded in past human actions, reactions, and responses. The “cognitive reasoning” has been harnessed to defend what is already “known” to be true.
So, which ideology is winning in the battle for the souls of mankind? Is it A (vss. 19-21, above) or is it B (vss. 22-25, above)? Have we in the body of Christ “become conceited, provoking and envying one another” (vs 26)? If so, is it always the fault of “those people over there?”
For those who cannot relate to the history of Israel, the consequence of whose decisions were recorded for us so we would not have to repeat them (1 Cor. 10:1-12), there is the condition of our own society and political system right under the nose of the church. Or does the church think it’s only an ear, denying the existence of a nose (1 Cor. 12:14-27).
Why is there a problem in Congress? Isn’t it because there are different people who are charged with trying to work together and get something done? If the members of both parties showed up and just sat on either side of the isle and played bingo on their iPads and went home, what would get done? They might even think doing that would be better than the alternative of open fighting. Is that being E Pluribus Unum or E Pluribus Isolatum?
What about if the Congresspersons sat on their own side of the isle and read the Bible on their iPads? Would that change anything? What about if they listened to religious music played over some earphones connected to their iPod? What about if they meditated and prayed and thanked God that they weren’t like those publicans on the other side of the isle who are wrong all the time and who are going to tank this country? What about if they used their iPhones to text messages to those across the isle telling them they are the problem because they are stubborn and won’t repent of their wicked ways? And they just ignored one another and went home and did their merry thing as if those other problem makers didn’t exist. What would get done for the cause of the country? How convenient that the instruments used in this silly little example all start with an “I.”
Would Congress be in “I-unity?” No, unity is an action, not the lack of action.
Is the church in unity when there are different groups on every corner competing with one another for limited resources? Lack of unity is obvious when there is open warfare, but what about passive inaction? What about “divine neglect?” What about our just ignoring one another – (would that be called ignorance)? “We exist, but you don’t.” “Live and let live.” “Let sleeping dogs lie, and they qualify for all three – sleeping, a dog, and a liar – but we’ll just think that and not say it because somebody might not be able to handle the truth and get mad. After all, that is speaking the truth, and it is love, too, because we love them so much.”
Is there such a thing as “speaking the sarcasm in love?” Hmmm.
The political system is acting out of evolved human behavior because the church has not modeled what walking in the Spirit looks like. The church has been too busy forming more competitive groups within itself. So the church becomes more like the world, rather than vice versa. But, let us not be deceived. Change will happen; nothing sits still. Time passes and entropy builds up; there is no “sitting still.”
Congress must act productively in unity or else the battle against financial and social chaos will not be won. Unity is working together in a global macro environment, not working in a private, self-defined, micro environment. Unity is placing self-interest below that of the body.
The church must act productively in unity or else the battle against the forces of Satan will not be won. Unity is all groups working together in a global, universal, macro, resource-combining, one body of Christ environment, and not working in a separate church building with some self-defined doctrine in which one group is better than the others. Unity is placing self-interest below that of the body of Christ.
Congress is enchained to self-interest groups. Is the universal body of Christ also enchained to groups with self-interest-doctrines loaded with humanistic thinking? Doesn’t this characterize the entire church? How could this be identified?
Pick up each doctrinal puzzle piece and determine it if contributes to building an image of the face of Jesus Christ for the world to see.
Each separate group should place all their doctrinal positions and interpretations on the table. Pull out one at a time and hold it up for examination. Ask the question, “Would we be willing to meet with the rest of the body of Christ, having everything in common – resources, building, personnel, organization, fully accepting all participants as members of the body of Christ in full fellowship with the divine nature, faithfully worshiping together in song, prayer, sermon, and taking the Lord’s Supper – if the cost was that we had to give up this point of doctrine, placing it on the alter of God?”
Could we do this…
…if we had to sing with the musical instruments that other groups have? Could this point of doctrine be put on the alter or not?
…if we had to change the name of our church to something else, maybe to the name of another group?
…if we had to accept people who had not been water immersed for the forgiveness of their sins as full members of the body of Christ recognizing their salvation the same as our own?
…if we had to accept clergy who had special titles and robes and other types of differentiating dress and special services and protocols that we have never done?
…if we had to accept clergy that were female, or females in other leadership positions – elders, deacons, or if there were names of church offices we were not familiar with or were not found specifically in the Bible?
…if we had to accept an organizational structure of the church that had a central authority rather than autonomous control by congregational elders, or if that control was different from what we were accustomed to?
…if we accepted speaking in tongues and other manifestations of the Spirit during an assembly?
…if we had to accept that our group was not the only valid body of Christ because our doctrine was truth and the doctrine of others’ was not?
…if we had to accept Christians who were either pro-Calvinism or con-Calvinism in their views and all forms of millennialism – pre-, post-, peri-, a-, super-, epi-, and para-?
There are many other doctrinal points that could be listed, but these serve to make the illustration. If the answer to any of the above questions is “No,” then the proponents of that doctrinal interpretation need to examine the validity of their scriptural basis, because there is likely a humanistic idol being held above unity in the body of Christ, which is oneness with the Son and the Father (John 17). “Divine neglect” is not an option.
Now, someone else with a different doctrinal background should address the same points, but from the opposite direction. Could we together with other Christian groups identify as being the body of Christ, meeting together, serving together, loving together, in full unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, if I had to do any of the following with joy:
…give up all our musical instruments and sing hymns only a cappella?
…teach that all believers needed to be water immersed because that is the N.T. example and we do not want to “oppose God?”
…give up identifications of clergy, including titles, dress, and traditions, and of rituals and protocols that have been added by tradition since the first century church?
…ask women to serve in roles other than pulpit preaching and church governance?
…use a local organization structure at the congregational level and not a control by a higher institutional authority?
…disallow speaking in tongues or interruptive spontaneous manifestations of the Spirit at an assembly?
…if we had to exercise love and patience with those who once thought that righteousness came from obedience to the law, defined according to their interpretation, and that they were the only ones saved?
If any of these doctrinal conditions would keep a group from joining others of different doctrinal tradition in unity within the body of Christ, there needs to be some attitude checks with the scripture, because some human idols of self may be held higher than the unified body of Christ.
Notice that this is not a test of correct Biblical interpretation; but it is a test of priorities.
Which is of higher priority to Jesus Christ in John 17 -- unity of believers or the above doctrines? Which is of higher priority to the groups that compete within the loose framework of the universal body of Christ -- the unity of believers in Christ or the above doctrines (and others like them)?
If any of the above doctrines stand in the way of unity, if any group has to string together passages out of context to “show” that unity is based on obedience to these above doctrines (enter private interpretation), if any of the above doctrines are of such a high matter of principle because this is what we have worked for and this is our tradition – it is likely that human idols are being held higher than unity with Jesus the Son and God the Father.
So, what is the priority? Can all doctrines such as those above be placed on the alter? Would we be willing to submit to Jesus in His command to love one another? Would we be willing to have the priority of the greatest command, to love God and then to love one another? Would we place all traditional doctrinal interpretations in submission to these commands of love?
To the extent that any group must give an answer of “No,” that group will continue to pursue the path to entropy. To the extent that is the attitude of all groups that identify themselves with the church, the entire church will be subjected to the law of entropy. How God deals with this is revealed in the scripture and in His divine nature expressed through His creation, as will be discussed in a later post. At the time of that outcome, people will wish that previous choices would have been different.
To the extent that the answer is “Yes,” then the church has something of spiritual substance to work with. Once all groups establish that unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace is their top priority, then the individual groups are free to discuss in love whatever differences in interpretations they might have. They are free to learn from one another and to not be threatened and defensive, because everyone is striving to move toward Jesus and not against one another.
Having the same traditional doctrine is enforced uniformity. Heading for Jesus is unity in motion.
Now it our choice, but spiritual discernment is necessary. The choice will become clear when the Lord’s discipline is seen in the physical realm by external persecution.
At that time, the pain of the problem will be greater than the “pain” of the solution. Actually, the promise of the solution is joy.
Matt 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
How much is it worth to be one with Jesus as He is with the Father? Is that of great value to the church? Are we willing to set aside all of our Jesus plus doctrines and put only Jesus on the throne?
Posted by drtheophilus