Controversial Topics

[Guest]

excellent idea, rick- that would be a great way to approach it.

great points, christopher. i cant say i disagree at all with what you are saying.

TK

[Guest]

I agree. Great ideas, Rick. Seems to be a lot of wisdom in this approach.

By His Grace,

Gregg

[Guest]

I think avoiding debate and open discussion and trying to shelter people from such is not only condescending, but a hindrance to Christian growth.

Think about it...how many of us would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant and have people seek to hide something from us. Wouldn't you feel like you're being treated like a child?

Hi Christopher,

Maybe condescension is not always such a bad thing. After all, our lives are full of condescending relationships for our own good. Parents often do the very things you mention … sheltering their children from certain topics, hiding inappropriate issues from them. You were right to associate this with “being treated like a child.” It’s not nice for an adult to be treated like a child, but it’s pretty normal for a child to be treated like a child.

I guess my point is that not every believer is “grown up” enough to be able to handle these controversial issues in a godly, mature manner … so it might be best to avoid “debate and open discussion” on these things until they’re better able to deal with them. Where possible, spiritual children – like real children – might need some censorship in their lives. I doubt we’d say that this kind of parental protection is a hindrance to their growth. (There’s even another thread where several of you parents talk about this very thing … self-censoring your reading of the Bible to your younger children where the material might be inappropriate.)

I believe that young believers often need this same kind of parental care and protection. Many of them – like real children – haven’t learned to control their emotions yet, so it’s probably best not to provoke them in a way that might make them lose control. (Like Paul’s admonition for fathers not to provoke their children to anger.) Many of the controversial issues up for discussion can have some pretty heavy emotional ties to them. (Think “women in leadership.”) Maybe we should exercise some caution when ruffling feathers.

By the way – I understand and agree that some believers, no matter how young, are able to use this “debate and open discussion” process to grow in their walks with the Lord. But many are not. Their faith might not get shipwrecked, but they may very well stumble.

I’m very much for open discussion and debate over these issues. In fact, I love it. I’m just advocating that care be taken during the whole thing. For me, it’s a matter of right time, right place, and right manner.

By His Grace,

Gregg

[Guest]

Hi Gregg,

I understand what you're saying and I agree that there's definitely some value in using discretion in discussing certain issues with certain people.

However, I am very uncomfortable leaving that decision in the hands of "spiritual leaders" because I think it's impossible for that not to turn into censorship, which inevitably leads to cult like thinking. That's exactly the elitist mindset that brings about the attitude of organizations like the Roman Catholic Church that the laity are not smart enough to read the bible and come to correct conclusions their own , we need the "highly educated" clergy to interpret for us and tell us what to believe. It only serves to create a bondage of tradition which only further divides the church IMO.

I think Adults should be treating like adults whether they're new Christians or not. I don't agree with the analogy you gave. There's a big difference between the mind of an actual child and the mind of most adults, even if they're "baby" Christians. Otherwise, who is to make the decision as to when they are ready to think for themselves? Very dangerous proposition IMO.

I have a personal example to share that fits right into this discussion very nicely. When Steve's radio show first began airing in Portland, I sent out an e-mail to every Christian in my e-mail address book to promote the show. The head pastor (who disagrees with Steve's eschatology) was so alarmed by this that he threatened me with church discipline if I didn't retract it. When I later talked to another pastor of the church about the issue, he said "how would you feel if I came into your house and taught your kids about evolution?". I almost fell out of my chair when he made this comparison.

That shows the mindset of the leaders toward the congregation. They are nothing but children that can't think for themselves and need to be protected from big bad wolves like Steve Gregg .

It didn't take me long to figure out that was not a healthy environment for my family and we left the church so that I wouldn't be a problem there and so that they wouldn't poison my kids' minds with that mentality.

In my opinion, free thought and expression must be a core value in our churches if we are to become unified (as we must, and will be someday). Part of maturing is getting over our obsessive attachments to our favorite pet doctrines. That can only happen if we're confronted with reasonable alternatives that force us to wrestle with those issues. No pain, no gain..right?

I do have to say though that I like the approach that Rick suggested. While working within an organization with a declared statement of faith, it is appropriate to respect that in the in-house ministry you're in, even if you think it's wrong or divisive.

TK, I think it would be wise to get the pastor's buy in to anything you decide to present if you're doing this as part of the churches' ministry.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Here another personal example:

We first learned about Steve Gregg through listening to The Bible Answer Man 3 years ago (has it already been 3 years??) Ryan listened to it first and went and looked around The Narrow Path Website. He told me about what Steve believed (in regards to eschatology) and I immediately thought "is this guy even a Christian?" Ryan told me that Steve had all of his teachings available for free on his website and that he might listen to some... I didn't think that was a very good idea because of how "heretical" Steve was.

Then Ryan convinced me to actually listen to Hank's show... I think it was the third day Steve was on. I was so impressed with Steve's attitude and gentleness and desire to be honest with the Scriptures that I decided to really listen to what he had to say (even though I was against it). After listening to the show I wanted to hear more that this guy had to say, so I (we) started listening to his radio show online. Again I was very impressed with the way he handled people. He didn't talk over them or hang up on them or screen the calls to find the questions he wanted to answer (even though there were callers sometimes that I wished he would hang up on). Then I started listening to his lectures, then ended up on the forum, etc, etc...

Anyway, all this to say that I think that even for younger, immature believers, if they are caused to question things they think are true, but in a gentle, respectful, humble way, with it being clear that the one presenting the info is trying to be honest with the Scriptures, it can produce much fruit.

Also, isn't it the ones who've been in the faith longer that would be more set in their "pet doctrines?" Wouldn't the younger in the faith be more willing to receive differences of opinion?

[Guest]

Rae wrote:

Also, isn't it the ones who've been in the faith longer that would be more set in their "pet doctrines?" Wouldn't the younger in the faith be more willing to receive differences of opinion?

Great point! I think you are most likely correct about that.

And being in the faith longer doesn't necessarily mean greater maturity.

[Guest]

Rae wrote:
Quote:
Also, isn't it the ones who've been in the faith longer that would be more set in their "pet doctrines?" Wouldn't the younger in the faith be more willing to receive differences of opinion?

I was thinking along similar lines - what came to mind was the scripture from Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go, & when he is old he will not depart from it."

- I think both Gregg & Christopher raise valid points.
It would be great, if, while still spiritual babes, & extremely impressionable, only the pure milk of the word was fed, but this so often is not the case; then I think it would be beneficial for the child to be trained to be discerning for themselves & differentiate between good nutrition (scripture) & junk food (traditions of men).

In an in-house church setting, I also think Rick's approach sounds sensible.

[Guest]

Also, isn't it the ones who've been in the faith longer that would be more set in their "pet doctrines?" Wouldn't the younger in the faith be more willing to receive differences of opinion?

It certainly hasn't been that way with me as one who has been in the faith most of my life.

When I was a teenager, I sought to grow in the knowledge of our Lord, and simply accepted without question what was taught by pastors in various churches, especially in the church I began to attend and from a pastor and his wife whom I greatly admired.

In my early twenties, I saw as my "ministry" convincing everyone else of the Calvinistic doctrines which I had embraced.

It was only later as I continue to pursue truth that I rejected those doctrines as well as many others. It wasn't a revolutionary kind of change, but a very gradual one as I studied the Scriptures and other early Christian writings, to find out the truth for myself.

Though I will be 70 in February, I have far less confidence in some of my present beliefs than I had in the ones I believed in my twenties. Notwithstanding, there are some of my present beliefs of which I feel very confident.

[Guest]

Paidion,

What would have been your reaction in your early twenties to a class such as TK has been talking about? What if you would have met someone like Steve or yourself (now) back then who humbly challenged your beliefs? Would you have been upset? Would you have listened (not necessarily changed your beliefs)?

[Guest]

I think the sooner a young Christian is exposed to a good variety of theological perspectives the better- as long as he or she experiences those viewpoints in an environment that isn't caustic. The longer a Christian waits to understand that there is freedom of diversity in the universal Church of God, the harder it's going to be for them personally when they have to wake up and smell the coffee- especially if it puts them at significant odds with their own church family. And frankly, some folks don't survive the fallout- they conclude that Christianity is after all just one big tangled mess of different christian groups thinking they are right and everyone else is... less right (or at the extremes, going to hell in a handbasket).

I grew up in an Church environment, like many Christians, that did look at other christian theological viewpoints with some suspicion and condescension. What began to change my attitude was studying Church history. Perhaps I studied it at first to back up my own theological opinions and help me refute others', but the catch was that I love history and couldn't stop reading once I got started. And lo and behold I encountered believers throughout Church history of all stripes (lutheran, roman catholic, early church, anglican, orthodox, anabaptist, you name it) that inspired me... and made me yearn for a new understanding of Christian unity.

After this exposure through study, it was only a matter of time before I was able to engage in honest, respectful, and appreciative dialogue with believers of various persuasions on secondary doctrines. I also met a lot of people who had had this realization as well.

Now I have the privilege of pastoring a church community that made this ongoing dialgoue and freedom of thought on secondary issues a foundational value of our existence. Of course, there are always new things to learn about how to flesh this value out in a healthy manner, but it is a tremendously liberating experience not to have to worry excessively (beyond the bounds that real friendship necessitates) about ruffling other folks feathers.

If that's a concern in your churches, I'd agree with whoever posted earlier about starting the dialogue not with the controversial issues themselves, but with a discussion about tolerance on secondary issues- in effect, crafting a shared agreement on how to approach doctrinal differences in a Christ-like manner.

On another note, if one were going to teach a series on "controversial subjects" after laying the appropriate groundwork, I would definitely include a discussion on different viewpoints on the Proper Role of Tradition in the Christian life.