Mutually Exclusive Goals

by Rick Beckman on March 27, 02008

Athe­ists & other ene­mies of God ((“Ene­mies of God” is used in the gener­i­cized sense that every­one who is not with Christ is against Him; the phrase is wholly bib­li­cal — James 4:4.)) often make light of the hypocrisy of so many Chris­tians — myself cer­tainly included — for claim­ing that the Bible is “the Word of God” while ignor­ing so many of its com­mands. ((The Ser­mon on the Mount and the prac­ti­cal advice of the Book of James come to mind.))

Fair enough, but I won­der if those out­side of Jesus’ camp real­ize just how much more they’d hear the mes­sage of Jesus preached if every one of His fol­low­ers preached it as much as the Scrip­tures seem to call them. Paul, for exam­ple, faced intense per­se­cu­tion and was thrown out of cities after hav­ing been beaten for preach­ing, after which he picked him­self back up and went back into the town to preach some more!

If you want all Chris­tians to prac­tice what they preach and to repent of their hypocrisy, then that is fan­tas­tic — every Chris­t­ian should want that as well! But would the same unbe­liev­ers be happy with a world full of 1 bil­lion or so Paul the Apostles?

Not being hyp­o­crit­i­cal and liv­ing and let­ting live are mutu­ally exclu­sive goals.

This is the first entry in the new “Thoughts” cat­e­gory which will fea­ture mostly short posts on var­i­ous sub­jects that are more obser­va­tional or rhetor­i­cal in nature.

{ 2 voices in the conversation. Speak up! }

Brandon March 28, 2008 at 17:06

The conundrum is more prominent I think (and hope) amongst merely religious Christians, by which I mean those who do not have spiritual evidence of new life in Christ.

In The Problem of Pain C.S. Lewis offered three basic elements of all good moral ‘religions’ properly called. The third was: “The moralities accepted among men may differ [according to their religious adherence]- though not, at bottom, so widely as is often claimed- but they all [said religions] agree in prescribing a behaviour which their adherents fail to practise. “

To such agnostics it should be pointed out that sin is the corrupt nature of humanity. Repenting of sin is the first command of God for anyone today. It is also the hardest. The Christian in repenting before God has swallowed the camel, while the atheist doubt by reason of our inability to down the gnat.

The atheist exalts his own morality, by living as scripture prescribes Christians act and on this basis decries Christianity as vain. But let them repent before God. That is the first step of obedience towards God, and association through baptism is the second.

Latest from Brandon: Overcoming: The Craving

Rick Beckman March 28, 2008 at 22:26

“It is also the hardest,” you say, and rightly so, for it is only through the “killing of self” that we are able to repent. Only when we see ourselves as empty, utterly lacking of any righteousness which God would accept. It is only the realization that it is not us but Christ which can save us that can drive us to repent, to cast off our former deeds — both our blatant sins and our filthy righteousnesses — in desperate dependence upon He who has died and risen again on our behalf.

Man is a proud creature, and it is that pride which keeps so many from repenting. After all, who needs Christ when one can be a “good person” and get to Heaven that way? Who needs a slain & resurrected Savior when one has a “good deed for the day”? It is such pride which must be destroyed for it is at enmity with the Creator.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: