Thursday, February 24, 2011

MereChristianity: Book III. Christian Behaviour 3. Social Morality -C.S.Lewis

14.00 Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 

 

 

3. Social Morality

 

 

 

     The first  thing to get clear about Christian morality  between man and

man is that in this department Christ did  not come to preach  any brand new

morality.  The Golden Rule of the New Testament (Do as you would be done by)

is  a summing  up of what everyone, at bottom, had always known to be right.

Really great moral teachers  never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks

and  cranks  who do that. As  Dr. Johnson  said, "People need to be reminded

more often  than they  need  to be  instructed." The real job of every moral

teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after  time,  to the old simple

principles  which we  are all so anxious not to see; like bringing  a  horse

back and back to the fence it has refused to jump  or bringing a  child back

and back to the bit in its lesson that it wants to shirk.


     The second thing  to get clear is that  Christianity has not, and  does

not profess to have, a detailed political programme  for applying "Do as you

would be done by" to  a particular society at a particular moment. It  could

not have. It is meant for all  men at all times and the particular programme

which suited one place or time would not suit another. And,  anyhow, that is

not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not

give  you lessons in cookery. When it  tells you  to  read the Scriptures it

does  not give you lessons  in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar.

It was never  intended to replace or supersede the  ordinary human  arts and

sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs,

and a source of energy which will give them all  new life, if only they will

put themselves at its disposal.


     People say, "The Church ought to give us a  lead." That is true if they

mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the

Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians. And  when

they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean that some

Christians- those who happen to have the right talents- should be economists

and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should  be  Christians,

and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to

putting "Do as  you would be done by" into action. If  that happened, and if

we  others were really ready to take it, then  we should  find the Christian

solution for our own social problems pretty quickly.  But,  of  course, when

they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to

put  out  a  political  programme.  That  is  silly.  The clergy  are  those

particular people within the whole Church  who have  been  specially trained

and set aside to look after what concerns us as  creatures who  are going to

live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for  which

they  have not been trained. The job  is  really on us, on the  laymen.  The

application of Christian  principles,  say, to  trade unionism or education,

must come from Christian trade unionists  and Christian schoolmasters:  just

as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and  dramatists  -not

from  the bench of bishops  getting together  and trying  to write plays and

novels in their spare time.


     All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a

pretty clear  hint of what a  fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps

it gives  us  more than we  can  take. It tells us  that there  are to be no

passengers  or parasites: if  man does not work, he ought not to  eat. Every

one is to work with his own hands, and what  is more, every one's work is to

produce something good: there will be no manufacture  of silly  luxuries and

then  of sillier advertisements  to persuade us to buy them. And there is to

be no "swank" or "side," no putting  on  airs. To that  extent  a  Christian

society would  be what  we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always

insisting on obedience-obedience (and outward marks  of respect) from all of

us  to properly appointed magistrates, from  children to parents, and  (I am

afraid this is going  to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly,

it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding

worry or anxiety as wrong. Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the

New Testament hates what it calls "busybodies."


     If there were such  a society in existence  and you  or I visited it, I

think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its

economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, "advanced,"  but that

its  family life and its code of  manners were  rather old-fashioned-perhaps

even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of  us  would like some bits  of it,

but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what

one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We

have  all departed  from that total plan  in different ways, and each  of us

wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan

itself. You will find  this  again  and again about anything that  is really

Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it  and wants to pick out those

bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is

why people who are  fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are

fighting for Christianity.


     Now another  point.  There is one  bit of  advice given to  us  by  the

ancient heathen Greeks,  and  by the Jews in  the Old Testament, and  by the

great Christian  teachers of  the  Middle  Ages, which  the  modern economic

system has  completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money

at  interest: and lending money at  interest-what we call  investment-is the

basis of  our  whole system. Now it may  not  absolutely  follow that we are

wrong.  Some  people say that  when  Moses and Aristotle and the  Christians

agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not

foresee the  joint  stock  company,  and were  only dunking of  the  private

moneylender,  and that, therefore,  we need not bother about what they said.

That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do

not know whether the investment system is  responsible for the state  we are

in  or  not This is where we  want the Christian economist But I should  not

have been honest if I  had not  told you that three  great civilisations had

agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which

we have based our whole life.


     One more  point and I am done.  In the passage where the  New Testament

says  that every one must work, it gives  as  a reason "in order that he may

have something to give to those in need." Charity-giving  to the poor-is  an

essential part  of Christian morality: in the  frightening  parable  of  the

sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some

people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of

giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no

poor to  give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce

that kind of society. But if anyone  thinks that, as a consequence,  you can

stop  giving in the meantime, then he has  parted company with all Christian

morality.  I do not believe one can  settle how much we ought to  give. I am

afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words,

if our expenditure  on comforts, luxuries, amusements,  etc,  is  up to  the

standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably

giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I

should say they are too small There ought  to be things we should like to do

and  cannot  do  because  our charitable  expenditure  excludes them.  I  am

speaking now of "charities" in the common  way. Particular cases of distress

among your own relatives, friends, neighbours or employees, which God, as it

were, forces upon your notice, may demand  much more: even to the  crippling

and endangering of  your  own position. For many of us the great obstacle to

charity lies not in  our luxurious living  or desire for more money, but  in

our fear-fear of insecurity. This must often be recognised as a  temptation.

Sometimes our  pride also hinders our charity; we are  tempted to spend more

than we ought  on the showy forms  of generosity (tipping, hospitality)  and

less than we ought on those who really need our help.


     And now, before  I end, I am going to venture on a guess as to how this

section  has  affected any who have  read it My guess is that there are some

Leftist people among them who are very angry that it has not gone further in

that direction, and some people of an opposite sort who  are  angry  because

they think  it has gone much too far. If so, that brings us right up against

the  real snag in all this drawing up of blueprints for a Christian society.

Most of us are not really approaching  the subject in order to find out what

Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from

Christianity  for  the  views of our own  party. We are looking for  an ally

where we are offered either a Master  or-a Judge. I am just the same.  There

are bits in this section that I wanted to leave out. And that is why nothing

whatever  is  going  to come of such talks unless we  go a  much longer  way

round.  A Christian  society  is not going to arrive until most of us really

want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian.  I

may repeat "Do as you would be done by"  till I am black in the  face, but I

cannot really carry it out till I love  my neighbour as myself: and I cannot

learn to love my  neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot

learn to love God except by learning  to obey Him. And so,  as I warned you,

we are driven on to  something more inward -driven on from social matters to

religious matters. For the longest way round is the shortest way home.

 

Posted via email from Classic Christian Digest

MereChristianity: Book III. Christian Behaviour 2. The "Cardinal Virtues" -C.S.Lewis

14.00 Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 

2. The "Cardinal Virtues"

 

 

 

     The previous  section  was  originally composed to be given  as a short

talk on the air.

     If you are allowed to talk for only ten minutes, pretty well everything

else has to be sacrificed to brevity.  One of my  chief reasons for dividing

morality up  into three parts  (with  my  picture  of the ships  sailing  in

convoy) was that this seemed the shortest way of covering the ground. Here I

want to give some idea of another way in which the subject has been  divided

by old writers, which  was too long to use in  my talk, but which is a  very

good one.

     According to this longer scheme there are seven "virtues." Four of them

are  called   "Cardinal"   virtues,  and  the  remaining  three  are  called

"Theological"  virtues. The "Cardinal" ones  are those  which all  civilised

people  recognise:  the  "Theological"  are those which,  as  a  rule,  only

Christians know  about. I shall deal with the Theological ones  later on: at

present I am talking about the  four  Cardinal virtues. (The word "cardinal"

has nothing  to  do with  "Cardinals"  in the Roman Church. It comes  from a

Latin  word meaning  "the hinge  of  a door." These were  called  "cardinal"

virtues  because they are, as  we should say, "pivotal.") They are PRUDENCE,

TEMPERANCE, JUSTICE, and FORTITUDE.

     Prudence means practical common sense, taking  the trouble to think out

what you are doing and what is likely  to  come  of it. Nowadays most people

hardly think of  Prudence as one of the "virtues." In  fact,  because Christ

said  we  could  only  get into  His  world  by  being like  children,  many

Christians have the idea that, provided you are  "good," it  does not matter

being  a fool. But  that is a  misunderstanding.  In the  first  place, most

children show  plenty of  "prudence" about doing  the things they are really

interested in,  and think them out quite sensibly. In  the second place,  as

St, Paul points out,  Christ  never meant that we were to remain children in

intelligence: on  the contrary, He told  us to  be not  only "as harmless as

doves," but  also "as  wise as  serpents." He wants a  child's heart,  but a

grown-up's head. He  wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and

teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence

we have to  be alert  at its job, and in first-class fighting trim. The fact

that you are  giving money to a charity does not mean that you need  not try

to find out  whether that charity  is a fraud or not. The fact that what you

are thinking about is  God  Himself (for example, when you are praying) does

not mean that you can be  content with the  same babyish ideas which you had

when you were a  five-year-old. It is, of  course,  quite true that God will

not love you any the less, or have less use for you,  if you happen to  have

been born with a  very second-rate brain. He  has room for people  with very

little sense, but He wants every one to use what sense they have. The proper

motto is not "Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever," but "Be good,

sweet maid, and don't forget that this involves being as clever as you can."

God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you

are thinking  of becoming  a  Christian,  I warn you  you  are embarking  on

something which is going to  take the whole  of you,  brains and  all.  But,

fortunately, it works the other  way round. Anyone who is honestly trying to

be  a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened: one  of the

reasons  why  it  needs no  special education  to  be a  Christian  is  that

Christianity is an education itself. That is why an uneducated believer like

Bunyan was able to write a book that has astonished the whole world.

     Temperance is, unfortunately,  one of those words that has  changed its

meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the  days when the  second

Cardinal virtue was christened  "Temperance," it meant nothing  of the sort.

Temperance  referred not specially  to  drink, but to all  pleasures; and it

meant not  abstaining,  but going  the right length and no  further. It is a

mistake  to   think   that   Christians  ought  all  to   be   teetotallers;

Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is  the teetotal religion. Of course it may

be the duty of a  particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular

time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who

cannot  drink at all without drinking  too much, or because he wants to give

the  money  to the poor, or because he is  with  people  who are inclined to

drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself.  But  the whole

point is that he  is abstaining, for a good reason,  from something which he

does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the

marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself

without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way.

An  individual  Christian  may see  fit to give up all sorts of  things  for

special reasons-marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he

starts saying the things are  bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at

other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

     One great piece of mischief has been done by the  modern restriction of

the word Temperance to the question of drink. It helps people to forget that

you can be just as intemperate about lots of other  things. A  man who makes

his golf or his motor-bicycle the centre of his life, or a woman who devotes

all  her  thoughts  to  clothes  or  bridge  or  her dog,  is  being just as

"intemperate"  as  someone who gets  drunk every evening. Of course, it does

not  show on the  outside so easily: bridge-mania  or golf-mania do not make

you  fall down in  the middle  of the  road.  But God  is  not  deceived  by

externals.

     Justice means  much  more than  the  sort of thing that goes on in  law

courts. It is the  old name for everything we should now call "fairness"; it

includes honesty,  give  and take, truthfulness, keeping  promises, and  all

that  side  of life. And  Fortitude includes  both kinds of courage-the kind

that faces danger as well as the kind that "sticks it" under pain. "Guts" is

perhaps  the nearest modern English. You will  notice, of  course, that  you

cannot practise any of the other virtues very long without bringing this one

into play.

     There is one further point about the virtues  that ought to be noticed.

There is a difference between doing some particular just or temperate action

and being a just or temperate man. Someone who is not  a good  tennis player

may now and then make a good shot. What you mean by a good player is the man

whose eye and  muscles and nerves have been so trained by making innumerable

good shots  that they can now  be  relied  on. They have  a  certain tone or

quality  which  is  there  even   when  he  is   not  playing,   just  as  a

mathematician's mind  has a certain habit  and outlook  which is there  even

when he is not doing mathematics. In the same way a man  who  perseveres  in

doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is

that quality rather than the particular actions  which we mean when  we talk

of "virtue."

     This  distinction is important for the following reason. If we  thought

only of the particular actions we might encourage three wrong ideas.

     (1) We might think that,  provided you did the right thing,  it did not

matter how or why you  did  it-whether you did it  willingly or unwillingly,

sulkily  or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion  or for its own sake.

But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to

build the internal quality or character  called  a "virtue," and  it is this

quality or  character  that  really matters.  (If the bad tennis player hits

very  hard, not  because he  sees that a very hard  stroke is required,  but

because he has lost his temper, his stroke might possibly, by luck, help him

to  win that  particular game; but  it will not be  helping him  to become a

reliable player.)

     (2)  We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules:

whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.

     (3)  We might think  that the "virtues" were  necessary  only for  this

present life-that in the other world we could stop being  just because there

is nothing to quarrel about and stop being brave because there is no danger.

Now  it is quite true that  there will probably be no  occasion  for just or

courageous acts in the  next  world,  but  there will  be every occasion for

being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such

acts  here.  The  point is  not that God will refuse  you admission  to  His

eternal world if you  have not got certain qualities of character: the point

is  that if  people have not got at least the beginnings of  those qualities

inside them, then no possible external conditions could make  a "Heaven" for

them-that is,  could make them happy  with the deep, strong, unshakable kind

of happiness God intends for us.

Posted via email from Classic Christian Digest

AskABibleTeacher: (Crowns For Believers, Literally? Acquiring Mountain Moving Faith, A Transfer Of Wealth?) -Jack Kelley

Crowns For Believers, Literally?

Q. My question concerns crowns and the meaning of the term. I know the Bible mentions a crown of rejoicing, a crown of righteousness, a crown of life, etc., but are these literal crowns to be eventually awarded the believer, or are they metaphors for something else? The old hymn says “Crown Him with many crowns” so maybe Christ is the only one worthy to be crowned? Thank you and God bless your ministry.

 

A. The New testament lists 5 crowns that will be awarded to qualifying believers at the Bema Seat Judgment just after the rapture.  There’s no reason to think of them as being  symbolic.  You can read all about them in my study entitled “How To Win Your Crowns” by clicking here.

The hymn you quoted refers to Rev. 19:12. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. The Greek word for crowns in this passage is diadema and designates royalty. It symbolizes that as King of the whole Earth (Zech. 14:9) the Lord is entitled to many crowns.  The Greek word used for the crowns we receive is stephanos and refers to a victory award, like the gold medal given to Olympic athletes.

Tags: ,

Related Posts:

Acquiring Mountain Moving Faith

Q. My question is on faith. I know that we are all given a measure of faith, but how does one acquire or develop the kind that moves mountains.  I have a friend that is terminally ill and dying. She has great faith in the Lord. In a recent conversation that we had she said “can you imagine meeting Jesus how wonderful it will be”. There was such excitement in her spirit. She has asked God to take her at a time when her family can move forward with their lives and not grieve for too long. I have such respect and admiration for her faith and the relationship she has with Him.

 

She has said that her faith is a simple one. She trusts her life to God. In many of our conversations over the years she has shared her faith and the faithfulness of the Lord in her life.

How do you reach that kind of faith? Is it something we have to work at or are we given only a certain amount. I am not looking to move mountains, but would like the kind that is unshakable and unwavering. I trust The Lord in my life and believe in OSAS and I know that the Lord’s hand is over my life, but there are times that I question my faith in certain areas.  Is that a normal thing in our walk with the Lord?

A. I think there are two ways to get the kind of faith you describe. First, extra-ordinary faith is listed among the Spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12:9. This is not the faith to believe that we all receive (Ephes. 2:8-9) but a faith that surpasses our understanding. Your friend might have received this gift of supernatural faith. Everyone can pray for it (1 Cor. 12:31) but we should remember that the Holy Spirit distributes His gifts as He sees fit for the common good. (1 Cor. 12:7)

The other way is to give your life totally to God, not making a single decision on your own but submitting everything to Him, accepting only that which He provides, and doing only that which He directs.  By living that way you’ll learn that trusting totally upon Him will give you a much better life than you could ever achieve on your own.   And  you’ll also develop such a strong faith that nothing will be able to shake you.

This is the transformation Paul was speaking of in Romans 12:2.  By following his advice you’ll find that you’ll always have faith sufficient for whatever situation you encounter. Your friend might not have been able to predict that she’d have the faith required for her current situation. But having habitually exercised her faith, she has always found it to be more than adequate for the task at hand.

Tags: , ,

Related Posts:

A Transfer Of Wealth?

Q. What is the transfer of wealth to God’s people?  I have a friend who actually believes that she will receive monies to pay off all of her debts and have enough to send to certain evangelists that she  gives to.  She, of course, got the scriptures to back this up from those evangelists.  I know that God provides all our needs but she thinks that this money will be taken from the sinners and given to God’s people.  I looked up the scriptures that she gave me and see what she’s referring to but wonder what it really means .   As usual I look to you for answers and thank God you are there.

 

A. I’ve been hearing this teaching for 25 years now but have never seen evidence of it happening.  I think this is a good example of how the Scriptures can be twisted to produce false teaching.  In the first place, God doesn’t need to take money from sinners in order to bless His people, and in the second place why would he go to all the trouble of shifting a bunch of money to His children when He’s going to take all of us out of here soon?  It doesn’t make sense.

Tags:

Related Posts:

J.VernonMcGeeArticles: About Jesus Christ "His Only Son"

Articles by Thru the Bible

Dr. J. Vernon McGee photo

His Only Son
J. Vernon McGee

 

And they came to the place which God had told them of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me….And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son. (Genesis 22:9-12, 15, 16)

 

I have a question to ask: Did Abraham do it? No, he did not offer his son, but God says to him, "Because you have done this thing…." You see, Abraham believed God, and he went far enough to let you and me know - God already knew - and to let the created universe know that he was willing to give his son. And so God counted it to him that he had done it. Abraham is justified by faith, but he is also justified before men by his works. He demonstrated that he had that faith.

And "hast not withheld thy son, thine only son." Notice how God plays upon that - because He gave His only Son.

Through this incident, God is making it clear that there will have to be a Man to stand in the gap, there will have to be a Man capable of becoming the Savior of the race if anyone is to be saved. That is a great lesson given to us in this chapter. Abraham said that God would provide Himself a Lamb, and they found a ram and offered it. But God did provide a Lamb nineteen hundred years later in Christ. God stayed Abraham's hand and did not let him go through with the sacrifice of Isaac because it would have been wrong. God spared Abraham's son, but God did not spare His own Son but gave Him up freely for us all.

--From Edited Messages on Genesis by J. Vernon McGee

Fact? Christian: Personal

Fact? Christian: Who Decides Who is a Christian?

Fact? Christian: What do Chrisitans do?

BillyGrahamVid: Billy in LA

 

DailyKayVid: Kay Arthur "1 Samuel, Part 2 #29: Not of the World"

current broadcast
2011Thursday February 24 

As believers, we are like sojourners in a foreign land. How is it possible to be in the world without being of the world?
Tune in today for Precepts for Life, when Kay Arthur addresses that question.

Living Water: John Mendoza (02/20/11)

Living Water
John Mendoza
Type: Teaching
Most Recent: 02/20/11MONTHLY

OnTheLevel: Pancho Juarez (Weekly) 02/20/11


On The Level
Pancho Juarez
Type: Church
Most Recent: 02/20/11GALLERY

GotQuestions: ““what is the most controversial issue in the Christian faith today?"

Most controversial issue?

In your experience,

what is the most controversial issue in the Christian faith today?



21 Comments »

  1. Comment by Garrett

    I would say the free will vs. predestination debate…seems like it always has been.

  2. Comment by Brian

    The apathetic attitudes Christians have toward Sharia law.

  3. Comment by Malik

    The Trinity and Salvation by Faith alone

  4. Comment by Jodi Rick

    In my personal experience from true believers, whether or not we could ever lose our salvation once saved…opinions vary from pastor to pastor..

  5. Comment by Joshua Trevathan

    The fact that Christians are hypocrites seems to always be brought up when I talk to people about God. It’s hard for people to understand that we can be saved but still sin etc… I hope this answers your question. Another thing would be the idea of predestination ie: divine election (this seems to only be argued among more scholarly christians though) but that’s just my 2 cents

  6. Comment by Steve Terrell

    Speaking “within” Christianity; we could list topics such as essentialness of baptism, doctrine of election, etc. All resulting from differences of interpretation, and therefore, enabling denominationalism.

    “Denominationalism”, and the fact that it exists, however naturally we may have arrived here, is “harmful” to the cause of Christ. Not the only thing harmful, and maybe not the major thing which is harmful, but as close as we can come to shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Regardless… an un-believer will take responsibility for his / her decision (key word). Likewise, this is not to say that denominations, per se, are “bad” or harmful… in, and of, themselves. This discussion is not about who’s right or who’s wrong (at least not in this context). However, this whole idea of “division” (denominationalism) is harmful to the ultimate, and simple, purpose of His body …which is to glorify God, in unity, and to proclaim the gospel / good news to the un-believer. Difficult to do when we can’t all sing out of the same hymnal …so to speak.

    I believe there are other major controversies, not contained necessarily within the body, which the church must, and does, struggle with…

    1. “Christ” Himself – the ekklesia / the church / the members making it up… providing an evidence that Christ is who Scripture indicates Him to be. Once again, responsibility certainly falls on the un-believer. But a Christ-follower always struggles with his / her own witness of Christ. It is difficult to merely throw our hands in the air and give up! This opposes the biblical mandate to “go into the world”.

    2. God’s Word – Inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. Is Scripture trustworthy? Is it more than an historical reference? Like bullet #1, responsibility for belief / un-belief ultimately falls on the individual. Scripture clearly indicates we are without excuse …but if you don’t trust God’s word, with which our faith aligns, then the point becomes “moot”, from any debatable stand-point. Further indication that the Holy Spirit must work.

    3. “Worldliness” – the church acquiring things, and practices, of the world ….for the purpose of trying to reach the lost (all things to all men …we say), instead of the church “influencing” the world. We’ve flipped it!

    Sorry …the question was “the” most controversial issue. Bullet #3 would be a logical conclusion ….speaking within the confines / responsibilities of Christ’ church; but the other factors are key, as well.

  7. Comment by Dave

    My own personal opinion of the most controversial issue in the Christian faith today are the divisions created by individual interpretation of the bible and application of faith.

    The reasons I feel these are controversial are that we start to use our interpretation of the word and how we apply that interpretation to our faith to insist (in many cases) that our belief is the one true belief. We have created an perception in the world where we are often seen as crazy Christians driving those to whom we attempt to minister, further away from God. We create further divisions when we start attacking other Christian faiths as not being Christian enough or labeling them as cults.

    We were given two commandments by Christ. To love God with all our hearts, minds and souls, and to love others as we love ourselves.

    Too often, we get bogged down in the minutia of dogma and faith and forget to carry the message of God’s Love and forgiveness. We focus more on the words of Paul rather than the words of Christ.

  8. Comment by Roel

    If the Christian foundation is based on relationship with the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Why is there so much strife with religion?

  9. Comment by Nelson

    I think the most controversial topic is, in general, the Arminian-Calvinist debate, more accurately on the issue of predestination/election.

    BTW, here’s a good book to read on how contentious it is:

    Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine
    ISBN#0195174275

  10. Comment by Debbie

    I think from the recent postings; women as pastors of a local church body. LOL!! On a more serious note, I believe liberalism or whatever your particular word for it is; post-modernism, neo-theology is sending many innocent people to hell.
    MARANATHA

  11. Comment by Anonymous

    The divinity of Christ.

  12. Comment by R

    This could be one, There is a atheist, heading in the a well known denomination Christian church to stop the teaching of biblical account of creation in genesis and replace with secular evolution. The thing is a lot of churches in this denomination is buying it.

  13. Comment by Anonymous

    Other than questioning the divinity of Christ Himself, I would say, “Can a person know that he is saved?”

  14. Comment by Michael James Stone

    1) Political Activism as a “part” of faith.
    2) Violence vs non-violence means.
    3) Christianizing of American History
    4) Super-Patriotism
    5) Independence vs Unity
    6) Entertainment Gospel
    7) Convenient Faith

    Those are a few, but I think A. W. Tozer saw it coming and so it is no Surprise, and the sad thing is, there is little objection.

  15. Comment by Jesse

    I think the most crucial controversy today is the doctrine of the deity of Christ; also the doctrine of Justification – people need to know how God justifies us and what that means. I think the most popular controversy is the Reformed vs. Semi-Pelagian debate, and what I think is at the heart of this debate is the atonement; that’s the most important. I’ve also notice a sort of a hidden controversy in the doctrine of sola scriptura. So many think they believe that, but then turn around and seek alternate sources of revelation. So we’ve got:

    1) the doctrine of the deity of Christ
    2) the doctrine of Justification
    3) the doctrine of the Atonement
    4) the doctrine of Sola Scriptura

  16. Comment by Debbie

    Hi Nelson,
    I am a Calminian. LOL!!
    MARANATHA

  17. Comment by wwjd247365

    Whether Allah is a Arabic moon god, carved out of rock, or a real God … like God … the Father of Jesus Christ!

  18. Comment by Kate

    Well, I believe that it is the question of interpretation of scriptures and the divisions it creates – under this issue, fall all of the other issues. Of course, this same issue can be found within every belief system; but I feel that this can also be found in almost every other subject outside of religious belief systems. I do recognize that many turn away from Christianity due to the level of strife between denominations (as well between individual believers).

    Like anything, everything, anyone and everyone – it and we are always a work in progress – sometimes we Christians forget that. : )

  19. Comment by ceseeley

    Abortion!!!

  20. Comment by Jose de Carvalho

    Does God still perform miracles today?

  21. Comment by Nelson

    Hey, Stone…about Tozer…now there’s a heavy hitter! I love reading his books.

    It’s like someone smacking me in th head, picking me up by the scruff, dusting me off, and saying, “No, this is the right way; now get going, buddy.”

JesusWill Answer: "Questions I don't have the Answer To" (Hate)

"Mommy"

"Why do people hate the President?"

When Jesus said Love everyone?