Religion vs Gospel

DIG Class…….September 7, 2008 

The following is based on a sermon by Pastor Matt Chandler, of The Village Church, preached on 8-31-08

America still claims to be Christian. But our culture has two things pulling on it:

1.    Relativism- “no truth fits on all people everywhere.”

2.    Religion- vs the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When someone says, “All religions are the same!”  We should be quick to answer, “You are absolutely right!”  We need to know how to distinguish the Gospel from religion.

(Once we “get it”, we can look at how each of the various world religions differ from REAL, authentic, Gospel truth.....and that will be a focus in the coming months of our class)

9 ways religion differs from Gospel:

1.  A mantra of religion:   “I obey therefore I am accepted”

……but the "mantra" of the Gospel is “I’m accepted, therefore I obey!”

2.  The motivation of religion:  FEAR and Insecurity.

The problem is that heaven is not a place for those who are afraid of hell, it is a place for those who LOVE God!  Fear-based religion is just that…it is religion, not the Gospel. “I better do these things, or God is going to get me” 

The motivation behind the Gospel:  grateful JOY!

3.  In religion, we obey to get things out of God.

 In the Gospel, we obey to be near Him, to be transformed into His image …….God is the Gospel.

4.  In religion, when circumstances go wrong, either get angry with ourselves or get angry with God,

In the Gospel, when difficult circumstances fall on us, we struggle!  But we know, it  is NOT because HE  is angry with us.

5.  In religion, when you are criticized, your whole world will unravel and you will either go violent or into self-loathing.

In the Gospel, when you are criticized, you will struggle. (NO one likes it!) But in the Gospel, our worth is NOT in our ability to be moral, upright, fine, outstanding citizens, so when we are criticized, it doesn’t unravel our world.

6.  In religion, prayer is almost always about petition.

In the Gospel, prayer becomes long stretches of praise and adoration.

7.  In religion, your self-view swings wildly between two poles. ( “swagger”-pride or “snivel”- feel defeated and worthless)

 In the Gospel, my self-view , is NOT dependent on my ability, but on Jesus’ death on the cross for me.

8.  In religion, your self-worth is built entirely on how hard you work.

 In the Gospel, you know you have been saved by grace, through faith. (Eph 2:8-9)

9.  In religion, you count on pedigree and performance.

In the Gospel, our pedigree and performance don’t matter.

The beauty of the cross is not that we are perfect but that we’re NOT and Christ loves us anyway!  That is what creates worship!

Teachings of Jesus (Luke 11): 

To people that are really a mess, He tends to speak softly and tenderly to them.  Remember the woman that was caught in the act of adultery?  Jesus intervenes in her situation, writes something in the sand for all the religious folks to see, and after they all leave, he says, “Neither do I condemn you…Go, and sin no more.”

But to religious people, Jesus gets harsh.  The religious folks in Luke 11 (verse 37 through the end of the chapter) repeatedly hear Jesus say, “Woe to you!” and He condemns their religious legalism.

From page 4 of the transcript (with my emphases):

I’d say, "Look, I know when [human life] begins for me."  It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my [C]hurch. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others – who have a different view.  They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life – I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

"It's a personal and private issue"?  It is? That's news to me!  As far as I can tell, both science and religion have definitively and very publicly ruled on this "issue."

Did you notice that every time he professes his adherence to Catholic teaching, he then immediately says "but"?  There are no buts about it!  We Catholics are who we are, we believe what we believe, and we strive to live out those beliefs to the very best of our ability--PERIOD. We don't subject them to anybody or anything.  Got that, Joe?  So decide and tell us straight--are you Catholic or not?

And it's just great that he's letting the religious views of non-Catholics and non-Christians determine his public policy, while showing no concern at all for the scandal he is giving his fellow Catholics (some of whom are also "equally and maybe even more devout than" he is).  He is essentially throwing us and our beliefs under the train.  This is a perfect example of why I say that he and his ilk are making themselves and all Catholic Americans second-class citizens:  Members of other faiths can influence the public sphere, but Catholics?  No way!  We Catholics have to shut up and keep our faith locked up inside our churches and our houses.  It is self-hatred of the worst kind, and it is glossed over as part of living in a "pluralistic society."

What a crock!

A Catholic politician should stand up for their own beliefs--the ones they share with all their fellow Catholic citizens--and if the non-Catholics and non-Christians don't want to vote for them, they don't have to.  For pity's sake, don't let them control what we Catholics stand for!

Incidentally, of course, I think that many of them stand for the very same things we do, so Biden's excuses ring pretty hollow.  I don't think he actually cares about anybody or their principles, except maybe the radical liberals and their messiah Obama.

I hope the bishops respond as strongly to Biden as they have to Pelosi.

Much more coverage and commentary by Thomas Peters at American Papist and Father Z at WDTPRS.

It seems to me that there are a few things to be explained.

First, why, although they can recognize that units of measurement are important when dealing with integers and with some easy fractions (I'm not sure where easy leaves off), at some point they see the 0.002 but can't see the units anymore.

Second, why they cannot be led through a series of steps to see the difference.

Third, why they think that a difference concerning arithmetic is a matter of opinion, by which they mean a mere matter of opinion, in which no opinion is right and no opinion is wrong -- in fact, no opinion is even better than another.

Fourth, why they can write off the attempt to get them to see the difference by glibly saying, "I'm not a mathematician" --- as though (a) simple arithmetic were higher mathematics, and (b) not being a mathematician were a point of pride.

In doing some reading about the term and concept of spirituality, I see an attempt to identify and codify a connection we have to everything around us. This in contrast with a pervasive sense of alienation afflicting many human societies. Spiritualism seems to be preoccupied with the existence of a metaphysical realm, one that does not necessarily adhere to our preconceptions of reality and that its rules do not necessarily adhere to known scientific models. In Wikipedia's entry on spiritualism (visibly challenged as incomplete by a bright iconic disclaimer), it is said that "..as such spiritual disciplines (which are often part of an established religious tradition) enjoin practitioners (trainees or disciples) to cultivate those higher potentialities of the human being that are more noble and refined (wisdom and virtue)...".

What makes some of us suspicious of sprituality is that many who follow and believe in its sprawling theories, are explicitly seeking the path to self improvement, self realization and what they term 'enlightenment'. What some derisively call New Age concepts. Those of us who believe in science, logic, and rationality, want to distance and contrast our way of doing the same (path to knowledge and self realization), from that which we perceive as being prone to self delusion. The concept of spiritualism makes scientists and those adhering to 'rationale' methods of investigation and proof, very uncomfortable. Spiritualism is this earnest, truth seeking distant relative we occasionally meet in family events, which has the capacity to be infuriating and smug. The 'I know something you don't' kind of person.

But going back to my conversation with said 'spritualist' (who was not smug, nor the least infuriating). What stopped me dead on my track, was her curiosity and open minded approach to our topic of conversation. This made our discussion less argumentative and more exploratory. There were two topics that intertwined into one: the illusive concepts of good and evil was the first, and we both of agreed, coming from our respective starting points, that on certain scales this moral construct is relative and therefore flawed. The other related idea that certain human acts could be absolutely defined as either 'natural' or 'un-natural' is at least problematic. As is my habit to get a rise out of my interlocutors in such arguments, I went as far as say that there is no such thing as 'un-natural' human act, no matter how deplorable on certain relative scales of human morality. To my surprise, this did not get as much of a rise as I hoped for. So I may have to think twice about my credo: that godlessness is the only way to let the mind journey and explore un-interrupted.

Rationale thinking, the basis for scientific methods of proof, can contain "uncertain but sensible arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like". In fact, some of the greatest scientific discoveries which were ultimately proved using scientific methods of proof, started in the minds of their authors as ideas. It took years to prove that their "intuition' was right. Einstein's theory of relativity is a good example. Intuition is therefore at the basis of both methods of thinking about the world around us, and both should not be discounted as a result. Where the two approaches diverge, is the methods, logical and otherwise, that the two world views take (or not, as the case may be) - to support and prove their theories.

I can't say that this conversation changed my mind in any significant way. I will not ditch Ray Kurzweil for Deepk Chopra, but the dialogue raised questions worth considering.

The divine stiff looked not a little surprised as two men looked in a horrified manner at a third man with a lantern, bushy moustache and smoking gun.

“We killed god!” ranted the madman. The two nodded, they knew they had nothing to do with it but it seemed safer to agree.

The madman ran off.

“Without God” pondered the first being “there is no longer any absolute morality, it has become relative. If a society agrees upon a certain moral code then for all purposes good and bad are now the social agreements. The good is now in flux for it will be one thing here and another over there.”

“I can’t agree” responded the second “I never thought that god (humanity bless her soul) had the slightest affect upon the good, the moral. Yet I still have a vision of the good that is beyond just what society dictates.

Remember Socrates? He died in part maintaining an ethical stance which was alien at the time to the society of Athens. Were both ethical systems equal or was one closer to what it is to live a moral life? On a primitive level isn’t good to have food and can’t you infer that it is good for others like yourself to have food?

Consider a law that condemned gays and lesbians to death. This is accepted as moral by the society at the time. This belief of what is moral is based upon ignorance and the acceptance of a dogmatic religion. With knowledge and the critical reason, the morality of a society becomes more ethical.”

“You’re just placing your own beliefs upon the past in a show of moral superiority” objected the first.

“I argue” continued the second “that we do know more of what the good is now than then. No let me finish. To justify that the world is like such (flat, square or even a sphere) by pointing to a dogmatic text is ludicrous. So also is it with the good. A group that sticks to its dogmatic definition of what is good will soon find themselves at odds with a society which is founded upon critical reason, not because the morals to come from critical reason have simply changed but because they have improved. The good is the optimum way of interacting with others. We find out what this is through the growth of knowledge e.g. women are not inferior to men; more knowledge means a better understanding of how to treat each other as well as a growth in empathy. Knowledge also needs the companion of critical reason; the more rational people are the more moral. The acceptance of the gay community into society is not good because society says it is good, it is good because it is good. The good remains good if it be here or Iran.”

“justify that”

“er... look a distraction!”

I got on a airplane to travel up to a well known city. After a long wait the aircraft’s engines started to roar and the aircraft hit the runway, however I was startled at the unusual slow speed of the aircraft and guessed something was wrong. Then all of a sudden I saw that the aircraft was moving out of the airport gates and it hit the roads. I got up, the air hostess waved her hands and signed me, as if asking me to jump up, but then I realized that she was infact asking me to sit down. She said we are taking off in a short while, please be seated till the flight is stable and the seat belt signed is switched on.

While I was still trying to understand what was happening. The flight started to bend forwards and make a nose dive, that’s when I noticed, to my utter horror instead of flying up it was trying to dig itself in to the ground!  I yelled “Hey what’s this! It was supposed to be a flight to this particular city, but you are hitting the roads and taking us in to the ground!!”

The airhostess with her trained smile replied “Sir, please be patient let me explain it to you. Sir, for us flying doesn’t mean leaving the ground and going up in to the air. The city you named is not on the ground, its infact it is under the ground, we will shortly reach there. Please be angry and kindly be jumping!”

 I know you feel like your brains just under went a liposuction! Well, the fact is that – if you believe in relativism this would completely be a normal incident and you would feel your logic challenged, sadly this is what many people in the world believe in. Relativism – “each man can have his own truth”, what is true for you doesn’t mean its true for others.

However Truth by definition is an exclusive term. Each time you make an absolute statement you negate the opposite and are affirming that the opposite is false.

It is logical to understand that you cannot be going both up and down or right and left, at the same moment. There is no escape from the absolute nature of truth. And when ever anyone tries to challenge the absolute nature of truth, they will find themselves digging their own ground or making a thousand qualifications of what they said.

Because when relativists claim “truth is relative” they are in fact making an absolute claim! They are stating that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that “there is no absolute truth”.  So when a relativist states this, what he is saying is not that both He and you ( who refute relativism and approve the absolute nature of truth) are right but only He is right !!. And for truth to be both relative and absolute together at the same time is to have a logic defying understanding, just as there are no square circles, or a bachelor’s wife.

I am sure many of us have been given this illustration “if you look at a glass half full, what will you say? “Is it half empty or half full”, relativists would say, you see it all depends on how you look at it. Further relativism would say that what is half full for you, can be half empty for some one else. At times, if you are not critically thinking you can be overwhelmed by these types of questions. The point they miss firstly, is that the question is not about ones perspective it is in fact, about the truth irrespective of ones perspective, sincerity or beliefs, hence the point relativists are trying to make, using this illustration is baseless and not to the context. As the fact in this case, is that the glass is half filled with water (half empty and half full).

Secondly, during communication we do not need to always define or state what is not. For eg. When you go to sleep you do not ask your better half to switch on darkness! We just have to switch off the light, which exists. You do not ask for half a glass of water and half a glass of emptiness, you just ask for half a glass of water and its implied and understood that the other half of the glass is required empty, as no one drinks emptiness (as some relativists do).  If relativism and the basic fact those relativists are trying to prove has to stand true, it would mean that when the glass is full, it is empty also? This, in fact is a logical impossibility.

Now apply this scenario to the court room, where a murderer would state relativism, where would it all lead to? If relativism was true, the world we are living in would have no laws to govern and we would have been in a much worse state that we are now, even with a big portion of humanity which buys in to relativism to justify their deeds.

Now look at this :

Tao says:
Truth said is no longer Truth...
But what he says here must be believed as the truth!!, So what’s your take on it, should we count that as truth?

Buddhism says:
Truth is understood when the man becomes the watcher, so much that the watcher and the watched are one...
So then who was the man looking at in the first instance? Is the one making the statement me? Cos if the one answering, is saying the Truth, that means he has already become the watched ( and that’s me!). While I never ever made the above statement- and that’s absolutely true, Isn’t it!!.

Zen says:
Truth just IS...
Is what? Is it a lie, Is it an illusion(maya), Is it Jesus, who uniquely said “I am the Truth”!

Sree Sree Ravishankar artfully says:
Truth is when you love without knowing that you are in love!!
That’s infatuation!  Truth can’t be unreasonable! Else we all need to first have our brains sucked out!

Rajneesh says:
Truth is YOU... why are you worried about it?? it just IS just as you ARE and the tree IS and the stars and moon are...
Have you heard of the bio-terror attack of Rajneesh on Dallas residents to get his candidate on the chair; His philosophy espouses Maya or illusion. So is truth then an ILLUSION? Doesn’t that make his statements illusory too? Humanity has deceit, lie, falsehood, pretense, sham, deception, dishonesty and a whole lot of evil. Does that mean Truth is all of this and still is the TRUTH!

TRUTH is not a concept or an idea, GOD is the one from whom Truth emanates. And Jesus claimed “ I am the Truth”, this very fact must make us verify His Truth claim.

     How can one stand for anything at all when his standards are always relative to those of his culture?  If his culture goes mad, then it would be morally correct for him to acquiesce and participate in the madness around him.  Such a world could never have heroes who defy a prevalent temporocultural corruption.

     Fortunately, we do not live in such a world.  And fortunately, such moral heroes do exist -- though perhaps fewer than once did.  I doubt that relativism could have given us a Moses, a Jesus, or a Siddartha Gautama.  On the other hand, it could have paralyzed us to protect ourselves from a Mohammed. 

     Some things are, in fact, better than others.  Some people are, in fact, better than others.  The same is true of nations and religions: some are of a higher moral order than others.  

1.     The wisdom of the ages is lost. Women can’t learn from their moms, because their moms didn’t listen to their moms. It exploded four decades ago. Girls and young women rebelled and spouted slogans with revolutionary zeal: Don’t listen to anyone over thirty, Down with authority, Distrust parents, Ignore authority figures. We’re several generations deep now with women shaping their lives around these adolescent values. What one generation allows, the next practices.

2.     Men do whatever they have to do to have frequent and convenient access to sex. Because many women provide unmarried sex, men are encouraged not to swap independence for responsibility.

3.     The feminine nature presented with pride and charm appeals and turns men ON for female influence about helping fulfill a woman’s hopes and dreams. Our forefathers followed that model. But not modern men. Feminist politics, theory, and dogma turn men OFF for yielding masculine independence.  

4.     Men seek justice. Women seek equality. As women seek greater equality with men, they give up justice. The PC crowd—political correctioneers— destroy justice. PCers and feminists disconnect females from male empathy and sympathy. They reject the separate but equal roles that family life requires for mutual respect, harmony, success, and longevity.

5.     Morality serves women more than men. Women can use it, men don’t need it. Our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage serves women even better. It goes beyond morals to guide men and women into separate but equal roles in home and society. However, ideologies such as humanism, secularism, relativism, and elitism replace morality and religion with values that expand male dominance, serve males over females, and throw away what’s best for families.*

* See the Worldviews page for more about these ‘isms’.

     Since I am a sane human being, I do care whether I live or die, and I do my best to survive.  Furthermore, I care about the continuance of my way of life.  This has implications for my ethics and social conduct.

     Whereas a relativist is likely to pacifistically endure affronts to and attacks on his way of life, I believe in fighting for mine.  I believe that Americans should assert the validity and primacy of the Traditional American Way within our borders.

________________________________________________________