Hi, John. I do understand that--thank you for explaining! I was operating under the thought that the discussion of what qualifies lukewarm Christianity is a pretty loaded topic in and of itself and thus best suited to another thread. I've seen LOTS of discussions about that topic, and there are a surprisingly large number of interpretations.
I do understand that. I agree with the fact that there is always a right and a wrong. It’s easy to twist Scripture, and we need to be very careful. You do need to check for textual consistency when engaging in Biblical interpretation. Still, even in doing so, disagreements happen, and there are right and wrong ways to handle them.
Jesus said we will know them by their fruits. His context was wolves in sheep's clothing, but it goes the other way, too. So, I agree with you to an extent.
That “pearls before swine” story is a really good one—a very important message I do believe we should all consider. Thank you for sharing it!
The moral high ground is a hard place to be, but once we discard the pride we're hiding from ourselves - we become better servants of God.
I have no problem with ending this conversation. However, your caveat is no contradiction. I put the teaching of the HS in context of what the apostle John had to say about recognizing anti-christ in people once claiming to be Christians. This is the same thing as saying the HS lets us see Jesus in people. Nor is this off topic since the topic is knowing who are fake Christians. The rest of the topic is speaking to them in kindness and love, of course. But good day.
I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying at all. We absolutely should not be lukewarm about Jesus teachings, and that is what the blog post is saying. The point of that post is that we shouldn’t judge ourselves on trying to reach an impossible standard of performance, measuring by what we’re doing instead of turning to Jesus. Jesus is the solution, and the blog post emphasizes that. It’s not about avoiding self-examination, but rather about the lens through which we examine ourselves. The post is a response to the culture that says The post is a response to the culture that says, “You’re lukewarm, so do more things so you can claw your way out of lukewarmness.” Yes, we strive to obey Christ’s teachings and keep out of lukewarmness, but we don’t help other people do that by yelling at them and putting more standards upon them and they could be struggling. That’s what the article is trying to say.
I'll be quoting fairly extensively from J.S. Park's article (the one you posted a link to in your OP) but first, a bit of preamble...
Hi DoS. My reply may get a little wordy, and some of my comments may be a little crunchy so hang in there.
What's most important when interpreting what someone says (or what they've written) is the spirit behind their words. Another way of saying this is to discern the motivation. Why are they saying what they say? When I read posts here (or when I read anything) that's what I'm trying to discern. This can be tricky because people often use words which convey subtle meaning beyond the actual words themselves. For example, woman A says to woman B, "My, you're looking, ummm, very healthy". Woman B knows that she's put on a few pounds and recognizes that woman A is hiding a subtle dig behind the fairly benign use of healthy. In other words, she's using healthy as a euphemism for fat.
Jesus also commented on this kind of subtle speech when he quoted Isiah saying, "This people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". He recognized that people know how to say the right things, but their motivation, deep down inside their heart, did not match their words. He repeated this concept another way when he asked some would-be followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? He referred to this concept again when he told the people, "Your religious leaders have authority over you, so do what they tell you to do, but don't imitate their works". The religious leaders were saying the right things, but their motivation, the practical output of their heart was wrong.
In all these examples Jesus was looking beyond the surface words and examining the spirit, or motivation, behind why these people spoke and behaved the way they did. The spirit behind these rebukes is the same as his comment in the Revelation when he rebuked a church for being luke-warm, even though, in these examples, he did not use those exact words. Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me? The unspoken answer is that they were luke-warm. They made a show, a pretense of being his follower, but they did not obey him. Clearly, this was an issue that was intensely important to Jesus; he covered this over and over and over again. In Matthew 7, when finished the sermon on the mount, he used a parable about a wise man and a foolish man. Both heard his teachings, but only the wise man obeyed. His obedience is what made him wise. The foolish man did not obey and as a result he was destroyed. Yes, this issue of luke-warmness was very much on Jesus' mind.
This is important because J.S. Park makes it sound like luke-warmness was a relatively minor part of Jesus' teachings, something mentioned only once, to one specific church, for one specific reason (i.e. their wealth). Here's what he said:
He's making a strong case for the luke-warm concept just being a technicality. He's downplaying the significance of the concept itself. Jesus talked about people being destroyed by a mighty storm, and J.S. Park is concerned about being yelled at for what really is a legitimate problem.
It's easy to say that luke-warmness is a real problem. We know that's the right thing to say. But in practice J.S. Park makes it sound like, even if the person is being luke-warm, it's still wrong to tell them so because it might hurt their feelings. Yes, he presents it as "yelling" but the spirit behind this emphasis is that any reference to a person actually being luke-warm equates to yelling at them, even if you say it in a calm, yet firm, manner.
I went through the article and counted; he refers to yelling 5 times (including the title of the article), but nowhere does he suggest that people should be told they are luke-warm if it is true that they really are. Instead, he suggests that people who are luke-warm don't need to be told because they struggle with the burden of already knowing it.
I mean, there could be some truth to refraining from beating a dead horse, on in this case dead wood. If a professing Christians has already decided that he's a fatty and sees this truth as no reason to change, but rather is complacent with his fattiness, then perhaps it is true that convincing him otherwise would be useless.
But this is certainly not a message consistent with Jesus' teachings. He warned people over and over again not to become complacent with their sins. That's what the parable of the talent was all about; the last servant hid his talent because he was afraid of failure. He even elaborates that he believed the master might yell at him, so instead of getting busy with the job he decided to do nothing.
Big, bad master doesn't apologize for being austere. He doesn't pat the servant on the back and coddle him with whispers about how it's okay that the servant allowed his fear of failure prevent him from any kind of success at all. No, the master yells at him. He even calls him a wicked servant.
This idea that what God is most concerned about is that people's feelings won't be hurt when they're flaws are pointed out to them just is not consistent with what Jesus taught.
Nope. I went through the article. Nowhere does J.S. Park mentioned anything about a need to obey Jesus, or his teachings, or anything about consequences for not changing. He does mention obedience, but it's to put down those who obey by comparison to those who are tired of getting their feelings hurt by comparison. He says...
This is probably the most disgusting part of the whole article, because Jesus really did say go into all the world preaching the gospel. But, J.S. Park makes it sound like these people are just self-righteous "super-Christians" whose only goal is to make him feel bad about his lack of willingness to obey Jesus. "How dare these obedient Christians who study their bibles and practice the great commission show up our unwillingness to obey Jesus! Their testimony amounts to yelling at me that I am indeed lazy and fearful and I do not like it!"
No, obedience to Jesus does not make anyone super. It just makes them faithful. Luke-warm people who hide in the shadows of a pretense at faith, will understandably gnash their teeth at those who shine genuine light.
He goes on to further belittle obedience by suggesting that any attempt to obey Jesus is little more than a "boldness contest" and that instead of trying harder for Jesus, we should "simply know Jesus for who he is" as though "who Jesus is" is quite separate from obedience to his teachings.
He hammers this point even further by suggesting calls to stop being luke-wark and to obey Jesus equates to "coercion of guilt".
The more I read of this article the more certain I am that this person is pushing a convenient doctrine to pacify the already luke-warm. No, you don't need to obey Jesus, because obedience it a competitive, coercive, guilt-tripping exercise in people yelling at and accusing one another.
Remember what I said about getting the spirit of what a person says, which means going deeper than just the surface words they use? This person is making a case against obedience to Jesus. Yes, he makes some good points about the need to be patient and not to yell at people, but he could have made that point in one or two sentences. Instead, nearly the whole article is framed in the context that any attempt to identify luke-warmness or promote obedience equates to angry yelling. In that sense, the spirit behind his references to yelling, the meaning deeper than just the words themselves, is a shield against obedience. He's not really concerned about bad attitudes; he's simply using the convenience of bad attitudes as an argument against obedience.
My goodness, Dos, but you've been taken in by a con-artist.
Hi DoS. My reply may get a little wordy, and some of my comments may be a little crunchy so hang in there.
What's most important when interpreting what someone says (or what they've written) is the spirit behind their words. Another way of saying this is to discern the motivation. Why are they saying what they say? When I read posts here (or when I read anything) that's what I'm trying to discern. This can be tricky because people often use words which convey subtle meaning beyond the actual words themselves. For example, woman A says to woman B, "My, you're looking, ummm, very healthy". Woman B knows that she's put on a few pounds and recognizes that woman A is hiding a subtle dig behind the fairly benign use of healthy. In other words, she's using healthy as a euphemism for fat.
Jesus also commented on this kind of subtle speech when he quoted Isiah saying, "This people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". He recognized that people know how to say the right things, but their motivation, deep down inside their heart, did not match their words. He repeated this concept another way when he asked some would-be followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? He referred to this concept again when he told the people, "Your religious leaders have authority over you, so do what they tell you to do, but don't imitate their works". The religious leaders were saying the right things, but their motivation, the practical output of their heart was wrong.
In all these examples Jesus was looking beyond the surface words and examining the spirit, or motivation, behind why these people spoke and behaved the way they did. The spirit behind these rebukes is the same as his comment in the Revelation when he rebuked a church for being luke-warm, even though, in these examples, he did not use those exact words. Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me? The unspoken answer is that they were luke-warm. They made a show, a pretense of being his follower, but they did not obey him. Clearly, this was an issue that was intensely important to Jesus; he covered this over and over and over again. In Matthew 7, when finished the sermon on the mount, he used a parable about a wise man and a foolish man. Both heard his teachings, but only the wise man obeyed. His obedience is what made him wise. The foolish man did not obey and as a result he was destroyed. Yes, this issue of luke-warmness was very much on Jesus' mind.
This is important because J.S. Park makes it sound like luke-warmness was a relatively minor part of Jesus' teachings, something mentioned only once, to one specific church, for one specific reason (i.e. their wealth). Here's what he said:
He's making a strong case for the luke-warm concept just being a technicality. He's downplaying the significance of the concept itself. Jesus talked about people being destroyed by a mighty storm, and J.S. Park is concerned about being yelled at for what really is a legitimate problem.
It's easy to say that luke-warmness is a real problem. We know that's the right thing to say. But in practice J.S. Park makes it sound like, even if the person is being luke-warm, it's still wrong to tell them so because it might hurt their feelings. Yes, he presents it as "yelling" but the spirit behind this emphasis is that any reference to a person actually being luke-warm equates to yelling at them, even if you say it in a calm, yet firm, manner.
I went through the article and counted; he refers to yelling 5 times (including the title of the article), but nowhere does he suggest that people should be told they are luke-warm if it is true that they really are. Instead, he suggests that people who are luke-warm don't need to be told because they struggle with the burden of already knowing it.
I mean, there could be some truth to refraining from beating a dead horse, on in this case dead wood. If a professing Christians has already decided that he's a fatty and sees this truth as no reason to change, but rather is complacent with his fattiness, then perhaps it is true that convincing him otherwise would be useless.
But this is certainly not a message consistent with Jesus' teachings. He warned people over and over again not to become complacent with their sins. That's what the parable of the talent was all about; the last servant hid his talent because he was afraid of failure. He even elaborates that he believed the master might yell at him, so instead of getting busy with the job he decided to do nothing.
Big, bad master doesn't apologize for being austere. He doesn't pat the servant on the back and coddle him with whispers about how it's okay that the servant allowed his fear of failure prevent him from any kind of success at all. No, the master yells at him. He even calls him a wicked servant.
This idea that what God is most concerned about is that people's feelings won't be hurt when they're flaws are pointed out to them just is not consistent with what Jesus taught.
Nope. I went through the article. Nowhere does J.S. Park mentioned anything about a need to obey Jesus, or his teachings, or anything about consequences for not changing. He does mention obedience, but it's to put down those who obey by comparison to those who are tired of getting their feelings hurt by comparison. He says...
This is probably the most disgusting part of the whole article, because Jesus really did say go into all the world preaching the gospel. But, J.S. Park makes it sound like these people are just self-righteous "super-Christians" whose only goal is to make him feel bad about his lack of willingness to obey Jesus. "How dare these obedient Christians who study their bibles and practice the great commission show up our unwillingness to obey Jesus! Their testimony amounts to yelling at me that I am indeed lazy and fearful and I do not like it!"
No, obedience to Jesus does not make anyone super. It just makes them faithful. Luke-warm people who hide in the shadows of a pretense at faith, will understandably gnash their teeth at those who shine genuine light.
He goes on to further belittle obedience by suggesting that any attempt to obey Jesus is little more than a "boldness contest" and that instead of trying harder for Jesus, we should "simply know Jesus for who he is" as though "who Jesus is" is quite separate from obedience to his teachings.
He hammers this point even further by suggesting calls to stop being luke-wark and to obey Jesus equates to "coercion of guilt".
The more I read of this article the more certain I am that this person is pushing a convenient doctrine to pacify the already luke-warm. No, you don't need to obey Jesus, because obedience it a competitive, coercive, guilt-tripping exercise in people yelling at and accusing one another.
Remember what I said about getting the spirit of what a person says, which means going deeper than just the surface words they use? This person is making a case against obedience to Jesus. Yes, he makes some good points about the need to be patient and not to yell at people, but he could have made that point in one or two sentences. Instead, nearly the whole article is framed in the context that any attempt to identify luke-warmness or promote obedience equates to angry yelling. In that sense, the spirit behind his references to yelling, the meaning deeper than just the words themselves, is a shield against obedience. He's not really concerned about bad attitudes; he's simply using the convenience of bad attitudes as an argument against obedience.
My goodness, Dos, but you've been taken in by a con-artist.
