Bell & Whistles

By George W. Sarris

I was saddened to learn of Rob Bell's decision to affirm Gay marriage.

It was particularly disheartening for me because I believe in God’s never-ending love for all. Bell came out as a sort-of-spokesman for that view with his book, Love Wins. His support for Gay marriage, however, adds fuel to the idea that all who hope for an ultimate restoration of God’s entire creation are "liberal" and don't base their beliefs on the true teaching of Scripture or find support for it in the historic teachings of the Christian Church.

I don’t fault Bell for his desire to promote more love . . . more fidelity . . . more monogamy . . . and more people who are committed to each other. Those are clearly Biblical themes that should resonate with all those who call themselves Christians.

I don’t fault Bell for questioning the “teaching of the elders” in his desire to awaken a lethargic Church to its true mission of reaching out to needy people with the message of God’s love for all. That is a message that Jesus communicated to those in authority in His day who arrogantly boasted of how they alone knew what God really wanted. Jesus told them to “go and learn what this means – I desire mercy, not sacrifice!” 

I don’t fault Bell for suggesting that many in the Evangelical subculture are judgmental and insensitive to the needs of those who are struggling with their sexuality or pursuing a homosexual lifestyle. We are not called to condemn “sinners.” It was while we were yet sinners that Christ died for us.

I do fault Bell for deciding to base his decisions on what he sees as the trends of contemporary culture, instead of on Scripture.

Culture is Always Short-Sighted

Solomon wisely cautioned – Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.

I went to college in the late Sixties – during the height of the “hip” culture. Drug use existed before the Sixties, and so had promiscuous sex. But, they were always considered wrong . . . certainly by the Church, but also by the culture at large.

Then, something happened. A Harvard associated psychologist told us that drug use was good. His drug of choice – LSD – would expand our minds. It would open up new windows of wonder. We needed to tune-in, turn-on, and drop-out.  Then, true meaning and true fulfillment would come to the planet.

I knew many who experimented with drugs, only later realizing that fooling around with your brain is not really a good idea. I knew others whose productive lives were destroyed in their quest for the promised meaning and fulfillment.

The contemporary culture back then also told us that what the world really needed was love . . . sweet love. The old morality tied you down with a spouse you may not “love” anymore. It was outdated. It was stifling. Instead, it was good to be free to love . . . whoever . . . and whenever. One of the problems, of course, was that free-love produces babies. When many of the “lovers” learned of the upcoming blessed event, they got up and took off. And, many of the “loved ones” found their return ticket to freedom in abortion.

The Christian Church has never sanctioned homosexuality. It has been around throughout history, but it has always been seen as unnatural . . . something clearly outside of God’s design.

Until now! Now, we are being told it is good.

Compassion and Affirmation

Rob Bell cares – I trust sincerely – for those who are being ostracized unfairly and hypocritically by many in the evangelical church. He also believes God is “pulling us ahead into greater and greater affirmation and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters . . . “

Jesus sincerely cared for the woman caught in adultery. The hypocritical religious leaders who brought her to Him did not care for her . . . although they undoubtedly had a measure of compassion for the man who was “caught in the very act” with her but was not brought forward!  He rebuked the hypocrites and affirmed the woman. But, He did not affirm her action!

Jesus knew that she misunderstood – and certainly needed to know – true love. But, He also knew that the lifestyle she had chosen would lead to devastation. His words, in accordance with the teaching of Scripture, were “Go, and sin no more.”

The Warning Whistle

Rob Bell has made a practice of questioning the status quo. There is nothing wrong with that. It is easy to assume that what has been passed down to us as Scriptural really is – without taking the time and putting forth the effort to make sure.

But, Bell is not basing his views on Scripture. That is not where he goes to find answers. And, that is where a warning whistle blares loudly in my mind when I read or hear what he says.

Contrary to what many people think, Bell only flirted with the idea of ultimate restoration in Love Wins, and in fact specifically denied that he actually held it. He correctly saw flaws in the belief in Hell that had been passed down to him through the “tradition of the elders,” but he did not have confidence enough in Scripture to really check it out and come to a settled conclusion based on its teachings.

He’s doing the same thing with Gay marriage. He sees some legitimate flaws in the way the evangelical world is addressing the issue of homosexuality, but he does not have enough confidence in Scripture to check it out carefully and formulate his ideas based on what it actually teaches.

Many of Bell’s observations about Evangelicalism today are correct. It is often superficial in its approach to culture. It is often judgmental and insensitive to the needs of those outside its ranks. It is often unwilling to allow others to sincerely question its teachings in their pursuit of truth.

But, the correct way to address the problems is not by affirming what God condemns. It is by doing what Jesus did – going back to the true teaching of Scripture to see what it really says.

Visit George W. Sarris on Facebook, YouTube, or his Website. To participate in the Heaven & Hell Survey, click here 

View From A Blue State Independent

By George W. Sarris

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent.

I voted for John McCain in 2008, but I was not unhappy when I learned that Barack Obama won the election. I was glad that the country made the historic step of voting in an African American to the highest office in the land. I was hoping that he would succeed in providing a good role model as a husband, father, and wise leader – especially for many in America’s inner cities who don’t have strong male role models in their homes.

I listened to some of the speeches given at this year's Republican National Convention, and I listened to some of the speeches given at this year's Democratic National Convention. As expected, some in each were powerful and delivered well. Others fell flat. They occurred at political nominating conventions, so I expected them to be partisan.

As I look out at the landscape of this country right now and try to understand what is the best course for us to take in the future, three things really concern me.

A Moral Concern

There is something disconcerting about the moral stand of one of the great political parties.

Our country and the world are facing major problems. Out of control spending in Washington is threatening to completely cripple our economy and hang a millstone around the necks of not just one, but several future generations. The debt crisis in Europe is causing upheaval and division within the European Union that may bring about its complete collapse. Governments in the Middle East are literally falling apart. The potential for a nuclear Iran is looming large over the landscape. Acts of terrorism against the United States and within the US seem to be commonplace events . . .

. . . And, the Democratic National Convention chose to focus its energies on telling us how they will defend the rights of women to kill their unborn babies; how they will work hard to have the government force insurance companies and religious organizations pick up the tab for contraceptives; and how they will promote the rights of men and women to have sex with anyone they wish.

Peggy Noonan expressed it well – she often does:

The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.

. . . What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not . . . a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool. And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.

I am not down on sex. I have 5 children. Sex within a loving, committed relationship between a man and a woman is a wonderful part of God’s gracious design for His creatures. It brings joy and fulfillment on many levels.

My problem is with those in leadership positions within a major political party who have decided to focus their priorities on championing activities that are considered by many even within their own party as irresponsible at best, and clearly immoral at worst.

A Financial Concern

The United States is spending money we don’t have at a rate that cannot in any way be sustained without disastrous consequences . . . and we don’t seem to care! What I mean is, we speak oftrillions of dollars of debt as if it were no big deal. Let’s look at the numbers:

Yearly US Tax Revenue – 2,170,000,000,000 dollars.
Yearly US Expenditures – 3,820,000,000,000 dollars.
Yearly New Debt – 1,650,000,000,000 dollars.
Total National Debt – 16,054,000,000,000 dollars.

To give you an idea of what those numbers really mean, we need to drop the zeros and think of it as personal income and spending.

Yearly Income – 21,700 dollars.
Yearly Spending – 38,200 dollars.
Yearly New Credit Card Debt – 16,500 dollars.
Total Credit Card Debt – 160,540 dollars.

How long could a family with that level of income and spending continue to operate? How long can the US Government with its level of income and spending continue to operate? A basic principle of economics on any level is that you can’t consistently spend more than you make in the present without experiencing major negative consequences in the future.

An International Concern

Anti-American protests are sweeping across the Middle East and Asia. US Embassies in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Pakistan, Sudan and elsewhere have come under violent attack. The US flag has been forcibly taken down and burned. Representatives of our government have been murdered – including a US Ambassador.

It has become increasingly clear that the attacks that came on the anniversary of 9/11 were pre-planned. The diary of slain Ambassador Chris Stevens confirmed that he was concerned about the lack of security around his embassy. The popular-backed regime changes last year in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen that were supported and encouraged by Washington have become the scenes of some of the greatest anti-American demonstrations.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are both in New York this week. In a speech Monday, Ahmadinejad likened Israel to minimal disturbances that appear on the historical scene periodically and are then eliminated.  Netanyahu requested a meeting with President Obama to discuss the Middle East situation. That meeting was declined.

A Strong America

I’m a Blue State Independent. But, I’m also an American citizen, a father, and a grandfather. Other issues and concerns are clearly important, but these are the ones at the top of my list.

I would like to see America strong – even more for my children and grandchildren than for me. In order for that to happen, America needs to regain its moral footing. America needs to get its financial house in order. And, America needs to gain back its position of leadership and respect in the world.

In The Beginning . . . How?

By George W. Sarris

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth!

That is not a very controversial statement among Christians. Whether they believe in Special Creation or some kind of Theistic Evolution, most sincere Christians agree that God did it. The controversy, of course, revolves around questions relating to how He did it. Did He create by divine fiat? Or, did He use the mechanism of evolution to bring the universe and all of its complexities into being?

I have discussed this issue on numerous occasions with friends I consider sincere, dedicated, thoughtful Christians who disagree with me – and often with one another – on the “how” question. Most of those discussions have been civil dialogues where we have been free to state our cases clearly and challenge one another directly. Perhaps the most amazing outcome from these conversations is that we are still friends!

That said, I should mention that my view is that God created all that exists out of nothing by direct action – I’m a Special Creationist.

Why?

My primary reason for holding that position is that Special Creation is the view most consistent with a plain reading of Scripture.

The clearest explanation of what the text says – and the view that is most consistent with God’s nature as the all-powerful, sovereign Creator – is that God spoke, and what He spoke came into existence.

God said, “Let the land produce vegetation – and it was so. The land produced vegetation . . . God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures – So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems . . . God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds – And it was so. . . . God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness – So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

As has been said by many who disagree, the Bible is not a scientific textbook. It does not give detailed information about how God created the universe or the organisms that populate our planet. However, the text does place definite limits on what can be considered compatible views. And, a very important limiting statement relating to the creation/evolution issue is that the plants, fish, and land animals God brought into existence were created and reproduce “according to their kinds.” 

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. . . . God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind . . . God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

Evolution by definition assumes that one kind eventually develops into a different kind . . . and that, to me, eliminates it as a possibility.

What About Hybrids?

Charles Darwin believed that certain animal hybrids – whether occurring in nature or artificially created as a result of laboratory experiments – were evidence to support his theory that one kind of animal can gradually develop into another kind of animal.

Granted, there are some interesting hybrid animals. And, it is clear from observation that there is a great deal of variation within the organisms God created. But, an examination of the evidence actually confirms the fact that there are also very definite limits to reproduction beyond which animals cannot pass.

There are hybrids between different subspecies within a species – for example, a Bengal Tiger and a Siberian Tiger. There are also hybrids between different species within the same genus – for example, a cross between a lion and a tiger. However, no hybrids between different orders have ever been observed in nature or created in a laboratory.

The real problem with hybrids, however, is the fact that the ones that do occur cannot reproduce . . . that’s why they are “hybrids.”

One of the most common hybrid animals is a mule. Mules are a cross between a male donkey and a female horse. They have been used extensively for thousands of years for farming and the transportation of agricultural products. However, mules are unable to produce other mules. There are no recorded cases in their entire history of fertile mule stallions. A few female mules have produced offspring, but only by going backward and mating with a purebred horse or donkey.

A liger is a cross between a male lion and a female tiger (if it’s a cross between a male tiger and a female lion, it’s called a tiglon.) As is the case with mules, known male ligers have all been sterile.

A zorse is a cross between a male zebra and female horse. A zeedonk is a cross between a male zebra and female donkey. And, a zony is a cross between a male zebra and female pony. But, once again, as in the cases of mules, ligers, and tiglons, these equine combinations are unable to produce like offspring. Rather than supporting the idea of evolutionary development from one animal kind into another, these hybrids actually confirm the fact that there are very definite limits to reproduction within the various kinds that God originally created.

Expert Designs

As in any area of study, there are facts, and there are interpretations of those facts. Because various living organisms have similar structures, the argument is made that one must have gradually developed over time into the other. A completely different explanation, however, and one that rings true with our observations of how things actually work in the real world, is that the similar structures were designed specifically for similar purposes.

If we were to apply evolutionary presuppositions to the vehicles we see around us, we might be tempted to suggest that, because they all have wheels, what began as a unicycle, slowly evolved into a bicycle, then a tricycle, later a VW Bug, a Fiat Spider, a Chevrolet Corvette, a Cadillac limousine and eventually a BMW, which, according to its current advertising slogan, is the “Ultimate Driving Machine!” At certain critical points, offshoots evolved into airplanes, trucks and boats.

One could also conclude from the evidence that each type of vehicle was purposely designed by intelligent designers who understood that it was wise to use similar parts to perform similar functions. The key to understanding the truth about designs in automobiles is the realization that complex mechanisms don't just "happen".

The Expert Designer

Have you ever wondered why things that exist naturally only vaguely resemble our designed machines? The wings of a bird, for example, are very different from the wings of an airplane. The eye of an eagle only remotely resembles the lens of a Nikon camera. I began to understand the answer to that question a number of years ago when I walked into a museum and read a sign that spoke volumes about the degree of complexity in the natural world.

The sign noted that the difference between what is found in nature and what is man-made is seen most clearly when each is placed under a microscope. The closer you look at what is man-made, the more you see its imperfections. The closer you look at something in nature, the more impressed you are with its intricate complexity!

Things in nature look so different because our man-made machines are of such inferior quality! I can imagine a conversation between two hummingbirds looking at a new, sophisticated helicopter.

It’s big . . . and it does fly – although it’s definitely clumsy. But, hey, I’d give it an ‘A’ for effort! 

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. How did He do it? My bet is Special Creation.  What do you think?

             Visit George W. Sarris on Facebook, YouTube, or his Website. To participate in the Heaven & Hell Survey, click here 

Whatever happened To Hell? . . . A Response

By George W. Sarris


I read with interest Jerry Newcombe’s article, Whatever Happened to Hell? posted June 23 in the Opinion section of ChristianPost.com. It was apparently written a day before the Colorado shooting.

In the article, Newcombe mentioned with chagrin the republishing into paperback of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins – which he considered

. . . a major seller that for all practical purposes denies Hell (or the import of it). What makes this more difficult to stomach is that it was written by "an evangelical pastor." 

By placing the reference to Bell as an evangelical pastor in quotes, he clearly questioned the legitimacy of that identification. Newcombe explained in the next paragraph that Bell did not actually deny that Hell exists, but that

. . . he denies essentially that any people will go there.

Newcombe went on to point out that belief in Hell has waned considerably in this country since the time of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and the First Great Awakening. He quoted Benjamin Rush to show that the Founding Fathers considered belief in “a future state of rewards and punishments” to be an essential aspect of successful government. He noted that Constitutions for the States of Maryland, South Carolina, and Tennessee included a requirement that state officials hold to that belief.

His conclusion:

In short, Hell is the ultimate accountability. By Jesus dying for sins, love wins---for those who repent and believe on Him. For those who don't, Hell awaits.

Misunderstanding

Jerry Newcombe is rightly concerned with the fact that many people in this country have lost a sense of the “fear of God.” It is vitally important to know and understand that there are consequences to our actions in this life and in the life to come. The Founders correctly recognized that this was an important quality for those who hold public office in order for them to govern correctly.

However, Newcombe misunderstands what Rob Bell wrote. He misunderstands what the Founders were referring to. And, he misunderstands what many people today who question the traditional belief in Hell are actually concerned about.

Rob Bell did NOT deny that people will go to Hell. What he questioned was the nature and duration of Hell – suggesting that Hell may be remedial in nature and temporary in duration. Interestingly, that is exactly what Benjamin Rush actually believed!

Benjamin Rush was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, an attendee of the Continental Congress, and a close friend of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. In fact, it was Rush who helped reconcile the friendship of those two former Presidents by encouraging them to resume writing to each other. He was also cofounder and vice president of the Philadelphia Bible Society which advocated the use of Scripture in public schools.

However, Benjamin Rush did NOT believe that punishment in Hell was never-ending. He believed that God would ultimately restore all of His creation to its intended perfection.

In his autobiography, Rush told of the development of his faith.

At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.

The issue of concern for Benjamin Rush and many today who question the traditional view of Hell is NOT its existence. It is NOT whether there is “future punishment, and of long duration” for the “wicked” or “unsaved.” The issue is the nature and duration of punishment in Hell.

The Fear of God

God does not overlook sin, nor does He leave it unpunished. Benjamin Rush and those in our day who believe as he did do not deny those vital truths. Rather, they believe that God has a positive purpose for Hell – that it is a means by which God will, through the ages, bring a soul to a point where the work of Christ may finally be applied to it. They believe that, ultimately, God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Christ, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross.

The questions that were asked and are currently being asked by those who question the traditional understanding of Hell are not whether Hell exists, or whether the future punishments in Hell are severe. The questions that are being asked are,

“Does Hell have a positive purpose in God’s ultimate plan, and do the punishments in Hell last forever?”

Visit George W. Sarris on Facebook, YouTube, or his Website. To participate in the Heaven & Hell Survey, click here

Heaven & Hell Survey

By George W. Sarris

Would you be willing to take a 6 question survey about your thoughts on Heaven and Hell?

That was the question I asked people sitting in front of the Public Library in New York City on two different days last week.

As you can imagine if you’ve ever been in New York, a lot of people said “No” even before I asked the question. Others were visitors from other countries – some spoke English, some did not. One elderly couple was visiting from Israel. A man and his two daughters were from Columbia. A woman visiting from London thought it was very interesting. And, another who was born in Russia but had lived in New York for the last 20 years, looked forward to an opportunity to freely share her thoughts.

It was clearly an unscientific survey, but I wanted to see what “real” people “really” thought about the afterlife, since death – and not even taxes – is the only thing we can actually be sure of in life!

Interest in the Afterlife

There has been much discussion recently about Heaven and Hell.

On July 6, 2012, Barbara Walters hosted a 2-hour special on ABC's 20/20 entitled, Heaven: Where Is It? How Do We Get There?  In it, she interviewed people from many different faith backgrounds on their beliefs in Heaven. She touched on the issue of Hell at the end of the program. According to the website TVByTheNumbers, it was the top rated network program for the evening for adults 18-49. It beat out NBC's Dateline, as well as reruns of CSI:NY on CBS, Bones on Fox, and Supernatural on CW.

The cover story for the April 16, 2012 issue of TIME Magazine was Rethinking Heaven. The featured article focused on the writings of a number of recent scholars who have pointed out that the New Testament idea of eternal life is not just a pie-in-the-sky future reward. Rather, it is, in the words of N.T. Wright, “God's space, while earth . . . is our space. And the Bible makes it clear that the two overlap and interlock."

A little over a year ago, Rob Bell’s controversial book, Love Wins, was published. As stated in the subtitle, it was A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.  It was immediately a best-seller.

So, What Do People Think?

I was encouraged by the variety of people who filled out my short survey. Willing participants were male and female of various ages, White, Black, Asian, Latin, Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish.

As expected, those in my sample who professed to be Atheists did not believe in either Heaven or Hell, and those professing to be Agnostic generally answered “Not Sure” to both.

Half of those who claimed to be Buddhist did not believe in either Heaven or Hell. The other half was evenly split between those who believed in both and those who were not sure for both.

Among the Jewish respondents to my survey, a little over 80% believed in Heaven, but less than 20% believed in Hell.

The largest group taking the survey said they were Christians. Of that group, 84% believed in Heaven, but only 42% believed in Hell.

The large gap is undoubtedly true in part because people in modern America are increasingly coming into contact with friends, co-workers, and even family members from a variety of different faiths. People don’t like exclusivity, and they don’t want to think that those they love are going to spend an eternity in Hell where they will experience endless, conscious suffering with no hope of any kind of relief.

Interestingly, 65% of the Christians who took the survey answered that they either did not believe, or were not sure that misery in Hell was never-ending.

Who Will Ultimately Be In Heaven?

Several people commented that the most interesting question was the last one.

At the end of time, what percentage of the total population of the earth most closely represents the number of those you believe will be in Heaven? 

            __ 0% __ 10% __ 25% __ 50% __ 75% __ 100%

Some chose not to answer the question at all and, predictably, the Atheists answered 0%.

However, what was most surprising to me was that 74% of the Christians who took the survey thought that one-half or more of the total population of the world would eventually be in heaven – and only 19% believed that, ultimately, that number would include 25% or less of all those God created!

In fact, the number of people who thought 100% of the total population of the earth would ultimately be in Heaven was the same as the combined total for those who thought only 10-25% would eventually be there! One person actually put down two answers: 10% and 100% - the latter included the comment, “optimistic with hope that we all make it!”

The Survey

The information from this survey will be used in an article for the blog, Engaging the Culture, and posted on the ChristianPost.com website.

1. With which of the following religions or religious groups do you most closely identify?
__ Atheist
__ Agnostic
__ Buddhist
__ Christian (Eastern Orthodox)
__ Christian (Evangelical)
__ Christian (Mainline Protestant)
__ Christian (Roman Catholic)
__ Christian (Other)
__ Hindu
__ Islam
__ Jehovah’s Witness
__ Jewish (Reformed)
__ Jewish (Conservative)
__ Jewish (Orthodox)
__ Jewish (Other)
__ Mormon
__ Unitarian
__ Other (Specify) ____________________________

2. Do you believe in a place or state of happiness after death, commonly referred to as Heaven?
    __ Yes __ No __ Not Sure

3. Do you believe happiness in Heaven is never-ending?
    __ Yes __ No __ Not Sure

4. Do you believe in a place or state of misery after death, commonly referred to as Hell?
    __ Yes __ No __ Not Sure

5. Do you believe misery in Hell is never-ending?
    __ Yes __ No __ Not Sure

6. At the end of time, what percentage of the total population of the earth most closely represents the number of those you believe will be in Heaven?
    __ 0% __ 10% __ 25% __ 50% __ 75% __ 100%

Would YOU Like to Take the Survey?

Would you be willing to take a 6 question survey about your thoughts on Heaven and Hell?

If so, please go to my website – GeorgeWSarris.com/survey – and take it online.

If you think your friends would be interested, let them know about it. Please take the survey only once to assure an accurate result. When you click “Submit,” you will see the totals listed for each question up to that point.

Heaven and Hell are issues that affect everyone. So, what do you think?

              Visit George W. Sarris on Facebook, YouTube, or his Website

Questioning the "Tradition of the Elders"

By George W. Sarris

Are Evangelical Christians allowed to think for themselves and question the “tradition of the elders” in their pursuit of truth?

According to Christian Post Reporter Napp Nazworth’s article about theologian Peter Enns’ observation that Young Evangelicals Want to Rethink What it Means to Be Evangelical, the answer may actually be an emphatic “No!” – at least, not without being called a heretic . . . or a wolf . . . or a false teacher.

Many within the Evangelical movement today – and not just those who are young – have honest questions about what the Bible actually teaches on various issues. Many within the movement, however, are extremely reticent to engage in any significant form of dialogue on those issues. They feel they have received a tradition from the elders that should not be questioned.

But, honest questions need honest answers. And, honest questions that are not answered satisfactorily never go away.

Humble Responses

Historically, sincere Christian believers have been persecuted, defamed, tortured, and sometimes put to death by other sincere Christian believers who didn’t agree with their positions on baptism, election, church government and authority, and a host of other issues. If history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that we should be humble enough to realize that there are many theological issues within the faith that are legitimate subjects for debate.

When engaging in that debate, we would do well to keep two very important Scriptural principles in mind:

First, Christians are to be known primarily by their love for one another. Jesus was very clear about what would be the characteristic mark of His disciples –

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Jesus did not say that we would be known by our agreement with one another on all issues of theology. He said we would be known by our love for one another – and love is patient . . . it is kind . . . it is not rude.

Calling other members of the body of Christ names and refusing to dialogue with them is not a form of love for one another. Being gracious with those who disagree with you on a theological issue is not compromising your faith. Answering with kindness the questions of an honest skeptic is not giving the devil a foothold.

Second, God wants us to pursue truth. Scripture tells us that God’s Word is truth . . . Jesus is the truth . . . the Gospel is the word of truth. Truth always wins out in the end, for only truth will bear up under the closest scrutiny.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were not pursuing truth. They were seeking to defend the “teaching of the elders” that had been passed down to them . . . and they were not open to the possibility that they might be wrong. They were defending teachings that had been formulated by men. Their minds were made up and they did not want to be confused with facts.

An Issue for Today

A little over a year ago, Rob Bell’s controversial book, Love Wins, challenged his readers to “rethink” Hell. Bell voiced the concerns of a great many people within the Evangelical community by asking provocative questions about the nature and duration of after-death punishment. He even suggested that God’s punishments may be kinder and more purposeful than is traditionally thought.

Before the book was even published, however, Bell was attacked. A leader within the movement labeled him a “universalist” – as if that was all that was needed to clue the faithful into the fact that Bell must be a heretic. Another tweeted, “Farewell Rob Bell!” – alerting any who might think it okay to question the traditional belief that this was not to be allowed. And, prominent Evangelicals began to go on record affirming that there is clearly no legitimate basis for questioning the established view.

What was sad was that the questions Bell raised were honest questions that sincere believers are honestly asking. Unfortunately, not only did many of the responders simply repeat what the “tradition of the elders” had passed down to them without putting forth any significant effort to look more deeply into the issue, they also disputed the right of Bell and others to question that teaching – even though there is much about that tradition that has been and should be questioned.

Keeping Our Faith Sharp

Proverbs 27:17 tells us –

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. 

Sharp instruments like knives or swords often get dull not because the edge wears down, but because the extremely thin edge actually bends over to one side or another. When that happens, the edge needs to be straightened by using an instrument called a “sharpening steel.” Similarly, when our views on an important theological issue err to the right or to the left, God often uses the questions and challenges of others as a sort of spiritual “sharpening steel” to make sure that we don’t defend something that is not in keeping with the truth of His Word.

I have been very grateful over the years to have friends who have challenged my thinking on a variety of different issues by asking me piercing questions. Some of those who questioned me have been more conservative than I am. Some have been more liberal. In each case, however, I have seen my thinking sharpened as a result of the dialogue.

When people ask honest questions without trying to be malicious, we should respect them enough to consider their questions carefully and give a thoughtful response. If we are unable to do that, perhaps it’s because we need to think through our own beliefs more carefully.

                 Visit George W. Sarris on YouTube, Facebook, or his Website.

Spending Time With "Sinners"

By George W. Sarris

When was the last time you had lunch with a real “sinner?”

I don’t mean someone who disagrees with you on a theological issue, or is a member of a different church or denomination, or smokes and drinks beer or wine (assuming you don’t), or has an attitude you don’t like. I mean someone whose lifestyle and value system are clearly in conflict with the standards of Scripture.

I ask that question because Jesus had meals with “sinners” quite often!

He was maligned by those who opposed Him as a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. 

When Matthew answered the call to follow Jesus, he held a great banquet for Jesus at his house – at which time many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples.  

As He told the parable of the lost sheep, the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear him – to which the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

So, why would Jesus want to eat and spend time with those whose beliefs and lifestyles were clearly opposed to Him and His truth? Why would God ever want us to have lunch . . . or dinner . . . or coffee . . . or tea with “sinners?” The answer is actually quite easy – so we can get to know them well enough to be able to minister to them!

Who Are They?

“Sinners” are not the problem. They are the opportunity. And, not just an opportunity for us to witness to them so we can boast to our friends that we won another convert. “Sinners” are created beings of inestimable worth who need to be rescued from pursuing wasted, meaningless lives.

The gospel is more than just the message of salvation. Biblical truth relates to all areas of life – marriage, family, work, health, finances, government and many other areas. It’s God’s perspective on life. In an effort to win converts, Christians have focused for far too long on winning arguments instead of building relationships. But, it is as we build relationships that opportunities will arise where we have the privilege of sharing with others how God’s truth relates to the issues and difficulties that they experience in life.

Building Relationships

“Sinners” actually enjoy talking about meaningful things if they know that we will not be offended if they disagree with us.

I had an opportunity this past week to talk with a man over coffee. In the course of the conversation he mentioned that he believed abortion is okay in certain circumstances. As those who have read my blogs know, I am strongly opposed to abortion. In March of this year and again in June, I posted articles addressing that specific issue. However, as we talked, I didn’t get offended or defensive about what he said. I simply listened and shared some of my reasons why I disagreed. Then, we moved on to talk about other things – many of which we agreed on.

My goal was not to win an argument or try to convince him in one conversation that I am right and he is wrong. My goal was to establish a relationship with this man so that at some point in the future – when he is open and willing to listen – God will provide an opportunity where I can share with him the truths of God’s Word as they relate to specific needs in his life.

A number of years ago, I began to build a relationship with a “sinner” who had views on various issues that were almost the complete opposite of mine. He considered himself very “spiritual,” and we often had significant conversations about our beliefs. He listened to me, and I listened to him.

On one occasion as my friend began to wax eloquent about a particular issue, I saw an opportunity to ask him if he had ever asked God to reveal Himself in a way that he would understand. He said he had not, and I encouraged him to do so. “But,” I said, “don’t do it unless you are serious. If God is real, and if He does reveal Himself to you, it will probably mean that you will have to make some changes in your lifestyle. So, don’t do it unless you mean it.”

I saw him again about two weeks later and asked if he had prayed as we had discussed. To my surprise, he said that he did.

The next time I saw my friend was the night before he died. He had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer sometime after our conversation. I went to see him in the hospital and asked if he knew who I was. He nodded, “Yes”. I asked if he wanted me to leave, and he shook his head, “No.” I then commented about the significance of our conversation a few months before and asked if I could pray for him. Again, he nodded, “Yes.”

I don’t know what transpired in my friend’s life over the months between when we spoke and when he died. But, I do know that the relationship we had developed opened up an opportunity for me to share very specifically with him at an opportune moment.

Genuine Love

God loves “sinners.” His love for them was demonstrated by the fact that while we were still “sinners” Christ died for us. God wants us to genuinely love them, too.

People inherently know whether our interest in them is real or fake. So, why would “sinners” ever want to come with us to an event at church or listen to us share the gospel with them or follow our advice about some issue in their lives if we’ve never taken the time to get to know them as people?

As Jesus explained to those who questioned His practice, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

             Visit George W. Sarris on YouTube, Facebook, or his website.