The Destruction of Faith

Note: This article is a companion to last Sunday’s article on Building Faith, and presents the reverse or opposite case of what can take place in a person’s life.

•••by Russell Young

The destruction of faith is not a topic that that brings joy to a person’s heart although it is an issue that needs consideration.  How many people do we know that have walked away from their faith or have left the church?  People come to faith because they have been persuaded of the gospel message.  Something must have happened to convince them that faith has no place in their lives, that their persuasion was false.  Of course there can be a lot of reasons for this.  The parable of the sower reveals some.  Faith, or commitment to faith, can be lost for lack of understanding (Mt 13:19), persecution and trials (Mt 13:21), and the worries of life and the deceitfulness of wealth (Mt 13:22).

The church can do something about these issues but in many instances has lost its way.  If teaching presents that a believer was designated (elected) to enjoy God’s heavenly kingdom from before time, this parable lacks sense as does falling away.  If the church teaches that a person’s initial commitment of faith brought about his eternal salvation (eternal security), again, the issue of falling away has no relevance.  The problem is that false teaching is destroying the faith and the hope of many.  Although this writing will not speak directly to either the issues of election or of eternal security, the broader issue of false teaching and its impact on faith will be addressed to some extent.

There are many promises that are presented in the gospel but they are not for all people in all circumstances.  When a person mistakenly believes that they apply to him or her and they do not see their evidence in their lives, the whole gospel message becomes suspect.

Promises directed to committed saints and to the apostles do not apply to all who have confessed belief.  A person who is seeking the “pleasures” of the world and who is interested in appeasing his own flesh should not expect the same blessings as the believer who has “died to self,” and may even be giving his or her life in difficult and meager circumstances.  Revelation 21:7 reveals the promise of entrance into the New Jerusalem for those who “overcome”, not to all who have confessed belief.  The apostles presented many promises in epistles to their readers.  They did not mean to suggest that everyone who read their letters would enjoy the same hope.  Their promises applied to those who are purposefully or committedly walking in the light.  Yet, the need for the righteous living that is in accordance with the will of God is seldom mentioned or at least with any conviction.  Even the Lord addressed his disciples by using the all inclusive pronoun “you” and he was not including Judas in many of these instances.

Passages such as John 16:23 present real challenges to faith for many people. “I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” (NIV) The immature and uninformed believer may accept that he or she will have any request answered.  When it is not, the truth of God’s Word will be questioned.  How many times have you heard, “I tried Christ but it did not work”?  The key to the above passage rests in the phrase “in my name.”  That is, if you ask something in the manner and for the purpose that Christ would have asked, it will be answered.  Christ came to do his Father’s will, to build his kingdom.

When something is done “in the name of Christ,” it is really being presented as being offered according to the character or authority of Christ.  Christ was really saying that if you make a request in his name, you are making it as if it was coming from him and with his authority.    Those whose motivations are the same as the Lord’s will have their prayers answered.  Those who do not appreciate the character and mission of Christ cannot speak in His name; to offer a petition that would be contrary to His moral make-up or ministry purpose would besmirch his holy name.

To encourage his readers Paul wrote, “Do not be anxious about anything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.  And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.” (Phil 4:6-7, NIV) Accordingly, Paul’s promise was that a person’s heart will be “guarded.” Although any petition might be made, the petitioner must accept at the same time that Christ is going to guard his or her heart and so the request may not be answered if it would prevent the petitioner’s development or taint his or her heart.  It is probably fair to accept that prayers that do not hinder the proper development of a person’s heart according to Christ’s goal or workmanship (Ep 2:10) will be answered.

The problem is that much of current teaching is leaving out the need of a transformed heart and the manner in which that is accomplished.  Instead doctrines that deal with pre-creation election and eternal security have left no purpose for the Spirit’s ministry.  Paul wrote, “We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us -not for our earthly enjoyment, but in order to develop the product or heart through God’s working) with groans that words cannot express. And he [God] who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.” (Rom 8:26-27) God’s purpose is to create a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.

The church has become weak and ineffectual concerning its mission because the ministry of Christ has been lost.  Some have gathered hope and are either consciously or unconsciously being led by the Spirit.  However, current ministry teaching is most amenable to those who in their affluence have few worries in life and are not subject to great persecution and trials.  What needs to be given to the church is the truthful establishment of a person’s hope of glory and the believer’s cost or faith commitment in accomplishing it apart from what he or she considers their due blessings in this life.  Faith is hard to build but easy to destroy.  Commitment brings discomfort and even pain.

Proof-texting to Justify a Position on an Issue

Today we pay a return visit to Benjamin L. Corey who blogs at Patheos. This is really two articles in one. On the surface, it’s dealing with the issue of “just war theory” versus pacifism. On a deeper level, it deals with the complications that arise when we try to use particular Bible texts to justify a particular position. So… even if you’re not drawn to the particular issue — and I deliberately chose a neutral headline — consider this an A+ exercise in Biblical hermeneutics. Click the title below to read at source or leave a comment for Benjamin.

The Serious Problems With Using Ecclesiastes 3 To Justify Christian Support of War & Violence

I’ve heard a lot of reasoning over the years regarding Christian support of things like war, violence, and gun slinging. I’ve seen the Bible bent into a giant pretzel, watched folks do theological gymnastics, and I’ve seen the teachings of Jesus on the matter outright dismissed– over, and over again.

I thought I had addressed all of the counter arguments over the years, but a new one is emerging and being used more and more frequently: the use of Ecclesiastes chapter 3 to justify the Christian’s support of war and violence.

Even the casual Bible reader probably knows this passage well, as it became the hit song, Turn, Turn, Turn, by the Byrds, which is still an iconic song of the 60’s. The biblical passage (and the song) goes like this:

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”

So, here’s how this is starting to be used in Christian discussions about guns, war, and violence: When Christian A puts forth the nonviolent teachings of Jesus, Christian B retorts by posting this passage in reply. The inferred argument is, “Jesus couldn’t have really meant that, because Ecclesiastes says there’s a time to kill and a time for war.”

Let me quickly outline the serious problems with this argument:

First, it ignores Jesus! The act of rebutting Jesus using other passages of Scripture should be a major red flag in the mind of any believer. If Jesus is the living Word of God and the Wisdom of God, then we begin with what Jesus taught us. This is what makes us Christians instead of Biblicists– we follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior. When one rejects the face value teaching and example of Christ in favor of other passages or people in Scripture, it’s a good indication that such a person may like Jesus the Savior but not Jesus the Lord– and unfortunately, this thing is a package deal.

Second, it ignores the poetic nature of the passage. This passage became a hit song because it’s actually quite beautiful and insightful as a piece of literature. The author poetically describes the many seasons of life he has observed, and invites us into his inner thought process as he reflects on these deep questions. The result is certainly beautiful.

Finally, using this passage to trump Jesus falls flat, as it ignores things the author of Ecclesiastics totally got wrong. Because the poem describes the extremes that exist in life, there’s something in the passage that everyone will likely find disagreement with, and stuff that I believe a Christian should flat out reject as being wrong.

For example, when I first went to Bible college 20+ years ago, I tried to make the argument that we should be allowed to dance because the Bible says, “there’s a time to dance.” Of course, they rejected this argument and reminded me that even Satan knows Scripture and how to twist it. (But strangely when they got to the lines about hating, killing, and war, the passage all of a sudden became the “final authority for faith and Christian living.”)

But let’s look at a few more serious examples:

Do you really think there’s a time to hate? If Jesus commanded us to love God, love our neighbors, and love our enemies, I can’t think of anyone we’re allowed to hate. Thus, this passage cannot be read as a prescriptive command from God as to how to live, because according to Jesus, there’s not a time to hate.

Or, if one reads beyond the more famous lines of this passage, we find a few other things I hope we’d reject. In verse 12 he says that there’s, “nothing better than for people to be happy” and as a Christian I would categorically deny that our existence here on this earth has the highest goal of our own happiness. Surely, Jesus promised not happiness– but that the consequences of following him would great, including poverty, jail, and death.

In addition, the author states in verses 19-21 that humans have “no advantage” over animals and that he doesn’t know if the human spirit “rises upwards” or if the animal spirit “goes down to the earth.” I would hope that as Christians we’d reject such shoulder shrugging as to wether or not our fate after death is any better or different than an animal.

Finally, in that same set of verses, the author says that “everything is meaningless.” But do we really believe that life is meaningless? That it has no point? I certainly don’t see how “everything is meaningless” can fit within a Christian narrative– the opposite would be far more likely to be true.

Thus, to use Ecclesiastes 3 to justify the Christian supporting war and violence is one of the weakest arguments one could make. It completely ignores what Jesus said about things. It also completely ignores the context of the passage– someone poetically thinking about loud in the 3rd Century BCE as to whether or not life has meaning, and who wonders if we will share the same fate as animals. Finally, it ignores things the author simply got wrong about life– it’s not meaningless, and surely for the Christian, the highest goal of life isn’t the pursuit of personal happiness.

Can we please stop using this passage as an American Christian go-to passage to justify our support of war and violence? Because the passage doesn’t actually work that way.