Are many evangelicals spiritual jihadists?

Notice right off the bat that I say many and not all evangelicals are spiritual jihadists. A Jihad is a holy war waged on behalf of Muslims, but is there a "holy war" being waged by evangelical fundamentalist Christians? I think so. No, they do not wage physical war. They are waging a war against people in the spiritual realm but it has a real physical effect. Please do not confuse what I am referring to as spiritual warfare. It is not that. This is a war that aims at killing the spirit, and the weapon of choice is the scripture. The purpose behind killing the spirit is to gain conformity to the norms of the group. It, in a nutshell, is designed to control.

You're probably saying to yourself, "isn't that a good thing?" The answer to your question is absolutely not! These evangelicals are using the scripture as a weapon in a way that it was NEVER meant to be used. Paul said that the letter kills while the Spirit gives life. How is the scripture used as a killing letter? The answer is simple. When it is viewed in a legal constitutional way, with a strong emphasis on literal interpretation, it becomes a lethal weapon. This has been brought to the forefront of my mind based on the reaction to Eugene Peterson and Bishop T. D. Jakes. They both have been mentioned in the press recently with what could be best described as evolving views on homosexuality and the church. And, they both have made public statements about it, and both are moving backward from what they originally said.This has been the result of this spiritual jihad in my view.

I have no doubt that their views are evolving. And, I think it is in no small part because of the work and witness of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Holy Spirit is active in many Christian pastors and theologians today working to show that the legal constitutional understanding and interpretation of scripture is a grossly damaging error that needs major correction. It is sad to me that they can be manipulated by these vocal spiritual jihadists. Jesus and his first century followers went to great lengths, and he was crucified in part, because of his efforts to change the view of the scripture from a legal constitutional document to a redemptive narrative. There is a lot of nuance in what he taught and much of it was necessary because of the legal constitutional understanding that the first century rabbis and Jews had. In fact, he came on the scene at a time when the legal constitutional reading of scripture was at its zenith. He chose rather to tell them that the purpose of the scripture was to point to him and thus bring life. He told the pharisees that the legal constitutional reading of scripture they were using did not, and would not bring life. Life only came through him and his Spirit. You can find the proof text for this in John 5:39-40 & Luke 24:27; 43-45.

The nuance comes into play with the two different covenants. The first being the Old Covenant or Mosaic Covenant for Jews and their converts only, and the New Covenant for all who would believe in Jesus as the Israel of God.... in other words, Israel the nation, and its scripture, was meant to point to Him alone. Much of what Jesus said is misconstrued because what he said was strictly to people under the Old Covenant before the New Covenant was instituted. Furthermore, Paul and the other writers of the first century scriptures were writing to a transition period, where the Old Covenant and the New Covenant were concurrently in operation. Since the destruction of the temple, the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy, there is no apparatus for the operation of the old covenant, so it is either the new covenant or nothing.

Even in the transition period before the destruction of the temple, Paul had already explained liberty of conscience on various matters. They had liberty of conscience on what to eat or not eat and what days to acknowledge and esteem. People today decide things like participating in war or not as a matter of the liberty of conscience. In my view, a loving monogamous couple, who have faith in Jesus can be a matter of the liberty of conscience no matter what their particular sexual preference is. I will let others debate the verses and terms that are used in the scripture that the debate centers on. However, the bottom line of all bottom lines is that Jesus and his first century followers who wrote the New Testament scriptures changed the focus from a legal constitutional document to the story of redemption. They did that in two ways. First, they stated that Jesus was the sole purpose and goal of the scripture, and second, they redefined the phrase "word of God" from Torah to the gospel and also Jesus the gospel made flesh.

Further, they explained a different dynamic for obedience. The new dynamic was to love. While some of the ways of loving would overlap with the commandments, the catalyst for doing so was peace with the Father via the gospel of grace. Peace with the Father would result in love for the Father that would translate into actions. I am convinced that the main focus that all Christians should have, and I include evangelicals in that group, should be the gospel of grace. That is the supernatural, spiritual catalyst for transformation.

However, evangelicals with a bent on legal constitutional interpretation of scripture continue to use the scripture as a weapon and it truly is lethal to the Spirit. It is a jihad that has overarching consequences and it will over time lead to the demise of the gospel.

When you "Do Not Know" what you "Do Not" Know; Making the paradigm shift accessible Part 1

This blog chronicles my paradigm shift. Once the paradigm shifts, it is easy to look back and marvel at the fact that you held the former paradigm in the past. So to be clear let's look at the definition of paradigm found at dictionary.com. For the purposes of this blog and my "paradigm shift" this definition is the operative one: "A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community... and it goes on to include... such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group." I certainly believe that theology and theological doctrine falls squarely within the confines of this definition. To describe it further in theological terms, a paradigm is a lens that one sees theology through. It includes hermeneutics and exegesis. Most importantly, it deals with the way in which we look at and interpret scripture.

In my experience, evangelical doctrine and dogma have a limiting effect on the paradigm. I do not want to make this post a dictionary per se, but I feel that it is necessary to define dogma to be certain that the meaning is clear for the title. Again, the kind folks at dictionary.com define dogma this way: "An official system of principles and tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior etc. as of a church, ... prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a group." I want to emphasize "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true" for my purposes here in stating that dogma, more than any one other thing stands in the way of a paradigm shifting.

So then, the title of the post "do not know" what one "does not" know explains the dynamic of being so afraid to question dogma that one becomes stuck in a paradigm without a way to shift it even if a shift seems indeed necessary. I believe that Christianity in general is standing on the precipice of a paradigm shift that seems as fearful as a dark abyss, but is in reality, merely a step through a curtain into another dimension of greater understanding.

Here are the facts for me: In the past, I saw a lot of contradictions in the scripture that dogma had a way of dismissing that did not seem to make sense. However, can one dare to to question dogma and the authoritarian position it holds? If one dares to question dogma, immediately one is accused of not truly believing, not being a true and good follower of Christ and on and on. When one has heard a paradigm over and over it becomes impossible to change. When a paradigm begins to change, the first thing to go is the norms that groups establish with respect to appearance. Suits and ties are discarded in favor of less formal attire. However, this does nothing to free one up from restrictive and unhealthy dogma, and even more to the point, restrictive and unhealthy theology.

I hear repeatedly people saying that the scripture plainly teaches this or that. The truth however is that the paradigm insists that the scripture teaches this or that. How can someone realize that the paradigm with which they look at the scripture is faulty when they cannot ever challenge the paradigm? It is funny, because since I have had the paradigm shift, I see that it plainly teaches what I have come to believe. Now, have I got some things wrong, or do I not see it in totality? Of course I do not. It is only a logical conclusion that I do not have it ALL right, but so much of my paradigm rings true, and ALL of the apparent contradiction disappears.

What I observe is this: There are many people questioning much of dogma, but it is on the fringe, and this questioning does not question basic doctrinal tenets. Or, and this is equally detrimental, doctrine is questioned so much that the divinity of Christ, salvation, and a supernatural relationship with God is dismissed as superstition. In any event, the gospel as it was presented by the first century saints is compromised. What do I mean you ask? I mean the gospel (good news of the grace of God) which was the main focus of Paul and the other New Testament authors is neglected in favor of a different gospel. It seems to always include some kind of performance standards and required good works. Let me just say this. There is a performance standard in my paradigm as well. It demands that you believe God's declaration that he was indeed in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and that the full reconciliation was accomplished in full. The required performance is to rest in that fact, and rely completely on God's grace.

Three Errors That Hinder the Effectiveness of the Gospel; Part 2

Two:
The second error that hinders the effectiveness of the gospel is not giving Ephesians 1:3-7 the importance it demands. Let's look at what it says to us: Ephesians 1:3-7 NKJV  "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,  (4)  just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,  (5)  having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,  (6)  to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.  (7)  In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." The three phrases and clauses that I have emboldened and underlined become very important in recognizing the error.

The first underlined phrase "before the foundation of the world," places the timing on subjects of this passage. It was before the foundation of the world, in other words, it was before creation. So then, we can see that God's purpose in creation was redemption... let me emphasize that, God's purpose in creation was redemption! Also, he gives the reason... it was to the praise of the glory of his grace, and it was according to the good pleasure of His will. This passage, and John chapter one are the two passages in the scripture that tell about the farthest reaches of time. The subject of this passage predates Genesis 1:1... IT IS BEFORE THE BEGINNING! The fact, that God's purpose in creation was redemption holds a myriad of implications. Further, that the purpose is to the praise of the glory of His grace, holds even further implications. add to this Ephesians 1:11, and we see that God works ALL THINGS to the council of His will.

So what is written about God's will? In 2Pe 3 we find that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, and in John's gospel, Jesus states the Father's will (Jn 6:39-40) as being Jesus, raising up in the last day, all those given to him by the Father, and likewise, all who see the Son and believe would also be raised up on the last day. So think about it. God is sovereign. If he is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, and if He works ALL THINGS after the council of his will... how indeed can anyone perish? I know... I know, you will tell me that there are so many passages about hell, death and Hades, about the lake of fire and Gehenna, but wait a minute... perhaps we should look for other ways to gain meaning from those passages. In fact, that is precisely what is needed. My answer is that in those references, Jesus and others were metaphorically speaking of the impending destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. I am certain beyond doubt that Jesus reference in Mark 9:43-44 relate one to one with Isaiah 66 which is most definitely a prophesy about the destruction of the temple. How can I be certain you ask? By the language link between the two passages. Jesus is referring to Isaiah 66:24 and there is a definite grammatical link that is common among first century Jewish Rabbi's. Believe me, the first century Jews would have known his reference, and they would not have considered it to be eternal torment.

When one is confronted with the idea that redemption was the reason for creation, and that it was to get the creation, to praise God for his grace, it becomes clear that the penal substitution atonement theory is out of whack. God had judged the creation very good in Genesis 1:31, and this was knowing about the fall, the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, and ALL that would take place there after. It was humanity that hid from God. It was humanity that covered themselves with fig leaves. God had to shed the blood of a creature, take the skins to cover their shame. Of course, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whether metaphorical, or an actual fruit of a tree, brought judgment. It brought about the ability for humanity to judge itself, him and herself, as evil, and not acceptable to God. It also allowed the entrance of doubt and unbelief. Unbelief in the concept of God. That is the source of the need for redemption. While it is true that humanity must now face judgment as the result of the fall, God has graciously made a way to undo the damage done from the knowledge of good and evil. His solution was redemption, and it was the first thing that we know about God as creator.

Christ was the victor over the knowledge of good and evil, and death. He was willing to die, to confirm his faith in a loving Father that would indeed raise him from the grave. He is living proof that we are eternal, and have an eternal relationship with a loving Father. He aids us by His Spirit to believe the gospel. That is, that God the Father, was in Jesus Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. Notice that Paul did not say reconciling the elect to Himself, no... indeed, God was reconciling the kosmos to Himself. How? By not imputing sin. Further, He made Jesus who did not know the concept of sin, (He always believed the Father) to be made sin on the behalf of humanity, that humanity might then be made the righteousness of God in Him. Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection restored, redeemed, God's original declaration in Genesis 1:31.

Yes, there is judgment. Yes, we are responsible for our actions, most specifically, our love toward God, and our fellow humanity. Yes, there is justice. But how that operates we do not know for sure. We only can be sure that God's judgment does not end in eternal torture of individuals. We can base that on the fact that God's purpose in creation was redemption, and if God purposed it, you can bet that it will be accomplished! Do not be afraid to think outside the box. Do not fear the labels of heresy. The truth is that I have come to realize that those who hold to strict orthodoxy are actually the false teachers and false prophets. I do not think they are that purposefully. I just think that they do not know any better, and are too frightened by religion to really experience the freedom of real relationship with the Father.

It comes from they way they erroneously look at the scripture and we will address that in Part 3.