Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like many, I've been a little dismayed at the rapid proliferation of the belief in Universalism on the Christian thread. However, while I believe it flies in the face of scripture, I'm not entirely convinced that 'simply' holding such a belief or even presenting it in a traditional Christian forum is heresy. But, that's not really my point, nor am I trying to start-up another Universalism vs traditional Christianity debate ... which has already been discussed ad-naseum on this forum.
I've just learned that a very knowledgeable individual who has recently started teaching Revelation in a Baptist church, is a 'closet Universalist.' By that, I mean that it took a half-hour of digging into various 'unusual' things he was saying (after class), before he acknowledged his belief that God would ultimately save everyone. He also acknowledged that he didn't think it would go well to reveal that belief in the context of the Revelation class.
I believe that he truly loves the Lord and certainly has a 'right' to personally believe what he wants. (and, unlike some, I do not believe that he is 'lost' for holding such a belief). However, I also believe that concealing that belief, while teaching Revelation (or any other book) in a Baptist church (or any church that totally rejects the doctrine of universal salvation), poses a serious ethical dilemma.
Again, I am not seeking or attempting to open another doctrinal debate here! What I am asking for ... is for your thoughts on the 'situational ethics.' (If you allow this thread to digress into another 'Universalism vs 'traditional Christianity' debate, you will have completely missed the point!
Like many, I've been a little dismayed at the rapid proliferation of the belief in Universalism on the Christian thread. However, while I believe it flies in the face of scripture, I'm not entirely convinced that 'simply' holding such a belief or even presenting it in a traditional Christian forum is heresy. But, that's not really my point, nor am I trying to start-up another Universalism vs traditional Christianity debate ... which has already been discussed ad-naseum on this forum.
I've just learned that a very knowledgeable individual who has recently started teaching Revelation in a Baptist church, is a 'closet Universalist.' By that, I mean that it took a half-hour of digging into various 'unusual' things he was saying (after class), before he acknowledged his belief that God would ultimately save everyone. He also acknowledged that he didn't think it would go well to reveal that belief in the context of the Revelation class.
I believe that he truly loves the Lord and certainly has a 'right' to personally believe what he wants. (and, unlike some, I do not believe that he is 'lost' for holding such a belief). However, I also believe that concealing that belief, while teaching Revelation (or any other book) in a Baptist church (or any church that totally rejects the doctrine of universal salvation), poses a serious ethical dilemma.
Again, I am not seeking or attempting to open another doctrinal debate here! What I am asking for ... is for your thoughts on the 'situational ethics.' (If you allow this thread to digress into another 'Universalism vs 'traditional Christianity' debate, you will have completely missed the point!
I'm only familiar with the southern baptists churches I have attended, in those each teacher was required to teach the lesson using the approved southern baptist lesson guides.
Is this baptist church like that and if so is the person teaching the class as the church leadership would expect?
I'm only familiar with the southern baptists churches I have attended, in those each teacher was required to teach the lesson using the approved southern baptist lesson guides.
Is this baptist church like that and if so is the person teaching the class as the church leadership would expect?
I don't really know about the denominational position, but, do know that he is teaching from his own notes ... and that he has not otherwise revealed his own bias to the church or the class.
Along these lines (not to sidetrack anything), I've noticed a growing willingness in many churches to substitute simply studying or discussing the Bible ... with actually understanding and applying its principles to one's life. Like much of this forum, I worry that there is a lot of 'theoretical involvement,' but, not a great deal of real commitment.
I don't really know about the denominational position, but, do know that he is teaching from his own notes ... and that he has not otherwise revealed his own bias to the church or the class.
If the church allows the teachers to seek truth and teach, then there is no ethical dilemma simply because a teacher uses discretion and refrains from launching bombs onto people that likely have a preconception in their head upon hearing certain terms or phrases, such as universalist.
I believe that all men will be saved through Jesus Christ, and that can carry the label universalist, but many upon hearing the term will imply that I believe things I do not believe.
So it may be your opinion that it is unscriptural, but just because it is not accepted within a religious system does not mean it is not the truth.
I still will respect your wishes and not debate about it specifically but the issue remains the same no matter what you personally may have a problem with.
If this person had the personal belief that you must speak in tongues to be saved, then the only ethical dillema would be if he is teaching something against rules he agreed to, if he had to agree to any. If there is some kind of "unwritten" assumption that he should teach a certain way, then the unwritten assumption is largely irrelevant to asserting someones ethical standards.
Quote:
Along these lines (not to sidetrack anything), I've noticed a growing willingness in many churches to substitute simply studying or discussing the Bible ... with actually understanding and applying its principles to one's life. Like much of this forum, I worry that there is a lot of 'theoretical involvement,' but, not a great deal of real commitment
Unless you can prove that what you or any other Christian or church teaches is the undeniable absolute truth then you have mainly two options to deal with.
Some churches do this, set the church up, so that any and all teachers are bound to the guidlines of the church ands that all members agree to only believe and study certain things and any variance from that will result in removal from the organization. A side note to that, I knew a family that went to one of these types of churches, and they literally snuck around IN THEIR OWN HOME to watch tv secretly thinking someone from their church would find out. I guess they trusted me not to tell, SHHHHHHH.
Or realize that seeking truth sometimes means you will have to kick tradition square in the groin.
You make some valid points. But, I still think that if one is teaching under the umbrella of a particular denomination, they should respect the strongly held doctrinal tenants of that organization. Otherwise, they should teach elsewhere. Or, they should make it very clear to both the church leaders and class members that their beliefs and biases are completely contrary to the organization's foundational tenants.
By the same token, I've encountered several instances in various denominations where church leadership is unaware of, or has seemingly abdicated its 'stewardship' over what is being taught and by whom. Thus, my added comment about treating the study of God's Word, as if it were only a 'good religious thing to do' ... or that 'interpretations' stand on level ground with scripture itself. Worse yet, it seems that there is a growing attitude that the Bible itself is only some type of an antiquated 'guideline' written by 'unenlightened' ancients. (Not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation here, but, about honoring God's Word).
I am anything but, a supporter of "the traditions of men". That said, I believe that God's inspired Word is what it says, "profitable for reproof, doctrine and correction ... that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped ...". To me, that means, we should base our lives on it's teachings and not simply allow it to 'influence our opinions.' (It's the old axiom that the difference between involvement and commitment -- is like the difference between a pig and a chicken in a ham and eggs breakfast).
You make some valid points. But, I still think that if one is teaching under the umbrella of a particular denomination, they should respect the strongly held doctrinal tenants of that organization. Otherwise, they should teach elsewhere. Or, they should make it very clear to both the church leaders and class members that their beliefs and biases are completely contrary to the organization's foundational tenants.
I'm not in complete disagreement with that, but I think it still comes down to what someone is expected to agree with. Unwritten rules and assumptions don't cut it either.
Quote:
By the same token, I've encountered several instances in various denominations where church leadership is unaware of, or has seemingly abdicated its 'stewardship' over what is being taught and by whom. Thus, my added comment about treating the study of God's Word, as if it were only a 'good religious thing to do' ... or that 'interpretations' stand on level ground with scripture itself. Worse yet, it seems that there is a growing attitude that the Bible itself is only some type of an antiquated 'guideline' written by 'unenlightened' ancients. (Not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation here, but, about honoring God's Word).
I agree with you there for the most part, I think at the very least if you are going to appeal to scripture as some authority to truth, then whether or not you agree with someone else or the status quo of a denomination, you can still present the bible as wholly authoritative to your belief structure.
Quote:
I am anything but, a supporter of "the traditions of men". That said, I believe that God's inspired Word is what it says, "profitable for reproof, doctrine and correction ... that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped ...". To me, that means, we should base our lives on it's teachings and not simply allow it to 'influence our opinions.' (It's the old axiom that the difference between involvement and commitment -- is like the difference between a pig and a chicken in a ham and eggs breakfast).
Therein lies the larger problem, appealing to the ideal of Gods intention for what the bible is supposed to speak to us is great, however, the fallacy is that the way you see it therefore is that truth.
Any man can claim that what they teach is the "word of God" rather than "their" belief. But what it comes down to in reality is that no one saying that can with absolute certainly prove their context and interpretational methods are "godly" as opposed to someone elses.
What determines a godly committed person, what standards are in effect that all must follow? Jesus came to earth and leveled the pharasees ideology of what it took to be a godly person so whose to say some church with a set of standards aren't just a bunch of modern day pharasees?
I'm not intending to be overly critical of you personally or anyone else, this is a generalized point just to say. What can be proven to be the correct way to have bible study or walk our path with God? Can you say that what you believe is absolutely what everyone should believe?
Is it truly unethical to go to a church and try to infiltrate in the pursuit of truth? I'm not convinced it is UNLESS as I said there was a true prior agreement made and not just perceptive assumptions.
Again, I am not seeking or attempting to open another doctrinal debate here! What I am asking for ... is for your thoughts on the 'situational ethics.' (If you allow this thread to digress into another 'Universalism vs 'traditional Christianity' debate, you will have completely missed the point!
Situational ethics? Well, alot of people here seem to run by them (especially Mystic if you read his posts ). If your talking about the situational ethics of Joseph Fletcher, they are for the most part condemned by mainstream Christianity. While I do think this brand of situationalism doesn't consider the bible enough and focuses a little too much on more of a modern concept of the law of love and has a postential to cause degenerating morals, I don't think it's as far fetched as many conservative Christians think because many that have situations are either not addressed by the bible or seem to . Fletchers situationalism was very humanistic in its approach and didn't use the bible for as much of anchor as it should have been.
There's also a system called Graded Absolutism (created sort of by Norman Geisler) that is based more upon obligation to the greater good while admitting the lesser good (or lesser evil) is still sinful or at least not correct in of itself. This system uses the bible more as an anchor for determining what may be the lesser evil while using the law of Love to use the lesser evil in the place of the greater evil if there is no other choice. Its not a whole lot different from Fletchers situationalism, but it does consider the bible alot more. This would be a good study for you do do if you like discussing Christian ethics.
Regarding your situation, isn't it amazing how much more interesting the UR discussion gets when it hits close to home? This is kind of a tough one because while I'm not a convinced UR believer, I'm simpathetic to the belief and for me in this situation, there would be no easy answer. If he's a very good teacher and is not overt about teaching UR or universalism and he gets paid to do it, you might want to consider the effects on him and his family as well as his students first if he were to be outed. He has trusted you with this information and you would also be violating his trust. I think I would first ask him when he came to his conclusions and why he continues to teach there and perhaps discuss the ethics of it with him personally. I personally would not serve in any teaching role at a baptist church becaues I think most are far too close minded on this issue and I think these discussions need to happen.
There is no book in the canon that is more enigmatic and opaque to interpretation than Revelation. Even the assumption that any denomination's interpretation is the best or only one possible is absurd on its face. What's the issue?
Situational ethics? Well, alot of people here seem to run by them (especially Mystic if you read his posts ). If your talking about the situational ethics of Joseph Fletcher, they are for the most part condemned by mainstream Christianity. While I do think this brand of situationalism doesn't consider the bible enough and focuses a little too much on more of a modern concept of the law of love and has a postential to cause degenerating morals, I don't think it's as far fetched as many conservative Christians think because many that have situations are either not addressed by the bible or seem to . Fletchers situationalism was very humanistic in its approach and didn't use the bible for as much of anchor as it should have been.
There's also a system called Graded Absolutism (created sort of by Norman Geisler) that is based more upon obligation to the greater good while admitting the lesser good (or lesser evil) is still sinful or at least not correct in of itself. This system uses the bible more as an anchor for determining what may be the lesser evil while using the law of Love to use the lesser evil in the place of the greater evil if there is no other choice. Its not a whole lot different from Fletchers situationalism, but it does consider the bible alot more. This would be a good study for you do do if you like discussing Christian ethics.
Regarding your situation, isn't it amazing how much more interesting the UR discussion gets when it hits close to home? This is kind of a tough one because while I'm not a convinced UR believer, I'm simpathetic to the belief and for me in this situation, there would be no easy answer. If he's a very good teacher and is not overt about teaching UR or universalism and he gets paid to do it, you might want to consider the effects on him and his family as well as his students first if he were to be outed. He has trusted you with this information and you would also be violating his trust. I think I would first ask him when he came to his conclusions and why he continues to teach there and perhaps discuss the ethics of it with him personally. I personally would not serve in any teaching role at a baptist church becaues I think most are far too close minded on this issue and I think these discussions need to happen.
I really hesitated to use the term 'situational ethics' because of its broader implications, but, here the basic term -- with no other implied meaning, seemed appropriate.
I am not 'outing' anyone and definitely intend to further dig into the very questions you raised.
I really hesitated to use the term 'situational ethics' because of its broader implications, but, here the basic term -- with no other implied meaning, seemed appropriate.
I am not 'outing' anyone and definitely intend to further dig into the very questions you raised.
Is your main concern here that this pastor may be pretending or misrepresenting what his true beliefs are? And may let his own alleged "un-doctrinal" biases creep in - which may lead people astray?
I think if we are to be honest and in pursuit of the truth, ultimately one cannot hide forever what one truly believes. On the other hand if his personal belief does not interfere or conflict with other teaching, then perhaps there is no issue, for now at least. The truth does come out in the long-run though.
The question is: are we in pursuit of the truth, or are we just trying to following a particular doctine, to "stay in the club" so-to-speak.
Certainly it would be dishonest of this individual if he was confronted about his beliefs and blatantly lied. But if the topic doesn't come out per-se, I guess that is where the "situational ethics" come in? This doesn't just apply to "universalism", it could apply to any belief that isn't necessarily "mainstream", even though it could be plausible and/or even the truth.
What is your main concern here jghorton?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
