76 Sermon Illustrations on Roman Catholicism

During the season of Lent, some Americans give up chocolate or another favorite food. Others dump guilty pleasures like binge-watching television or social media.

But most give up Lent.

Three-quarters of Americans (76 percent) say they don’t typically observe Lent, according to a survey from Nashville-based LifeWay Research released in April 2017.

Unlike other Christian traditions like celebrating Easter or Christmas, Lent seems to lack crossover appeal, said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. It remains a religious event, he said, rather than one that appeals to a broader public.

That’s in part, McConnell suspects, because Lent focuses on giving things up in order to gain spiritual benefits in preparation for Easter. There’s no social benefit to Lent like giving gifts or getting together with family.

It’s a religious tradition that remains focused on personal devotion, McConnell said. “Lent is not about having your best life now,” he said. “Those who observe it believe they are giving up things they want in order to focus on what God wants. There’s little popular appeal in that.”

Lent, which begins on Ash Wednesday and ends during Holy Week, is traditionally seen as a time of preparation for Easter. Part of that preparation, for some, includes various forms of fasting as a spiritual discipline -- a practice that dates back to the early church. Lent traditionally lasts for 40 days (excluding Sundays), a time frame established after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

Catholics (61 percent) remain most likely to observe Lent, according to LifeWay’s survey. Protestants (20 percent) and those with evangelical beliefs (28 percent) are less likely.

Forty-three percent of those who attend church at least once a month observe Lent. That includes 82 percent of Catholics who regularly attend service as well as 30 percent of Protestants.

Older Americans, those over 55, are more likely to observe Lent (30 percent) than those under 55 (20 percent). Hispanic Americans (36 percent) and Christians in general (35 percent) also are more likely to observe Lent. Those from non-Christian faiths (12 percent), “Nones” with no denominational affiliation (4 percent) and those who attend services less than once a month (15 percent) are less likely.

McConnell said the degree of popularity of Lent among those with evangelical beliefs is surprising. Lent is often associated with Catholics and Mainline Protestants from more liturgical denominations. But it holds appeal for evangelicals as well, he said.

For one pastor, however, Lent stirs reticence.

Rob Pochek, pastor of First Baptist Church on Park Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, wrote in a 2015 blog, “It seems to me that any attempt I may make [to observe Lent] does not memorialize the death of Christ as much as it trivializes it.”

Pochek, who respectfully noted that his mother’s side of the family is Catholic, including three great aunts who are nuns and a great uncle who is a priest, wrote, “In one sense, the death of Christ was the most horrific thing in all of human history.... At the same time, it was the most glorious of all deaths. In the death of Jesus, God reconciled the world to Himself.” Pochek, contacted by Baptist Press on Feb. 15, 2017, said the 2015 column continues to reflect his outlook toward Lent.

Giving up food, bad habits

LifeWay asked Americans who observe Lent about how they observe this Christian tradition.

Fasting from a favorite food or beverage (57 percent) and going to church (57 percent) are the most common ways to observe Lent. Additional prayer (39 percent), giving to others (38 percent) or fasting from a bad habit (35 percent) also are popular. Fasting from a favorite activity is less common (23 percent).

Fasting from a favorite food or beverage is more common in the West (62 percent) than the Northeast (42 percent). Young Americans, those 18 to 24, who observe Lent are more likely to choose this option (86 percent) than those over 65 (43 percent). Catholics (64 percent) are more likely give up a food or drink than Protestants (43 percent).

Midwesterners observing Lent are more likely to pray more (52 percent) than those in the Northeast (29 percent) or South (35 percent). Those who attend services at least once a month are more likely to pray more (55 percent) than those who don’t (18 percent).

Hispanic Americans (34 percent) are more likely to give up a favorite habit than white Americans (17 percent). They are also more likely to give up a bad habit (50 percent) than white Americans (30 percent) or those from other ethnicities (11 percent).

Catholics (46 percent) are more likely to give to others while observing Lent than Protestants (32 percent). Those who go to church at least once a month (49 percent) are more likely to give to others than those who don’t attend church as often (22 percent).

Those with evangelical beliefs (71 percent) are more likely to go to church during Lent than those without evangelical beliefs (54 percent). Those who attend church at least once a month go to church more during Lent (76 percent) than those who don’t (32 percent).

“There’s a lot more to Lent than giving things up,” McConnell said. “Americans who observe Lent also take other steps -- like praying, giving and going to church more -- to practice their faith.”

For Mateusz Kowalski*, a Polish believer, Lent and the Easter holiday changed meaning when he gave Christ lordship of his life more than 10 years ago.

Kowalski is a member of Biblia i Misja, one of five Baptist churches in Kraków, a city of 750,000. An overwhelming majority of the country identifies with Roman Catholicism.

Poles consider Easter their oldest and most important holiday, with traditions dating back to the 10th century.

The holiday is steeped in famous and beloved Easter traditions, including Easter baskets and decorated eggs. These differ from American traditions in many ways. The eggs, called “pisanki” and symbolizing new life, are dyed more naturally with brown outer onion skin or walnut shells. They are then ornately decorated.

The baskets, called “święconka” baskets, are filled with food, usually signifying the end of the Lenten fast. They’re stocked with things like eggs, bread, sausage (or “kiełbasa”), ham, horseradish, butter and salt.

These baskets are prepared for Holy Saturday – between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Roman Catholic families in Poland take them to church for a blessing which sanctifies the food for the family’s holiday meal. Devout Catholics have refrained from eating meat – especially on Fridays – during the Lenten fast, so the meal blessed by the priest is seen as a traditional way of breaking their fast. These baskets establish the Easter meal as a more holy meal.

Several Eastern European countries share similar Easter basket traditions.

Despite all the Roman Catholic tradition around it, Polish believers see the significance of the holiday and its Polish name “Wielkanoc.”

“Before I got saved, Lent and Easter were like a schedule, you know,” said Kowalski. “I knew that it was about Jesus, that He rose from the grave, but before I was saved, I felt this in some way, but it wasn’t in full.”

Kowalski likens this feeling to 2 Corinthians 3:14 when Paul describes a veil over the eyes of the Jews that was only taken away through Christ.

“I knew everything about the holiday and maybe even in some way I felt it and I knew that it was connected to me, but it was like it was covered and hidden for me,” he said.

“When for the first time I told Jesus, ‘I give you my life, take over control of my life,’ it was in a Catholic church preparing for Lent and Easter. I remember it was when I was 16, maybe 17. Before, the holiday had been for many years like a process. But when I got saved the holiday definitely changed. Now Easter is like a great time of joy.”

Kowalski and his wife Kasia hope that their two boys will grow up knowing these traditions which have been part of Polish life for centuries. But Kowalski sees that his Catholic family takes the traditions more seriously than they should.

Kowalski plans to one day show the traditions to his boys, but he plans to teach them that the blessing of God is in the provision of every meal and that every day in Christ is a joyous celebration of our salvation.

Ola Skowrońska*, a youth leader at the church, said, “Every year it’s a great reminder that the salvation I have through Jesus, from God, it’s really special and unique; not everyone has it. When I talk with my friends, they often don’t know what I’m talking about because in Poland, Catholics celebrate differently.”

For most of Poland, the resurrection of Christ remains a tradition. The beauty and joy are hidden behind layers of tradition that blind their eyes to the true joy to be found in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

________

*Names changed for security

The New York Times reported in June 2004 that overworked Catholic clergy in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are outsourcing certain ritual prayer requests from their parishioners over to Catholic clergy in India. Priests said such a practice is not new, but that a priest shortage might have caused a bump in numbers. Indian priests said the requests are typically accompanied by US$5-10 (much more than they are offered for domestic prayers).

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

My first memories of anything Islamic were when I prepared to start work in Saudi Arabia. In the United Kingdom I visited my local library and read some books on the country. The place looked extraordinarily exotic and once I got there I wasn't disappointed. I vaguely knew that Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of Islam but as to the significance of the Ka`bah, Hajj, etc., I knew even less.

Some Saudi newspapers have a daily question and answer piece on Islam. The questions submitted by the readers were often extremely specific on minute, seemly irrelevant practices — for example the SALAH (ritual prayer) or ablution — and these questions were often read out in the work tea room by ex-pats — including myself — for amusement. It all seemed so incomprehensible — but then everything about Saudi Arabia was a culture shock, so I never considered the religion separate from the culture.

Later I shifted to the United Arab Emirates. Here, it felt almost European, laid back, sort of quasi-Mediterranean in comparison. This made me look at Islam differently — it didn't seem so tough and dogmatic as in Saudi. Inevitably again I debated Islam at work or with friends and I was impressed with the logic. Logic and religion? These two are not supposed to coexist.

SCHOOL DAYS

Being brought up from the age of 4 at a Catholic school run by nuns, then from 11 to 18 at a school run mainly by Benedictine monks, I had undergone years of formal religious education. However, except for some various stories from the Bible, I felt I hadn't a clue as to the relationship between Christianity and real life. Also, there were just so many inherent contradictions and “mysteries” that our school teachers veered away from — so long as you had faith.

So on the one hand at school we were taught to analyze and question the rationale behind biology, chemistry, and so on, but religion was above such earthly proofs. Not surprisingly, my fellow pupils did their best to escape from compulsory church services and ceremonies. I found hymns particularly dreary; saintly statues made me queasy rather than comforted. Priestly vestments and church ornamentation alienated rather than satisfied.

Back to Arabia: I had numerous but always friendly arguments about religion with Muslims. In hindsight, I was the one who provoked the discussion (I've always liked a good argument). My curiosity aroused, I started reading some pamphlets. I was wary of people trying to “convert” me, although no one seemed particularly out to proselytize. On the contrary, my friends patiently went along with my arguments. Religious discussions were frustrating by my lack of information — I was getting fed up with this, so I embarked on a refutation of Islam through reading. I searched for the weak spot — so then I could triumph over these Arabs! I only read booklets and books that I carefully chose myself, looking only for those that were as impartial and frank as possible, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims. By necessity the reading material had to deepen. I moved on from the Ahmed Deedat type confrontational style of material. I still wasn't really convinced and kept looking for that one defect that would unravel it all.

CHRISTIANITY VS. ISLAM

Christianity directs to turn the other cheek; whereas Islam says fight for your rights, but only when you are oppressed. Christianity says that a rich man will never enter heaven. Islam says that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth; it is good so long as it is acquired legally and a portion (2.5 percent) given yearly to the poor. Wealth is distinguished from greed. The noble ideals of Christianity break down in the real world.

Islam seemed to recognize the grubby imperfect lives we lead but had relentlessly accurate insight of the strengths and weakness of the human psyche. For example, respecting others privacy: Hurtful tabloid newspaper gossip is alien to Muslim countries. The highest standards of courtesy are found in daily interactions: AS-SALAMU `ALAYKUM (“Peace be upon you”) is the recurrent greeting, compared to the cold and casual “Hi.” Everyone has arguments and fallouts, but for two Muslims, after 3 days the two sides must patch up — the one who makes the first gesture is seen as the better person. Consequently, I almost never heard of the I'm-not-talking-to-him attitude that poisons relationships and is so energy consuming.

I began to realize the astonishing range of issues Islam deals with, particularly on the social side. From hygiene to education, from war time and economics, to racism, to nationalism. No matter is too small to escape its rational instruction. Throughout, the Qur'an addresses mankind, not just the bickering Arab tribes of the time. It is not limited to the period of revelation but appears to speak down the ages. I found the tone consistently serious and majestic but always simple and crystal clear. It all seemed rather practical and sensible. Religion was just not supposed to be like this. Could all this be thought up by an illiterate man 1,400 years ago? Well, maybe.

I dug a little deeper. As for the famous literary brilliance of the Qur'an that I had read of, “that inimitable symphony” described by Marmaduke Pickthall, I had no idea and could only guess at from the inadequate English translations from the original Arabic.

DOCTRINAL INDIGESTION

As I said, I had an extensive religious education. These are a few of the creeds of Catholicism that I had always found difficult:

• The Christian clergy of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc. Why do we need a hierarchy? Could a religion operate without one?

• Divinity of Christ. Did he actually claim divinity? What was that first commandment again?

• Doctrine of the Trinity. Sorry, I just don't get it. Anyway, some prominent Christian leaders now openly doubt it, as do some Christian sects, for example, the Unitarians.

• Church statues. Idols are breakable. Anyway, what was that second commandment again?

• Infallibility of the Pope. But he did make errors, for example when condemning Copernicus for saying the Earth revolved around the sun.

• Original sin. A newborn baby has inherent sin and needs forgiveness (baptism)? Again, somehow difficult to understand.

• Worshiping “saints.” Do we need an agent to reach God?

• Transubstantiation. Where bread and wine are transformed (literally) into the flesh and blood of Christ during the Mass. Are there elements of paganism here?

• Christ died on the cross for the “sins of the world.” If Christ died for our sins in advance, then why bother trying to be good? Anyway, did he really claim this?

And there's more, but I'll spare you.

Islam graciously cut through this ideological nightmare. One by one these muddled dogmas were clearly debunked as I dug deeper in my research. I was interested to learn that the central Christian tenets above were trashed out by a conference 300 years after Christ died. The conference was heavily prejudiced by the powerful Roman emperor of the time: not exactly divine. The monks must have forgotten to mention all that. Surprisingly, in Islam, Christ is a highly revered prophet. Also, like Muhammad, he would never be termed divine. In fact many Muslims are named `Isa (Arabic for Jesus), and Christ and Mary are mentioned in the Qur'an more times than Muhammad.

So, contrary to Christianity, Islam appeared (to me anyway) simple and clear. Today Christianity is all but dead in the West — this is scary and probably precedes an era of spiritual nihilism. The only growth area is in evangelism [does he mean evangelicalism/charismatics?] — where emotions are let rip. It is known by anyone who has had to reason with someone in an ecstatic or angry state, that logic and emotion do not make good bedfellows — any rational thought is thrown out the window. Some churches hire discos in a desperate attempt to attract the punters; others are becoming bingo halls. Good Christians are staying at home in droves on Sunday: for many of them, cutting the grass seems more meaningful.

I remember a Christian friend of mine complained that the Mass never seemed the same when they switched over from Latin to English — it was better when you couldn't understand it.

So, this is the sorry state to Christianity today.

RELIEF

My hunches that these were man-made doctrines were finally proven right. It was quite a relief. Whatever issue I examined in Islam, I could not find error nor did I have to stretch my credibility. Surely then it cannot be of human origin? No wonder the monks at school kept it all well hidden. However, my stubbornness held out another year or so.

I tried to read the Qur'an, which initially I found heavy and intense. I soon realized that this was because it was so concise and concentrated — there was no padding out. It appeared strangely succinct, like a telegraph message. Surely, I wondered, if written by Muhammad, it would be full of the narrow stories of the times, not to mention mistaken scientific beliefs of the time.

In comparison, the Bible goes in great detail regarding local events, internal wars, what so-and-so did, and local politics. All very fascinating at the time, but hardly an eternal guide for all mankind. The Bible was, of course, composed by men — and reads like a diary of the times. For example, the Gospel ACCORDING to Saint... . I long wondered how that makes it divine. There are few grand concepts. The text is addressed to the small tribes of Judea. The statements authentically attributed to Christ himself are but a few dozen, and even those are colored by St. Paul and others. Also, the version we read today is translated through from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. What text could possibly have survived unchanged — especially when so many had a vested interest in the content? The many conspicuous contradictions are well known, even by Christians.

Therefore, it was almost unbelievable to learn that the Muslim sacred book, the Qur'an, was written down during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, was checked numerous times by himself to ensure accuracy, and has remained exactly in the original language and text ever since. I was interested to read that when several thousand copies of the Qur'an were printed in Egypt with just one DUMMA (vowel mark) missing, they were immediately pulped. Why should a tiny dash make any difference? How did anyone spot it so quickly?

Being scientifically trained, I was interested in the scientific references of the Qur'an. These included meteorological, astronomical, physical, medical references and more. Many of these are tantalizingly subtle, for example [WE MADE EVERY LIVING THING OF WATER] (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:30). So far, no one has found any discrepancies; however, I still looked for one indisputable scientific fact that would clear up the issue: The size of the universe or the distance to the sun for example would do nicely. I could not find anything that specific, of course. Maybe that is the point: Humans always like evidence on a tray, clearly labeled.

ISLAMIC DOGMA?

I often felt Islam was dogmatic, loaded with tough restrictions and regulations. Was it all necessary? Can't we just go out and have a good time and do what we want? But upon closer examination, I saw that those who “suffer” most by such restrictions are the strongest of society. Who are these? The wealthy, young, healthy, usually male. Who are vulnerable? Women, the poor, the sick, the very young and the very old. All are strongly protected by Islamic Law, centuries before the welfare state was dreamed of. For example:

Who drinks and enjoys alcohol the most? Men. However, who actually suffers most

from alcoholism? Battered wives and abused children, not to mention the thousands

killed or maimed by drunk drivers.

Who's restricted most by the prohibition of sexual promiscuity? A man can walk away

from pregnancy. Women are biologically inclined to monogamy. So who pays the real

price of promiscuity? The unwanted baby born to a single mother left to fend for

herself.

Who benefits from the clothing restriction on women? Hardly the men. Women are

protected and respected from predatory males, rape, and pregnancy.

Who enjoys and profits financially from pornography? Throughout history this has

always been a male thing. Not many magazines seem to be owned or bought by women.

It's well known that rapists and child abusers (men again, I'm afraid) are often

driven and seduced by explicit pornography.

Who suffers by giving obligatory charity? The rich.

Who wants to care about the elderly in a society that worships youth? It's such a

nuisance to hedonistic young people. Muslims are obliged to look after their

parents and all the elderly. Again the weak are given security.

The list goes on.

It's clear that “harsh” Islamic rules actually protect the weak and those without a voice in society. It's not surprising, then, that the abhorrence against Islam, even from the very beginning at the time of Muhammad, came from the high and mighty of society. The entertainment moguls of Hollywood and elsewhere today see Islam as a severe threat to their profit margins. It's not so surprising, then, that the vast majority of those reverting to Islam are women. Also, I noticed that it was the under-trodden of society, such as the destitute Hindus of India and blacks in racist America, who feel that only Islam's ideals can address their problems.

Regarding women, I thought I had hit on the weak spot of Islam until I discovered that women enjoyed inheritance and divorce rights 1,400 years before the West discovered “Women's Lib.” A wife even keeps her own name after marriage. Some of the richest people in the Muslim world are women. Contrary to my image of Muslim women being “oppressed,” my personal observation was that women were not simply equal to men but in some ways held in a distinguished, almost reverential position in society. They didn't behave a bit oppressed. On the contrary, I personally cannot recall ever hearing a disparaging or sexist remark from a Muslim man regarding any woman.

DECISION TIME

So what to do with this information? I had two choices: either to do nothing (which was tempting) or change my religion. Also I wanted to break with the Catholic Church which had lost credibility to me. I didn't want to forever be a lapsed Catholic. As far as I know, it's not possible to resign (what would I send back — my confirmation medal?). I mulled over the issue for a year or more before one spring Friday deciding to take the plunge. Now several years have passed and I have realized that far from being the end of the matter, the hard work had only just begun on that Friday. I look ahead with interest and some trepidation at the resurgence of Islam around the world — I wonder how the West will react to the inevitable rise of Islam in the next century: submit or feel threatened? Many vested interests will fight it, particularly the powerful entertainment lobbies. Whatever happens, Islam is not going to go away.

A series of articles on Pope Francis's comments on proselytizing

EVANGELIZE, DON’T PROSELYTIZE - AND THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.

People can’t be coerced into the faith, they must be loved. That is what Pope Francis is saying, and that is what his predecessors said.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/should-we-proselytize-5829569848279040

________

In this week’s interview with atheist newspaper publisher Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis commented that “proselytization is solemn nonsense.” Christians who have converted to the Catholic faith, missionaries, and those involved in apostolates that work helping people to convert to Catholicism were offended. When Pope Francis said “proselytization is solemn nonsense” and re-assured Eugenio Scalfari that he did not intend to convert him, they heard the Pope saying that evangelization was a waste of time and that converting people to Catholicism was “nonsense.”

Pope Francis does not have the theologian’s precision that characterized Pope Benedict XVI nor the philosopher’s clarity of thought and expression that marked Bl. Pope John Paul II. He is a pastoral Pope, interested in people and passionate about meeting them on their own terms, wherever they are. Unfortunately, Pope Francis seems more concerned with the individual contact and warm personal style than he does with clarity of teaching.

To understand Pope Francis’s words, we should first understand what he means by “proselytization.” To proselytize is to attempt to convert someone to your religion. This simple definition is clear enough, but the word also carries a connotation of using coercion of some sort. To use guilt, emotional blackmail, or psychological pressure to get a person to accept a religion is both immoral and ineffective. Even if they convert, they have done so under pressure, and thus it is not a true conversion.

To understand the Catholic approach to evangelization, it is worth considering Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings on a visit to Brazil in 2007. Addressing the Latin American Bishops, the Pope said, “To you who represent the Church in Latin America, today I symbolically entrust my encyclical Deus Caritas Est, in which I sought to point out to everyone the essence of the Christian message.” Pope Benedict then explained that the Church “does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by ‘attraction,’ ... just as Christ draws all to himself by the power of his love.”

The first Christians converted the Roman Empire because of the radiant love they showed. As John Zmirak has written,

“What impressed the Romans was how the Christians lived, and their willingness to push back against the corruptions of a dying, death-dealing culture. Christians did not kill their unwanted infants – in fact, they went to the city gates and rescued the infants whom pagans had abandoned. Christians did not divorce, as Romans did; they were more likely to be chaste before marriage and faithful afterward – which led Roman aristocrats to seek out Christian wives. ... In an increasingly totalitarian Roman state, Christians were even willing to say no to the emperor. These radical acts of resistance to the social and political culture, carried out at personal cost that sometimes included martyrdom, won over jaded residents of the crumbling empire.”

This is the point Pope Francis is making: people must be attracted by the love Christians exhibit rather than some form of emotional, psychological, or social coercion. So in the interview, he says to Eugenio Scalfari, “It is love of others, as our Lord preached. It is not proselytizing; it is love. Love for one’s neighbor, that leavening that serves the common good.” Scalfari replies, “Love your neighbor as yourself?” And the Pope says, “Exactly so.”

Neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis have any intention that Catholics should stop evangelizing. However, they are aware that a preaching that consists only of laying down the law or presenting doctrinal precepts to be affirmed is in adequate. Preaching the Gospel must be in words and works. The Gospel of love must be shown through lives of self-sacrificial love.

When Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Good News, he expected us not only to proclaim the message, but first to be transformed by it. Once we are transformed by the Gospel of the Risen Lord, we will be able to radiate his life and love into the world with great power. This is the same message communicated by Bl. Pope John Paul in his apostolic letter, Into the New Millennium.

In that manifesto for the New Evangelization, John Paul II reminds all Catholics of the primacy of love as the heart of the evangelistic effort, and with ringing tones he calls us:

“Let us go forward in hope! A new millennium is opening before the Church like a vast ocean upon which we shall venture, relying on the help of Christ. The Son of God, who became incarnate two thousand years ago out of love for humanity, is at work even today: we need discerning eyes to see this and, above all, a generous heart to become the instruments of his work. ... Now, the Christ whom we have contemplated and loved bids us to set out once more on our journey: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The missionary mandate accompanies us into the Third Millennium and urges us to share the enthusiasm of the very first Christians: we can count on the power of the same Spirit who was poured out at Pentecost and who impels us still today to start out anew, sustained by the hope “which does not disappoint.”

________

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is the parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville, South Carolina. Browse his books, visit his blog and be in touch at dwightlongenecker.com.

==========================================

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30851

MORE FROM THE DISASTROUS NEW POPE

Matt Kennedy

October 1, 2013

________

This time Pope Francis decides to correct Jesus’ faulty missiology:

“Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good ...”

Compare with:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

It’s a good thing we have the Pope to interpret scripture for us. I mean who would have known that when Jesus instructed his followers to make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Trinity and teach them to follow all his commands, he really meant: get to know everybody and tell them to follow their own consciences.

In answer to a question about whether or not there is an absolute “good’, the Pope answered:

“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good ... .Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

Compare with:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:12-18)

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)

No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:18)

It’s difficult to believe that any pope asked about the nature of truth and goodness would encourage fallen human beings to follow whatever ‘vision’ of good they possess. Not only is it morally absurd (the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and the Klu Klux Klan were/are all following their vision of the good) it is biblically repugnant. No one is good but God. The human heart is deceived. When groups of human beings do what is right in their own eyes, it never ends well. This is precisely why Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and rebellion (John 16:8) and commissions his church to call all human beings to repent and surrender to him. Apart from Jesus Christ the world is not and can never be “a better place” no matter how much people follow their vision of good.

Now we wait. It shouldn’t be long before we’re treated to the now familiar sight of conservative Catholic bloggers desperately trying to persuade us and themselves that Pope Francis really didn’t say what he said, that he was mistranslated or that he is misunderstood. Nonsense. The Pope is not a stupid man. He knows the import of his words and the media/cultural context in which he speaks them. At some point my Catholic friends need to face facts. This pope is a disaster for Rome. It’s not as if he is the first papal disaster ... but he’s the first in quite a long time. He’s going to undo at least some of John Paul II’s and Benedict’s work. Liberal Catholicism will rise from the dead and gain ground. The sooner you realize that the more prepared you’ll be to endure the next 15 or so years of his papacy.

=====================================

THE POPE’S ‘LONG PATH’

Baptist Press

Russell D. Moore

October 1, 2013

________

It’s another week and thus another interview with Pope Francis. This one, I’m sorry to say, is more than just confusing. It’s a theological wreck.

In an interview with La Repubblica in Rome, the Pope responded to a question about whether there is a “single vision of good” by saying, “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

The Pope also said, “The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood.” When the reporter commented, “Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me,” the Pope said, “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”

From Augustine’s “Confessions” to “Well, everyone has his own ideas about good and evil....” is a mighty long path.

First of all, I am a Protestant so, of course, I do not accept the church’s claims about the papal chair as Vicar of Christ. But though I protest, I don’t throw rocks (no Petrine pun intended). My mother’s side of the family was and is Roman Catholic, and some of the most significant influences in my life personally and intellectually are Roman Catholics.

Second, I don’t dislike Pope Francis. I think he is quite right about the primacy of Christ’s Gospel over the culture wars. In my much smaller pool and from my much smaller perch, I’ve tried to say that outrage itself isn’t a Christian virtue. Our mission ought to be toward reconciliation, not the vaporization of our perceived enemies.

But.

If Pope Francis wishes to reclaim the gospel’s primacy, he must simultaneously speak with kindness to those outside of its reach and speak of the need for good news. What these interviews seem continually to do is what evangelical theologian Carl Henry warned Protestants of in the 20th century, of severing the love of God from the holiness of God. God is, Henry said, against both the liberal Social Gospel and obscurantist and angry fundamentalism, the God of both justice and justification.

Without speaking to the conscience, and addressing what the sinner already knows to be true about the day of giving an account, there is not love, only the consigning of the guilty conscience to accusation and condemnation. If the church is right about the personhood of unborn children (and I think it is), then why would we not be “obsessed” about speaking for them, and for the women and men whose consciences are tyrannized by their past sins?

It is not good news to say to such consciences, “Well, we’re all brothers and sisters,” if what they feel in their psyches and read in their Bibles (and in their Catholic catechisms) is that those who commit such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We must speak with tenderness and gentleness, but with an authoritative word from God, that there is a means of reconciliation. The burdened conscience doesn’t wish to hear “It’s all OK.” The burdened conscience is freed by “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ” (Romans 8:1).

There’s little purpose in refighting the Protestant Reformation here, but we do, in some sense, return to Martin Luther’s problem. With a guilty conscience, he could find no way to reconciliation in himself or by the purported economy of grace. In the church, he saw rules and rituals but, in that, felt only condemnation.

But opposite a harsh, rule-oriented Christianity is a way that is just as condemning, a way that we’ve seen often in hyper-Protestant communions: the tendency to downplay sin at all. This leaves sinners like us in a kind of earthly purgatory that never purges, and leads us to hide from the face of God because, like our first parents, we know who we are and what we’ve done.

I’m in no position to advise the Bishop of Rome, but I hope we’ll see a fuller-orbed message from him. I’m with Pope Francis on the need for kindness but I pray it will be a convictional kindness that addresses both the reality of God’s holy justice and His reconciling love.

In 1962 we lived in a small military housing project in St. Louis. Four families lived in tiny apartments, side by side. Next to us was the Daugherty family. Like many in the neighborhood, they were Roman Catholic. REAL Roman Catholics. They went to church all the time and it was in Latin. They ate fish on Friday and went to confession. They used small prayer cards of saints during devotions. And they had something like ten children on triple bunks.

I have never forgotten what one of them taught me. According to his mom, when we sin, our heart gets a black spot on it. The more we sin, the blacker our heart gets. This was not a symbol or a metaphor - she meant literal black spots. They would show up on X-rays so the whole world would know. When you are in first grade, anything seems plausible.

As a Presbyterian first grader, I wasn't sure if only Catholics got this black heart, or if all of us did. I was worried. So I asked my mom. She assured me it only happened to Catholics.

After 48 years' experience on this earth, I am not so sure....

A series of articles on Pope Francis's comments on proselytizing

EVANGELIZE, DON’T PROSELYTIZE - AND THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.

People can’t be coerced into the faith, they must be loved. That is what Pope Francis is saying, and that is what his predecessors said.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/should-we-proselytize-5829569848279040

________

In this week’s interview with atheist newspaper publisher Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis commented that “proselytization is solemn nonsense.” Christians who have converted to the Catholic faith, missionaries, and those involved in apostolates that work helping people to convert to Catholicism were offended. When Pope Francis said “proselytization is solemn nonsense” and re-assured Eugenio Scalfari that he did not intend to convert him, they heard the Pope saying that evangelization was a waste of time and that converting people to Catholicism was “nonsense.”

Pope Francis does not have the theologian’s precision that characterized Pope Benedict XVI nor the philosopher’s clarity of thought and expression that marked Bl. Pope John Paul II. He is a pastoral Pope, interested in people and passionate about meeting them on their own terms, wherever they are. Unfortunately, Pope Francis seems more concerned with the individual contact and warm personal style than he does with clarity of teaching.

To understand Pope Francis’s words, we should first understand what he means by “proselytization.” To proselytize is to attempt to convert someone to your religion. This simple definition is clear enough, but the word also carries a connotation of using coercion of some sort. To use guilt, emotional blackmail, or psychological pressure to get a person to accept a religion is both immoral and ineffective. Even if they convert, they have done so under pressure, and thus it is not a true conversion.

To understand the Catholic approach to evangelization, it is worth considering Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings on a visit to Brazil in 2007. Addressing the Latin American Bishops, the Pope said, “To you who represent the Church in Latin America, today I symbolically entrust my encyclical Deus Caritas Est, in which I sought to point out to everyone the essence of the Christian message.” Pope Benedict then explained that the Church “does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by ‘attraction,’ ... just as Christ draws all to himself by the power of his love.”

The first Christians converted the Roman Empire because of the radiant love they showed. As John Zmirak has written,

“What impressed the Romans was how the Christians lived, and their willingness to push back against the corruptions of a dying, death-dealing culture. Christians did not kill their unwanted infants – in fact, they went to the city gates and rescued the infants whom pagans had abandoned. Christians did not divorce, as Romans did; they were more likely to be chaste before marriage and faithful afterward – which led Roman aristocrats to seek out Christian wives. ... In an increasingly totalitarian Roman state, Christians were even willing to say no to the emperor. These radical acts of resistance to the social and political culture, carried out at personal cost that sometimes included martyrdom, won over jaded residents of the crumbling empire.”

This is the point Pope Francis is making: people must be attracted by the love Christians exhibit rather than some form of emotional, psychological, or social coercion. So in the interview, he says to Eugenio Scalfari, “It is love of others, as our Lord preached. It is not proselytizing; it is love. Love for one’s neighbor, that leavening that serves the common good.” Scalfari replies, “Love your neighbor as yourself?” And the Pope says, “Exactly so.”

Neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis have any intention that Catholics should stop evangelizing. However, they are aware that a preaching that consists only of laying down the law or presenting doctrinal precepts to be affirmed is in adequate. Preaching the Gospel must be in words and works. The Gospel of love must be shown through lives of self-sacrificial love.

When Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Good News, he expected us not only to proclaim the message, but first to be transformed by it. Once we are transformed by the Gospel of the Risen Lord, we will be able to radiate his life and love into the world with great power. This is the same message communicated by Bl. Pope John Paul in his apostolic letter, Into the New Millennium.

In that manifesto for the New Evangelization, John Paul II reminds all Catholics of the primacy of love as the heart of the evangelistic effort, and with ringing tones he calls us:

“Let us go forward in hope! A new millennium is opening before the Church like a vast ocean upon which we shall venture, relying on the help of Christ. The Son of God, who became incarnate two thousand years ago out of love for humanity, is at work even today: we need discerning eyes to see this and, above all, a generous heart to become the instruments of his work. ... Now, the Christ whom we have contemplated and loved bids us to set out once more on our journey: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The missionary mandate accompanies us into the Third Millennium and urges us to share the enthusiasm of the very first Christians: we can count on the power of the same Spirit who was poured out at Pentecost and who impels us still today to start out anew, sustained by the hope “which does not disappoint.”

________

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is the parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville, South Carolina. Browse his books, visit his blog and be in touch at dwightlongenecker.com.

==========================================

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30851

MORE FROM THE DISASTROUS NEW POPE

Matt Kennedy

October 1, 2013

________

This time Pope Francis decides to correct Jesus’ faulty missiology:

“Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good ...”

Compare with:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

It’s a good thing we have the Pope to interpret scripture for us. I mean who would have known that when Jesus instructed his followers to make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Trinity and teach them to follow all his commands, he really meant: get to know everybody and tell them to follow their own consciences.

In answer to a question about whether or not there is an absolute “good’, the Pope answered:

“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good ... .Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

Compare with:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:12-18)

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)

No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:18)

It’s difficult to believe that any pope asked about the nature of truth and goodness would encourage fallen human beings to follow whatever ‘vision’ of good they possess. Not only is it morally absurd (the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and the Klu Klux Klan were/are all following their vision of the good) it is biblically repugnant. No one is good but God. The human heart is deceived. When groups of human beings do what is right in their own eyes, it never ends well. This is precisely why Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and rebellion (John 16:8) and commissions his church to call all human beings to repent and surrender to him. Apart from Jesus Christ the world is not and can never be “a better place” no matter how much people follow their vision of good.

Now we wait. It shouldn’t be long before we’re treated to the now familiar sight of conservative Catholic bloggers desperately trying to persuade us and themselves that Pope Francis really didn’t say what he said, that he was mistranslated or that he is misunderstood. Nonsense. The Pope is not a stupid man. He knows the import of his words and the media/cultural context in which he speaks them. At some point my Catholic friends need to face facts. This pope is a disaster for Rome. It’s not as if he is the first papal disaster ... but he’s the first in quite a long time. He’s going to undo at least some of John Paul II’s and Benedict’s work. Liberal Catholicism will rise from the dead and gain ground. The sooner you realize that the more prepared you’ll be to endure the next 15 or so years of his papacy.

=====================================

THE POPE’S ‘LONG PATH’

Baptist Press

Russell D. Moore

October 1, 2013

________

It’s another week and thus another interview with Pope Francis. This one, I’m sorry to say, is more than just confusing. It’s a theological wreck.

In an interview with La Repubblica in Rome, the Pope responded to a question about whether there is a “single vision of good” by saying, “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

The Pope also said, “The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood.” When the reporter commented, “Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me,” the Pope said, “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”

From Augustine’s “Confessions” to “Well, everyone has his own ideas about good and evil....” is a mighty long path.

First of all, I am a Protestant so, of course, I do not accept the church’s claims about the papal chair as Vicar of Christ. But though I protest, I don’t throw rocks (no Petrine pun intended). My mother’s side of the family was and is Roman Catholic, and some of the most significant influences in my life personally and intellectually are Roman Catholics.

Second, I don’t dislike Pope Francis. I think he is quite right about the primacy of Christ’s Gospel over the culture wars. In my much smaller pool and from my much smaller perch, I’ve tried to say that outrage itself isn’t a Christian virtue. Our mission ought to be toward reconciliation, not the vaporization of our perceived enemies.

But.

If Pope Francis wishes to reclaim the gospel’s primacy, he must simultaneously speak with kindness to those outside of its reach and speak of the need for good news. What these interviews seem continually to do is what evangelical theologian Carl Henry warned Protestants of in the 20th century, of severing the love of God from the holiness of God. God is, Henry said, against both the liberal Social Gospel and obscurantist and angry fundamentalism, the God of both justice and justification.

Without speaking to the conscience, and addressing what the sinner already knows to be true about the day of giving an account, there is not love, only the consigning of the guilty conscience to accusation and condemnation. If the church is right about the personhood of unborn children (and I think it is), then why would we not be “obsessed” about speaking for them, and for the women and men whose consciences are tyrannized by their past sins?

It is not good news to say to such consciences, “Well, we’re all brothers and sisters,” if what they feel in their psyches and read in their Bibles (and in their Catholic catechisms) is that those who commit such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We must speak with tenderness and gentleness, but with an authoritative word from God, that there is a means of reconciliation. The burdened conscience doesn’t wish to hear “It’s all OK.” The burdened conscience is freed by “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ” (Romans 8:1).

There’s little purpose in refighting the Protestant Reformation here, but we do, in some sense, return to Martin Luther’s problem. With a guilty conscience, he could find no way to reconciliation in himself or by the purported economy of grace. In the church, he saw rules and rituals but, in that, felt only condemnation.

But opposite a harsh, rule-oriented Christianity is a way that is just as condemning, a way that we’ve seen often in hyper-Protestant communions: the tendency to downplay sin at all. This leaves sinners like us in a kind of earthly purgatory that never purges, and leads us to hide from the face of God because, like our first parents, we know who we are and what we’ve done.

I’m in no position to advise the Bishop of Rome, but I hope we’ll see a fuller-orbed message from him. I’m with Pope Francis on the need for kindness but I pray it will be a convictional kindness that addresses both the reality of God’s holy justice and His reconciling love.

There appears no sense in dying anymore, especially if one is living in a Roman Catholic diocese run by a bishop who chooses to adhere to the strictness of the Vatican book rather than listen to the strings of a more pastoral heart.

Bishop Richard W. Smith recently issued “newly revised guidelines,” not only for Roman Catholic funerals, but for the disposal of the dearly departed should cremation be chosen as the method of dealing with the loved one’s body.

Those guidelines, in fact, filled two pages.

And they removed all fun from dying.

About the only good thing about funerals, at least in my book, are the eulogies given by friends and family that aid and abet the mourning process, and open the memory bank to the times when life was played out in technicolour.

Joy, at a funeral, is presented by tears mixed with laughter.

When I die, I want them rolling in the aisles.

Unless I find a Catholic priest who is willing to bend the rules, however, this will not happen.

In the Ecclesia newspaper, it was explained this way:

“The word ‘eulogy’ refers to speech or writing that offers high

praise, particularly for one who has died,” the document begins.

“When Christians gather for the funeral Mass, we do so to praise

God the Father. We gather not to praise the deceased but to pray

for them. For this reason, eulogies are not given.”

Well, I disagree. God gets His fair share of praise and, while more praise is always good, we go to funerals not because of God but because of the person who died. Otherwise, why go to funerals?

And then there is the decree about the music that can be played at Catholic funerals -- one which now bans secular or recorded music as being “not appropriate in church.”

This, too, is disturbing.

As someone who has sung Stand By Me on virtually every continent except Antarctica, and this is with or without a couple of gins under my belt, it will be in my last will and testament that it be played at my funeral as they wheel my still-warm ashes out the front door.

In fact, I will hopefully be the one singing it -- having already set into motion having it recorded on a CD, a project necessitated by the loss of the tape which had me performing my “signature tune” at the ultra-posh Maple Leaf Ball in London back in 1989, and accompanied by a 12-piece orchestra, no less.

So, what now? Have it blaring from the hearse?

And, speaking about ashes, what about them?

According to these “recently-revised” Guidelines for the Celebration of Funerals:

“scattering cremated remains over water, in the air, on the

ground, separating them for placement in different locations, or

keeping them in homes, does not display appropriate Christian

reverence and hope, and should therefore not be done.”

This throws another spanner into the works.

There is a lake in northern Saskatchewan, for example, named Bonokoski Lake -- named in honour of my father’s first cousin, Daniel Bonokoski, an RCAF officer who was shot down during a bombing mission over Berlin near the end of the World War II.

I made a pilgrimage to that lake some years ago, flying there in a bush plane from a remote village on the border of the Northwest Territories, and then I wrote about for a Remembrance Day issue of this newspaper.

And I want some of my ashes tossed in that lake, and a few more into Baptiste Lake, outside Bancroft, where my family now makes its home.

The rest can go in an urn -- a big urn, since I am claustrophobic -- and buried in the family plot at St. Francis Xavier Cemetery in Brockville, next to my father and my brother.

I once joked that I wanted my ashes put in pepper shakers and distributed in restaurants across the country.

But I’ve since changed my mind.

Perhaps the church will see this as a concession on my part, and loosen up on the eulogy and the music.

Otherwise, what’s the sense of dying?

During the season of Lent, some Americans give up chocolate or another favorite food. Others dump guilty pleasures like binge-watching television or social media.

But most give up Lent.

Three-quarters of Americans (76 percent) say they don’t typically observe Lent, according to a survey from Nashville-based LifeWay Research released in April 2017.

Unlike other Christian traditions like celebrating Easter or Christmas, Lent seems to lack crossover appeal, said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. It remains a religious event, he said, rather than one that appeals to a broader public.

That’s in part, McConnell suspects, because Lent focuses on giving things up in order to gain spiritual benefits in preparation for Easter. There’s no social benefit to Lent like giving gifts or getting together with family.

It’s a religious tradition that remains focused on personal devotion, McConnell said. “Lent is not about having your best life now,” he said. “Those who observe it believe they are giving up things they want in order to focus on what God wants. There’s little popular appeal in that.”

Lent, which begins on Ash Wednesday and ends during Holy Week, is traditionally seen as a time of preparation for Easter. Part of that preparation, for some, includes various forms of fasting as a spiritual discipline -- a practice that dates back to the early church. Lent traditionally lasts for 40 days (excluding Sundays), a time frame established after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

Catholics (61 percent) remain most likely to observe Lent, according to LifeWay’s survey. Protestants (20 percent) and those with evangelical beliefs (28 percent) are less likely.

Forty-three percent of those who attend church at least once a month observe Lent. That includes 82 percent of Catholics who regularly attend service as well as 30 percent of Protestants.

Older Americans, those over 55, are more likely to observe Lent (30 percent) than those under 55 (20 percent). Hispanic Americans (36 percent) and Christians in general (35 percent) also are more likely to observe Lent. Those from non-Christian faiths (12 percent), “Nones” with no denominational affiliation (4 percent) and those who attend services less than once a month (15 percent) are less likely.

McConnell said the degree of popularity of Lent among those with evangelical beliefs is surprising. Lent is often associated with Catholics and Mainline Protestants from more liturgical denominations. But it holds appeal for evangelicals as well, he said.

For one pastor, however, Lent stirs reticence.

Rob Pochek, pastor of First Baptist Church on Park Street in Charlottesville, Virginia, wrote in a 2015 blog, “It seems to me that any attempt I may make [to observe Lent] does not memorialize the death of Christ as much as it trivializes it.”

Pochek, who respectfully noted that his mother’s side of the family is Catholic, including three great aunts who are nuns and a great uncle who is a priest, wrote, “In one sense, the death of Christ was the most horrific thing in all of human history.... At the same time, it was the most glorious of all deaths. In the death of Jesus, God reconciled the world to Himself.” Pochek, contacted by Baptist Press on Feb. 15, 2017, said the 2015 column continues to reflect his outlook toward Lent.

Giving up food, bad habits

LifeWay asked Americans who observe Lent about how they observe this Christian tradition.

Fasting from a favorite food or beverage (57 percent) and going to church (57 percent) are the most common ways to observe Lent. Additional prayer (39 percent), giving to others (38 percent) or fasting from a bad habit (35 percent) also are popular. Fasting from a favorite activity is less common (23 percent).

Fasting from a favorite food or beverage is more common in the West (62 percent) than the Northeast (42 percent). Young Americans, those 18 to 24, who observe Lent are more likely to choose this option (86 percent) than those over 65 (43 percent). Catholics (64 percent) are more likely give up a food or drink than Protestants (43 percent).

Midwesterners observing Lent are more likely to pray more (52 percent) than those in the Northeast (29 percent) or South (35 percent). Those who attend services at least once a month are more likely to pray more (55 percent) than those who don’t (18 percent).

Hispanic Americans (34 percent) are more likely to give up a favorite habit than white Americans (17 percent). They are also more likely to give up a bad habit (50 percent) than white Americans (30 percent) or those from other ethnicities (11 percent).

Catholics (46 percent) are more likely to give to others while observing Lent than Protestants (32 percent). Those who go to church at least once a month (49 percent) are more likely to give to others than those who don’t attend church as often (22 percent).

Those with evangelical beliefs (71 percent) are more likely to go to church during Lent than those without evangelical beliefs (54 percent). Those who attend church at least once a month go to church more during Lent (76 percent) than those who don’t (32 percent).

“There’s a lot more to Lent than giving things up,” McConnell said. “Americans who observe Lent also take other steps -- like praying, giving and going to church more -- to practice their faith.”

On February 25, 2004, Icon films, will be releasing Mel Gibson's much anticipated film The Passion of the Christ. The date of the release was deliberately chosen to coincide with the Roman Catholic holy day of Ash Wednesday, and is indicative of the fact that for Gibson, his film was more of a work of devotion than a money making enterprise. In an interview on the Roman Catholic Television Network EWTN, Gibson candidly stated why this movie is so different from all his others, “It reflects my beliefs-I've never done that before.”[1] He is also quite open about his desire to see his movie used for worldwide evangelism. Many noted Evangelicals including James Dobson and Billy Graham have also come forward to endorse The Passion of Christ and recommend its use as a teaching tool. Currently, The Passion of Christ is riding a groundswell of nationwide support from both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, with many well-known Evangelical congregations, such as best selling author and Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church which purchased 18,000 tickets at seven theatres, doing everything they can to ensure that The Passion of Christ will be a smash hit amongst Christians and “seekers”. Expressing a widely held view amongst the film's supporters, Lisa Wheeler, associate editor of Catholic Exchange, a Web portal dedicated to Catholic evangelism, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “It's the best evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus.”[2]

But should Evangelicals be supporting The Passion of Christ and endorsing its use as an Evangelism tool? Is this really the best evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus?[3] After careful consideration my conclusion is an unequivocal “No.” Here then are five reasons why I believe Evangelicals should not see or recommend the Passion of Christ.

1) Its Origins: Even though Evangelicals are promoting The Passion of Christ, it is not an Evangelical movie. As Mel Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic put it so well; “It reflects my beliefs.” The Passion of Christ is a Roman Catholic movie, made by a Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic theological advisers, which gained the endorsement of Pope John Paul II who said after viewing it, “It is as it was.”[4] This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics. By contrast, The Passion of Christ has already proven its effectiveness as an evangelism tool in producing Catholic conversions and encouraging Catholic devotion:

“In his first nationally broadcast interview about his starring role in Mel Gibson's much-anticipated film “The Passion of Christ,” James Caviezel - Gibson's Jesus - detailed on Friday the ordeal of filming the Crucifixion scenes, noting that the overall experience prompted many in the crew to convert to Catholicism.”

...

“Noting “the amount of conversions on the movie,” he said the experience of filming Christ's story “really changed people's lives.”

“Caviezel recalled telling Gibson, “I think it's very important that we have mass every day - at least I need that to play this guy.”

“I felt if I was going to play him I needed [the sacrament] in me. So [Gibson] provided that.”[5]

2) Its Script: Although it is widely thought that the script for the movie is based entirely on the gospel according to John, this is not the case. The script for The Passion of Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich's book was his primary inspiration for making the movie. By introducing extrabiblical elements, not only does The Passion of Christ change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion, but it will also create a false impression amongst the very “seekers” that Evangelicals are trying to reach, that things were said and done at the crucifixion that did not actually happen. For Evangelicals, who would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible that put words into the mouth of Christ that He never spoke, to endorse a movie that does the very same thing seems hopelessly inconsistent. Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocrypha precisely because these books were fabricated and contained inauthentic material, despite the fact that these books might have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.

The script for The Passion of Christ not only adds things that didn't occur in the Bible, it cuts out other things that did. The most widely known example of this is the important declaration, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25)

The script for The Passion of Christ was translated into Aramaic and Latin by Father William Fulco, an old friend of Mel Gibson's. This was not done for reasons of making it more authentic.[6] The language decisions in the Passion of Christ were made for theological reasons:

“It is crucial to realize that the images and language at the heart of “The Passion of the Christ” flow directly out of Gibson's personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and mysterious forms - the 16th-century Latin Mass.

“I don't go to any other services,” the director told the Eternal Word Television Network. “I go to the old Tridentine Rite. That's the way that I first saw it when I was a kid. So I think that that informs one's understanding of how to transcend language. Now, initially, I didn't understand the Latin. ... But I understood the meaning and the message and what they were doing. I understood it very fully and it was very moving and emotional and efficacious, if I may say so.”

The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the “sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar - which is the same thing,” said Gibson. This ancient union of symbols and sounds has never lost its hold on him. There is, he stressed, “a lot of power in these dead languages.”

Thus, the seemingly bizarre choice of Latin and Aramaic was actually part of the message.”[7]

The script of The Passion of Christ was specifically intended to link the crucifixion of Christ with what Roman Catholics believe is the re-sacrificing of Christ that occurs in the mass. Gibson's intent is to show us that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar (the mass) are the same thing. Protestant Evangelicals have historically rejected the idea that Christ can be sacrificed again and declared it “abominable.” Speaking of the concept that the Crucifixion and the mass is the same thing, the Protestant Westminster Confession declares:

“In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.”[8]

3) Its Theology: Gibson's comment about the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of the cross shows the indispensable link in this movie between the Catholic view of Christ's sacrifice and the portrayal of the Crucifixion in The Passion of Christ. The fact that Evangelicals have uncritically endorsed it speaks volumes about how far the Evangelical Protestant understanding of Christ's death and the related subject of Justification have slipped since the Reformation. In Roman Catholic theology the intense physical suffering of Christ's Crucifixion is the focus along with the emphasis on physical sacrifice. This is one of the reasons why in Roman Catholic iconography we have so much imagery related to Christ's physical pain and that crucifixes show him still suffering on the cross (the sacrifice of the mass means that Christ's declaration that His once for all sacrifice is completed - “it is finished” (John 19:30), never actually comes, and that His suffering has to be constantly repeated). This emphasis on Christ's physical agony is repeated in Roman Catholic devotional material, prayers, and of course the Passion of Christ. The theology of the Bible, however, points out to us that the grand importance of Christ's crucifixion lay not in His physical suffering, but in His once for all propitiation of God's wrath (1 John 4:10). Lest we forget, the greatest torment that Christ experienced on the cross was not caused by the nails driven into His flesh, but in His being made “sin for us” and vicariously suffering the righteous punishment of the Father in our place. Even the worst physical torments inflicted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans upon Jesus were nothing by comparison to the anguish of having the sins of all the elect imputed to Him and making full satisfaction for them. Satisfying the justice of the Romans on a cross was comparatively easy; thousands of condemned men and women including Spartacus and several of the Apostles did that, but only Christ could satisfy the justice of God.

Also central to the Christian Gospel, but missing from The Passion of Christ, is the concept of Christ's active obedience. Christ not only died for the sins of His sheep on the cross but He established their righteousness through His perfect obedience to God's Law. It is only if His passive obedience in dying on the cross and His active obedience in keeping the law are imputed to believers per 2 Cor. 5:21 that believers will be justified before almighty God. The Passion of Christ does not even make any pretence of teaching the active obedience of Christ, the entire notion of which is alien to Roman Catholic theology. Therefore if Evangelicals intend to use this as a Gospel teaching tool, they must understand that at best they are teaching only half a gospel, and that the half they are teaching is defectively presented.

The sacrifice of Christ was a glorious event in which, in accordance with God's plan, full satisfaction for sin was procured by Christ on behalf of His people (Acts 2:43). The Passion of Christ leaves us with a vision of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous (Dolorous: Full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; dismal) and which puts into sharp relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of the importance of Christ's agony, but that of Mary in “offering her Son.” In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service, Father Thomas Rosica, the priest who oversaw World Youth Day 2002 and its Way of the Cross through the streets of Toronto, illustrated how The Passion of Christ, in keeping with Roman Catholic theology, uses extrabiblical content to massively exaggerate the role of Mary:

“One scene, in particular, was very moving. As Jesus falls on the Way of the Cross, there is a flashback to his falling on a Jerusalem street as a child, and his mother running out of the house to pick him up. The interplay of Mary and Jesus in this film is moving, and reaches its apex in the scene of the Pietà.

The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and behold her Son.”[9]

This use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on physical suffering, exaggeration of the role of Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic theology should not surprise us, however, as these are all hallmarks of the primary inspiration for this movie: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me give two examples of what I mean especially as concerns the replacement of physical pain for the far greater agony of sin bearing:

“He will not stretch himself out, but we will help him;' they accompanied these words with the most fearful oaths and imprecations, and having fastened a rope to his right leg, dragged it violently until it reached the wood, and then tied it down as tightly as possible. The agony which Jesus suffered from this violent tension was indescribable; the words 'My God, my God,' escaped his lips, and the executioners increased his pain by tying his chest and arms to the cross, lest the hands should be torn from the nails.”[10]

...

“The hour of our Lord was at last come; his death-struggle had commenced; a cold sweat overspread every limb. John stood at the foot of the Cross, and wiped the feet of Jesus with his scapular. Magdalen was crouched to the ground in a perfect frenzy of grief behind the Cross. The Blessed Virgin stood between Jesus and the good thief, supported by Salome and Mary of Cleophas, with her eyes riveted on the countenance of her dying Son. Jesus then said: 'It is consummated;' and, raising his head, cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ These words, which he uttered in a clear and thrilling tone, resounded through heaven and earth; and a moment after, he bowed down his head and gave up the ghost. I saw his soul, under the appearance of a bright meteor, penetrate the earth at the foot of the Cross. John and the holy women fell prostrate on the ground.”[11]

Emmerich's book is literally filled with scenes like those above, and includes many extra-biblical sayings of Jesus which Sister Anne says she personally heard in her visions.

4) Its Medium: Many Evangelical Pastors are hailing movies like The Passion of Christ as part of a new and better way of spreading the Gospel:

“This is a window of opportunity we have. Here's a guy who's putting his money into a movie that has everything to do with what we do,” said pastor Cory Engel of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Mont.

“Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on Sunday morning. People don't interact that way anymore. Here's a chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible,” the Rev. Engel said.”[12]

It is indeed true that we live in a highly visual and increasingly anti-literate society that places a premium on sound bites and easily assimilated visual imagery, but does this mean that we should abandon preaching in favor of using movies or dramatic presentations? We need to remember that the last time dramatic presentations replaced preaching as the main vehicle by which the truth of the Bible was communicated was during the middle-ages when the church refused to allow the translation of the Bible into common languages and when in place of the preaching and teaching of God's word, the common people were given visual presentations such as Passion Plays, statues, relics, and icons. These things were designed, like most visual imagery, to play upon the emotions and stimulate a response; but the ability to evoke an emotional response via imagery or drama is not the same as successfully transmitting the Gospel. The means that God has ordained for the transmission of the Gospel, was neither drama, imagery, nor even “lectures” - it is preaching. Preaching involves the communication of the Gospel in a way that patiently convinces, rebukes, exhorts, and teaches (2 Timothy 4:2-4). The Bible teaches us the awesome importance of preaching and why it cannot be replaced by another medium:

We must preach God's Word regardless of how unpopular it is because we are commanded to do so: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

We must preach God's Word because it always accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isa.55:9-11)

God does not command us to produce dramatic presentations of Gospel themes, He commands us to preach. Though this option was freely available to the Apostles as they brought the Gospel to cities with amphitheaters and a long tradition of using the dramatic arts to convey religious and moral themes to the populace they did not do so. The wisdom of the Apostolic methodology has been borne out by the fact that it was when the Gospel was being transmitted primarily by plays and symbolism that true Christianity began to sink under the weight of superstition. We are in danger of returning to precisely that state of affairs by reviving the teaching methodology of the medieval church. Even though it was produced in the 21st century, The Passion of Christ is identical in all critical aspects to the Passion Plays of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

5) Its Main Character: Billy Graham in his endorsement of The Passion of Christ said, “Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind.”[13] This is unfortunately part of the problem with all visual representations of Jesus. Although we may intend for them only to have a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of our worship and adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the “Jesus” of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus Christ. To do this is to fall into the trap of changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man” (Romans 1:23) and to violate the Second Commandment.

Every visual representation of Jesus is inevitably a lie. There are two main reasons for this.

The first reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is because the only wise God went to great lengths not to leave us with any description of the physical appearance of His Son lest we fall into the sin of image making. Therefore all of our representations of Jesus are inevitably speculations usually based upon our own desires. We create an image of Jesus that says more about the Jesus we want than the Jesus whom God sent.

For instance, isn't it remarkable that the Jesus of The Passion of Christ, as in almost all physical representations of Christ, is tall, slim, and handsome? Why should not The Son of David (Luke 18:38) have been a relatively small man like His great ancestor? It never seems to have occurred to most image-makers that Jesus could be relatively short, or stout, or even have had a receding hairline. This is in spite of the fact that one of the few details the Bible does give us about Christ's appearance is that “He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.” (Is. 53:2b) The fact that we have any concept of what Jesus looks like and that Gibson's Jesus looks like the traditional Jesus, is a testament to the abiding impact of past iconography. While the Gospels, purposely leave out any description of Jesus that we might use to construct an idol, people have created an image of Jesus that has become almost an industry standard, and it is solely for that reason rather than any basis in fact that audiences would have been outraged had Gibson cast Danny DeVito and not James Caviezel in the leading role.

The Second reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is that they can never hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature. The best an image of Jesus can do is to represent him as a man, and while Jesus was truly a man, He was not merely a man. Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who has ever lived could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of Jesus as God. While this may not appear to be a problem to us, the separation of Christ's manhood from His deity is actually a grave heresy called Nestorianism. We must not therefore attempt to separate what God has forever joined together.

For the first four centuries of its existence the church did not use pictures of Jesus as an aid to evangelism. This was despite the fact that they were bringing the gospel to highly visual cultures that had always used imagery to convey religious ideas. The initial movements towards making pictures of Christ were initially strongly opposed, and the practice was formally condemned by the church as late as 753 AD. Unfortunately, once they had taken hold of the public imagination, the practice of making visible representations of Christ proved difficult if not impossible to eradicate and gradually, pictures and dramatic representations of Jesus became quite commonplace in the church. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected the practice of making images of Jesus as a clear violation of the Second Commandment. They also rejected the notion that such images had a necessary role as “textbooks for the laity” and then proved that notion false by producing generations of other Protestants well versed in the word and familiar with their Savior although they had never once owned or seen a representation of him.

Rather than visual imagery, they relied on the preaching of the Word to save souls, and the gospel made great advances. If we return to the use of imagery and begin endorsing movies like The Passion of Christ, we will be returning to the very state of affairs the first Protestants struggled and died to reform. We must not think that merely endorsing one form of visible representation of Christ will not lead inevitably to others. For instance, it is impossible to make a coherent argument against the use of the crucifix in teaching the Gospel if we have already endorsed the use of a movie that portrays the crucifixion. Merely because one display is static and the other moving does not change their essential nature at all. The Passion of Christ is in essence, an animated Crucifix.

In closing, let me address a common objection, namely that we must use tools like The Passion of Christ in order to reach the lost and that if we don't we are “missing a great opportunity.”

Are we really missing an opportunity though? If we are convinced that using a Roman Catholic movie to present the Gospel is in essence a violation of God's law, how could we possibly use it? Should we sin that grace may abound?

Also, are we really certain that this will be as effective as we think in saving souls? J. Marcellus Kik in his PICTURES OF CHRIST addressed that very question and gave us some wise advice, which I think all Christians would do well to heed:

“But can it not help in the saving of souls, it is asked. But how? Looking at a picture of Christ hanging upon the cross tells me nothing. It does not tell me that He hung there for sin. It does not tell me that He hung there for my sin. It does not tell me that He is the Son of God. Only the Word of God does that. And it is the Word of God that has been given us to tell the story of salvation through the blood of Christ. It is not through the foolishness of pictures that sinners are converted but through the foolishness of preaching.

It is amazing how slowly unscriptural practices enter the Christian Church. We must at all times go back to the Scriptures. The Bible is our infallible guide. And if our practices and doctrines do not conform with the teachings of the Scriptures then we must eliminate them. The Bible instructs the Church not to make any likeness of Christ. The present day pictures of Christ are false and no one would make a serious claim that they resemble Christ upon earth. They separate His humanity from His deity. They do not at all give us a glimpse of His present glory. They are not condoned by the inspired apostles.

God has ordained the foolishness of preaching to evangelize the world. He has promised to attend the preaching of the Word with the power of the Holy Spirit. The so-called pictures of Christ are a hindrance and a temptation to idolatry. Let us cleanse the Temple of God from them.”[14]

Perhaps The Passion of Christ will provide Evangelicals with a great opportunity after all. They are being given a rare opportunity to reject the world's methods and to recommit themselves to fulfilling God's commission to preach the Gospel and to trust that that preaching will always accomplish what He pleases. Let us hope that they will seize it.

______________

1. 13-January-2004 -- EWTNews Feature http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=42801

2. “Churches Make 'Stunning' Show of Support for Gibson's 'Passion'“ Newsmax (Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004)

3. Interestingly enough, the actual death of Jesus on the cross produced hardly any conversions. It is the preaching of Christ Crucified that has historically been “the best opportunity for evangelism”

4. Papal Praise for “The Passion” “It Is as It Was,” John Paul II Says ZENIT (2003-12-18) ttp://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=46445

5 “Mel Gibson's 'Christ' Reveals Crucifixion” Newsmax (Sunday, Jan. 25, 2004)

6. This is especially true when one considers that all the Gospels were written in Koine Greek the common language of the area and not Aramaic or Latin.

7. “The passion of Mel Gibson” By TERRY MATTINGLY, Scripps Howard News Service, January 21, 2004

8. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29.2

9. Father Thomas Rosica on Mel Gibson's “The Passion”, National Director of World Youth Day 2002 Weighs in on Film (2004-02-06) http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=48636

10. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich

11. Ibid.

12. “Churches Make 'Stunning' Show of Support for Gibson's 'Passion'“, Newsmax (Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004)

13. “What Others Are Saying” http://www.passionchrist.org/

14. “Pictures of Christ,” by J. Marcellus Kik

Andrew & Joy Webb

304 Broomfield Court

Fayetteville, North Carolina 28311

The world we now know is marked by religious pluralism and the clash of worldviews. The modern world brings individuals and groups of different belief systems into both proximity and potential conflict. How should Christians respond when asked about this? Should Christians “respect” other religions?

Headlines throughout the world announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting Jordan, spoke of his “respect” for Islam. This came on the heels of the Pope’s notorious 2006 speech at Germany’s Regensburg University. In that speech Benedict quoted Emperor Manuel II, one of the Byzantine monarchs, who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

The outrage throughout the Muslim world was immediate and overwhelming. The Pope issued clarifications and explanations, but Muslim outrage continued. This week, with the Pope scheduled to make his first papal visit to an Islamic country, the sensitivities were high.

The Vatican’s official transcript of the Pope’s comments at the Amman airport records him as saying: “My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.”

There are so many different angles to this situation. First, we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts. Second, we have the Pope speaking in diplomatic jargon, rather than in plain and direct speech. Third, we have the Pope speaking of “respect” without any clear understanding of what this really means. Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam?

Actually, he probably does -- at least within the context of a salvific inclusivism. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are “included in the plan of salvation” by virtue of their claim to “hold the faith of Abraham.”

In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God’s salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ’s salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.

Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of “respecting” Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. Within the context of official Catholic teaching, the Pope can create a fusion of diplomacy and doctrine.

While evangelical Christians face a different context to this question, the urgency is the same. We are not playing a diplomatic role as head of state, but we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and His Gospel.

In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive.

This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.” To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.

Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.

Billionaire Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza, is a staunch Catholic. Here is how he sums up his theology:

“I was taught -– and I bought it -– that if I live a certain way I’m going to go to Heaven, and if I live a certain way I was going to go to Hell,” he said. “And that’s for eternity. And Hell was worse than anything you can imagine here. Heaven was better than anything you can imagine. So, to me, it’s all that simple. I get it, and I want other people to get it, too, for their own benefit. Is that illogical? Is that insanity? I don’t know. I don’t want to go to Hell.”

Several years ago a pastor in Pennsylvania, concerned for the salvation of the many Roman Catholics in his community, invited me to come up and teach a seminar. First he asked me to send some of our publications so he could become more familiar with our ministry. After reviewing our Gospel tracts, he called me to cancel the seminar because he discovered that I teach the assurance of salvation. I explained to him that assurance is what makes God’s plan of salvation “good news.” God promises to save forever those who come to Him through Jesus (Heb. 7:25). I asked him what good news do you have to share with Catholics if you preach eternal life is not everlasting but can be lost? Catholics already adhere to a “maybe” salvation that depends on what they do rather than what God has done through Jesus Christ. After many exchanges, this pastor was unwilling to believe God’s promise, that everyone who has been saved by grace through faith in Jesus shall be brought to glory.

Those who reject the doctrine of eternal security tend to place more emphasis on the subjective experiences of “professing” Christians than the objective truth of Scripture. They may know someone who was baptized, repeated a prayer or responded to an altar call, then later rejected the faith or turned to a life of habitual sin. These experiences become their proof that salvation has no assurance. But is there any way to know if these people were born again? Judging someone’s spiritual condition is risky because no one can see a person’s heart. Opponents of assurance focus on man’s failures rather than on God’s divine power. Such misunderstandings can be overcome by discarding human reason and accepting divine revelation. Faith should not rest on the wisdom of man but on the power of God (1 Cor. 2:5).

CONSIDER THE WORD “ETERNAL”

The “eternal” Gospel (Rev. 14:6) of our “eternal” God (Rom. 16:26) promises every believer “eternal” life (1 John 5:13) and “eternal” glory (1 Pet. 5:10) in His “eternal” kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11). The “eternal” King (1 Tim. 1:16) called salvation “eternal” (Mark 16:20) because He has given believers “eternal” comfort (2 Thes. 2:16) by obtaining “eternal” redemption through the “eternal” Spirit who guarantees an “eternal” inheritance (Heb. 9:12-15; Eph. 1:14). According to God’s “eternal” purpose (Eph. 3:11), every believer has been saved from “eternal” judgment (Heb. 6:2), “eternal” destruction (2 Thes. 1:9) and “eternal” punishment in the “eternal” fire (Mat. 25:41, 46).

Eternal life is not only an infinite quantity of time (people in hell will live forever), but an eternal quality of life. It is an intimate relationship with Jesus whereby His life and divine nature is placed in every believer and every believer is in Him (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 5:20). This life begins at the second birth when those who were dead in their sins are made alive in Christ (Eph. 2:4). Eternal life is everlasting because the very life of Christ (who can never die again) has been imparted to believers (Rom. 6:9). But this leads to a provocative question. Knowing that sin is what brings spiritual death to the soul, what keeps Christians from dying again when they sin after their conversion? The apostle Paul gives the answer. It is because God no longer counts sins against those who have trusted Jesus as their substitute (Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:21). God laid all their sins, past and future, on Jesus (Isaiah 53:6). Our kinsman redeemer “bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24). “With His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). Everyone redeemed has been bought with the precious blood of Jesus and now belongs to Him. Eternal redemption and eternal security are thus one and the same.

Those who reject eternal security must explain why they do not also reject everything else described as eternal, such as the eternal triune God and His punishment for unbelievers. They must also be able to answer — with Scripture — some other relevant questions. Can those who have been redeemed from under the curse of the law be placed back under it (Gal. 3:13; 4:5)? Can one, who has been born again of incorruptible seed, die again (1 Pet. 1:23)? Can a new creation return to what has passed away (2 Cor. 5:17)? Can one who has been perfected forever be found imperfect (Heb. 10:14)? Can those whom God delivered from the power of darkness be sent back (Col. 1:13)? Can those who have been made complete in Christ become incomplete (Col. 2:10)? Can those who were saved without merit or human effort be lost because of demerits or human failure (Eph. 2:8-9)? Does any man have the ability to undo a sovereign act of Almighty God (Rom. 8:28-39)?

CONSIDER THE PROMISES OF JESUS

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life (John 5:24). “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28). Jesus also promises never to cast out or lose anyone that His Father gives Him (John 6:37, 39). The promises of Jesus to all believers are clear and are guaranteed by His divine power and attributes. Having received eternal life, the sheep will follow the Shepherd who will keep them and protect them. Jesus promises they will never be judged for their sins, will not experience spiritual death, shall not perish and will never be cast out or lost. How can Christians say they trust Jesus and not believe His promises?

CONSIDER THE FATHER’S ROLE WITH THE SPIRIT

God the Father has caused His children to be born again to a living hope. They are now protected by His power and will obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and reserved for them in heaven (1 Pet. 1:3-5). This inheritance has been securely guaranteed by the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:11-14). The Father, who calls believers into fellowship with His Son, is faithful and will confirm them until the end (1 Cor. 1:8,9). He promises to glorify those He justifies (Rom 8:30). God’s children have this assurance: “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). On that spectacular day, all believers will be revealed with Him in glory (Col. 3:4). Everyone who has trusted Christ can have the same confidence as Paul who wrote: “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim. 1:12).

CONSIDER THE NATURE OF GOD’S GIFTS

Believers also have the assurance that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). The amazing gifts God gives to repentant sinners include eternal life (Rom. 6:23), the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45) and the righteousness of Jesus (Rom. 5:17). Those who have received these gifts will never again be separated from God and never come into judgment for their sins. Opponents of assurance will say that people can give back the gifts or throw them away. But where is the Scriptural support for this? God has credited the gift of righteousness to the believer’s account. Does man have access to God’s books to change His accounting?

CONSIDER GOD’S CHASTENING OF HIS SONS

The Lord knows those who are His and everyone who names the name of Christ must depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19). But what does God do with any of His children who persist in sinning? He chastens them, as a loving Father, so they will not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:32). God’s chastening has a purifying effect on those who do not judge themselves. His discipline will continue until there is repentance or until He calls them home. Those who fall away or fall into habitual sin without God’s chastening were never His children (Heb. 12:6-9).

The Roman Catholic Catechism (CCC) teaches that Catholics lose their salvation when mortal sins are committed (CCC, para. 1035). Catholics must do works of penance and merit enough grace to regain their salvation (CCC, para. 1456, 2027). Needless to say, Catholics can never be sure about their eternal destiny because, whenever man is involved in attaining and/or preserving his salvation, there can never be assurance. However, when man forsakes all efforts to save himself and believes the objective truth of the Gospel, he will be more certain of living eternally in heaven than one more day on earth. There is no way a mortal man can do maintenance on an eternal gift from God. Paul wrote, “For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all” (Rom. 4:16).

John wrote his first epistle to those “who believe on the name of the Son of God, in order that you may KNOW [Gk. oida] you have eternal life (1 John 5:13). The Greek word “oida” refers to a positive, absolute knowledge. True believers can rejoice in their salvation with absolute certainty and peace. The question for professing Christians is not “Will God will keep His promises?” but “Have I been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE?” This means forsaking all other attempts at salvation through sacraments, good works, indulgences, purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, obeying the Law and the intercession of Mary.

THERE IS ASSURANCE WHEN SALVATION IS OF GOD

• The Father calls and draws men according to His purpose and grace (John 6:44; 2 Tim. 1:9)

• The Spirit convicts the world of sin, judgment and righteousness (Jn. 16:8-11)

• The Son is proclaimed as the only Savior of the world (Acts 4:12). His Word of truth set captives free (John 8:32)

• God grants sinners repentance and gives them the gift of faith unto salvation (2 Tim. 2:25; Eph. 2:8)

• The Son exchanges the believer’s sin for His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). His blood cleanses all the believer’s sins (1 John 1:7). If the believer sins, He is their advocate (1 John 2:1)

• The Spirit regenerates, seals, indwells, intercedes, teaches and empowers the believer (Titus 3:5; Eph. 1:13; Rom. 8:26; 1 John 2:27)

• The Father protects, justifies and glorifies the believer (1 Pet. 1:5; Rom. 8:30)

THERE IS NO ASSURANCE WHEN SALVATION IS OF MAN

• The priest baptizes with water which is said to wash away original sin and regenerate Catholics as children of God (1213)

• The priest is said to have the power to impart the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of Confirmation (1302).

• The priest is said to have the power to forgive sins through the sacrament of penance (986)

• The sinner can perform acts of charity (1394) or earn indulgences (1471) to have sins forgiven

• The priest is said to have the power to call the Lord Jesus down from heaven to re-present Him as a sacrificial victim for the sins of the living and the dead (1367)

• The priest is said to offer the Lord Jesus Christ to Catholics in the Eucharistic wafer (1374)

• The priest performs last rites for Catholics for the forgiveness of their sins and to prepare them for eternity (1532)