Don’t tell people they are sinners!

Read this off one of the fastest growing churches website, which suggests that when gospel sharing, leave the sin issue out ‘kay? Its neither relevant nor important.

Most people are invited into a relationship with God by being told they are wrong, sinful, and in need of salvation. While this is certainly true, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, I certainly wouldn’t show up to a party where the basis of being invited was that I am a screw up. To have the first words of the Gospel of Christ be ones of condemnation present a false concept of the core of the gospel and of God’s love. I certainly don’t like being told that I am a bad person and I assume you don’t either. It’s no wonder people become defensive, cross their arms, and shut down before we get to our point in telling them they are sinners, being that God has forgiven them. Yet the topic sentence of the gospel is a guilty verdict and by the time we get to the good news of God’s undying love we have already put the world on its heels in a defensive position. God is the only Judge of sins I am not. I know what I have done and to condemn others of being sinners is not my place. I would rather have them know Jesus by his love. Remembering that Jesus came not to condemn the world but for its salvation is very important when we encounter the good news.  

What if the first thing that we thought of when we talked about the cross was the hope that it represents and the love of God not just the sin that held Christ there. Sin is only a part of the cross it is not the point. If we invited people into a relationship with a Loving, holy, and untamable God, I think people would be far more apt to listen to the good news and engage it. Then once the basis of their relationship with Jesus is love not sin they would realize the broken state of existence they are in. I believe God would show them that they need Christ and yet know that they are loved even as a broken person. 

How different would our lives as Christians be if at the core of our relationship with God was not the need of a savior but God’s love? That are the center of it all we knew that Jesus had hope in us and that God loved us. Our actions would not be driven by sin management, hiding our true selves, or fear; they would be actions of a free redeemed people. If the core of our relationship with God is mere redemption from sin we fall into so many traps. For instance what is there left to do once we realize that we are forgiven? Well, we could sit around and try to not sin anymore, but if we could have done that, then Christ died in vain. St. Paul writes pretty clearly that how Christ has redeemed us we are free from the law and from sin. Yet if at the center of our gospel is sin, there will be no way to get away from it. We would exist lives of guilt because we kept failing to be sinless. Yet most dangerous is that sin is not Godly and to have a gospel based on sin would be to create one that has something to do with God, but God would not be the foundation of it. To have a Gospel based on sin, is a gospel that is self focused and is no gospel at all.

If love is the center of our theology, then sin becomes a part of our live but we will be able to stop worrying about our own salvation and we will be able to act in freedom the freedom of faith. Our faith would not be measured in how little we sin, rather it will be seen in how we act in love. We would not be burdened with the guilt of a sinful life but we would be free to forgive and to love for we know that at the core of God is love. A gospel based on love is one that is based upon God. I would like to point something out that seems to go unnoticed in most Christian circles. Jesus walked around and taught before he was crucified. And when he arose from the dead he walked around and taught a little bit more. The cross was part of his ministry, It was not the whole deal. It is very important, but during those times of walking with us he also taught us about love. On the cross God shows us how love wins. I am not saying that sin is not an issue, sin is all around us and is very dangerous. As we love Christ more and more, we ought become more aware of our fallen state, yet we also become aware of grace more and more. Christ came for the salvation of the world from sin, but he came because of love. We need to put love first and then realize the effects of a life based on love

Pasted from <http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1928>

 

What makes the good news, good news? Is not the fact that God has loved the people of this world in spite of its sinfulness?

 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10) 

I mean c’mon, if the gospel was just, “hey, guess what, God loves ya! You wanna love him back?” what so good about that news? That kinda sounds like what I used to do in high school with the girls, thinking they’d be honoured that I’m interested in them (I learnt the hard way that that was rarely true). A cheesy pickup line.The basis of our relationship with God is not our accepting Christ, it’s based on what Christ has done on the cross. We are accepted in the beloved (Eph 1:6).If any suggest that we should cloak the sin problem, and focus only on the God’s love, they are preaching an incomplete gospel. Everybody hates a terrible sales pitch, especially one that emphasizes the desirable good of a product but only reveal the strings attached after they’ve bought in! Preaching an incomplete gospel does just that. No wonder we find so many ‘professing Christians’ in Christendom today. They are the offspring of an incomplete gospel, that doesn’t make known the need for repentance and confession of sin before God as part of their response to the glorious gospel of salvation offered to men through Christ.Paul warned the heretics in Galatia about a different gospel

But if even *we* or an angel out of heaven announce as glad tidings to you anything besides what we have announced as glad tidings to you, let him be accursed Gal 1:8   

what were the key elements of Paul’s gospel?

testifying to both Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 20:21    

1. REPENTANCE towards God
2. FAITH towards Christ

  Both need to be explained with love, care and sincerity, not with a holier than thou attitude.      

Christian Kungfu

Performed by the kungfu master himself, Benny Hinn

I’m glad his ministry is under investigation

Where is the golden compass pointing

Taken from Uplook.Org

WHERE IS THE GOLDEN COMPASS POINTING?

Written by Jabe Nicholson

Former school teacher and now best-selling children’s author Philip Pullman is on a mission. Although better known in Britain where his books have sold in the millions, Pullman and his ideas have come to America’s notice due to an upcoming movie, The Golden Compass, set for release in December. The Golden Compass (titled Northern Lights in the UK) is the first of Pullman’s acclaimed His Dark Materials trilogy, which, reports BBC News (Sunday, Oct 16, 2005), “tells of a battle against the church and a fight to overthrow God.” The U.S. Catholic League says The Golden Compass is “the least offensive of the three books” and warns that The Subtle Knife is “more overt in its hatred of Catholicism” and The Amber Spyglass “even more blatant.” I should say so—The Amber Spyglass recounts the death of God! The books are published by the well-known Scholastic Books, and made available for sale through the public school system. Pullman and the movie’s director Chris Weitz have made clear they have an agenda. Weitz described himself on one fan site as “a lapsed Catholic crypto-Buddhist,” writes the LA Times. Any idea why he’d be interested in such a series? Turns out that Pullman hates the Narnia series by C.S. Lewis and wants to provide an alternative. He has said that the Narnia books contain “a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice.” Robert McCrum in the Observer writes that Pullman “has found himself enthusiastically adopted as a myth-maker for ‘the children of a faithless age.’” Laura Miller, in a November 16, 2007 article entitled Far From Narnia comments in New Yorker magazine (not known for its conservative views): “He is one of England’s most outspoken atheists. In the trilogy, a young girl, Lyra Belacqua, becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium; another character, an ex-nun turned particle physicist named Mary Malone, describes Christianity as “a very powerful and convincing mistake.” Pullman once told an interviewer that “every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him.” On the occasion of Pullman winning the prestigious Whitbread Book of the Year prize for The Amber Spyglass, columnist Peter Hitchens wrote a column titled “This is the most dangerous author in Britain” (The Mail, Sunday, Jan 27, 2002, p. 63) He dubbed Pullman “the anti-Lewis, the one the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.” In it Hitchens made the following observations: “The atheists have driven God out of the classroom and off the TV and the radio, and done a pretty good job of expelling him from the churches as well. But one stubborn and important pocket of Christianity survives, in the Narnia stories of C.S. Lewis. Now here comes an opportunity to dethrone him and supplant his books with others which proclaim the death of God to the young.” Later in the article, Hitchens gives the following statement by Pullman given at an Oxford literary conference in August 2000: “We’re used to the Kingdom of Heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I’m of the devil’s party, like Milton. And I think it’s time we thought about a republic of Heaven instead of the Kingdom of Heaven. The King is dead. That’s to say I believe the King is dead. I’m an atheist. But we need Heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that Heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things the Kingdom of Heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver.” Hitchens observes: “Children instinctively like Lewis’s enthralling stories and often do not even notice their religious message, though it frequently goes deep into their minds and emerges later. How infuriating this is for liberal but literate parents, the sort of people who…want all the advantages of a Christian culture without the tiresome bother of having to worship a God they think they are too smart to believe in…” Now they have found an alternative

It can be quite ironic. Atheists ridicule christians for believing in something (supposedly) they can’t prove exists, and then do their level best to prove God doesn’t. Why prove something doesn’t exists, when it doesn’t exist?

An atheist observation

Given that Christians posit that God has singled out the Church for promulgating His views, one might expect Him to exercise a substantially more control. After all, the behavior of people appears to be the only evidence the Christian God is willing to offer on His own behalf - source undisclosed (on purpose)

Read this atheist comment today. No doubt it exudes lack of spiritual understanding, which is expected, but it also has something for us to think about.

Does it epitomize the state of the Christian church today?

Is the light of Christ really shining in our lives?