The Lord is in a better position than his children to know who is faithful and who is not. The Lord knows the hearts of each person. The Lord rebuked Elijah’s spiritual arrogance with this surprise announcement:
“Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18, NIV)

How to view others who sincerely believe in Jesus but are, by affiliation, “not of us” (of our tradition, our denomination or our group) has always been of practical concern for the disciples of our Lord Jesus from the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Mainline Protestants denominations have wrestled with this question. The Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church also wrestled long and hard with this question. Every faithful Minister or other Shepherd wrestles with this question as well. There is a little narrative from Jesus which may shed some light on the question of how to relate with others. The narrative is recorded in two gospel records, those prepared by both Mark and Luke:
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you. And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”
(Mark 9:38-42 and Luke 9:49, NIV)

This short Gospel narrative exposes the very heart of the separatist, spiritually isolationist, sectarian posture which began to raise its ugly and divisive head even among Jesus’ very first disciples. Jesus personally rebuked his disciples for their self-righteous judgment of this unknown man they met though he was also serving “in the name of Jesus.”
Folks who believe in Jesus, but who may also be less biblically literate or more spiritually immature, are not to be rejected or marginalized. Jesus taught that to deal harshly with those who love him, even if they are “not one of us” is as sinful and shameful as abusing a little child. To reject them is to reject the One whom they are striving to honor and serve. This need to embrace all sincere believers, as Jesus taught, is part of the deep conviction held by Christians in Hope. This is why they feel that any rigid isolationistic mentality in the body of Christ must be rejected at any and all cost. They feel they dare not give into, perpetuate or display such spiritual ignorance and arrogance even for a moment.

So, basically a salvation issue, right? This is what I thought you meant. In a typical move, you retreated a bit and left final judgment up to God (for it does belong to him), but you’re basically saying that wrong teaching can affect one’s salvation. I agree. I’ve tried to make that point in several different ways on this board, but no one seems to bite.

The point of contention is not that there are salvation issues, but which teachings, believed wrongly, are worthy of the title.

You are the official hagiographer of Churches of Christ. To pretend the church was balanced . . . that it wasn’t exclusivistic . . . that it didn’t leave people despairing of any hope of salvation . . . you either weren’t there or you didn’t listen.

I’ve heard lots of ministers who don’t preach on the wrath of God to the extent that BB Baxter preached on the love of God. I bet, however, they preach on the wrath of God and the love of God to the extent he did. Wrath is a vital topic. But wouldn’t you say God’s love is a slightly larger topic — maybe a more dominant theme — in scripture? If not, you make my point.

Jimmy Allen’s sermon on hell was persuasion at its worst. And it betrayed a failure to understand metaphor.

ind things to say you (and Mike) had.

qnotyodab

Whether or not God is likely to have mercy on the Pharisees’ contemporary heirs for leading otherwise innocent people into the bondage they set forth as “gospel” is for Jehovah to decide, and I have no thought about an answer. But if Matthew’s rendering of the diatribe in chapter 23 is anywhere close to what Jesus actually said of the scribes and Pharisees, it at least SUGGESTS that bad theology can pose soteriological barriers for its naive adherents.

That’s all I meant.

qb

The problem with your post is that hell is in the New Testament. Jesus taught on hell and even gave grim descriptions of it (“Their worm dieth not”). Paul also wrote about hell (“taking vengence on them that know not God”), yet you at least seem to imply that Jimmy Allen was wrong to preach on hell so well to the point that one couldn’t sleep. I would say that he did his job.

The problem is one of balance and, once again, I think the accusations against the old church are not fair and precise. The old church was much more balanced in its approach to biblical opposites than the new, enlightened crowd. Just think . . . were you more likely to hear a sermon on heaven in Churches of Christ during the1950s or a sermon on hell at Highland, Richland Hills, Woodmont Hills, etc. in 2008? How about the love of God and the wrath of God? Do you actually believe that Mike would preach on the wrath of God to the extent that B. B. Baxter preached on the love of God?

Granted, I’m not saying that the old church was 100%, completely balanced in how it dealt with issues (wouldn’t that be like perfection anyway?), but the enlightened crowd is not the one to do the criticizing here because they are much more unbalanced in their approach to the harsher nature of God. And even when they do venture to mention hell, punishment, guilt, wrath-all biblical in nature-they apologize 15 minutes before they say what they’re going to say. I recently heard an enlightened guy preach on hell and the time he took apologizing for what he was going to say was longer than the time he spent on preaching hell. Is that the spirit we find in Jesus in the gospels? Is that how the apostles preached in Acts?

Oh, sorry, that pattern theology’s coming out again! Well, for the enlightened crowd: What emergent or missional principle makes it expedient and best not to deal with these issues as Jesus and the early church leaders did?

You said, “. . .a theological system where no one could hope to be saved.” Come on, man, be fair in your assessments. I know we have to generalize to a point because time and space are limited, but, man, it’s hard to even deal with statements like that.

“ . . . no one could hope to be saved.” Unbelievable.

What exactly did you mean by “soteriological consequecnes”? Please be specific.

“You diligently study the Scriptures, because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

Truly embracing Jesus as the living Word of God has been both challenging and freeing for me, given my particular religious upbringing, with its strengths and weaknesses. I am currently reading Richard Foster’s latest book, “Life with God,” which I am finding very insightful and helpful so far. I guess one of my greatest challenges is learning to move beyond striving for safety (religious and otherwise) to a willingness to radically trust in the loving leadership of the triune God and go with Him into places where I don’t have all the answers and structure figured out. I think it’s been kinda like the challenge Peter must have faced when God showed him the spread of unclean foods and told him to eat freely and not to call it unclean.

I do however have my fair share of frustrations with a whole number of shortcomings in our churches, but my wife reminds me often that I used to have many of the same opinions that I now despise and people loved me enough to be patient with me and nurture me without forcing their ideas on me. Now I hope that as I continue my education and my plans to be a theology professor someday, that I can lovingly, humbly, and gracefully nudge people toward a deeper understanding of their faith and a grater love for our God.

The first command God gave us (Gen 1) and the great commission (Matt. 28) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they fit together quite nicely.

I agree with Kyle; everyone here has more in common then they are letting on…but that’s how these discussion go I guess. I still enjoy the conversation.

Excellent response, and by far the most encouraging comment I’ve read in this thread.

Well, good to know there are some kind of standards.