Monday, 2 February 2015

The False Theology of the Modern Evangelical

I have has enough frustrating annoying encounters with modern evangelicals to write a whole book about them. One of them in particular is a ministry staff worker. He says to me that he “admires” my zeal for evangelism, but yet castigates me for using the Law of the God, mocking and denigrating my efforts in evangelism, and also seeking to impose a burden on me. He imposes his rules of gentleness on me: to not go through the Law of God, but do away with it, to use “nuance” in my language, meaning to not speak in such as ‘direct’ manner  - a claim so ludicrous that no reasonable person would understand it.  As if speaking in a less direct manner to a sinner makes a difference to his convictions. Any convictions he has about his sin come from God, not the way one preaches. This evangelical, would then accuse me of hypocrisy in saying this all while being hypocritical himself – I have never ever even spoken about the manner of evangelism, let alone lecture someone or impose my direct and blunt characteristics on others.

He thinks that it is a sin to speak in a direct and blunt manner. That was the core of what he was once saying to me in his angry email exchange. He just had to argue, giving 10 statements and pages of garbage to each short reply I gave to him. Speaking in a direct and blunt manner about sin and Hell is a ‘modern sin’ in the modern church of today – one that fears man instead of God as many pastors and discerning believers have rightly pointed out. So, the claim that the modern church fears man instead of God is not my claim.  Rather, it is a very common and well-articulated fact as observed by many pastors such as Ray Comfort and Tony Miano.

Ray Comfort once alluded to the legalism of modern evangelism. He implied that modern evangelism seeks not to be ‘legalistic’, but imposes it own rules about not offending dying sinners. He is a pastor who emphasises that the Law of God must be used to bring knowledge of sin. He also once said on The Comfort Zone that God forbid them from ever failing to use the Law in any episode of the show.
He also loves to accuse me of hypocrisy for being annoyed at him for reading this blog. I was annoyed at him not because of fear of public criticism from him (as if ‘opinion’ matters), but rather because of his attitude and spirit that motivated him to read it. He has a spirit of hate and hostility against me in doing so. He vehemently said he does not want to be associated with the posts I write, but yet seeks to read it. Is this not hostility towards my ideas and me? I do not check his facebook page or ministry page to read what he teaches. So, I was not in any way being hypocritical. He, however, makes the false accusation against me that I tell him not to read my posts because I am “offended”. There is no such thing. He uses the accusation just to trap me like a Pharisee. He has indeed sought to trap me up several times, such as when he was asking me about how do I get to the Gospel using the Way of the Master, so that he can just make me feel not only discouraged about using Way of the Master, but frustrated and annoyed.

He treats the discouragement he has heaped on me as somewhat trivial, brushing it off with a casual apology when he has really done much more than that. He has confused me theologically, frustrated me, denigrated my efforts in evangelism, castigated me for my zeal in fighting sin, not directly, but with a false sense of ‘gentleness’ and false graciousness, and accused me of being a neo-nazi indirectly simply because I posted an article with nothing to do with Nazism, from a website which happens to have some pro-nazi material, assuming that I read the whole website. He has also shifted the blame on me for refusing to speak to him. Speaking to him I know will cause more confusion for me and frustration. That is why I refuse to have anything to do with him.

His theology is representative of many modern evangelicals.