Friday, October 3, 2008
My law school asks inmates in prisons about what they want taught, and that's what they teach. One of my classes, criminal law, was very helpful and informative before they dropped it after asking several inmates what they thought about the subject material. It turns out that there were a few of them who had been convicted of crimes, so they didn't really like the idea that what they had been justly accused and convicted of was being taught to others. The administration listened to their complaints, realized that it would offend the inmates to keep teaching on criminal law, and dropped it from the curriculum. Well, I guess that's great for the inmates, but what about me? What about people who've been the victims of criminal behavior and needs people to defend them from error? I really needed to know what that subject material was if I was ever going to be an effective lawyer and/or judge, but obviously the inmates complained so it's gone. The school felt that those unconcerned about the law were the most important ones; not my classmates and I at the law school. I just hope no one needs me to know what exactly criminal law is in case they ever get in a situation where a criminal act has been committed on them. Oh, well.The situation above is a hypothetical situation. My great law school, Trinity Law, did no such thing and will never. My experience here so far has been nothing but the best, and I highly recommend the school to anyone who is thinking about pursuing a career in law. If they did do what was mentioned in the above hypothetical, though, what would be your advice? "Get out of there, Lane! That isn't a law school, it's aiding criminals! That's a dangerous place to be, and they're lying to you!" I wholeheartedly agree with the advice. If this is what my law school did, I would be making every effort to get as far away from that "law school" as quickly as possible. Would you not agree that that should be my course of action? If I was at a law school that was letting convicted inmates decide what is taught and what isn't, would you not agree that I should take every precaution I could possibly take to get out of there and not let the administration manipulate me into staying whether it be by feelings of guilt, false claims, etc.? Would you even hold that a law school that flatly refused to teach law was even a law school? Let's carry this out to it's logical conclusion. If the inmates call the shots, and the law eventually doesn't even matter, when the time finally comes that the inmates do take over the school, who is there to stop them? If no one has been taught the law because the administration has catered to the inmates, who will know the law in order to say, "No, this is wrong." when that eventually happens? Of course, there are always exceptions. Given, there will be some who got the books, read them, and had to teach themselves the law, but when they come to call the administration and the inmates out on their errors, how do you think the crowd will treat them?
I submit to you that the "seeker-sensitive" movement is not one iota different from the law school example above when used in metaphor. Here we have a movement where there are Christians who seriously want to know what the truth is about a particular subject. They desire to be fed what is true not only for themselves, but also to help others. They go to the leadership to tell them that they don't believe the teaching is deep enough and that things are too trivial. The leadership retorts with the assertion that they are not going to teach on certain things because they've asked the unbelievers what they want taught, and, since preaching the very things that unbelievers are already convicted and sentenced of (John 3:18) would make the unbeliever offended, the leadership dismisses the claims of the real truth seeker and settles to cater to the "seeker" even to the extent of calling the Christian who desires to go deeper a troublemaker.
Considering what your advice would have been to me in the first hypothetical, what advice would you give to the people who are being manipulated by a crooked "administration" in these "seeker churches"? Would it be the same? If not, why? You need a better argument than, "Well, it's two different situations." The facts hold that they're almost identical aside from the details of each. I heard not too long ago that arguing points proficiently used to be regarded as a sign of virtue in a person. I disagree. Arguing points proficiently is still regarded as a sign of virtue in a person, it's just that all the narcissistic people who are running these inmate shows don't agree. Oh, well. I'm not led by these "leaders" by anything else, why should I start taking their advice and heeding their opinion on this? Perhaps if they could get over themselves long enough to not share with everyone trivialities like what their favorite pastry dish is, they would understand that what they are doing is akin to killing a person's soul. I submit that the reason they don't care is because their own soul is in such shambles that they know that exposing sin in others would inherently cause their own sin to be exposed as well. So if you're a Christian who feels guilty about leaving "churches" that would rather cater to "the inmates" than to the "law students", here's encouragement that you shouldn't feel guilty at all. In fact, you should be encouraged because you realizing this is the first step to overcoming error. Lies keep us in bondage, and when it's so called "leaders" that want to promote those lies, what does one do? ....according to them, it's "ask the inmates." According to the Holy Spirit, though, it's "come out from among them and you be separate... then (God) will receive you." (2Cor 6:17)