Last week's Straits Times was about two leaders. One is the leader of the Vatican City and the other is the leader of the real
estate world. Both command a huge following. One is rich in the spirit and the
other in possessions. One is the leader of the Catholic World and the other longs to be the leader of the Free World. And their paths met at a not so cordial crossroad.
Pope
Francis made this remark recently about Donald Trump, “A person who thinks
only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is
not Christian.” He was referring to Trump’s proposals to build a wall with
Mexico and to proceed with deportation. This was the Republican’s nominee’s
reply, “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful.
I am proud to be a Christian and, as president, I will not allow Christianity
to be consistently attacked and weakened.”
Donald
Trump further added, “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS (Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria), which as everyone knows is ISIS’ ultimate trophy, I
can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump
were president, because this would not have happened.” And the Vicar of
Christ continued with this admonishment, “Vote, don’t vote, I won’t meddle.
But I simply say, if he says these things, this man is not a Christian.”
Lesson? I
have one but I would veer away from the above heated debate and talk about
something of particular interest to Christians. The Pope's remarks about Trump
kept me wondering about the assurance of salvation. When does a Christian
cease to be a Christian? Or was he even a Christian to begin with?
I
asked this because sometimes you cannot really tell if one is authentically
transformed after the sinner's prayer (without the benefit of hindsight of
course). Worse still, he may demonstrate all the outward signs of a Christian
but none of its innermost transformation. And any growth after the altar call
is predominantly about the nurturing of self (to the total neglect of the disciplines/chastisement
of the Spirit).
And
on the assurance of salvation, this is where Joseph Prince comes in. His is a tale of two categories of
Christians. Let me start with the first
category.
I
once read these words in his book "Grace Revolution" - I call them the first category of Christians:
"You
may know of some people who had attended church for some time, then broke away
and started to live a sinful lifestyle with no desire to repent and no interest
in listening to counsel of the church's leadership. Some of them may even have
gone on to embrace another belief system...How can these people be believers of Jesus Christ? Have these people
lost their salvation? I submit to you that in some extreme cases, these
people might not have accepted Christ into their hearts in the first place. It
is not a case of believers losing their salvation; the reality is these
people may never been saved in the first place." (underlined mine)
Here
comes the second category expounded by the Prince of Preachers.
A friend recently posted this video on his Facebook about Joseph
Prince’s interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14, which reads, “Enter by the narrow
gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and
there are many who go by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the
way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” While this verse is traditionally accepted as a warning to Christians or believers to always keep watch and pray lest they too fall, Joseph Prince has the following revised good news for all.
He preached that many have misinterpreted this verse and
this has led them to think that their heavenly abode is not a sure thing. Joseph Prince was therefore eager to correct
his so-called wrong theology. In the gospel according to Joseph Prince,
"innumerable multitudes" will find their eternal rest in heaven (as interpreted by him in Revelation). Here is how he
interprets Matthew 7 above.
The broad way that leads to destruction is not hell – so says the radical grace pastor. On
the contrary, he said that it refers to our life on earth, not eternal condemnation. As
such, it is not talking about spiritual destruction. In fact, he preached that
“many Christians are on this broad way that is leading them to a financial,
marital, emotional and physical destruction. But once you have received Christ,
you are saved forever.” (underlined again mine)
At one point, Joseph Prince even said that “there are many believers on the wrong road, but they will still be in heaven because they have
Christ. Amen.”
He then likened the “narrow
gate” to Noah’s Ark’s narrow door and elaborated as such: “Jesus Christ is
that door…and salvation is the Ark. Christ is the Ark…Everyone must bow down and go through
that door…regardless of rich or poor. If you call that narrow, call me narrow…Something in life, God wants
you to be narrow because that’s the only way.” (Wow, that's a lot to take in and process - especially his reinterpretation of the narrow-door of the Ark!)
From
the above, based on Joseph Prince's preaching, I take it that there are two categories of Christians.
One is the never-saved (because they
have never accepted Jesus into their hearts) and the other is the always-saved (even though they are on the
“wrong road” - that is, the broad way of personal destruction; obviously from making wrong personal choices and presumably, continuing to make them).
So,
this brings me back to the questions I'd asked at the start: When does a
Christian cease to be a Christian? Or was he even a Christian to begin
with?
Chesterton
once said that "the Christian ideal has not been tried and found
wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried." If that is
so, are some believers then “saved” only in name (as a card-carrying
Christian) and remain unredeemed in thoughts and deeds and they merely continue
to project a form of salvation and not its substance, the hollow image of it
and not its power?
And
in some extreme cases, do they fall under Joseph Prince's category of
"never been saved in the first place"? Food for thought?
Now let’s push the scenario a little. Let’s dogmatize Joseph Prince's two categories, turn it into a complacent standard, and apply it to these
three personalities who had recently fronted the media:
(1) Kong Hee;
(2) Israel Houghton; and
(3) Donald Trump.
While Kong Hee and that President-wannabe need no further introduction, Israel Houghton would require some background intro.
(1) Kong Hee;
(2) Israel Houghton; and
(3) Donald Trump.
While Kong Hee and that President-wannabe need no further introduction, Israel Houghton would require some background intro.
Israel Houghton is a Grammy-award gospel
singer-songwriter and have led many in praise and worship in Joel Osteen’s Church and his international television
network. Recently, and unfortunately, he announced his divorce after 20 years
of marriage. He repented and admitted that “several years ago I failed and
sinned in my marriage. Though this is new to many, it is not new to us as we
have been working through this for over 5 years. Although we tried, the
challenges in our relationship have proven too much to overcome.”
Before you read further, here's my preface. Nothing is more
encouraging than the demonstration of a broken spirit and a contrite heart and I wish Israel Houghton
all the best in His love and redemption. My point, however, has to do with Joseph Prince’s standard of
salvational assurance (that is, his two categories of Christians – the “never-saved”
and the “always-saved”).
And if I apply that standard, I wonder whether Kong
Hee, Israel Houghton and Donald Trump would make the cut? Of course, Israel
Houghton had repented and his is a resounding “yes”. No one is
perfect right? I admit that this is rather arbitrary and some may say juvenile.
But, please indulge me as my point will come at the end of this post.
Now, how about Donald Trump, all his antics and the kerfuffle? Well, apart from what
the Pope had said earlier tongue-in-cheek, another pastor of a
mega-church has come forward recently to add to the chorus of disapproval.
Pastor Max Lucado minces no words here: “If he’s going to call himself a
Christian one day and call someone a bimbo the next or make fun of somebody’s
menstrual cycle, it’s just beyond reason to me…It would be none of my business,
I would have absolutely no right to speak up except that he repeatedly
brandishes the Bible and calls himself a Christian.”
So, with some good measure of levity here, if the Pope and Lucado
had their way, maybe Donald Trump might just come under Joseph Prince’s first
category of the “never-saved”? (Alas, at the rate he is going, he may just be the "savior" and destroyer of politics and democracy altogether).
How
about Kong Hee? Is he "never-saved" or "always saved"? Well, this is a
tough one. On the one hand, he has yet to come forward to admit his wrong.
Unlike Israel Houghton, who has confronted his sin and repented (which will no
doubt be a trying but rewarding journey for him), Kong Hee’s only “apology”
is to apologize to his congregation for the inconvenience caused (so to
speak). Pending his appeal, he has admitted no wrong. As far as he and his
wife are concerned, they were merely following divine orders. On the other
hand, Kong Hee is clearly guilty and convicted of misappropriation and dishonesty.
So, how do I apply Joseph Prince’s standard then?
Which category of Christian does Kong Hee fall under in JP’s book – the “never-saved”
or the “always-saved”?
At this juncture, it would be of some assistance here to
cross-reference Joseph Prince’s words about the never-saved category:
“You may know of some people who had attended church for some time, then (1) broke away and started to live a sinful lifestyle with (2) no desire to repent and (3) no interest in listening to counsel of the church's leadership. Some of them may even have gone on to (4) embrace another belief system...How can these people be believers of Jesus Christ? Have these people lost their salvation? I submit to you that (5) in some extreme cases, these people might not have accepted Christ into their hearts in the first place. It is not a case of believers losing their salvation.”
“You may know of some people who had attended church for some time, then (1) broke away and started to live a sinful lifestyle with (2) no desire to repent and (3) no interest in listening to counsel of the church's leadership. Some of them may even have gone on to (4) embrace another belief system...How can these people be believers of Jesus Christ? Have these people lost their salvation? I submit to you that (5) in some extreme cases, these people might not have accepted Christ into their hearts in the first place. It is not a case of believers losing their salvation.”
Now,
if I would to squeeze the hermeneutic
elephant into the never-saved
refrigerator, I may be able to come up with these obtuse associations from
those words I have underlined above:-
1) “Broke away and started to live a sinful
lifestyle.” Some quarters of the Christendom may readily come forward to accuse
Kong Hee of breaking away from what is generally acceptable as the proper
limits of evangelism and his Crossover project - where he and his wife had
compromised the gospel in an attempt to spread it (in scantily dressed
gyrations, promiscuity-themed video and controversial lyrics) - may be seen by
some as the perpetuation of a “sinful
lifestyle”. But I guess this is a long shot.
2)
“No desire
to repent.” I think this is the only “glove
that fits” here.
3) “No
interest in listening to counsel of the church's leadership.” I understand
that some pastors from the other churches have privately approached Kong Hee to offer good counsel to him before things got out of hand. But I heard he had declined their advice.
Anyway, this has yet to be confirmed. So, it is another no-go.
4) “Embrace another belief system.” Of
course, Joseph Prince must have in mind the recanting or renunciation of one’s
belief/faith. It is more like voluntarily converting to another faith, or worse
still, blindly swearing allegiance to the cult of Satanism until one’s death. So,
Kong Hee is quite safe here. And finally…
5) “In some extreme cases.” I
guess this is the crux. In Joseph Prince’s world, only the very rare cases
would miss heaven altogether. So, save for his refusal to take full responsibility as the
leader of the Church and come before his Savior with a broken spirit and a
contrite heart, Kong Hee would qualify under JP’s second category, that is, he
is always-saved. Alas, I guess by JP's standard, you can be on the wrong road or broad way, and still go to heaven because you have Christ in your heart. And if the road to hell is paved with good intention, then maybe the road to heaven is paved with the wrong action?
In the end, I believe that when it comes to the assurance of salvation, no one can ever claim to be
an authority without lapsing into the arrogant flight of the rigid and judgmental spirit. Like it or not, only God knows. And let’s keep it that way – note to
self. Cheerz.
Of course, the other point would be that JP himself isn't exactly the right person to expound doctrine in this area so his benchmark isn't really up to scratch. I guess this would depend whether you're pentecostal or baptist inclined... Calvin or Luther inclined etc. God sees through the aspirations of our hearts and minds after all and that's what truly matters.
ReplyDelete