What's So Amazing About What's So Amazing?

[Resource Manager]

Some questions:

 

Were God's "weapons of grace" in the Philippines really victorious because of God's favour upon Roman Catholicism as the dominant religion?

 

Is "grace" and the "invisible shield of prayer" so successful in overthrowing a tyrannical government because God supports the Roman Catholic Church and the other "Christian" religions in the Philippines?

 

Does Yancey have any idea about how wicked and perversely superstitious Roman Catholicism is in the Philippines, or doesn't this really matter anyway?

 

Is this just another good natured "Christian" religion that "God loves anyhow" or is it the most evil system spoken of in the Bible, called Babylon the Great in Revelation 17?

 

Is it possible that Yancey's idea of "Christianity" and "weapons of grace" are really seen by God as "the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit, and cage of every unclean and hateful bird" (Rev 18:2)? Could this be an example of the "nations drinking of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" (Rev 14:8)?

[Resource Manager]

Yancey is right in that he says the "Christian" (ie. Catholic) Church played a crucial role in the Revolutions of 1989-90. Mikhail Gorbechev said of the revolutions in Eastern Europe, and later in Russia that "I think that at the core of that resistance was Catholicism." The leader of the Revolution in Poland, Lech Walsea said that "The Holy father was the instigator of all these transformations." But let's ask some more questions:

 

Was the fall of Communism and the Berlin wall really because of God's loving support for the "Christian" Pope and his "blaze of candles in the churches of Eastern Europe"?

 

Or was the Pope's role in overthrowing the Polish government an example of a rebellious "frog spirit" out of the mouth of the "false prophet" (Rev 16:13-16), which will eventually lead the world to Armageddon?

 

Could this have been the beginning of Babylon's rise to prominence in the latter days as prophesied in Revelation? Or is it just another example of how wonderfully gracious Roman Catholicism really is?

 

Is this really about "grace" or is it just rebellion, or can't we even tell the difference?

 

Did the Catholic Church's lust for power and the expansion of her political influence in eastern Europe have anything to do with her vital role in bringing down Communism? Or was this just "grace"?

 

Is it possible that the Pope wanted East and West Germany reunited so as to re-establish a united Holy Roman Empire in Western Europe? Or was this just "grace"?

 

Stalin's mocking question, "How many divisions (ie. armies) has the Pope?" certainly was answered. Are the Pope's "divisions" in Europe who overthrow governments and instigate revolutions a classic example of grace for us to follow?

 

Does Philip Yancey's identification of Roman Catholicism as "Christianity" and "the power of grace" mean that Evangelical Christianity is just another one of the harlot daughters of the mother church (Rev 17:5)?

 

Because this book has Roman Catholic doctrines as its foundation (ie. the Trinity, pre-existence of Christ, substitution, heaven-going etc.), should we really be surprised?

 

The key issue: Is this another classic example of how popular modern Christianity is really just part of the evil system of Babylon? Or has the difference between truth and error become so blurred that we cannot even tell the difference?

[Resource Manager]

HOMOSEXUALITY

 

"Among the marchers were at least 3000 who identified themselves with various religious groups: the Catholic "Dignity" movement, the Episcopalian group "Integrity", and even a sprinkling of Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists. More than a thousand marched under the banner of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), a denomination that professes a mostly evangelical theology except for its stance on homosexuality. This last group had a poignant reply to the beleaguered Christian protestors: they drew even, turned to face them, and sang, "Jesus loves us, this we know, for the Bible tells us so."

 

The abrupt ironies in that scene of confrontation struck me. On the one side were Christians defending pure doctrine (not even the National Council of Churches has accepted the MCC denomination for membership). On the other side were "sinners", many of whom openly admit to homosexual practice. Yet the more orthodox group spewed out hate, and the other group sang of Jesus' love." (What's so amazing about Grace, p. 165-166)

 

"The whole notion of a "gay church" seems bizarre to me. I have met celibate, non practicing homosexuals who wish desperately that another church would welcome them, but have found none. I feel sad that the churches I attend are missing out on the spiritual gifts of these Christians, and sad too that the MCC denomination seems to me so fixated on sexual issues." (p. 173)

[Resource Manager]

He does however go on to say that "Mel and I have deep differences. I cannot condone many of the decisions he has made." In saying this however Yancey makes no comment on what the Bible says about the issue or what his views actually are. He conveniently says, "I am not discussing my views of homosexual behaviour, only my attitudes towards homosexuals."

 

Why won't Yancey tell us what his real views are on homosexuality, or at least what he thinks the Bible says?

 

Why does Yancey spend page after page showing how loving and how "Christian" these homosexuals are compared with the harsh, hard line, right wing "Christians" who are appalled by the arrogance of unrepentant homosexuals? What is the benefit of this? Should we therefore tolerate homosexuality?

 

Why is it that those who are disgusted by the homosexual lifestyle are shown to be bigots and unforgiving while the homosexuals are presented in a good light?

 

Why is it that in this whole 15 page chapter (chapter 13), there is hardly any reference to Scripture? If Scripture is not the basis, then how can we trust that Yancey's opinions are right? So what does the Bible say?

 

1 Cor 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)

 

We all would joyfully acknowledge that God opens the door for forgiveness to homosexuals who wish to forsake their previous way of life and turn to Him. God's forgiveness is total and absolute, but this is conditional on repentance and a forsaking of the old way of life (Luke 15:10; Acts 3:19). Yancey however spends just so much time trying to convince us of how nice these homosexuals can be, but why nothing on God's forgiveness? Why doesn't he emphasise that homosexuals can be forgiven? Why doesn't he encourage them to repent? The important issue here is surely God's wonderful promise of forgiveness:

 

Luke 13:3 "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

 

Isaiah 55:6-7 "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

 

Acts 17:30 "Now (God) commandeth all men everywhere to repent."

 

Why not give examples in this chapter of God's forgiveness of Bible characters who were repentant and forgiven? Is it because it is politically incorrect or is there some other reason? We just don't know.

[Resource Manager]

Maybe some light can be shed on this issue by the following comments:

 

"At one point, a TV interviewer asked Mel's parents on-camera, "You know what other Christians are saying about your son. They say he is an abomination. What do you think about that?" "Well," the mother answered in a sweet, quavery voice, "he may be an abomination, but he's still our pride and joy."

 

That line has stayed with me because I came to see it as a heartened definition of grace. I came to see that Mel White's mother expressed how God views every one of us. In some ways we are all abominations to God - All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - and yet somehow, against all reason, God loves us anyhow. Grace declares that we are still God's pride and joy." (What's so amazing about Grace? p. 170-171)

 

Yes, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However he misses the critical issue. There is a difference between unrepentant homosexuals and repentant brethren in Christ. Brethren in Christ who are repentant, have been baptised and have forsaken their old way of life are counted righteous for Christ's sake (Rom 3:24; Eph 4:32). How can unrepentant homosexuals be placed in this category? Because of his belief in the doctrine of substitution, it all gets back to Yancey's main catchcry, that "God loves us anyhow."

This is where things really start getting serious. Let's ask the following crucial questions:

 

Are unrepentant homosexuals really "God's pride and joy"?

 

What Scriptural evidence is there to show that an unrepentant homosexual is no different in God's sight to those faithful believers who are Christ's brethren?

 

What is the practical result of all this? Is this really where Yancey's philosophy about grace leads us? Is it that nothing matters in our lives either, because "God loves us anyhow"?

 

What should really be the positive emphasis of all this?

 

Psa 32:1,2,6 "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile…. For this shall every one that is Godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him."

[Resource Manager]

SCOFFING ATTITUDE

 

"What bothers me most, in retrospect, was the Bible college's attempt to relate all their rules to God's law... I seethed at their contorted attempts to condemn long hair on men, aware that Jesus and most of the Biblical characters we studied probably had longer hair than ours and facial hair to boot. The rule about hair length had more to do with the likelihood of offending supporters than with anything in Scripture, but no one dared admit it. I could not find one word in the Bible about rock music, skirt lengths, or cigarette smoking, and the ban against alcohol puts us on the side of John the Baptist, not Jesus. Yet authorities in that school made a determined effort to present all these rules as part of the gospel." (What's so amazing about Grace? p. 194)

 

Some questions arise from these comments:

 

Does this now mean that at our Ecclesial camps, Young Peoples Conferences and Bible Schools we should freely allow everyone to drink, smoke and listen to any types of rock music they please? Or are there certain Scriptural principles involved here?

 

Is it possible to be "on the side of John the Baptist" while not being "on the side of Jesus" or vice versa?

 

Is it true that there are certain clear Scriptural principles that guide our lives rather than any particular verse in the Bible that says, for instance, "thou shalt not smoke cigarettes" ? Or are Scriptural principles not really important anyway?

 

There are just so many Scriptures that could be used here, but just consider the following 2 passages:

 

1 Pet 1:13-16 "Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."" (NIV)

 

1 Cor 11:14-15 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

[Resource Manager]

IS OUR WAY OF THINKING BEING CHANGED BY ALL THIS?

 

A scoffing attitude is a feature of so much of Yancey's book. Why is it that almost anyone he mentions who advocates any kind of morality or the upholding of God's principles such as "family values" is shown to be a bigot, a hypocrite, a child abuser, or even a criminal or one who rents X-rated videos? Those supposed "hypocrites" who are said to "censure" drinking, filthy magazines and "questionable movies or books" are so often implicated as being legalists and even racists and promoters of apartheid. These underlying attitudes promoted by Yancey pose one of the greatest dangers of this book. It teaches us to be cynical and to impute evil motives on those who are striving to lead Christ-like lives (2 Tim 3:3,7). We need to wake up to how this type of "Christian" literature is changing our way of thinking over time.

 

The result of this type of philosophy is that the difference between right and wrong has become very blurred. No longer do we focus on developing a Godly character, discerning between good and evil (Heb 5:14). Instead we focus on the fact that God supposedly "loves us anyhow" despite what we do. This is substitutionary grace, not Biblical grace. It is founded on the doctrine of substitution and is therefore wrong. For further detail on the doctrinal basis of this type of Evangelical "grace", see Bro Jonathan Burke's comments in his study entitled, "If Yancey is wrong, then why is it so hard to tell?"

[Resource Manager]

CONCLUSION OF THE BOOK

 

"Bill Moyers' documentary film on the hymn "Amazing Grace" includes a scene filmed in Wembly Stadium in London. Various musical groups, mostly rock bands, had gathered together in celebration of the changes in South Africa, and for some reason the promoters scheduled an opera singer, Jessye Norman, as the closing act. The film cuts back and forth between scenes of the unruly crowd in the stadium and Jessye Norman being interviewed. For 12 hours groups like Guns 'n' Roses have blasted the crowd through banks of speakers, riling up fans already high on booze and dope. The crowd yells for more curtain calls, and the rock groups oblige. Meanwhile, Jessye Norman sits in her dressing room discussing " Amazing Grace" with Moyers.…

 

Finally the time comes for her to sing. A single circle of light follows Norman, a majestic African-American woman wearing a flowing African dashiki, as she strolls onstage. No backup band, no musical instruments, just Jessye. The crowd stirs, restless. Few recognise the opera diva. A voice yells for more Guns 'n' Roses. Others take up the cry. The scene is getting ugly. Alone, a capella, Jessye Norman begins to sing, very slowly:

 

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost but now am found -

Was blind, but now I see.

 

A remarkable thing happens in Wembly Stadium that night. Seventy thousand raucous fans fall silent before her aria of grace. By the time Norman reaches the second verse, "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved…" the soprano has the crowd in her hands. By the time she reads the third verse, "Tis grace has brought me safe this far, and grace will lead me home," several thousand fans are singing along, digging far back in nearly lost memories for words they heard long ago.

 

When we've been there 10,000 years

Bright shining as the sun

We've no less days to sing God's praise

Than when we first begun.

 

Jessye Norman later confessed she had no idea what power descended on Wembley Stadium that night. I think I know. The world thirsts for grace. When grace descends, the world falls silent before it." (What's so amazing about Grace? pages 281-282)

[Resource Manager]

So is this really the conclusion to it all?

 

No visions of the Kingdom. Nothing about the Kingdom of God on earth, by God's grace. No mention of the resurrection from the dead. No mention of the restoration of Israel or their repentance before their Messiah. No mention about the fulfilment of God's promises to the Fathers. No mention of immortality bestowed upon the righteous. And certainly nothing about God's judgements on the Roman Catholic system or on an evil world that hates Him. Nothing about the Saints and their work of restoration in a 1000 year reign of peace and righteousness. And nothing about Jesus Christ reigning from Jerusalem or the beautiful visions of Isaiah 35 or Psalm 72. Nothing whatsoever.

 

Instead, we find ourselves full of dope and booze at a drunken rock concert. This is where the power of God's grace is supposed to be found. It is supposedly bestowed on a world that doesn't even know it and which doesn't want to respond to it.

 

This is the conclusion of Yancey's philosophy about grace. This is where it all ends. Incredible.

 

Gal 6:7 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

 

-------

 

A further Review is available @ this Link:

 

You Know What Else Is Amazing?

 

Both Reviews included in this attachment:

 

GraceReview_AD_JBg23.pdf

 

Hard copies of the Review available @

 

CSSS.ORG.AU