Christmas Letter 1999 - Mary Christ Mass

Stan & Pam Williams
Northville, MI
Pam@StanWilliams.com

Merry Christmas 1999

Dear Friends and Relations,

(Pam writes.) Hi! We are still here. God has sustained us another year on planet earth! And it is our joy to live in the salvation of our God that is being celebrated at this time of year, and also to hear from you as to the blessings He has worked in your lives in the year of our Lord 1999.

January. By God's grace, Stan's love and care, and all of your prayers, I felt well enough after chemotherapy for lymphoma cancer to return to Clarenceville Middle School teaching Life Skills (drugs, sex, careers, first aid, health,… all the good stuff).

February. I completed my radiation treatments (Yeah!) and added more hours at work. Thank you to all for cards, books, visits, and prayers sent my way.

March. Stan and I traveled with my parents to Josh's final home basketball game in Annapolis. Go Navy! And many thanks to the Sponsor families who supported and nurtured Josh through the USNA.

April. Tom, my special brother, came to talk to my classes as part of people appreciation. He did such a good job and the kids loved him so much that he has already returned this year twice. Thanks, Tom!

May. The whole family joined us in Annapolis for Josh's graduation from the Naval Academy and his wedding three days later in the Naval Academy Chapel to his high school sweetheart, Christin Glovak.

June & July. Stan and I continued our five year search for an affordable sailboat with headroom. We had managed to do 90% of this shopping together. However, it was on one of Stan's solo business trips to San Diego in July that he spied the boat that was to end our shopping. He sealed the deal on the spot.

August. We became the long-awaited owners of a 41' sea-going ketch, which we affectionately named "Family Ties," hoping it would unite our family and friends with many fond hours on board. To bring "Family Ties" to a marina in Detroit, Stan had to dismantle and pack her in San Diego, in preparation for the trip across the states by truck to Detroit. Stan wrote an article about the whole process, complete with pictures, which was published in the January 2000 issue of "Cruising World Magazine." (Check it out!) Upon arrival in Detroit, we worked together to make her seaworthy again. My dad, brother, and even my mom helped with many of the readiness tasks. Thanks, everyone! Aunt Hope, Uncle Burt, and Tom braved an adventurous sail on the Detroit River, and, Trudy and Steve are waiting at the top of the reservation list for a sail next summer. At the end of the month, I started another year teaching the fun stuff.

September. April left her job at Childtime and started a full load of classes at Madonna University to complete a Bachelor's degree in Elementary Education. She'll live at home until her graduation. Josh and Christin moved to Athens, GA, where Josh is attending Supply School for 6 months. His orders from there are not certain, but the Navy could send them anywhere in the world, including the possibility of ship duty (without Christin) for 6 months at a time.

October. Trudy hosted her annual Crises Pregnancy Information Center Banquet with ease, while husband, Steve, pulled all the loose ends together, including rescuing the main speaker from his late flight at Metro Airport, and whisking him to the banquet on time. This month we also learned that Aunt Hope had cancer which put her on almost the identical schedule of chemo and radiation that I had last year. (Please pray with us for her final chemo treatment on Tues.,Dec. 28, and her continued strength to fight the battle. She is strong, spiritually and physically, especially for a woman of 84, but the treatments take their toll, and prayer makes such a difference.)

November. We were all together for an early Thanksgiving at the Glovaks'. They have been our friends since before Josh and Christin were an item, but it is fun to be formally connected now. Besides, Christin's mom, Jan, loves to cook, and we all benefit from that special gift.

December. Stan finished a proposal for a PBS documentary on the Catholic-Protestant debate as well as a spec script for "Touched by an Angel." Both have been long-term projects of many prayerful hours, seemingly driven by divine motivation, so their completion comes with a sense of anticipation as to their use. Only God knows from here.

Now, here we are, thinking back on this past year, thanking God for his many mercies and blessings in this Christmas season and as we approach the arrival of the year 2000.

Did you realize that the reason we call it 2000 is because of Christmas, too? Without the Church that Christ established, we would not have the dating system we have today. It was the Church that based dating upon the coming to earth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, 2000 years ago–the most significant event in all of human history. Man is truly without excuse when he looks at this global acceptance of recording time–AD, anno Domini (the year of our Lord). God has spoken so emphatically to get our attention.

Things we've learned this year about Christmas.

(Pam.) The fact that Christmas is celebrated globally is another phenomenal way that God has commanded the attention of the whole world to the birth of His Son. Even if some people don't understand the real reason to celebrate, those who refuse to celebrate it do understand…it is written in its name, Christ's Mass, so there can be no mistake. The first of those two words is what most of the world has disregarded…Christ. For Christians, of course, Christ is the focus of worship. He is the Messiah–God birthed among us. He came to save us through his wholly divine and wholly human sacrifice. He redeems us from the devil, from man's sin in the Garden, and from our sin everyday. So important is this birthing of Jesus, Son of God, son of Mary, that the Church proclaimed a feast day for us to celebrate on December 25 of each year.

But the second word in Christmas is the one that many Christians have disregarded…Mass. The Mass is the liturgical service established by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers to worship Christ.

(Stan interrupts.) It's easy to confirm that the form of the Mass and its function, which Catholics celebrate daily, has not changed much in 1900 years. And that's good. What is said and done in the Mass is what the Apostles (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) ask us to do. We had heard that the Mass had roots in the Jewish celebration of the Sabbath (Shabbat). But just yesterday we saw proof. Pam came across the Shabbat invocation in a Jewish publication. As Pam read it aloud goose bumps attacked our spines–the words were the same as those said during the invocation of The Celebration of the Eucharist in the Mass. By the way Shabbat means "a sweet taste of heaven" and the Mass has the same intention and direction.

(Back to Pam.) For me, Christmas has come to mean not only worshiping Christ, but worshiping Him in the Mass. The annual Christ's Mass (December 25 in the Western Church) is a special Mass that celebrates Christ's birth. But, the Mass is the central focus every day for Catholics of their devotion to Christ, because the central focus of the Mass is The Eucharist in which Christ is present.

(Pam.) Over the last two years we've realized how much criticism is directed toward Catholicism by Evangelicals. The amazing thing is that well educated Catholics don't return the favor even when Evangelicals make erroneous claims. Why aren't Catholics defensive or condemning toward other denominations? We think one reason is that Catholics have such great confidence in their doctrine due to the unique way it's been determined. It's unlike anything we've seen in any other Christian denomination.

(Stan writes.) The process by which Catholic doctrine is developed is an easy confidence builder. It starts by realizing that all Scripture must be interpreted. Sounds simple enough. But the key question is: Whose interpretation are you going to use? If there was an injury car accident and you were on the jury, whose testimony would you believe: those individuals who were present at the scene of the accident, or individuals who heard and read about the accident months later. While Protestant (Pt.) and Evangelical (Ev.) doctrine is based first on Catholic Doctrine, Protestants and Evangelicals have added and changed a plethora of doctrine based on the interpretations of their various church founders who lived hundreds and thousands years after the events. The Lutherans have Luther's interpretation, the Presbyterians look to the interpretations of John Calvin, and the Free Methodists use the interpretations of B.T. Roberts and his cohorts. But the Catholic Church is different. It's based resolutely on the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers (ECF)–the men who were taught by the Apostles. This foundation is known as Apostolic Tradition. Any new belief or practice that comes along, which is contrary to ECF interpretation is always rejected. In 1076, Pope Gregory VII wrote to another bishop what the church has believed from the beginning concerning the development of Catholic Doctrine:

"Your Prudence may learn with absolute certainty not from yourself but from the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers. Whenever we have rendered judgment in church affairs we have preserved and followed their decrees, not putting forth novelties or things of our own devising but carrying out in practice what they proclaimed through the Holy Spirit." (Gregory VI, Oct. 28, 1076 in a letter to Bishop Henry of Liége).

Christ knew there would be heretics and all manner of attractive people that would come along and point to the Scriptures and proclaim, "This is what the Bible means, not that…look, I can prove it to you with Scripture." In logic we call this "circular reasoning." It's a fallacy. So, Christ in his infinite wisdom, gives a select body of ordained individuals the Holy Spirit and a promise. Look at John 20:22-23 and the tight connection between the Holy Spirit and the promise of infallibility. "Jesus breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" Without such an ordination that passes the infallible power of the Holy Spirit into the doctrine-making equation, you have heresy or spurious doctrine at best.

St. Paul makes it clear in two N.T. verses that the basis of truth is not just Scripture but also the interpretation rendered by the Church. In 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul writes, "So then brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." This says there are things taught by the Apostles and the ECF which were not written down, but were traditions, things passed on as truth.

The next question is, "What then is the pillar and bulwark (or protector) of the truth?" As an Evangelical-Protestant my first answer would have been "Christ!" But, Christ IS the truth, he's not the instrument that protects and interprets the truth. My second answer as an Evangelical-Protestant would have been "The Bible!" But the Bible says something different. St. Paul, in writing to Timothy says that the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).

So throughout the centuries (from 70 A.D. to the present) whenever Scriptures seem ambiguous in the face of potential heretical teachings, the Church looks to how the ECF interpreted the Word of God. It was based on this Apostolic Tradition that the Church knew when to clarify a doctrine or when to reject a belief as heresy. Without Apostolic Tradition founders of new denominations (from Lutheran onward) were forced to use some other basis of interpretation. With no standard or fundamental interpretive basis, thousands of denominations sprang up, just the sort of thing Christ was trying to stop by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom in John 20.

(Pam.) I love the way I was raised. My parents were the absolute best and still are to this day. They were the first to teach me about Jesus. So, when I heard the salvation message about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection told in a flannel-graph at a Bible Club in my public school at age 8, I accepted His sacrifice for me and became a Christian. Two years later my family switched from the Baptist Church to the Free Methodist Church, and that is where Stan and I met with a similar understanding of the Scriptures.

(Stan & Pam.) From this upbringing, we thought we knew the Bible inside and out and were living the Gospel message in our lives. Then we met up with the Full Gospel people of Bethesda Missionary Temple, later the Assemblies of God, and after that the Missionary Alliance that was soon to become independent Restoration Fellowship. There were also times when we attended Lutheran, Vineyard, Presbyterian, Episcopal, independent seeker and the late-comer Charismatic-Orthodox churches. Each time we thought we had found the fullness of the Christian message or at least something that suited our taste.

(Pam.) But it was not until Stan wanted to investigate the Catholic Church that what "we believed" became secondary to what might actually be "true and right." Stan's learning about Catholicism forced me to look at things we had been indoctrinated against. To my surprise, we discovered a fullness and historic authenticity that was beyond what any Evangelical church had been able to teach us. Why? Because of Protestant's rejection of Apostolic Tradition and just about all church history from 70 A.D. to 1517 A.D..

I also began to understand the authority that Christ gave to the Church through the Apostles. As Rosalynn Moss, a converted Jew, turned Evangelical, turned Catholic says, "If God gave us the Word of God, wouldn't He also have given us a way to understand [interpret] it?" Her remark was in response to all the different interpretations you find in Protestantism as evidenced by the 22,000 plus denominations. It didn't make sense to her (nor to Stan). But, if you believe that God did give us an authoritative way to interpret His Word, then you would have to accept that authority, wouldn't you? Well, I have come to believe that Christ gave that authority to the Church through Peter and the Apostles, with one head (the Pope, succeeded from Peter) and a Magisterium (the Bishops succeeded from the Apostles)! It's in the Bible that way. Yet, Protestants have chosen their own traditions by which to interpret these passages.

(Stan.) How many of our Protestant-Evangelical friends have questioned the teachings, laws, or practices of the churches they've attended? The solution, like us, was to pickup and look elsewhere, as if our own minds and tastes were infallible judges of what was right. Pam and I would argue about something in a particular church that one of us liked and the other thought was wrong. Who's to say? What's the standard? The Bible? We both pulled out Scriptures that suited us. We still disagreed. Was this the unity Christ prayed for in the Garden before he died? I doubted it. I've met numerous men and women (including relatives) who have left a church because they didn't think the doctrine was right and started a church of their own.

(Pam.) Here is the bottom line, Stan and I have come to accept that the authority Christ gave to the Apostles to establish His Church is still there today in the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church," (Nicene Creed), and we joined the Catholic Church (separately over the past 2 years). We just want you to know that we have had heavenly things opened up to us, including the Communion of Saints, Mary, the Eucharist, Sacraments, the Mass, all that Christ put there for us to experience as His people in His Body! And, to us, this is the fullness of the Gospel we have longed for! That is what has made this such an exciting year for us. And, during Christmas, with the plethora of images depicting Mary and the baby Jesus about all we see are three of the important elements of the church given to us by God: Mary, Christ, and the Mass.

So, Mary ChristMass.

We welcome questions and/or comments and look forward to what the next year will bring.

May God bless you all!

In His love,

Pam (and Stan) Williams

P.S. (Stan) What we're learned this year needs a preface, but the preface is ending up here as a postscript. Pam and I are not taken easily to hearsay. When people tell us things that seem different from our experience or culture we naturally doubt it. For someone in authority to direct or command our thoughts or actions, we naturally take offense. You're probably the same way. We're skeptical people. We prefer to do our own research, which we continue to do. Therefore, in that context, what we have shared with you seems trustworthy. We believe that if we don't tell you these things we will be held accountable at the judgement. If we are wrong about some of these things our Christian brothers and sisters are responsible for correcting us with evidence and reason. And likewise, if they don't they will be held accountable. So, we invite you to research and reason with us, but don't cast these things off lightly. Our salvation and the salvation of the world hangs in the balance.

A Little Summary on the Authority of the Church

[The reaction to Pam's January 1999 letter of her conversion to Catholicism stirred up signifiant resentment, anger, and misunderstanding among our friends and relatives. It was as if we had become Democrat and donned their historic mantel of slavery. She wrote this letter in response. It didn't help. Prejudices run deep.]

Pamela Sue Williams

July, 1999

All of you know about the Matthew 18: 15-18 passage telling believers how to handle disputes among us. (Confront the person in private. Bring others with you. Take the matter to the Church). So, what is the final authority? The Church is. The Church has the final say, not man’s opinions. Matthew 18 doesn’t say, search the scripture about this matter, because the dispute many times is over scripture itself and what it means, what it teaches. Likewise, we know that when 2 or 3 are gathered in Christ’s name, He is there in the midst of us. But what if the 2 or 3 disagree? Matthew 18 does not say if you disagree, start your own church (as 26,000 denominations have done). It says take it to the Church! And whoever does not listen to the Church’s decision should be cast out of the Christian community/the Church.

All of you know that Protestant believers hold that Scripture alone is where we derive Truth from God (Sola Scriptura). When we believe that, we often go church hopping. (Maybe some of you have been there. I have.) Why do we do that? Because we are looking for a church that agrees with us. So, what is the final authority? We are. But our intellect cannot be the final authority on God. 

"Oh," but you say, "it’s not me alone. It’s the Holy Spirit leading me into all truth, as the scripture says." (I’ve said it myself in defense of Sola Scriptura). But does scripture say that we (you and I) have the final say? No, it says that the Church has the final say; the Church that Christ established and gave authority to through Peter and the Apostles. Again, if we say that we and scripture alone are the final authority (with the Holy Spirit) we end up having to try to find a church that agrees with us, and I never found one I agreed with on every doctrine, so does that tell me I should start a church of my own and make that 26,001?or stay in a church I agree with on the majority of doctrines and ignore the ones I don’t agree with? (I did that a lot). Or do I investigate the Church Christ established and discover what it really teaches? I was encouraged by Stan to do the latter, and may I please tell you one thing I learned that clears up 1,000 other issues for me about the Church? It has to do with the authority of the Catholic Church.

When the first heresy came up in the early Church (Acts 15) what did they do? This was when a deacon [according to writings of the early Church Fathers, his name was Nicholas, who is mentioned in the original list of deacons in Acts 6 as a convert to Judaism] at Antioch was teaching that Gentiles who became Christians had to be obedient to Old Testament law and be circumcised! They followed the steps of Matthew 18! The matter had been brought to Paul and Barnabas, but they could not resolve it, so they brought it to the Church, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem at that time. There was much debate over the issue until Peter stood up and declared his answer, and then the whole crowd fell silent, held their peace, they shut up. The rest of the discourse is the other leaders (Paul, Barnabas, and James) echoing Peter’s decision and/or implementing the decision made. Peter’s word settled the dispute, and circumcision was never brought up again.

Also, in Acts 11:18 after hearing Peter on the issue of the gospel being taken to the Gentiles, the leaders of the Church held their peace, stopped objecting, and glorified God. The dispute was settled.

Later, in 451 AD, when heresy arose that Christ had only a divine nature, the matter was brought to the Church. When Pope Leo the Great declared that the teaching of the Church was Christ is one person with two natures, wholly human and wholly divine, the Fathers of the Council erupted with joy and said, "Peter has spoken through Leo, the question is settled," because Peter spoke for Christ… and I’ll bet you never knew where that particular doctrine that Protestants still hold (and many others, including the Trinity, that are not explicitly spelled out in scripture) came from…. from decisions over heretical teachings that the Church with its authority from Christ, had to take a stand on to declare what was Truth.

That’s the true meaning of the scripture "…and the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth."…the way Christ established it should be done, that is through the Authority of the Church. In Acts 15:28, when the Early Church communicated its decision on circumcision, their statement was, "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (the Apostles/the magisterium of the Church)…" And so, even today, the Holy Spirit speaks through the magisterium of the Church, because the Pope (with the Council of Bishops--like Peter and the Apostles) speaks with the authority of Christ.

Now, really, like in 451 AD, if someone had come to you with the question about Jesus’ divinity and humanity (before you knew the answer of the Holy Spirit), what would you have said? And even if you did have the right answer, why should anyone listen to you or to me? We were not given authority by Christ to say what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. The Keys of authority were given uniquely to Peter, just like a king would delegate authority to his Prime Minister! We know that Jesus is the King (Rev. 2:4). And we know that He delegated His authority to carry on His work to His Church… and uniquely to Peter (Matt. 16:15-18--You, referring to Peter, is used 7 times in this passage, and it is the personal pronoun being used, not collective). So, Peter is Christ’s Prime Minister or Pope, and on matters of Church doctrine/Truth, he is infallible, because he speaks for Christ.

When I believe that, the rest is easy, because if I believe that Christ delegated his authority to Peter and the Apostles, and upon them He built His Church, then when the Church speaks, it is the Word of God on the matter. My intellect is now in submission to the authority of Jesus Christ as established in His Church. I am no longer looking for a church to agree with me. I am seeking to agree with His Church! As a Catholic, I am not free to disagree with even one of the disciplines of the Church just because I do not like them. The Church has the Word of Christ on all matters of faith and morals, so I can happily obey, and there is freedom and peace/resolution in this kind of obedience. There is also humility to think that I don’t have all the proper interpretation on scripture that I thought I once had and that I must become like a little child and learn. …But isn’t that what Christ asks us to become to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Dear Ones...we're Catholic!

[An open letter from Pam to our friends and relatives after her conversion to Catholicism. "Unhappy" was not an accurate description of their reaction.]

Pamela Sue Williams

January 4, 1999

Dear Ones,

I have hesitated to write this, because I know how opposed I was to hearing Stan’s decision to do this only a year ago. I also know that some of you will be unhappy when I tell you about my own decision. The Catholic church has not been perfect, and it may have needed protesting against in times past for its various wrong practices. But I have come to see, over this past year, that it is the church that Jesus established, and that despite its wayward practices of the middle ages, (and they were dark indeed) it has remained doctrinally solid these 2,000 years.

The problem in most cases, where there is disagreement between Protestants and Catholics, has been in communication of beliefs and doctrines. Many supposed differences are really misunderstandings or misinformed rumor. Once I read and heard the truth about what they believe, I could not deny that the Catholic church is still the true church Christ established. Catholics call Protestants their "separated brethren," but we are both Christians, and God wants His church to be united. Perhaps our separation was justified for awhile as the Catholic church went through some dark times, but today it is back on track. Plus, it has never varied from its historical doctrines dating back to the Apostles. (What we have seen changes in have been practices.)

One beautiful doctrine Catholics believe in is the "communion of saints,"… those who have passed out of this world as well as those of us who remain. All the saints are alive,… just not all in this world. The Catholic church practices communion with these saints who have died but are still alive in Christ. I have come to see this as a beautiful thing that is real and true to me.

I do not have a problem with any of the other doctrines I used to think separated us either. And I especially find an answer to the scriptures regarding Jesus’ emphasis on being the true bread, and if anyone does not eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, he cannot have eternal life (John 6:30-60). For me, this can only be settled by the Mass, where through the Prayer of blessing by Christ from the Priest (not unlike the Jewish Priests sacrificing the lamb and sprinkling its blood), the bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine becomes his blood for us to consume as the Lamb of God, sacrificed for our sins.

I have thought about this long and hard and I have had many appointments with Father Cronk at St. James Church in Novi. I have read and prayed, argued with Stan, cried, and had Catholic friends over and out to dinner to probe them with questions. After all was said and done, at the risk of offending some of my Protestant friends and family, I have come to the decision that I’d be wrong not to become Catholic. I hope you will not see this decision as a betrayal or a short-sighted move. I’d like you to consider it as a step in my Christian walk that has opened up new doors to bring me even closer to the God I have always loved and served since I accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was eight years old.

I am truly thankful for the godly upbringing I received and for the Protestant ways I hold dear. They are not diminished or compromised by becoming Catholic. In fact, they are enhanced and expanded to include the early church Traditions established by the Apostles.

I know many of you will not understand (I know I wouldn’t have a year ago), and so I want you to know I will be glad to answer any questions I may have raised in your mind. In the meantime, if you are able and willing, you may join me on Saturday, January 23, at 6:00pm (or when 5:00 Mass is over) at St. James Church on 10 Mile (between Taft and Beck), as I receive the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation at that time into the Catholic church. I will not be offended if you choose not to come. I just want you to know when and where the event will take place.

I love you all and have benefited greatly from your kind notes of love and encouragement and your many prayers during my battle with cancer. My treatments are nearly done… one more month to go of 22 radiations. I am thankful for God’s wake-up call to me, to see some old issues in a new light while passing through the valley of the shadow of death. Soon I will be ready to go back to work, stronger for all I have been through, physically and spiritually. I am so thankful to all of you for your support, and hope we can continue to support one another in our journey here below.

Love,
Pam Williams

P.S. As I added personal messages onto the real paper/regular mail letters I mailed yesterday to people not hooked up to E-Mail, one thing kept coming to mind, so I will add it here.
I really wish that all of Christ’s Church would come together — Protestants and Catholics alike!

I do hope this letter helps you to understand my own reason for embracing something that used to seem so foreign. I don’t expect it will in most cases, as it took me over a year, and I had time to study it, …but I wanted to try.

Reason vs. Prayer

A Second Look at

Personal Integrity and the Plight of Christianity

Copyright 1996 Stan Williams
All Rights Reserved

Tonight, as my family conversed at dinner, we shared a number of anecdotes which underscore why many rational people want nothing to do with Christianity. After a few stories, it’s clear why Christianity is so often demeaned in our society: Individual Christians too often lack the ability to demonstrate accountability for their actions. Our stories this night demonstrate how Christians, at times, refuse to admit their mistakes and instead explain events in terms of Scripture, God’s will, or prayer —subjects too hallowed to debate. Such deflections of responsibility inhibit personal and global evangelism and the full development of God’s kingdom here on earth.

Two months ago one of my daughters applied to a Christian missionary school and as requested submitted a medical report and requested three acquaintances to complete character reference forms and mail them into the school. Two weeks after she believed everything had been mailed to the school by the doctor and the acquaintances, she called the admissions office to confirm the forms had been received; and she called nearly every week thereafter. Inevitably, she was told that the medical report and the reference forms had not yet arrived. Finally, she called those that had filled out the reference forms and discovered that all the forms had, in fact, been mailed to the admissions office over a month earlier. She then decided to make a polite pest of herself to the admissions office. Finally, after the third call in 30 minutes, the misfiled forms were found. They had been there for over a month. What was the admission office’s response? Did they admit they were negligent, or that they needed to fix their system for tracking incoming forms? No. Instead they quoted a Bible verse to my daughter suggesting that she needed to “wait on the Lord.” Hmm? Did God misfile the forms? I doubt it. Instead, it appears we were waiting on human error to be discovered. From that event, my daughter learned what many non-Christians already know: When Christians make mistakes they often pass it off, not as a mistake or an error in need of correction, but rather as God’s sovereign will over their lives. Phooey! Such talk demonstrates irresponsibility; it excuses Christians from personal responsibility, and God is blamed, through a back-handed compliment. Such disavowal of responsibility, to the non-Christian, is a sign of dishonesty, . . . even stupidity. Few people want to be associated with individuals who blame God for their own mistakes.

A similar event occurred to my other daughter when she applied to a respected Christian liberal arts college several years earlier. In that situation a character reference form was misplaced as well. She had met all the minimum requirements for admission and had done so on time. When the form could not be found she was told that she had missed the deadline and her request for admission would be held up and possibly denied. Some Christians close to her suggested that perhaps this was God “closing the door.” “It must be God’s will, that she not go” to this particular Christian school. What irked me, and what turns off many non-Christians, is that such an attitude is too gracious for the situation — it doesn’t allow for human incompetence. As it turned out the forms were submitted on time but had somehow been misplaced in the Financial Aid office. When we insisted they look for them, they discovered their error and our daughter was admitted. (She graduated with honors four yeas later, by the way.) But, again, what was human error was described as “God’s will.” When Christians start admitting their faults and stop blaming God, perhaps non-Christians will begin to see the Christian life as one filled with credibility and honesty. What a novel idea.

Another example that made national headlines was the New Era Foundation debacle, where a supposedly philanthropic organization was uncovered as nothing more than a pyramid scam. A number of Christians associated with the duped institutions were not so easily fooled. Their advice, that something “too good to be true” was probably just that, was not heeded. Greed got in the way, and many reputable Christian organizations fell for the get-rich-scheme, invested millions and lost. When the scheme collapsed and our church’s school lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, our pastor delivered a sermon that disavowed him and the elders from any responsibility and proclaimed that it had all happened due to God’s will and His leading of our lives in ways we do not understand. Not! Instead of admitting their mistake and greed, they placed their misjudgment at the feet of God and said to the world, “God’s will is never wrong even if we don’t understand it.” What they refused to admit is what non-Christians readily know — God doesn’t make mistakes, humans (even smart ones) often do. Yes, God’s sovereign will was involved but not like our pastor and the editor of a major Christian publication concluded. Let’s face it, smart people can make stupid decisions. And when stupid decisions are made God’s sovereign will says there will be dire consequences. And that’s just what happened. When thinking, non-Christians saw how the church responded to this, with claims that God’s will was involved, some thought correctly: “If Christians are that stupid, then they must be worshipping the wrong God.” No wonder many people cast off Christianity.

The apologist Hugh Ross, in a recent newsletter, wrote about what he perceives as the reason for the difficulty Christian evangelism faces in Japan. He discovered, much to his chagrin, that some Christian missionaries fiercely oppose rational explanations of God’s creation (e.g. intelligent design and natural processes versus instantaneous overnight creation). This serves “only to expose one reason the Japanese people have been so closed to the Christian faith — it doesn’t seem rational to them.”[1] Why should they embrace Christianity and deny what they see in creation? Obviously, to the Japanese at least, the Christian God isn’t the God of the universe.

Praying for things instead of using common sense seems also to be a common malady affecting Christians. My daughter, the missionary to be, attended a Christian liberal arts college for two years before dorm life became intolerable and she moved out. Not the sole reasons, but definitely a contributor to her dorm life problems, was the moral mess her roommates those two years turned out to be. In both cases sexual immorality was afoot. Both girls, two different years, let their studies slide and became pregnant, dropping out of school. Beforehand, we had earnestly requested that the room selection committee find students with good study habits as role models for our daughter. How did the school do that? Those matching roommates "...prayed over the dorm rooming lists” before assignments were made. Who was to argue with such “spirituality” without sounding anti-Christian? In this case, was prayer an excuse for not using good hard work and close examination of transcripts and personal reference forms? Many non-Christians are turned off by our typical response, “I’ll pray for you.” What the non-Christian may in fact need is some good hard work and labor of love on our part. Prayer has its place, but it is no replacement for common sense and, a little research, and hard work. Non-Christians know that, why don’t Christians?

For most of my upbringing I’ve been taught the time honored Christian tradition of praying before an event in which I’ve had some leadership responsibility. That seems reasonable, and I still do it. The more critical the event, the more I pray. But, too often what goes hand-in-hand with such prayers is a lack of proper preparation for the event itself. My experience is that Christians pray too much and prepare too little. If something isn’t quite right I’ve seen graciousness and prayer take over, leaving behind mediocrity and an embarrassing witness. Rather than learning the skills necessary for a job, the typical Christian response is one of prayer and Bible study, as if prayer and Bible study were sufficient replacements for skill development and knowledge.

Recently, a Christian we know applied for a job for which she was not fully qualified by state standards. Yet, came the defense: “God is in this and we should pray that she gets the job.” Luckily for the church’s reputation, the person was rejected. Yet some Christians believe that Christians deserve certain positions simply because they are Christians. Such thinking is silly if not arrogant. Being a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge, skill or ability. At its root, being a Christian simply means we are “forgiven.” When someone fails to prepare for a particular goal and instead prays for it, they give evidence that they are lazy stewards or worse yet arrogant fools. They are like the servant in Christ’s parable who buried his talents in the ground afraid they would be lost. Such Christians produce insufficient return on God’s investment and risk being cast into outer darkness. Non-Christians recognize such laziness and arrogance, why don’t Christians see it? When Christians are honest about the need to develop their gifts perhaps the Christian life might have more attraction to non-Christians who too are concerned with honesty and excellence.

I am not the only one that feels such angst at Christians' embrace of incompetence, arrogance, laziness, and mediocrity. Annie Dillard in Holy the Firm reflects on the immensity of God’s grace when a “wretched singer” visited her island church and to “faltering accompaniment” sang an entirely secular song. Dillard reflects: “nothing could more surely convince me of God’s unending mercy that the continued existence on earth of the church.”[2]. Franky Schaeffer in Addicted to Mediocrity focuses on Evangelical Christianity's rejection of the artistic talents of so many and the elevation of spiritual “charlatanism and buffoonery” of church leaders.[3] Hugh Ross laments the rejection of rational thinking that turns many away from Christianity, the most rational of “faiths.”[4] Charles Colson in The Bodyrecounts how Amy Grant was lambasted by Evangelical Christians because she crossed over to the secular music industry and supposedly lost her “Christian message.”[5] Never mind that she had suddenly become salt and light in a dark and desperately needing industry. Speaking of “salt and light” I can not forget Bob Briner who in Roaring Lambs reminds Christian Colleges that their job is to develop young minds and not involve students in so many “Christian” ministries that they have “trouble finding time to study.”[6]

That reminds me of a dear young man rooming across the hall from me in a Christian College as a freshman. Jack (not his real name) was our floor chaplain. He was smart and articulate. Unfortunately, Jack was “such a committed Christian” that he spent most of his time in Bible study and prayer. The result? Despite great potential he flunked several classes for failing to turn in work and during the second semester had a nervous breakdown forcing him to drop out of school.

Finally, Eugene Peterson, translator of The Message has said, “One of the devil’s finest pieces of work is getting people to spend three nights a week in Bible studies”[7] implying that Christians are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good. The voices are out there crying in the Christian wilderness for personal integrity and accountability. Is anyone listening?

When are we as Christians going to wake up and start using common sense and prayer instead of prayer alone; when will we embrace rational thinking and God’s sovereignty instead of blaming God’s sovereignty alone; and when will we pursue knowledge, skill building and the Bible instead of just Bible study? When will we, as the church, wake up and pursue excellence and reject arrogance? When will we as Christians again be worthy of being society’s role model as God intended? I hope very, very soon. Until then, many non-Christians would rather use the rational mind God gave them and accept their share of responsibility for mistakes and blunders. When Christianity rises to that level of accountability, then maybe pagans will take a second look.

---

[1] Hugh Ross, Newsletter (Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe, February 1996), 1.

[2] Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1977), 58-59.

[3] Franky Schaeffer, Addicted to Mediocrity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), 75.

[4] Hugh Ross, Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1994), 8-15.

[5] Charles Colson, The Body (Dallas, TX: Word, 1992), 375-376.

[6] Bob Briner, Roaring Lambs (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 157.

[7] Michael Cusick, “A Conversation with Eugene Peterson,” The Mars Hill Review, 3 (Fall 1995), 83.