Laughable But for the Eternal Implications

I've written recently about amateur theologians. Perhaps one of the most misguided I've ever come across is Gordon Keith. Some of what he writes would be laughable if it were not for the serious consequences of his Biblical illiteracy.

He says that nobody really knows what God is like (except he seems to think he does). . . that we all judge Him by the clothes we expect He wears. He says proof of that is that each person's God seems to hate the same people he does. I, for one, don't hate anybody, so there's a bit of a fallacy there. It seems, however, that Mr. Keith's definition of hate and mine are two different things. By Mr. Keith's reckoning, if you point out someone's sin, you hate him. "Show me a person who emphasizes the judgment of God, and I'll show you a person who likes making judgments," he says. You mean like John the Baptist? Elijah? The Apostle Paul?

"Show me a person who goes on and on about God's view on sexuality, and I'll show you someone who is very interested in the goings on of sexuality," according to Mr. Keith. Mr. Keith needs some perspective. When I was a child, I don't recall a pastor ever preaching on homosexual behavior. There wasn't much need, because most homosexuals were rightly in the closet then. But now, they march in the streets and proclaim that God approves of their sin. So those who take seriously their calling from God have no choice but to preach the bad news along with the good. As the Apostle Paul said, "Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."

He says Dr. Robert Jeffress of FBC, Dallas, thinks his "portrait of God" is the correct one because it's biblical. Well, Duh! You think so? He says the problem with that is that the Bible is just a collection of men's stories. So, Mr. Keith, if you don't base your "portrait of God" on the Bible, just what do you base it on? He says he doesn't know why people are scared to question the Bible. Maybe it's that part in there that says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Or maybe it's that part that says, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"

He says if we believe the Bible, we "fetishize antiquity." Guess he didn't read that part that says that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He says that if God still speaks, why is it a stretch to think that we can no longer write our own Bible? Probably that other part you didn't read, Mr. Keith. . . The part that says, "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Or the part that says, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life . . ." Mr. Keith says that if we would lose our allegiance to the Bible, we would gain "a more useful portrait of a meaningful God through fresh Scripture." We don't need "fresh" Scripture, Mr. Keith. The only reason you want "fresh" Scripture is because you don't like what's been clearly laid out in the old.

Mr. Keith's summation is that one should "Work out a portrait of God that you can love and that can love you back." You're allowed to do that, he says. Yes, we're allowed to do that, but it will land us in the pits of hell if we do. God doesn't change to suit your wants. He will not condone sin no matter how much you may enjoy it.

On one thing Mr. Keith and I can agree. He says he may not be a scholar. I can assure you, Mr. Keith, you are not!

"Breathing room." The Dallas Morning News; March 1, 2013; p. 19A.