Apologetics Diary Archive 2000

Sunday 27 February 2000.

Dear diary,

I was browsing at a shopping centre recently when I was approached by a couple of members of the Central Auckland Church of Christ (CACC) - one of the more notorious cult groups we have in Auckland. Members are characterised by their enthusiasm and sincere belief that the group is the only true church.

The CACC was set up about ten years ago, as the local branch of the International Church of Christ. According to the two I spoke to, their numbers in that branch have remained around 250 for the last 5-6 years. Now, evangelism (of a sort) is a way of life for members - they are required to do it, and plenty of it. However, this raises the question: Why no dramatic increase in numbers in that branch? Or, if 250 is considered an ideal number, then why no increase in the number of branches around the Auckland area? (This would certainly make travel easier for those living in further-out regions.)

There are other questions we could also ask. Why is there such a disproportionate number of young members, with few children or middle-aged and elderly?

The sad answer is that there is very little concern within the CACC for winning new souls to Christ, but rather with discipling (and baptising) those people who already have a relationship with Christ. The group preys on Christians who want a deeper relationship with Jesus.

With evangelism such a high priority, large numbers of people join the group, but with membership levels stable, equally large numbers leave the group. You would not expect people to leave a safe, secure, healthy, loving environment in such large numbers, so what is going wrong?

Often these people are taught while in the group that leaving the group is akin to leaving God, since salvation is only found within the group. This means that when the member does leave (for whatever reason), their faith has been hog-tied by the group's teaching. To be taught this is certainly not in the best interest of the members, and here the CACC ignores a major teaching of the New Testament.

"If I disciple in the company of angels, but have not love, I have trained no one" is not actually found in the Bible (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3), but the principle is clearly laid out. If we are instructed to love even our enemies (Matt. 5:44), surely our first calling is to love those in our care, and all discipling should be within that framework. Thus, the teachings and practice of the CACC are spiritually harmful.

The group believes they are the only true church because apparently only they are doing the things they perceive the church should be doing - which basically amounts to baptising and discipling. This focus leads them to hyprocritically ignoring other important things.

Like love.

Wednesday 15 March 2000.

Dear diary,

I found an interesting quote recently in an interview with an actor. He said:

"I'm not a religious man, though I was brought up a Catholic, but I have completely rationalised the idea of a God that other people need but I don't. I live this life without reference to a future participation in another life - I'm living it for me, for now and for the people around me."

It makes me wonder why he bothers. Who is he that he's worth living for?

Monday 19 June 2000.

Dear diary,

I was waiting in my car outside a supermarket yesterday when a couple of teenage(?) males walked past. They saw the banner along the bottom of my rear windscreen, which reads "If you can read this, chances are you haven't been aborted." It's in really big lettering - makes it easy to read, you know.

One of the teens said (loudly) "What the **** does that mean?" I was wondering if I should get out and offer to explain it to them when they made it clear I shouldn't bother: One of them tried the passenger door of the car next to me, then I heard "Hey, this isn't even your car." They moved to a car a couple of spaces further along, got in, and drove off.

Conclusion: I don't think they had the wit to understand the window banner, even if I had explained it.

Wednesday 21 June 2000.

Dear diary,

I wonder if anyone other than myself has considered one subtle implication of the current fad of calling a computer virus a "bug."

The fad started with the "I Love You" virus, which was happily and misleadingly called "The Love Bug" by journalists, I presume after the VW Beetle car. However, a bug (in computer jargon, at least) is a mistake in programming. A virus is quite different - a deliberately written piece of code that replicates in order to spread itself to new host computers.

The idea of neo-darwinian evolution is that mistakes in copying DNA can give rise to greater complexity of life. This makes me wonder: Could a journalist be so steeped in evolution that they could think that enough computer bugs would give rise to a genuine computer virus?

Tongue-in-cheek, maybe, but some evolutionists will go to any lengths to avoid even slight acknowledgment of creation.

Contact:
Return to ianman HOME | Return to top