Thideology™ : God's Word, Applied.

Thideology has moved...

2006-12-05T14:05:00.000-08:00

...that's right, Thideology has moved to a new location. We'd like to tell you that the website is "new and improved" with "all new features" and a more "reader-friendly" format — or some similarly impressive endorsement, but we can't. It's just ... well ... different.

But, since Thideology has established a large readership, we wanted to be sure to let both of you know our new location so you wouldn't miss any of the profound musings you've come to appreciate. So, here is the new location...

www.thideology.com

If that doesn't work right away try...

www.thideology.wordpress.com

See you in the new neighborhood.

This is NOT your father's faith

2006-11-17T11:35:00.000-08:00

A recent survey by the Barna Group (complete story found here) shows young adults are “abandoning the biblical faith of their elders” at an alarming rate. The survey points out young adults in their 20s and 30s were at least twice as likely as their elders to have engaged in immoral behavior.

Now I find this survey disturbing, of course, but I do not agree with the premise statement of the survey that young adults have “abandoned the biblical faith of their elders.” The real problem is that young adults have never even been introduced to the biblical faith of their elders. They have never been fed the meat of the Word. They are spiritual babes if they are saved at all. Easy believe-ism and “seeker sensitivity” have replaced sound doctrine. So, rather than learning the biblical faith, kids these days are learning this instead.

Anyone have anything for a headache?

Building something "godly"

2006-11-01T07:12:00.000-08:00

Next Tuesday is election day in America and churches everywhere are publishing voter's guides and encouraging their members to "get out and vote" because, apparently, our primary purpose is to put a stop to everything from same-sex marriages to cussin'. After all, the mantra goes, this is a "Christian Nation" and we need to reclaim it for God. Well, consider this: A new Harris poll reveals that 42 percent of Americans are not "absolutely certain" there even is a God, you can read a complete story about it here.

Now, this is disturbing news, of course. But if our immediate response is to "elect godly leaders" then we are waaay off base. Elected officials -- even "godly" ones -- can't fix what ails America. The problem with America is sin. God alone has the ability to effectively deal with that.

Look in Scripture. Find the passages that instruct believers to "fix" mankind through the political process (I can save you some time -- it's not in there). Now find the passages where believers are instructed to make disciples, to teach of the things of God, to boldly proclaim His name and to get into the fields that are white unto harvest. You see my point?

We have become so consumed with manipulating the behavior of Americans through the force of elected officials that we have neglected introducing them to the One who has the power to change them completely. As believers we need to consume ourselves with His will and His glory. Matthew 6:33 says, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."

Let's concern ourselves with the things of God and stop allowing the temporal things of man to distract us from our purpose. As believers we should be obsessed with building a "godly" church and leave the nation in God's hands. Remember, we serve the King of kings regardless of who occupies some office in Washington.

Happy Reformation Day

2006-10-31T06:55:00.000-08:00

Today is the anniversary of when, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. God used this act as a spark to create a reformation among believers whereby the supremacy of Scripture would once again be accepted as the sole authority for our faith. Here is the full text of the 95 Theses.

Celebrations in October

2006-10-17T07:25:00.000-07:00

It's October and you know what that means...

Well, it means two things really: 1) Halloween is upon us and 2) so is the World Series. (Note: these are not listed in order of importance)

As always, Halloween merits some mention because churches struggle over how to address it. Many churches offer "harvest parties" as a wholesome alternative to Halloween. Others sponsor "judgment houses" -- the Christian version of a haunted house where visitors are confronted with the reality of an eternity in hell and then presented some form of evangelistic message. I still contend we really miss the boat at this time of year. It was on October 31 that Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, the spark that set ablaze the Protestant Reformation. This time of year provides an incredible opportunity for teaching about the history of the event and the biblical doctrines that were reclaimed. For a taste of what we are missing read "Celebrating Reformation."

Now, the World Series merits a special mention this year because the Detroit Tigers are back in it. Since I am the "World's Number One Detroit Tiger Fan" I would be remiss if I did not make mention of this fact. Oh, I'm sure there are those who would dispute my claim to number-one-fan status, but for 22 years (the number of years since the Tigers were last in the World Series) I have proudly stood up -- even in the midst of a 119-loss season -- and proclaimed my affection for the Tigers. So please forgive me if I make similar proclamations now, when it is considerably more pleasant to do so.

Uncompromising

2006-10-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the “Prince of Preachers,” was not very big on sacrificing truth for unity. In fact, when it came to God’s Word, he was quite uncompromising (a word which, today, has decidedly negative connotations but in Spurgeon’s day was quite complimentary). He did not shy away from preaching “hard” doctrines nor did he attempt to ease the cutting bite of the Word’s sharper edges. This week’s dose of Spurgeon over at Pyromaniacs demonstrates this well. Would that God would raise up more preachers like Spurgeon who are unafraid to preach the whole of God’s Word and unapologetic for the truths contained therein.

Seeking Treasure from Idols

2006-10-04T10:00:00.000-07:00

When we think of idol worship we often conjure images of Old Testament-style idolatry. We may think of the Israelites and their golden calf or the despicable practice of the Ammonites in sacrificing their children to Moloch. Few of us ever consider the many forms idols may take, nor the various ways we sacrifice to them – even today.

This book review at the Chalcedon Foundation’s website demonstrates how people frequently sacrifice their children to idols right here in 21st century America. Parents are sacrificing their children to the idol of worldly success, pushing them ever harder for higher grades, more involvement, more achievement so that they might end up at the right college which will, of course, enable them to get the right job and on and on. The book is not specifically about the children of Christian parents but a simple glance around will confirm that Christian parents have fallen prey to this very idol and willingly offer their children to it.

The results speak for themselves. Statistics show that 88 percent of students who were involved in church while in high school leave the church when they leave school. For them church was just another activity tacked onto an already lengthy list of other activities. Our churches have become horribly inept at teaching our children the deep and meaningful things of God. We do not emphasize that Christ is not merely another aspect of our life but that he is life itself and our whole existence is to glorify God. Even if we say these things our actions speak louder.

Investing the vast majority of our time in other areas betrays our true priorities. We sacrifice our time, our energy, and our children to idols and then wonder why God would allow them to wander away.

It should come as no surprise. Jesus was clear on the consequences of pursuing worldly treasure. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” – Matthew 6:19-21

Thideological News of the Day

2006-09-29T08:05:00.000-07:00

"SEEKER SENSITIVE" CONFLICT
Recent reports indicate Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, Tennessee, one of the largest churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, is dividing over the implementation of “Seeker Sensitive” principles most notably made popular by Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Church. Complete articles on the situation may be found here and here.

It always troubles me to see brothers and sisters bickering but this one hits very close to home as I had the privilege of serving as an intern on Bellevue’s staff while attending seminary in Memphis. It is even more troubling to see a spat like this when Scripture speaks clearly on the matter. Romans 3: 10-13 says, “There is none righteous not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God…”

There is no such thing as a “seeker.” And I pray that Bellevue will conform to the biblical view of sinful man, abandon any “seeker sensitive” nonsense, and set an example for many other churches who look up to her.

AN ENCOURAGING TREND
Many young Christians are beginning to rediscover the rock-solid foundation of the Reformed faith. This article in Christianity Today explains.

A WORD ABOUT POLITICS
With the mid-term elections fast approaching it is difficult not to hear the latest predictions of results and speculation on what it all means. I make no secret of my conservative leanings in this area (although my brand of conservatism is more akin to the libertarian style established by the likes of Thomas Jefferson than it is to the big-government style we see today). Here is an article that examines what happened to the conservatives who used to represent my beliefs. It’s a bit depressing, but…

If you are like me and long for a much smaller government then here is a candidate we can truly get behind.

A "human" God

2006-09-13T12:00:00.000-07:00

The influence of humanism on the church runs deep. It manifests itself most notably in a rampant Arminianism – which holds that man’s “free will” is the one aspect of humanity God may not assail (but that’s a subject for another time). Even though humanism runs contrary to a biblical worldview we have allowed aspects of it to creep into our theology.

At first the contradictions may be so minute as to be almost unnoticeable. But, as the effects of humanism creep farther and farther into the teachings of the church it is inevitable that, at some point, a clear contradiction will present itself forcing us to make a decision. Are we going to turn from the false teachings we’ve allowed to go unchecked, repent, and re-embrace the Bible as the sole authority for our faith? Or, are we going to continue to rationalize some sort of synthesis between humanism and Scripture that results in a worldview that, once again, drifts farther away from the “faith once for all delivered to the saints?”

One such contradiction is the incarnation. There is a school of thought, which posits the notion that one of the reasons Jesus came to earth was so God could find out for Himself what it is like for us (this dovetails with open theism, another heresy gaining popularity today that I addressed here). This teaching asserts that God, never having been a man Himself, could not possibly know what life as a human is like. This is a clear projection of human limitations on God.

It is true that we, as humans, better understand things if we can experience them for ourselves. But our capacity for understanding is extremely limited. God’s is not. God spoke all of creation into existence. It is His providential hand that guides creation. He understands our circumstances, reactions, and emotions better than we ourselves. Psalm 147:5 says, “Great is our Lord and great of power: His understanding is infinite.” Acts 15:18 says, “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning.”

Scripture goes on and on and on. There is no mistaking this: God knows all things. To think that He must experience something first-hand in order to better understand it is contrary to Scripture. A god who must experience in order to understand has something to learn and, therefore, is not omniscient.

And yet there are those who continue to insist God is like us and needs to experience things first. Of course, this is not a new thing. People have always tried to make God more like themselves. Martin Luther, the German reformer, once rebuked his contemporary, Erasmus, for this very mistake. “Your thoughts of God,” he wrote in a letter, “are too human.”

The Scriptures even contain an instance where God scolds an apostate Israel for this very heresy, “Thou thoughtest that I was altogether as thyself.” (Psalm 50:21)

The sad thing is the modern church, when presented with each subsequent contradiction between humanism and biblical authority, seems to embrace humanism and thus accelerates a downward spiral away from orthodoxy. May God convict each of us to return to His Word and conform our thoughts accordingly and give us the boldness to reject any errors we’ve embraced that contradict it.

"Neither"

2006-08-29T13:51:00.000-07:00

Sometimes reading Scripture can catch you off guard. You can be reading along, thinking you have a solid handle on the text when – BOOM – a single word will send you spinning. I was once sent spinning thusly.

I was reading Joshua chapter five. It seemed pretty straight forward, when a single word blew apart my erroneous understanding and set me to thinking. Perhaps you remember the story. Moses has died and Joshua is now the leader of the Israelites. God has promised them the land in Canaan and has led them to the city of Jericho. Let’s pick up the text here (verses 13 through 15)…

“Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, ‘Are you for us or for our enemies?’

‘Neither,’ he replied, ‘but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.’ Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, ‘What message does my Lord have for his servant?’

The commander of the Lord's army replied, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.’ And Joshua did so.”

Did you see the word over which I once tumbled?

I’ll give you a hint: It’s “neither.”

Neither.

When Joshua asks the commander of the Lord’s army “are you for us or for our enemies?” the commander replies “neither.”

Based on the rest of this story – you know, how the commander gives Joshua instructions on how to capture Jericho and how those instructions work in miraculous fashion – I had always felt safe in assuming this commander was from God.

In fact, if you examine this commander closely you find some very striking characteristics:

First, earthly armies have chains of command – from the commander-in-chief to the generals, senior officers, junior officers, non-commissioned officers all the way down to the privates. This is necessary because the commanders can’t be everywhere at once. Aha, but God can. God needs no such chain of command. He alone commands his army.

Second: Joshua falls down and worships this commander – and the commander accepts the worship. Angels don’t do that because there is only One worthy of worship and that is God, Himself.

Third: This commander tells Joshua to take off his sandals because the ground on which he is standing is holy. Now, what makes a patch of ground holy? Geography? No. It is the presence of God. Remember this happened before when Moses was addressed by God in the burning bush. God’s presence makes a place holy.

This commander is a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.

Okay. So, the messenger is beyond reproach. What He says can be safely taken as authoritative. But, what of the message? He said “neither.” This indicates that he is not for the Israelites. God is not for the Israelites? How can this be?

Aren’t these the very people with whom God established His covenants? Didn’t He dwell in their midst in the tabernacle? He delivered them from slavery in Egypt by parting the Red Sea. He fed them in the wilderness. He piled up the waters of the Jordan River so they could cross into the Promised Land. And, because we have the benefit of Scripture, we know He leads them to victory in Canaan, and ultimately blesses all nations through them by sending the Messiah as the perfect sacrifice for sin.

And yet Christ tells Joshua that He is not for the Israelites. I thought perhaps there was some textual anomaly, some matter of semantics that would clear this up. I found none.

The answer is found in adopting a foundational principle for studying Scripture and it is this…

It ain’t about us.

None of it. God’s Word, His divine plan – none of it is about us. Oh, His Word is for us and His plan certainly benefits us, but it is not about us. It’s about Him. All of it.

All of God’s creation exists to bring Him glory. This is a foundational principle of Christianity. We are created for His glory. We are saved for His glory. We preach and teach and live for His glory.

This is the lesson Joshua needed to learn. While the Israelites had benefited from God’s plan they were not the focus of it. God was the focus of it.

This is a lesson we sorely need to relearn in the 21st century church. So many of our beliefs are rooted in the notion that God’s plan is somehow about us. This is a horrible mistake. It takes the focus off of God and puts it on us. It makes us think there is something about us worthy of being saved. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Emergent's Incomplete Gospel

2006-08-15T08:22:00.000-07:00

My first comments regarding the Emergent Church began with this series of articles. In them I pointed out some things I considered both dangerous and beneficial about this movement. And, while I’ve continued to read about and study the Emergent Church movement and its leaders, I’ve commented little. But, as Scripture commands us to contend earnestly for the faith and to speak out against false teaching, I find myself compelled to offer the following…

My original assessment of the Emergent Church was that it is, at best, liberalism repackaged and, at worst, a cult. The more I learn the more I am inclined to believe the latter. Consider Rob Bell.

Rob Bell, the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, the author of the book “Velvet Elvis,” and the featured speaker in the Nooma DVD series, is a leading figure of the Emergent Church culture. His popularity and influence is growing and should be held up to scrutiny. After all, 1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

We try the spirits by holding them up against the inerrant Word of God. If the teachings therein are contrary to Scripture then what are we to conclude? They are false.

Let’s hold a portion of Bell’s message up against Scripture and see what happens.

In the Nooma DVD “Bullhorn” Bell speaks about a man with a bullhorn preaching on a street corner. Says Bell, “As I get closer, I hear the words ‘sin’ and ‘burn’ and ‘hell’ and repent.’ And then I hear the word ‘Jesus.’ And he’s got these pamphlets, and he’s quoting these Bible verses about the anger and wrath of God, and how if I don’t repent, I’m going to pay for it for eternity, and how I might die, I might die tonight! This might be my only chance!”

Bell continues…

“Bullhorn guy, I don’t think it’s working. All the yelling and the judgment and the condemnation, I don’t think it’s working. I actually think it’s making things worse. I don’t think it’s what Jesus had in mind.”

Now, if Bell were talking only about Bullhorn guy’s method he might have a point. Ranting on a street corner may not be the best way to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But viewed in context it becomes clear that Bell is not talking only about methodology. He’s talking about the message. Bell makes it plain that he thinks preaching or teaching about sin, judgment, wrath, and repentance is a bad thing.

But what does Scripture have to say about such things?

Sin:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” – Romans 3:23

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 6:23

Judgment and Wrath:

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” – Matthew 10:28

“For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” – Hebrews 10:30, 31

Repentance:

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” – Acts 3:19

These are not isolated verses. The Bible is filled with references to sin, the penalty for sin, God’s wrath to be poured out on sinners, and the necessity of repentance. Bell seems ashamed of these words, these concepts. According to Bell this is not what Jesus had in mind.

Says Bell, “I mean, that’s why so many of us are so fascinated with Jesus, because he never stops insisting that God really, really loves us exactly as we are.”

I will agree that God loves us. The Bible teaches this.

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” – Romans 5:8

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16

God’s love is evident. But Bell completely misses a very, very important part. In what way, in both of the previously quoted verses, is God’s love is evident? It is evident because of the price He paid on our behalf. He gave His Son for us.

God’s love compelled Him to sacrifice His son, but our sinfulness before His holiness is what made the sacrifice necessary. God does not love us “exactly as we are.” Reconciliation is necessary. Justification must be made. He loves us enough to change us, not leave us in our wretched condition. All of these concepts together constitute the Gospel – sin, judgment, wrath, repentance, Christ, sacrifice, grace. This is the Gospel.

Bell wants to focus on God’s love apart from His righteous judgment of sin. He wants to just ignore all those unpleasant words Bullhorn guy was using.

“I mean, isn’t that what draws you to [Jesus],” says Bell.

No, Mr. Bell it’s not. In fact, the thing that draws anyone to Christ is not a matter of speculation. Christ Himself told us what it is that draws us to Him.

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:” – John 6:44

God draws us to Christ, period. And it is when we hear the Gospel that God chooses to do this.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;” – Romans 1:16

The gospel of Christ is the power of salvation and we should not be ashamed of it. The Apostle Paul wasn’t.

It may be more popular to just skip those unpleasant aspects of God’s Word – that nasty sin and wrath portion – but a gospel that overlooks man’s sin, his need for repentance, and the just wages of his sinfulness is no Gospel at all – and it has no power unto salvation.

Once was the day when pastor’s did not shy away from the hard truth of Scripture, just take a look at this sermon by Jonathan Edwards. May God grant us pastors and teachers unashamed of the gospel of Christ. Unafraid to preach Christ and Him crucified.

The Economics of Christianity

2006-08-10T13:19:00.000-07:00

In economics things are viewed as having either intrinsic value or extrinsic value. In the simplest terms this refers to whether or not something has value in and of itself. If it does it is said to have intrinsic value. The value of water is intrinsic. We need water to sustain life. We drink it, wash with it, cook with it, and water crops with it. Its value is contained within itself.

Extrinsic value means an item has no real value on it’s own but draws it’s value from somewhere else. A check for 100 dollars, for example, has no value on it’s own. The small rectangle of paper is virtually worthless. Its value is drawn from another source – in this case from the 100 dollars in the bank represented by the check. The check’s value is extrinsic, outside of itself.

Why in the world is this concept important to the study of Christianity?

I’m glad you asked. It is important because confusing intrinsic and extrinsic value is corrupting the Gospel in many of our churches.

Okay, let me explain.

The world is divided between people who view mankind as the basis for measuring ethics and morality and people who view God as the basis for measuring ethics and morality. Humanism views man as the measure of all things while the Bible teaches that God is that measure. Both of these worldviews, however, share a common belief – man has value.

Aha, but they are vastly different in what kind of value man contains. Humanists teach that mankind has intrinsic value – that we, in and of ourselves, are valuable. And, in our relationships with one another this is true to some extent. The members of my family are valuable to me and that value is contained in them.

But what about our relationship with God?

You may have heard it said that man is extremely valuable to God, just look at the incredible price He paid for us. Now, it is true that God paid a very high price to redeem the elect. But too often we begin to think that this is the case because God saw some value in us that made us worthy of redemption. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The idea that we have some intrinsic value that made God want to save us is nothing more than the corrupting influence of humanism, which has been infiltrating our churches since the 17th century. This unbiblical worldview has penetrated so deeply into the teachings of Christianity that once uncompromising preachers are now leaning toward Universalist views as a result. What we need to remember is that the authority for Christian faith and practice does not reside in the popular philosophies of the past few hundred years but in the very Word of God revealed to us by our Creator.

How does God characterize us? Look at Isaiah’s response in Isaiah chapter 6 when he saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up. “Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”

Isaiah was made aware of his standing before a Holy God. There was no inkling of worth in him. He was utterly and completely undone. Worthless.

“Okay, okay,” the humanist philosophy tells us, “But God still needs us. That’s why He called upon us to fulfill His will.”

As believers we certainly have the distinct privilege of serving God. But we should never make the mistake of thinking God needs us. Look at Isaiah again, this time in chapter 64 …

“But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And [there is] none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.”

What we do for God is as “filthy rags.”

We need to reject humanism outright and understand the biblical teaching that before God we have no intrinsic value at all. We are undone.

However, we are remarkably fortunate, indeed, because in his letter to the Romans Paul points out that, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

It pleased God to exhibit His grace in this manner so that He may be glorified. And now, we have value in His sight but it is extrinsic. Our value before God is drawn from Christ and Christ alone, it is not our own. On this point we need to be perfectly clear.

"As if" Sunday were special...

2006-07-21T09:13:00.000-07:00

An article in the London Telegraph entitled, “Church must be more than a Sunday service,” reports the Church of England recently declared that churches must adapt to modern life by offering many more weekday and evening services rather than continuing to act as if only Sunday is special.

Wait. Did they actually say “as if Sunday is special?”

Does not the Lord declare the Sabbath to be special? Are we not supposed to set aside one day of the week specifically for the worship of God? Where in Scripture does it say the commands of our Lord are to be compromised in order to accommodate “modern life?”

The article goes on to report that people will drift away if they are not offered alternative and attractive services that “fit into their busy lives.”

Some observations:

-- Church is not supposed to be an entertainment venue for the unregenerate. Church is the gathering together of believers for worship, study, and fellowship. We come together to glorify God.

-- When we, as believers, begin to view corporate worship as something we have to “fit into” our busy lives then we need to evaluate our priorities.

-- If we have no desire to worship God and fellowship with other believers then we really need to evaluate our lives.

This whole mindset of shifting biblical directives to accommodate ourselves is symptomatic of a much deeper problem. The modern church has become consumed with the notion that God exists for us. We have taken to the idea that it’s okay to conform Christianity to our worldview and our lives in any way we see fit because, after all, if Christianity doesn’t help us accomplish our goals then what good is it? So we shouldn’t be at all surprised to find the Church of England declaring that Sunday is just another day. Hey, as the article points out, “modern-day weekends are full with domestic and personal agendas” that “present difficult choices for many.”

The bottom line: Our "personal" agendas are the priorty. If we don’t view it as important then God needs to adapt to our “modern” lifestyles.

Nope.

We need to get this straight. We exist to glorify God, period. Not the other way around. It’s not all about us, it’s all about Him. He is not to conform to us, we are to conform to Him. Now, I don’t expect the unregenerate to understand this. But it sure is troubling when believers begin to adopt the world’s perspective when God’s Word is so clear.

For a more biblical view of the Sabbath read Dr. David Alan Black’s article entitled, “The Lord’s Day still belongs to the Lord.”

Thideological News of the Day

2006-07-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

A Study in Contrasts

A house-church leader in China has been sentenced to 7 ½ years in prison essentially because he is unashamed of the Gospel of Christ and will not stop bearing witness of our Lord Jesus. Pastor Zhang Rongliang (pictured at right), who is 55-years-old and suffers from diabetes, needs our prayer. Read more about him here.

Now, contrast his story with this one from agape press about how the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently voted to allow the denomination’s churches to use the phrase “compassionate mother, beloved child, and life-giving womb” in place of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Two things strike me. First, that the Presbyterian Church (USA) actually thinks the Church receives its authority by consensus and not from the Word of God. And two, that they compromise things clearly stated in Scripture for fear of “offending” someone. All this while Christians in China accept prison and torture rather than compromise the Word of God.

May God forgive us for compromising the authority of His Word and give us the boldness He has given our Chinese brethren in proclaiming that Word.

Our behavior toward our enemies

2006-07-10T13:03:00.000-07:00

Why do we find it so difficult to practice what we preach? We know, for example, that God has commanded us to love our enemies and we find it very easy to articulate this teaching to one another in the context of a Sunday School class or a Bible study. So why do we have trouble conducting our lives accordingly?

In fact, the contrast between what we ought to do and what we actually do has almost become a permanent illustration in our classes. How many times have we studied clear instructions from God’s Word and then used our own lives as an example of a failure in this regard?

“The Bible says be slow to anger,” we point out… right before admitting, “But hey, I’m the world’s worst at flying off the handle.”

This is usually said to a chorus of amens, and “me too, brother.”

We know what we ought to do, we recognize the failure on our part, we go about our business with no intention of changing, and then use our lives as an illustration again in next week’s lesson.

Repentance and obedience is not a matter of choice. We are to repent of our sins and we are to be obedient to God’s instructions for our lives. Our spiritual forefathers did not take these things lightly. Consider Ananias from Acts chapter 9.

The Lord spoke to him in a vision and told him that Saul of Tarsus was at the house of Judas on Straight Street in Damascus. The Lord further instructed him to go to Saul and place his hands on him to heal him of his blindness.

Seems like a reasonable task. Reasonable, that is, until you consider who Saul is. Saul was a Pharisee and a chief enemy of Christianity. He was responsible for arresting and imprisoning Christians. He stood by holding the coats while Stephen was stoned to death.

Now, there’s a good chance Ananias resented the things Saul had done and viewed him as unworthy of healing. There’s also a real good chance that he was reluctant to help Saul out of fear for himself. Ananias was a Christian and he knew Saul’s reputation.

Nevertheless Ananias was obedient. Saul, a wretched enemy of the Church, was saved by God’s grace and used of God as one of His chief apostles.

In a recent post I pointed out how we need to be praying for our enemies according to Christ’s instructions in Matthew chapter 5. I’m sure it’s a topic that has come up a number of times since September 11, 2001. I wonder how many of us have admitted we need to do this and then use ourselves as examples of not having done it. And if we haven’t prayed for our enemies, what has prevented us? Is it because deep down inside we don’t want God to convict them of their sin – kind of like Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh because deep down inside he knew the Ninevites would heed God’s call and repent and Jonah didn’t want that?

May God keep us from such attitudes.

I recently read a story in World magazine about three terrorists who have been saved. They now travel preaching God’s Word. What an incredible testimony. Before God saved them they were bent on killing westerners for political and religious reasons. Now they are brothers in Christ.

Their conversion should prompt us to pray for those who call themselves our enemies – not begrudgingly but earnestly.

Their story made me think once again of an enemy turned brother. In Ephesians chapter 6 the apostle Paul wrote, “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”

Ultimately those who call themselves our enemies are not our real enemies. They are merely the instruments of our real enemy. They are enslaved to their sinful nature and in desperate need of God’s grace…

…just like we once were.

Burning the sacred?

2006-06-27T11:11:00.000-07:00

The United States Senate is considering a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. Now, I’ve never once considered burning an American flag nor am I likely to burn one in the future. But I am absolutely against a constitutional amendment of this nature for a couple of reasons.

As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ I cannot accept the language of this proposed amendment – "banning the desecration of the American flag". To desecrate something means to violate the sanctity of it. Sanctity means something is holy or sacred. So this amendment, by definition, explicitly forbids the desecration of the American flag because the flag is considered a sacred, holy object. On this issue the Bible could not be more clear. God and God alone is holy and only He deserves to be treated as such. To attribute sacred or holy status to an object is to make an idol of it and I will not do it. To do so would be an affront to God.

Furthermore, I oppose this amendment because it runs contrary to the very foundation of the United States. Ours is a country founded on liberty. The Bill of Rights was authored specifically to limit the power of government over the liberties they viewed as God given.

Encroaching on the individual liberties of citizens in favor of protecting symbols of the state is the conduct of totalitarian countries not free ones. Besides, the respect due to a symbol in inherently found in that which the symbol represents. The American flag only deserves respect as long as the country it represents deserves respect.

It is ironic indeed that the country that embraces individual liberty to the point of allowing the “desecration” of its national symbols is the country whose symbols very few would want to “desecrate.” But, the country that violates the liberty of its citizens for the sake of protecting symbols is the country whose symbols are no longer worthy of protection.

An amendment to prevent the “desecration” of the American flag may yet be adopted and those who see the flag as sacred will have succeeded in making it illegal to burn the object of their worship – all while the principles of individual liberty once represented by the flag go up in smoke.

The death of our enemies

2006-06-13T10:09:00.000-07:00

The recent death of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has reminded me of my experience on September 11, 2001. I wrote about it in the September 25, 2001 issue of the Indiana Baptist in an editorial entitled, "Demanding Justice?":

I wanted justice.

After denial gave way to belief. When the shock began to subside. When I finally accepted the fact terrorists had hijacked four American passenger planes and crashed them into various targets along the eastern seaboard I wanted justice.

I was in Alpharetta, Georgia at the North American Mission Board when I heard the news on September 11, 2001. I was scheduled to fly home later that day but ended up waiting at a Hertz rental car counter for almost five hours before I was able to get a car for my 9-hour drive to Indianapolis. I had a lot of time to consider the events of the day and ample opportunity to see first-hand a nation thrown into near chaos. The more I thought and the more I saw, the more I wanted justice.

Images came at me so fast that day I barely had time to process what was happening. There was the prayer time at the North American Mission Board chapel where I saw brothers and sisters coming before God able only to trust in His sovereignty over something we could not understand.

There was the time I spent with the man who drove me to the airport. A native of South Africa with a great deal of experience with this sort of thing, he told me he was indeed a Christian (seminary trained) but wanted me to understand the only way to deal with terrorists is to “hunt them down and exterminate them.”

There was news of 1,500 passengers stranded in Atlanta’s airport and of the restaurant owners who fed them for free.

I saw a man come into the Hertz office and get incredibly upset because the lady behind the desk was going to have to run a few things through the computer in order to get him on his way. The delay, she said, would be about 10 minutes. He almost blew his top, as if there were not thousands of people having a much worse day.

I waited in gas lines in Murphreesboro, Tennessee.

Mostly I had time to think, and it occurred to me, every now and then God gives us a glimpse at just how despicable sin really is. The terrorists who attacked America showed the world what full-strength sin looks like. It is easy for us to look at the behavior of those particular sinners and see how God would be justified in pouring out His wrath on them. I was just about to pray for that very thing when I saw a sign.

On the marquee of a church sign was the phrase, “May God give us justice.”

The notion sent chills down my spine. Then something else occurred to me. I am just as deserving of God’s justice as are these terrorists.

Oh, I’ve never murdered innocent people by the thousands the way they did, but my heart was just as dark and my nature just as depraved as theirs. God does not differentiate between sins. On my own I stand just as guilty before a Holy God as they do. There is just one difference. Rather than subject me to the justice I so richly deserve God, in His love and mercy, chose to give me grace instead. Had God removed His hand of grace from me and turned me over to my own sinful nature I would have been capable of crimes just as despicable. But he showed me grace.

In a temporal sense it is appropriate to desire justice. In Romans 13 Paul points out that this is the purpose for which governments have been established. And it is my sincere hope the perpetrators of this act are brought to justice in this sense. But I will not pray for God to extend to them His eternal justice.

After the attacks Senator John McCain stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and said to the terrorists, “We are coming. God may show you mercy. We will not.”

As believers our prayer should be “May God show you mercy.” We should not merely recognize it as a possibility but genuinely desire it.

I had wanted justice. But if everyone deserving of justice got it that would include me. I do not want justice. I want mercy. I want grace. And because of the terrible price Jesus paid to secure that grace I want as many people as possible to receive it. How could I want anything else?

God has used this most recent occasion to show me, once again, the wonder of His grace and just how much I don’t deserve it. He has also used it to convict me of a failure of mine.

It’s very easy to view a person like al-Zarqawi as something altogether different from one’s self. He has committed acts of terrorism. He has brutally beheaded innocent people. And, for the longest time, I wanted him captured or killed just as much as anyone. But the jubilation I’ve seen with the news of his death has disturbed me. I’m pleased he is no longer able to kill and terrorize, but his death is not something to be celebrated.

Scripture commands us to pray for our enemies. Jesus, during the Sermon on the Mount said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” (Matthew 5:44,45)

We need to be praying for our enemies.

Standing on the Promises of God... for now.

2006-06-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

Does God change His mind?

At first glance this question seems ridiculously easy. Of course God does not change His mind. The Bible explicitly says He does not:

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” – Numbers 23:19

“And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” – 1 Samuel 15:29

There, that should settle the matter… but, not so fast. There is a school of false teaching that is creeping (and in some cases charging) into churches at an alarming rate known as Open Theism. Open Theism teaches that God does not know all things, is constantly learning, and is subject to changing His mind when presented with information He did not previously have.

Adrian Rogers, the late pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tenn., used to say, “Did it ever occur to you that nothing occurs to God?”

But Open Theism embraces the notion that things occur to God all the time. And, to be fair, there are verses in the Bible that support this claim. One of the more commonly used ones is:

“So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” – Exodus 32:14

So, what do we have here? Many people, upon reading these passages will say, “Aha! A contradiction in the Bible.” But what we really have here is a paradox. A paradox is an apparent contradiction that, upon further scrutiny, can be resolved. So how do we resolve this?

A key principle in biblical interpretation is that verses are to be interpreted in light of other verses. If one passage seems ambiguous then perhaps another verse speaks more clearly on the subject and can shed some light. Another principle is to pay careful attention to the language. Is it literal or figurative? The Bible makes use of several different figures of speech: similes, metaphors, personifications, euphemisms, hyperbole, irony, anthropomorphisms, and typology. We need to see if any of these are in use. It is these last two that I want to take a closer look at.

An anthropomorphism is just a really big word which means describing God in human terms. A good example is 2 Chronicles 16:9, “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth.” We know from Scripture that God is a spirit and does not have actual eyes. This is just a description in human terms to help us understand that nothing escapes God’s notice.

Typology is a special kind of symbolism where a person or thing in the Old Testament foreshadows a person or thing in the New Testament. When we refer to something as a “type” of Christ we mean it does something which corresponds to Jesus’ actions or character. The brazen serpent in Numbers 21:8 is a “type” of crucifixion.

Now, as for the resolution of our paradox: The passages in Numbers and 1 Samuel are clearly intended as literal. There is no wiggle room there. The Bible says God does not change His mind nor does He repent. So, we are left with the passage in Exodus. What other possibilities exist there?

In Exodus 32 is God actually reacting to new information or is He acting in human terms for the benefit of our understanding (an anthropomorphism)? Let’s look at the whole passage in context: In verse 10 God said, “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them, and that I may destroy them…” But Moses interceded, saying, “Turn from Thy burning anger and change Thy mind about doing harm to Thy people…” To which God responds in verse 14, “So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.”

First, God did not actually promise to destroy. He said “let me alone so that my anger may burn against them.” The condition of Israel’s destruction was Moses leaving God alone and God knew Moses wasn’t going to do that.

Second, God’s judgment of Israel comes after the law was given. Remember, the whole purpose of the law is to show us our need for grace. So, now the law is given and God is prepared to judge but He does not because of the actions of an intercessor. In this instance Moses is a “type” of Christ. God turns from judgment to grace in this case because of the work of Christ. In John 5:39 Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me.”

God did not change His mind concerning Israel. He gave us an example, a “type,” of how he would withhold His judgment on the basis of the redemptive work of a mediator, Christ. This passage, like all of the Old Testament, points ahead to the cross of Christ while all of the New Testament points back to it. Everyone in history who has ever been saved has been saved by God’s grace on the basis of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

Of course Open Theists argue against this and continue to cling to a false teaching. Ironically, many of them continue to claim they have wonderful assurance of salvation on the basis of God’s promises. Which brings to mind an old hymn…

“Standing on the promises that cannot fail,
When the howling storms of doubt and fear assail,
By the living Word of God I shall prevail,
Standing on the promises of God.”

My question is this: How can you trust you have eternal security if there is even the slightest chance God will one day be presented with new information that will compel Him to change His mind?

Let me answer. You can’t have assurance. The very best you can say, if you believe God doesn’t know everything and is subject to changing His mind, is this:

“I have eternal security, unless ...”

Thanks

2006-06-02T11:47:00.000-07:00

A big "Thank You" to Alan (aka The Calvinist Gadfly) for recommending Thideology to his readers.

Remembering the "Ultimate Sacrifice"

2006-05-26T12:41:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite movies of all time is “Patton.” In the opening sequence George C. Scott, in the role of General George S. Patton, steps in front of an enormous American flag and addresses the U.S. Third Army. It is regarded as one of the more famous monologues in American cinematic history. His opening line is classic. For the sake of discretion I will (bleep) out the profanity.

“Now, I want you to remember that no (bleep) ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb (bleep) die for his country.”

Memorial Day is upon us. In the United States it is the day set aside to remember those who have died in the defense of our country. I think it is appropriate to honor their memory. What they did is often referred to as the “ultimate sacrifice.” But as I consider both the phrase “ultimate sacrifice” and General Patton’s thoughts on making the other poor dumb (bleep) die for his country a couple of things occur to me.

First, those whose memory we honor on Memorial Day didn’t intend to die. Were they willing to die? Almost certainly. We’ve all heard stories of how, during the course of battle, someone willingly gave their life for others. Their commitment has never been in question. But I dare say they did not plan to go into battle and never come back. As Patton pointed out, you win by killing the enemy. Every time our side takes a casualty it diminishes our force strength. Besides, they had families to whom they wanted to return. They had dreams for “after the war.” They had a life.

Second, when considering whether or not a sacrifice is the “ultimate sacrifice” several things need to be considered. Obviously the cost: Those who died in battle paid the highest price possible. But what about intent? As I said, they didn’t intend to die. They didn’t plan to pay so high a price. Also, what about the gain? Those who have died in America’s wars have secured military victories. And if their sacrifice has protected others’ rights to life and liberty then they have achieved a noble goal indeed. But is it the ultimate?

In my estimation there is but one “ultimate sacrifice.” Jesus Christ came to earth with the full intention of dying. The plan all along was for Him to give His life so that others may live. And His sacrifice secured for believers something far greater than the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness articulated in the Declaration of Independence. His sacrifice provides us with eternal life.

I do not, in any way, mean to demean the sacrifice of America’s war dead. I merely want to point out how much greater is Christ’s sacrifice. Think about how highly we esteem America’s war dead. How much more highly, then, should we esteem Christ?

For the Christian there should only be one meaning for the phrase “ultimate sacrifice.”

How to fix education

2006-05-21T05:54:00.000-07:00

Drastic problems often require drastic measures. I can remember watching movies where a character had sustained a horrible wound to one of their extremities. The doctors would do everything they could in order to save the patient's arm or leg. But there came a time when it became necessary to amputate the limb in order to save the life of the patient. Almost everyone agrees we have a dilemma in education in America. In order to restore quality education this solution may be the only one left.

The object of our faith

2006-05-19T11:28:00.000-07:00

Growing up most of us were taught respect for police officers, and rightfully so. Police officers have a difficult and dangerous job and the vast majority of them conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner that deserves our respect. But here is a story about an incident involving a Baltimore police officer that reminds us our respect for any public servant should not increase into something more – like reverence or faith.

The Bible is clear that God and God alone is deserving of our reverence and faith. While it is sometimes tempting to place our faith in people who sacrifice so much on our behalf we need to remember that they are just as prone to sin as we are. They need the saving grace of God every bit as much as we do.

Faith is only as strong as the object in which it is placed. If we place it in another person – regardless of how admirable they may be – we are placing it in something that is ultimately bound to fail. There is only One whose character is worthy of our faith, and that is God.

Christian...Yoga?

2006-05-16T08:02:00.000-07:00

The Denver Post recently ran a story about a woman who has written a book entitled "Yoga for Christians." Author Susan Bordenkircher is described as a certified fitness instructor and a devout Methodist. She claims that using Yoga as a tool of Christian worship is just fine despite Yoga's Hindu origins.

"The difference," she said, "lies in the intention: shifting the focus from self to God with yogic postures, 'breathing in the Holy Spirit, for instance.'"

First of all, the Holy Spirit indwells a believer at the point of conversion. This is something God does, not man. We can't "breathe in the Holy Spirit" any more than we can order God around. And second, Jesus Christ Himself gave us instructions on how to pray and worship. Our goal should be a biblical worship not a blended Christian-Hindu one.

Bordenkircher also points out the physical benefits of Yoga and says "integrating health" is "critical to our effective godly service."

This is a justification for embracing false teachings?

Look, stretching exercises are good. There's nothing wrong with working out and staying physically fit. But Yoga is more than physical fitness. It is physical fitness with a firm foundation in spiritual teachings. To attempt to incorporate Yoga into Christianity is to deliberately inject certain aspects of a false religion. And, when considering the numerous and stern warnings against false teachings contained in Scripture, it is a wonder that any Bible-believing Christian would even consider Yoga as part of their faith.

And yet this subject has been a point of contention among those professing to be believers for a few years now. The magazine Christianity Today even published a couple of articles (one for Yoga and one against Yoga) on this matter.

I guess I just don't understand why a believer in Jesus Christ would feel the need to go outside the authority of Scripture to find methods or techniques to aid their worship. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ not sufficient?

The Church of ... Oprah?

2006-05-12T07:34:00.000-07:00

An article in USA Today entitled “The divine Miss Winfrey” reveals a disturbing trend in the spiritual life of the United States. Oprah Winfrey, a talk show host, is lauded as “today’s Billy Graham.”

The article reports on the spiritual leadership aspect of Winfrey’s “ministry.” She is characterized as the “spiritual leader for the 21st century,” as "America's Pastor," and as the “Church of Oprah.” Both Ellen DeGeneres and Jamie Foxx have made half-joking quips about getting to heaven and finding out Oprah is God.

It shouldn’t be surprising to find such cavalier attitudes toward God among the lost. But it is a serious matter when people who profess to be believers and followers of Jesus Christ begin to jump on the bandwagon. A poll conducted at Beliefnet.com reported that 33 percent of 6,600 respondents said Winfrey has had “a more profound impact” on their spiritual lives than their church leaders.

The poll did not report on the percentage of respondents who also professed to be Christians but I would not be surprised to find a sizeable chunk of them included in that 33 percent. I’m even more convinced this is the case when I read the comments from church leaders on the subject.

“One of Winfrey's most appealing subtexts is that she's anti-institutional,” said Chris Altrock, minister of Highland Street Church of Christ in Memphis. He said Winfrey believes there are many paths to God, not just one.

That any Christian could allow a person who believes “there are many paths to God” to have a “profound impact” on their spiritual life is more than merely regrettable. Her “teachings” on spirituality run contrary to Scripture, which every Christian should know is THE authority on our “spiritual lives.”

The responsibility for this falls squarely at the feet of the Church. We have been far too lax in discipleship. We have not taught our own the truth of Scripture. We have not feasted on the meat of the Word. As a result we have people who claim to be Christians who have no problem with “The divine Miss Winfrey’s” version of the truth.

Congressional Heros: Then and Now

2006-05-04T09:02:00.000-07:00

America’s founders had some pretty specific ideas regarding the authority of government. They specifically outlined the things the federal government had the authority to do and specifically said anything not authorized by the Constitution was outside the scope of government power.

“Our tenet ever was,” said Thomas Jefferson, “that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.”

Of course our federal government does not even resemble the one intended by our founders. Too many generations of politicians have discovered the ability to secure their place in power by using the money of their constituents to buy votes. However, there have been a few (too few) bright spots.

Davy Crockett (pictured at right) was a congressman from Tennessee when a bill appropriating money to benefit the widow of a distinguished naval officer was introduced on the floor of the House. Crockett, understanding the Constitution gave no such authority to Congress, stood up and said the following:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Perhaps Crockett was reminded of the words of James Madison, who said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Maybe Crockett just understood the limitations of government. In either case his stand was a brief, but very bright spot, in the history of Congress. He was, and remains, a congressional hero.

Today I know of at least one such congressional hero. Ron Paul (pictured at right), a congressman from Texas, continues to make similar stands. Most recently he talked about what he calls, “True foreign aid.” Like Crockett before him, Paul’s convictions about the proper role of government are reminiscent of our founders. He, too, is a congressional hero. Too bad there aren’t more like him.

Thideological Headlines

2006-04-28T08:36:00.000-07:00

The Battle for Acceptance

A man in Alexandria, Virginia who operates a video duplicating business is being ordered by a government commission to make copies of a video that promotes homosexuality. The man, Tim Bono, initially refused to make copies for a lesbian activist because he did not want to participate in circulating a message that contradicted his Christian principles. There is even a stated store policy which informs potential customers that Bono reserves the right to NOT reproduce material he considers obscene or that runs contrary to his Christian and ethical principles.

Now, if the lesbian activist had only wanted to get duplicates of the tape she would have taken her business elsewhere, right? I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I’d be willing to bet there is another place in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area that copies video tapes. In fact, there’s probably one sympathetic to this cause that might have been willing to offer a discount.

But, instead, the activist caused a ruckus and complained to someone because the Arlington Human Rights Commission got involved. Homosexual activists claim their goal is “tolerance.” But that’s not true. What they want is full acceptance. And if Christians resist, well, as this case illustrates, they will be forced to comply with political correctness.

Helping Churches "do their job"

Tom Hanks, the star of the upcoming movie The Da Vinci Code, thinks the movie (despite it’s incredible attack on biblical Christianity) could “help churches do their job.”

“If they put up a sign saying, ‘This Wednesday we’re going to discuss the gospel,’ 12 people show up," said Hanks. "But if the sign says, ‘We’re discussing The Da Vinci Code,’ 800 people show up.”

That may be true, Mr. Hanks, but God has not charged His Church with entertaining the masses. Our job is to “make disciples.” That means teaching Scripture. And if churches use the occasion to hold up the false doctrine and fake history in The Da Vinci Code against the truth then I agree. There's value in that. But seeking to entertain for the purpose of drawing a big crowd, well, that's another matter.

Besides, there is something to be said for effectively teaching 12 people rather than entertaining 800. I think there is a precedent for that somewhere.

Bumper Sticker Theology

2006-04-20T12:03:00.000-07:00

As I’ve pointed out before, bumper sticker theology is incredibly shallow. Oh, I understand that bumper stickers are supposed to utilize short, cute, overly simplistic messages to convey a deeper meaning.

I get that.

But a problem with short, cute, overly simplistic messages is that they often are ineffective at leading the reader to the accurate deeper meaning. In fact, I think an argument can be made that they actually perpetuate more shallow thinking.

Since thideology is the study of the relationship between theology and ideology my interest is naturally drawn to areas where politics and religion intersect. Please consider a series of bumper stickers I recently ran across.

“Christian Liberal”
“Christian Democrat… and proud of it!!”
“Another Proud Member of The CHRISTIAN LEFT”
“Jesus Would Have Been a Democrat”
“Jesus is a Liberal”

These sort of slogans reduce the identity of Christ. He is a mere plank in their party platform. It seems to me that the person sporting stickers like these is first concerned with politics, public policy, and the “direction of the country.” To them God and His Word are tools to utilize in an effort to achieve their desired end.

And, lest you think I’m picking on liberals exclusively, let me just say I’ve seen any number of conservative versions of bumper stickers that make similar appeals to God as a means to their desired political end. This is not a party problem it’s a national one.

No, I take that back. It’s a Church problem.

And the bumper sticker that best illustrates my point is the one that reads, “Christian by Choice, Democrat by the Grace of God.”

How offensive that must be to our Lord. It is by the Grace of God alone that we are included in His Kingdom. It is only by an act of God’s sovereign Grace that any of us can come to faith in Jesus Christ and thereby claim the name “Christian.” That wretched bumper sticker has it exactly backwards.

As subjects of the King our first allegiance is to Him. It would seem, when considering the incredible price God paid for our redemption, that maintaining proper priorities with regard to our place in the Kingdom and our place in the world would be easy. But, as the bumper sticker so adequately demonstrates, our priorities are easily skewed.

Perhaps it would help if we reflected on Scripture. When Jesus stood before Pilate He made it clear that His Kingdom was not an earthly one.

“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” -- John 18:33-36

As the body of Christ our primary objective is to bring glory to our Lord not persuade Him to bring glory to us…or our country.

I’m reminded of all the things God’s people had to endure that ultimately brought God glory. They were slaves in Egypt. They wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Their land was conquered by one invader after another. The temple was destroyed.

When I think about how much effort we invest in trying to get God to bring glory to our country I wonder…

How receptive to God’s will would we be if the utter destruction of our country would bring Him glory? If it is a thought that makes us cringe, then maybe we need to consider our priorities. Are we members of His kingdom first? Or is our “Christianity” just another aspect of our political identity?

Death and Taxes

2006-04-11T12:16:00.000-07:00

Benjamin Franklin is credited with the famous proverb, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

How appropriate for us to ponder his wisdom on these two matters at this time of the year. For it is this time of the year, in particular, where we are forced to deal with one of these issues and have an opportunity to deal with the other.

April 15 is “tax day” in the United States. We are reminded, in no uncertain terms, of the certainty of taxes. Our federal government confiscates huge portions of our income, quite literally at the point of a gun, at rates that far exceed the rates that prompted our forefathers to revolt. What’s worse, the vast majority of the programs for which our money is taken Congress has no constitutional authority to enact.

It is encouraging, if only slightly, that at least one congressman recognizes this. Ron Paul, congressman from Texas, may very well be the lone voice for pulling the federal government back within its constitutional boundaries. Unfortunately the majority of his colleagues in Congress want to implement more and more unconstitutional programs which will, in turn, lift our tax burden higher and higher.

“Oh but please understand,” they tell us, “We are only doing this for your own good. We want to take care of you from cradle to grave.”

Once again (and I can’t emphasize this enough), Congress has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does. Our country was founded on liberty, not on “being taken care of.”

But this hasn’t stopped our federal government from setting itself up as our savior for years. They want us to become more and more dependant on them because when our dependency on them increases so, too, does their power over us.

And yet, isn’t it interesting that in the phrase, “from cradle to grave,” the government admits it cannot save us from the other certainty Franklin mentioned? Death.

Franklin was right, death is certain. The Bible is clear on this:

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” – Hebrews 9:27

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 6:23

And of course, centuries of human history testify to the certainty of death. And yet, an actual Savior has exhibited power over this most certain of events.

“Now upon the first [day] of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain [others] with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down [their] faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” – Luke 24:1-7

Our hope should rest not in a bloated government of bureaucrats who seek only to increase the amount of power they wield over us, but in the Lord Jesus Christ, who demonstrated, not only His love for us by dying in our stead, but also His ability to deliver on his promise by displaying His power over death.

This week will remind us we have to pay our taxes but, praise God, it also will remind us that the victory over death has been won because…

He Is Risen!

Thideological News of the Day

2006-04-07T08:37:00.000-07:00

-- A California legislator has launched an attack on the biblical concept of the family.

-- Since the United States Supreme Court has made a practice of considering foreign law precedents when deciding what should be United States Constitutional matters, it is now important to be aware of the dangerous legal trends abroad...

You can read about a bold socialistic attempt to limit freedom in the Netherlands here, and about a disturbing court decision in London that drastically limits the rights of biological parents here.

-- But not all the news is bad. The Washington Times has a wonderful article entitled, "Faith of the Founding Father: Belief in a God of Liberty."

More on the Education Monopoly

2006-04-06T11:31:00.000-07:00

My wife taught in the Memphis City Schools for more than five years. In that time she developed a reputation as the "tough" and "mean" teacher.

She was considered the "mean" teacher because she did not allow her students to get away with misbehaving in her classroom (imagine that). She was considered the "tough" teacher because she expected them to be responsible for keeping up with their assignments, to study their material, to turn in their homework, and do their best on tests. Interestingly enough the vast majority of her students were able to live up to her expectations of them.

It is also interesting that her reputation was strongest among those students who never had her as their teacher. The students who were promoted to the grade she taught were horrified to learn they would be in her class but changed their opinion of her once they were there.

It seems that a child's self esteem (and isn't that what school is all about these days?) is actually boosted more when you present them with a difficult task, show them how they CAN achieve it, and then give them the opportunity to do so. This approach, of course, flies in the face of the current model of making school work so incredibly easy so as to make sure no one could possibly fail.

Didn't someone once say "We learn from our mistakes?" Oh well...

I bring this up for a reason: While it is true that there are teachers of my wife's caliber out there, it is also true they are in the minority. And they are in the minority by design.

John Stossel has lately been taking to task the government monopoly on education, most notably in his piece on ABC's 20/20 entitled "Stupid in America." He points out that public "education" is dominated by unions whose primary purpose for existing is protecting teachers' jobs rather than educating children. He has a wonderful article on this entitled "Unions fight to protect the nightmare."

After reading these I was reminded of my wife's experience in the Memphis City Schools. You see, she pushed her students to their potential. They, in turn, began to push themselves. A lot was expected of them and by the end of a year in her class they had learned how to deliver.

But, as the old saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished." My wife was reprimanded for not giving away higher grades to those who had not earned them. So the kids who had not worked as hard were to be rewarded equally with those who had, thereby removing the incentive to work hard.

Then again, as Stossel points out, public schools aren't really about education.

George who?

2006-03-28T13:36:00.000-08:00

The NCAA basketball tournament is my favorite sporting event of the year. One of the reasons I love it so much is because small colleges that would otherwise have no chance to compete for a national title are annually invited to join the field of 64 teams. And, while their chances of beating the "big boys" is slim, they have (at least in theory) an opportunity to play their way to the championship.

This rarely happens. The lower-seeded teams usually serve as cannon fodder for the major college teams in the first couple of rounds. Usually they are all but gone by the time the field is whittled down to 16.

Not this year.

Little George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia is in the Final Four. And they didn't sneak in via some short cut whereby they played other underdogs who happened to upset better teams. No, the 11th-seeded GMU Patriots beat 3rd-seeded North Carolina and the number one seed in their bracket UConn.

Their success has drawn a lot of attention to this otherwise obscure university just outside of Washington, D.C. It has caused some people to wonder, "Now, just who is this George Mason fellow that they named a college after him?"

George Mason was one of the men responsible for founding the United States. He is one of the lesser-known founders, but when looking at his resume' one has to wonder why this is the case.

Mason served as a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention. He is the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights which detail the rights all men. He argued some form of this declaration be included in the Constitution and is largely responsible for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. In fact, he is sometimes referred to as the "Father of the Bill of Rights."

During the debates at the Constitutional Convention Mason ultimately sided with the anti-federalists and refused to sign the newly drafted Constitution. He argued it did not provide sufficient protection to individual liberty from federal government usurpation. His foresight has been near prophetic.

How appropriate that the school which bears his name is playing the role of giant killer in this year's tournament. Here's wishing GMU well in the Final Four...more "big boys" are waiting.

Sowing the tares themselves

2006-03-22T09:34:00.000-08:00

Robert Jansen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, stood before a Presbyterian congregation and unapologetically told them he did not believe in God. He openly admits, "I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God...nor do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don't believe exists."

What did they do?

Welcomed him as a member, of course. (Read Jansen's account of it here)

Recently I read a small piece about how many of our churches have growing populations of unregenerate members. These unregenerate members were characterized as a "cancer" in the church by an article at www.sliceoflaodicea.com.

Now, of course, I fully expect the unregenerate to find their way into the church. Christ Himself told us about this in Matthew 13:24-30:

Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

"But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.

"But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.

"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'

"And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'

"But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.

'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

It is to be expected that the enemy will plant tares among us. But what makes the situation in Austin particularly troubling is that, with their full knowledge, the Church is planting the tares themselves.

Obscenity, Free Speech, or Both?

2006-03-14T12:35:00.000-08:00

According to an Associated Press story a man in Pennsylvania was ticketed in April 2005 for making an obscene hand gesture at a construction worker after becoming frustrated in a traffic jam. The charges against the man were dropped but he has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming he was maliciously prosecuted. He claims obscene gestures should be considered protected free speech under the Constitution's first amendment.

It's an interesting question. One our forefathers considered a long time ago.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," said John Quincy Adams (pictured at right), "It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our form of government (specifically the amount of freedom we enjoy) assumes a civil population. When the people cease to exhibit proper behavior toward one another you end up with the state stepping in and encroaching on the liberties we hold dear. The truth of the matter is this: if you don't control yourself it will become necessary for someone else to do it. Unfortunately American culture is taking us quickly in this direction. We haven't yet digressed to the point of needing government intervention in these kinds of matters, but a news story like this one should serve as a stern warning for us all.

Personally I think demonstrating oneself to be morally deficient by making obscene gestures should be protected free speech. It may be unpleasant having to deal with the occasional obscene gesture or unkind word, but liberties turned over to the state are rarely recovered. When questions like this arise I almost always lean toward erring on the side of liberty.

I just hope our cultural conduct doesn't deteriorate to the point where I change my mind.

"Educators" get upset

2006-03-08T09:48:00.000-08:00

John Stossel's stand against the government monopoly controlled "public" education system has angered a few people. Teacher unions, one of the prime beneficiaries of the monopoly, are demanding Stossel apologize for insisting that school choice and market control of education would be better than the current system. In fact, they are planning to demonstrate against him and his convictions.

Stossel, however, has addressed the situation in an article entitled, "The teachers unions are mad at me," and appears to be unmoved by their demands. He seems convinced of the validity of his arguments and is standing by them. I agree with Stossel and am glad he is remaining stalwart.

I just hope the unions, after becoming frustrated with their failed demonstrations, don't decide to send a "representative," like Knuckles here, to "negotiate" with Stossel the terms of his apology.

Trust Busting

2006-03-03T12:06:00.000-08:00

America experienced a lot of economic growth at the end of the 19th century. It was called the “Gilded Age” and it saw a lot of companies develop into monopolies.

Some companies were growing so big, and accumulating so much wealth and power that the federal government began to feel threatened. This prompted John Sherman, a United States Senator from Ohio, to author a bill (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act), which became law in 1890.

Later, President Theodore Roosevelt would use the law to bust up, among others, J.P. Morgan’s railroad trust and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil trust. Apparently, the federal government’s opinion was that too much control of certain markets in the hands of a single entity was a bad thing. The president became a trust-busting machine.

Of course where the federal government was concerned it was only a bad thing if too much control of markets was in someone else’s hands. Government control is just Jim-Dandy. Education is a prime example.

John Stossel has written a wonderful essay entitled, "Competition Works," on how the application of free market principles to “public” education is the answer to improving the system. Right now “public” education is in the hands of a government monopoly and the consumers of education have little recourse for improving their situation.

In a free market education system educators would have to compete for students and, therefore, would have to concern themselves with the desires of students and parents. In the current “public” education system the vast majority of parents have no alternative to the “public” schools in their area and the educators know it. "Public" schools have a guaranteed clientele and do not need to concern themselves with customer service. They are completely at liberty to teach and indoctrinate in any manner they see fit and the parents are nearly powerless to do anything about it.

Stossel argues that the introduction of competition would take care of this problem and I whole-heartedly agree. Of course, the beneficiaries of monopolies rarely give up their position of power without a fight and that is why there is so much resistance to the concept of school choice. The "public" education system is a monopoly that is in desperate need of busting but little can be expected from the traditional trust busters of years past.

Oh, the federal government is still in the business of busting trusts. Only this time the trust they’ve busted is the one they are supposed to have with the American people.

First Amendment Ignorance

2006-03-01T08:11:00.000-08:00

A recent Associated Press survey shows most Americans know more about the FOX television show The Simpsons than they do about the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Is it any wonder, then, that we find ourselves being ruled by a class of political elites who exhibit a disregard of Constitutional authority that ranges from casual indifference to blatant disdain? Apparently it's just too difficult for us to pay close enough attention to hold our representatives accountable to the framework established by our forefathers.

Speaking of forefathers, Thomas Jefferson said something about this very situation: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Pascal's Wager

2006-02-16T08:46:00.000-08:00

I’ve never been a big fan of “Christian” bumper stickers. Reducing the precious doctrines of Scripture to catchy slogans and Bible nuggets oversimplifies God’s Word and in no way encourages us to dig deeper and learn more. We are conditioned to take our information in bullet fashion but doing this with Scripture leads to what I like to call bumper sticker theology. We end up with a knowledge of the Bible more shallow than the layer of adhesive necessary to fix one of these cutesy sayings to our car.

One of my least favorites is the one which says, “If you are living like there is no God… You’d better be right!” At first glance this appears to be a fresh, clever little zinger designed to get the lost to think. In actuality it is a rewording of a very old decision theory known as “Pascal’s Wager.”

Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher who lived in the mid-17th century. He first articulated his decision theory about God in a book entitled Pensees. Pensees, which literally means “thoughts,” was Pascal’s collective apologetic for the Christian faith. In it he argued that it is a better bet to believe in God than to not. It boils down to four possibilities:

1. If you believe in God, and God exists, you go to heaven and you’ve gained everything.
2. If you believe in God, and God does not exist, you’ve not really lost anything.
3. If you do not believe in God, and God does not exist, you’ve not really lost anything.
4. If you do not believe in God, and God exists, you will go to hell and you’ve lost everything.

It’s summarized quite well in the previously mentioned bumper sticker. I don’t like Pascal’s Wager as a means of evangelism for many reasons.

First, it is an incomplete argument and offers no evidence, biblical or otherwise, for support. It is completely man-centered and focuses on the destiny of man rather than the glory of God.

Second, the very same argument may be used by every other religion in the world. “If you’re living like there’s no Buddha… You’d better be right!”

Third, and most importantly, it trivializes the Gospel, eliminates the Lordship of Jesus, and reduces our Savior to some sort of odds-on favorite. “Hey, don’t put your eternity on atheism, it’s a 100-to-1 long shot. Jesus is almost a sure thing…I got a tip on it.”

Well, here’s a tip…

Jesus is not a get-out-of-hell-free ticket nor is He “fire insurance.” He is Creator God. He is Lord.

Telling someone the reason they should trust in Jesus is because it’s the best bet is dishonest. It does not provide that person with the whole Gospel. Christianity is not a “good bet.”

It is a transformation (“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” – 2 Corinthians 5:17).

It is commitment (“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” – Matt. 16:24).

It is sacrifice (“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” – Galatians 2:20).

If you are trusting in Jesus for salvation and have submitted to His Lordship then, great! It’s time to get busy doing what He would have you do. Get into the Word, go deeper than bumper sticker theology.

But if you are just backing Jesus as the odds-on favorite…

…don’t.

Velvet Elvis: A Book Review

2006-01-27T13:18:00.000-08:00

Rob Bell is the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, one of the leading voices in the “Emergent Church” movement, and the author of the book, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. The book draws its title from an actual bought-by-the-side-of-the-road painting of Elvis Presley on a black velvet canvas Bell stores in his basement.

The book attempts to draw a parallel between the velvet Elvis painting in Bell’s basement and the Christian faith. What if, Bell wonders, the artist of his particular Elvis painting had declared his work to be the definitive painting of Elvis and invited other artists to cease working on their own Elvis pictures? According to Bell we’d say that artist was crazy because “we instinctively understand that art has to, in some way, keep going.”

Bell suggests this is like the Church.

“For thousands of years followers of Jesus, like artists, have understood that we have to keep going, exploring what it means to live in harmony with God and each other,” he said. “The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation. Jesus took part in the process by calling people to rethink faith and the Bible and hope and love and everything else, and by inviting them into the endless process of working out how we live as God created us to live.”

Obviously the Church has always been a part of the world around it and has sought to reach people where they live. This has brought about changes. But being relevant to the culture around us is just the tip of the iceberg when Bell mentions “change.”

“I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps,” he writes. “I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained.”

It doesn’t take long to discover just what he means by this. In the course of seven short chapters Bell radically redefines Christianity into something hardly recognizable in Scripture.

He starts by taking a very Zen-like tone with regard to belief. “Everybody is following somebody,” he writes. “Everybody has faith in something and somebody. We are all believers.”

According to Bell Jesus’ real intention was to “call people to live in tune with reality.” All we have to do is recognize that “God is the ultimate reality.” He goes on to caution us that theology and doctrine can get in the way of getting “in tune” with the “ultimate reality” of God. Were a doctrine, like the virgin birth, proven to be untrue, no problem. Just stay in tune.

Bell also criticizes the biblical notion of salvation and is critical of Christians who think you have to “believe” a certain way in order to “get in.” He criticizes Christians who evangelize and, instead, encourages them to “just be a blessing.” Sharing the Gospel is really not that big of a deal. In fact, Bell dances dangerously close to advocating universalism when he suggests that God is likely accepting of others who would not call themselves Christians. He contends that everybody is already forgiven. The only difference is how we choose to live our lives.

All of this is written in a style that is quite vague. Bell makes clear, unbiblical implications about what he believes but leaves just enough wiggle room to allow for a slippery escape should someone call him out. His teachings are subtly laced with humanism, universalism and pantheism. At one point he declares many of our problems are because we don’t have enough faith in ourselves. Which, according to Bell, is ironic when considering how much faith God has in us.

Herein lies the key to understanding Bell’s Velvet Elvis.

Consistent with his analogy of many artists having the freedom to paint their own interpretation of Elvis, Bell suggests Christians have the freedom to paint their own version of Christianity. At one point Bell even says God is “giving his followers the authority to make new interpretations of the Bible.”

Bell does not seem to understand that while the Bible was written for us it was not written about us. It is about God. He appears to be making the age-old mistake of trying to build a biblical worldview on a humanist foundation.

A better analogy would be to compare the Christian faith to Michelangelo’s painting of the Sistine Chapel. It is a painting by a master artist. You don’t see too many knock-offs of that painting being sold by the side of the road. In like manner God is the author of the Christian faith, not us. He has made it what He wants it to be. We have neither the right nor the ability to try to “repaint” the Christian faith in a version that better suits us. We don’t reconcile God to us. He reconciles us to Him.

To be fair Bell’s book does contain some redeeming qualities. He challenges believers to have a more “authentic” faith, to live what they believe. This is good. But his paramount failure is not emphasizing the importance of that belief. It appears that Bell’s point is to be true to your beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are.

The bottom line is this: the miniscule nuggets of decent advice found here are not worth having to sift through the mountains of false teachings. Spend your money and your time elsewhere.

Daring to Offend

2006-01-13T12:19:00.000-08:00

Thomas Paine once said, “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” You may recall that Paine is the author of the pamphlet “Common Sense.” This is the piece that so inflamed the colonists in the mid 1700s so as to hasten their march toward independence. It is people like him who founded our country.

Wait, I take that back.

Ours is a very different country from the one they founded. Pay attention to the news on any given day and you will find the headlines crowded with instances of someone being offended. It has become the newest and most popular “right” of the American citizen, the right to not be offended. In fact, all levels of our government now make a habit of encroaching on actual constitutional rights because the exercise of those rights are often “offensive” to someone else.

The interesting thing is this: The right to not be offended exists nowhere in the United States Constitution. In practice it overshadows the actual rights explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

We’ve all seen examples of how this has played out politically. Courts have ordered the removal of monuments referring to the Ten Commandments from “public property.” They’ve ordered the removal of nativity scenes. A few years ago the parents of slain Columbine High School students were invited to place commemorative tiles in the school’s hallways. However, many of the parents had to remove their tiles because they contained the image of a cross. Never mind that many of those students were outspoken Christians and were remembered as such by their peers, a cross displayed in the hallway of the “public” high school might be “offensive” to some and must, therefore, be removed.

In fact, the recently coined term “hate speech” is dangerously close to becoming a legitimate exception to the first amendment’s protection of free speech. To make matters worse, the definition of “hate speech” is so vague as to include pretty much anything that could possibly be offensive to anyone for any reason. Even biblical exposition proclaimed from the pulpit.

In 2002 the Swedish parliament passed a law making it a crime to teach that homosexuality is immoral. And there are many American politicians (with an ever increasing infatuation for “international precedent”) who would just love to apply similar standards in the United States. This kind of legislation holds the potential for serious restrictions on what we can and cannot proclaim from the pulpit. In Sweden, preachers who proclaim the biblical truth about homosexuality can go to prison for up to four years. Many would like to see American preachers similarly silenced.

The real danger, however, is not being denied the legal right to preach against one particular sin, it is in being denied the legal right to proclaim the essence of Scripture, the Gospel itself. Quite frankly I can think of few things as overtly offensive as the Gospel. Just consider…

The Gospel tells the sinner, first of all, that he is a sinner. He is depraved and completely to blame in the eyes of God. That’s offensive. Secondly, the Gospel tells the sinner that he is completely incapable of doing anything about this depraved state. He is helpless. Again, that’s offensive. Thirdly, the Gospel tells the sinner that he stands ready to face God’s righteous judgment and will be punished should he remain in this depraved, sinful state.

This is highly offensive stuff. It flies in the face of a “tolerant” society. It violates the new right to not be offended and because it does it could be labeled as “hate speech.”

Of course the conclusion to the Gospel message is that these depraved sinners are of incredible worth to the previously mentioned righteous God. Just look at the high price He paid for them. He sacrificed His only Son.

The problem is this: In order to get to the wonderful conclusion of the Gospel we must first offend people with the truth. At least we do if, according to Thomas Paine, we want to be honest.

When Sunday is a work day

2005-12-24T08:34:00.000-08:00

Note: This article originally ran in the October 22, 2002 issue of the Indiana Baptist, the official news journal of the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana.

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much more, as ye see the day approaching. – Hebrews 10:23-25

Many a devout Christian upon arriving home from a Sunday morning of worship and fellowship at their church, will relax and turn on the television to watch football. They will put their feet up and settle in to root for the team of their choice and never once consider the fact that these men have already been at work since early in the morning. Preparing for a game in the National Football League is a full-time job and Sunday is a workday.

Players, coaches, and trainers all have a lot of preparation to do before kickoff. By the time the television is turned on teams have already put in hours of work. Which means, of course, they didn’t have opportunity to put on their Sunday best and attend church.

In Indianapolis, the home of the Colts, a lot of hype has surrounded the hiring of a new head coach. Fans have been made aware of Tony Dungy’s coaching background. As the former head coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, he is the winningest coach in that franchise’s history. He led Tampa Bay to the playoffs in four of his six years there. In 1999 he guided the Buccaneers to their first NFC central division title since 1981.

Nine players earned Pro Bowl honors in 1999 under his leadership. Between 1998 and 2000 the Buccaneers accumulated the second highest number of wins in the entire league. He was selected as the Professional Coach of the Year by the Maxwell Football Club in 1997.

What hasn’t received quite as much coverage is the fact that Dungy has a reputation around the league as a devout Christian. He is known as a man who lives his convictions without apology. It’s a lifestyle that had its beginning in his childhood.

“I was fortunate,” said Dungy. “I grew up with a lot of spiritual background around me. Two of my uncles were Baptist ministers and my mom taught Sunday School. So I accepted Christ early, as a young kid.”

While his salvation came early in life and he enjoyed a strong foundation in spiritual things as a result of a family that cared, it wasn’t until Dungy became a player in the NFL in 1977 that he really began to grow in his spiritual life.

“I went to Pittsburgh with the Steelers my rookie year when I was 21,” he said. “and it was there I got around some guys who were strong Christian athletes. That was the first time I really understood what it meant to be able to deliver in the professional end and still have your Christian attitude be the most important thing. So it was really at that time when I started growing in my faith.”

In fact, according to Dungy, it is precisely because he would no longer have opportunity to attend church on Sundays the way he had in the past that, with the help of his teammates, he became serious about his faith.

“I saw these guys were a little bit different from me,” he said. “They were heroes. They had been to Super Bowls and they were all at the top of their profession. But they took me under their wing and invited me to Bible studies and chapel services and different things. I could see these guys really put their relationship with Christ first. It wasn’t football first, it wasn’t school first, or career or anything. It was what you are doing for the Lord, how you are living your life.
“That was unique to me because I thought the only outspoken Christians were ministers or church leaders or older people. This was an eye opening experience for me. It changed my life.”

Perhaps it is because of the positive influence other players had on his life that Dungy has taken steps to make sure his teams have an atmosphere that fosters spiritual participation.

“I just try to make the atmosphere as conducive as I can to help people to grow in their faith,” he said. “We have a chaplain here and I try to give him as much access as he needs. We try to facilitate Bible studies, chapel services and make sure that it all is available.”

From the very beginning of his tenure as Colts head coach, Dungy has made his priorities known. In the earliest team meetings he made it plain how he was going to conduct his team. In fact, one of the very first things he did after begin hired was contact the team chaplain, Ken Johnson.

Johnson, who has been Colt’s chaplain for 12 seasons, is the director of Helping Hand Group, Inc., an Indianapolis based ministry that helps meet the needs of inner-city children. He is a former urban director for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, has sung with the Gaithers, and had a national speaking ministry. Dungy heard Johnson speak a few years ago and, according to Johnson, became very excited when he found out the same Ken Johnson was the chaplain of the Colts.

“He gave me a call and said, ‘you may not remember me but we met a few years ago when you were speaking,’” said Johnson. “Now here’s an NFL head coach who remembers me very well and he’s wondering if I know who he is. Remarkable. But that’s the kind of man he is. Humble.”

The two men met to discuss the spiritual goals of the team for the coming year.
“What we’ve tried to do, in order to foster an environment of spirituality here, is to meet on Tuesday mornings with the coaches for Bible study,” said Johnson. “We meet with the team on Thursday nights in what we call ‘Family Night.’”

Chapel services are held four and one half hours before every game.

“Chapel used to be seen as kind of a good-luck charm,” said Johnson. “But now …
“We don’t have many lukewarm Christians who come to chapel. The Word beats them up. Chapel is uncompromising.”

According to Johnson there have been coaches on the staff who, while they attended chapel services regularly, did things to completely destroy their witness. Dungy, by contrast, is genuine in his faith and leads by example.

“When he came things really took off,” said Johnson. “Everything hinges on leadership and when you have a guy like him taking the lead it makes all the difference. If you are going to have men conduct themselves on the field with respect, in an ethical manner, and with character, you have to have men leading them who know where that comes from.

“Some of our past coaches had the perspective that, even though God and religion are important, football comes before your family and your religion. With a guy who emphasizes lordship you understand the Lord is first, then your family, and then football.

“If you have a wife who is having a baby, this man says, ‘You go take care of your family, your profession will be here when you get back.’ To have a man who understands that is major. Do you know how rare that is today? Not just in football, but in all professions.”

Hunter Smith, the Colts starting punter, is one player who follows Dungy’s spiritual leadership. Smith grew up in a Christian home in Sherman, Texas and is a member of a community church in Indianapolis. According to him, Dungy’s coming to Indianapolis has already made a big difference.

“It’s a huge change spiritually,” said Smith. “Everyone here knows where coach Dungy stands spiritually on this team.”

Like Dungy, Smith has found that working in the NFL does not necessarily mean one will struggle spiritually.

“I find it not to be a difficulty in the least,” he said. “We have Bible studies every week. We have worship. On Sundays before we go to the stadium we have chapel service. I find it not to be a struggle at all.”

On the contrary, rather than finding the NFL to be a negative, both Smith and Dungy have found it to be a remarkable positive in one respect. Their high-profile positions afford them ministry opportunities they otherwise would not have.
“My position as a football player may afford me opportunity to get into places, but it won’t bear lasting fruit.”

According to Smith, that lasting fruit only comes with his relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a message that he shares every week during a Bible study he started in Westfield to minister to high school kids. Kids may come because they think it would be cool to have a relationship with a NFL football player. But they come back because Smith lets them know the best relationship is the one they can have with the Lord of the Universe.

Dungy takes a similar approach.

“We get invited to go places and speak to people that the average citizen doesn’t get the chance to do,” he said. “We get invited to schools, we get invited to youth groups, prisons, a lot of places I go because I am the head coach of the Colts. So, I try to take advantage of that and introduce people to God’s Word.

“In a position like this you get asked about different things on TV or radio interviews that are seen nationally after games. You get a chance to witness to people you would never meet in the normal course of your life.”

Of course a lot of high-profile sports figures have reputations as spiritual people. But Dungy wants it known that he is not merely a “spiritual person” but a Christian.
“I think as a Christian that is something you have to make clear because there are so many thoughts about religion now, so many avenues people want to take.” He said. “Whenever I’m asked to talk about it I make sure people understand my affiliation as a Christian, that I follow Christ and Christ’s teachings according to the Bible.”

His is a lifestyle whose impact is not lost on those who work around him. Radio broadcaster Bob Lamey, the “Voice of the Colts,” said of Dungy, “He is a good man, a good coach, and a good role model for these players to be around.”

Johnson calls Dungy, “The real deal, all the time. It’s not a front, he is genuine all the time.”

Smith, one of those most directly influenced by Dungy, said, “He is an encouragement. A lot of people start strong in their faith and don’t finish that way. Coach Dungy started strong and he has been strong all these years in his faith. And he is going to finish strong, there is no question in my mind. I want to model, in a large degree, my life after his in that respect.”

Coach Tony Dungy

2005-12-22T19:32:00.000-08:00

Note: Today it was learned that Tony Dungy's oldest son died in his Tampa, Florida apartment. I had been working on an article for Thideology about Coach Dungy. I did not want to write about his success as a coach in the NFL but about his character. Now, in light of this terrible family tragedy, this article seems so much more appropriate.

I had already heard of Tony Dungy before he was hired as the head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. I had heard he was a man of integrity. One who had his priorities straight. One who knew that there are more important things in life than football. I had heard he was a man of uncompromising faith who, without apology, believed in Jesus Christ.

This is why I was so excited to learn, in 2002, that he was coming to Indianapolis. I had been living in Indy since 1998 and was already a die-hard Colts fan. I was excited to have such a man come to coach "my" team. But I also began to speculate about the possibility of interviewing him for the Indiana Baptist, the official news journal of the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana, of which I was editor. I wanted to write a story about the challenges a Christian faces when Sunday is a workday. How does a believer remain spiritually fed when 16 Sundays a year (sometimes more) access to the preaching, teaching, and fellowship of the local church is limited?

Of course, when a new coach comes to town he is inundated with interview requests. When I contacted the Colts office I was given instructions on how to make an official request for an interview. I had to submit, in writing, the publication for which I was making the request, the circulation, and the nature of my proposed story. I could expect to wait a week to two weeks for a response after they received my request. When I explained I was the editor of a relatively small religious publication I was told my chances of being granted an interview were slim. So I was extremely surprised when a couple of days later I received a telephone call informing me I’d been scheduled for an interview with Coach Dungy.

I was invited to attend a practice at the Colts complex so I could take pictures. Radio broadcaster Bob Lamey, “The Voice of the Colts,” was my personal guide through the facility.

“After practice,” he told me, “The members of the media gather at one corner of the field to meet with Coach Dungy. He gives them five to ten minutes and that’s about it.”

I made sure I was near that spot at the end of practice. I did not want to miss my chance. As Dungy approached I started to gather with the other reporters when Lamey stopped me with a tap to my arm. "Not you," he said.

I watched Coach Dungy answer questions (pictured at left) about the strength of the Colts' offense, the weakness of the defense, special teams play and so on. After about ten minutes Coach Dungy thanked everyone, excused himself, and walked in my direction.

"Is this him?" Dungy asked indicating me.

"Yes," Lamey replied.

After we introduced ourselves to one another I followed Coach Dungy to his office where we visited for the better part of an hour. This amazed me. Here I was, sitting in his office chit-chatting while every other reporter had to hurry through their questions for fear of running out of time.

I wondered why he would spend so much time with me, the editor of a publication I'm sure he'd never heard of before, and so little with the others.

Because, it was explained to me, all they wanted to talk about was football. You came to ask him about Jesus.

In my next entry I'll share the story I wrote as a result of that interview.

Note: I have enjoyed this NFL season more than any I can remember. "My" Colts have finally added one of the best defenses in the league to an already potent offense. They stand poised to make a run through the playoffs at the Super Bowl and are considered by many to be the favorite. Today's news has changed that for me. If the Colts don't win another game this season I won't care. The loss of Dungy's son has reminded me that football is just a game. It's also reminded me of the main reason I root for the Colts...they are led by a man whose priorities never let him forget what's important. I have no idea the pain Coach Dungy and his family must be enduring now. But there is One who does. My prayers are with him. May the God he openly professes as Lord grant him grace and peace.

As the Colts play out the rest of their season I will root for them harder than I ever have before. The ironic thing is this, after considering the character of the man who leads them and his current situation, I will probably care less than I ever have before about the outcome on the field.

Happy Bill of Rights Day!

2005-12-16T14:21:00.000-08:00

Bill of Rights Day has come and gone. Did you miss it?

I did.

In 1941, barely a week after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt declared December 15, the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights (pictured at right), as the official Bill of Rights Day in America. Yet, not one mention of the special nature of the day did I notice in any media outlet anywhere. And I read a lot of news from a lot of sources every day.

It’s probably just an oversight, but when considering the respect our government currently affords the document amounts to something barely more than contempt, it’s hardly surprising the day came and went with little or no notice. When I found out about the day (a day late) I began to reflect on the Bill of Rights. Did you know there was actually some debate as to whether or not it should be included in the Constitution at all?

It’s true. Thomas Jefferson really wanted a Bill of Rights in the Constitution but James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both argued such a bill was completely unnecessary. It was ridiculous, thought Madison and Hamilton, to articulate a limit on the government when the Constitution clearly and specifically enumerated the ONLY powers the federal government was authorized to use.

In fact, Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in the Federalist Papers (Federalist Number 84). “ (B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton said. "For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?”

He made a good point. The limited nature of the federal government was clearly understood. Of course it’s not so today. Today the federal government regularly exercises power not granted it by the Constitution. It collects money in ways the Constitution does not prescribe and expends money on things for which it clearly has no authorization. The specific, limited nature of the Constitution has been all but ignored by generations of politicians who have presumed to know what’s best and have grown drunk with their power.

In the end, Madison acquiesced to Jefferson’s desire for a Bill of Rights. He did so in order that the entire Constitution would not be rejected as a result. Besides, as the “Father of the Constitution” he almost certainly would have wanted to have an influence on any additions or changes (The notes he took while formulating the Bill of Rights can be seen at left).

At the time I would have been persuaded to agree with Madison and Hamilton about the Bill of Rights being unnecessary. With the benefit of hindsight I am grateful Jefferson won the argument. Even with those ten, specifically mentioned limitations on the government, our elected officials and courts continue to attempt to overstep their authority and take away the rights (clearly listed there) that they are sworn to protect.

I do hope you had a good “Bill of Rights Day,” even if it was largely forgotten. Here’s hoping the document, itself, does not soon follow.

For further reading go here, here, or here.

The Bookstore

2005-12-07T08:32:00.000-08:00

During my recent research into the Emergent Church I kept running into a worldview that contained elements of post-modernism, relativism, universalism, and humanism, all of them contrary to a biblical worldview. Then it occurred to me, this is nothing new.

Liberal theologians have tried to incorporate these philosophies into Christianity for years. In fact, this very unbiblical worldview has infiltrated and taken control of a great many Christian denominations in recent years. It even made inroads into the Southern Baptist Convention (of which I am a part) until Bible-believing men and women stood up and said, “no more.”

All of this recycled liberal theology I found prevalent in the Emergent Church reminded me of a conversation I had with a women years ago in a bookstore in Indianapolis. I wrote about the experience and it ran in Baptist Press. I think it effectively illustrates the worldview of the Emergent Church.

Here it is:

INDIANAPOLIS (BP)--“I'm a Christian," she said, "but I'm not so arrogant or foolish to think we have the only way to God."

During a conversation with a lady at an Indianapolis Barnes & Noble bookstore, this was only one of several statements made by someone professing to be a believer in Jesus Christ. I found it odd such a person would ignore the words of the very person she claimed as her Lord.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -- John 14:6.

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” -- John 3:18.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” -- Acts 4:12.

"I have a problem with my son-in-law right now over this very issue," she said. "He and my daughter are getting ready to have a baby and he insists they teach the baby at a very early age about Jesus and the Bible. My daughter thinks they should allow the baby to grow up some and make his or her own determination about spirituality. It's pretty shallow to try to force your own spirituality on another. Especially since there are so many ways to God out there."

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” -- Proverbs 22:6.

"He dragged me to his church once," she said. "That preacher talked about how without God everyone is bad. I told my son-in-law I'd never go back to that church because I refused to be around people who ignored the good that is in all of us."

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” -- Jeremiah 17:9.

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” -- Romans 3:10.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” -- Romans 3:23.

“For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” -- Ecclesiastes 7:20.

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” -- 1 John 1:8.

"My son-in-law said everyone was a sinner and without Christ would face a terrible judgment," she said. "I told him that maybe his god was that way. But my god loves everyone and wouldn't do that. I think I'm better off with my god."

“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” -- Hebrews 10:31.

“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.” – 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9.

Every now and then I'm asked whether I think all the fighting over the inerrancy of the Bible in the Southern Baptist Convention was worth it. Always in the past I've invited the questioner to imagine a brand of Christianity where the authority of Scripture was ignored in favor of cultural whim and political correctness. The lady I met in Barnes & Noble was completely adrift. She had no anchor, no foundation of any sort.

By contrast, when Southern Baptists get together to discuss doctrine we now agree on the final authority. We can spend more time digging into actual doctrine because we recognize the ultimate authority of the inspired Word of God.

The discussion at Barnes & Noble gave me an actual example of the danger in seeking spiritual authority in places other than Scripture. It also taught me that we, as Southern Baptists, are now known for the stand we took.

Another lady involved in the conversation mentioned how "narrow Christian thinking" had caused her last two relationships to end.

"Were they intolerant?" the first lady asked of the second's ex-boyfriends.

"Yes," was the response.

"Were they narrow-minded?"

"Yes. They insisted the Bible was the only authoritative revelation from God."

"They were probably Southern Baptists."

They may not have been Southern Baptists, but I'm glad she thought so.

I remember thinking, at the time, how destructive this kind of thinking could be if it ever became the predominant mindset in the church. I’ve seen its terrible effects on several denominations where the authority of the Word of God is subordinate to the feelings of people “in tune” with contemporary culture. I’ve seen it attack the church from without via secular organizations and media. And I’ve seen its defeat at the hands of Christians who would not compromise the Scripture’s authority.

We should always remember this wholly unbiblical worldview is a tool of the enemy, and it is always most effective when it can do its damage from within the church. Praise God it has been thrown back time and time again. But we need to be vigilant. The enemy will not lay aside this weapon that has proven quite effective in the past. It will be repackaged and thrust upon us over and over again.

Always with a fresh, new, attractive name.

The "Emergent Church" (Part IV)

2005-12-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

(Continued from Part I, Part II, and Part III)

While I have only recently started looking into the “Emergent Church” I have already seen enough to cause real concern. However, it is my intention to learn more. I plan to read D.A. Carson’s book, “Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.” (You can read a review of it here.) In the meantime I would recommend reading Carson’s summary of the movement, “The Emerging Church,” in Modern Reformation magazine.

I will admit that I have already formed some opinions that, barring any new and contradictory evidence, will remain firm. The more I study the beliefs of the “Emergent Church” the more I am convinced it is, at best, inconsistent with biblical Christianity or, at worst, an emerging cult. Just because members of a religious group claim to be followers of Jesus does not mean they are Christians. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses both claim to be Christians but their belief systems are quite at odds with biblical Christianity.

In a similar way I see dangerous trends among the “Emergent Church.” Like cults they give Scripture a backseat to other means of enlightenment. They reject the inerrancy of Scripture and accuse Christians who disagree of “worshipping the Bible.” Apparently the Bible is a nice little “aid” to the Christian faith but it is not absolutely necessary because faith predates “the Book.” They seem unconcerned that this belief is contrary to the notion that “…faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God,” as Paul put it in Romans 10:17.

Some Emergent Churches (not all) have embraced elements of paganism and have incorporated it into their worship. This has led to a wide variety of worship practices that are questionable. They have participated in “space” worship, “kiss” worship, “multi-sensory” worship and something they call the “Judas Ceremony.”

My personal opinion of the “Emergent Church” is that it contains some very good elements and some very bad elements. Among it’s good points are that it’s followers desire a more authentic faith. They want to be among a people who live what they believe. This is a lesson I hope the Christian church will embrace. There are too many people just content to warm a pew on Sunday morning and then forget they are Christians the rest of the week.

The emergers also teach the importance of connecting with the historical context of the church. Knowing the historical and cultural background of the Bible is critical in understanding it. It is also important for us to know when and why certain doctrines were articulated. All of this would help Christians better understand what we believe and why we believe it.

These are the two primary lessons the Church can learn from the emergers. Unfortunately in their desire for what Rob Bell has called “disorganizing the church” they have rejected the biblical, doctrinal foundations of Christianity (in ways I’ve outlined in this series). I will agree that Christianity is more than proper doctrine. However, proper doctrine is an ESSENTIAL foundation on which to build one’s faith. This is what Dr. David Alan Black referenced when he said, in his assessment of the Emergent Church on his website blog, that we need to have both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

My hope is that Christians will be able to recognize the good things about this movement as lessons we should apply and the bad things as something we should reject outright as something other than biblical Christianity. My fear is that too many churches, when introduced to the Emergent Church, will go one of two ways. They will either see the good on the surface and embrace all of the emergent movement (including the bad) or they will recognize the bad and reject everything (even those things that would be beneficial).

May God grant us the discernment necessary to effectively defend biblical Christianity against the false teachings of the Emergent Church and yet recognize and learn the lessons we should embrace.

To learn more about the Emergent Church visit the following websites:

Monergism
Slice of Laodicea
The Banner of Truth
The Baptist Press

The "Emergent Church" (Part III)

2005-11-23T11:54:00.000-08:00

(Continued from Part I and Part II)

While my own introduction to the Emergent Church came through Rob Bell and his Nooma DVDs, further investigation led me to a man named Brian McLaren. McLaren is the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Spencerville, Maryland, the author of several books, and one of the most prominent leaders (if not THE leader) of the Emergent Church movement. As such, McLaren’s beliefs and teachings might better reveal the theology of the Emergent Church overall.

I wanted to know if McLaren shared some of the humanistic, relativistic tendencies I had noticed in Bell. It didn’t take long to find out. Just the titles of his books indicate a belief system that apparently compromises sound biblical doctrine (A Generous Orthodoxy) and embraces Gnosticism (The Secret Message of Jesus). Book reviews of A Generous Orthodoxy (one by Dr. Al Mohler and the other by Bob DeWaay) confirmed the suspicions raised by the title.

Apparently McLaren is reluctant to rely on Scripture as an authority. In one interview I read McLaren said, “I intentionally avoid including a lot of Biblical references in my writing because the method of ‘proof-texting’ is terribly problematic. Yes – it can show the Biblical roots beneath a statement, but it also can be used to give the appearance that a statement is supported by Biblical authority when it isn’t.”

This statement reminded me of one I saw while glancing through Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis. In it Bell commented that every time he heard someone back up a statement with a Bible verse it made him want to throw up. He also used the term “proof-texting.”

It is true that proof-texting (also known as eisegesis) is not the proper way to read Scripture. It means reading one’s own interpretation into a given text. It is the practice of using Scripture to justify a predetermined belief. But the more I learned about McLaren, Bell, and the Emergent Church the more I came to realize that they consider even proper biblical interpretation as “proof-texting.”

The proper way to read Scripture is to use a method called exegesis, a term which means “to draw meaning out of.” It is the practice of going to Scripture, reading it with consideration of the author, the audience, the intent, the cultural and historical contexts and the original language, determining it’s meaning and then forming your beliefs accordingly. But even this is insufficient for McLaren.

He claims we can’t know absolute truth from reading the Bible because we, the readers, are fallible and therefore incapable of determining for certain the intent of the message. The Emergent Church, as a whole, embraces this view. They do this because the Emergent Church is founded on post-modern principles (primarily “relativism”) and a rejection of modern principles (including the idea of “absolute truth”).

McLaren goes on to assert that the Bible is about doing good works for the benefit of all people and not about propositional, objective truth. Instead of trying to form our beliefs about God from Scripture we should do so from “experiencing Jesus.” But even this method (whatever it is) is problematic because, according to McLaren, there are seven distinctive Jesuses, each of whom provides us with valuable information about God.

Now, he’s not claiming there were literally seven different Jesuses but that various Christian groups have emphasized different characteristics of Christ. Bob DeWaay, in his review of McLaren’s book said this:

From Eastern Orthodoxy McLaren learned about Jesus saving the whole cosmos by entering it and becoming part of it: “Second, as humanity (and all creation) enters into God through Jesus, God also enters Jesus’ people, species, and history. And by entering all creation through Jesus, God’s heart is forever bound to it in solidarity, faithfulness, loyalty, and commitment.”

This aspect of Jesus becomes ground for McLaren’s understanding of planetary, cosmic salvation within history. He later describes an experience where he personally felt the interconnectedness of all things in God: I felt that every tree, every blade of grass, and every pool of water become especially eloquent with God’s grandeur. Somehow they seemed to become transparent— or perhaps translucent is the better word—because each thing in its particularity was still utterly visible and unspeakably important . . . These specific, concrete things became translucent in the sense that a powerful, indescribable, invisible light seemed to shine through. . . . It was the exuberant joy of simply seeing these masterpieces of God’s creation…and knowing myself to be among them. It was to be one of them, and to feel and know that “we”—all of these creatures, molecules, and phenomena— were together known and loved by God, who embraced us all into the ultimate “We.”

This New Age, pantheistic worldview leads in a direction that one would think is unmistakably unbiblical. It is reminiscent of Bell’s Nooma DVD “Rythym” and the idea of just being “in tune with God.”

Another review I found in the Christian Examiner revealed even more troubling information. In it McLaren said, “I want to help people understand everything they can about the cross. ... I wouldn’t say that having that understanding (Jesus dying as a substitute for sinful humanity) is all that it means to be a Christian. I think that some people might have that understanding and not be interested in following Jesus. They want Jesus’ blood to pay for their sins so they can go to heaven, but they aren’t really interested in following Jesus in this life.”

Jesus is not a “ticket” to heaven nor is He “fire insurance.” Jesus said to believe in him meant to “take up your cross daily and follow me.” The Lordship of Jesus Christ and His salvation are intertwined. Preaching that you can have one without the other in order to appeal to a post-modern culture is NOT preaching the gospel. It may appeal to this culture but it is inconsistent with Scripture and is NOT the gospel.

I’ll share more in Part IV.

The "Emergent Church" (Part II)

2005-11-18T09:53:00.000-08:00

(Continued from Part I)

Since Nooma DVDs were the first place I heard “Emergent Church” ideas expressed I watched more of them to see if the humanistic worldview I had noticed in “Dust” was a thread which ran throughout. About half of the ones I’ve viewed have had elements of post-modernism, humanism, relativism or some related philosophy. Briefly, here is what I noticed:

“Bullhorn” – Synopsis from Nooma: God loves everyone, so a Christian should, too. In fact, Jesus said that the most important thing in life is to love God with everything we've got and love others the same way. But it's not always easy to love everyone around us, is it? Sometimes we strongly disagree with other people's political views, religious beliefs, behaviors or something else, and it makes it hard to love them when we feel like we're right and they're very wrong. But Jesus doesn't separate loving God and loving others. So maybe that best way for us to show our love for God is actually by loving other people no matter how hard it sometimes is. Maybe it's the only way.

While this one has a good message about the importance of loving others it contains disturbing elements. It dismisses the seriousness of sin and the importance of repentance and focuses on loving people just the way they are. The implication is that it’s really not necessary to tell anyone they are a sinner and in need of God’s redemption because, “God loves us just the way we are.” In fact, this Nooma leaves the viewer with the notion that everyone’s religious ideas are of equal value and there’s really no need to get into all that doctrine and theology that bogs religions down.

“Trees” – Synopsis from Nooma: We want to know why we are here. If our lives really matter. How our religion is relevant to this life today. We want to understand what significance this minute, hour, week, month, and year has to our lives. To our world. We need a God who cares about this life, in this world, right now. We want to understand why everything we think, everything we say, and everything we do matters. We don't want to just sit back and wait for something to happen or someday to come. We want to know if all the choices we make now will shape our world and lives for eternity. Because we want our lives to have meaning today, and our lives today to have meaning forever.

This one challenges the viewer to have an eternal perspective. That’s good. It also implies that our good works are really what matters. It implies that we are the same as Adam and Eve, in that we have the ability to live “good” lives if we choose to. The implication is that there was no “fall” and the doctrine of original sin, if not outright denied, is minimized.

“Rhythm” – Synopsis from Nooma: What does it mean to have a relationship with God? What does it look like? For a lot of us it’s a hard thing to fully understand. If God is an infinite spirit with no shape or form, how can we possibly relate to that? And what about Jesus? He said he came to give everyone life in its fullest. He came to show us how to live. Maybe it’s through trusting Jesus and living the kind of life he taught us to live – a life of truth, love, justice, compassion, forgiveness, and sacrifice – that we have a relationship with God. Maybe the way we live every day, every single choice we make, determines how in tune with God we are.

This one contains a heavy “new age” feel with regard to spirituality. Knowing God is like participating in a song and all we need to do is “be in tune.” The way to “be in tune” is to just love one another, do good things for one another, etc. and that’s enough. It completely ignores God’s revealed Word to us as a means of knowing God. It doesn’t mention Jesus Christ as the means of reconciliation between God and man or even a sinner’s need for salvation. If I didn’t already know Rob Bell professed to be a Christian I sure wouldn’t know it from this.

You may have noticed that I used the words "implied" and "implication" a lot. That's because Bell leads the viewer toward certain conclusions without actually making firm statements. It's a characteristic I've learned is a trademark of the Emergent Church movement.

The philosophies of this age were prevalent in several (not all) of the Nooma DVDs. The ones where it was not prevalent contained valuable messages that can and should be applied to a Christian’s life. But knowing that the post-modern element is present is enough for me to post a huge WARNING sign over anything with Rob Bell’s influence.

I also became curious to see how deep these philosophies ran within the broader “Emergent Church” movement. Could it be that Rob Bell is the rogue member of the movement and his worldview is the exception among emergers and not the rule?

I’ll address that question in Part Three.

The "Emergent Church" (Part I)

2005-11-17T11:06:00.001-08:00

My introduction to the “Emergent Church” came through a DVD series of short sermonettes by Rob Bell. Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, the author of the book, “Velvet Elvis,” and the featured speaker in each DVD sermonette available from Nooma.com. The first Nooma video I watched was called “Sunday" (pictured at right).

My initial reaction was quite positive. The message was about rejecting empty tradition and ritual and replacing it with an authentic Christianity that is visible through lives lived for Jesus Christ. “Sunday” is summarized on the Nooma website like this: “God doesn't want the meaningless rituals. God wants our hearts.”

I was impressed. I liked the message. I liked the method for delivering the message. Nooma DVDs are very well done and engaging. I was ready for more.

I watched “Dust” (pictured at left) next. I started out just as impressed with “Dust” as I had been with “Sunday.” For the first two-thirds of Bell's monologue I was quite impressed with his understanding of Jewish culture in the first century. Not only did he know the background concerning religious study in Jewish culture but he was able to apply that cultural context to Jesus' relationship with his disciples and thus draw a firm connection between the way God dealt with His chosen people in the Old Testament (Israel) and the way he incorporated His chosen people into that relationship in the New Testament (the Church).

“Dust” draws a parallel between the enormous commitment one made when following a rabbi in religious training and the enormous commitment God expects of Christians to their Lord Jesus Christ. It is a lordship message that is sorely lacking in far too many 21st century churches. He implies that Christianity is more than just another aspect in the life of a Christian. It is our life. Christianity is who we are and we need to live in a manner so as to increasingly reflect the character of our Lord Jesus.

There were several things I liked about Bell's message. He was challenging Christians to stop playing church and to live their faith. He was demonstrating the importance of knowing the historical context of Scripture and of church history. He uses innovative methods for delivering the gospel. I was making plans for more Nooma DVDs.

Then Bell made a statement that jolted me like the sound of a gunshot.

He was describing the story in Matthew 14 where Peter left the boat to walk to Jesus on the water. When Peter began to focus on the wind and the waves he began to sink. According to Bell Peter didn't begin to sink because he had lost faith in Jesus, “Jesus was doing fine.” No, Bell contends, Peter sank because he lost faith in himself.

What?

Is Bell saying that it was Peter's faith in Peter that allowed him to walk on the water in the first place? And it was only when Peter's faith in Peter waned that he began to sink?

Bell goes on to say that it is appropriate for us to have faith in God but we need to realize that God has faith in us, too. His implication is clear: We have the ability, in and of ourselves, to “be like our rabbi,” Jesus, and to please God.

His message in “Dust” is dripping with humanism.

I immediately began to reference the classic commentaries on the passage from Matthew 14: 25-31. Here is what I found:

Peter walked upon the water, not for diversion or to boast of it, but to go to Jesus; and in that he was thus wonderfully borne up. Special supports are promised, and are to be expected, but only in spiritual pursuits; nor can we ever come to Jesus, unless we are upheld by his power. Christ bade Peter come, not only that he might walk upon the water, and so know his Lord's power, but that he might know his own weakness. And the Lord often lets his servants have their choice, to humble and prove them, and to show the greatness of his power and grace. When we look off from Christ, and look at the greatness of opposing difficulties, we shall begin to fall; but when we call to him, he will stretch out his arm, and save us. Christ is the great Saviour; those who would be saved, must come to him, and cry to him, for salvation; we are never brought to this, till we find ourselves sinking: the sense of need drives us to him. He rebuked Peter. Could we but believe more, we should suffer less. The weakness of faith, and the prevailing of our doubts, displease our Lord Jesus, for there is no good reason why Christ's disciples should be of a doubtful mind. Even in a stormy day he is to them a very present help. None but the world's Creator could multiply the loaves, none but its Governor could tread upon the waters of the sea: the disciples yield to the evidence, and confess their faith. They were suitably affected, and worshipped Christ.

In my mind this is more than a slight difference of opinion with regard to the text. Bell interprets this passage in light of a post-modern, humanistic worldview. It's a common mistake. Many of us try to build a biblical worldview on a humanistic foundation. When we read Scripture, we have a tendency to think the stories are about us. But they're not. They are for us, but they are about God. Bell seems to embrace the idea that Scripture is about us. The Mars Hill Bible Church website says this, “Mars Hill began as just an idea, a desire to open a church where the scripture would be taught in a new way, a way that would reach a changing culture.”

A “new way” indeed.

He seems to have found a message in Scripture that generations of believers have failed to see. Bell seems to think (in fact this is a cornerstone of Emergent Church teaching) that since our culture is now post-modern Christianity should conform to the culture in order to reach it. The problem is when we try to conform Christianity to our culture we often compromise the message to the point where it loses all meaning.

Bell doesn't seem to be merely teaching Scripture in a “new way” but rather he seems to be teaching something new altogether. Which reminded me of a quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the 19th century Baptist preacher from England. He said, “I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach. The two words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true, for truth is as old as God himself."

These discoveries prompted me to begin some serious research on Rob Bell and the “Emergent Church” movement of which he is a part.

In Part Two I will discuss some of what I found.

Adrian Rogers dies at 74

2005-11-15T11:55:00.000-08:00

Dr. Adrian Rogers, the long-time pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, Tenn., died Tuesday, Nov. 15. Read the related story in Baptist Press here.

I know there are those out there who have criticized Dr. Rogers and Bellevue on a number of things. I hope they do not take this occasion to voice their disagreements. I did not agree with him on every point of doctrine or on every aspect of practice (I’ve yet to meet the Southern Baptist with whom I do agree on ALL things). However, it was my privilege to have Dr. Rogers as my pastor at Bellevue for more than five years. Years I will always cherish. I had the opportunity to meet him on a couple of occasions when I was an intern there (while attending seminary) and I formed some firm opinions about him.

Without reservation I can say he uncompromisingly proclaimed God’s Word. Without apology he stood by the absolute truth and authority of Scripture. He preached Christ and Him crucified. He was not swayed by political opinion or cultural whim. He was steadfast. He has my utmost respect.

My prayers are with his dear wife, Miss Joyce, who served beside him for all the years of his ministry. May God grant her strength and peace during this very difficult time.

Christian Patriotism or Nationalism?

2005-11-11T08:39:00.000-08:00

A disturbing trend has developed in America’s churches, the growth of which has been so subtle that it has largely escaped our notice. In fact, we have been so unaware of the rising danger in our churches and have come to accept the subtle changes step by step, that many of us will see this developing trend as a positive thing (I once did). The trend has been toward an acceptance, even an embracing, of civil religion.

The issue has been breeched on this website on a couple of occasions (here and here), but has yet to be dealt with head-on. In researching for the “head-on” article I intended to write I ran across a couple of essays that address the issue better than I could have. One, entitled "Nationalism in the Sanctuary," deals with the issue in a straightforward and biblical manner. The second, entitled “The Critical Patriot,”, discusses the appropriate attitude of a Christian patriot and outlines the proper relationship between our loyalty to God and our loyalty to country.

My own observations deal mainly with how our churches came to so revere the state (be it the military, the president, the flag, veterans, or whatever) that we have engaged in activity that, if it is not outright idolatry, certainly approaches it. I don’t know when the practice of placing an American flag in the sanctuary (like the one pictured above) began but I’m sure it was met with little resistance. What could be wrong with identifying our church as an “American” one? Nothing, right? That's why flags like the one above are as much a fixture in our churches as pulpits. Who could foresee a time when churches would participate in full-fledged services that completely ignore the cross of Christ and the glory of God in favor of “old glory” and pledging allegiance to the state (as seen in the photo below)?

The time has come to prayerfully consider what we are doing in our churches and to ask some difficult questions. What is the purpose of the Church? If it exists for the glory of God alone (as I’m convinced Scripture says), then is our Church engaged in activity for the glorification of another? What does the Bible say about it? What would God have us do?

I look at the picture below and imagine what my reaction would be if it were in a slightly different context. What if that was a first century church? What if the American flag on the wall was an enormous painting of Caesar instead? What if those Christians were swearing loyalty to an earthly emperor in a place designated specifically for the worship of God? Would I then consider their behavior appropriate or biblical? More importantly, would God?

May I quote you Mr. Jefferson?

2005-11-07T07:40:00.000-08:00

"A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

"It takes a village" to indoctrinate

2005-11-03T08:49:00.000-08:00

When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany he recognized the incredible importance of indoctrination. He understood it is a process that is more effective the earlier it begins. This is why he established the Hitlerjugend, or “Hitler Youth.” On its surface the Hitler Youth appeared to be a nice civic youth organization, which trained boys and girls in citizenship (see the propaganda poster at right). Who could object to nicely groomed and neatly dressed youth learning to be upstanding citizens, right? Well, reality was quite different.

The HJ, as it came to be known, was organized in a paramilitary fashion, complete with uniforms and courtesies. Eventually membership in the HJ was compulsory and was a full-blown education program (including preparatory schools) where the Nazi Party ideology was taught and reinforced.

Of course there were German parents who did not agree with the Nazi Party ideology but their desires for their own children’s education was of no consequence. The party knew what was best. In fact, over time the youth members of the HJ were required to report their parents to party authorities if they expressed any “anti-Nazi” ideas or appeared in any way less than completely loyal to the Reich.

This is all nice information, you may be thinking, but what does it have to do with me in the United States of America in 2005? I’m glad you asked.

According to a report on WorldNetDaily, on November 2, 2005 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against parents who had sued their local school district after their elementary-aged children were given a sexual survey. These parents, who thought they were sending their children to learn reading and ‘riting and ‘rithmetic found out their children were being instructed on sexuality, instruction that may or may not have been consistent with what the parents were trying to teach their children at home.

In ruling against the parents Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, “…there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.”

In our day this philosophy has been characterized like this: “It takes a village to raise a child.” A generation ago it was the Hitlerjugend. In both cases the state made an attempt to usurp the rights of parents to follow the biblical mandate to “bring up a child in the way he should go” and claimed for itself the role of parent. In both cases the leaders of the state effectively said “the children of this country belong to us.”

In Nazi Germany the HJ was divided into two groups, one for boys and one for girls. The boys were trained to be party leaders and soldiers. The girls were trained to be mothers. The children of Germany belonged to the state and the state actually trained girls in the proper way to give care to the next generation of Nazis.

The Nazi state went so far as to place its “brand” on the children of Germany in the form of uniforms and highly visible armbands (seen at right). But the most destructive form of branding came in the manipulation of young minds. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the state has the right to place a similar brand on the children of America and parents have no “due process” to override the determinations of the state.

I’m not saying that America is Nazi Germany, but as the saying goes, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” This court decision is just another step in the journey (we’ve taken previous steps). If we don’t recognize our ultimate destination, should we remain on our present course, then we are more vulnerable than we realize.

Restoring a national treasure

2005-10-31T09:20:00.000-08:00

In 1998 the Smithsonian Institute embarked on a massive restoration project. The “Star Spangled Banner” – the actual flag that flew over Baltimore’s Fort McHenry during a British naval bombardment and inspired Francis Scott Key to pen the poem that would become our national anthem – was painstakingly restored after years of deterioration from dust and light. There were holes, and tears and parts completely missing. An effort to retain that which remained was considered critical. The project took $18 million and almost five years to complete. The effort demonstrated a deep national concern for the preservation of historical, national treasures.

If only we took as seriously our real national treasures.

On October 31, 2005 President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. Pay close attention to the dog-fight that ensues, because it will illustrate for us the loss of one of our greatest national treasures as left to us by our founders – the loss of our limited, constitutional government.

If you listen to the rhetoric on both sides of the debate over Alito you will hear phrases like, “…this confirmation vote is critical,” and “…the future of our country rides on this Supreme Court seat,” and “…the survival of our republic is at stake.” The fact that so much rides on the nomination of one, single Supreme Court justice shows us just how far America has fallen from the intended federal system of government our founders envisioned. The Supreme Court is now in the business of making law when the constitution gives it no such authority. Congress passes laws annually that far exceed the bounds of the constitution while the president exercises power the office was never authorized to wield. If the appointment of a single judge or the election of a single official is so critical to the future of the country then too much power has consolidated in one spot. But this is not how it was supposed to be.

Our federal government was intended to be small. It was supposed to be limited. The really important decisions were designed to be closer to home. Our state and local governments were supposed to be the seat of greater power because their proximity to their constituents brought greater accountability. Our founders understood all too well the dangers of highly centralized government and the nature of true liberty to entrust too much power to the hands of only a few people.

But, over the years, our limited government has consolidated. As it has grown it has gobbled up many of the liberties guaranteed us by our constitution. Typically this is done “for our own good” because the big, centralized, federal government knows better than we what is best for us. Thomas Jefferson (pictured at left) warned America to put no trust in man but rather to "bind him down with the chains of the constitution." Yet our current federal government completely disregards the constitution to the point one has to wonder why we even have it at all any more.

The sad truth of the matter is this: Of the beautiful tapestry of limited government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed we have precious few threads remaining. A couple of hundred years of exposure to unprincipled leaders who sought to increase their own power at the expense of liberty has left us with a government so tattered that it less resembles the original version established by the constitution than the current “Star Spangled Banner” resembles the freshly sewn flag first hoisted above Fort McHenry.

When will the day come when Americans place a priority on a restoration project designed to reestablish and preserve our constitutional government? Will it ever come?

The "Measure of all Things"

2005-10-18T09:02:00.000-07:00

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” – Romans 12:2

The image below is of Leonardo da Vinci’s famous sketch “Homo Mensura” which means, “Man, the measure of all things.”

In mathematics it is possible to work through an entire complex equation without a single mistake in the process and still come up with a wrong answer. This is possible because the accuracy of the outcome depends on the accuracy of the variables used in the equation. If you begin with a single, incorrect variable everything you do from that point on is skewed. Your outcome will be wrong because you began your work from the wrong starting point.

The same holds true when dealing with philosophies and worldviews. Ideas build upon one another. It is possible to consider the world in a completely logical fashion and still come up with an erroneous view because of an incorrect premise. With each passing day I become more convinced the Church has fallen prey to this kind of error. We have tried to logically and consistently apply a biblical worldview but because we have unwittingly built upon a faulty premise we find ourselves at an erroneous conclusion.

There are two primary starting points for formulating one’s opinions about the world. One is man. The Greek philosopher Protagoras (pictured at right) is one of the earliest people to assert that man is the appropriate starting point for building one’s worldview when he made his famous claim, “Man is the measure of all things.”

When this variable is used as the starting point for forming a worldview the inevitable, logical conclusion is humanism. In an essay which answers the question, “What is Humanism,” Frederick Edwords, the executive director of the American Humanist Association defines “philosophical humanism” as any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. He mentions a sub-category of this philosophy that he calls “Christian Humanism.”

Edwords defines Christian humanism as a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles. This is a remarkable statement because humanism and Christian principles are diametrically opposed. Humanism and Christianity are built on completely different premises. But, I am afraid this philosophy describes too many modern churches.

In his essay Edwords said, “I was once asked by a reporter if this functional definition of religion didn't amount to taking away the substance and leaving only the superficial trappings. My answer was that the true substance of religion is the role it plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community. Doctrines may differ from denomination to denomination, and new doctrines may replace old ones, but the purpose religion serves for PEOPLE remains the same. If we define the substance of a thing as that which is most lasting and universal, then the function of religion is the core of it. Religious Humanists, in realizing this, make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now.”

When this “Christian humanist” philosophy extends to it’s logical conclusion it produces … well … consider the text of the following internet ad:

“What if there were a religion that does not presume to declare universal religious truths? The meaning of your existence would be yours to determine.

What if there were a religion able to generate respect among all of humanity by embracing our equality in the most important questions we face?

What if there were a religion that unites freethought with spirituality?

What if there were a religion that demands no blind faith in prophets or their writings?

What if there were a religion that asserts no moral authority, religious or secular?

Universalism! The church of the 21st Century!”

The second primary starting point for formulating one’s opinion of the world is God. This is the biblical worldview. There is no way an honest reading of Scripture will leave a person with the notion that man is the measure of all things. God is the measure of all things. God is the Creator. Everything in creation is for and about him NOT us. But we have forgotten the biblical admonitions to be “in” this world not “of” it. The humanist philosophies of the world have infiltrated the Church in highly destructive ways but we’ve become so ignorant of the Word of God that we don’t even recognize it.

It’s not a recent thing, either. Dr. R.C. Sproul addresses one of the age-old debates that springs from this very distortion of a “Christian Humanist” worldview. We have too many humanists in the pews and pulpits of our churches. In his essay Edwords attributes a quote to Jerry Falwell (I don’t know if it’s accurate or not, but the sentiment is rampant in churches today). According to Edwords, Falwell said, “When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis we thwart God’s punishment of homosexuals.”

The very idea that we even have the ability to “thwart” the will of God demonstrates how humanistic our worldviews have become. I’ve heard too many Christians, when debating about the nature of God, use the phrase, “Well, my God isn’t like that.” As if we have the ability to define for ourselves who God is. We've tried for too long to build a biblical worldview on the faulty premise of humanism.

It is long past time for God’s people to return to God’s Word and recognize the fact that our very existence is by God’s grace and for God’s glory. The only accurate starting point is God.

Celebrating Reformation (Part III)

2005-10-12T08:42:00.000-07:00

(Continued from Parts I and II)

After posting the 95 Theses Luther began a prolific career as a writer. He began to put in print his views on the corruption of the Catholic Church and on the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone. His works became widely circulated and caused quite a stir. Pope Leo X referred to Luther as “a wild boar loose in God’s vineyard.” It was something the Catholic Church could not overlook.

In 1520 Leo X issued a Papal Bull (pictured at right) excommunicating Luther from the Church and ordering him to Rome within 60 days to recant. Luther responded by burning the Bull at the gates of Wittenberg on December 10 of that same year.

In 1521 Luther was ordered to appear before the Diet (Assembly) of Worms to recant. To help insure his appearance he was guaranteed safe conduct to and from the Diet. Seeing it as an opportunity to defend his positions, Luther agreed and traveled to Worms. After hours of study and prayer Luther refused to recant saying, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Here I Stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

He was declared both a heretic and an outlaw. While he had been guaranteed safe passage a conspiracy had been hatched to kill Luther on his return trip. Luther’s friends, apparently, were aware of the plan, because they donned masks and “captured” him while he traveled through the forest on his way back to Wittenberg. They galloped away in the darkness with Luther and thwarted the efforts to kill him.

He was taken to a castle known as the Wartburg in the Black Forest. Here he hid from the Catholic authorities. He used his time to translate the Bible into German, as it was his firm conviction that the Word of God belonged to everyone, not just religious scholars.

Eventually he left the Wartburg disguised as a knight named Junker Jorg (pictured at left). He continued to write and preach, producing hundreds of volumes and thousands of sermons over the course of his ministry.

It is my hope that churches will focus more attention on educating members about the wonderful historical legacy we have in the foundations of the Protestant Reformation rather than spending time focused on the pagan origins of Halloween. October can be a wonderful time of exploring an incredible story, one filled with courage, conviction, daring escapes and rescues, horsemen dashing through forests, hiding in castles and, most of all, the restoration of biblical doctrines on salvation. October is our month to celebrate reformation.

Celebrating Reformation (Part II)

2005-10-11T09:02:00.000-07:00

(Continued from Part I)

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk who struggled deeply with his condition before a Holy God. He observed all of the ordinances of the Catholic Church and was a model monk practicing asceticism and living in poverty. Yet, he could not find peace. His superiors sent him to the town of Wittenberg to be a professor of theology. During his intense studies of the Scripture Luther discovered, for the first time, that salvation comes by grace through faith alone.

He was awakened not only to the precious Word of God but also to the deep distortions and corruption within the Church. He was particularly incensed at the practice of selling indulgences. Why, Luther wondered, when the Church supposedly has access to a treasury of merit would the Pope extort money from believers rather than dispense the grace freely? Luther considered this practice a horrible perversion of God’s grace. He expressed his specific objections to the practice in a document he entitled the 95 Theses and, on October 31, 1517, nailed it to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.

This single act was the spark that touched off a firestorm with an intensity Luther could not have anticipated. It is considered the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

(Continued in Part III)

Celebrating Reformation (Part I)

2005-10-10T09:24:00.000-07:00

The moment October arrives the Halloween displays appear. You may or may not notice them tucked into an obscure corner of the Christmas decorations at most retail stores (that’s another topic) but they are there. Many churches take the opportunity to rail against the evils of Halloween. Others provide alternative “harvest parties” as a means of keeping youngsters from mischief. But October is an extremely significant month for Protestant churches and we miss an incredible teaching opportunity by focusing our attention in an “anti-Halloween” manner. In fact, October 31 is one of the most significant dates in the history of the Church. We should seize a golden opportunity and focus our attention backwards to that date in the year 1517 …

The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church was Leo X. He wanted to build the grandest cathedral ever constructed and dedicate it to the apostle Peter. Money was an issue. So he authorized the selling of indulgences to help fund his project.

Now, it was a Roman Catholic belief that the good deeds performed by the Saints was more than enough to secure their places in heaven. The good deeds they performed over and above those necessary to get them into heaven were stored in a “treasury of merit” held in trust by the Church. An indulgence was a document issued to a member of the Church whereby some of the merit held in trust in the treasury was credited to them or to a loved one. This merit would reduce the time they or their loved one had to spend in purgatory. The indulgence pictured above reads, “By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days.”

Pope Leo X authorized the sale of a special indulgence (pictured at left), one that would allow the buyer to forego purgatory altogether. He sent representatives out to sell the indulgences to raise the money necessary for building St. Peter’s Cathedral. One of his most effective salesmen was a man named John Tetzel. Tetzel played on the sympathies of church members. He told them they had an opportunity to free their loved ones from purgatory immediately. “When the coin in the coffer rings,” he would say, “The soul from purgatory springs.”

All of this shameless salesmanship and bartering with God’s grace caught the attention of a young Augustinian Monk who intended to speak against the practice. His name was Martin Luther.

(Continued in Part II)

ABC's new "drama"

2005-09-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

PARODY (News) – That the premier of ABC’s new drama “Commander in Chief” conveniently corresponds with the upcoming presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton (the first woman candidate to have a legitimate chance at winning the White House), is purely coincidental, according to sources from both ABC and Senator Clinton’s staff (which just happened to be the same person).

“At ABC we are just concerned about producing quality programming that will entertain our audience,” said an ABC spokesman from his office at the “Hillary for President 2008” headquarters. “Just because ‘Commander in Chief’ features a woman as president does not mean …

Oh, the heck with this!

I had planned to write a parody news story illustrating the absurd nature of ABC’s shameless partisan portrayal of Geena Davis as the first woman president of the United States. It was my intention to demonstrate, by going a little over the top, that the new ABC drama, “Commander in Chief,” is nothing more than an hour-long campaign commercial scheduled to run once a week during prime time on a major network. However, in this case, reality has far outstripped my imagination. Just take a look here at what transpired on the pilot.

When commercials started to air promoting the new show I knew what it was intended to accomplish. This show is about nothing more than getting the American public accustomed to, and hopefully excited about, the idea of a woman president. It is no secret that Senator Clinton will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008 so, in effect, this new “drama” is nothing more than the wholesale endorsement of a political candidate by ABC. I had even intended to include in my parody statements by a person who worked for both ABC and the Hillary campaign, thinking that would be a good way of illustrating absurdity with absurdity. But even on this my imagination failed to keep pace with reality.

Beyond the complimentary political ad, the show is also thick with caricatures of Christians, conservatives, Republicans, people who aren’t women, and pretty much anyone who does not share a radical left-wing worldview.

I’m a staunch advocate of the free market. If ABC wants to underwrite Hillary's presidential campaign that’s their business. I would just make one suggestion. They may want to consider changing their official “Commander in Chief” logo to something a little more appropriate.

Just say "no" to federal reimbursements

2005-09-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

According to a Washington Post article FEMA has authorized the taxpayer-funded reimbursement of churches and religious organizations for the charitable work they’ve done in ministering to those affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There will be considerable resistance to this decision on the part of those who think this is some violation of the perceived constitutional provision for the “separation of church and state.” They will say such reimbursements are unconstitutional. They will be right, just not for the reasons they think.

Payments to churches and religious organizations in no way constitutes the establishment of a state religion by the United States government and such an establishment is the ONLY thing prohibited by the constitution with regard to religion. So on this point the opponents of FEMA’s proposed reimbursements will be dead wrong. They will, however, be absolutely correct in their assessment that reimbursements are unconstitutional.

The Constitution of the United States is an extremely specific document. It spells out precisely what the federal government is authorized to do. If an action is not specifically mentioned in the constitution then Congress has no authority to do it.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Which begs the question, are there any specifically enumerated provisions for benevolence?

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” didn’t think so when he said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

But I recognize that the federal government long ago ceased to respect the authority of the constitution and we now live in a country where churches are going to be deciding whether or not to accept the reimbursements offered by FEMA. I sincerely hope none do.

Just suppose that churches everywhere got into the habit of accepting federal reimbursement for ministries they provide. Eventually churches would become nothing more than a funnel for federal money. They would, in essence, become nothing more than another federal agency, a government subcontractor. This is how churches would come to be regarded by the people they assist. There’s no sacrifice on the part of the church because they get all their money back.

We are called to minister in Jesus’ name, not Uncle Sam’s. The Church exists for the glory of God alone and does not need to act on behalf of another.

Furthermore, it would not be long before some bureaucrat or judge decided to place restrictions on churches that have accepted “government funds,” again in the interest of “separation of church and state.” Churches would be instructed on what they can and cannot say when ministering to those in need. Given enough time it might even be possible for churches to become dependent on federal money for their ministries and thus face a decision at the point of federal intervention to either remain steadfast in their beliefs and take a financial hit or compromise in order to continue feeding at the federal trough.

It is a prospect that is all too real. Besides, the Church does not need federal assistance. We have all of the resources we need. And when we use them it should be God who receives the glory for the good work done in His name.

While I appreciate the fact that FEMA doesn’t seem bothered by the erroneous interpretation of the constitution’s establishment clause, I maintain that the acceptance of federal money by churches is ill advised.

"Gott Mit Uns"

2005-09-21T08:46:00.000-07:00

Simon Wiesenthal, the famed Nazi hunter, died Monday, September 19, at the age of 96. After surviving the horrors of a dozen concentration camps he spent the rest of his life tracking down Nazi war criminals responsible for the murder of millions of people. His death will almost certainly cause us to reflect on man’s inhumanity to man as expressed by the Nazis during World War II. May we never forget what happened.

If ever an army deserved to be characterized as an “army of darkness” with evil intent it was the army of Nazi Germany. Yet in an interesting twist of history the soldiers in that army were outfitted with belt buckles (pictured above) stamped with the slogan, “Gott Mit Uns,” which means “God with us.”

How can it be, one has to wonder, that soldiers guilty of atrocities could see themselves as actually acting with the favor of God? Actually, it is not that difficult to understand. The sobering reality is no country is immune from marching down the same path as Germany did in the mid-20th century.

When any people is the recipient of God’s blessings there is a terrible human tendency on the part of that people to begin thinking God found some worth in them which caused Him to bless them. From there it’s not a huge leap to begin equating the goals and aspirations of that people with the will of God Himself. The actions of a country become confused with the will of God and pretty soon it’s quite easy for the people to justify any action taken on behalf of their country because, after all, they are special and God favors them. Why, the Hand of God surely guides the leaders of their nation, and so any edict from the state can be trusted as practically divine. God is viewed as somehow obligated to them.

In Germany’s case, what started out as a seemingly justified crusade for the Fatherland (according to the rhetoric of the Nazi propagandists) ended up as a horrifying mass murder the likes of which the world had never seen. You would think at some point Nazi soldiers would recognize their leaders had lied to them. But by the time it digressed to it’s most terrible point too many people were used to not questioning the extremely questionable nature of their orders quite simply because the line between God’s will and military orders had ceased to exist in their minds. Their country had become their god.

What is even more troubling is that Germany was a “Christian” nation. It was the home of Martin Luther, whose convictions about God’s Word sparked the Protestant Reformation. While it is true that many such principled Christians in Germany during World War II remained firm in their faith and even paid with their lives for it, it is also true that many others were guilty either of not resisting something they recognized as wrong or actively participating in something they’d lost the ability to recognize as wrong.

It can happen anywhere. Any nation, which seeks God’s approval for a predetermined set of actions, is sowing the seeds for the kind of civil religion Germany sought to establish. It is only the nation that seeks God’s will first and acts accordingly that can reasonably expect to continue to benefit from God’s blessings. “God with us,” is both arrogant and presumptuous. A wiser course of action would be to subordinate the national will to God's and adopt the more appropriate slogan, "Us with God."

"Honoring" the Constitution

2005-09-16T12:21:00.000-07:00

On Sept. 17, 1787 the Constitutional Convention, after meeting for four months in Philadelphia, agreed on the final draft of the United States Constitution. In so doing they thought they were establishing for themselves and their posterity a permanent, limited, federal (which provides for divided, not consolidated, power) government.

In 2004 Congress passed a law requiring all federally-funded schools and agencies to provide materials and/or programs every year around September 17 to honor the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. So, Sept. 17 is officially “Constitution Day,” although many schools and agencies will observe it on the 16th since the 17th falls on a Saturday.

I think “Constitution Day” is a great idea, but as I look around America in 2005 this latest effort to honor the Constitution just rings a little hollow. Far too many Americans are completely ignorant of the contents of that document for their efforts to honor it to have any legitimacy at all. That includes our national “leaders.” Please consider …

Our federal government currently spends billions and billions of dollars on things like the National Education Association, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, funding the arts through the National Endowment for the Arts. Congress sets minimum wage requirements, nationalizes millions of acres of land, and basically does whatever it wants whenever it wants. All of this is in direct defiance of the Constitution. Congress has no constitutional authority to do any of this.

Our citizenry is not outraged at these abuses because it is largely ignorant of the fact that they are unconstitutional. According to a story on WorldNetDaily.com, a few years ago a petition was created that had the text of the Bill of Rights on it. Everything that identified it as such was removed so that it appeared to be a current petition. Most Americans refused to sign the petition because they thought it too radical.

In addition, polls continually embarrass us for our lack of knowledge about the Constitution. One such poll, conducted by the University of Columbia’s Center for Survey Research and Analysis, found that 49 percent of Americans think the First Amendment goes too far. Half of Americans think the press is too aggressive and should be censored to some degree by the government. Almost half thought the FBI should be able to monitor religious groups in the name of national security, even if that meant infringing on religious freedoms. These answers were provided by people who didn’t even know the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.

Another study, commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, discovered that half of American high school students believe the government already has the authority to censor the Internet.

This kind of information does not bode well for America. But it sure is good news to those who would seek to rule over us. One of the primary dangers to liberty is becoming a reality in America. Listen to the words of our forefathers …

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” – James Madison

Again, I support the celebration of Constitution Day. This document receives precious little attention. But I fear that Constitution Day is to become little more than lip service and a means of assuaging the guilt many may feel for having long ignored it’s boundaries. If our leaders really wanted to honor the Constitution they’d respect it's authority and immediately pull the federal government back to within it’s guidelines, because honoring the Constitution with your words while displaying contempt for it with your actions is completely useless.

Pledging Allegiance

2005-09-15T09:18:00.000-07:00

A federal judge in San Francisco declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could potentially put the divisive issue back before the U.S. Supreme Court. According to a Chicago Tribune report, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

This will undoubtedly drive many Christians to action, arguing that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a prohibition on Congress alone and is not a restriction on what individual school districts may or may not do with regard to religion. They will, of course, be right in that assessment. But there is a much larger issue here that will be largely overlooked, and it is this: should we even have a pledge of allegiance?

The English author G.K. Chesterton once observed, “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed, one set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.” By contrast, other nations were founded based on a shared ethnicity or geographical region. But America was founded on ideals. So much so that Chesterton called us a nation with the soul of a church.

Those ideals were articulated by Thomas Jefferson, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

American patriotism has always been about a devotion to these ideals not a devotion to a particular geographic region, an ethnic group, or the state. Those types of devotions are better described as nationalism and it is in nationalism that the Pledge of Allegiance has its beginnings.

Francis Bellamy (pictured above) was a Baptist preacher in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He was highly influenced by the socialist movements of his day. So much so that his church asked him to leave as pastor because he preached sermons on the virtues of socialism rather than expositions of Scripture. He authored the Pledge of Allegiance (his original handwritten version appears at right) as a way to foster blind obedience to the state. This was important to him because he viewed the state as superior to the individual, the individual as the servant of the state rather than the other way around. This stands in stark contrast to the American foundation of adherence to principle. The pledge swears allegiance to a government.

Thomas Jefferson once said that it might be necessary for patriots to revolt every 20 years or so in order to insure continued liberty. His allegiance was not to any form of government (not even the constitutional form he was so instrumental in forming), but rather to the foundational principles of life and liberty. To him a government was nothing more than a tool for protecting those precious principles.

And now, after years of pledging allegiance, the line between patriotism and nationalism has become so blurred as to be almost nonexistent. Anyone who questions the actions of the state is labeled “unpatriotic.” Even more egregious, Christians have come to regard this new “patriotism” and their faith in Christ as intertwined. Being a good Christian has become just one aspect of being a “patriot” and pledging allegiance to the flag, at the very least, brings with it an implied acceptance of anything the state does. After all, we’ve sworn allegiance to that state. It is known as civil religion.

What is civil religion? An article entitled “One Cheer for Civil Religion” found in the Sept./Oct. issue of Modern Reformation magazine answers that question quite well.

According to historian (and Christian) Wilfred McClay, civil religion is “that strain of American piety that bestows many of the elements of religious sentiment and faith upon the political and social institutions of the United States.” More problematically, civil religion is the misidentification of the nation of the United States with the covenant people of God. It is the casual assumption that America enjoys a special role in redemptive history. It is the confusion of the office of the political leader with the office of the spiritual leader. It is the frequent presumption of divine blessings without submission to divine judgment. It is the sublimation of Christian distinctives to a generic amalgam that conflates many faiths into a common national identity. It is as old as America itself. And it is not biblical Christianity.

How far down the road of civil religion has the church in America traveled? It’s a question worth asking, because the central motivation for any Christian should be God’s glory alone. If God were glorified with the utter destruction of the United States is that something that we would welcome as divine providence or reject and demand, “God bless America.” How we answer that question will reveal to us where our true allegiance lies, whether we openly pledge it or not.

To read more about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance click here, here, or here.

New Orleans orders confiscation of legally-owned firearms

2005-09-13T08:57:00.000-07:00

PARODY (News) – The City of New Orleans, in an effort to curtail the violence rampant in it’s hurricane-ravaged streets, ordered the confiscation of all legally-owned firearms in the city. According to news reports upon the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their legally-owned firearms, and evicting the residents.

"No one is allowed to be armed,” said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. “We're going to take all the guns."

It is a move that city officials hope will accomplish … well … it’s hard to tell what they think this will accomplish. Let’s see if city officials can shed some light for us …

“With bands of thugs and criminals roving our streets in search of property to steal and people to victimize it was necessary to act quickly,” said a city spokesman. “Some people have questioned the wisdom of taking the only means of defense available to the people out there who have had to fend off criminals. But, in light of the fact we’ve been criticized for not acting quickly enough prior to the hurricane and in it’s immediate aftermath, we decided it was politically expedient to do something. And, when you think about the fact that our police force is stretched thin and can’t be everywhere all of the time, this move only makes more sense.”

Um, actually no.

When it was pointed out that the criminals might not comply with the order to turn over firearms the spokesman replied, “Oh. Yeah, well, if that’s the case then they will meet with very little resistance which means it won’t be necessary for them to use their guns. So, at the very least, the shoot-outs in the streets will come to an end, right?”

Big government logic at it’s best.

The price of worshipping idols

2005-09-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

It is disappointing, although not surprising, that a full day did not pass after hurricane Katrina hit before the politicians began pointing fingers. The opportunity to cover one's backside or make political hay from the situation was just too much to resist for far too many.

The Democrats, of course, blame the Bush administration for what they perceive as an abject failure on the part of the federal government. The Republicans, in turn, blame the City of New Orleans and Louisiana (both of which have been under Democratic leadership for decades) for inadequate emergency plans. One side claims racism played a part in the slow response of the federal government. The other side points out that decades of welfare have made thousands of people literally incapable of taking care of themselves at any level.

Whichever the case, the fact remains that hundreds of people have died and thousands more have lost homes and businesses. There is a debate firing up as to what, exactly, the government's responsibility is toward it's citizens in situations like this. What can't be debated is that many, many citizens feel they were promised certain services from the government which they did not receive.

Which raises the question of where one should place one's faith. According to the Bible our faith should be in God alone. But far too many Americans don't do that.

It reminds me of the prophets of Baal. They had their faith in a god born of their own imaginations. A god they created to serve their own purposes. Ultimately, as the contest with Elijah revealed, their god was completely insufficient to help them.

Americans don't worship Baal. But we've come to worship a god of our own making. Our idol, in America, is America. And it becomes evident, when real tragedy strikes, that our idol is insufficient. Like Baal, America falls short. We'd be much better off placing our faith back in God alone. We should live by the guidelines laid out in Scripture. We should realize that we need to be self-sufficient when we can (2 Thessalonians 3:10) and share one another's burdens when we can't hack it ourselves (Galatians 6:2).

The best examples of these two principles have been seen along the Gulf coast in the people who didn't wait around for the idle (idol) government to come rescue them. Apparently there were enough people there who were not so foolish as to invest their faith in the government, and those who have had their needs met by such people can thank God for them.

As for the Christian relief efforts, meeting the needs of these people is a priority. But, as always, the glory goes to God.

Asking the harder question

2005-09-02T10:10:00.000-07:00

When natural disasters like hurricane Katrina strike, the tendency is to ask, “How could God let this happen?” Trying to reconcile the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God with a destructive and deadly event of this magnitude is an understandable response. After the tsunami struck in December 2004 those with an atheistic bent took the opportunity to try to disprove the existence of God, claiming no reconciliation possible. The question was even bandied about on this website.

But, while the question “How could God let this happen” may be the first question that pops to mind, it is, perhaps, not the most appropriate question. Nor is it the hardest.

The more appropriate question is this: Does God have some obligation to us for our protection against such things? If so what is it?

The simple answer is no. God has no obligation to spare a race of people who are His enemies and hate Him. The Bible is clear on this point, we are all guilty before God and deserve justice. Every moment that God allows us to walk and breathe and live is nothing more than His unbelievable grace toward us. God is justified in destroying any city anytime, anywhere. He was justified with Sodom. He is justified now.

That’s not to say New Orleans did anything especially egregious to deserve this more than any other city that has not suffered a similar fate, but, according to Scripture, He would be completely justified in destroying earth entirely if He decided to. But this line of reasoning assumes God caused the hurricane in the first place and that may be an erroneous notion.

Romans tells us all of creation groans under the weight of sin. Ours is a world cursed. Sin has corrupted our entire world and that includes nature. Natural disasters are a direct result of man introducing sin into the world. So, when things like last year's tsunami or this year's hurricane happen it is nothing more than a sinful race of people reaping the whirlwind.

Rather than trying to fix God with the blame our response should be what our response before a Holy God should always be: “Father we know we deserve justice but we humbly ask for your grace.”

God is at liberty to exercise either option and is completely justified whichever option He chooses.

Of course, the people of the Gulf coast could not care less about these kinds of questions right now. They need help. There will be plenty of time later to answer critics who want to blame God. Right now, in Jesus' name, we need to help those who are hurting. If you would like to make contributions to the relief effort you can click here or here for details.

Built on Sand?

2005-09-01T10:15:00.000-07:00

The ferocity with which evolutionists have been attacking the Intelligent Design theory betrays an agenda far beyond the love of “pure science.” A lot of people have invested their entire worldview in Darwin’s theory and it has become the foundation for every other belief system they hold dear.

It is the basis for secular humanism, which, in turn, is the basis for a whole host of beliefs ranging from the political (like socialism) to the moral (like relativism). Evolution is the thing that makes immoral lifestyles acceptable because, after all, morality is only what the individual says it is.

But the cornerstone is Darwin. And for Darwin’s theory of evolution to be true it is absolutely necessary for God to not exist. This is why the attacks on Intelligent Design have been so fierce and irrational. Intelligent Design has the potential to knock away that cornerstone of evolution. If that happens everything that has been built upon it comes crashing down.

Intelligent Design theory sends shudders through “science” community

2005-08-29T13:32:00.000-07:00

PARODY (news) – The growing popularity of the intelligent design theory among scientists in all fields has exposed a critical weakness within the “scientific” community at large. Intelligent Design is the theory that asserts all of nature is just too complex and too well ordered to be the result of chance. As science has moved forward in recent years each subsequent discovery has brought forth evidence which many scientists believe supports the notion of a creator. Opponents have claimed that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a ruse designed to get Creationism into America’s schools via the backdoor. However, many supporters of the Intelligent Design theory do not claim to know about the nature of a creator (whether it is, for example, the God of the Bible), only that scientific evidence supports the idea that some superior being probably had a hand in the creation of our world.

Those opposed to the theory have been shrill in their opposition and refuse to even address the evidence supporting the theory or debate those who see it’s validity. They have violated one of the prime tenets of the scientific method, that being to first examine all of the available evidence and THEN draw a conclusion. Instead, opponents of intelligent design have rejected it based upon a predetermined conclusion (their support of evolution). And yet they don’t seem to recognize the irony.

“Since we know that man evolved over the course of millions and millions of years we can proceed with confidence in our study of science by rejecting evidence to the contrary as anomalies and by spending our valuable time digging for the support to Darwin’s theory that we just KNOW is there somewhere,” said Miss Led, spokesperson for the Institute of Evolutionary Mudbug Research. “I mean, c’mon, all of this evidence that seems too complicated to be the result of chance we can dismiss out-of-hand because we already KNOW that Darwin was right.”

Interestingly Charles Darwin, himself, said that his theory stood or fell based on the fossil record. His idea being that in the years to follow the publication of his theory science would uncover a number of transitional species to support his theory. In reality, just the opposite has occurred. And still, as the evidence against Darwin’s theory continues to mount, many scientists cling to it in spite of what they learn.

“Oh, we’ll find them” said Miss Led, “They are out there. We know they are.”

How?

“Because,” she continued “As I’ve said before, we KNOW evolution to be a fact. So it just naturally follows that the evidence to support that position will show up sooner or later.”

Oh.

In the mean time, science continues to uncover one “anomaly” after another in support of Intelligent Design. But, of course, we KNOW there can’t be a creator.

Right?

The Nature of True Liberty

2005-07-04T14:04:00.000-07:00

In the mid-1700s the American colonists grew increasingly frustrated at the level of intrusion in their lives on the part of the British government. They were taxed too much. They were subject to the government at its whim, whether that meant housing British troops in their homes or forfeiting their property for the benefit of the crown. They decided to do something about it. For more than a decade they actively resisted the rule of the British in a number of ways. Then, on July 4, 1776, they seceded from the British Empire and established themselves as a cooperating confederation of 13 independent states. They chose liberty. But it came with a high price tag.

Most of the leaders of the movement toward independence were men of wealth, privilege and position. But they valued liberty more. It is a good thing, too, because with few exceptions their fight for freedom, while winning them their precious liberty, cost them practically everything else. Perhaps it is for this reason they endeavored to insure liberty would remain a part of their legacy to future generations of Americans.

To secure this legacy, they prepared a document intended to be a guide for us. They left us the Constitution. They left it because, quite frankly, they didn't trust us to take good care of the liberty which had cost them so much. Not that this is an indictment on us in particular, they just didn't trust men, period.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man," Thomas Jefferson said. "But bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Subsequent Americans in positions of government were to be extremely limited in what they were allowed to do. This was the entire purpose of the Constitution.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated," Jefferson said.

I guess these men had an incredible ability to understand the hearts of men. They knew that men who obtain power will do just about anything to keep it. Jefferson even observed that it might be necessary, periodically, to revolt again and again in order to keep true liberty. Their concerns are vindicated by history. Today, our federal government has far exceeded the scope of authority established by the Constitution.

James Madison, the author of the Constitution, once said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Remember, according to Jefferson, Congress may only do those things specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Yet our current federal government spends billions of our dollars on things like Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Social Security and the like at a huge cost to the American taxpayer. The virtue of any of these programs is not at issue here. The only issue is that Congress, according to the Constitution, has no authority to do these things. The legacy of political liberty, as won by our founders, is all but gone. Fortunately for us, they left us another legacy.

The founders knew that the nature of true liberty was not something granted by man. It is granted by God. The language of the Declaration of Independence reflects this. Consider the phase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...." Of course the Christian nature of colonial culture demanded no explanation for the word "Creator." Toward the end of the document we find the additional phrase, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence...." Again, the language was plain enough.

Even if you want to debate the language contained in the Declaration of Independence, it is hard to refute the words of the men themselves when they said things like ...

-- "God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed their only sure basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that those liberties are the gift of God?" -- Thomas Jefferson

-- "In addition to the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian." -- George Washington

-- "[The Revolutionary War] connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." -- John Quincy Adams

-- "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom to worship here." -- Patrick Henry

-- "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government." -- Noah Webster

You see, they understood that civil governments are only necessary because men have to be restrained from encroaching on one another's liberty due to obedience to their sinful nature. But for the sinful heart of man there would be no need for police and courts. There would be no need for armies and navies. They understood it may be necessary for men to fight other men to protect their political and civil liberty because they understood the prophet Jeremiah when he said, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked...." As long as men are enslaved to their sin, they will violate the civil liberties of others.

And there is the key. True liberty can only come when we have been set free from sin. This is why the founders did not try to separate the principles of Christianity from civil government. They believed in liberty too much. This is why the Constitution prohibits Congress from exercising any authority over religion. The founders understood that the authority flows in the other direction.

When we celebrate America's independence we should seriously consider the words of George Washington, and "add the more distinguished character of a Christian." Only then will we honor the legacy of true liberty.

And while we can watch the erosion of the civil liberties won during the American Revolution, we can take heart in the knowledge that true liberty is secure because we have not been charged with its protection. Christ, in answering a group of Jews concerning freedom, spoke of the security of true liberty. "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

Where is God?

2005-01-05T14:02:00.000-08:00

All of the death and destruction that resulted from the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean has raised anew the age-old argument against the existence of God. The argument goes something like this: If God is all good then he must not be all powerful. If God is all powerful then he must not be all good. If he were both how could he allow something like this to happen? I think the question is fair.

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

Voting Values?

2004-11-11T14:00:00.000-08:00

A big deal has been made of the fact that a great many voters said moral values played a big part in their decisions at the ballot box during the recent election. The implication has been that values are not a legitimate issue for voters and should not be a consideration when voting. Many in the media have gone so far as to suggest that President Bush was carried back into office on the coattails of these "values voters" when he otherwise would have lost but for their participation in the election. The clear intention here is to cast some sort of doubt as to the legitimacy of Bush's win.

Are values a legitimate issue? Should they be a consideration?

Who is in charge?

2004-11-02T13:55:00.000-08:00

Today is election day and Christians everywhere are voting and praying. Many pray for guidance in making decisions in voting. Others pray for the election of one candidate over another. All of which begs some questions. To what extent does God govern in the affairs of man? Is this election really up to voters while God awaits the outcome to determine whether or not He will bless America and to what extent? Or, is God utlimately in control of the election, orchestrating the outcome consistent with His perfect will?

How, then, should we pray?

In a Nutshell

2004-11-01T11:41:00.000-08:00

In 1 Peter the Bible tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”

A primary principle in the study of thideology is this: What you believe about God (theology) should be clearly evident in the way you live your life (ideology). If we, as believers in Christ, look and act no different than the world then we either are ignoring the teachings of Scripture or we are ignorant of the teachings of Scripture.

It is therefore extremely important to take seriously the study of proper theology and apply what we learn to how we live (thideology).

Thideology™ Defined

2004-11-01T11:39:00.000-08:00

Thideology™: (noun, combination of “theology” and “ideology”) – 1. The study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially the study of God and of God’s relation to the world combined with the study of the systematic body of concepts about human life or culture and the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program. 2. The study of authentic, biblical Christianity. 3. Daring to comment on the single, most dreaded of all subjects: politics and religion.

Thideology™ Statement of Beliefs

2004-11-01T09:34:00.000-08:00

The Scriptures
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.

God
There is but one God, the Maker, Preserver and Ruler of all things, having in and of Himself, all perfections, and being infinite in them all; and to Him all creatures owe the highest love, reverence and obedience.

The Trinity
God is revealed to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence or being.

Providence
God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.

Election
Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life-not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ-in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

The Fall of Man
God originally created Man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

The Mediator
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is the divinely appointed mediator between God and man. Having taken upon Himself human nature, yet without sin, He perfectly fulfilled the law; suffered and died upon the cross for the salvation of sinners. He was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended to His Father, at whose right hand He ever liveth to make intercession for His people. He is the only Mediator, the Prophet, Priest and King of the Church, and Sovereign of the Universe.

Regeneration
Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God's free and special grace alone.

Repentance
Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things.

Faith
Saving faith is the belief, on God's authority, of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

Justification
Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners, who believe in Christ, from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made; not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith.

Sanctification
Those who have been regenerated are also sanctified by God's word and Spirit dwelling in them. This sanctification is progressive through the supply of Divine strength, which all saints seek to obtain, pressing after a heavenly life in cordial obedience to all Christ's commands.

Perseverance of the Saints
Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

The Church
The Lord Jesus is the head of the Church, which is composed of all His true disciples, and in Him is invested supremely all power for its government. According to His commandment, Christians are to associate themselves into particular societies or churches; and to each of these churches He hath given needful authority for administering that order, discipline and worship which He hath appointed. The regular officers of a Church are Bishops or Elders, and Deacons.

Baptism
Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper
The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is designed to commemorate His death, to confirm the faith and other graces of Christians, and to be a bond, pledge and renewal of their communion with Him, and of their church fellowship.

The Resurrection
The bodies of men after death return to dust, but their spirits return immediately to God-the righteous to rest with Him; the wicked, to be reserved under darkness to the judgment. At the last day, the bodies of all the dead, both just and unjust, will be raised.

The Judgment
God hath appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world by Jesus Christ, when every one shall receive according to his deeds; the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment; the righteous, into everlasting life.

The Thideology Statement of Beliefs is taken in part from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Abstract of Principles originally established by James Pettigru Boyce, the principle founder, first Chairman of the Faculty, and first President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280.

An Overview

2004-11-01T09:26:00.000-08:00

Everyone views the world in light of some group of core beliefs – some basic philosophy that forms the foundation upon which they build their entire worldview. Then, whether they realize it or not, every person takes the events they view on a daily basis, runs them through the filter of their worldview, and forms their opinions accordingly. It is this process that, in turn, forms ones opinion on how society should run, what is referred to as an ideology.

For example, an atheist and a Christian may witness the same mugging. The atheist views the mugger in light of a purely scientific, naturalistic worldview. To the atheist the mugger may be someone who has not evolved to the point of being able to exercise the proper rationale necessary to overcome the more base, primal instincts still present in his DNA from the time his ancestors were animals. The Christian, on the other hand, views the event in light of biblical teaching. To the Christian the mugger is a person who is probably a slave to his sinful nature, is acting in accordance with that nature, and is in dire need of the salvation available in Jesus Christ.

Of course, Christianity and atheism are only two of the many worldviews utilized by people. In addition there are also worldviews like agnosticism, humanism, deism, theism, paganism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc. These worldviews are similar to each other in some regards and vastly different in others. But the first line of separation is whether or not one believes in a creator god. If not, then the worldviews tend to take on a humanistic flavor. If so, then the question of proper theology comes into play.

Thideology assumes a creator god and is, therefore, the study of proper theology and how it relates to ideology. The best way to live one's life is to do so in accordance with the standards of the One who is the author of life. Understanding who God is and what He expects of us is critical in applying the principles which govern the proper approach to life. Thideology is the pursuit of orthodox theology and the practical application of that theology. More simply put, thideology is the study of politics and religion.

Another Overview

2004-11-01T08:44:00.000-08:00

You won’t find the word “thideology” in any dictionary, and for good reason. I made it up. But, inasmuch as this blog is all about thideology I will share with you how I came to be convicted about the importance of this course of study and why.

The word thideology comes from combining the words theology (defined as the study of God) and ideology (defined as concepts about human life and culture). So, the goal of thideology is to take a look at our ideology – the way we view of the world, our beliefs on government, law, culture, and human behavior – and see if it is consistent with orthodox Christian theology. The idea is to hold up our belief system to the scrutiny of Scripture.

I began to consider the combination of these two schools of thought when I looked at the state of the modern church and saw a developing polarization among believers. On one hand there are believers who look at theology as dry, useless theory. They view the study of biblical concepts as a waste of time and those who engage in it as eggheads or bookworms. They often say things like, “Just give me something I can use in my everyday life,” or “I just need the practical application,” or “I don’t want to get bogged down with doctrine, I just want a relationship with God.”

On the other hand there are those who have allowed their love of theology and doctrine to overshadow their love of God. They spend all of their time reading systematic theology books and Gospel harmonies and never take the time to put what they’ve learned into practice. For them the knowledge of God has become an end in itself. They view people who neglect the deeper study of Scripture as lazy and spiritually immature.

The interesting thing is this: both groups are right and both groups are wrong.

The “practical” crowd is correct in placing an emphasis on Christian living. But they are dead wrong for overlooking the study of theology as something dry, boring, or useless. It is anything but. This is where the “theological” crowd gets it right.

Our world – and everything in it – is nothing more than the creation of God. He spoke it into existence. He has also revealed to us in Scripture a great many truths about His nature, our nature, and the nature of the world around us. The study of these things is of vital importance to the life of a believer in Jesus Christ. We best understand creation when we learn about the Creator. It is only after we learn to view God’s world through the lens of His Word that we may have “life, and have it more abundantly.”

The best Christian life is lived when both orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct practice) are both embraced. It is true that the study of theology is only the first step in the life lived for Christ. But it is an absolutely necessary first step.

Without a sound foundation in solid biblical theology one is in danger of traipsing off into false teaching and heresy in search of something “practical.” Remember, a lot of “practical” lessons can be learned from a lot of religious groups whose theology is not biblical Christianity and will ultimately lead to destruction. Practicality does not save.

Spending time in God’s Word, contemplating the things of God and understanding our place before a Holy God is absolutely vital. But if we stop with study and never “go and make disciples” or minister in Jesus’ name then we have a dead faith. If theology is vital then it is equally vital to put that knowledge to work.

The goal, then, of thideology is to help Christians develop a sound biblical worldview and apply that worldview to their lives so that God may be glorified.

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” – Matthew 5:16

What does the logo mean?

2004-11-01T08:06:00.000-08:00

The sword and the trowel are borrowed from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a 19th century Baptist minister from England. He used the sword and the trowel as the title of a theological journal he published and referred to as “a record of combat with sin and labour for the Lord.” The Latin phrase “Soli Deo Gloria” is considered one of the “five ‘Solas’” of the protestant reformation. In English it means, “for the glory of God alone.”

The Thideology logo is a reminder to the Christian: Our two-fold purpose is to build God’s Kingdom by proclaiming the gospel and making disciples, and to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints, and that this is all done for the sole purpose of bringing glory to God.