R.C. Sproul on the Exclusivity of Christ

Christianity Without Christ

In light of some recent topics here, I present GetReligion's story about Gretta Vosper. Interesting article about an interesting minister.

I almost used scare quotes there, but decided not to. She probably does minister to people. But I think she falls short of the Biblical definition of the term -- she seems to leave out a central need when meeting peoples' needs: the need for a Savior.

How Inclusive Is God?

In the comments of my post on Jeremiah Wright (which has been a great discussion, by the way), this statement was made:

The common Christian idea that non-Christians are all damned just strikes me as incompatible with the mercy and justice of God.

The speaker is asserting that the "other sheep" that Jesus mentions in John 10:16 are people who aren't creedal, confessional Christians, but instead are people who are simply good enough, and are trying to follow the "social gospel." I'm probably oversimplifying things a bit; read the comments on that post for a complete picture.

So the question is this: just how inclusive is the God of the Bible, anyway? After all, it says that He's not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, right? God is love, right? So He'll let everybody in, right?

That's what we want to believe. That's what is most comfortable to believe. A God who lets everyone in.

But then we've got a Jesus who says, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness" to people who have done "mighty deeds" in His name. People who have the reputation and the following. People who are doing all the "right things." And they miss out. Why?

Because Jesus never knew them. They weren't His sheep. We become His sheep by faith. Don't believe me? Ask Jesus. John 6

26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Before we can actually do anything that pleases God, we have to believe on the One whom God has sent. Short of that, nothing we can do pleases God (Hebrews 11:6).

So God excludes those who do not come to Him on His terms. John 3:16 says it clearly -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Belief is a condition, according to John.

This isn't a new thing for God, though. Cain tried to come to God on his own terms, and God rejected his sacrifice. The rich man tried to come to Jesus on his own terms, and he went away disappointed. Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Not many people are on the right path. God's justice demands that people come to Him by the path He has ordained. God's mercy makes that path available to all who believe. But it's not an easy path, and the people who actually find it are few.

New Jesus Book

There's a new "Historical" Jesus book coming out next year (probably just in time for Easter '09) written by Paul Verhoeven -- they guy who directed "Basic Instinct" and "RoboCop." Don't let those stellar credentials fool you, though -- Verhoeven is also a member in good standing of that cabal of uber-scholars known as The Jesus Seminar.

As you can probably figure out, Verhoeven's book is far from orthodox.

Marianna Sterk of the publishing house J.M. Meulenhoff said the book includes several ideas that run contrary to Christian faith, including the suggestion that Jesus could be the son of a Roman soldier who raped Mary during a Jewish uprising against Roman rule in 4 B.C.

The book also claims that Judas Iscariot was not responsible for Jesus' betrayal, she said.

The movie director's claims were greeted with some skepticism among those who have dedicated their careers to studying the life of Jesus. One issue is that there is very little information about the life of Jesus outside of the Gospels. The Gospels as understood by Christians for nearly 2,000 years do not support Verhoeven's ideas.

Critics aren't impressed.

William Portier, a professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton, in Ohio, said the Jesus Seminar is known for making provocative claims, but "they are real scholars — you have to deal with them."

However, he said Verhoeven's ideas sounded "pretty out there."

And fellow Jesus Seminar members aren't impressed, either.

John Dominic Crossan, a Jesus Seminar founder, agreed. He said that while Verhoeven was a member in good standing, there is little evidence for the view that Jesus was illegitimate.

Crossan said the claim is first reported in a polemic written in the second century against the Book of Matthew, intended for a Jewish audience.

"It's an obvious first retort to claims that Mary was a virgin," Crossan said. "If you wanted to do a hatchet job on Jesus' reputation, this would be the way."

The most likely scenario for people who don't accept that Jesus was literally the son of God and had no human father is simply that he was the son of Joseph, Crossan said.

Academic study is important. I've always enjoyed the academic aspects of my seminary work - my dream job would be to teach historical theology and church history. But this story shows the problem with focusing on academic study without letting what you're studying actually impact your life. The really sad part in this case is that Verhoeven has taken some old theories that have been shown to have no basis in fact, and is writing a "new book" advocating them. He'll get a lot of attention with this, and sell a ton of books -- and none of the people reading this stuff will ever realize how old his ideas are, and how often they've been shown lacking.

The entire modern fascination with gnostic sources of Christianity and historic Jesus studies isn't even new -- more than a hundred years ago, people went through the same fascination with apocryphal texts and "hidden" Christianities. When people realized how much of it was without merit they started ignoring it, and soon it was all but forgotten. The Dead Sea discoveries in 1948 have triggered a new round - the modern fascination with it all dates that far back. And people have forgotten what we learned the last time. Any attempts to correct what's being said is considered "anti-intellectual philosophizing" by Christians who are feeling "threatened" by "new discoveries."

We've got some warning before this one hits American bookstores. I'm hoping that someone is already planning a book refuting Verhoeven's claims. If not, maybe we can just re-publish a few 100 year old books -- they seem to have done the job the last time.

Two Posts that Answer Each Other

Over at Reclaiming The Mind Ministries' blog, Parchment and Pen, a reader has sent an email with a problem. Essentially, his pastor, who is an intelligent man, thinks that theologians are out of touch and irrelevant to ministry.

He equally shows disdain for Theologians and gets quite angry at terms like Calvinism, Arminianism, Vicarious Substitutionary Atonement, or anything other theology term. His feeling is that theologians are out of touch, have no ability to relate the concepts to people, and theologians in general treat the laity as simpletons.

Now, that's a problem. A big one, because theology is important for pastors to understand and be able to relate to their congregations.

But earlier today, I read a post that solves the problem -- even though it was written before the Pen and Parchment post! JT at Between Two Worlds mentions a post by Owen Strachan talking about theologian-pastors and pastor-theologians.

Just as we need "theologian-pastors" (by which I'm referring to theologically astute pastors), so also are we in great need of "pastor-theologians" (by which I'm referring to academic scholars who bring pastoral concerns to bear on their work). There is a gigantic need for exegetes, historians, theologians, systematicians, and philosophers who see their work as done, generally speaking, in service of the church. . . .

These scholars do not study, publish, and teach to pursue their own eccentric interests and doctrines, but to assist Christians in the task of understanding the Bible and its teachings as they apply to life and ministry.

This hits home for me. I love the academic aspects of seminary. I love the study, the writing, etc. But it's important to put this stuff into practice. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and effort.

I've always used the analogy of the sponge. There comes a point where the sponge becomes saturated -- can't hold any more liquid. Unless you wring the sponge out, it's worthless. Likewise, when we learn things, that knowledge is worthless unless we use it to help others grow closer to God. Academic research has it's role; it's not an end unto itself, but a means to an end. That end is to glorify God and edify His church.

Sounds like the pastor mentioned above ran into some theologians who forgot that, or never believed it to begin with. And that's the problem. The solution is a recovery of the role of theology in ministry, and a recovery of the role of the theologian in the Church.

Something's Missing ....

The folks at the Two Institutions blog noticed something missing from their children's' Sunday School lesson for Easter -- the Resurrection.

According to the folks at First Look, the Gospel is "simply too violent for preschoolers."

This is what they said in a letter (from the Two Institutions site above):

“because of the graphic nature of the Easter story and the crucifixion specifically, we need to be careful as we choose what we tell our preschoolers about Easter.” Further they say, “We have made this choice because the crucifixion is simply too violent for preschoolers.” They go on to justify their reason for this by suggesting that theories of cognitive development show that preschoolers are concrete thinkers and therefore “are simply unable to truly grasp what it means to die and then be raised again through the power of God.”

The full letter is available here.
What a shame that we're not willing to tell our kids the good news of Easter! Jesus said to let the little children come to Him, didn't he? I guess the folks at First Look think he must have meant to let the older kids come to Him. I know my daughter understood the basics of Easter quite well when she was in preschool -- because we taught her. One thing I've learned in teaching - kids will always live down to our expectations. We need to keep them higher than this.

{edited in response to correction mentioned in comments}

Baptist Lent

So, Baptists don't really do Lent. But I'm not most Baptists -- I tend to be a "high-church" Baptist, and I do a little something for Lent, Maundy Thursday, Advent -- all those "traditions of men" that my fellow Baptists tend to shun.

This year, I'm doing something different. In the past, I've given up some food item or other, and it's lasted about ten days. Once I was going to give up the Internet, and that lasted ten minutes. And part of the point of the whole thing is to seek spiritual improvement, grow closer to God.

So this year I've been following a Lenten reading list that I found. It's designed to really get you to think about how the early Church lived and believed. While I don't agree with everything at that site in general, I think it's valuable for us to read a bit of the history of Christianity. The reading is broken down into manageable pieces, so each day's reading should only take about fifteen minutes. And much of it is stuff that I've wanted to read anyway.

You can download the whole thing, schedule and readings, from the site in PDF format. It's a big file, but you can just print out the part that you're reading that day, OR you can just read it on your computer. And the PDF isn't date specific, so once you download it you've got it to use every year. So, to coin a phrase, "Tole, lege!"

The Arbuckle Association, Calvinism, and Christian Attitudes

There's been much said in Reformed circles about the recent resolution condemning Calvinism that was passed by the Arbuckle Baptist Association in Oklahoma. I've held off, simply because so much has been said elsewhere that I figured my comments would get lost in the clamor. But I really think that we need to look at this resolution as an opportunity to learn for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, because there seems to be more to this issue than just a misunderstanding about what Calvinism is, and the differences between Calvinism and hyperCalvinism.

Wes Kenney has a bit of an insider's view of the issue, and makes some good points in his article about the controversy. One thing that he writes was very telling, to me, anyway.

The pastor who was the driving force behind this move, Dr. Joe Elam of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, had until about eighteen months ago a Calvinist staff member who did much, both before and after he separated from the church, to undermine Dr. Elam’s leadership of that church.

Someone seems to have been creating division in that church in the name of Calvinism. And if you read many "cage-stage" Calvinists, you can understand why people might react in just this way. So what's the solution?

Charity. Disagree with people, but don't undermine their authority or ministry because of that disagreement. If you find that you cannot work with someone else because of their theology, then don't work with them. Leave -- don't try to tear apart a church or tear down a ministry because of it. If you've ever wondered why so many Southern Baptists don't seem to want to work with Calvinists, maybe it's because so many Southern Baptists encounter Calvinists that won't work with anyone else.

The Theology of Abortion

Al Mohler quotes Garry Wills today concerning abortion. According to Wills, abortion is not a theological issue, since the Bible doesn't mention it, and the church councils never address it. Mohler reminds us that while the councils don't address the issue, it is addressed by the Didache -- in the very second chapter, in fact. So it would seem that the early church at least thought it was an important issue for the Church to recognize.

But I really think that theology, and theological disagreement, is at the heart of the abortion issue. Christians believe in the imago Dei -- the image of God, and the idea that we are all created in that image. Rejection of the imago Dei leads to a low opinion of human life -- the idea that we're all expendable, especially if there's a possibility that we're unwanted, or will be less than the ideal child. Too many abortions are matters of convenience -- kids will just "cramp our style." And unfortunately, too many of those abortions are insisted upon by the father, who lacks the emotional ability to actually be a Daddy. The child isn't even seen as a choice -- it's an inconvenience, and embarrassment. We see it as getting rid of a bit of tissue. We don't look at this child as a being that is created in the very image of God -- a gift to us.

I've gotten a few bad gifts in my life -- and I've given a few, too. But I would never simply throw the gift away -- I express my appreciation to the giver, and I find a way to make that gift a part of my life. I've worn ugly sweaters, read terrible books, and eaten nasty food, simply because it was a gift, and I don't want to offend or upset the giver.

Unfortunately, we've forgotten the Giver. We think of our unborn as simply biological byproducts, something that's disposable (we can always make another one, right?), rather than a gift given to us by our Creator. A gift that is made in the very image of the One who gave it.

As Christians, our motivation to end abortion is theological. Abortion is a theological issue -- it goes to the very heart of who God is, and what we are.

Calling Down the Wrath:
Imprecatory Prayer and the Modern Christian

Associated Baptist Press ran a story today about Wiley Drake, former SBC second vice-president (and current candidate for SBC President). Drake is calling for imprecatory prayer, calling down God's wrath on two staffers for Americans United. Americans United has asked the IRS to investigate the tax-exempt status of Drake's church, First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, after Drake used church letterhead and a church-sponsored radio program to endorse Mike Huckabee for President.

Of course, the first question most people will ask is "What the heck is imprecatory prayer?" And when they find out, they'll most likely ask "Is that really the Christian thing to do?" So let's look at both those questions, so we can find out whether we should be embarrassed by Drake, or proud of him.

Imprecatory Prayer: What Is It?
According to dictionary.com:

im·pre·cate
Pronunciation[im-pri-keyt]
–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
to invoke or call down (evil or curses), as upon a person.

So imprecatory prayer is when Christians pray to God for someone -- not for their well-being, or for their repentance, but for their destruction, or at the very least their pain. We're praying that bad things will happen to them.

The Bible is full of examples of this. Psalm 109 is one glaring example of imprecatory prayer. In this Psalm, David, a "man after God's own heart," prays thusly:

9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow!
10 May his children wander about and beg,
seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
11 May the creditor seize all that he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
12 Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
nor any to pity his fatherless children!

Pretty harsh words! Not just against his enemies, but his enemies' families as well.

"But, Warren," you say, "That's the OLD Testament. God's a lot nicer now." My first response is that you need to read more of the Old Testament. My second response is to show you Revelation 6:

9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

This isn't a cry to God for the salvation of those on the earth -- it's a cry for justice. It's a cry for vengeance. It's a New Testament imprecatory prayer.

But note the targets of these prayers. In Psalm 109, David is praying about people who "...in return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to prayer. So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love." These are people who David has been kind to, and who are returning evil for his good -- they're taking advantage of him. These are people who David could have had jailed, exiled, or killed. He could have taken all of their possessions, and sold their families into slavery. He was, after all, King. But instead, David is taking his case to God, and allowing God to have vengeance rather than himself.

The saints in Revelation 6 are referring to those enemies of God who martyred them. They are praying against people who have set themselves against the will of God -- willfully and intentionally trying to thwart God's plan, and silence His people.

So imprecatory prayer is to be directed against those who have declared themselves at total, willful enmity with God. Not against people who simply oppose us -- people who oppose God.

But what is it's purpose? What's the motivation behind imprecatory prayer? The example we have in the Psalms is David facing insurmountable odds and praying for protection and justice. He couldn't defend himself, or he would have -- David was not weak, nor was he a coward.

Is Imprecatory Prayer for Christians Today?

This is actually an easy question. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that "all Scripture ... profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ..." So obviously the idea of imprecatory prayer has some value for us. It reminds us that vengeance is His, not ours. It reminds us that we can trust in Him to defend us when we cannot defend ourselves.

But we also need to learn from David's example. In the first five verses, David declares his innocence. The accusations made against him are false, made by people who are enemies of God and His purposes. He declares his innocence, and asks God to defend him. The saints in Revelation are likewise blameless.

So there are some guidelines that we must use when considering imprecatory prayer. We must first be innocent. The accusations against us must be false. Second, we must be defenseless. We cannot be able to legitimately defend ourselves from our foes without direct intervention from God. Third, the people we are praying against must be opposing God and His will, not just us.

Imprecatory prayer is not popular. After all, by the popular definition of Christianity, we don't oppose people. We don't speak against people, we don't condemn. We just love, and accept. That's what the world expects. Judging from the tone of the ABP article, that's what they expect. And we are supposed to love one another.

But we're also called to preach the truth of God, and sometimes that means reminding people of His judgment. And it's clear from Scripture that that sometimes involves prayers of imprecation -- asking for God to bring His judgment to those who oppose Him. The saints in Revelation aren't condemned for it, and we shouldn't be either.

Whether Wiley Drake's imprecatory prayer meets the Biblical criteria or not, I will not judge. But I think it's valuable for us to remember that there are Biblical standards for imprecation, and as Christians we must know them before we start praying the wrath of God down on people.

On Baptism: Round Three

I've been giving a lot of study lately to ecclesiology. When I started seminary, I focused a lot on historical theology -- the development of doctrine, especially as it was impacted by history and had an impact on history. I'd planned on teaching church history and historical theology at a seminary, after getting my M.Div and my Ph.D in fairly rapid succession. But God has other plans -- I'm meeting with the pulpit committee of a church in West Virginia on Saturday to talk about becoming their pastor. So matters of ecclesiology have become important to me, and I've been realizing exactly how much I've neglected its study.

Baptism as it relates to church membership has become a topic of interest to me lately, as well. Especially with all the controversy about the question of baptism as a prerequisite for church membership at Henderson Hills Baptist Church. I want to first affirm the autonomy of the local church. The elders and pastor at Henderson Hills are ultimately the only people who will stand to answer for what they decide (whatever they end up deciding). Their local association, their state convention, and the SBC as a whole do not tell them what to do. But we all have the responsibility as brothers and sisters in Christ to express concern when another Christian is making a decision that we think is not biblical. We also have the responsibility to discuss the matter as Christians, which I think has been done so far.

The elders at Henderson Hills aren't making the motion without thought and study. Their reports are all available on the church's web site. And there are a lot -- I certainly haven't had the time to read them all, so I won't be trying to respond directly to what they've decided. What I want to do instead is set out what I believe are the biblical motivations behind requiring biblical baptism for church membership, and a bit about why I think the Bible isn't as clear as we'd like for it to be in this regard. It will probably be a long post, and a lot more serious than I've been lately, but I think it will be valuable for all of us.

My main resource for this is Dr. Sam Waldron's paper on Baptism and Membership. Dr. Waldron is Professor of Systematic Theology at Midwestern, and pastor at Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. His paper answered a lot of questions I had, and started me thinking about a lot of other things -- some of which I'll share in this post, some of which I haven't quite finished sorting out yet.

Romans 6:1-4 (ESV):

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Baptism is a visible sign of our allegience or identification with Christ. As Waldron says, it's the "visible sign of union with Christ." Union with Christ means union with His body, which is the Church. The universal, invisible Church becomes visible in the local, visible church -- local assemblies of believers.

To become a visible Christian through baptism is to become a visible member of the body of Christ. To become a member of the visible body of Christ is to become a member of the visible church. To become a member of the visible church is to become a member of the local church.

If baptism is the visible sign of our union with Christ, it must be our visible sign of identifying with the visible representation of His body -- the local church. Someone who has not been Scripturally baptized has not visibly identified with Christ, and thus cannot be visibly identified with His Body. It doesn't mean that an unbaptised person is not saved -- it means that they have not made their identification with Christ public. Baptism is a very public profession of Christ -- churches must expect their members to make this very public declaration of their faith before allowing them to join the local fellowship.

Part of the problem in this discussion is how differently we do church now, compared to the way it was done in the first two or three centuries AD. We see in the Bible people who were baptized immediately upon being saved. Immediately after this, they became part of the local assembly of believers. They did this out of self-preservation, among other things. Churches were real communities of faith then -- they lived together, they pooled their resources, they ate together, etc. It wasn't a Sunday/Wednesday experience for them. The progression was almost instantaneous -- salvation, baptism, membership in the local church.

Now, on the other hand, we have multiple churches in the area that we can join. There's a "searching" period when we're looking for just the right church. There's often some time between when someone is saved and when they're baptized. But the order remains -- salvation, baptism, membership.

On Donatism and Anonymous Comments

Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.

from CARM

It has been alleged that the Baptist practice of extending church membership only to those who have been baptised as believers is Donatism. Anyone who has followed the debate can see that it has nothing to do with the person who administers the baptism; rather, it has to do with the appropriate subject for baptism.

The question was raised as to whether Dr. Al Mohler's stance on baptism as a requisite of church membership makes him a Donatist. Ironically, the commentor who disputed this defines Donatism much as CARM does: "donatism was concerned with the validity of the sacraments administered by people who supposedly did not have the right to administer them. It viewed the sacraments not in an objective way, but as intrinsically dependent upon the qualities of the one administering them. It did not necessarily question the Christianity of those whom they denied could administer it, and it certainly did not question the Christianity of those receiving the sacrament." Compare this to Dr. Mohler's actual statement:

baptism has been understood by all major branches of Christianity, throughout the centuries of Christian experience, to be a requirement for church membership and the fellowship of the Lord’s table. Thus, for Baptists to receive into the membership of a Baptist church (or to invite to the Lord’s Supper) any believer who lacks such baptism, is to receive non-baptized persons as if they were baptized.

Any compromise of Baptist conviction concerning the requirement of believer’s baptism by immersion amounts to a redefinition of Baptist identity. More importantly, it raises the most basic questions of ecclesiology. We must give those questions intent attention in these days. Otherwise, will there be any Baptists in the next generation?

Baptist ecclesiology defines the proper subject for baptism as one who has been regenerated -- thus, believer's baptism. Anything else is thus not considered scriptural baptism. The conflict we have, then, is whether scriptural baptism is required before someone is admitted into the fellowship of a local church. As the pastor of Henderson Hills reminds us, Baptist churches are autonomous, so the decision is made by that church. And the rest of us can agree, or disagree.

I happen to disagree.

Now, on anonymous comments. I don't allow them here. I don't care if you don't leave your name, but you have to leave a valid email address. Why? The main reason is accountability. The Internet is a place where we can shoot our mouths off without a thought of the implications of what we're saying. If a name is attached, the post or comment becomes our thoughts, and we have to face the consequences. Without that name, we can say whatever we want, portray ourselves however we want, and behave however we want without having to be concerned about what our actions say about ourselves.

On Baptism, Round Two

I wrote on this subject quite a while ago, but recently there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the issue of believers baptism as a condition of church membership among Southern Baptist bloggers (I'll link to all the posts I've read at the bottom of this one, and will add more as I find them).

The cause of this round of discussion and debate is Henderson Hills Baptist Church. In short, they have decided not to require believer's baptism by immersion as a condition for membership in their church. From one of their supporting documents (HT to Wes Kenney):

We see that it would be a tragic mistake to exclude Christians from membership, solely on the basis of baptism, who may potentially have a great impact on the Kingdom of God. For example, under our current rules, great theologians such as John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, and J.I. Packer would be considered unqualified for church membership

It should be made clear -- nobody who holds to believers baptism is implying that any of these great men were not born again. We may disagree with their ecclesiology, but we would never question their salvation or their committment to God. And I'd be inclined to agree with Wes that I wonder how their "impact on the Kingdom of God" would be lessened by their not being members of a Baptist church. I thought that ground had been covered pretty well by the Together For the Gospel meetings and blog. Ironically, Al Mohler is one of the people who are most in favor of cooperating with Presbyterians, and he's been accused of being a Donatist by some commentors at Reformed Baptist Thinker. He agrees that believer's baptism should be a requirement for membership in a Baptist church, but is willing and able to work with people who disagree with him (something the Donatists would never have done, by the way).

I'll have more on the Donatist comment later on, and will address the anonymous posters comments to me then. I think that part of the issue with believers baptism today stems from our lack of appreciation of what baptism is. If it really is just a symbol, then what difference does it make?

The very word sacrament that is used so often for baptism and communion is from a Latin word that was an oath of allegience. The oath that Roman soldiers took when they oined the army was a sacramentum -- they swore to obey orders and follow their commander. This is a perfect picture of what baptism is -- it is the oath of allegience that a believer makes to Christ. We are publically identifying with Him. Baptism is not salvific -- that's one thing that Baptists and Presbyterians can agree on. (I keep referring to Presbyterians since the main debate comes from conservative Presbyterians and conservative Baptists, who agree on most other things.) Throughout Acts, we read of those who received the word, and as a result of thier conversion were baptised, and as a result of these two things were received into the church. In the early church, baptism was immediate upon conversion -- so much so that the two seem to be one event. Membership in the church followed immediately thereafter, as much as a matter of survival as anything else. If someone wasn't committed enough to the faith to publically be baptised, to take that public stand, they weren't allowed into the church. They weren't committed.

Today, we look at baptism as something optional. It's pretty easy to be a Christian in the US, and our public stand isn't that hard to make. But if someone isn't willing to make that stand, that profession, should we let them join the church anyway? I think this touches on baptism as an act of obedience to Christ, a topic that has been covered in more depth by others.

Links:

Called According
Interregnum (and here also)
The Reformed Baptist Blogger
Conventional Thinking (Al Mohler)
Dennis Newkirk (pastor at Henderson Hills Baptist) -- there's a LOT more on this issue than just one post. Make sure you check out the archives for this one.
Between Two Worlds

The Gospel of Judas

So I've spent all weekend away from my computer, taking a sort of blog vacation, and the whole Gospel of Judas thing has probably blown over by now. Or maybe not -- people seem particularly susceptible to "hidden Gospels" right now, and this newest one sure does promise a new look at Christianity.

The sad thing is that it's not all that new. It's made the rounds of the antiquities markets, the "grey market" of archaeology. It is getting attention now because of the current fascination with historically inaccurate portrayals of early Christianity (The DaVinci Code) and re-hashes of early 80s fantasy works (Holy Blood, Holy Grail, brought back to life by author Michael Baigent as The Jesus Papers just in time for his lawsuit against Brown. Or maybe the lawsuit was the opportunely-timed event ...). People are fascinated by the idea that there were multiple traditions early on.

The Gospel of Judas has actually been known for over a thousand years. Irenaeus referred to the work in AD 180 in discussing the heretical group, the Cainites.

The Cainites were a Gnostic and Antinomian sect who were known to worship Cain as the first victim of the Demiurge Jehovah, the Old Testament God, who was identified by many groups of gnostics as evil. The sect following was relatively small. They were mentioned by Tertullian and Irenaeus as existing in the eastern Roman Empire during the 2nd century.
from Wikipedia

The Cainites were typical gnostics, and viewed Judas' work as a heroic effort to defeat the demiurge Yahweh/Jehovah and bring salvation to mankind.

One of my favorite books as a teenager was Taylor Caldwell's book I, Judas. The book presents a more sympathetic view of Judas, as we see events from his point of view. It doesn't quite go as far as the Cainites did, but we are left with a Judas who, while flawed, is not deserving of the condemnation that is routinely heaped on him. I enjoyed the book because I thought it gave a more human Judas -- a man who did something very wrong, but for the best of reasons. A man who, like the rest of the disciples, saw Jesus as a political savior (which is what Israel was looking for, after all). He saw Jesus as a reluctant leader, and tried to force His hand. And when he found out that Jesus was to be executed, realized that he was wrong.

The Gospel of Judas cannot be reliably dated to the time of Christ. The earliest date we have for the manuscript fragments available is 220, though clearly the text existed in the latter half of the second century, since Irenaeus made reference to it. It certainly tells the story of a group who appropriated the story of Jesus of Nazareth for their own philosophy, and enlisted Him in their gnostic battle against the creator demiurge. There is nothing new here, nothing that hasn't actually been speculated about before. The text can illuminate a sect that has been cloaked in mystery (and even obscurity) for almost two thousand years. But it's value in studying early Christianity lies only in it's account of the divergent traditions that grew up as people rejected the teachings of the disciples.

There is little background concerning the fragments available, since they are unprovenanced finds. The hype we are seeing is over a document that has been known about for centuries (of course, the same can be said about the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, but the hype continues). The hype will continue, fueled by people who are more eager to reject Chrisitanity than to find out the truth.

The Ultimate Goal of Christianity ...

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

The ultimate goal of Christianity is world domination. Our Prime Directive, our Great Commission, is to reach the world. We recognize that not everyone will believe, but our goal is still global evangelization.

So when Pat Robertson says that the goal of Islam is world domination, I say, "So what?" The goal of any belief system that teaches absolute truth must be to have the entire world recognize that absolute truth. Otherwise, your "truth" can't be that important to you.

Theological Fencing

My wife reminded me of a piece of history that I'd learned and then promptly forgotten. In the early 1800s, in New Orleans, there were bands of aristocrat's sons who would roam the streets looking for duels. They had been well-trained in fencing, some by the top fencing instructors in France, and looked for opportunities to show their skill, and show off who their teachers were. Of course, the better fencers were trained by the better (read, more expensive) teachers.

These kids would walk around looking for opportunities to take offense with something that someone said or did, and challenge them to a duel. And the duel would begin in earnest -- unless the challenge was refused. If the challenge was refused, the challenge-ee was considered a wimp (or at least the 19th century equivalent of a wimp) and roundly mocked.

I see this happening today, but with less physical violence. I'm talking about theological fencing. Someone is offended by something that someone else has said, and demands a public debate so that the whole world can know how wrong that person is. Sometimes, the debates take place on Internet forums, sometimes in more formal settings. But they seem to be for the same reasons.

To prove how wrong someone is. To show publically how they don't know what they're talking about.

Not long ago, I expressed my disappointment in the fact that the Mohler/Patterson discussion on Calvinism had been downgraded from a debate. I still think, in a perfect world, that debate would be a perfectly acceptable way to show conflicting views on a subject, and to attempt to come to a resolution. But I'm becoming increasingly aware that public debates usually end up getting very personal, with both sides insulting the other's position, credentials, committment to Christ, etc. This isn't a perfect world.

I'm a fencer. Actually, I'm a reforming fencer. 6 years ago, I would travel from forum to forum, waiting for a fight. Then I'd go after the person who disagreed with me, showing everyone in the world just how foolish they really were, and how much more I knew about everything. There was one forum (no longer operating) where I would log in every fifteen minutes when I was at home, just to see if my opponent had responded to me. But I reallized something.

Nobody was changing their mind. The debates were happening, debate skills were being shown off, but nothing was changing. People were sticking with their positions no matter what. If anything, the debates were making people dig their trenches deeper, so that they were not going to be moved no matter what. "My mind is made up -- don't confuse me with the facts!" was the slogan of the day on every side of every debate.

Soli Deo gloria should be our motto. And we need to ask ourselves if God is receiving the glory when we debate, or if we are. Are we exhibiting our love for God, or our debate skills? What are we doing this for?

So I'm a reforming fencer. I actually call myself a sniper now -- I will wait until a really ludicrous arguement is exposed, and then I'll take a shot. I don't get involved in extended battles now -- snipers don't duel. One or two shots, and we're done. It's not perfect, but it's easier than quitting cold turkey.

I'm starting to see that theological discussion -- actually talking about our differences, and how we can work together dispite them -- is preferable to theological fencing. Rhetoric isn't going to change someone's mind -- we need to establish that we can work together in spite of our differences, and let God convict of our doctrinal errors.

What Kind of Jesus?

I was pondering this on the way home, after hearing some drivel that called itself a Christian song on the radio. It may turn into a sermon some weekend soon, but I have to get it out of my head and onto "paper" before I go nuts.

Matthew 16:13-16 (ESV)
13Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Who do WE say that Jesus Christ is? Unfortunately, we often portray Him as something other than what He is.

1. The Optional Jesus.
I used to listen to a great Christian rock radio station. They played great music, but when it came time for a presentation of the Gospel, this is what they said:

Life can be rough. We all have problems and discouragements, and sometimes it seems like we just can't do it alone.

You don't have to do it alone -- there's always Jesus. If you ask Him, He'll help you out when life is too hard.

Obviously, it's not word-for-word, but that's the sentiment. Life too hard? Give Jesus a try. Does your life stink? It'll stink a whole lot less with Jesus.

That's true, but it's not enough. Most kids I know would say "Nope, my life's pretty good right now. Guess I don't need Jesus yet. Give me a few years, though." I was saved when I was 8 -- life wasn't tough back then. The biggest decision I had was whether to get the new Biotron or four or five new Time Traveller figures for my Micronauts collection. Thankfully, this isn't the Jesus that was presented to me back then.

We present Jesus as an option. "You've tried Buddah. You've tried pot. You've tried alcohol. Now try Jesus." Reminds me of a bumper sticker I used to see -- "Try Jesus. If you don't like Him, Satan will always take you back." NO!!! That's wrong on so many levels I cannot even begin to talk about it. Every time I saw that bumper sticker, I wanted to grab a razor and a bottle of Goo Gone and get rid of that garbage. But when we portray Jesus as an option, that's what we can expect -- junk.

2. Jesus as a "what if" solution.
The song I referred to earlier is Nicole Nordeman's "What If?" but the concept is old. In philosophical circles it's known as Paschal's Wager.

But what if you're wrong?
What if there's more?
What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?

Ugh. I had to cut and paste that, and I feel like I need to clean my computer. Is that all Jesus is? "Just in case you're wrong, you'd better get saved. You don't want to die and end up in Hell, do you?" This Jesus is nothing more than eternal fire insurance. It cheapens what Christ did at Calvary -- "Maybe it's all fake. But what if it's not?" The most important thing about Christianity is the historical fact that it did happen. Christ died a gruesom, horrible death. He was buried by His disciples. And three days later the tomb was empty and He had risen. That is the essence of the Gospel. Without the fact of the resurrection, our hope is in vain. It's not a matter of "Maybe it didn't happen, but if it really did and you reject it, you're in DEEP trouble." There's no maybe. It happened!

We have to anchor our presentation of the Gospel on the fact of the finished work of Christ. The Jesus that we show to people must be worthy of our worship and praise. He must be more than just another option that's available to us after everything else has been tried. He has to be more than a "worst case scenario" where we're holding out hope that we're right, but just in case we'll have this Jesus dude.

The Jesus we serve is the Creator, the Sustainer. He is the Messiah -- the very Son of God, who was crucified but rose. He was sacrificed on our behalf, so that we could be reconciled with God. He did for us what we could never do for ourselves. He alone is worthy of our worship. He's not an option -- He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Nobody gets into heaven unless they go through Him -- covered in the blood He shed for us. No what ifs. No options.

No other way.

The Priesthood of the Believer: The 'P' in Baptist

Part three in a continuing series on Baptist distinctives. Part 1 is on Biblical Authority, and Part 2 is on the Autonomous Local Church

One thing that sets Protestants in general apart from Catholics is the idea that each believer is a priest in his own right, and can approach God directly through prayer with no intermediary. Unfortunately, many Protestants who believe this in theory don't believe it in practice.

How often do we rely on ministers to pray for us, as if their prayers get answered first? How many televangelists have made fortunes from people buying prayer cloths that somehow give them "special access" to God? How many of us believe that the pastor has some form of special revelation from God because he is the pastor? How often do we neglect personal ministry because we think that's the pastor's job?

John to the seven churches that are in Asia:Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:4-6 ESV)

Christ has made us all priests, according to this passage. Peter writes that we are "... a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9 ESV)

What does that mean? The priests offered sacrifices to God in the temple -- they were the only ones who could do that. This function of the priest is no longer needed, though, as the greatest sacrifice of all has been made for us. The atoning sacrifice has already been made for us by Christ.

Priests were also set apart for service. Paul makes it clear in his letter to the church at Ephasus that we are all called to service: "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, "(Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV). The work of the ministry is the job of every believer -- not just a priestly class.

The priesthood of all believers places a huge responsibility on the shoulders of all believers -- we are all responsible for the ministry of the Gospel. If you know of a ministry that your own local church needs, the question shouldn't be "Why isn't anyone doing that?" but "How can I help start that?" If we all had that attitude, Christian churches would be far more effective in ministering to their communities.

Exposing Sin, Applying Grace

From the Reformation 21 blog, quoting Sinclair Ferguson:

Truth to tell, exposing sin is easier than applying grace; for, alas, we are more intimate with the former than we sometimes are with the latter. Therein lies our weakness.

I think this explains why so many Christians do what they do. Why we leave our wounded on the battlefield. Why we'd rather find reasons to separate from each other than find ways to work together. We'd rather expose sin.

Sometimes I think it's simply because we like to know that other Christians are sinning -- even doing things worse than what we do ourselves. We'd rather expose the preacher down the street for his financial problems than deal with the fact that we cheat on our taxes. We'd rather hear about how the televangelist was caught in sexual sin than deal with our own addiction to pornography. It makes us feel better if someone else is doing it, too.

We also do it because we get hurt when people are exposed. We're angry when our favorite preacher is exposed as a mere human, dealing with temptations daily. We feel let down, we're hurt, and we want them to pay. So we pile on. And we hunt others that have the same problem. We don't want to extend grace.

And we do it because we've been attacked ourselves. I see this in many of the comments on the IMB/Wade Burleson controversy: former Southern Baptists who are feeling vindicated now that the dogs have been loosed once again. Many of them are trying to keep their "Told ya'"s quiet, but it's clear from reading that the sentiment is there.

It's a self-perpetuating thing. We don't show grace, we aren't shown grace. We aren't shown grace, we don't show any. Somewhere, the cycle has to stop -- but we aren't willing to stop it.

Local Church Autonomy -- the 'A' in Baptist

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

The autonomy of the local church is one of the distinctions that separate Baptists from most other Protestants. There is no centralized authority that has any jurisdiction over a local church -- the churches decide individually what doctrines they adhere to, what they teach and preach, what materials they use, etc.

Even within the Southern Baptist Convention, each local church is autonomous. The national Convention does not tell us what to do -- in fact, the purpose of the convention each year is for the local churches to establish the direction of the Convention as a whole.

But is it Biblical? Briefly, let me offer some Biblical support for the idea of local church autonomy.

1. Election of Officers and Appointment of Ministers. In Acts 6 we see the local church in Jerusalem appointing seven deacons, to oversee the ministry of that local church. As we read further in Acts (chapter 13), we see the local church in Antioch appointing Paul and Barnabas as ministers, and sending them as missionaries. There is no ruling body that appoints the pastor of an individual church.

Sometimes I think it would be much easier for the churches if there was someone else who hired the pastor. Imagine -- no more pastor search committees, no more trial sermons, no more need for an interim pastor. And no more pastors leaving for "another ministry." You get the preacher that the denomination says you get, and he stays until the denomination says he goes. Easy -- but I'm not sure that's the Biblical model. Individual churches ministering within their own communities know best what their needs are, and who can best meet those needs.

2. Local Church Discipline. Matthew 18 tells us how we are to deal with a brother who sins -- and it doesn't involve denominational action. It involves the local church meeting with him to discuss the problem. It involves the local pastor trying to restore that person. And ultimately it involves separation from an unrepentant individual.

3. Local Churches taking care of each other. When the church in Jerusalem needed financial help, Paul didn't go to the disciples and get them to issue a command to all Christians to help. Paul went to individual churches, presented the need, and asked for help. And each individual church gave as it could. Same thing when Paul needed financial help in his missionary journies -- he asked for help from the local churches, and each gave as they could.

The problems John had that we read about in 3 John were with a local church. John certainly had authority to simply order that church to excommunicate Diotrephes, but he didn't do that. He went to the church to take care of the matter:

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
(3 John 1:9-10 ESV)

John brings it before the local church, relying on them for appropriate discipline.

Local church autonomy is important. It allows local churches to function in their community without outside interference. BUT it is not what I would consider an "essential doctrine." I wouldn't get into a huge fight over it, and certainly wouldn't separate over it. But it is a Baptist distinctive, and one I believe in.

Validation

So there are validators to see if your HTML, XHTML, and CSS are compliant (and I don't have to check -- I'm pretty sure mine isn't right now. That's one thing the new template will address).

Now there's a validator for your Christology. Are You Chalcedonian Compliant?

(And just so you know, I am. 100%.)

Biblical Authority -- The 'B' in Baptist

{I promised a series on 'Baptist Distinctives' some time ago, and this is the first in that series.}

I have a folder in my RSS reader marked "Potential Topics." As I read through articles in my RSS feeds, I copy items of interest and note to that folder, on the assumption I will one day write something about the topic of that post. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that I totally forget about what I've put there until I decide it's time to clean it out. By that time, I've forgotten whatever pearls of wisdom I had to contribute to the discussion.

This is a topic, though, that really has no "window of opportunity." The Bible as our ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it this way, right at the very beginning: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience ..."

Biblical authority is important to practical Christianity. If this book we read called the Bible has no authority over our lives, if it isn't the rule we follow, then why read it? It's not a simple book to read and understand (some Bible translators' opinions to the contrary). There are plenty of self-help books out there that claim to work, and many people lead what seem to be pretty happy lives following the precepts of Tony Robbins and folks like him. The Bible makes demands on people, it gives us rules to follow, it cramps our style. If it's just another book, then why bother?

The answer is simple -- it's not just another book. It's exactly what the LBC says it is, the only sure, sufficient, infallible rule that we have. When preachers fail, when churches stray, when Christians disappoint, we still have the assurance that the Bible is the authority. We can turn to the same Book that sparked the Great Awakening and the Reformation. We can read the texts that prompted Augustine to leave his Platonism and follow Christ. And we know that it is authoritative because ... it says so.

That's the common defense of Biblical authority -- All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV) It's authority is grounded in itself.

But then, I read a question like Joe Carter asked way back in December.

But is it enough to believe simply because “the Bible tells me so?� Isn’t it circular reasoning to claim that Scripture is authoritative based on the Bible’s claims about itself? And is it rational to believe something on the grounds that Scripture affirms it?

And Joe has an answer to that one that I cannot help but echo -- yes, it is rational.

For us to accept that the premise is rational it must be true that (a) the means by which one arrives at a particular truth are quite likely to lead to truth and (b) one has no convincing reason for giving up that belief. If both of these conditions are met then it is reasonable for one to hold that belief, otherwise it is not.

Since I am still a Christian I obviously have not found a convincing reason for giving up the belief in this premise. Whether I should believe it is rational must therefore depend on how I arrived at this truth. The answer is that I was lead to believe it by the Holy Spirit. Not only does the Bible tell me so, but God himself has testified to the veracity of the claim. Assuming that the Spirit has in fact guided me to believe the premise, then I have a rational, reasonable, non-circular reason for believing that the Bible is true.

We can use logic to justify our belief in Scripture. We can point to it's preservation through centuries of time. We can point to ancient texts that verify its contents. But those things don't matter without the witness of the Holy Spirit in our lives, guiding us to all Truth, and drawing us to the Father.

I think that this, more than any other reason, is why Christians and nonChristians will never see eye to eye on matters concerning the Bible. Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nobody can see the truths of the Bible. Nobody can appreciate the truths it contains. We are naturally suspicious, and the idea of a book written by men who were divinely inspired to write down the words of God seems too good to be true for us. We are also fallen, and we revel in our fallen state. We see the Bible, with its rules for righteous living, as a threat to our freedom of choice. And we are stubborn -- we see in the Bible the message that God has done for us what we cannot do for ourselves, and we don't want to admit that there is anything we cannot do for ourselves.

So as fallen men, we deny the authority of Scripture. But as redeemed children of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ, we can do no other but accept its authority over us as the Word of God. And what can trump the revealled Word of God in authority over us as believers? From the LBC once again

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

I Love It When ...

... people agree with me. From no less august a source than The Evangelical Outpost:

I find that I just don’t have the stomach for those old arguments anymore. I’m still willing to discuss doctrinal differences. But now I’m less sure that I’m standing on the right side of scripture. Is the view heretical or likely to lead someone away from salvation? Then I’ll fight it tooth-and-nail. If not, then I’ll have to sit it out.

I'm probably still a bit more argumentative than Joe is, and I'll admit that I will slip and argue about trivia. I will always be more than willing to lend my opinion (wanted or not), and I will engage in healthy debate with my fellow Baptists about issues related to Baptist piety and polity. If I am challenged, I will respond in what I hope will be a civil and scholarly tone. But I won't be picking fights over millennial views. I won't go on a rampage against my Presbyterian friends over infant baptism. I reserve the right to think they are wrong, and they certainly have the right to be wrong (that was a JOKE, folks!!). And as I debate, I will try to learn from my "opponents," as I hope they will try to learn from me. Because that's the point of actual debate -- anything else becomes a fight.

A New Controversy

There's a brand new controversy brewing in the Godblogosphere, and it started at one of those blogging awards shows that I don't get nominated for.

The Blogs of Beauty contest is intended to "honor those blogs written by women who seek to bring the beauty of the Lord Jesus Christ to the blogging world." Great idea. But it ran into a problem -- how do you decide which Godbloggers are actual Christians?

The lady who ran the contest recognized this, and established as a "Statement of Faith" the following:

I believe in the Godhead of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Holy Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and my only means for the forgiveness of my sins and my salvation. My salvation is found in no one but Jesus Christ.

Orthodox, yet inclusive. Very good -- the contest wasn't meant to be denominationally specific, so this, I think, is a good list of criteria. And, after all, it ain't my contest, so the organizer can run it however she wants to.

But wherever two or three are gathered, there is disagreement. And problems. Maybe that's why I've never organized my own awards (except for the Pewies and the Clewies, both of which are awarded on an extremely subjective basis). And one of the winners (the Best Humor blog), is a Mormon blog. I'm not going to get into the arguement over whether the blog should have won -- none of my business, actually, and I've only ever read her blog today (interesting, and pretty well written, actually). But the whole thing has led to many, many posts concerning what a Christian blog is, and what it isn't.

So the question arises -- is Mormonism a Christian denomination?

I have to say no. I've known Mormons (I worked for one in Florida, and we had some interesting discussions about theology and faith), and while I envy their zeal and committment, I cannot in good conscience consider them Christians. Why?

1. They have an unscriptural view of salvation.

A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

Companre that with 1 Peter 1:20 (ESV) -- "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." The Bible makes it clear that the plan of salvation was designed by God Himself before creation.
They teach a works-based Gospel.

"As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79)

Compare this with Titus 3:5 ESV -- "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," and Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV -- "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

"One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206.)

2. They have many unscriptural teachings concerning God Himself.

• "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)
  
• God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
  
• "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
  

Compare this with John 4:24 ESV -- "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

3. They have an unscriptural view of Christ's birth.

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115).
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547).
"Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

This is contradicted by the Gospels -- Matthew 1:18 ESV -- "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." This also ties in with their unscriptural teaching that God is a perfect man (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.).

There are Mormons who do many wonderful things for others. They are morally upright people. But doing good things and being moral do not get you to Heaven. This is not Christian doctrine. We need to exercise discernment when we read blogs, knowing what we believe and knowing why we believe it, and being able to recognize false doctrine when we see it. And we need to affirm the Gospel -- the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the sole means of our salvation.

Profanity, Language, and Christians

Tim Challies started something. In an innocent movie review, Tim remarked about the amount of profanity:

Before I continue allow me to provide a bit of a warning. I was quite surprised at the volume of swearing in this film. Usually I would not be surprised to find bad language in a war movie, but was surprised at this one primarily because the people who recommended it to me made no mention of it. Thankfully, because of the subject matter, it was not a film we decided to watch with the children present.

Joe Carter brought the discussion to my attention the next day with his "Christian Critique of Swearing." Joe does a great job of assembling all the relevent posts, and firmly holds a middle ground between extreme legalism and extreme license.

I started thinking about the subject of profanity, and what exactly makes a word profane. What makes certain words unacceptable? It certainly isn't always the meaning of the word -- in fact, most of the time there are perfectly acceptable words that mean the same thing as the profane words we decry.

Profanity in English is almost entirely Anglo-Saxon derived words. They became unacceptable in polite society around 1066, when the Normans beat the Anglo-Saxons in England and established their own rule. And so good Anglo-Saxon words were replaced by the Norman equivalents. 'Manure,' for example. If you wanted to appear cultured, educated, and acceptable, you used the Norman words. Anglo-Saxon quickly became a "gutter language" that only the lower classes spoke.

This was especially true in churches. The word "profane" comes from a Middle English word that means in front of or outside the temple. Profane language was language that you didn't use inside the church -- Church language was Latin, not Anglo-Saxon. So suddenly, the Anglo-Saxon words were no longer acceptable in polite society OR in church.

The Norman government wanted to make sure that their rule was firmly established, and so they took efforts to make sure that their own language became dominant. How better than to create the impression that there was something evil about the Anglo-Saxon words?

There's nothing inherently evil in a word -- it's all in how the words are perceived, and how they are used. So what does this mean for Christians?

Ephesians 5:4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.

What defines what filthiness or foolish talk or crude joking are? The culture we are living in. No matter how commonplace profanity is, it's always pretty clear what words are profane, and what words aren't. Christians need to always be aware of how their speech is going to be understood by those around them. The message of the Gospel is going to offend many -- our language should not offend them. One indictment of Christians that I've actually heard rather recently is that "Oh, he says he's a Christian, but listen to him talk. Swears like a sailor. Wonder if he talks that way in church on Sunday," or something similar. We can, and should, make our points clear without resorting to profanity.

Joe's article then addresses "the question of whether we should avoid all areas of the secular world where such profane language is used." I think he makes a good point -- while we hold ourselves to a standard, we shouldn't expect those unbelievers around us to abide by that standard. People are going to swear around us (though I have been known to ask people to refrain from doing it in front of my daughter). We can't avoid all situations where we might hear profanity, unless we stay home with the windows closed and the TV off. We need to prepare ourselves for the fact that we aren't always going to like the language that people use around us, but that doesn't mean that we have to use it ourselves.

{An interesting article about this subject is available here.}

THIS is What Happens ...

... when you put motivational speeches before the study of God's Word.

This is what happens when people get too focused on a messenger. When they never hear 'hard preaching' on topics like sin, repentance, and Hell. They have to pledge their allegiance to their preacher. They have to make themselves readily identifiable to others of their group, so they know that they are the ones who listen to the truth.

What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
(1 Corinthians 1:12-13 ESV)

The rip on the What Would Jesus Do is telling. Rip one marketing program to create another. But while the WWJD thing actually had some potential before it became trite, IWJO says nothing.

Or maybe it says a lot. Maybe it says "I watch powerless preaching." Or "I don't like it when a preacher preaches about sin all the time. It makes me feel bad."

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV)

Being a Baptist

I started on this track to write about John Piper's decision to adopt a more open membership stance, especially concerning baptism. But it's grown on me. It's become a huge monster that is asking the question that is really behind much of the controcersy in the Southern Baptist Convention today.

What is a Baptist? What defines a Baptist?

When I look back in Baptist history (and don't worry -- I'm no Landmarker), I can see certain Baptist distinctives, it's true. And they can even be turned into the handy acronym BAPTIST, so that we can remember them. But there is one thing that Baptists have been historically recognized for -- believer's baptism by immersion.

I'm not going to defend BBI (we DO like acronyms, after all) in this post. Books have been written that do not do the subject justice -- nothing I can write in the space of a few hundred words is going to make any addition to the corpus, or change anyone's mind. I have many friends who are Presbyterians, Anglicans, and other denominations who I fully believe are born again children of God but with whom I heartilly disagree on this subject.

What I am going to affirm here is that BBI is an essential Baptist doctrine. In other words, if you do not believe in believer's baptism by immersion, you are not a Baptist. It is one of the two ordinances/sacraments that makes the acronym as the first T.

I think the relevant statement from the 85 page "Baptism and Church Membership At Bethlehem Baptist Church" ODF file is point #10:

Therefore, where the belief in the Biblical validity of infant baptism does not involve baptismal regeneration or the guarantee of saving grace, this belief is not viewed by the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church as a weighty or central enough departure from Biblical teaching to exclude a person from membership, if he meets all other relevant qualifications and is persuaded from Bible study and a clear conscience that his baptism is valid. In such a case we would not require baptism by immersion as a believer for membership but would teach and pray toward a change of mind that would lead such members eventually to such a baptism.

The question I have: Why would anyone who was not persuaded of the truth of believer's baptism by immersion join a Baptist church? There are a lot of Presbyterian churches out there that are conservative and evangelical that they could join. There are other churches that they could be a part of. Why would someone want to join a church while rejecting a foundational doctrine of that church?

This arguement has been going on in Baptist circles for hundreds of years. John Bunyan would have agreed with Bethlehem Baptist's position. I THINK Spurgeon would have agreed with it (though he did fence the communion table, and Metro Tabernacle still does from what I've heard). Many other historic Baptists would not agree.

I have relied on Piper's writings on baptism in my own life, and in discussions with others. His ministry is an incredible inspiration for me -- I've been listening to him on the radio all week this week. But I think in this, he is wrong. If you believe that the proper subjects for baptism are believers only, any baptism previous to conversion is an unScriptural one. I think the new policy at Bethlehem Baptist contradicts the historical Baptist understanding of what baptism is, and who it is for.

I think that the subject of baptism is an important one as well for Baptists deciding what exactly a Baptist is. I'll look at the rest of the acronym in later posts.

A New Perspective On ... Katrina

I had the opportunity to preach yesterday evening at Greenup First Baptist church, where my family has been members for a couple years now. I spoke on the reasons for Bible study. Midway through the sermon, I went off on a track that I didn't recognize from any of my preparation.

I was talking about the importance of being able to give an answer to people who are asking. That's a theme of mine, as you can see from the verse in the graphic at the top of the page. An example I used was the number of people asking "WHY?" in the wake of the hurricane.

I didn't say what I've been thinking. I didn't say what I've read, or written about before. Here, as best as I can remember, is what I actually said

Whatever the reason, we have been given an opportunity to minister to people. As I speak, thousands of Christians are in the disaster area, giving and ministering. Here at home, we've had the opportunity to give to disaster relief as an act of worship and ministry to those who are hurting.

But, there were poor people in New Orleans before Katrina. We see them now, but they've always been there. We hear stories about people who have lost everything -- but the everything they lost could fit in the back of one of our SUVs. Why does it take a disaster for us to become aware of our obligation to meet people's needs? Why do we wait until something tragic happens before we are motivated to service?

When we place blame for Katrina, we must look to ourselves. Because it took a disaster for us to get out of our seats and minister to people who were hurting long before a hurricane named Katrina was even a tropical storm. And we should be ashamed.

It's odd -- I'd never thought of it from that perspective before. But as soon as I said it, I knew that it was true. I could tell from the reaction I got from the church. I could tell from the reaction in my own heart. We have the poor with us always -- why do we wait until a tragedy to begin to minister to those who are in need?

A group of students at NOBTS is eagerly waiting to return to their city to minister to the hurting. These are students who have had a heart for the city all along -- maybe now they can get the support that they need to make a tremendous impact on that city. My prayer is that the needs of the Gulf Coast will not be forgotten in another month, or two, or even a year or two. People down there will continue to hurt, and we need to continue to minister to them.

A Post Worth Reading, A Prayer Worth Remembering

Found this just today, though it's made the rounds of the blogosphere a few times.

Our Father
who lives above and beyond the dimension of the internet

Give us this day a life worth blogging,
The access to words and images that express our journey with passion and integrity,
And a secure connection to publish your daily mercies.
Your Kingdom come into new spaces today,
As we make known your mysteries,
Posting by posting,
Blog by blog.

Give this day,
The same ability to those less privileged,
Whose lives speak louder than ours,
Whose sacrifice is greater,
Whose stories will last longer.

Forgive us our sins,
For blog-rolling strangers and pretending they are friends,
For counting unique visitors but not noticing unique people,
For delighting in the thousands of hits but ignoring the ONE who returns,
For luring viewers but sending them away empty handed,
For updating daily but repenting weekly.

As we forgive those who trespass on our sites to appropriate our thoughts without reference,
Our images without approval,
Our ideas without linking back to us.

Lead us not into the temptation to sell out our congregation,
To see people as links and not as lives,
To make our blogs look better than our actual story.

But deliver us from the evil of pimping ourselves instead of pointing to you,
From turning our guests into consumers of someone else's products,
From infatuation over the toys of technology,
From idolatry over techology
From fame before our time has come.

For Yours is the power to guide the destinies behind the web logs,
To bring hurting people into the sanctuaries of our sites,
To give us the stickiness to follow you, no matter who is watching or reading.
Yours is the glory that makes people second look our sites and our lives,
Yours is the heavy ambience,

For ever and ever,
Amen

Who Can Do Good?

Every so often, I hear a familiar arguement. A Christian, usually in arguement with a non-theist (covers atheists and agnostics), will say something about God as the source for morality. The non-theist will become quite agitated, and offer up examples of good deeds done by unbelievers (and sometimes anti-believers). The question is then asked:

"Can a person who is unsaved do good deeds?"

Instantly, several verses spring to mind.

As it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Romans 3:10-11 ESV)
We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6 ESV)
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18 ESV)

But then, you can look throughout history and see things that have been done by unbelievers. Ghandi is a perfect example. Even in daily life, non-Christians do good deeds all the time. What can we say?

I think part of the problem is in the definition of the word 'good.'

1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor.
6. Worthy of respect; honorable.
17. a. Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
b. Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.

I think that our definitions fall short. Good is judged by motivation, and our motivation to do good must come from the source of good, which is God. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17 ESV)

Jesus said it -- God alone isgood. Our capacity to do good comes from our creation in His image. At the fall, the image was tarnished. When we come in faith to Christ, a portion of that image is restored -- that portion that enables us to reflect His nature by doing good. True good, and not the counterfeit that is often held up as good.

Everyone can do things that mankind sees as good. Only the child of God can do good deeds that are seen as good by God. It's His opinion of our deeds that ultimately will matter the most.

What Can We Do??

Steve McCoy over at Missional Baptist Blog (and yes, it still says Emerging SBC Leaders on the aggregator. Sorry -- I'll fix it this weekend) has a great, thought provoking post.

Name three things that a pastor/church leader could start/do in the next two months to have a greater impact on their community.

I would add something, though -- after you list those three, compare them to the things your church is actually doing.

One of the things I love about our church is that the pastor is always open to new areas of ministry. If you have an idea for something the church should be doing, you can always go talk to him. BUT you have to be ready to DO what you are suggesting. I've gotten a couple of assignments because of that, and I know others who now have a full-time volunteer position at the church because of it. So my challenge is to think of areas of ministry that will give glory to God rather than your church, suggest them to your pastor, and then roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Teach Us To Pray

Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples."
(Luke 11:1 ESV)

We often don't know how to pray -- that much is obvious from our prayers. Usually, we throw up a quick "God please get me through this" or a "God please let this happen" or something like that. At meals, it's a quick "Thanks for the food" prayer. At bedtime, we teach our kids to do their "God Blesses."

The apostles were men of prayer -- read the book of Acts and that will become obvious to you.

It's interesting that Jesus taught both personal and corporate prayer. He clearly taught private prayer in Matthew 6:6 (But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.) We should never pray just to be heard -- that is what the Pharisees were doing (Matthew 6:5).

But in the Lord's Prayer, Jesus is also teaching us corporate prayer. "Our father in heaven." There is value in corporate prayer, when we do it for the right reasons. Particular Baptists in England joined together in corporate prayer for revival at the end of the 18th century. The results of that prayer extended even across the ocean to North America.

Jesus also taught us what to pray for. Not to pray for stuff, but to pray "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." Our desire should be to see the will of God done as perfectly on Earth as it is in Heaven. Jesus followed His own example at Gethsemane when He prayed "Not My will but Thine be done."

I think this is where we often miss out in prayer. We get wrapped up in ourselves, and forget about what our goal should be. We're so worried about that test tomorrow, or getting a better job, or things like that, that we miss out on the better things God has for us. When we put God's will first, there's no telling what He will do through us.

Once we have our priorities established, Jesus teaches us to ask God to supply our needs. Physically (our daily bread) and spiritually (deliver us from evil), we are taught to depend on God fully and completely.

One thing I noticed when studying this passage recently is in verse 12 -- "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Forgive us when we fall short of your expectations just as we forgive those who fall short of our expectations. Debts don't just refer to a monetary value, after all. When I looked at the verse that way, I started to get worried. Do we do this? Do we REALLY want God to show forgiveness to us in the same way we show it to others?

Then the closing, reminding us that God has the right to rule, the ability to do what He has promised us, and that all that we do must be ultimately to His glory.

The Lord's Prayer is something that we all know. How often have we really thought about what it says? I know that I'm approaching prayer a LOT differently now.

{edited: one sentence made absolutely no sense after I published this. Sorry!}

Critical Christians

Much has been said in the past few days about criticizing our fellow believers. Should we or shouldn't we?

Most of the commentors responding to my Joel Osteen posts have said NO. "Judge not," they say, "lest ye be judged." And that is good advice. We shouldn't be quick to condemn people. And that's why I posted concerning Osteen's apology as soon as I read it on his site. If I was only interested in condemning someone, I'd have never done that, nor would I have recognized the spirit in which the apology was given. Osteen is truely sorry. He doesn't try to blame anyone else for what happened (which his defenders were quick to do). He admits that he wasn't clear, he reaffirmed what he and his church believe, and he promised to do better in the future. I am praying that God will strengthen him, and give him the opportunity to do just that.

But were we wrong to criticize him? Was it wrong to call the problem to his attention? And what about "Judge not?"

I like what Albert Barnes has to say about that particular verse (Matthew 7:1)

Christ does not condemn judging as a magistrate, for that, when according to justice, is lawful and necessary. Nor does he condemn our “forming an opinion� of the conduct of others, for it is impossible “not� to form an opinion of conduct that we know to be evil. But what he refers to is a habit of forming a judgment hastily, harshly, and without an allowance for every palliating circumstance, and a habit of “expressing� such an opinion harshly and unnecessarily when formed.

The motivations are in question -- why are we expressing this opinion? To encourage the person to change, to warn others about their behavior, or to tear them down? In this case, my own motivation was the second -- to warn others about his behavior. I have no illusions that Osteen read my blog. I have no direct line to him, and no influence over him. I also don't want to tear him down -- in my comments on the previous post, I made it clear that I thought he had a great message to Christians who need encouragement (a fact that I wish the responders to that post had noticed ...). But the fact that he totally missed the opportunity to share Christ with the nation needed to be discussed -- and that's the purpose of blogs in general.

Should we "judge" our fellow Chrisitans? Let's see what Paul had to say:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7 ESV)

That's not very tolerant, is it? Telling people that they are following a false Gospel -- that's not very uplifting. Who does Paul think he is, criticizing those who are trying to minister to the Galatians?

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:11-13 ESV)

You mean Paul opposed Peter??? But Peter has such a great ministry, and he's been so blessed by God! How could Paul even THINK about condemning him? Especially since, at this point in his life, Paul hadn't done much of anything -- not anything better than Peter. Why did Paul condemn Peter?

The same reason that people spoke up agains Osteen after the Larry King interview. Because he blew it.

Peter changed. Osteen has apologized. Again, my prayer is that God will use this for His glory, and that Osteen will get the chance to show us that he knows he was wrong.

Osteen Apologizes

Many of you have called, written or e-mailed regarding my recent appearance on Larry King Live. I appreciate your comments and value your words of correction and encouragement.

It was never my desire or intention to leave any doubt as to what I believe and Whom I serve. I believe with all my heart that it is only through Christ that we have hope in eternal life. I regret and sincerely apologize that I was unclear on the very thing in which I have dedicated my life.

Jesus declared in John 14; I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. I believe that Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation. However, it wasn’t until I had the opportunity to review the transcript of the interview that I realize I had not clearly stated that having a personal relationship with Jesus is the only way to heaven. It’s about the individual’s choice to follow Him.

God has given me a platform to present the Gospel to a very diverse audience. In my desire not to alienate the people that Jesus came to save, I did not clearly communicate the convictions that I hold so precious.

I will use this as a learning experience and believe that God will ultimately use it for my good and His glory. I am comforted by the fact that He sees my heart and knows my intentions. I am so thankful that I have friends, like you, who are willing to share their concerns with me.

Thank you again to those who have written. I hope that you accept my deepest apology and see it in your heart to extend to me grace and forgiveness.

As always, I covet your prayers and I am believing for God’s best in your life,

Joel Osteen

from website.

I am hoping that God will use the correction that Osteen has received to strengthen his message and the impact that he has on thousands of people, not just in Houston but nationwide. Many people have been disappointed with the way he's presented himself, and the Gospel -- hopefully this incident will mark a change.

Joel Osteen

I've been in debates elsewhere about Osteen, and his ministry. There are a lot of people who value his ministry, and look at the success that he's experienced as a blessing from God that we shouldn't question.

Osteen was on Larry King last night -- the transcript is here. He certainly made it clear what he believes.

KING: But don't you think if people don't believe as you believe, they're somehow condemned?

OSTEEN: You know, I think that happens in our society. But I try not to do that. I tell people all the time, preached a couple Sundays about it. I'm for everybody. You may not agree with me, but to me it's not my job to try to straighten everybody out. The Gospel called the good news. My message is a message of hope, that's God's for you. You can live a good life no matter what's happened to you. And so I don't know. I know there is condemnation but I don't feel that's my place.

KING: You've been criticized for that, haven't you?

OSTEEN: I have. I have. Because I don't know.

KING: Good news guy, right?

OSTEEN: Yeah. But you know what? It's just in me. I search my heart and I think, God, is this what I'm supposed to do? I made a decision when my father died, you know what? I'm going to be who I feel like I'm supposed to be. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Not the end of the world if I'm not the pastor ...

{later}

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

{later}

CALLER: Hello, Larry. You're the best, and thank you, Joe -- Joel -- for your positive messages and your book. I'm wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry's earlier question about how we get to heaven? The bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That's not really a message of condemnation but of truth.

OSTEEN: Yes, I would agree with her. I believe that...

KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?

OSTEEN: No. Here's my thing, Larry, is I can't judge somebody's heart. You know? Only god can look at somebody's heart, and so -- I don't know. To me, it's not my business to say, you know, this one is or this one isn't. I just say, here's what the bible teaches and I'm going to put my faith in Christ. And I just I think it's wrong when you go around saying, you're saying you're not going, you're not going, you're not going, because it's not exactly my way. I'm just...

KING: But you believe your way.

OSTEEN: I believe my way. I believe my way with all my heart.

KING: But for someone who doesn't share it is wrong, isn't he?

OSTEEN: Well, yes. Well, I don't know if I look at it like that. I would present my way, but I'm just going to let god be the judge of that. I don't know. I don't know.

Osteen was so intent on giving a good interview, and making sure people bought his book, that he totally missed an opportunity to share Christ with an international cable TV audience. He doesn't want to offend anyone. Christ said that people would despise us because of Him. The Gospel offends people; Joel Osteen doesn't want to do that. He wants thousands of people to show up at church every Sunday to hear what they want to hear rather than tell people what they need to hear. He's doing nobody any favors.

Is Anyone Surprised?

You scored as Reformed Evangelical. You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die.

Reformed Evangelical		82%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan		75%
Fundamentalist		75%
Neo orthodox		64%
Emergent/Postmodern		46%
Charismatic/Pentecostal		43%
Roman Catholic		32%
Classical Liberal		25%
Modern Liberal		7%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Boy, this thing was tough to get formatted to fit!! Had to leave off the picture.

Open Source Theology -- The Update

This seems to be the week for revisiting old posts! No, I'm not going to repost anything this time (though I'm tempted, considering how many hits this topic gets at the old Pew), just a link to my original posting here.

A bit of an explanation -- my original post wasn't a critique on the idea of open source theology; in fact, I hadn't heard of the site until after I made the original post (and I noted it here). I'd actually never seen anything called "open source theology" and thought that the title sounded interesting. And I enjoyed carrying the software metaphor out throughout the piece. It's been included in a couple different places (including the King of the Blogs tournament) and has NEVER goten this much attention.

NOW, there are a couple comments over at the old place (both in the past week, to a post almost a year old!) -- one in particular deserves an answer.

How do you know which patches constitute an "authorized upgrade from the Manufacturer"? How do we know Reformation 1.5 was authorized? The church didn't seem to think so at the time, and now the church is in the same boat, criticizing any new work in theology because it doesn't fit well with the status quo.

How DO we determine whether ANYTHING we do theoogically is authorized, or consistent with the original design of the software?

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
(Acts 17:10-12 ESV)

Examining the Scriptures daily ... that sounds like a plan to me! Anything we are told from the pulpit, or from a book, or a lecture, or wherever -- we compare that to the Bible. The Reformation 1.5 patch (and NOBODY has asked me why the .5!) was in response to several abuses by the Roman Church. Luther laid those abuses out pretty succinctly in his 95 Theses. There were theological probelms, and Luther was TRYING to get the "powers that be" to recognize them, and make the appropriate changes.

If a "new patch" or "upgrade" (to continue my favorite metaphor even further) contradicts the Bible, or what it teaches about the nature of God (the Open Theism .95 patch, for example), then we need to question it, regardless of who has signed the certificate. Clark Pinnock was once the darling of conservative, evangelical Baptists -- now his name is anathema in those same circles. The certificates with his name on them are suspect -- they have failed the "Berean test."

That's the bottom line. We need to test everything against the Bible. Where the Bible is silent, there is room for disagreement. Where the Bible is specific, there is no room for debate.

If you want to see the posts that STARTED this whole thing again (and read some GREAT stuff on the subject) start here. Then go here. THEN back to here.

Does Western Christendom Still Believe in God?

{This is a repost of one of my favorite posts at the old place. I'm gradually moving the best stuff over here -- eventually, I'll have everything in it's proper chronological order, but I want to put these first so that new readers can enjoy these "historic" posts. This is originally from November 21, 2004}

I need to define my terms first, because I'm using the word 'Christendom' in a different way than I usually do. I'm going to use Christendom to describe Western society in general, assuming (I think correctly) that much of Western culture, especially it's morality, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I started thinking about this topic on Thursday in my Intro to Philosophy class, as we discussed Nietzsche's The Madman and it's claim that God is dead. I'll start by letting the text speak for itself:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

As of 2002, 85% of all Americans considered themselves to be Christians, according to the data at the Barna group. 87% of Americans say that they believe that God created the world. Only 69% believe that God is all-powerfule, all-knowing, etc. But clearly, there is a majority of people who claim to have some type of faith in God, most of them considering themselves Christian. But what kind of God do they really believe in?

• 54% believe that being good enough gets someone into heaven. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)
• 60% say that Satan is not a real being, but the personification of evil. And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.(Luke 10:18 ESV)
• Only 20% have volunteered time to help out a church. Only 25% volunteer time to help a non-church-based nonprofit organization. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'(Matthew 25:40 ESV)

We aren't consistant. We pay lip service to God, and deny Him by the way we live our lives. We're like the people in Nietzsce's parable: we are shocked when someone actually comes out and says there is no God, or that He is dead, but we live so that people cannot see Him through us. We lament the fact that our society has no moral base, that in essence God is dead, but we ignore the fact that we are the ones who killed Him, through our apparant unbelief.

We get upset about the risque commercials airing before Monday Night Football. What do we expect from a fallen society? What do we expect, when we have by and large abandoned popular culture, choosing to live in our Christian ghettos -- listening to our Christian music, reading our Christian fiction, watching TV on our Christian satelite channels. We rarely engage anyone who is not a Christian, and when we do, we find we have nothing to say. We cannot relate to them at all, on any level.

We have bought into the lie that faith should have no impact on our lives outside of the church building. We've also bought into a false notion of what the Christian life really is. We've forgotten that living the Christian life is more than "giving Jesus a try." It's more than becoming Jesus' best friend. Jesus really has become our "homeboy" -- He's one of the gang, He fits in. He doesn't tell us to change our lives. He doesn't tell us what to believe -- matters of religion are personal things. He doesn't expect us to make an impact on society.

We need to rediscover a faith that impacts every aspect of our lives, a faith that makes it impossible to live contrary to our beliefs. We need to recover a belief in a Savior who commanded us to go and make disciples.

Posted by Warren Kelly at 02:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What IS Fundamentalism?

I'm reposting this from several posts I made on the old blog. I'm not reposting the whole thing -- just some parts, so you might want to head over there and read the full posts I made a little over a year ago. I just finished reading this piece by Frank Schaeffer. I like Frank -- I've read his books about his son in the Marines (Keepin Faith and Faith of Our Sons) and enjoyed them immensely. I've read his father's works, and been blessed by them. But I'm not sure that Frank "gets Fundamentalism" as well as he thinks he does. What is needed is a good definition of what fundamentalism is, and what it isn't.

----------------{begin repost}
So what ARE the fundamentals, anyway? Glad you asked. According to the people who wrote the book The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, which was written to combat the rise of liberal theology in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the fundamentals are:

1. The inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The Deity of Christ
3. The second coming of Jesus Christ
4. The virgin birth
5. The physical resurrection of the body
6. The substitutionary atonement
7. The total depravity of man - original sin

Belief in all of these is all it takes to consider yourself an historic fundamentalist.
------------{end repost}
Orthodox Christianity has always held to most if these basic beliefs -- I would guess that C.S. Lewis would consider this type of fundamentalism to be "mere Christianity". The only possible exception is the idea of substitutionary atonement -- many early Christians didn't see the atonement this way (Anselm was probably the closest).

The problem is that there are, within Christianity, different types of fundmentalism. Modern fundamentalism has added a LOT to the basic beliefs of the church -- things related to musical styles, dress, etc. Bahavior-related legalism (no movies, no dancing, etc.) has become S.O.P (standard operating procedure, for those who don't know) among modern fundamentalists. Many modern fundamentalists have fallen into the King James Version Only camp, rejecting any translation of the Bible made after 1611 (or 1769, depending on how hardcore they are). They have retreated into their churches, refusing to engage culture at all. The only interaction with anyone outside their churches that they might have is on Saturday mornings when they go out and knock on doors, evangelizing the neighborhoods.

Problem is, nobody knows who they are. They have no interaction with the everyday problems in their communities, no empathy with those who live right next door. They have separated themselves to the degree that in many cases they are completely worthless -- the salt has lost its savor.

There are fundamentalists who are not like this. They have largely abandoned the name 'fundamentalist,' though, leaving it for the moderns in their church complexes. Some call themselves 'evangelical,' but not all evangelicals are fundamentalist. Some call themselves 'Bible believers' to reflect their dependance on the Word of God. Many don't label themselves at all, calling themselves simply Christians. Many of these don't realize that they are really fundamentalists, and reject the label because of the abuse that the moderns have subjected it to.

Unfortunately, the moderns have gotten most of the press in the recent past. And more unfortunately, most people aren't interested in finding out the truth of what fundamentalism actually was meant to be, and how it has been hijacked.

-----------{begin repost}
There are many areas where evangelicals and fundamentalists differ -- especially if you look at modern, rather than historic, fundamentalists. Modern fundamentalism had become a haven for legalism and anti-intellectualism. Modern fundamentalists typically hold very dogmatically to a rather rigid set of beliefs, and often pride themselves in who they have 'separated from' -- carrying the Biblical injunction to separate from heresey to degrees never envisioned in Scripture.

The differences between evangelicals and historic fundamentalists are slight. The differences between modern fundamentalists and evangelicals are huge, and getting bigger every day. As modern Fundamentalism has slipped into KJVOnlyism, second, third, and fourth degree separation, and other such doctrinal abberations, the gulf will grow even bigger. This is the reason I stopped calling myself a fundamentalist -- I don't like what the name has come to represent. I am, and always will be, an historic fundamentalist.
---------{end repost}

Is the Reformation Over?

Mark Noll has co-written a new book with Carolyn Nystrom called Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Asessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism that attempts to answer just this question. I just found out that the book is scheduled to be out in July, and it's on my reading list (now WAY too long).

A lot has been written on the subject of Christian unity -- especially in the Bible. I've said before that I think we need to be careful about what differences we are going to consider worth splitting over, and what issues are not worth splitting over. There are many churches that I am familiar with who separate over things like women in pants and CCM -- not worth it, in my own opinion. There are other churches who don't seem to be willing to view rejecting the authority of Scriptures or the deity of Christ as reasons to separate -- I strongly disagree with that.

The Reformation was based on strong principles: sola gracia, sola fide, sola Christus, sola Scriptura, sola Deo gloria -- by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, under the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone. I haven't been watching Catholic theology that closely in recent years, but I've heard that they are moving closer to the Protestant understanding of many of these issues.

My wife and I had a discussion this evening -- one of those discussions that you only have between academics (she is writing her thesis for her MA in colonial American history this summer on Virginia Baptists in the American Revolution). We reached the conclusion that either the Reformation has really been misnamed, or it failed in it's goal. If the goal was reformation of the Catholic Church, that didn't happen until Vatican II (unless the elimination of papal indulgences can be considered a major victory). The end result of the Reformation was the formation of Protestant churches -- a schism, possibly greater than that between the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches. Luther left some possibility of reconciliation (which the Roman church rejected), but other Reformers wanted no part of Rome.

Ever since, there have been parts of "Protestantdom" that have wanted to try and reconcile with Rome, and parts that want nothing to do with Rome. Can there ever be total unity? I don't think it will happen until Christ Himself comes back and heads the Church Himself. Even before the 1500s, there were schisms -- most minor ones, many ended by crusade or inquisition, but there were always "Protestants."

I think it's important to partner with those who can help us on specific issues. It amazes me at the number of people who will throw in with any Republican candidate that runs for office (many of whom are conservative, but NOT Christian), but won't work with a Roman Catholic organization to try to end abortion. If our goals are the same, we can (and should) work together. We don't have to endorse their theology to work woth them on social issues. When we realize that, I think we will become a little more effective.

Pagan Roots?

I'm writing this in response to some reactions to my review of James White's The King James Only Controversy over at Blogcritics. Most of the comments on the review have little to do with the actual subject of the book (the controversy over modern translations of the Bible), but rather toiuch on the roots of Christianity itself.

One of the commentors mentioned the alleged pagan roots of Christianity -- in particular, a Norse myth that has Odin being hung on a tree and having his side pierced by a spear for his followers' benefit. The plethora of virgin births, dying saviors, eternal punishment, etc. has been mentioned; the allegation is that Christianity merely borrows from these other religions, fabricating a myth around the alleged life of Jesus of Nazareth (who may or may not have even existed).

I admit first that I'm not an ancient religions expert. My research tends to focus on the middle ages, and the changes that the church was going through at that time (which were numerous!). But I've heard these arguements most of my adult life, and I've finally taken the time to look into their validity.

I had never heard of the Odin story -- my mythological knowledge is limited to the very basics of Greek and Roman myths. The only exposure I've ever had to Norse myth was back when I read Thor comic books. So I had to do a Google search on the whole Odin-crucifixion story -- found one retelling here.

He hanged himself from the tree Yggdrasil, whilst pierced by his own spear, to acquire knowledge. He remained thus for nine days and nights, a number deeply significant in Norse magical practice (there were, for example, nine realms of existence), thereby learning nine (later eighteen) magical songs and eighteen magical runes. The purpose of this strange ritual, a god sacrificing himself to himself because there was nothing higher to sacrifice to, was to obtain mystical insight through mortification of the flesh; however, some scholars assert that the Norse believed that insight into the runes could only be truly attained in death.
I won't nitpick regarding the time Odin hung on the tree vs. the time Jesus hung on the cross (9 days vs. several hours), because the motivation is what seems to me the most different in the two stories. Odin is looking for something he wants -- Christ is paying a penalty for us -- there was nothing in it for Him. That seems, to be an important difference.

There is speculation that this story helped Christianity to spread throughout northern Europe, but my question is: IF this story is the basis for the Christian story of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, HOW did a dozen Jewish fishermen learn about Odin and the Yggdrasil? And, being good Jews that they were, what possible motivation could they have had to appropriate parts of this story to start their own religion -- an act that resulted in their deaths? This seems to be more like something the syncretistic Romans would have done than something the devoutly monotheistic Jews would have done. (Interestingly, some scholars have seen this story as having been influenced BY, rather than having an influence ON, the Christian crucifixion story.)

There are also many virgin-birth stories that are said to have influenced the Christian nativity story. The problem still remains -- why would Jews borrow from pagan tradition? And clearly it was Jews who first taught the virgin birth of Christ -- Matthew is our earliest source for the birth narrative, and the book was certainly written by a Jew, and written for Jewish readers (Irenaeus is our earliest source for this, though it is at least partially attested to by Papias).

One of the prevalent theories concerning the development of Christianity is that it grew out of Paul's fascination with mystery religions that proliferated in the Tarsus area -- specifically with Mythraism. On top of the obvious dificulty in Paul becoming familiar with the inner workings of these mystery religions, many of the dates simply do not match up. In other words, when examined closely, the mystery religions are far more likely being influenced by Christianity than having an influence on Christianity. I'd recommend Ron Nash's book The Gospel and the Greeks as a good starting point for inquiry into this subject -- most of what I would be able to contribut to the discussion are things I learned either from reading this book or talking to Dr. Nash. J. Gresham Machen offers The Origins of Paul's Religion, which is on my (ever-growing) reading list, as is Seyoon Kim's The Origens of Paul's Gospel.

Posted by Warren Kelly at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pomo? Not Me

Just read this over at Credenda/Agenda. I don't always agree with the folks over there, but I kinda like this one:

We would be postmodern, if we could only get the Leotard to fit. We would embrace the Permanent Possibility of Misconception, except it took us too long to find him, and when we did, he was picking his nose. The truth is, the big sign outside the community center said, "Postmodern Emerging Church: All Welcome." But they didn't mean it. We couldn't even make it up the sidewalk. The guys out front remembered us from T-ball. And they saw the squirt guns. Nobody wants to keep score in T-ball. And the guidance official behind the plate let some of the kids round the bases backward, or stay on base when they insisted that out was a narrow concept of being. So we did things. Things our mother made us say sorry for. But we didn't mean it. We still don't. Now they're accusing us of not taking the Leotard seriously, and we're not sure how they guessed.

Modern Man and Galatians

Cruising though the pages of The Sacred Sandwich (which has been on the left-side links for a while now), I ran across this article in their archives.

It's funny, but aren't we really like that? Don over at Locusts and Wild Honey recently critiqued one of Joel Osteen's sermons. I won't rehash what he said (though I agree with him) -- go there and read if you want the straight story. Read the comments, too, and compare them with the satire at The Sacred Sandwich.

It's frightening when real life so closely mirrors satire. I think that's why satire is so important. And that's why I like satire.

On Death and Dying

What a pleasant topic, huh? But with recent events, it has been on my mind a bit lately.

Contrast the two recent deaths for a moment. Terri Shiavo, for years on death's door. She's suffered, she's been through therapy and been withdrawn from therapy. What did she want? Who really knows -- from what I saw, it didn't really matter. It was about what everyone else wanted, simply because she didn't really make her wishes known to enough people, and in an official way.

John Paul II, the Pope. Leader of millions (billions?) of Catholics around the world. His health has been fading for the past few years, and some people had expected him to step down and retire. He wouldn't. He wanted to spend his last years doing what God called him to do -- what his heart's desire was.

That's all any of us really want, isn't it? In the words of a Steve Taylor song, it's better off to burn out than to melt away. I think ultimately people were upset about Terri's death because she, like so many of us, didn't get to burn out. She lived her last years in agony, and never had the opportunity to do things that she probably wanted to do. We cling to hope.

Christians don't fear death. We aren't all that eager for it, either, but we don't fear it. Death not the end; it's the end of the beginning. But this life is sacred. It is a gift from God to us, and we need to make the most of it. We need to be busy.

We cling to life because we see how much more we need to do. We cling to life because we want to accomplish more -- whether it's for God, in the case of Christians, or for ourselves. We celebrate the life of the Pope because he burned out -- he was active until he absolutely couldn't be active any more, and then he died. He are angered at the death of Terri Shiavo because we feel that she was robbed of something -- we want her life to have been more, because we want that for ourselves. We want our lives to have mattered.

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
(Heb 9:27-28 ESV)

We all die. In the end, it's not how we die that matters, but how we lived -- and Who we lived for.

Why I Read and Use the ESV

{Tip o' the hat to Adrian Warnock}

This article/essay/message from John Piper sums up my feelings pretty well. I still often use the King James or New King James when preaching, simply because that is what most, if not all, of the people I am speaking to are using. In my personal study, I use the ESV almost exclusively -- I also will use the NASB and my MacArthur NKJV Study Bible, but the ESV is my main resource when I'm studying. If I was the pastor of a church, the pew Bibles would be ESV.

I'm not anti-NIV. I'm not anti-KJV (though I've been accused of hating the KJV by some on the Fundamentalist Forums. I understand enough of the history of the English translations of the Bible to know that the ESV is simply part of the entire process -- a process that the KJV actually started. It's a process of discovery -- of learning new things about the ancient languages, finding texts and evaluating their reliability, and then using this new knowledge to make the Scriptures clearer to Christians.

As I said, I'm not anti-NIV, but it's never been my favorite translation. It's not a totally dynamic equivalence translation -- I'd put it at about a 5 on a 10-point scale (1 is total dynamic equivalence, 10 is total literal translation). {Incidentally, it's hard to find a site that gives a decent definition of DE. A LOT of what I found when trying to find that link were places that think Gail Ripplinger is a good Bible scholar!} A 1 would be translations like The Message, while a 10 would be an intralinear Bible.

My Bible preferences would fall between an 8 and 9. I want something readable, but something that is faithful to the original wording and intent. Takes more study effort with that kind of Bible, since they often don't interpret idioms for you -- you have to do that yourself. But it's worth it.

I also agree with Piper that some paraphrasing or interpreting will always be necessary in translating the Bible. My goal is to find the translation that does this as little as possible, and I think the ESV does that well.

A Nation of Religious Illiterates

This is a soap-box issue for me, as an educator and a Christian. And there are no easy answers, and no really nice way to say it, so I'll just be blunt:

Americans -- both Christians and nonChristians -- are woefully ignorant of the Bible.

Non-Christians at least have an excuse -- it's not their holy book, after all. It's like asking Christians about something in the Koran or the Talmud. With the impact that religion has on our society, though, I think it would be a good idea for everyone to know what each religion teaches, and a little bit of the basics of each. Non-believers don't have that, and it causes a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings between people.

And the Supreme Court agrees with me.

In a majority opinion in a 1963 church-state case (Abington v. Schempp), Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark wrote, "It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion ... and its relationship to the advance of civilization." If so, the education of nearly every public school student in the nation is woefully inadequate.
from the Tallahasee Democrat

In public education, the emphasis should be on comparing religions, and examining the contributions of each faith to American society. How many people are aware of the role that American Baptists played in the establishing of freedom of religion? They played a huge role, because in colonial America the Baptists were the ones being thrown in jail for their beliefs (including accusations of child abuse, for refusing to baptize infants). Not many know even the most basic facts of the influence of religion on our nation (both good AND bad), and we should not ignore these contributions because of a fear of lawsuits. Facts are facts, and should be taught.

I think, though, that before we can expect the average man on the street to learn the basics of our faith, we need to learn them. I've quoted Barna surveys before, detailing how many Americans consider themselves Christians and how many of them believe things that are contrary to the Bible. Ask a group of high school students in your church if the book of Hezekiah is in the Old or New Testament (hint -- it's in neither. The "books" of Hosanna and Jubilations are also good ones to use). Discipleship is seriously lacking in many of our churches -- and yet we expect the world, and the mainstream media in particular, to get facts right about matters of religion and faith.

What is the answer? I think that, to start with, we need to return to teaching and preaching the Bible, rather than offering motivational speaches and calling them sermons. Many churches are doing this already, but many many more are not. Bible study used to be something that was enjoyed and encouraged -- now it's a duty that we "have to do" if we expect God to do anything for us. Read some of the writings of the early Puritans, and think about this: they were written to average people, with average educations. The difference is that these people studied the Bible, and discussed it daily, like we discuss sports or TV programs.

I think we'd be amazed at the change in our churches, and in our society, if we returned to sincere, devoted study of Scripture, both in church and at home.

Faith and Reason addendum

I wanted to make sure everyone saw this, so I created a new post rather than editing the one below.

If you are interested in this subject, you HAVE to read this at The Evangelical Outpost. Do it now. Outstanding post that I wish I had written.

That's all.

Faith and Reason 3: Augustine

In Part 2, we talked about Tertullian, and his contention that faith and philosophy don't mix. This is a position that has been used and abused by Christians down through the ages, and we looked at what Tertullian might have meant.

Now, I want to take a look at another early theologian and philosopher, Augustine. Augustine wanted a faith that was consistant with reason, and he went in a LOT of directions to try and find one. He started off in Manicheanism, an early dualistic belief that taught two conflicting gods -- one good and one evil. In the ancient world, this religion held quite a bit of prestige, and Augustine was reluctant to abandon it completely. Finally, he realized that he couldn't ignore his doubts about this belief system, and embraced skepticism. He quickly saw some of the problems with this system, especially after reading neo-Platonist writings, and so he became a neo-Platonist for a time. Finally, through the influence fo Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, Augustine embraced Christianity. (The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good, short biography of Augustine here).

Augustine didn't see any conflict between faith and reason. Faith and trust are synonynmous to Augustine, and it's clear that there is a LOT of knoweldge that we have based on our trust of some other source. I know that the capital of England is London, and I know that London Bridge is there, but I've never been to Enlgand. I have to have faith in my sources of information on England to have any idea what England is like. Augustine defined faith, then, as knowledge that is gained without our own personal experience.

Reason, then, is knowledge that is gained through our experience. If I know that something is hot because I touch it, or because I see the steam from it, that is reason. If I know something is hot because I see someone else burn themselves on it, it's faith.

Faith and reason are like the two blades on a pair of scissors. Our knowledge comes from the interaction of both faith and reason, just as scissors cut something by using both blades. Faith is not something that only involves religious belief -- it is integral to any system of knowledge. Augustine expressed it this way: Credo ut intelligam -- I believe that I may understand.

I tend to be Augustinian. I don't think that faith means setting reason aside -- I think that faith and reason must be paired together to gain any real understanding of the world around us. We exercise faith all the time; religious faith is simply one aspect of the faith that we all have in facts that we have not experienced. We cannot experience everything that we know -- history is a perfect example of this -- so we have to exercise faith that our sources are correct.

But how can we be sure that even our reason is reliable? People are imperfect, after all. How can we rely on our reason to be accurate? How can we be sure that the reason of those we trust is accurate? Augustine had an answer for that, as well, which has been called his illumination theorywhich I'll discuss in the next installment of this series.

Faith and Reason 2: Tertullian

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What have heretics to do with Christians?
This is the attitude of a LOT of modern people. What has reason (Athens, the ancient seat of reason and philosophy) to do with faith (Jerusalem, the center of Christian belief)? Most would agree with Tertullian -- nothing at all.

Tertullian had a good reason to give up on a 'reasonable' approach to Christianity. The Greek and Roman philosophers were pagans, after all. The Roman emperor was the one putting Christians to death. He wanted to move Christianity as far as possible from their influence. He was really one of the first to proclaim sola Scriptura -- Scripture alone, without the philosophy and logic. He went so far as to say that because the crucifixion and resurrection were absurd -- the idea that God would come to earth, die, and then rise from the dead is so illogical -- that it must be believed. Tertullian rejected the notion that faith must be understood -- he felt that if it was understood, it was not real faith.

Tertullian was inconsistent, though. He used Greek ideas of philosophy and logic in his arguments and disputations. In his Apology, he expects the Roman authorities to treat Christians the same way that they treat other "criminals" (since that is what Christians were considered at the time). He portrays the Roman condemnation of Christians as unreasonable because it is based in ignorance (Book I of Ad Nationes.)

It seems that we have misunderstood Tertullian's reluctance to mix faith and reason. He should not be considered anti-intellectual -- rather, he is trying to keep overtly pagan influences out of the Church. His major opponent was the heretic Marcion, whose theology was heavily influenced by Greek dualistic ideas.

Unfortunately, there are many who have decided that 'pagan influences' have infiltrated higher education today. This hasn't been helped by the influence of liberal theology in seminary education -- many young men have entered seminaries full of a desire to preach and teach the Gospel of Christ, only to have their faith shattered by professors who don't really believe what they are being paid to teach. In many cases, we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater -- to get away from bad schools and bad theology, we have abandoned the scholarly realm. Mark Noll has a LOT to say about this in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (a review of which will shortly be up here). As we continue with this series, we will see that faith and reason are not incompatible at all, and that in many cases, Athens and Jerusalem have a lot in common.

The next installment of this series will concern Augustine, and his idea of faith seeking understanding.
__________
Trackback to this post and express your support for MY bid to be King of the Blogs!!

Faith and Reason, part 1: An Overview

{This is part one of a multi-part series about Faith and Reason, and the various ways that Christians have tried to reconcile the two.}

There seems to be an attitude among many people today that Christianity -- especially modern Christianity -- is anti-Enlightenment, and anti-intellectual in general. In a recent article , the Asheville Citizen-Times talks about the evangelical Christian goal of repealing the Enlightenment.

Many of us remember the Age of Enlightenment for opening the way to science and technology. It did so by separating the realms of faith and reason and giving preference to reason where conflicts arose between the two.

I'm not sure that the Enlightenment did that, exactly. I think the Enlightenment started the trend toward replacing faith in God with faith in human reason. It was about finding something different to place faith in, rather than separating faith from reason. In fact, the Enlightenment often tried to bring reason INTO matters of faith -- especially when it came to Biblical interpretation methods. The Enlightenment gave rise to the "historical-critical" model of study, which led to the rise of religious liberalism throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

This isn't the place to critique historical-critical hermeneutics, or religious modernism (I'll do that later, though). The point is that the Enlightenment and religious faith were far more intertwined than most people want to admit.

Christians have historically believed that faith and reason went hand in hand. As far back as Tertullian, we've been trying to figure out exactly how they fit together, and we've wavered between saying that they didn't at all (Tertullian) to saying that they were essential to each other (Augustine). And we are still debating this among ourselves, so how can we even begin to think about explaining to others what we think about the subject?

The definition given above sounds a lot like what Francis Schaeffer talks about -- the idea that faith and reason are separate, and cannot tell us anything about each other. Science can tell us all baout how things work, and why things work the way they do, and how to make things work better, but it cannot tell us about God. Faith can tell us all about God, and the supernatural, but it can't tell us anything about the material world -- including how it came to be. I'd agree with Schaeffer that this idea is NOT a working worldview, for a LOT of reasons, which I will address later on in another section.

What I want to do in this series is look at the various ways we've tried to reconcile the two seemingly opposing forces -- faith and reason. In the end, I'll talk about why it's important, and how Christianity can be looked at as a rational worldview. In the next part, I'll take a look at the early Church, and how Tertullian tried to reconcile faith and reason -- and why so many Christians today would agree with him today.

Free Will, part 2

I've talked about the various types of free will before. In this post, I'm going to discuss the different perspectives on how free will and divine sovereignty coincide.

Some people think they don't. If we have free will, then God really cannot know what the future holds, whether ten years from now, or ten minutes. God rolls the dice and takes a chance. He's got a better chance at being right than we do, but He still only has a chance. He could be wrong, he could be surprised. He is often disappointed. But He's still God.

That, in a nutshell, is open theism. God makes mistakes, and learns from us. We control our destiny, and God is just along for the ride. I'm working on a post where I look at the various Scripture passages that open theises typically use to support their view, and I'll post that later on. For right now, I'll say that I really don't think that this is the omnipotent, omniscient God that the Bible shows us.

If we hold to libertarian free will, though, open theism is not that big of a stretch, philosophically. We can always do things differently, so our actions influence God's knowledge and planning. Some people have adopted a different view, which is called Molinism.

Molinism essentially teaches that God has 'middle knowledge' -- that He knows things based on His creative action (free knoweldge), based on 'the way things have to be' (natural knowledge, things that are necessarilly true and not dependant on anything), and based on His absolute knowledge of all possible actions that His created beings can take (middle knowledge). This is a very complex system (I just finished writing a 15 page paper on it for philosophy, which I will post somewhere later on) -- suffice it to say that it involves God knowing absolutely everything that we could possibly do, not just what we actually do. His knowledge of the future is tied to this middle knowledge.

I am a compatibilist: I think that our freedom is based in God's will and our character/personality. We are therefore free, but not absolutely free. In His sovereignty, God knows what choices we will make -- based on either the situation we are in, or His understanding of how we will react to a situation, or simply because He knows how He will act in the situation and thus knows its outcome. This is similar to middle knowledge, but is based ultimately in God's creative act -- either in His creation of us and our personalities, His shaping of the situation around us, or His special act in creation. (This ended up being the thesis of the paper I just mentioned -- that the idea of middle knoweldge is correct, but it is not separate from God's free knowledge -- what He knows because of His actions. Here is an article by someone who agrees with me. There is an excellent one in the recent Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that says essentially the same thing).

Sovereignty and free will is not an issue for compatibilists. Our free will is always exercised under the supervision of God, and He works through our actions. Because His will is always accomplished, He is in control of the circumstances, even though we are exercising our freedom. Libertarian free will implies a God who is always having to guess to stay one step ahead of HIs creation, or at the very least a God who really doesn't know everything.

Free Will, part 1

There has been a lot of discussion in the Reformed neighborhood of the Christian blogosphere on the subject of free will, or the lack thereof. I'm writing my philosophy paper on an aspect of the free will/sovereignty discussion (which I'll talk more about later on, probably), so I figured I'd weigh in.

First, if you want to take a look at what has already been written, check out these links:

1. Jollyblogger on Free Will and Total Depravity (part of his series on TULIP)
2. Parableman on Calvinism and Free Will.
3. Pruit Communications, where Terry talks about his own Free Will Journey.
4. Rebecca Writes about Isaiah 10.
5. And Adrian Warnock promises us that There is No Such Thing as "Free Will."

The first thing I want to do is talk about the two definitions of free will. Most Arminians will advocate libertarian free will, which simply says that for every decision we make, we are always capable of doing the anything other than what we've done. For example -- this morning, I had eggs and toast for breakfast. Under libertarian free will, I could have just as easilly had steak and eggs, or poached eggs, or Corn Flakes. There is nothing that coerces us or forces us to do anything -- it's all up to us.

I see a couple of problems with this -- I don't know how to fix poached eggs, and my wife isn't home to fix them for me, so there's one option I'm not free to take. We have no steak, so there goes another option. We have Corn Flakes, but I like mine with milk, and we're out of milk (yes, it's grocery day!), so there goes that option. Doesn't sound like my will is very free, does it? Sounds like there are external factors that influence my decisions. Adrian mentions that even the laws of physics constrain our free will -- I can't climb to the top of my house and decide to fly, can I?

Most people don't believe in total, fatalistic determinism -- the idea that God has determined our every move, and that we are simly robots programmed to do what He tells us in every instance. Obviously, if we did that, God would take the heat for every evil act done on earth, because we're only robots performing according to our operating system that He designed and programmed. So there has to be another option.

Most Calvinists I know (and a LOT of people who don't consider themselves Calvinists) believe in compatibilistic free will. This holds that our will is free to the extent that we are given some choice, but not total choice. My breakfast decision was limited to the food on hand, and what I can cook. My college selection was based on what I could afford and who would let me in. I had the choice of several options for breakfast, and several options for college, but I was not free in the libertarian sense of the word. My free will had to be compatible with the influences on my life, both external and internal.

This sounds like determinism to a lot of people, especially once you factor God into the equation. An omnipotent God can manipulate things in our lives so that the circumstances and resources point us to only one option. I've been wanting eggs for a while now, and this morning was the opportunity that I had to fix them. The deck was stacked against me choosing anything else -- and that, some would say isn't a free choice. I would say that I was behaving in a manner that is compatible or consistant with my personality and situation.

There are some free acts that aren't possible in some situations -- that doesn't mean that we are any less free. That means that we do not have total control of our destinies: that, ultimately, we are slaves to something, whether that is our environment, our psycological makeup, or even God and His will. Our decisions are dependant on something, and that violates the definition of libertarian free will.

Coming soon in Part 2 -- how do we reconcile free will and divine sovereignty? Good question.

Does Western Christendom Still Believe in God?

I need to define my terms first, because I'm using the word 'Christendom' in a different way than I usually do. I'm going to use Christendom to describe Western society in general, assuming (I think correctly) that much of Western culture, especially it's morality, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I started thinking about this topic on Thursday in my Intro to Philosophy class, as we discussed Nietzsche's The Madman and it's claim that God is dead. I'll start by letting the text speak for itself:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

As of 2002, 85% of all Americans considered themselves to be Christians, according to the data at the Barna group. 87% of Americans say that they believe that God created the world. Only 69% believe that God is all-powerfule, all-knowing, etc. But clearly, there is a majority of people who claim to have some type of faith in God, most of them considering themselves Christian. But what kind of God do they really believe in?

• 54% believe that being good enough gets someone into heaven. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)
• 60% say that Satan is not a real being, but the personification of evil. And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.(Luke 10:18 ESV)
• Only 20% have volunteered time to help out a church. Only 25% volunteer time to help a non-church-based nonprofit organization. And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'(Matthew 25:40 ESV)

We aren't consistant. We pay lip service to God, and deny Him by the way we live our lives. We're like the people in Nietzsce's parable: we are shocked when someone actually comes out and says there is no God, or that He is dead, but we live so that people cannot see Him through us. We lament the fact that our society has no moral base, that in essence God is dead, but we ignore the fact that we are the ones who killed Him, through our apparant unbelief.

We get upset about the risque commercials airing before Monday Night Football. What do we expect from a fallen society? What do we expect, when we have by and large abandoned popular culture, choosing to live in our Christian ghettos -- listening to our Christian music, reading our Christian fiction, watching TV on our Christian satelite channels. We rarely engage anyone who is not a Christian, and when we do, we find we have nothing to say. We cannot relate to them at all, on any level.

We have bought into the lie that faith should have no impact on our lives outside of the church building. We've also bought into a false notion of what the Christian life really is. We've forgotten that living the Christian life is more than "giving Jesus a try." It's more than becoming Jesus' best friend. Jesus really has become our "homeboy" -- He's one of the gang, He fits in. He doesn't tell us to change our lives. He doesn't tell us what to believe -- matters of religion are personal things. He doesn't expect us to make an impact on society.

We need to rediscover a faith that impacts every aspect of our lives, a faith that makes it impossible to live contrary to our beliefs. We need to recover a belief in a Savior who commanded us to go and make disciples.

Posted by Warren Kelly at 05:43 PM | Comments (0)

Sola Scriptura and Tradition

I'm hoping right back on this horse -- I think that our idea of Scripture is vital to the future of the Church, and I think there are a LOT of misunderstandings concerning the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Of course, a lot of great information was available in the League of Reformed Bloggers carnival, Post Tenebras Lux. There is a wealth of information on the Net, too -- both good and bad. But I have to clarify this little issue.

Where does sola Scriptura stand on tradition? And specifically, how do we deal with this verse: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thes. 2:15 (ESV)

First, sola Scriptura does not ignore tradition. It does not mean that we ONLY accept what the Bible says, and avoid anything it doesn't talk about. I've said this before, but I still get people asking about it. Someone posted a comment at Jollyblogger, commenting on the carnival, that essentially was this verse and a rant about the Reformation. People still don't get it.

Tradition is important. But tradition does not trump Scripture. When Scripture does speak, we cannot follow a tradition that contradicts it. The verse from 2 Thessalonians teaches us that we need to listen to what we're taught, whether we read it or are taught it orally. That's all it says. But Paul teaches, just as clearly, that we are to test any teaching that we hear with the Word of God. That's what the Bereans did, when they encountered Paul's teaching -- and they saw that what he was saying was true. It didn't contradict Scripture.

Sola Scripture doesn't say anything about rejecting tradition. Anyone who has any knowledge of the Reformers knows that both Luther and Calvin quoted from the patristic writings. They didn't reject history, or historic teachings. They DID reject those teachings that they felt contradicted Scriptural teaching -- and that is what we must do today.

95 Theses

Everyone knows what today is -- Reformation Day. The day good little Christians go door to door, nailing tracts to the front of their neighbor's houses.

Ok, not really -- and I've just about run that joke to death this year -- but today is one of those pivotal moments in history. The Reformation has made an impact on every aspect of society -- not just religion.

I really don't have much new to add to the discussion. So I'm going to check out the old blogroll, and show you all the Ref. Day posts that everyone else has made today. You can find the theses at Phil Johnson's place.

• Matt Hall points out that Luther probably wasn't looking for a direct conflict with Rome -- he most likely wanted some dialog on the subject of the theses. He also recommends a couple of books on the Reformation for further reading.
• Tim at Challies Dot Com talks about the lack of awareness among many evangelical churches that today is Reformation Day -- or at least the lack of commemoration. I know that it wasn't mentioned at our church this morning, and there are probably a lot of non-Lutheran churches that pass by the day altogether. I agree with Tim -- this needs to change. We don't have to agree with all of Luther's theology to be thankful that he had the courage to stick with his convictions.
• Sundays at Rebecca Writes are neat anyway -- there's always a sermon and a hymn, but this week is special.
• Semicolon has A Mighty Fortress posted as well, and makes a great point about politics and Christians.

And y'know -- those are the only posts I found on it today -- even on the League of Reformed Bloggers list. Maybe Tim's right. If I missed yours, let me know, and I'll make up for it by giving you a post all to yourself.

What IS Sola Scriptura, Anyway??

If there is one thing that I am tired of hearing from people it's this:

Sola Scriptura is inconsistant. You SAY that the Bible is your only authority, but that teaching isn't even in the Bible! You Protestants are idiots/morons/heretics/insult-of-the-day.

The sad thing is, people who should know better even perpetuate the misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is.

Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the final authority. It is the only thing that is ultimately authoritative -- that is, it is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. This actually ties into the idea of inspiration and inerrancy. IF we believe that the Bible is inspired (breathed out) by God, then it carries with it the authority of God -- it's teachings are God's teachings, because what it says is what God said. IF that is true, then Scripture is the final authority, just as if God Himself were speaking -- because He is.

Protestants do not deny tradition. Luther and Calvin quoted from Augustine extensively. Calvin quoted from Bernard of Clairveux. Both used patristic texts. The difference is that Luther and Calvin both tested these early fathers against Scripture. If they contradict Scripture, they are wrong. If you want to find out about the early Fathers being wrong, do a study on Peter Abelard. (If anyone knows of an available edition of Sic et Non, let me know. I REALLY want to get one.)

Protestants also do not deny that Scripture must be interpreted correctly. Baptists teach that the believer is responsible for their spiritual health (priesthood of the believer), but we stress (or we SHOULD stress) the need for a correct foundation for interpreting Scripture. That entails study -- including the study of historical theology. We want to know what has been believed before -- but we judge all belief in the light of Scripture.

Is Inerrancy Important?

From the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )

So, is it important that Scriptures are inerrant? After all, the word doesn't show up at all in this confession.

The word infallible means: "Incapable of erring". That is actually MORE than just inerrant. Inerrant says that the Bible doesn't contain errors. I can write a report that is inerrant, as long as I do my research carefully and make sure that someone else proofreads it. Infallible, which shows up in pretty much every major confession in early Protestant history, says that the Bible is not capable of making a mistake. I can't write an infallible paper -- anything I write is capable of being mistaken, whether it actually is or not.

But is it important that Scripture contains no error? Yes, because if we find any error in it, how can we be certain that we have caught them all? What I'm trying to say is that if there's one error that we know of, how can we be certain that the things we believe in Scriptures aren't actually errors? If we cannot trust that God has given us a reliable, error-free book, how can we base something as important as our eternal destiny on anything that is in that book?

Some would say experience. We have to experience God, and we can do that through the Bible. How can we know what we are experiencing if we cannot trust the medium we are experiencing it through? Without a Bible that I can trust, how do I even know that Christ really has risen from the dead? I cannot experience that historical event -- unless someone is hiding a time machine that they haven't mentioned before. I can only know about that event through the historical record. If the Bible is not trustworthy, I have no reliable record to turn to.

If I have to trust experience, how do I judge what is a good experience? Experience is subjective, so I can't judge based on what others have experienced. How can I tell what I am encountering, without a reliable guide to show me? How do I discern that it is the Holy Spirit guiding me into knowledge if I have no guidelines to show me what the Holy Spirit's job is?

I know people who sincerely believe that they are being led by God in directions that are contradictory to the Scriptures. Is their religious experience any less valid than mine? Is mine any less valid than theirs, for relying on the Bible rather than on experience? Does it even matter, as long as we each have a meaningful religious experience?

Experiential revelation, that is, revelation based solely on personal experience or encounter, can be very meaningful and life changing. But if it contradicts the Scripture, how do we know what the source of that experience is? God is not the only spiritual being in existence, after all. Satan is a great deceiver, and our perceptions are not always the most reliable ways of gaining information, even about the physical world. Objective rvelation is a must, if we are to seriously contend that Christianity is God's Truth.

If we are to take seriously the Reformation idea of sola Scriptura, we have to believe that the scriptura is without error, and is totally trustworth.

This is the first of (probably) several posts about the idea of inerrancy, infallibility, authority, etc. of Scripture. I'll end up talking about what sola scriptura actually means, vs. what people think it means, theories of inerrancy, and maybe even a little translation theory and the original autographs. yeah, I'm being ambitious. I figure it will make up for the weenie posts I've had here recently.

This is What Jesus Meant!!

A book review in the Houston Chronicle really gave me a boost. The book is writen by a screenwriter who made a movie about growing up Fundamentalist. He spent three years with a Baptist congregation in Massachusetts, learning about their faith. He went to Bible studies, played with their kids, attended every service (something many Christians don't even do!).

The guy was a liberal, pure 100% (says so even in the review). Talk about incompatible lifestyles. Did the church go nuts trying to "win him for Jesus"?

Nope. They loved him.

Ault became aware of what he calls "the caring power of the congregation" when both his grant money for the film and his savings ran out and he had to stand in line for unemployment benefits. During this period the Valentis and others insisted that lunch or dinner was their treat, one church member tried to find a job in his insulation company for Ault, and yet another member left work one day with tools to fix Ault's car.

And the result?

to his great surprise he [Ault] found himself "turning more and more toward God" as a result of his years at Shawmut River Baptist Church. While he didn't become a born-again fundamentalist, he did start going to church and became a Christian.

Doesn't say what kind of church, and i'm sure there are some right liberal ones there to choose from, but the point is this:
They made a difference in his life. They cared. And now, if he isn't in an evangelical church, at least he's more receptive to the Gospel than he was when he started. Some sow, some water, some harvest -- and God grants the increase. Seems like I read that somewhere before ...

They Will Know We Are Christians ..... How, Exactly?

From Alertnet:

JERUSALEM, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Fistfights broke out on Monday at Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre between Christian sects that jealously guard their hold on sections of the shrine built on the traditional site of Jesus's crucifixion.

"There was lots of hitting going on. Police were hit, monks were hit ... there were people with bloodied faces," said Aviad Sar Shalom, an Israeli tour guide who witnessed the fight.

The tussle between Franciscans and Greek and Russian Orthodox clerics erupted during a procession through the church on Holy Cross Day marking the fourth century discovery of the cross which some faithful believe was used in the Crucifixion.

A Greek Orthodox cleric said Franciscans had left open the door to their chapel in what was taken as a show of disrespect.

So, in other words, this whole thing started because someone left the door open.

And we wonder why people don't take us seriously. Forget What Would Jesus Do -- what would He SAY? Or would he stand there, shaking His head in disappointment that, even after almost 2,000 years, we still don't get it.

Creeds and Christianity

There's an interesting article here about Christian private schools in Australia, and how many times the religion aspect is forgotten, or downplayed. I was going to write about THAT, and how it is happening in the US as well, until I read this sentence.

"[W]e would sing our way through the limited repertoire of hymns, and recite the incomprehensible Nicene Creed."

Now, this is the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find that all that difficult to understand -- certainly nnot incomprehensible.

I'm finding more and more, especially among Evangelicals, a resistance to creeds. "No creed but the Bible!" they shout -- not realizing that THAT is, in fact, a creed of sorts. Every Baptist church 've ever been a member of has had a creed -- of course, they called it a Statement of Faith, or their Articles of Faith, or something like that. Never a creed.

Even in the early days of the Baptist church in America, they had "Confessions", not "Creeds". Why?

Maybe the word creed, with it's Latin derivation, reminded too many of the Roman Church that had persecuted them -- though for Baptists, it was more often their fellow Protestant Anglicans who were doing the persecuting. Maybe a general fear of appearing Romish, or Popish, or whatever other -ish they were frightened of.

But maybe it's because they recognized that Christianity isn't just about believing (credo means to believe, after all). Maybe they saw that believing was only part of the equation. Didn't Jesus say that "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. "(Mat 10:32 KJV)? Maybe these early Baptists and Presbyterians and Congregationalists were on to something. Maybe it isn't enough to affirm that we believe something -- maybe we need to make sure we confess it as well.

God, Sovereignty, and the Really Bad Week.

This week started off bad. I got to Louisville Tuesday and realized I'd forgotten 1) my toiletries kit, including soap, deodorant, and toothbrush, and 2) my "dress" shoes -- suede, but nice-looking, for class. I also only had one towel. One. Praise God for dryers.
Tuesday afternoon I bomb my Philosophy quiz, because I studied the wrong stuff. Then it got worse, as I started to realize Ivan was going to hit Mom.
Wednesday, my car died.
Thursday, I spent worried about Mom, and wondering how I was going to get home with no car. And how I was going to PAY for said car.

Today, I realized how stupid I was to be that worried -- except for worrying about Mom, I mean. Car's fixed, and we had the money to pay for it. I wore shorts and sneakers to class, and it didn't kill me (you have to understand -- I have trouble doing business casual, let alone casual casual, in a classroom setting. Leftover from the shirt-and-tie days at Liberty). A new travel kit from WalMart cost me $6.10 after tax -- and I got everything I needed, including soap.

My problem was that I forgot that God is in charge. I was so stressed about how I was going to fix things, and what I was going to do, that I forgot that I am not in charge. God is. God was in control all week long. All I had to do is realize it, and get my hands off the controls.

I talked about temptation last Sunday night at church, and how sometimes God uses temptation to try us, to get us ready for His use (Deut. 8:2). Maybe I should have listened to myself.

And you shall remember the whole way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.
(Deuteronomy 8:2 ESV)

And, yes, God already knows how we'll do. The purpose of the test is to make sure that we know what we can do.

BTW, got word from Mom. Some shingles are missing, the screen that went over the pool is messed up, but otherwise, the house is in OK shape. After looking at some of the pictures on Pensacolanewsjournal.com, and seeing some of the mess that used to be buildings near her, I was REALLY concerned. She's still going to be three weeks without power, so she may be headed here, or to my sister's place in Tampa. But it could have been SO much worse.

A Dangerous God

I cruised over to Credenda:Agenda this evening -- something I hadn't done in a while. The cover title started me thinking: "God the Dangerous".

First thing I thought of was an allusion made by Derek Webb. In The Chronicles of Narnia, the children ask if Aslan is a safe lion. They are told No, he is not safe. But he is good.

Is God safe? How do we define safe? Safe, as in people won't want to kill us for believing in Him? Too many people have been martyred for us to seriously believe that. Safe, as in people will think good things about us? You should know that isn't true; if you don't, you haven't spoken about Christ in public recently. People don't like it when they are confronted witht he truth of God's love, and Christ's death for them. They will think you are not intelligent. They will think you are a dupe. They will think you have no independant thought. You aren't modern (or postmodern) enough.

Safe, as in people will let you practice your religion as you are led by your conscience? Ask ministers in Canada who want to speak out against homosexuality, but cannot without breaking the law. Ask the house churches in China. Ask the underground church in Russia.

God is not safe. Christianity is not safe. We know that it is good -- and our job is to let the world know it, too. Sometimes we don't do such a good job. Sometimes we don't admit that we did anything wrong, even when we have. The world watches us, to see what kind of God we serve, by our actions. We must make sure that we show them the right one. Not the safe one.

The Little Guys, part I

I've decided that the only way I can MAKE myself post fairly regularly is to give myself regular "features" that I need to get out. So here's another one. (The Mark Study will be here later tonight, TWiCH will be here on Sunday afternoon.)

I love looking at the lives of people who are barely mentioned in the Bible. I figure that if they were worth being mentioned in God's Word, they must have something to tell us. Some of them tell us something little. Some tell us something major. Things that SOME tell us are wildly misinterpreted. So I'm going to take a look at the lives of some of the "little guys (and gals)" in the Bible.

I'm going to start with Demas. Demas is mentioned three times in the New Testament:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. (Philemon 1:23-24 ESV)

Col 4:14 Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas.

2Ti 4:10 For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.

Demas starts out with Paul, and is present with Paul when he writes to Philemon from Rome during Paul's first imprisonment. He is also mentioned in the letter to the church at Colossi, which Paul also wrote during this first imprisonment. Just a few years later, Paul writes that Demas has forsaken him, having loved the world more.

What happened to Demas? The same thing that can happen to many of us. He started enjoying life too much, and was afraid to lose it. He saw Paul in jail again, and knew, as Paul did, that this time it would be different. Paul wasn't going to be released again. He was going to die.

Demas wanted to live. He may have even rationalized it by saying "I have so much more to do for God! There are so many people to win, so many places to go! I CAN'T die now!" Maybe he thought about his own self-importance. "If they kill Paul, who is going to spread the Gospel? I HAVE to stay alive, no matter what!" Maybe he was just afraid.

Whatever the reason, Demas didn't trust God. He didn't think that God would preserve the life of someone that was needed to fulfill His plan. He thought that God could be thwarted -- that His plan depended on something that He couldn't control.

We tend to think we're indispensible. "Boy, if I didn't do this, NOBODY would be doing it. At least, nobody that could do it as well as I can." If you have that attitude, start a blog. Then read other people's blogs. My blogroll is full of people who write better than I do, are better-informed than I am, are more involved than I am. Maybe even some that are better-looking than I am (but since I haven't put up a picture yet, most of you don't know. Matt, keep quiet). God's plan doesn't hinge on me. By His grace, and for His glory, I can be a part of His plan, but if I don't do the job, He'll find someone else to do it. His will WILL be done.

Demas was a part of what God was doing. He could have been a bigger part, but he loved his own life more than he loved the things of God. And now, for eternity, his name is associated with abandoning principles. When things got really tough for Paul, and he needed friends, Demas bailed, too concerned with his own life. The church is full of people just like Demas -- we need fewer.

Somebody Went and Dun DONE It!!!

Well, I wrote about Open Source Theology, meaning it (as it says over at Patriot Paradox) as an extended metaphor. I saw ways that the metaphor could be hyper-extended, and I saw a whole SERIES of Open Source Theology posts, discussing new "modules' as they came out. It would have been a satirical dream come true.

Then I found this (thanks to Dave from Jollyblogger). Someone is actually DOING Open Source Theology.

I've taken some time to read a bit of the site. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy (at 36? Maybe), but I have a few ... concerns. Quotes are taken from the 'Rules of Engagement' page.

"Biblical and theological scholarship will have to subordinate itself to the missiological imperative. " In other words, study and Truth will have to take a back seat to getting people to agree with us. It doesn't matter so much that Christ was born of a virgin, for example, if that belief keeps someone from believing in Christ. We're not concerned with doctrine -- we just want conversions. Never mind the fact that Christ commanded us to "make disciples" -- that turns post-modern people off, apparently.

"I think there is a consensus that in the most general terms the theology represented on this site must take very seriously both God, as Father, Son and Spirit, and scripture as the record of the story of the people of God." This one shows up in a response to a comment, and I have no problem until that last phrase. "Scripture as the record of the story of the people of God." Scripture is God's revelation to Man, not simply a story about God's followers. Without a basis of Scripture as Truth, how can we really know anything about God? in fact, how can you have a God as Son if you don't have Scripture as divine revelation? I think this is aproblem with the system that could be very troublesome down the road.

There seems to be a general aversion to systematic theology. I like systematic theology, though I really enjoy studying historical theology. It seems to me that a systematic theology is a consistant theology, one that recognizes the inter-relations between various ideas. Our idea of what God is, for example, is going to influence our idea of what Man is, what and who Christ is, what the Church should be, etc. Our understanding of Christ will influence our ideas about salvation and the Church. Each discipline cannot exist in a vacuum; it must be consistant with other areas of our theology, or our ideas do not stand.

I'm going to keep an eye on this site. The idea of a group of people getting together to hash out theological principles seems like a good idea, but the road is full of potholes.

Open Source Theology

This post actually started it's life as a comment on this post over at Matt Hall's blog. He's talking about an experience he had with Theopedia -- a wiki-like theology encyclopedia.

I think that one of the major problems with the Church is our Open Source Theology. Open-source software is, for those who aren't familiar with it, software that encourages people to write changes or additions to it that make it more functional for users. We're doing the same thing with theology. We're trying to make it "work" for everyone, and rather than letting God's Word speak to hearts, we're changing things, making things easier.

Have a problem with repenting from sin? No biggie -- here's the "Easy Believism 1.0 Patch". Now you can have a "great relationship with Jesus" without all that "Go, and sin no more" stuff.

You want to learn all about Jesus, and have that be enough? No problem -- the "Sandemanian Patch" will give you an intellectual faith without all that nasty faith stuff.

Here's our newest patch: "Open Theism .95". It's still in beta testing right now, but it's based on some really old patches. It lets you believe in a God that really depends on YOU to chart the course of the future. Now THAT makes you feel important, doesn't it? Go is waiting for YOU to act before HE can know what's going to happen!! WOW! What a neat patch!

I'd say that Theology should be licensed software. There have been some updates from the Manufacturer (like the Trinity 1.0 update) that clarified some things in the software. There have been some patches (Reformation 1.5) that were designed to completely update the system (even though many people didn't upgrade at that time). Other people have written "patches" for the software, but they AREN'T licenced by the Manufacturer, and their use can corrupt your whole Theology system. You should ALWAYS try to check the certificate on any Theology-based download that you encounter, and make sure that it is a licenced, authorized upgrade from the Manufacturer.

Religion and Ethics Survey

Back in April, PBS did this survey, and I missed it somehow. I dumped it onto the hard drive and promptly forgot about it, or my desire to study it and comment.

So this weekend, while I'm on the road, I'm going to take a look at it. I'm planning on commenting Tuesday or Wednesday.

So why am I telling you this? Good question. I missed the boat in April, so I'm figuring that someone else has blogged about this survey. If anyone knows of a blog source I can refer to, let me know in the comments. I'm also letting you know so you can take a look at the conclusions that PBS came to. You'll be surprised to learn that evangelicals don't all go to mega-churches, don't consider Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to be their leaders, and that white evangelicals often differn in their responses from evangelicals of other ethnic backgrounds. Ok, so maybe you won't be surprised by that -- I sure wasn't. From reading the article, it seems that PBS was a bit surprised by all that. Maybe they should have been paying attention to us all these years, rather than looking down their noses at those quaint little peope who actually believe all that God stuff.

Timely Advice from 1785

From Andrew Fuller, one of the most influential theologians/pastors in Baptist history.

Christians are said to be the light of the world, and the salt of the earth -- do we answer these characters?  Is the world enlightened by us?  Does a savor of Christ accompany our spirit and conversation?  Our business, as Christians, is practically to be holding forth the word of life.  Have we, by our earnestness, sufficiently held forth its importance, or by our chaste conversations, coupled with fear, its holy tendency?  Have we all along, by a becoming firmness of spirit, made it evident that religion is no low, mean or dastardly business?  Have we by a cheerful complacency in God's service, gospel, and providence sufficiently held forth the excellency of his government and the happy tendency of his holy religion?  Doubtless, the most holy and upright Christians in these matters will find great cause for reflection, and room for amendment; but there are not many who scarcely ever think about them, or, if they do, it only ammounts to this, to sigh, and go backward, resting satisfied with a few lifeless complaints, withouth any real and abiding efforts to have things otherwise?

from his letter "Causes of declension in religion, and means of revival

Fuller wrote that letter at a time of spiritual downturn for the church.  Attendance was low, membership was lukewarm, and nobody seemed to know what to do about it.  Sound familiar?  As I read the letter, it struck me that Fuller could be writing to us, today, about our situation.  We live in a time of increased learning, yet we learn little of the things of God.  What we do learn is rarely applied, as if God's Truth is for another time.  Fuller writes that if we are to make a difference in our world, we must take God's truth and make it real in our own lives.  Be salt.  Be light.

Salt doesn't only season a portion of a dish -- it lends its taste to the whole thing.  We cannot only be salt on Sunday.  We must be salt 24-7-365.  There are no furloughs in God's army; no three-day-passes.  We have been called to make a difference in this world, and there are a lot of people slacking.

I'd challenge everyone who reads this to thing about what Fuller wrote.  People listened to him in his day.  The immediate result was a time of concerted, dedicated prayer for souls, and for a revival of the church.  The long-term goal was a little something historians call the Second Great Awakening.  Sounds like Fuller knew what he was talking about.  I think he still has something to say to us, if we'd only listen to him.

We should pay attention to this one ...

Ok, I know that Holy Observer is satire. That doesn't mean that this article doesn't have an unfortunate ring of truth about it.

I've seen it happen WAY too many times. A tract for a tip. And I know too many people who actually are waitresses and waiters to believe it's not common.

This weekend, when you go out to eat for Father's Day, drop a 20%-er on the table. THEN, if you leave a tract, it might actually get read. And if you don't, maybe you'll make up for all the $1 tips that our brothers and sisters are leaving.

David Cloud, Inerrancy, and Rebecca

I read a lot about the KJVO controversy. I've got a ton (almost literally) of books on the history of the English Bible, Bible translation, the history of the canon, etc. I've read David Cloud. I usually end up getting mad before I finish an article, so I was very happy to read Rebecca's thorough fisking of Cloud.

She does an outstanding job of showing Cloud's logical leaps, and his total mischaracterization of Dr. Daniel Wallace's views on inspiration. Get on over there and read it -- you'll learn something.

The 'Religion Gap'

USA Today ran an article not long ago about the 'Religion Gap' between the Democrats and Republicans. (Unfortunately, the full article in their archives is NOT free, so I can't link to it anymore.) There is a pretty good study of the subject here, and it's free.

To sum up:

According to Voter News Service (VNS) exit polling, in the 1992 congressional election, frequent worship attenders preferred Republican to Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives by 53 to 47 percent. By the 2002 congressional election, this six percent gap had ballooned to 20 percentage points, with frequent attenders voting in favor of Republican House candidates by 60 to 40 percent.

That's a HUGE difference in just ten years, probably because of the reputation of President Clinton. The article goes on to say that voters in 1992 who attended church regularly were more likely to vote for a local Democratic candidate than the Democratic Presidential candidate.

Why is this? Are religious voters more concerned about social issues like abortion than social issues like hunger? Or do religious voters have different answers than the Democratic Party has to offer? I tend to think the latter. Members of the 'religious right' have tended to put more emphasis on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.

I'm surprised that the gap isn't bigger than it is -- after all, if you read the news and the Web, it's the "Religious Right" that is controlling the Bush White House (unless, of course, it's the Reconstructionists). The thing I think is important about the study is that the gap isn't as big as people want to think -- on both sides of the aisle. The "Religious Right" gets a lot more press, but there is a Religious Left that is calmer, quieter, and just as dedicated to getting their candidates in office.

How Fundamental Were They

In my ongoing quest to save the definition of "fundamentalist" from both the liberal/moderate factions that seek to demonize it AND the 'modern fundamentalists' who are legalists or even Ebionites (Judaizers) in sheeps clothing, I present the following article:

How Fundamental Were the Early Fundamentalists?

After you read it, you can join the "discussion" (like we ever just discuss anything there!) at the Fightin' Fundamentalist Forum (you'll have to register to fight, but you can read the whole debate to see if you really want to get involved).

A Nation of Jonahs

Maybe it's because I spent 12+ hours in the car the past two days -- with my daughter. My almost-three-year-old who is in love with the Veggie Tales, and Jonah in particular. She watched it twice today, between Gadsden, AL and Lexington, KY, and I had a lot of time to ponder the life and message of this prophet.

I DID go back and review the actual book of Jonah, since I was pretty sure that there wasn't a Jiminy Cricket-type character in the original, and I was fairly certain that Jonah and the crew didn't play 'Go Fish' to see who got tossed overboard. The movie is, however, pretty true to the message of the book, so I felt pretty safe. And I realized something.

We are Jonah.

Jonah was a guy who was given a message. A really important message -- one that a whole people needed to hear. And what was his response?

"I don't like those people".

And he didn't go. In fact, he ran away -- from God, and from the people God sent him to. As fast as he could, and as far as he could. Until God got tired of the games.

We've got a message. Christians have been given a mesage that the world needs to hear -- the message that no matter how messed up we are, no matter what we've done in the past, God loves us enough to sacrifice His Son for us, so that we can be reconciled with Him. So that we can live with Him forever. And what do we do?

I don't like those people.

I sat in a church service on Sunday at the Campus Church at Pensacola Christian College, listening to a speaker who talked about "the queers" down at the beach. Memorial Day weekend is a huge business weekend for businesses in Pensacola, but in the past several years Pensacola has been the target destination for gay and lesbian vacationers. There were thousands of "the queers" on the beach at the very time that the sermon was being preached. If the speaker (who I will not name, though many people who read this blog have probably never heard of the man) had really been concerned about the eternal destination of "the queers", he'd have been down on the beach sharing Christ with them, rather than sitting in a sanctuary using an incredibly vulgar term to describe them, and then consigning them to hell. He "don't like those people".

[I don't like the terminology that he used any more than many of you do, and I apologize for repeating it. I know many gay people, and probably know many more who haven't chosen to tell me about their lifestyle. My response to them is the same as to anyone I know who is a sinner (which is, after all, all of us) -- God loves you, and Jesus died for you, so that you can be freed from sin's slavery. Just trust Him, and repent of your sin. As Christ Himself said, "Go, and sin no more".]

As reprehensible as this account is, each of us do something similar every day. We encounter people, or know of people, who need to be shown Christ's love and compassion. But we "don't like those people", so we walk away. Maybe they stink. Maybe their breath is funny. Maybe they drink, or smoke. Maybe they're (gasp) a Democrat. They still need Jesus.

In Acts 1, Jesus is telling the disciples who they are going to be witnesses to. One of the places they're told to go is "Samaria". To Jews, this was about the worst thing they could have heard. The Samaritans were unclean. The refused to worship at the Temple, building their own houses of worship in their own country. Jewish traders would plan their routes around Samaria, taking days or weeks longer to complete a trip, just to stay away from Samaria. They didn't "like those people". They went anyway -- not in judgement, or anger, or condemnation, but in love, and compassion. They brought the love of Christ to Samaria -- to "those people".

We must do the same.

What is Worship?

Christian Counterculture this month is devoted to worship. What is it? How do we do it? How don't we do it?

I like their definition of worship. ". . . living a life that betrays a deep, inward belief in God and His promises". They take this from Romans 12:1 "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship."Romans 12:1 ESV

Worship is a lot more than singing catchy songs with your hands in the air. Worship is more than an hour every Sunday morning, an hour Sunday night, and then an hour Wednesday night. The very definition of the word worship in the New Testament is tied to the word service. The word latreuo is translated variously as worship and service throughout the New Testament by the KJV, but almost always as worship by the ESV. The implication in Greek isn't just service, but service that is not compelled or forced. We worship God in what we do for others, not how we act in church!

Worship leaders: Are you showing your church how to serve God? Are you showing them how to live their lives as living sacrifices? Or are you leading a few catchy choruses and calling that worship?

In his Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes has this to say:

This is the offering which the apostle entreats the Romans to make: to devote themselves to God, as if they had no longer any claim on themselves; to be disposed of by him; to suffer and bear all that he might appoint; and to promote his honor in any way which he might command. This is the nature of true religion.

So our 'reasonable service' (KJV and NKJV), our 'spiritual worship' (ESV) is total, 100% devotion to God. We have no claim to our lives -- we belong to God. But do we live that way? When we do, we can truly say that we are worshipping God. Otherwise, we're just singing trite songs.

Just What the Heck is a Fundamentalist, Realy, Anyway

I could have subtitled this "Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism part 100", and I promise that I'll get off this soapbox very soon. I found this over at the Fundamentalist Forums, and thought I'd share. Be sure to read the whole thread -- and I'm going out looking for Jerry Sutton's book tomorrow.

i'm going off to bed now -- I'll have some more commentary on this later on Sunday.

The Fundamentals and Inerrancy

This link has a copy of chapter 21 of The Fundamentals, which discusses the idea of inspiration, and defends the idea of verbal inspiration. A lot has been said on this subject already throughout the blogosphere, so I decided it was time to add my two cents.

Does inspiration automatically lead to inerrancy? If we hold to the doctrine of inspiration, that is, that the Scriptures are inspired (literally theopneustos, or God-breathed) by God, can we believe that these Scriptures contain mistakes? Many people point to apparent contradictions in Scripture as evidence that it is not inherently. Many more people have researched the contradictions and found that there are reasonable, logical explanations for them, and that inerrancy is not affected one bit by any of them.

I like the word theopneustos -- 2 Timothy 3:16 is the only place it occurs in the Bible. The idea of something being breathed out by God is fascinating to me. How did it happen? Did God come down like He did on Sinai, and carve the words into stone? Did He prompt the writer, telling him what to include and what to leave out? Did He simply monitor what the author was writing, and nudge the writer in the correct direction? Or was it something different -- something that is so totally different from anything we can experience that we cannot really know how it was done until we see Jesus in Heaven?

Inerrancy, to me, is very important. If the Bible is not inerrant -- if it isn't free from error, trustworthy in all it's claims -- how can we use it as the final authority for our faith? To me, sola scriptura relies on a Bible that is dependable, reliable, and free from error. If an error is possible, how can we be sure that e are following the part that is error-free? When we say that All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God -- how do we know that that part is one of the correct parts?

One of the things I am learning in reading on this subject (and I'm just getting started on it) is that when we interpret Biblical passages, we have to understand the genre that they are written in. When quoting a Psalm, for example, we must remember that we are quoting poetry, and treat it accordingly. We must also remember that Hebrew poetry is different from American poetry, and we must take that into account, too. If God inspired the writers, didn't He also inspire the method, the genre, of writing? Otherwise, why do we have poetry, apocalyptic writing, history, prophecy, biography, and epistles? Why not just one long narrative? There is a reason for each style of writing in the Bible, and we need to learn that reason. When we do that, we can understand why some numbers are different in different accounts of events, and why some figures of speech are used, etc.

I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, and that it is free from errors -- unless that error is an error of interpretation. The fault is then ours, not God's.

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals

A LOT of pixels have given their lives in this discussion. My own post of April 28 (though I doubt too many of the others writing about this have read that one), multiple posts at Back of the Envelope this week, and a post at Doc Rampage as well -- the discussion is getting interesting. All because of the Guardian, and their "fundagelical" article.

As I said before, there are seven things that, if you believe in them, you are a fundamentalist. Pre-tribulational eschatology didn't make the list 100 years ago, and it doesn't make my list now. If it makes yours, you aren't defining fundamentalism in anything close to an historic manner. The way I see it, the people who coined the term fundamentalist should be the authority in defining what it actually is.

Inerrancy of Scripture does make that list. I haven't met very many evangelicals who deny the inerrancy of Scripture, although some confine that to the original autographs. The Second Coming (tm) of Christ does make the list, also, though no specifications exist about when He's coming back. As I mentioned, most of the people who wrote the book had disagreements about eschatlogy, as do many today.

Maybe the problem is my definition of evangelical. I'd define them in the context of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and it's statements of faith. If you prefer, you can look at the National Association of Evangelicals' statement.

There are many areas where evangelicals and fundamentalists differ -- especially if you look at modern, rather than historic, fundamentalists. Modern fundamentalism had become a haven for legalism and anti-intellectualism. Modern fundamentalists typically hold very dogmatically to a rather rigid set of beliefs, and often pride themselves in who they have 'separated from' -- carrying the Biblical injunction to separate from heresey to degrees never envisioned in Scripture.

The differences between evangelicals and historic fundamentalists are slight. The differences between modern fundamentalists and evangelicals are huge, and getting bigger every day. As modern Fundamentalism has slipped into KJVOnlyism, second, third, and fourth degree separation, and other such doctrinal abberations, the gulf will grow even bigger. This is the reason I stopped calling myself a fundamentalist -- I don't like what the name has come to represent. I am, and always will be, an historic fundamentalist.

AND an evangelical, too.

The Will of God

I was going to write something about God's will, what it is, and what it isn't, in response to a LOT of blogging about the subject -- especially of knowing God's will.

THEN I read Rebecca's article, and I figured it would be a lot easier to just tell you go read that -- she's done an outstanding job with the whole issue. Maybe someday, I'll write one, but I think she's got the issue summed up well.

Spirituality and Real Life

One thing that The Jesus Factor has done is prompt a discussion about spirituality, and how much impact it has, and should have, on daily life. Over at The Corpus Callosum, there's been an ongoing discussion of the show -- I linked to one post there before.

Today's post, a response in part to mine, gave me a lot of food for thought, and I think that the main point of the discussion, or what the main point should be, was summed up in this quote:

Let's get back to the main point, that of the question: should spirituality strictly determine any aspect of a person's life? An important variant of this is the question: If the fundamental source of knowledge in a spiritual system is incomplete, or at least cannot be proven to be complete; if the translations are debatable; and if the ethical question at hand did not even exist when the source material was written, is it valid for a person to direct or judge the actions of another person, relying only on those ancient writings?

I'm not sure how debatable the translations of the Bible are -- we have existant texts that extend back into the third century AD, and external references to most of the Bible from patristic writings as well. Textual criticism, however, is an ongoing process (at least until we find those original autographs that everyone is dying to see), so I'm willing to concede part of the point. Most Christians believe that the Bible is reliable, and have really been given little reason to believe otherwise.

I do think, though, that even if the ethical question in particular was not in existance at the time of the text in question (whether the Bible or any other writing), there are guidelines that indicate "ethical behavior" contained in the text. To continue the stem cell illustration -- the Bible teaches that life has value. If someone believes that life begins at conception, they must logically believe that it is wrong to take that life. For them not to take this into account in a debate about harvesting stem cells would be inconsistant to their beliefs. The issue at hand in this case is when, exactly, does life begin. Here is where there is debate begins, and there are good Christians on both sides of the debate.

I would argue that it is not proper to do so. I would say that people are free to consider those writings, and perhaps even consider them to be the best source of inspiration on the subject at hand. But part of morality involves a careful consideration of all sources of information, prior to making an important decision. Different source of information can be given different relative weights, depending on the authority of the source. Taking only one source, such as one's spiritual belief, is to discard relevant information. That is not what morality is about. No matter what the book says, no matter what your spiritual leader says, if you have an important decision to make, it is up to you to gather the necessary information, process it thoughtfully, consult with others if you can, and make your own decision.

I agree with just about all of this. I always try to take all available resources into consideration when making a decision -- I'm especially careful about this when studying history, since all history is written from a biased perspective. And I wish more Christians were willing to study the issues and make therir own decisions, rather than parrot what is said to them on Sunday mornings. The bottom line has to be, though, that you accept the authority of the most reliable resource. In questions of ethics and morality, Christians will always turn to the Bible for this authority -- sometimes unconsciously.

Many times, I find myself wishing that President Bush would pay more attention to what the Bible actually teaches about some things. I grow tired of him justifying actions that are politically expedient by appealing to his faith. I sometimes wonder how convenient his faith was -- whether he is sincere, or simply using the Religious Right to gain and stay in office. I, and many other Christians, are uncomfortable with some of his expressions of faith -- many times, they seem out of place. As far as the "God wants me to be president" quote, I'd remind my fellow Christians on both sides of the political spectrum that the Bible teaches that all of our leaders are ordained by God. So it's true -- if God didn't want him in office, he wouldn't be there.

Just remember, Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years. God put him there, too.

Frontline and The Jesus Factor

I have to start off by saying that I missed this one. I'm feeding off the reactions I have read elsewhere in the blogosphere, so I'm not really addressing the show -- I'm addressing what others have had to say.

The overwhelming opinion seems to be that the President's religious beliefs shouldn't have anything to do with his political decisions, or anything outside his spiritual life. Personally, I find this rather amusing, and it shows a total lack of understanding about spirituality. True spirituality, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, or what, will effect every part of an adherant's life.

My Christianity is not a suit I put on Sunday morning, then take off when I interact with anyone else. It is more like my body, and the things I do every day are the clothing. You may see more of my bodyy when I wear some clothing than you do when I wear other clothing (a bathing suit vs. a ski outfit, for example), but the way my body looks has an impact on what the clothes look like -- my body would NOT look very good in Speedos, I promise you. In the same way, my faith may not always be the most obvious thing about me (more obvious in church, less obvious at a hockey game, for example), but it still influences what I do, and the way I act when I am doing different activities. It also influences the activities I do, and those I stay away from -- just like my body determines what I will wear or won't wear. I cannot stop being a Christian just because I am at work. If President Bush's faith is sincere, he cannot stop being a Christian simply because he is in public office.

I find the arguements that the President is trying to usher in the End of the World (tm) comical. I'm not sure of the Methodist Church's stand on eschatology, but from what I remember, it's NOT a pre-tribulational one. And a slight majority of evangelical Christians do NOT hold to the theology of the Left Behind books, so to characterize all of us as radical nutcases who are trying to get Jesus to come faster is incredibly naive, and offensive. Anyone who has studied pre-trib eschatology knows that one of the key elements is that nobody knows when it's going to happen. In ther words, we can't make it happen faster. Nothing we do will change the day that Christ returns -- Christians are simply commanded to be ready. Besides, real pre-trib Christians don't believe that we'll be around for Armageddon, anyway, so Bush isn't trying to bring that battle on. That happens when Christ returns physically to earth.

In short, the arguements that the President's policy in Iraq is fueled by his evangelical faith are incredibly misinformed, at best. They show an ignorance of Christian eschatology and the President's beliefs, and are highly offensive to most Christians, evangelical or not. If you disagree with President Bush, fine. There are better reasons to do that than by perpetuating the myth that he is in the pocket of the "Christian Right". Besides, many conservative Christians are pretty upset with him, as well. (note -- I simply provide this link as a resource. I find myself in disagreement with a lot of what they have to say, and am honestly VERY concerned with several of the party's platform planks. I won't be voting Constitutional this election.)

The Fundamentals and the Fundamentalists

OK, I'm going to dive into this one head first. There are a LOT of people who have no idea what it means to be an historic fundamentalist -- including a lot of fundamentalists. What passes for fundamentalism these days often has more in common with Pharisaical legalism than it does with orthodox Christianity. And the things that many conservative evangelicals believe are, in fact, the fundamentals of the faith.

So what ARE the fundamentals, anyway? Glad you asked. According to the people who wrote the book The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, which was written to combat the rise of liberal theology in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the fundamentals are:

1. The inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The Deity of Christ
3. The second coming of Jesus Christ
4. The virgin birth
5. The physical resurrection of the body
6. The substitutionary atonement
7. The total depravity of man - original sin

Belief in all of these is all it takes to consider yourself an historic fundamentalist. There are other beliefs, to be sure -- the list doesn't touch on the Calvinism/Arminian controversy, the pre/mid/post trib/mil controversy, and many others. In fact, the authors of The Fundamentals held differing opinions on these issues. They recognized something that modern fundamentalists often do not -- that there is room for disagreement on some issues. That we don't have all the answers.

I believe all seven of these fundamentals. But because of other things I believe or don't believe, many people don't consider me a fundamentalist. I am Southern Baptist -- for many people, that disqualifies me right there. I read versions of the Bible other than the King James -- again, that would disqualify me in many circles. I am, however, an historic fundamentalist, by the very definition that the people who coined the term used.

Fundamentalist has become a term that describes a person who is so set in their opinions that they don't want to be confused by the facts. Anti-intellectualism is the stereotype of the typical fundamentalist. The stereotypical sermon is long on ranting and short on exegesis or exposition. This is the stereotype, not the reality.

The reallity is that there are historic fundamentalists all across the country who are intelligent and articulate. They are making a difference in our nation and our culture. But many of them don't call themselves fundamentalists, because of the perception. In fact, over on the Fundamentalist Forums, we've come up with a new term that describes the more legalistic variety of fundamentalist -- IFBx. Independent Fundamental Baptist Extreme. It seems to fit rather well. Head over there if you'd like to learn a little more.

Christendom vs. Christianity

WARNING: This is REALLY long. I'm trying to figure out how to shorten my posts, with a link to click that gives you the full text, but I'm not that good yet. If I figure it out, I'm hoping that it will make the page look neater.

I wanted to address this issue because of some things that are usually said about Christianity. People bring up things like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, etc. as evidence that Christianity is a bad thing, or corrupt, and should be abandoned. It has always been my contention that Christianity is not responsible for these things -- Christendom, or the attempt to establish Christendom, is the cause. Christians are capable of doing bad things -- NOT because they are Christian, but because they are human.

What is Christendom? If we are going to contrast Christianity and Christendom, that is the first thing we need to clear up. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it this way:

In its wider sense this term is used to describe the part of the world which is inhabited by Christians, as Germany in the Middle Ages was the country inhabited by Germans. The word will be taken in this quantitative sense in the article RELIGIONS in comparing the extent of Christendom with that of Paganism or of Islam. But there is a narrower sense in which Christendom stands for a polity as well as a religion, for a nation as well as for a people. Christendom in this sense was an ideal which inspired and dignified many centuries of history and which has not yet altogether lost its power over the minds of men.

I think that, historically, the narrower definition is more correct. Christendom was an idea; the idea that government and religion should be the same thing, and that those to whom God has entrusted spiritual power should also be the final authority on matters of state. In other words, the very idea of Christendom is contrary to everything that Americans have been taught. And it hasn’t lost its power over the minds of men. Clearly, if you talk to many members of the Religious Right, they are striving for Christendom to take root right here in the United States.

To me, Christendom is characterized by forced conversions, inter-denominational fighting, political power-plays by church leaders, and heads of state trying to usurp the authority of the Church to cement their own positions. All you have to do is study the history of the Middle Ages to see this drama play out. If Rome didn’t like what your King was doing, they had the power of interdiction – they could deny you sacraments, effectively denying you access to the grace of God. The Pope supported insurgents in countries whose ruler opposed Rome and the Church, starting war in the process. The conflict between England and Spain was fueled in this way – Catholic Spain trying to put a Catholic ruler back on the throne in England, while Protestant England fought for its spiritual life. Of course, had Henry VIII not wanted a divorce, the Reformation might have taken a LOT longer to get to England. A big reason that Wycliffe’s attempt at reform in England didn’t work was that the political situation wasn’t right. The Spanish Inquisition was caused by this concept of Christendom. So were the Crusades (ALL of them, not just the ones against the Muslims). International disputes, fought in the name of Christianity, were the result of rulers striving for this ideal government. They failed to realize that man cannot bring the kingdom of God into existence – only God can do that.

A lot of people think that we in America can usher in the Kingdom of God by voting in good politicians (what an oxymoron THAT is). We forget that when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the first attempt at creating Christendom, one of the first things he did was force all his troops to convert. This isn’t an option now. The world is vastly different now than it was in the fourth century, or the seventeenth. And the United States, for all our posturing, was not created to be a Christian nation. It was founded on basic Christian ideas, but it was founded to give comfort, refuge, and representation to all. Our government is not designed to create a Church-State. We should not want it to.

Now that we have established a definition of Christendom, we can compare that to Christianity. Christianity is a faith system. It is the system of belief of those people who follow the commandments of Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament, and who read and believe the things written by Christ’s apostles.

In the first chapter of Acts, we read a description of what Christ’s disciples asked Him, almost immediately after His resurrection. They wanted to know if NOW was the time to overthrow the Romans. After everything they had seen, and all He had taught them, they still had no clue. They didn’t grasp the fact that political power is secondary to spiritual victory. They only saw the immediate need. They wanted to establish Christendom.

Christ told them that that was in His Father’s hands. Then He told them what their job was – what our job is. “You will be my witnesses, to Jerusalem, and to Judea, and to Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world.� In the Gospels, the commission is more detailed. They were commanded to go, preach, teach, disciple, baptize – nowhere does it say govern. The power that was given at Pentecost is the power to bear witness to Jesus Christ, the risen Saviour. That is the power that we have to change the world. If we do our job, God will take care of the Kingdom.

The problem is, we’re trying to do God’s job, and expect Him to do our job. That’s not the way it works.

Truth Claims and Christianity -- Are We Too Exclusive?

The opening salvo was fired on April 16, on Al Mohler's blog. I try to read this one every so often, since I'm hoping to go to Southern for Seminary this year. The actual fuss started because of a book -- When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs by Charles Kimball. Dr. Mohler took exception to a few of the things that Kimball asserted in his book, which indicated that Christianity was far too dogmatic in it's claims to absolute Truth, especially our claim that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, the only way to get to God and have any hope of Heaven.

Jollyblogger was the first place I read about this, since I had missed Mohler's blog that day. He's got a good number of quotes from that blog, so I won't quote them again here. He also makes the point that the claim that Christ is the Messiah, the olny way to Heaven, is the very foundation of Christianity. Without that, what point is there? There are certainly other faiths that require less devotion, whose rules are less stringent, whose pathway is broader and smoother. If pluralism is true, if there are a multitude of pathways to God, then Christianity is the toughest road to get there.

Today, Walloworld took up the discussion. I love the candy bar analogy that he uses, and he brings up a great point -- the people who are saying "Be more inclusive, don't be so dogmatic" are in reality saying "Hey, you're wrong, we're right. Be more like us! Be more tolerant, and less inclusive -- just like us!". They are ignoring their own claims to absolute truth -- what they believe is the Truth, and we should all follow them!

Everyone has blinders to their own beliefs. None of us recognize our shortcomings automatically; that is why debate is a good thing. Christianity's truth claims, our exclusive "ownership" of the one Way to Heaven, isn't a shortcoming -- it's our strength. As Paul says, without the ressurection of Christ, our preaching and our hope is in vain. Without the Truth that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light (not just A way, A truth, or A light), we are nothing more than a bunch of clanging cymbals. When we give up our Truth, when we back down, we lose. And when we stop proclaiming that Truth, unashamedly, everyone loses. Without the Truth of the Gospel, we are just another philosophy that is full of "sound and fury, signifying nothing" (one of my favorite Shakespearian quotes).

Jesus, Paul, and Peter Jennings

I watched all but about the last fifteen minutes or so of this special last night. I went into it looking for things that I didn't like about it, to be perfectly honest. I have to admit, it was much more even-handed than I thought it would be.

One of the main things that I think they got pretty close was the misconception among the Jews of the time about what the Kingdom of God actually was. The Bible talks about even the disciples expecting political reform from Jesus -- even after the resurrection.

So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
(Act 1:6-8 ESV)

They were STILL waiting for the political reform. This was a common misconception of the day, and the program dealt with it rather well, I thought. They DID, of course, venture into the typical 'How reliable are the Gospels', 'Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah?', 'When were the Gospels written?' terrain, and the answers they gave reflected the more liberal scholarship that the show still focused on -- even though there were more moderate and conservative scholars on the program this time.

I was nervous as they started talking about the Resurrection of Christ. This is the one thing that programs like this usually head straight toward the liberal end of the spectrum. John Dominic Crossan didn't let me down here, with his insistance that Christ wasn't even burried, much less raised from the dead. His opinion was in the minority, though, with most of the interviewees firmly sitting on the fence -- "something had to have happened, but I don't know what".

Something DID happen. Something that transformed eleven firghtened men, who were hiding for their lives, waiting for someone to come and haul them off the jail or worse, into an international missionary team that helped transform the world. Within 100 years of Christ's death, the news had spread throughout the known world. Within 300 years, the Empire that had tried so long to silence the Christian voices had made Christianity it's official religion. These men saw Christ, alive.

The biggest problem I had was with the whole Paul vs. the apostles debate. YES, Paul argued with Peter and James. Both men ended up taking Paul's side in the arguement, though (Acts 15). Were there occasional disagreements? Absolutely. These are human beings we are talking about. They had different ideas about what direction the church should go in. And THEY couldn't just sit down with a Bible and look up verses -- they were WRITING the Bible. Ultimately, both sides agreed, though -- we have a common tradition of orthodoxy back very early in church history.

And of course, the old 'Gnostic Gospels' arguement was trotted out again. WHEN are people going to realize that we are rehashing debates that took place almost 100 years ago? The fad died out in about 1910 or so, and it will again, when people realize the poor historiography that is involved. Late date anything that you don't like, early date whatever you do, hope nobody notices. The Gospel of Thomas is authoritative, even though nobody ever mentions its use, but the four canonical Gospels are suspect, even though we have evidence of their use as Scripture from before 170AD. The Gnostic writings represent 'true Christianity', because that is what WE want Christianity to be.

I think this is the biggest problem I have with the 'historical Jesus' searches. Everyone ends up finding, to quote the old song, "their own, personal, Jesus". We have a little box, and that is what our idea of Jesus fits into -- no matter what other 'facts' we find. We can, as the Jesus Seminar does and Thomas Jefferson did, pick and choose what statements we want to believe Jesus made -- let's get rid of everything except the social activism stuff, especially anything that says Jesus about being the son of God. When we start on that road, it's very easy to make Christianity to be anything we want it to be.

I think Paul's teaching about women was a little misrepresented. As usual, they focused on what Paul wouldn't let women do, and not on the specific things women were supposed to do. We tend to do this a lot, even with our gifts and skills. Someone who can sing beautifully will sit and wish they could teach. Teachers want to be able to play instruments. Instrumentalists want to be able to preach. And on and on. We're never satisfied with what God has given us to do -- we always want the other guy's ministry. Paul NEVER said, as was stated in the program, that women were supposed to sit down and shut up. They were given specific roles in the church -- roles that men couldn't do. Lydia and Priscilla are two perfect examples of women who were instrumental in founding the church, who Paul relied on to a great degree. They NEVER are mentioned in discussions about Paul's supposed chauvanism.

They ignored Paul's theology because they don't think the Bible has any relevance to today's world, or even much beyond his own time. They water down his message and Christ's teachings so there is no call for repentance and no fear of judgement. Simply love everyone -- that's what Jesus said. They forget that Jesus was quick to let people know what they were doing wrong. Even the adulterous woman was commanded "Go, and sin no more". Jesus called her a sinner!

All in all, though, it was an interesting program. I learned a bit, and got angry a bit -- but not as much as I thought I would.

Just a few observations:
I was mysitifed about the people they talked to in the Vatican. "What do you know about St. Paul?" I was waiting for someone to say "Well, it's a nice city, but I like Minneapolis better". Where did they GET these people???

I'd heard the soundtrack was upsetting people, but I kinda liked it. Hey, they played dcTalk!

Is it just me, or does John Shelby Spong look a LOT like the Emperor in the Star Wars movies. I think I'd be concerned if my spiritual advisor looked like a Dark Lord of the Sith, but that's just me.

Wow. That was a lot of writing. If you're still reading this, thank you for sticking with me.

Obligatory Left Behind Blog

Everybody and their TV network is talking about Glorious Appearing, the last in the Left Behind series. So why not me?

I've read the series, up to Desecration. My in-laws are buying the series for me in paperback, so I'm going to be a bit behind as far as plot line goes. Although, if you think about it, we know how the story ends.

That is, we do IF you have studied your pre-trib, pre-mil eschatology. If you haven't, those two links are a starting point.

The problem with eschatology is that there is no one position that we can call, with 100% accuracy, orthodox. The dominant view in the United States right now is pre-tribulation, pre-millenial -- that is, Christ will rapture His Bride (the Church) before the Great Tribulation (the trib in pre-trib) starts, which is before the Millenial regin of Christ (the mil in pre-mil). That is the view that the books support. The Rapture signals the start of seven years of misery on Earth (the Trib). At the end of seven years, Christ and the Church come back and whoop up on the forces of Evil, and rule the Earth for 1,000 years (the Millenium).

So from the start, people familiar with this eschatological scenario have known what was coming next. That's why the series has been a REALLY easy read for me. I could sit and say "OK, that's judgement #1, so next we have THIS happening", all through the books. No suspense. The characterization was a bit dull -- I have a real problem with Rayford as the leader of these people. I don't think he's qualified. Every time he starts barking instructions, I wonder "Who died and left this schmuck in charge?"

I also have a hard time getting theology from a work of fiction. This book is pure speculation, and should be treated as such. It's a fun read, it's an easy read, but I can think of a LOT of other resources to go to if you want to study end-time prophecies.

I can understand the big part of Evangelicaldom that feels left out by Left Behind. These are the mid-tribbers, the post-tribbers, the post-mils, the amils, and all the pan-mils. If you're confused by these terms, this is a pretty good reference to start out with. They're not usually sympathetic to Christians over there, notwithstanding their name, but they offer some good basic info on this subject. Pan-millenialism is the belief that it'll all pan out in the end, that whenever it happens, it'll happen, and that we have more important things to do than sit on our mountain and wait for Christ to come back. I tend toward that position, though I usually say I'm mid-trib if someone asks me.

I snuck a look at Glorious Appearing in the bookstore tonight. It ends rather ominously, with a quotation reminding us that Satan comes back at the end of the 1,000 years. I smell another book or two (HOPEFULLY they don't plan on writing about the whole Millenial Reign!).