Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 49)
Search Results for: worship
THE EJECT BUTTON—Zichterman and Beckwith Learned Their Lessons a Little Too Well
Zichterman went to BJU and taught at Northland. He’s the brother-in-law of Sharper Iron owner, Jason Janz. He got a doctorate at PCC. He says he is now reconciling to the body. That means he’s part of Bill Hybels church and thinking and in dialogue with the emerging church.
Beckwith was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He taught at Baylor University. He says that pre-Reformation history is Roman Catholic and the Bible was canonized by Roman Catholicism, so he is just reconciling to the body. That means he’s “returned” to the Roman Catholic Church.
Blogdom goes wild. Zichterman yields his 20 pages of comments and 16,000 views at Sharper Iron in a few days as well as spin-offs on spin-offs at related blog sites. Beckwith provokes multiple posts at mainstream evangelical blogs, shuts off comments at 500 on his explanation page, a series of articles at Pulpit Magazine, a week and counting at Team Pyro, along with hundreds of other pages exploding with comments.
But do these two guys have a point? And is anyone actually dealing with it? Zichterman believes the body of Christ is all believers. He understands believers to be those who place faith in the gospel. He condenses essential theology to fundamental doctrines for the sake of unity, taking the typical essential/non-essential, primary/secondary, doctrine view that characterizes now fundamentalists and run-of-the-mill evangelicals. On the other hand, Beckwith sees no need for any visible perpetuity because the true church is catholic and invisible. He defends his position with the patristics and history. Despite the warts, in his opinion he at least has a church that can be traced back to Christ.
Most fundamentalists and even many evangelicals pound on Zichterman and a large majority of the evangelicals smack around Beckwith both for pushing the eject button on their respective fellowships and associations. However, didn’t these two guys learn their basis for doing so from fundamentalism and evangelicalism? After all, they’re just doing what they were taught. I would be glad for anyone to prove this wrong. But I think they are just honestly applying what they’ve learned from their respective circles. Zichterman may have personal issues that helped fuel his new trajectory, but the new orbit has its bearings in theology that he was taught at both BJU and Northland, and that is standard fare at Sharper Iron every day. I hear what Zichterman and Beckwith are saying all the time from fundamentalists and evangelicals. I am constantly being lectured these very points. I am most often marginalized by fundamentalists and evangelicals because I don’t believe these. Let me list them for you.
- The invisible body of Christ, the true church, is all believers.
- There is to be no schism in the body.
- We are to rank doctrines and practice into essentials and non-essentials for the sake of unity.
- The truth was preserved by the invisible church, the true church, within the visible church.
- History doesn’t validate a true visible church before the Reformation, except for the catholic church.
- Physical and historical evidence shows the catholic church to have canonized Scripture.
Zichterman and especially Beckwith are the true believers in these six points regularly professed by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Their counter-reformation seems to be based on the correct history and evidence of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. If I believed these six points, like I hear most evangelicals and a large number of fundamentalists, I really should follow the paths of these two men. If I believed these six, I should consider Zichterman and Beckwith to be persecuted. They appear, based on these beliefs, to be men of conviction, willing to suffer the castigation and ignominy of their friends and peers. The rest of these fundamentalists and evangelicals look like fainthearted cowards compared to them. I believe it is one reason for the rabid attack against them. It is hard for the fundamentalists and evangelicals to kick against the pricks.
Which of these are not taught at BJU, Detroit, Calvary-Lansdale, Northland, Masters, Faith, or Central? Why should anyone not pick up on these and go the direction of Zichterman and Beckwith? Aren’t they just being consistent? Shouldn’t we admire them for their theological and practical consistency?
Some might say, “Well, we’re taught to separate.” Based upon what? What is our basis of separation? We separate based on some theological norm. We choose our battles based on the ground that we think we should fight for, on the truths that are most important. What are those? I don’t think either of them have espoused salvation through the church or through baptism or through tradition. They are together for the gospel.
When you argue for preservation of God’s Words and the church, you hear that you don’t have historic evidence. People argue for the text of Scripture, for the existence of a true church, all founded on extant, sanctioned history. You get the certified history of canonization from the same sources. In the fundamental and evangelical world, if you can’t produce a ‘scholarly’ history, then you’re a “fideist” without legitimate convictions. You are taking a leap in the dark. Fundamentalist and evangelical history must be drawn from the approved sources, sanctioned by the endorsed fraternity of colleges and universities. Without this scholarship, your faith is baseless. If you can’t show a trail of hand-written manuscripts, you can’t be sure about whether all the Words were available. If you can’t show tangible evidence of New Testament churches, you can’t be sure about whether true churches existed. So you are left with what Roman Catholics produced. You can read the Nicean and Ante-Nicean fathers. You can study Augustine. You can produce manuscripts kept in a monastery in a basket to be used as kindling. That has to be your church and that has to be your Bible. That’s what history shows; that’s what the evidence shows. History and evidence are the only source for legitimate faith. The Bible is the source for faith, but it must be backed by history and evidence to be acceptable.
If you separate over signs and wonders, over qualifications of the pastor, over modesty in dress, over true or false worship, over any form of worldliness, or even over mode of baptism, you are an overweening schismatic. You especially can’t believe that God preserved every Word and kept them available. No proof exists for that, and if you see that as a primary, then you will surely get the ecclesiastic cold shoulder—nothing official really, because separation itself is secondary—you’ll just know it. If you separate over a version, then nothing you say has any credibility. This is excommunication from the sacral society of fundamentalism. But then you have the conservative evangelicals talking separation from the worldly emerging movement. They’ve gone a little too primary with their secondaries.
The fundamentalists know that they should separate. They see that in Scripture. They don’t know how to do it without causing a schism, so they just sort of separate from evangelicals and new-evangelicals, meanwhile admiring them and rarely uttering a harsh word against them. They reserve harshness for those who separate more than they do. They don’t feel good about not fitting in the body, knowing they should, but then also knowing they should separate, and it is all so confusing.
So, all in all Zichterman and Beckwith have learned well. Fundamentalism and evangelicalism have taught them.
A Case Study in Preparations for the False Prophet and the One World Church
Just across the street from us (we’re on top of the hill and they’re in the valley) in El Sobrante is the Bay Hills Community Church. I’m not trying to be mean when I say that I hate calling it a church. Until a few years back, they were EV-Free, but their leader became totally immersed in the philosophies of marketing guru, Bill Hybels, and things that were already poor got exponentially worse. A few days ago, I took the local marketplace out of my mail slot, and usually Bay Hills has some slick piece of seduction to prey on the area, but this was the worst thing I had seen. Their pastor, David Fasold, had formulated an ad that was structured as an entertainment article (quite fitting really). The film that he reviews is the upcoming sequel to Bruce Almighty, called Ark Almighty, starring Steve Carell, who appeared in the first movie as a rival to Jim Carey (Bruce) along with a character playing “God” (Morgan Freeman).
When I saw that our neighboring religious organization was pushing this movie, even I was boggled by this one. He writes, “What promises to be a great family film (opens nationwide June 22), has many fun twists and turns….” OK. I didn’t see Bruce Almighty. Here’s what a Christian organization, less separatist than I, wrote about the first installment of the Almighty series:
To trivialize something is to make it commonplace or ordinary. Bruce Almighty goes about trivializing the person and powers of God by making Him out to be primarily an object for entertainment — just as any other comedic tool is used to elicit laughter. God certainly does not frown upon laughing. But some things are not intended to be laughed at — they are sacred. This was clearly evidenced by the immediate moans in one theater when Bruce, at the beginning of the movie, told God to His face that He “su–––d.” It was obvious among those present — the godly as well as the not-so-godly — that some kind of line had just been crossed. (One passing side note: A quick survey of the Bible reveals that God has killed people for less than what Bruce says.)
I would say that this paragraph by Todd Brady is even an understatement.
Mr. Fasold doesn’t examine this film with Scripture at all. He doesn’t quote one verse or even make one Scriptural allusion. He doesn’t dare to share one thought from God’s Word in his review of Ark Almighty. Bay Hills is using Ark Almighty like Burger King or McDonalds might use a Pixar or Disney animated film. The business advertises the movie and the movie advertises the business, and they feed off of each other. So here we have the church marketing the movie so that the movie will market the church, and also use blasphemy to do it. Fasold wouldn’t back away from that assessment, when he writes:
Universal Studios is currently teaming up with several organizations around the country to encourage and test this idea. Bay Hills Community Church in El Sobrante is one of those groups selected….
Isn’t it great when you can be a church and be selected by the great Universal Studios? I mean, who wouldn’t want to jump at that opportunity? They have also just released the very edifying Knocked Up, Smokin Aces, The Hitcher, and more. Right now on pay-per-view at Universal Studios, you can watch Jerry Springer: Hot & Hostile 4: Busted. If you’re a church of the thrice-holy God, would you want to “team up” with Universal Studios? I know Universal Studios wants to team up with whoever it can find that will give them free advertising. If you are a pastor, you probably know that since The Passion by Mel Gibson, we pastors have been receiving almost weekly mailers asking us to “team up” with Fox or Paramount or whatever other Hollywood company to market their films in the church. They give all kinds of perks and freebies to the pastors who will cooperate. Mr. Fasold, it seems, sees this as an opportunity for his church. However, the better question is: What does God think? I think we already know, don’t we?
Religion has dominated history and will continue to. God made man in His image, so that man has an innate knowledge of Him, “because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them” (Rom. 1:19). Satan uses religion to deceive men—“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:4). The height of that deceit is coming. A one world religion, which worships the Antichrist, will deceive almost everyone on earth. Matthew 24:24 says, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” Consider this section in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12:
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I really did want you to read it, so that if you didn’t, I hope you go back to read it again. It’s very serious. If you study Revelation 13, you see that the Antichrist will have his cohort, the False Prophet, who is introduced in v. 11, “another beast” who promotes Antichrist’s power and convinces the world to worship him as god. This companion beast will be the chief, most persuasive proponent of satanic religion.
I’m certain that today Satan is preparing the world for the Antichrist with a fake version of Christianity. So Satan is very into religion. He sees it as a necessity for fooling people and he is already dumbing down the truth to something much closer to the error that people will swallow up during the tribulation period on earth. Modern churches customize their methods and message to the postmodern narcissist, who is well described in 2 Timothy 3:2-5:
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
Paul says it this way to Titus (1:16), “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.”
Religious or Biblical Blogs That I Read Even Though We Don’t Agree
I felt like I needed to do it this way, that is, talk about the blogs that I read and use, but don’t agree with by giving a mini-review of these places in blogdom. I thought some might enjoy knowing and that this would make this site more helpful. This will be a permanent link on my sidebar. Talk to me if you have questions on my sidebar. I will consider what you have to say. For instance, there are other churches that I love and with whom I would fellowship, but the ones listed are churches very close to like us, including in size and in most other ways. I am ready to add some others.
Well, let me move on to my point—the religious or Biblical blogs that I read or use, and in alphabetical order.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library—I have downloaded from here to read several classics without leaving my leather swivel office chair. I have nodded and drooled as well. A huge library at your finger tips. What can I say?
Clement of Rome—Did you know that this first century contemporary of the Apostle John was local only in his ecclesiology? Check it out yourself.
Corporal Punishment of Children—This is the one click resource for obedience to Proverbs 23:13, 14.
Dissidens on Remonstrans—Here is a guy that is more disliked by Jason Janz and Sharper Iron than I am. He has many good things to say on the subject of worship, worship music, and culture in general, written in a very interesting way. He is very well read, which means that you will probably learn something. I’m quite sure that we would see several theological differences, but I would guess that we are very similar on the nature of God and what salvation is.
Don Johnson—Don is a pastor of a Baptist church on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. He is not the same as me on the nature of the church, on preservation of Scripture, and on certain cultural standards. However, we have a very similar militancy and view of the world that makes it enjoyable for me to read him. He also preaches expositionally, which you will see when you read his blog. Don treats separatists with civility.
FBC Radio—The music here is of an unusually high standard for listening and downloading.
Fidelis—This site will keep you updated on first amendment, freedom of religion news and issues.
Free Religious Books Online—I thought the word “free” might get your attention.
Jason Janz Is Da Man—This is a site called Sharper Iron, but it is actually the self-proclaimed privately owned business of Jason Janz, who speaks for a theological subculture called the “young fundamentalist.” Sharper Iron truly will have some good articles and is a good place to get the scoop on some important issues, religious news in general, and especially news applying to the fundamentalist Christian movement in America. If you interact here, you will meet some nice people, but be prepared for some obnoxious arrogance and Christianized feminism.
Precept Austin—Evangelicals of a different mind-set than me operate this site, but you get a great deal of good material to get ready for a study or sermon here.
Pyromaniacs—Let’s be honest, this is the Phil Johnson site. And Phil Johnson gets his chops from being the editor of most of John MacArthur’s books. You won’t need to ask him. Just nod appreciatively. I guess I can’t help checking out what this branch of “evangelicalism” is saying. They sure are an inconsistent group, for a whole lot of reasons. They are a worldly group that goes after worldliness. They say they love Spurgeon, but Spurgeon would absolutely cuff them around if he were alive. I guess that makes them Spurgeon wannabees. They will go on and on with dialogue with leftists and Charismatics, but if you are to the right of them, don’t plan on a conversation; just get prepared for ridicule.
The Reformed Reader—I’m not a Calvinist, but minus that, here is a site with some very good historical material, writings, confessions, creeds, and more. I have to admit that I like to read John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Richard Baxter, among others. You’ll notice here online Baptist history material and even local church ecclesiology from some.
Religious Affections—Because of our view of God, Scott Aniol and I see things closely on the matter of worship. I guess that means I’m much like Mike Harding on this too. They both may want to change their position now that I have made this statement. If they could only give a hearing to the Scriptural and historical view of the preservation of Scripture.
World Magazine Blog—They’re even too politically correct for me, but they are worth checking out now and then to get what news is of interest to people called Christians.
Crossing Over: Proving the Resolve Trailer
John MacArthur recently wrote this:
Let’s face it: Many of the world’s favorite fads are toxic, and they are becoming increasingly so as our society descends further in its spiritual death-spiral. It’s like a radioactive toxicity, so while those who immerse themselves in it might not notice its effects instantly, they nevertheless cannot escape the inevitable, soul-destroying contamination. And woe to those who become comfortable with the sinful fads of secular society. The final verse of Romans 1 expressly condemns those who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Even when you marry such worldliness with good systematic theology and a vigorous defense of substitutionary atonement, the soundness of the theoretical doctrine doesn’t sanctify the wickedness of the practical lifestyle. The opposite happens. Solid biblical doctrine is trivialized and mocked if we’re not doers of the Word as well as teachers of it.
I agreed, but I said he was inconsistent. I brought up the trailer for the Resolved youth conference marketed on his website, a gathering at which he would speak. Someone asked me to say what was wrong with it. Well, here’s my review. I want to know where I am wrong on this. You let me know. Here goes.
Cake is more than its individual parts—salt, baking soda, flour, etc.—but a mixture of many parts that make up a whole. One could start breaking the trailer into pieces and conclude nothing wrong—guitars are OK, darkness is OK, casual dress is OK, spotlights are OK, etc. That is not how anyone evaluates anything. It would be like looking at a Maplethorpe exhibit and saying, “Sculptures are OK. Dung is OK. Urine is OK. Etc.” Do you understand? People are not arguing honestly when they do it that way. If I did a restaurant review and said—”Cold is OK. Food is OK. Sadness is OK. Dirt is OK.”—and then concluded that a stinky pit of a restaurant was good when evaluating its individual components, you wouldn’t consider that a good review. If the medium does not affect the message, then the famous Salvador Dali painting of the crucifixion is fine. I don’t think you would agree on Dali. When I critique this trailer, I believe it is an honest evaluation. I don’t want to argue with dishonest takes on the trailer.
The look of the entire trailer is dark, dim, nightclub-like lighting. The first picture of a youth is a young man with a trendy stocking cap on his head indoors, part of the stereotypical American hip-hop fashion of baggy jeans and a stocking cap. The sound is a rock concert-like bass reverb characteristic of the beginning of so many rock songs that directly target the flesh. The youth culture is obviously being catered to with the casual dress on the teens, but also with the speakers. After the initial speech comes a strong bass guitar rift, then a sensual African drum beat. There is nothing wrong with guitars, but the fuzzy, deco zoom onto an electric guitar says: “You will be hearing rock music here, count on it.” It also has nothing to do with what is being said unless God’s sovereign grace tends toward being in darkly lit rooms where rock music is going to be played with a sensual, dominating beat. The fuzzy, deco graphics with the Hollywood-apropos appearing and disappearing letters (ala Da Vinci Code), that say—”Go Deep”—
are followed by a long look at a rock trap set, as if the key to going deep for God is to involve in rock music. We get more and more dimly lit rooms, dark rooms, theater-like—message: “You’re going to be entertained, count on it.” We get a long look at an usher that looks again just like a theater usher opening the door up to a theater. The stage with the transecting spotlights, looks like a rock concert again. We get a man in a long-sleeve t-shirt with his eyes closed and hands out, nothing wrong specifically, except that this is what one sees at a Charismatic meeting, making spirituality this sort of existential, feeling-oriented, get-on-the-right-frequency experience. We see a boy rifting like Eric Clapton on an electric guitar, rock beat, and then a girl swaying rhythmically right after—choreographed sensuality posing as spirituality. We get a rock beat on rock drums with John MacArthur saying “the blazing glory of God,” associating the two. We get a unisex-dressed girl playing a violin in a rock style, using it again as a rhythmic instrument rather than melodic, again with the dim lights, spotlights, and screens—theater, entertainment, and rock music. The boy playing the drums has on the trendy hip-hop konga hat. Then comes a fuzzy, psychedelic, drug-trip type of screen fading in and out. The names toward the end use a very worldly technique reminiscent of a modern horror movie, that kids into slasher movies will definitely associate with. At the finish is a curious, monastic chant sound, somehow attempting to make the thing, I believe, “religious.”
A Case Study in Fake Tolerance
I need to use this space to argue. Stick with me. A new wave of Sikh mail has come to me in response to a second round of articles written by one of them to keep alive something certain Sikhs protest that they want to abolish. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much.” This issue could die without its continual resuscitation. At least let me be offensive first. I haven’t even done anything since my 7 minute bout of handing out pamphlets at a Sikh parade. They were the ones with the loudspeakers and chants. I was the quiet one with sheets of paper.
Here’s the headline of a link that was sent to me. I’m going to take the article, written by the mysterious editor of MyGurdwara.com, who states that he or she represents a faction within the Sikh temple here in El Sobrante, California.
The headline reads: Pastor Kent Brandenburg Attacks Sikh Religion. It could read: “Pastor Kent Brandenburg Preaches Gospel to the Sikhs” or “Pastor Kent Brandenburg Offers Biblical Way of Salvation to Sikh People,” all depending upon your perspective. We live in a pluralistic society, not a relativistic society. In a pluralistic society, competition exists in the marketplace of ideas. Coke might be intolerant of Pepsi, but Coke can’t shut down Pepsi. I believe the Bible. Sikhism contradicts the Bible. It is obvious I can’t tolerate the doctrine of Sikhism if I believe the Bible.
Incidentally, I’m exposing Sikh doctrine. That’s all. I love the Sikh people. I love the Punjab Indians who have chosen to immigrate to this very pluralistic country. They are free to worship here as they choose. However, I don’t love any false doctrine. I hate it. I hate what it does to the people who believe and accept it. I can’t accept any doctrine that contradicts Scripture. The Word of God is truth (John 17:17). Sikhism and the Bible cannot both be true. Tolerating both doctrines disrespects the whole realm of theology. It places theology below movies, restaurants, and paper-or-plastic that are worth making a fuss about. I can’t legitimately claim Biblical truth and also tolerate Sikh doctrine. I think this is easy for a person to understand, but the Sikhs are simply taking advantage of a very sentimental, mushy thinking culture that prioritizes feelings above everything.
After the bombastic title, the author goes on (I will put his material in italics, and my comments in regular print): Brief History Of Jesus In The Context Of Christianity: It is a general fact that the story of Jesus as presented in the four gospels of the New Testament is essentially a piece of fiction because there are not authentic references to such a figure in the works of any historians of the early 1st century. This statement alone is far worse than anything that I have written. I haven’t attempted to revise what the Sikhs say that they believe. I take what they say at face value. This statement, however, does not do that. It repudiates the veracity of the Bible and Jesus Christ. On top of that, it contradicts everything these Sikhs are telling me to do or that they say that they believe. How can you say that your religion is all about a certain kind of tolerance and then have it actually be about that very kind of intolerance? I mean, I don’t care if the Sikhs state disagreements with what I believe, but they are the ones that have a problem with it when other people do it, so it smacks of total hypocrisy.
With regards to the statement. It is so patently false that it should ruin the credibility of the article and its author right from the start. A lot of historic evidence of Jesus Christ exists outside of the Bible. One of a few I’ll quote is Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who recorded information pertaining to Jesus. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In The Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James:
[H]e brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
These historical writings predated the completion of the New Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.
Then the Sikh apologist continues: The pre-gospel writings of the early Christians also make no reference to the life and teachings of a recent historical Jesus. Here’s an important point on this: There were no pre-gospel writings of early Christians. Pre-Gospel writings would have been the intertestamental books. The Gospels were the earliest Christian writings. However, even the false gospels, not part of Scripture, include many writings concerning Jesus Christ.
I’ll post the rest of his letter and answers tomorrow, but you can see that he doesn’t start very well. I’ll let you know in advance that his work doesn’t go up hill from here.
The Medium and the Message Pt. 2
Let me give another example: Bill Clinton. What does that name mean to you? To some that is a hero. To others it is a villain. Some think liberal. Others think conservative. People will tell you it is a pervert. Another group of people see it as a knight in shining armor. Bill Clinton is interpreted based upon the context or setting in which it is placed.
We get reports back from Iraq. We hear about a car bombing. Could the meaning of a car bombing change if it were regularly read by Ronald McDonald in his clown suit and make-up? Could that affect how serious we view car-bombings? At a funeral what if the man with the trumpet, instead of playing Taps, plays Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy? Does anything change? Instead of military honor guard, what about the characters from Wizard of Oz?
The word experts know that the meanings of words are affected by the way they are used. Most words already have denotation, “a direct specific meaning as distinct from an implied or associated idea,” and connotation, “the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes.” A particular medium by which a word is communicated will first change the connotation of a word and finally its denotation. The meaning of words do change.
The name Jesus should mean “holy,” but it could mean “fun” if it is associated long enough with “fun” instead of “holy.” Our culture has finally persuaded people that “Jesus” has more to do with comfort and convenience than any kind of sacrifice, and much of that has to do with the media by which His name has been channeled. A particular medium can misrepresent the meaning of a word until it actually will change its definition. Our understanding of God and His will is dependent on maintaining the meaning of words as God intended them. We can change true doctrine to false doctrine.
Words themselves carry feelings, some of which should never lose their own distinct mood. Memorial. Party. Tombstone. Righteous. Gettysburg. Hiroshima. Iwo Jima. Abortion. Suicide. How about the tour of Gettysburg to Elvis? Elvis is tame now, so I’m sure it would fit. Right? And if not him, then how about rag time? Or with all that extra space and green grass at Gettysburg, why not a bowling alley or putt-putt course? What’s your problem? Shuffle-board then? Could we have done the Vietnam memorial in hot pink? Does even mentioning that make you angry? What would be the difference between that and Crucifixion by Salvador Dali?
Music is a language of its own with a sequence of notes with varied pitch and rhythm. Every human being is made in the image of God with certain root similarities in design, chemistry, feelings, and function. A person hits his thumb with a hammer and he what? He screams. Studies have shown that combinations of sounds cause certain emotions or feelings. Certain pitches are pleasant only to certain dogs. God programmed every human being the same to a large degree. Sure, everyone can become desensitized to the effects of particular notes to a certain extent, and that isn’t even good normally, but the music sends different messages not entirely dependent on context.
On Paper or In Practice
Please don’t confuse this with paper or plastic. That’s, I’m sure, an important choice in some circles, maybe even more important than this blog topic, but those with that judgment would be wrong. I’m considering the connection or disconnection between belief and practice, or as some might say: Systematic Theology versus Practical Theology.
Everyone should know that Satan probably has the best and clearest doctrinal statement available. He probably could whip out a beautiful confession of faith. And based upon that, maybe he could even qualify for a mission board, since the doctrinal statement is a major feature of some boards for acceptance of candidates. What he wrote on paper, however, would strongly contradict what he actually believed and practiced. More is needed than a good theology.
This is a major point of the book of James, and expressed in James 2:14: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?” The answer to the rhetorical question: It profits him nothing. So having a doctrinal statement doesn’t do it for anyone, especially Satan.
A person, in other words, can talk and write a good theology. He can pen or type out beautiful prose with accompanying references. People can read the words of someone and really be edified by them, assuming that they are true and right, completely Biblical. Is what someone writes or says the key matter in theology? James contended against that. Other epistles do as well. God obviously wants us to live it. To God, theology is what we live. It must be right, granted, but if it is right theology lived, then God approves.
Mr. Jason Janz, the owner/operator of his online corporation (by his own admission, not a ministry) called SharperIron, recently wrote this (it is the entire quote) at his business site:
To link musical style with view of God would mean that all those who use contemporary worship have a flawed view of God and theology (in your view). I’m just not willing to go there. This would then make John Piper whacked out on his view of God. In my opinion, he has done more to exalt a lofty view of God than any Christian author in the last fifty years.
Mr. Janz employs faulty logic here to argue his position. First, someone can say he has a view of God, but if hath not works, his view is dead. One’s view should affect one’s behavior. I’m not talking sinless perfection, but at least characteristic lifestyle that matches the written theology. Second, someone who offers God “whacked out” worship might have a strong doctrinal statement, but how he worships would be a better judge of his view of God. Ananias and Sapphira probably could have written a pretty nice statement of faith, but God struck them dead. Several of the kings of Israel could rattle off God’s standards, but worshiped God in the high places. Right God, wrong worship.
The first step to worshiping the wrong God is worshiping the wrong way. Giving God something out-of-line with His character impacts the worshipers more than a doctrinal statement. Someone can preach a strong message that can be ruined by a lifestyle decision. This disconnect between paper and practice is a sinister ploy of Satan. People have long liked a nice talk with a crummy walk. To them its the best of both worlds. You get to be right and yet still get what you want. You get honor-to-God and self-indulgence all in one neat package. Of course, they are incompatible, but that is the danger of all this or the beauty, depending on your viewpoint. The crafty theologian with the orthodox and well-worded creed, who offers fleshly lusts which war against the soul, is everyone’s favorite theologian. No wonder.
Crowds
My, oh my, could Jesus draw a crowd. They clamored for Him. Several times He had to get out the special throng boat to stand on near shorelines. The first time in Mark, He asked for that boat, then after that it became standard prodecure in crowd control. It was very bad when He was in a house. No one could get to Him, so one time they went on the roof and dismantled it to lower someone through the top. Those are drastic crowd measures. By the Sea of Galilee, He didn’t have room to maneuver, they pressed in so hard. People could get hurt there were so many. It was a thing of mercy for Him to separate Himself in the throng boat. They were hum-dingers of a crowd. Large numbers of people gathered for Jesus.
Once you have a crowd, you want to keep the crowd. You want to keep that back door shut; don’t let anyone out. You like to have them coming back week after week, and even more of them. You don’t want them leaving, because a crowd is success. That’s the thing, isn’t it? Getting a crowd, then keeping it. That’s blessing. The bigger the better. Invite them. Market them. Promote them. Make them show up. Whole seminars and books and conferences and retreats are dedicated to drawing a crowd. I just thought that someone might call one of them the Ants to Honey Conference.
You can offer them things for coming. You can do special things for them. Special days. Big days. From A to Z. Anniversary Sunday. Big Sunday. Carnival Sunday. Donut Sunday, Education Sunday, Friend Sunday, Goldfish Sunday, Harvest Sunday, Ice Cream Sunday. . . . You want the lower class? Candy, toys, soda, and games. You want the upper class: Cappuccino, comedy, comforts, and conveniences. You want anyone? Pop Music. At least something fast paced, exciting. And lots of programs. Something for almost anyone. As long as it isn’t exactly sinful. Don’t offer things the Bible says are clearly sinful. And, of course, no drugs. Nothing that is harmfully addictive; only things that are addictive. The building should also be a draw. Build buildings that look like a place that people want to see and be in and to be seen in. Once with incredible architecture, stained glass windows, and amazing art. Now shaped like a theater with soft, padded pews, and lots of extras. Just get them there, get them in. Then Katie, shut and bar the door.
And then if they come, you’ve got to do something with them. You’ve got to preach your best, most fiery message to them. Or perhaps your most powerful, funny, entertaining routine/sermon. When you’ve got them there, you want to get them down the aisle. At least get them in the club. Make them feel a part. Create some suspense. Get them wondering what might happen next. Make it seem like a happenin’ place, somewhere they want to be. Very easily, with this big crowd you could get a whole bunch of people “saved. “
Let’s pause for a moment to consider what Jesus did with crowds. He healed people. Sure. He did miracles. Right. They flocked to Him. Yes. When they got there? Most of the time, He tried to get rid of them. Here’s what He thought of them:
Matthew 12:39, “But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” Matthew 16:4, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.”
Jesus was not impressed with people who came for the show. He didn’t try to reward thrill seekers. He didn’t feed their flesh with more tricks and more things. He surely wasn’t attempting to attract them that way. Here’s what He did to a crowd:
Mark 4:1, 2a, 9, 10, “And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land. And he taught them many things by parables. . . . And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. “ John 6:1, 2, 60, 66, 67, “After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. . . . Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? . . . . From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?”
In Mark, he spoke in parables so the crowd wouldn’t get what He was talking about. In John, He told them that free meal time was over. When people said they wanted to follow Him; this wasn’t new. He heard it all the time. When they did, this is the kind of thing that He said to them:
Matthew 8:20, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Luke 9:60, “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” Luke 18:22, “Lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
Quite a promotion man, huh? Think of Let the Dead Bury the Dead Sunday. Or No Place for Sleep Sunday. And then Sell All You Have Sunday. Or maybe Deny Yourself and Take Up Your Cross Sunday. Think any of those would work at getting or keeping a crowd? He would flunk a lot of personal evangelism classes today. The Lord Jesus Christ did not depend on those kinds of methods. He wasn’t interested in a crowd. He wanted true disciples, true worshipers, and if we are to get those, we need to get them the way that He did.
If they didn’t want Him and His message, Jesus wasn’t going to try to keep them another way. He did miracles. They fulfilled prophecy, showed His compassion, and revealed Him as King and the nature of His Millennial Kingdom. Nothing and no one is greater than Jesus Christ. No one should think otherwise. No one should be encouraged to think any way else. People will, however, when our churches and their leaders become so consumed with crowds.
Mercy
You’ve probably noticed how that so many Biblical phrases and concepts have become cultural colloquialisms. Ecclesiastes 10:20 originates “a little birdy told me.” Unfortunately, this commonality of Biblical phraseology has profaned God’s name in most instances. And then we have the attributes of God that pop up in everyday vocabulary: grace, goodness, holy, and mercy. They often get devalued severely in the process. I hope you’ll agree, but even if you don’t, I’m convinced of it myself at the halfway point.
One of these attributes, I would like to elevate for you, to help encourage you some. It is God’s mercy. What is mercy? I think we can understand mercy by thinking about grace. Grace is getting what we don’t deserve. Mercy is not getting what we do deserve. To understand the mercy of God, we need to understand how much we personally offend God. Many people turn away from God because they think that He has been hard on them. The truth is so opposite of that. God’s mercy is great. Of course, Scripture teaches that. 2 Chronicles 7:3: “And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.” Psalm 57:10: “For thy mercy is great unto the heavens, and thy truth unto the clouds.” Psalm 100:5: “For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.” All 25 verses of Psalm 136 end with “His mercy endureth forever.”
God is holy. God cannot look upon unrighteousness. God is just. We deserve the immediate destruction of God, but He “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). God allows us space to repent. He doesn’t immediately strike us down. Besides that great mercy that extends forgiveness and eternal life, God has provided so much. Consider Job 38:25-28:
Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
God causes rain. He makes the plants to grow. He gives every good and perfect gift. Think of air supply. It doesn’t get cut off. God protects the planet from unfathomable disaster and tragedy. All of it? No. But enough to see His love everywhere. Trees. Grass. Plenteous foods. Bodies that feel almost incalculable pleasure in so many different sensations, that about each one could write a book. He is a good God, and all of this out of His mercy. Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, who suffered untold tragedies and loss in his life, of which each of us could not find comparable at our worst, wrote these words about God in Lamentations 3:22:
It is of the LORD’S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
I think most of us expect so much more than to be consumed, but we deserve it. Because of God, we have hope. Man brings despare and agony. Our sins bring reproach and distress. The curse of sin causes the creation to groan for its day of redemption. But God’s mercy gives us hope and opportunity, a new day, a fresh start, and a bright tomorrow.
We should flee to God even if it is because of His mercies alone. In Romans 12:1 we are beseeched by the mercies of God to present our bodies a living sacrifice. God’s mercies should motivate us, make us smile. God doesn’t want to destroy. He wants to save. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Why? His mercy.
Please don’t pass by the mercy of God. Look to it. Things may be hard for you right now, or you think they are. They should be worse. Look to the mercy of God. Warm at it. Smile at it. Feel it. I beg you to stop looking at the troubles and the hardships. They look rough. I’m not saying that they aren’t. But God’s mercies are greater. Bask in them today and then tomorrow, because you can.
The Big Bang and the Big One
I like to say that I believe in the Big Bang, just that it hasn’t happened yet. 2 Peter 3:10, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” That, my friends, is the Big Bang. The Designer spoke into an organized existence, sustained, and then took His hands off of it. Colossians 1:16, 17, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Scientists tell us that the atom is held together by some “strong nuclear force.” They don’t know what it is. We do. The “Him” of “by him all things consist” is Jesus. He holds the world together–global warming or not, ozone layer depletion or not, carbon emissions or not. They say that is why the atom is so hard to split. When He takes His sustaining hand off of everything, everything will become like an atomic bomb. Revelation 20:11 says, “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.” No place for anyone except the saved after the Lord takes His hand off of what He created.
So the Big Bang hasn’t happened. Another figment of imagination foisted on humanity is the Big One. I read a children’s book to my daughters, one of their favorites about a huge Raggedy Ann called Big One. This Big One though is the universal church. Universal church is an oxymoron. Nothing universal assembles. Well, never has there been a Big One. As Dr. Richard Weeks, the man with the world’s biggest personal library of Baptist history, would say: “The big nebulous invisible something-or-other.” The theory of the universal church has caused as much damage, in my opinion, as any false doctrine. Sometime I’ll tell you why. However, we do know that a one world church is coming, just like the Big Bang is coming. That’s right, the Big One is coming.
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:4-8)
The false prophet will lead the whole world in the worship of the beast in a one world religion. It’s coming, and the imaginary Big One is just getting them ready.
Recent Comments