Home » Posts tagged 'culture'
Tag Archives: culture
AI Friday: On Worship
I asked a different Artificial Intelligence program, Microsoft Copilot, which is a feature of Bing, about what I think about worship. It gave a shorter explanation than what AI Questions has. What I like about it is that it summarizes what I’ve written. It also reports a type of objective assessment of everything I’ve written online. I inform you that AI overuses the passive voice. Perhaps there are better AI writers than these two. Here’s what they say that I have written on worship.
Kent Brandenburg emphasizes a deeply reverent and scripturally grounded approach to worship. He believes that true worship involves two key components:
Recognition of Who God Is: Worship begins with acknowledging God’s nature and attributes. This recognition shapes how we approach and honor Him. Brandenburg stresses that worship must align with God’s character and not fall short of His greatness.
Giving God What He Wants: Worship should be based on what God has revealed in Scripture. Brandenburg supports the regulative principle of worship, which means that the elements of worship should be those explicitly found in the Bible. This principle ensures that worship is not altered by human preferences but remains faithful to God’s instructions.
Brandenburg also highlights that worship is a perpetual, spiritual, and sincere act from the heart, akin to offering spiritual sacrifices to God.
Then I asked Microsoft Copilot what I said about culture and worship, and it said this:
Kent Brandenburg has shared various thoughts on culture and worship, often emphasizing a traditional, Bible-based approach. He believes that worship should be rooted in biblical principles rather than being influenced by contemporary cultural trends. Brandenburg often critiques modern worship practices that he feels stray from scriptural teachings, advocating instead for a return to more traditional forms of worship that he believes are more aligned with biblical instructions.
I decided to ask AI Questions the same two questions to see the difference in answers — first question:
According to what I know, Kent Brandenburg emphasizes that worship should be regulated solely by Scripture. He argues that true worship recognizes who God is and gives Him what He desires, which can only be understood through the Bible. The elements of worship are prescribed in the New Testament, including reading the Word, preaching, singing, prayer, baptism, Lord’s Supper, and collection of offerings. Notably absent from this list is the “altar call” or invitation, which he contends is not a biblical element of worship.
Brandenburg asserts that the act of listening to preaching is part of worship and should be done with a proper attitude—being “swift to hear” and receiving God’s Word with meekness. He believes that any response to preaching must align with biblical principles and that churches may choose various methods for individuals to respond (such as coming forward during an invitation), but these methods are merely circumstances surrounding the element of preaching rather than elements themselves.
He critiques “blended worship,” which combines different musical styles to appeal to various congregational preferences. Brandenburg argues that this approach prioritizes human desires over divine standards and dilutes the sacred nature of worship. He warns against pragmatism in worship practices, stating that it leads to a focus on pleasing people rather than honoring God. Ultimately, he insists that genuine worship must adhere strictly to God’s prescribed ways as outlined in Scripture.
Second Question:
According to the information provided, Kent Brandenburg discusses the relationship between culture and worship by emphasizing that worship should be regulated by Scripture rather than cultural norms. He argues that true worship recognizes who God is and what He desires, which can only be found in the Bible. This means that elements of worship must align with biblical prescriptions, and any additions or deletions to these elements are not acceptable.
Brandenburg critiques the idea that cultural practices should dictate how worship is conducted. He points out that while culture influences many aspects of life, it should not define the core elements of worship. Instead, he advocates for a return to biblical principles as the foundation for worship practices. He highlights that God has specific expectations for how He wants to be worshiped, and these expectations are outlined in Scripture.
Furthermore, he addresses the notion of “the new legalism,” which refers to the pressure some feel to conform to modern standards of non-conformity regarding church practices. Brandenburg asserts that this pressure can lead to a misunderstanding of what constitutes proper worship and can detract from genuine reverence toward God.
In summary, Kent Brandenburg emphasizes that worship should be based solely on biblical instruction rather than cultural influences, ensuring that it remains true to God’s desires as revealed in Scripture.
They Did Not Drive Out the Inhabitants of and from the Land
The idea of driving out anybody from almost anywhere is not acceptable in a woke world or does not work according to political correctness, the latter a softer, earlier iteration of wokeness. The act of driving out inhabitants from the land is a major theme, however, of the Old Testament. Israel is in bad shape at the beginning of Judges and a major, if not the major, reason is that the various tribes of Israel did not drive out the inhabitants of the land from the land. You could add, “and keep them out.”
A prerequisite for Israel from God was to drive out the inhabitants of the land God would give them. In fact, God would drive the inhabitants and He would use Israel to do it. It wasn’t really even their driving out the inhabitants, but God using them to do it.
It was God’s will to drive out the various Canaanities.
Exodus 23:28, And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee.
Exodus 33:2, And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
Exodus 34:11, Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
Numbers 32:21, And will go all of you armed over Jordan before the LORD, until he hath driven out his enemies from before him,
Numbers 33:52, Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
Deuteronomy 4:38, To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.
Deuteronomy 11:23, Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.
Joshua 3:10, And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
Joshua 13:6, All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.
Joshua 17:12, Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
Joshua 17:18, But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine:: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.
1 Chronicles 17:21, And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
If they did not drive them out, this was not good — very bad.
Numbers 33:55, But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
Joshua 23:13, Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
This is still a general principle for the success of any people. The general principle is separate from people, their culture, or their way of life. Try to reach them and if they do not listen or won’t follow the scriptural way, separate from them. They won’t like this, but this is the only way to preserve a godly people and culture in order to please God. It is holiness, which is primary to the nature of God.
In the early history of Israel, one of Abraham’s family settled in Sodom and Gomorrah, and that ruined his family. God of course destroyed those cities with fire and brimstone. Just the opposite of driving out people is to join with them. Psalm 1:1, obviously the first verse of the entire Psalter, says,
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Israel failed when they did not drive out the people from the land. They disobeyed God in not doing this.
Judges 1:19, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. 21 And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. 27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns:: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land. 28 And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. 29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them.
This whole first chapter is about either destroying these inhabitants or not driving them out. The first good and the latter bad. Mixing with people, intermingling with them, or coexisting with them is not the will of God. The rest of Judges testifies to the failure of not driving out or not separating. They effect the people until they become more and more like the inhabitants.
The New Testament is the same. You evangelize the lost. If they won’t listen, you separate from them, especially those who call themselves brothers (1 Cor 5:11).
This principle of driving out inhabitants or separation is crucial to the preservation and practice of truth. It’s in every New Testament book. It is a principle that not only protects an individual, family, and church, but it also is crucial for a nation, like Israel.
This above principle applies to the United States, which relates to borders and immigration. If there is an American way, it won’t be preserved without some form of separation to keep out those who won’t think the same way. I’m afraid that ship has sailed or that practice won’t be able to be put back into the bottle.
Other nations might need to think about separating from the United States. Even though the Taliban is godless and pagan, they have a way of life they are protecting by ejecting the United States. They don’t want American culture to infiltrate their very specific view of the world. They know that can’t happen without separation.
As an example of what God said and the implementation of this principle, I noticed today that European nations were considering a policy for Americans visiting there to stop the spread of Covid. Quarantine is an extreme form of separation to stop disease from spreading. It is the same principle. People judge Covid to be dangerous. They don’t want it. A bubble, like the NBA bubble in 2020, was deemed necessary to continue the season.
The continuation of true doctrine and practice necessitates some kind of bubble. Young people or a youth culture in general don’t want a bubble. They want outside of it. They want amalgamation, integration, and association. They very often want to be like everyone else and be accepted by them. It is a fools errand on their part, because it won’t end in acceptance. It doesn’t work that way. The cancel culture shows this. However, it will result in their not being right with God, the most important consideration any of them should ever have.
The Generation Clash Symbolized by Meghan and Harry Versus Queen Elizabeth II
Less than a hundred years ago, one fraction of the world set itself to defend against an entirely different culture that wished to impose itself, and wipe the other out. This wasn’t the first time. Almost the entire globe participated in either attempting to change the world order, the dominant view, or keeping the older one. The world rejoiced when the emerging order was defeated. They continue to rejoice over this victory. Many hundreds of thousands died to keep the status quo.
Today you reader, myself, and the rest of the world are in another cultural battle, a clash of civilizations, which represent again two separate views of the world. One would like to do away with the other as much as the one in the middle of the twentieth century. This is not a military battle, more of a civil cold war, between two factions characterized by two generations. The consequences could be, however, as or even more serious.
The older generation itself is not pure in its representation of the source of the way of life, which it represents, but still stands in sharp contrast to the youthful one that pursues to replace it. This brings me to the comparison of Meghan and Harry to Queen Elizabeth II as a helpful illustration.
I don’t care about Oprah’s interview with Meghan and Harry. I didn’t watch it. I read chunks of the script though in various articles. I read that these two victims of great note were paid seven million dollars to help them in their new state of welfare minus their government support. I think you can be sure that, ala President Obama, they didn’t build this though. Everything they’re getting is based on a celebrity proceeding from their connection to what they’re attempting to crush.
Victimization sells to this generation. It’s even a marketing strategy. You know the power of victimhood when the privileged see it as a step up for them. Yet, as the world falls apart under its type of influence, people will be looking to complain to someone about why they’ve got obvious problems, but there won’t be enough non-victims to listen. Everyone will have to rush as far to the bottom as they can, but will anybody be left to care? It will just be a victim competition. The worst victims are those who must proceed from this ooze, the children of the victims. Maybe we can find out that evolution is true and an advanced new species will climb out. You all know that won’t be true.
What’s happening does remind me of the trajectory of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel. I’ve just been reading them at high speed as part of getting through the Bible twice this year. It’s a very sad story as the generations erode into near oblivion. The only way the Southern kingdom, Judah, survives in a mutated form is by the grace of God, and it only survives. It doesn’t come close to thriving. The enemies of the nation don’t care that it’s inhabitants are victims. They welcome it. Their final note of victimhood is captivity. They are captives to a foreign power.
It seems pathetic and embarrassing, a shame, to admit instability and frailty to the world. The practice of past generations is to keep those revelations of personal doubt and mental anguish to one’s self. It is not appropriate to attempt to engender sympathy by complaining in public about undesirable treatment.
The British traditionally speak of a “stiff upper lip” and “keep calm and carry on and all that.” Their island has survived through many trials, yet Meghan and Harry present a combination of victimhood and identity politics set in contrast to and a threat to the self-sacrifice, duty, and a serious fortitude of Her Royal Highness. Someone called it a clash between old Britain and post-Diana new Britain. The loss of old Britain is obviously also self-inflicted as it has divorced itself from the basis of its former toughness and endurance. At one time, Britain was a Christian nation.
In the last century at least, Winston Churchill to me stands for old Britain and consider some of his statements:
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. If you’re looking for a secret ingredient for success, then stop looking. The only thing you need is perseverance, i.e. the ability to keep going no matter what.
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
There is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure.
The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked with the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.
We shall draw from the heart of suffering itself the means of inspiration and survival.
Sure I am of this, that you have only to endure to conquer. You have only to persevere to save yourselves, and to save all those who rely upon you. You have only the right to go on, and at the end of the road, be it short or long, victory and honor will be found.
We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
It was a generation in a sense that didn’t have time for whining. They would never take such feelings public. They would “carry on” in silence with a “stiff upper lip.” This is the generation from which the queen comes. Meghan and Harry call this being “trapped.”
Victimhood for the new generation is apparently a narrative that expresses authenticity. No one can question the pain that someone feels any more, so as long one has been sufficiently abused, he can say almost anything without question. It is his or her truth. It is a very cheap replacement for true accomplishment. Any challenge to that narrative is just further abuse. Others identify with the story, not to their betterment or to their strengthening, but unto their further self-pity. From this springs even more victims, who think they see in the embrace an opportunity.
Before coming back on the scene again as a leader, Winston Churchill experienced his so-called “Wilderness Years.” During that time, Churchill wrote his four volume history, Marlborough: His Life and Times. This wasn’t a ghost write. Churchill among other things wrote a monumental history and became then the best selling author in all of Britain. It was an intellectual and industrious task far beyond any modern politician. The thinking within that massive work prepared Churchill for what was to come. The danger for Britain from which John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, delivered the nation was akin to what it later faced from Germany.
What is left of Western Civilization no longer can swat away something so patently deceitful as seen in the testimonies of Meghan and Harry. In previous times, anyone would recognize these were not two victims, signing mega-million dollar deals with tech titans while ensconced behind the walls of a California mansion and wearing a $4,500 dress. They cry for privacy while they selectively reveal intimate secrets. The former generation would now recognize the shots fired by Meghan and Harry at the bow of old Britain, most likely preceded by hours of coaching and rehearsing to deliver the greatest possible harm, sinking it and sending it to complete oblivion.
Aspiring victims should pause to consider what winning this war will bring. It will leave a landscape so devastated that it will never return to its former self. It will only hope to pick at the flesh from the carcass it defeated to see if it might gain the sustenance necessary to escape from a world inhabited by a majority of victims.
Recent Comments