New Covenant

Emergent buzzwords

Is anyone else tired of hearing the words "authentic" and "honest" from emergent church writers?

Note: opportunities to share the Gospel

Christians, note this opportunity to share the Gospel, being handed directly to you:

Per CNN, Atheist ads to adorn New York subway stations.

The advertisements ask the question, written simply over an image of a blue sky with wispy white clouds: "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"

Take it from there...

Dawkins, Creationists, and books

I don't think they [creationists] read books anyway, except for one book. It's aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution...

So says Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, in a Salon interview.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I'm a creationist (of the Old Earth variety) and, while I don't consider myself well read, I have read The Origin of Species, Finding Darwin's God, Tower of Babel, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, Rare Earth, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and A Brief History of Time, just to name a few books from the non-creationist book bin.

It can't be this easy.

Words, and their meaning

In our understanding of the communication aspect of language, the concept of "units of thought" is critical. At its lowest level of detail, a word comprises a unit of thought. However, the meaning of the word, in the context of the author's intent, is best understood when one moves up to higher level units of thought - those of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books.

As John Holzmann shows us, another critical aspect of understanding the meaning to a passage of text, is that of grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. In Get Myself into trouble..., he bravely addresses that tenuous issue of Worship Songs.

Spelling, punctuation, grammar, the words themselves: they matter very much to me. And I realize they mean much more to me than they do to the average bear. That's my training. That's a discipline I have pursued since I was very young. I realize that the structural elements of language make a difference, and so I seek to use them to the best effect.

I am concerned that [our church], in its worship/singing on Sunday mornings, seems, often, to ignore these elements . . . to the detriment of meaning.

Among the various songs he takes aim at is Everything, by Tim Hughes.

...at the tail end of the song, we wind up singing a heretical pantheistic affirmation that God is everything ["You are everything"]--repeated at least four times over (though, as I recall, [our worship leader] encouraged the congregation to sing it 8 times). Please! God is not "everything." He made all of creation. He made human beings. Etc. He is not the things He made.But then, after a pantheistic affirmation, finally, the song winds up repeating a kind of Hinduistic mantra, a meaningless jumble of words: "Jesus everything." Four times over on the screen. Eight times over as a congregation:

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

Jesus everything. Jesus everything.

As above: Whatever is that supposed to mean? . . . Or is it the intention of [our church] to advocate that its members enter into a kind of mindless euphoria through thoughtless repetition of meaningless--but holy-sounding--words?

How many of the worship songs we sing, on Sunday mornings, fall into the trap of pushing non-Christian (or even heretical) ideas at the expense of thinking through more theologically proper songs? Do we dumb-down our worship songs to accommodate a touchy-feely culture, or in response to a less intelligent society? Or both?

In the Middle Ages, stained glass was used to illustrate narratives of the Bible because the populace was largely illiterate (as was the case in most societies in history). Now, it seems, we purposely cater to a culture that, despite the means and ability, prefers to feel than to think.

Also reference Holzmann's post, Hymns and praise songs: what's the difference?.

A nice way to look at it...

The father of a friend at work recently passed away. It was unexpected. My friend is a Christian, and it was evident, from talking with him when he returned to work, that his faith helped him and his family cope with the trauma and grief.

What was interesting, as he found out and we both discussed, was how other people at work reacted to the news of his father's passing. One person, in particular, made a telling comment. When discussing what had transpired within the family after his father's death, my friend said, "We're doing good, though, because we know he's in a better place." The other co-worker, a non-Christian, then responded, "That's a nice way to look at it."

"That's a nice way to look at it." The statement, and the tone with which it was made, could have been paraphrased as: "Even though it is purely fantasy, thinking that your father still exists somewhere is a good way to help you feel better."

That day, my friend and I both got a clearer understanding of the hope we have, as Christians, in the Resurrection and the Life. And we also got a clearer understanding of the utter lack of hope those without Christ must deal with. I pray that our lives, and not just our words, emulate that hope to those in this world who lack it. And I pray that our lives are lived in a manner which indicates that we really believe that heaven exists.

Yes, that's a nice way to look at it; but only if it's true.

Was the fire Elijah called down also meant to set you on fire?

At a recent Christian youth event, the keynote speaker had, as the scripture reading, 1 Kings 18. A key excerpt from the chapter,

And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

1 Kings 18:36-38 ESV

Seems straightforward, doesn't it?

Yet, per my daughter's notes, the speaker at the event proceeded to tell the youth in the audience that:

Fire was the answer then and fire is the answer now. He (God) wants to set you on fire and show the world that He is God. God's will is to reveal Himself through a people blazing with power and purity and love. We can ask God for fire - but don't ask like the prophets of Baal - we do not earn God's Spirit - that is the way of idolatry.

No, no, no, no, no!

What is it about our self-absorbed culture which mandates that we, as 21st century Western Christians, must find within Biblical passages some connection of how it directly applies to us? Why are crude analogies constructed, linking some present day action with selected excerpts from the text, regardless of whether said analogies have anything to do with the actual meaning of the text in question? This may come as a surprise to many evangelicals out there, but most of the Bible wasn't written - directly - to us.

Granted, the notion that God wants us to "be on fire", showing the world He is God, is not necessarily a false one. It's just that the text of 1 Kings 18 doesn't say that.

In 2001 I attended a lecture by Walt Russell, a BIOLA professor and author of the book, Playing With Fire. His talk was instrumental in illustrating the proper methodology one must take in interpreting the Bible (or, any text, for that matter). Through a proper understanding of literary genres, author's intent, public meaning, personal significance, etc., he laid out the groundwork for how we should approach not only our own reading of the text, but a teacher's lecture or a pastor's sermon.

With regards to 1 Kings 18 we should be aware that the genre of the text is that of historical narrative, an Old Testament narrative, to be specific. Within the Old Testament narratives we need to understand that, while there is typically a central human figure in the story, the central figure (or, hero) of the story is always God. Such narratives should reinforce God's eternal plan, as laid out through human history, as well as provide a bridge to illustrate our continuity with the children of Israel (as the people of God). Secondarily, such narratives also give us a glimpse at both positive and negative role models within the old covenant of believers.

Thus, if we were to read 1 Kings 18 with the mindset of "what does this passage mean?", we would no doubt see that God had brought a drought on the land and had told Elijah that He was going to now bring rain. Of note here is the fact that Ahab had abandoned the Lord's commandments and followed Baal. Elijah sets up the confrontation between the prophets of Baal and the Lord God, boldly stating that "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." Of course the prophets of Baal can do nothing and, after Elijah taunts them, he calls on the Lord God (the hero of the story) to bring fire down from the heavens. The chapter concludes with God bringing the rain he had promised.

Is it so difficult to now look at the passage and ask, what does this passage tell us about God and His plan? Is it so difficult to see that the Lord God is one, is a jealous God, is compassionate for His sheep, is creator of all, and is worthy of worship? 

Yes, we 21st century Christians should be on fire for God. We should be showing the world God's love and, in effect, that He is God. But we shouldn't be about loosely grabbing His Word for backup text to such notions. It's not only a lazy way to read His Word but, if taken to extremes, can be quite flippant. Consider that, if we aren't to ask like the prophets of Baal, what would be the consequences? - our imminent slaughter? Or, if we are to be set on fire, like the altar Elijah prepared was, what and when are the jars of water to be poured over us? False analogies have a tendency to break down pretty quickly.

So, let's stick with meaning inherent to the text.

How to understand the book of Revelation

Understand that Revelation is a chiasm, and the central verse is Rev. 12:11,

"And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death."

An exhortation of hope for persecuted saints through the ages.

Charles Finney: Pelagian?

An interesting interview of Michael Horton on the Stand to Reason weekly radio broadcast, on June 8th (rss feed for weekly podcasts).

Horton, the author of Christless Christianity: the Alternative Gospel of the American Church, made some claims about Charles Finney that were quite astounding. In discussing the premise of the book, namely, that the American church has pushed Jesus aside and essentially put a self-help, therapeutic gospel in His place, Horton alluded to the theological stance of Finney, that which Horton posits is more tuned in with Pelagianism than with Arminianism. From the book,

As I will make clearer throughout various points within this book, ever since the Great Awakening, especially evident in the message and methods of evangelist Charles G. Finney, American Protestantism has been more Pelagian than Arminian.

In his essay, The Legacy of Charles Finney, Horton is more blunt,

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns.

...

Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, 'the church growth movement'), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of 'Christian America,' and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the 'Higher Life Movement' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.

Wow!

I'm certainly not an authority on Finney, but an initial hearing of Horton has revealed many issues with which I agree on. That American evangelism, in the alleged Finney sense, could be the catalyst for many of the ills within the church, as well as cults outside it, which we see today, is astonishing.

Evangelical Loss Leaders in an anti-Christian society

You've certainly seen the advertisement before; that which features a certain item, priced ridiculously low. In fact, it's priced so low that you ask, "How can they sell it at that price and turn a profit?" Well, they can't. It's a loss leader, designed solely to entice people into the sales establishment upon which, it is hoped, they will purchase additional items, thereby resulting in an overall profit to the store.

The point to be taken here is that the loss leader tactic is simply a part of an overall marketing strategy - a philosophy, if you will, which fits squarely within the economic system of capitalism, to which growth and profit are generally accepted as the primary goals.

I wonder, how wedded to capitalism is the evangelical church in America?

Recently, there was a concert staged, at our church, specifically designed as an outreach to the youth in the community surrounding the church. Whereas there is typically 25 youth at a Wednesday night meeting, there were 120 youth in attendance at this concert.

Was this a loss leader? A means of enticing people in the doors, and then banking on the "numbers", the probability that a certain percentage of them would desire to come back?

Such a tactic is hardly limited to a youth concert in 2009. I've grown up in the church and can look back and see the tactic deftly applied throughout my life. It is, in fact, our modus operandi.

Yet, despite the church adopting capitalistic strategies, and despite the false success of mega-churches, we now see an America which is turning its back on Christianity. Our society is becoming decidedly secular and, in particular, anti-Christian, in its base form.

While we may have succeeded in entertaining the masses, how much of the Gospel has truly been delivered? In a recent Bible Study, my pastor made note of the fact that many scholars think that the church in Corinth, that which Paul was writing to, was made up of about 40 people.

40 people.

If an evangelical capitalist had written the letters to the Corinthians, I daresay he would have given them a detailed explanation of marketing tactics designed specifically to result in church growth. Yet Paul makes no mention of church growth methodologies. He simply tells the Corinthians how to live as Christians.

What a concept.

Christ, the Lion and the Lamb, God, and giving worship to Him whom worship is due

An engaging study of Revelation is going on at my home church, every Wednesday night. Our pastor, a New Testament scholar, who wrote his dissertation on Revelation 19, is providing for us an in-depth analysis of the context of Revelation, including educating us on the genres it's comprised of, as well as the cultural meaning of the imagery described. Suffice it to say, this ain't no Left Behind series!

Last Wednesday, we began Revelation 5. Here is the text, per ESV,

5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, 4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” 14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Note that the scroll, referred to in verse 1, was being held by God the Father (ref. chapter 4), who was given his due worship. He is seated on the throne and is holding the scroll in his right hand. While it appears that no one is found worthy to open the scroll, one of the elders states that the Lion has conquered, so that he can open the scroll. Yet we see a sort of juxtaposition taking place when John sees not a Lion appear, but a Lamb - that had been slain.

Lion / Lamb, conquered / slain. 

The Lamb then approaches God, on the throne, and does not ask to be given the scroll, but he takes "the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne"! The elders and all creatures then confirm that Jesus is worthy to receive worship.

The Lion who has conquered is the Lamb who was slain, and he is worthy of that which is only allowed to be given to God - worship.

Cutting out Spurgeon's words: accidental or intentional?

Here's an interesting post from Beyond Creationism regarding how Answers in Genesis (AIG) apparently edited out some text from a Charles H. Spurgeon sermon, ostensibly to exclude Spurgeon's positive reference to an Old Earth Creation scenario.

Spurgeon's original text in question is:

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.”

And here is what AIG posted:

"In Ge 1:2, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation."

Rather than me highlighting the excluded text, simply look for the sentence, in the original, which contains the phrase "millions of years".

Says Beyond Creation,

Spurgeon's sermon has been sanitized for the AiG audience. Apparently, the reality of Spurgeon as an old-earth creationist is too much for AiG to allow the viewing public to know about. They even rewrote a portion at the end to change Spurgeon's statement that "the Creator gave up the world to confusion" to make it appear that Spurgeon said merely that "the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation." And presto! The editors turned Spurgeon into a young-earth creationist, even though he said no such thing.

After initially posting their cleansed version of Spurgeon's sermon, AIG did post the excluded text, in a note, with the following explanation,

Bracketed text removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age issue. –Editor

Lucky for us, it would seem, at least AIG understands the age issue.

John Holzmann, provides a more in-depth analysis of the fancy editing that appears to have taken place at AIG.

Economic depression, and a nation turning to God

Wow. I take a few days vacation and the stock market goes to the south pole! People across the nation - across the globe - are worried. There's talk not only of recession, but of depression - worldwide. 

Praise the Lord.

What have we, as Christians in America, been praying for? Revival? Repentance? Healing?

What do we, as Christians in America, put our faith in? The economy (stupid)? Our 401(k)s?

Who do we, as Christians in America, turn to in times of need? Republicans? Democrats?

Imagine, if you will, a nation that needs God:

• What would it mean if we went to church not simply because they served espresso in the lobby, but because we'd experience communion with God?
• What would it mean if we were unable to claim tax deductions on our tithes?
• What would it mean if we had no health insurance (and actually had to pray as if we meant it)?
• What would it mean if we had to live without an iPhone, laptop, and flatscreen TV?
• What would it mean if we had to worship with other denominations because economic hardships forced the closure of multiple churches?
• What would it mean if we had to share our limited resources with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ?
• What would it mean if our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, throughout the world, lived in worse conditions than we found ourselves in?
• What would it mean if Paul's admonition to pray for our leaders meant praying for someone diametrically opposed to Christianity?
• What would it mean to have no place to call home?
• What would it mean to face real persecution for professing your faith?
• What would it mean to consider a hot meal a blessing from God?
• What would it mean to recognize God as Sovereign?
• What would it mean if we actually lived like most of our brothers and sisters in Christ have throughout most of history?

I think it would mean we'd be closer to God than we are now.

On the imago dei, and putting humans down

About 25 years ago I owned a dog that, as time marched on, began experiencing the effects of aging. The dog, a Sheltie, got to the point where her walking was labored, resulting in muscle spasms. Consequently, we began discussing taking her in to the vet to be put down. My grandmother, bless her heart, objected to that course of action. Her reason?

If we put the dog down, because of old age, then what's to stop us from putting her down, because of old age?

We quietly chuckled at the absurdity of her concerns.

Now (HT: Doug) enter a British medical ethics "expert" who has recommended that people be

"licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

How is it that we've gone from the age-old notion of putting animals down, to that of putting humans down? Are we beginning to see a clear juxtaposition between the Judeo-Christian view of The Imago Dei, and that of naturalism, which sees us as nothing more than clothed apes?

Add some great people to your life!

From a mailer I received, recently, promoting a local church:

There's nothing quite like enjoying life with some really great people
Ones who look forward to connecting with you each week.

Finding people that you can worship with, enjoy life with, and maybe even vacation with, is a really great thing.

Try out one of our 3 weekend services and I think you will find some great people and a church that lives up to its name...

Now I don't doubt that there are some really great people that attend this church, and that they are all enjoying life. But I've got to wonder if we, as Christians, should be attempting to draw non-Christians into our midst by presenting ourselves as really great, friendly, lovers of life. Wasn't it Christ who said that he who loves his life will lose it? And wasn't it Christ who said that because the world hated him, it would hate us as well? And what about that part that had to do with dying to self?

Granted, I believe we should be really great people. I believe we should be about worshiping God. I believe we should be friendly and that we should enjoy life. Yet, when the Christian states that they enjoy life, does the non-Christian understand that there is an inherent difference in meaning with how the world uses the term? Consider that Peter and the apostles, after being beaten for preaching Christ, left the council "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name." (ESV)

So... how was your day?

Does being a Christian simply mean that you get to enjoy life with really great people - i.e., Have fun? Or, does it mean that you admit your sin, surrender your life to the living God - your Redeemer and Savior, and enjoy His presence by worshiping and bringing glory to Him?

On the Wimpification of the Church

From Mere Comments, a link to a USA Today article titled, At nation's churches, guys are few in the pews. From the article,

One church, 121 Community Church in Grapevine, Texas, outside Dallas, was even designed with dudes in mind, from the worship center's stone floor, hunter-green and amber decor and rustic-beam ceilings to woodsy scenes on the church website.

No pastels. No flowers. No sweet music. No sit-with-your-hands-folded mood. Women are welcome, but the tone is intentionally "guy church" for a reason, says Ross Sawyers, founder and pastor of 121.

While I would be the first to agree that, in general terms, churches in America appeal to feminine attributes in measures which tend to repel men, I don't think that an answer is to fashion a "guy church".

We're not dealing with how a company is structured, to render a profitable bottom-line; we're dealing with how the church is to be built. I'm not aware of any New Testament examples of churches being designed for one particular demographic. The secular culture, during the time of the early church, was not a woman friendly culture. And while such an environment helped to render the early church extremely supportive of women, there doesn't seem to be any indication that the early church specifically targeted women, or men, or 18-30 year-olds, or whatever.

It seems to me that if we are to build the church the way God intends, we need to return to His Word and learn to live the way He wants us to live. Only then will we come to understand that there is no need for a "guy" or a "gal" church.

Note: I've corrected the second to the last paragraph with regards to how women were regarded in the time just after Christ.