Berean cogitations

Naming names when we identify false teaching

2008-07-26T06:20:00.000-07:00

In modern Christianity, people often say that if you're going to complain about erroneous teachings, then don't name names. Why? Because they perceive that the naming of names is somehow distasteful and abhorrent.

This perspective sounds loving and kind, which is doubtlessly why it's so popular. What does the Bible say, though?

First, it's worth noting that nowhere does the Bible say "Don't name names!" If often speaks about exposing false teachings and false teachers, but not once do the Bible writers warn believers not to mention anyone by name.

Second, the NT writers themselves mentioned people by name when warning fellow believers. For example, Paul cited Demas, Hymaneus, Alexander, and Philetus in his writings ((1 Timothy 1:18-20; 2 Timothy 2:15-18, 4:10,15). Similarly, John warned his readers about Diotrephes. Peter likewise spoke of those who followed the way of Baalam (2 Peter 2:15).

Why name names? Because sometimes that's what it takes to warn people, especially when it comes to popular teachings and popular teachers. Paul could have said, "Let's preserve unity by not naming any indivdiuals," but he didn't. Rather, he said that we are to mark those who persist in teaching error, for this is what ultimately causes division (Romans 16:17-18). What's more, he practiced what he preached.

Or, as another writer said,

If we sit idly by we are in essence encouraging false doctrine to be spread. Wolves in sheep's clothing are thus enabled to ravage the flock, thereby destroying any.Remember John the Baptist? He called the Pharisees and Sadducees (the religious leaders of his day) "a generation of Vipers". Today would we dare tell him to "your too harsh, be kind to our brethren and don't judge"?? We must always remember that the scripture admonishes us if we do not expose error in
the flock. What are we to do when we know of 'false' teachers?

How to reach post-moderns

2008-06-07T20:10:00.000-07:00

Evangelical Christians often talk about the need to reach young people who espouse a post-modern view of life. In brief, post-modernism is a worldview which declares that there is no absolute truth -- or alternatively, if there is absolute truth, it cannot be known. Thus, people who fully buy into the post-modern philosophy regard straightforward declarations of truth to be arrogant and intolerant. Instead, they prefer that "truth" be communicated through illustrations, storytelling, and similar gimmicks, rather than being declared outright.

So many Christians agonize over the question, "How should we reach post-moderns? What kinds of tactics should we use? They don't want to hear 'truth', so what should we do instead?" This has given rise to a large number of "emerging" and "emergent" churches that avoid the use of Biblical exegesis or making dogmatic statements of belief. They employ narratives instead of exegesis and plead for tolerance instead of dogmatism; after all, wouldn't post-moderns say that it's arrogant to claim to know what a particular Bible passage really means?

Personally, I think they're overcomplicating this issue. I think the only right way to deal with post-modernism is to show people that it's wrong. For example, I'm sure that many of you have already picked up on one severe problem with post-modernism -- namely, that it's self-refuting. After all, if we can never really know the truth, then how can you know that we can never know the truth? And if claiming to be right is automatically arrogant, then how can you justify criticizing others who disagree with that viewpoint? In other words, the fundamental tenets of post-modernism violate their own logic, and are therefore false.

I expressed this viewpoint to a friend of mine a few days ago. He laughed and said, "But Dean, you're thinking logically! Post-moderns don't think with their heads; they think with their hearts. That's why your method won't work. We need need a different approach instead."

I think there are two problems with his answer. First, he assumes that post-moderns are completely incapable of rational thought. I disagree; after all, the self-refutations that I outlined are not difficult to grasp, and even people who are not logical thinkers by nature still retain some capacity for logical reasoning. Second, I think that the use of non-logical approaches -- appealing to their emotions, for example -- are bound to backfire.

Emotional arguments have their place, but they have shallow roots. Somebody who is swayed one way by an emotional argument can be swayed the other way, given enough time. This is why we need to ensure that our teachings are rooted in FACT, not just emotional appeals. A preacher can spin all sorts of stories about the harmful side of adultery, for example; but then "The Bridges of Madison County" comes on TV, and adultery is depicted as a wonderful thing. Or a preacher may object to homosexuality (couching it in storytelling and emotional appeals, of course), but when "Brokeback Mountain" comes on the screen, all of those emotional appeals can be undone within just two hours.

This is why we need to make sure that our teachings are firmly rooted in FACT, not just narrative or emotion. That is how Jesus Christ and the Apostles preached, even when reaching cultures that were different from their own.

Of course, none of this negates the need for missionary zeal, charitable works, or authentic Christian living. Those elements are necessary as well. Nevertheless, the point remains -- we can NOT afford to dance around the issue of truth, nor can we pretend that we are not making firm declarations about what the truth is. By doing so, we might "reach" larger crowds, but we will simply be validating their postmodern viewpoint, and we won't be reaching them with the real gospel.

Making assumptions about what the Bible teaches

2008-06-06T20:08:00.000-07:00

I was discussing worship music with some believers one day -- always a touchy subject, of course. In the course of our conversation, I questioned the wisdom of songs that emphasize one's self, and especially those focus on what the singer feels or what he/she will do. ("I will worship... I will praise...") I innocently asked, "Is this really the most appropriate way to praise God? Instead of focusing on how God makes you feel, shouldn't we focus instead on God's characteristics and qualities?"

One fella, an experienced worship band drummer, piped up, "Of course there's nothing wrong with that. Just look at the Psalms! They talk about the writer's feelings all the time."

I wasn't sure what he meant by that, so I looked up the Psalms when I got home. I could not find a single instance wherein the psalmists focused on their feelings or even what they planned to do for God. Quite the contrary, the focus was always on God, his qualities, and what he has accomplished. There were a few incidental references to one's self, but they never dwelt on the psalmist's feelings. Moreover, such references were always secondary to lauding God for his holiness and righteousness. (In Psalm 26, for example, David talks about how he has served God. This was all just background information though, as the primary theme was David pleading with Yahweh for protection and vindication.)

I think this reflect a common problem among Christians: namely, a tendency to take something that sounds pleasing and profound, and then to assume that the Bible must surely teach it. I've fallen into that trap myself on occasion, especially in my younger days.

Here's another example. I remember attending a Bible study in which we were discussing the need for self-sacrifice and charity. One young lady said, "Just look at Jesus! He hardly ever kept anything for himself, and when he had something, he usually gave it away." Now, I know that Jesus did many great things, but I couldn't recall any such incident. So I said, "I don't remember that. Where does the Bible say that?" Slightly embarassed, she said, "Well, I don't know, but I'm sure it's there somewhere."

Then there's the Internet discussion I had on church discipline one day. I talked about a Sunday school teacher who left our church to live with her boyfriend. After a few months, she decided to return, and I casually mentioned that the church will need to watch her and see if it looks like she has truly repented. A couple of people got angry and said, "No, you don't! That's the pastor's job, not yours. And besides, the Bible says that you're supposed to mind your own business!" Now there are several problems with that retort, not the least being that the Bible teaches no such thing; quite the contrary, it speaks of church members holding each other accountable (Matthew 18). To avoid escalating any conflict though, I simply asked, "Where does the Bible say that? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't." One of the angrier respondents said, "Well, it's probably in Proverbs somewhere. I don't know. Anyway, you need to mind your own business if you're a Christian."

Speaking of Matthew 18, here's one last example. I attended a single men's Bible study one day in which we discussed repentance. The study leader meant well, but he was clearly unprepared for the task of teaching. We read Matthew 18, which speaks about the need to confront errant brothers regarding their sins. He then declared, "So when someone sins against you, you need to forgive immediately and forget all about the sin. Act as though it never happened, and never, ever bring it up again! Place it completely out of your mind. That's what the Bible teaches."

I said, "Wait a minute; that's not what I see in the Word. You certainly can't get that from the passage we just read. Quite the opposite, in fact; Matthew 18 says that when a brother refuses to acknowledge his sin, we are to eject him from the church and treat him like a heathen. That does not sound like 'forgiving and forgetting' to me!"

(As an aside, I think that most Christians have erroneous concepts of what forgiveness is and when it is merited -- but that's a topic for another day.)

Sadly, that's the state of modern Christianity. Instead of letting the Bible guide our beliefs, we tend to embrace whatever sounds good and then assume that the Bible teaches it -- or worse, pick out Scriptures and force them to match our interpretations. Ultimately, it's a sign of spiritual laziness. It's much easier to take that approach than to do the hard work of studying the Scriptures and submitting to their authority.

Who is more merciful, Jesus or the saints?

2008-06-05T20:04:00.000-07:00

I will never forget this conversation that I once had regarding the issue of praying to Mary and the saints. I expressed the opinion that when we ask God for a favor, we can trust Him to respond with all appropriate love, mercy, and wisdom, saying "Yes" or "No" to our prayers as He deems fit.

The other person responded, "But if we need something, our chances of getting it are better if we approach Mary or the saints instead. That's because they know what it's like down here."

I quietly asked, "Are suggesting that God doesn't know what it's like?"

"Well, he's not...," she started to reply, then cut herself off. Fury and hellfire blazed in her eyes, but she could say nothing. She knew that she came this close to declaring that God was not omniscient -- that he did not know what it's like to have our personal sufferings and desires.

This is one reason why I get upset when evangelical Christians insist on treating the Catholic Church as though it were just another Christian denomination. Some of the uniquely Catholic teachings are not merely different from ours; rather, they are downright dangerous. This issue of saintly intercession is a perfect example thereof. It may seem harmless to a casual observer, but at its heart is the implication that Mary and the saints are more merciful, more capable of empathizing with us, than God can ever be. That's not just an erroneous teaching; rather, it is downright dangerous.

Revisiting the loss of teaching on Christian radio

2008-05-30T22:03:00.000-07:00

On March 1st, 2008, I lamented the way more and more Christian radio stations have chosen to focus on music. They've been reducing the amount of airtime for teaching and preaching, and some have abandoned it altogether.

I happened to share this bit of disappointment over dinner with some believers one night. One fella apparently didn't grasp what I was saying, for he exclaimed, "Oh, yeah! I love Christian music! I like more than any of those teaching programs." He stopped short of saying that Christian teaching was boring, but that was the clear implication of his words.

I am deeply troubled by this trend. Today, I received a newsletter from John MacArthur in which he expressed the same disappointment. Dr. MacArthur said,

The pressure on stations to compete for a larger audience share is intense. Their very survival depends on those ratings, so wise stewardship includes a legitimate concern for reaching the largest audience they can reasonably attract.

On the other hand, Christian ardio is a niche market by definition. Biblical content doesn't appeal to everyone, and Christian programmers can't try to appeal to everyone without sacrificing their distinctiveness. To draw new and increasingly younger audiences while offering serious, edifying, biblical content is to walk a very thin tightrope.

But when stations start eliminating Bible teaching from their broadcast schedule, what message are they giving their audience? As much as I love good Christian music, I have to wonder, "Is the increase in audience size worth the loss of Bible teaching? In today's entertainment-saturated culture, is more music and less clear teaching what people need most?

When Christians become weird in their zeal

2008-04-29T08:29:00.000-07:00

I have a lot of respect for Christians who are bold and zealous in proclaiming their faith. I have sometimes wished that I had both their boldness and their passion in proclaiming the Good News to a dying generation. There are times when Christians can let their zeal overwhelm them to the point that it becomes counterproductive, though.

Back in my high school days, for example,I knew one believer who tried to inject Jesus into virtually every conversation. I remember sitting around with some non-believers, and the conversation turned to a female classmate and her latest boyfriend. He quickly interject, "Yeah, she's worldly. She jumps from one boyfriend to another, and that's not what Jesus would want." Now, I don't object when somebody brings Christ into a conversation; however, bringing him up so abruptly -- especially in a conversation with non-believers -- can tend to be off-putting. Moreover, this sort of thing happened all the time, to the point where I often wondered if he could ever have a relaxed, ordinary conversation about non-spiritual matters for a change.

Here's another example. I once encountered a fella who wore Christian t-shirts to work everyday. Every day, his shirt proclaimed some sort of evangelistic message. Now, I have no doubt that he was motivated by a sincere and passionate desire to warn people about the dangers of hell; however, I do question the wisdom of this method. I wholeheartedly believe that Christians should have passion and zeal; however, I doubt that many people would respond positively to this approach. Don't get me wrong; I think that Christian t-shirts can be wonderful evangelistic tools (I'm wearing one right now). However, when somebody wears these shirts every single day, I don't think people will respond by saying, "This man really loves the Lord!" No, they'd probably be thinking, "Boy, this guy has really gone off the deep end."

I hope that everyone who's reading this message understands what I'm saying. We need to have zeal, but we mustn't come across as being so heavenly minded that we're no worldly good. We must not act as though we belong to the world; however, we must also make it clear that we are normal, everyday folks who take our faith seriously and who choose to love, serve, and obey our heavenly master. I think that's a fair and reasonable balance to strike.

Must people know how much you care before they care how much you know?

2008-04-22T21:39:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard Christians declare, "People won't care how much you know until they know how much you care"? I certainly have. To be perfectly honest though, I disagree.

I hope you understand what I mean. By no means to I suggest that we have no obligation to love our fellow man. I do think that it's overly simplistic to say that we must always convince non-believers of the depth of our love before we can share the Word. That's just an overly broad statement.

The problem with this line is that it SOUNDS so good -- so loving, so wonderful. At best though, it's a severe overstatement.

Consider Jonah, for example. When Yahweh commanded Jonah to preach to the Ninevites, he didn't say, "Oh, but first show them how much you love them. Otherwise, they won't listen." In fact, Jonah did NOT have an abundance of love for the Ninevites. Quite the contrary; he had no desire to see them repent! After finally obeying God's command to preach the Word though, Jonah saw that the Ninevites changed their ways -- and this was without any overt display of love on his part.

In addition, do you remember when Jesus spoke to the Samaritanwoman at the well? Jesus focused on simply declaring the truth. Sure, he spoke kindly, and of course, he also showed love and consideration simply by speaking to a Samaritan woman in public. Still, it seems to me that this single act of kindness is not quite the same as making someone "know how much you care." It's not the same as demonstrating the depths of one's love.

Also, why do people convert to Buddhism, or Wicca, or Satanism. Is it because they're touched by the depth of love that Buddhists, Wiccans, and Satanists have for them? Probably not! By and large, it's because the words of these religions resonate with them -- because they make sense to them. (I'm not endorsing those views, mind you, nor am I suggesting that they're logical. My point is simply that people don't necessarily need to see an outpouring of love before they become receptive to a particular teaching.)

Did Jesus use parables to entertain?

2008-03-29T13:48:00.000-07:00

I've often heard people assert that Jesus used parables to entertain the crowds, and that we must likewise strive to entertain the congregations. Is this true, though?Jesus himself answered this question. He used parables in order to confuse non-believers. As Matthew 13:10-15 says,
And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see
and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears
are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see
with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with
their hearts and turn So that I should heal them.’

Some would say, "But Jesus used parables to entertain! He knew that he had to entertain in order to draw a crowd!" That's not what the Bible says, though. Moreover, his parables were illustrative, but hardly entertaining. There's very little entertainment value in hearing about a woman who loses a coin, for example, only to find it again. Calling this "entertainment" is a huge stretch.

Besides, Jesus himself used parables sparingly. He occasionally told these stories, but he did not rely on them for all of his teaching. Jesus did not treat his listeners like idiots. He did not assume that they were so addled as to require an illustrative story for every teaching.

Moreover, there's a huge difference between using parables -- short, illustrative stories -- and acting these stories out before a crowd. Did Jesus instruct his Apostles to construct a stage and act out the Parable of the Good Samaritan, for example? Certainly not! It would not have been wrong to do so, but Jesus did not feel that his listeners required the constant use of dramatic reenactments.

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with using parables to entertain, just as drama is not inherently wrong. Ultimately though, dramatic skits appeal to one's emotions, rather than one's mind. There is a time and place for emotional appeals, but this provides a poor foundation for doctrinal understanding. How does one use a dramatic skit to convey Trinitarian doctrine, for example? Or to illustrate end-times theology? Or to discern whether speaking in tongues is valid for today? Emotions can help motivate people, but when it comes to grasping doctrine, they are ultimately a hindrance rather than a help.

Besides, do you really need a dramatic enactment in order to illustrate that homosexuality is wrong? Or dishonesty? Or adultery? If a church truly needs such tactics in order to comprehend these simple, fundamental truths, then the pastor has not done a proper job of teaching his flock. Moreover, beliefs that are rooted in emotional appeals lack any firm foundation. What happens when a movie like Brokeback Mountain or The Bridges of Madison County comes along -- movies that portray the glories of homosexuality and adultery? If we rely on drama and emotional appeal to instill one's beliefs, then those beliefs can be readily led away by dramas that convey the opposite worldview.

Teaching is dying out on Christian radio

2008-03-01T16:30:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I was listening to a sermon in which the preacher complained about an unfortunate trend in Christian radio. In the past, Christian radio stations typically offered a mix of both teaching and music. Nowadays though, less and less air time is devoted to teaching, and more and more stations are adopting all-music formats. An article in Christianity Today echoed this, stating

"Several [Christian radio] stations recently—many acting on the advice of a
leading consulting firm—have dropped serious programming in favor of all-music
formats."

This coincides with an observation I've made as well. There are two prominent Christian radio stations here in the Cleveland area. One of them provides both music and teaching programs like Grace To You and Truth For Life. Another is essentially an all-music station. Over the past couple of years, I've discovered that most of my Christian friends and acquaintances—especially among the younger people—listen primarily (or even exclusively) to the latter instead of the former.

The subject of Christian music is often very touchy, so I want to approach this topic carefully. I've learned the hard way that Christians often react viscerally to issues like these, thus causing unnecessary conflict. No matter how carefully one addresses the issue, people will often respond emotionally, offering knee-jerk reactions instead of careful, measured responses. For this reason, I'd like to proceed cautiously, anticipating likely objections and misconstruals.

First, I'm not saying that listening to Christian music is wrong. Nor am I suggesting that any Christian who prefers music programming is spiritually immature or inferior. That's not my prerogative to judge; after all, there could be any number of reasons why someone would prefer music programming on the radio. Perhaps that person's work environment would allow music to be played, but not outright teaching. Or perhaps that person is enrolled in a seminary, spending hours each day studying the Word. Whatever the case, we should avoid drawing hasty conclusions based merely on the knowledge that someone prefers music stations to teaching stations.

Having said that, I do think that this trend toward music programming is lamentable. It's a sign of our times. We want to hear things that are entertaining and make us feel good. We are less eager to hear preaching that could force us to re-examine our spiritual condition. We are even less interested in hearing messages that require deep thinking or detailed, systematic study of the Word. That's why so many Christians tune in to people like Joel Osteen, who preaches lightweight messages and tells story after amusing story. People are much less likely to study the works of John Piper, J.P. Moreland, or Ben Witherington III; after all, that requires a lot more effor than chanting out refrains like "Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, yes, Lord!"

Radio preaching is dying out, and deep, systematic teaching is in even more danger. I hope and pray that this trend will reverse itself, but somehow, I doubt that it will.

What's really going on in a porn star's mind?

2008-02-09T06:01:00.000-08:00

For many men, the allure of porn is overwhelming. They look at these women who are willing to bare themselves on camera, and they find themselves filled with desire. They look at the men who get to perform all manner of sensual acts with them, and they are filled with envy. It's a devious snare.

Much has been said about how we must avoid temptation, purify our minds, and dwell on things from above. I wholeheartedly agree, but today, I'd like to approach this subject from a different angle. I'd like to talk about the dark underbelly of the porn industry. My fervent hope is that when men realize why women pursue a career in pornography, they'll be filled with pity and disgust rather than with sexual desire.

Why do women go into porn? Some say that it's for the money. Others say that it's because they simply like to have sex. Now, maybe that's true for some, but I think that the evidence shows otherwise.Various studies show that the majority of sex industry workers have been victims of sexual abuse as children. Consider the words of Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Director for Women's Psychological Health in Philadelphia.

"Most strippers, as with other women who work in the sex industry, are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Research indicates the number is between 60%-80%. One study found that 35% of strippers have Multiple Personality Disorder, 55% had Borderline Personality Disorder, and 60% had Major Depressive Episodes, These are severe psychiatric problems and many of them are connected to childhood sexual abuse. These are women who when they were little girls would get into their beds each night and roll themselves into a fetal position and every night he would come in and peel her open. The physical and visual invasion of little girl's bodies damages them psychologically and gives them a psychologically unhealthy view of sexuality. Often as adults they reenact their childhood trauma by working as strippers, Playboy models, and prostitutes. The men who, now as customers, physically and visually invade the adult women's bodies, reenact the role of the perpetrator. These women work in the sex industry because it feels like home."

Shelley Lubben, a former porn actress, corroborates this claim. She admits to having been abused as a child, and as an industry insider, she saw what the world of pornography was really like. Her MySpace page also contains testimonies from other sex workers who likewise attest that they suffered the trauma of sexual abuse.

Consider as well the testimony of infamous porn star Traci Lords, who said in a Fox News interview,

"Well, I grew up in a small town in Ohio , and when I was 10 years old, I was raped by a high school boy that was about 16. And from there, my mother had an older boyfriend that molested me, so my entire childhood was really shaped by these really traumatic sexual experiences, which ultimately led me to the streets of Hollywood and to porn."

But what about those sex workers who claim that they were never abused, and that they simply enjoy having sex? In response, I urge people to consider the words of Carol Smith, former porn performer. In the book, Not for Sale, she is quoted as saying,

"When you suffer from childhood sexual abuse or were severely abused as a child, you usually repress those memories. You are unable to say, ‘I am doing this because I was abused as a child and this is all I know how to do. This is all I know how to feel.' I think a lot of the women are in denial…and they don't realize what post-traumatic stress disorder is. You either totally go a whole different direction and turn your life around and get as far away from that abuse as you can – or you re-live the experience, and a lot of these women are re-living what they know how to feel."

"Wait a minute!" some protest. "Not all sexual abuse victims go into porn. Doesn't this disprove your claim?" No, it doesn't. Remember, the claim isn't that sexual abuse invariably leads to a porn career. Rather, it's that the majority of porn industry workers were the victims of such abuse. There's a rather large difference between the two claims.

So the next time you feel tempted to rent an X-rated DVD or to download a steamy sex video, remember this: These women who perform for your pleasure are probably doing so because they have been violated in the most horrific and degrading of ways. They are reaching out for love in the only way that seems normal to them. Would you wish this kind of fate on your own sisters or children?

Truth or love?

2008-01-20T22:31:00.000-08:00

On a couple of occasions, I've seen people ask, "What is more important -- truth or love?" With all due respect to these people, that is a false dichotomy. True love includes being willing to speak the truth and correct falsehoods. What's more, while love will generally require gentleness and diplomacy, there are times when it will also require harsh words and a stern rebuke. Anybody who has ever raised a child knows what that is like!

Now, I'm not saying that criticisms and harsh words are always justified. (I hasten to say this, since it should be pretty self-evident. Nevertheless, there are self-professed believers who invariably tend to read such a message into such words, no matter how carefully one addresses this topic.) Rather, my point is that it is commonplace for people to complain, "Why are you criticizing what I believe? Not very loving, are you?" They fail to grasp that true love requires speaking out when people are mistaken and being deceived.

The Scopes monkey trial and "Inherit the Wind"

2007-11-16T18:18:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I heard some acquaintances of mine complaining about the intrusion of religion in the classroom. They lamented the way religion supposedly puts itself at odds against science. One of them said, "Remember the movie, Inherit the Wind? That goes to show how some people place religion ahead of scientific fact!"

For those who might not know, Inherit the Wind was a dramatized account of the infamous Scopes monkey trial. The ironic thing is that this movie blatantly misrepresented the events surrounding this trial, and its producers openly admitted that this was not a factual accoiunt. The fella I spoke about complained that religious folks ignore scientific fact, but he was blissfully unaware of historical facts!

I was reading an article online on this very topic. One choice passage says,

While Inherit the Wind remains faithful to the broad outlines of the historical events it portrays, it flagrantly distorts the details, and neither the fictionalized names nor the cover of artistic license can excuse what amounts to an ideologically motivated hoax. The film, for example, depicts Cates arrested in the act of teaching evolution by a grim posse of morally offended citizens, while in fact no effort was made to enforce the Butler Act. What actually brought the issue to light-never mentioned in play or film-was that the American Civil Liberties Union advertised for someone to challenge the law. Several Dayton citizens, hoping the publicity would benefit their town, approached Scopes as a possible candidate. Scopes was actually a mathematics teacher and athletic coach and had only briefly substituted as a biology teacher. He did not remember teaching evolution, but he had used the standard textbook, Hunter's Civic Biology, which contained a short section on the subject. Scopes was surprised to hear how relatively knowledgeable the student witnesses were, and he speculated that they must have picked up what they knew somewhere else and come to associate it with his class. Scopes himself knew little beyond the rudiments, and the defense thought it best to keep him off the stand, where his lack of knowledge (not to mention his uncertainty as to whether he had taught the subject) might prove embarrassing.

On the judicious use of drama in church

2007-10-08T08:02:00.000-07:00

One of the more contentious issues in Christendom today pertains to the use of drama in the church. Many people applaud it, whereas some consider it to be inappropriate for a church service. Needless to say, this topic often leads to angry discussions and bitter contentions.

Personally, I have grave reservations on the use of drama within church. Please don't get me wrong; I don't object to it per se. I do think that there are times when drama can be useful. Specifically,

It's useful as a memory aid. People are more likely to remember the story of Esther, for example, if they see it acted out rather than merely written.
It's helpful for making emotional appeals. I know of one church, for example, that had somebody act out a day in the life of a single mother, with all the travails that she endured. That's surely useful as well.
A little bit of drama can also be used to illustrate a point. Christmas plays, for example, often illustrate the momentousness of Christ's coming. Easter passion plays tend to remind people of the tremendous suffering that Jesus endured during his last days on Earth. A little bit of tasteful theatrics can help drive a point home.

Having said that, I do think that drama should be used sparingly and cautiously. I think that many churches go overboard in their use of drama. They say that it is used for teaching purposes, but frankly, I suspect that it is actually used as a means of entertainment and filling up the pews.

Somebody once told me about a skit that he saw during a church service. This skit featured a handyman fumbling around, trying to get his power tools to work, all with comedic effect. He had the audience practically rolling in the aisles. Eventually, he realized that he had forgotten to plug his tools in. At that point, he turns to the audience and says "That's how it is with the Holy Spirit, folks! Unless you're plugged into it, you can't tap its power!"

Some would defend this on the grounds that it's meant to illustrate a point, but I think that's a stretch. Such an elementary principle ("You need to get plugged into the Spirit") surely doesn't merit any elaborate, comedic routine in order to be grasped. This skit took an awfully circuitous route in order to illustrate a trivally simple, one-sentence point. At the risk of being judgmental, it strikes me as entertainment rather than real teaching.

Which leads to my second concern. As I mentioned earlier, I think that drama has its place, but that it should be used sparingly. When churches use drama too frequently, people come to think of it as an integral part of worship. Many churches even have dramatic skits at every service, and I think that's a subtle snare. It's like having dessert at every meal; once you take it away, people tend to think that something is lacking -- that they're no longer having a proper meal. This is especially true of church skits that are overly comedic or otherwise overtly entertaining.

Finally, I think that when churches have drama at every single service (or nearly every service), then it's probably not teaching much that's substantial. Drama can be used to teach fairly elementary points, such as the need to love one's neighbor. In contrast, I don't think it's particularly useful for teaching deeper matters of the Word -- how to interpret the Word accurately, for example, or how to defend the divinity of Christ. Oh, I suppose that you could have two actors engaged in a mock debate on stage, but in such situations, the "drama" amouns to nothing more than talking heads -- a sermon that's delivered on stage. The dramatic content ultimately contributes little to the message.

I know that some people absolutely love the use of drama in the church. I also know that it's an effective way to fill up the pews. I'm very cautious about its effects though, and I think that its usefulness is often exaggerated. Most importantly, I'm concerned that its frequent use can lead to a severe dumbing down of the message, such that milk is preached with very little meat. I think that many churches have already gone too far down that path, and that more will follow.

WWJD? I think that's the wrong question.

2007-10-07T11:39:00.001-07:00

When faced with a thorny problem, Christians often ask, “What would Jesus do?” While I applaud their intent, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Here’s why.

First, what Jesus would do isn’t necessarily what we should do. To use a trivial example, would Jesus get married? Surely not; after all, his mission was to sacrifice himself at a young age, and marriage would have surely been a hindrance to that mission. Yet few would claim that we must all live celibate lives, simply because Jesus would (and did). Less trivially, would Jesus accept a high-paying corporate job? Probably not, but does that mean that none of us should accept any lucrative job offers? I think that’s going far beyond both the Biblical mandates and common sense.

Second—and I think this is the more serious objection—this approach encourages people to feel out the answer instead of pursuing it logically. That is, when we ask ourselves what Jesus would do, the vast majority of us will tend to look inwardly, trying to feel the answer out in our hearts. This is dangerous; after all, human beings have a tremendous capacity for self-deception. As the Book of Proverbs says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Prov. 16:2). When we seek to know God’s will through emotional means, we are headed down a dangerous path.

There’s only one way we can truly know what Jesus would do, and that’s to consult God’s Word. The Bible often provides us with direct commands, such as telling us not to steal, commit adultery, or be yoked with non-believers. In matters that the Bible does not address—such as decided which school to attend or which house to buy—it provides us with general principles, such as urging us to seek the counsel of godly people in the church (Prov 12:15, Prov 15:22).

Instead of asking “What would Jesus do?” I think we should be asking ourselves “What does Jesus teach?” This approach might not sound as catchy – indeed, it would surely discourage many, especially since modern Christians tend to seek easy answers, rather than taking the effort to study God’s Word. It’s the more logical and sound approach, however, and it cuts directly to the heart of how we should make decisions in life.

Jodi Benson, letting Jesus shine through

2007-04-13T10:07:00.000-07:00

People know her best as the voice of Ariel, Disney's Little Mermaid.

I've had a few opportunities to hear Jodi Benson perform -- at Blossom Music Center, for example, as well as at a Christmas concert in Midland, Michigan. She's not known to be a huge Christian celebrity--at least, not in the same way as Kirk Cameron or the various contemporary Christian musicians. I do so love to hear her sing though, and I'm always pleased at the ways in which she speaks about her faith, squeezing this topic in whenever she can.

At times, it may be a simple as thanking God for her blessings. At other times, she may be more vocal, such as when she applauded the fact that she was allowed to perform at a *Christmas* concert (as opposed to, y'know, a "winter" concert). Obviously, she wasn't allowed to launch into a true sermon, but she made no attempt to hide her faith and her devotion to the Lord.
Kudos to Jodi Benson.

I wish that more performers were like her.

RC Sproul on worship

2007-03-11T18:14:00.000-07:00

I came across the following quote today from RC Sproul, in which he addressed the topic of worship in church:

If people find worship boring and irrelevant, it can only mean they have no sense of the presence of God in it. When we study the action of worship in Scripture and the testimony of church history, we discover a variety of human responses to the sense of the presence of God. Some people tremble in terror, falling with their face to the ground; others weep in mourning; some are exuberant in joy; still others are reduced to a pensive silence. However the reactions may differ among human beings to the holiness of God, one thing I never ever find in scripture is someone who is bored in the presence of God, or someone who walks away from an encounter with the living God and says "that was irrelevant."

There is no encounter a human being could ever have that is more relevant to daily life than meeting up with the living God. ... You were not created to be bored by the glory of God, you have to be spiritually dead to be bored by the glory of God.

I think those words are worth heeding whenever we feel tempted to "jazz up" our worship for the sake of capturing the attention of the "audience."

Have you ever noticed that people typically find another family's home videos to be boring? Ever wonder why? It's because we don't have a deep personal investment in that family's life. In the same way, when we don't have a deep personal investment in the presence of God, then we will tend to find worship boring unless it is jazzed up with glitz and aplomb.

Mind you, I'm not saying that worship has to be dull and mechanical. Not in the least. Rather, I'm addressing the claim that worship has to be made entertaining to keep someone's attention. Rather, our duty is to set a proper example in worship -- to be God-focused and reverent, while simultaneously expressing our joy. Our goal should be to teach people what worship is all about, rather than buckling under and giving people what they want.

Turning worship into entertainment -- Is it legalism to complain?

2006-12-21T17:06:00.000-08:00

On various occasions, I've expressed concern about the tendency of many churches to use entertainment-oriented tactics in their corporate "worship." In some churches, for example, the musicians may prance about on stage, rather like Marty McFly in Back to the Future. Others may have the guitarists or drummers engage in long, bombastic solos, as though they were performing at a rock concert. Still others use fancy camera effects -- zooming in on the guitar player's wildly twanging fingers, for example, then projecting that image up onto the screen.

Why am I concerned? Because such tactics ultimately focus attention on the performers, rather than on the Lord.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that worship needs to be dry and mechanical. Not at all. Nor do I object to the use of cameras or projection screens per se. Having said that, I don't think there's any reason why the church needs to see a close-up of the lead guitarist's nimble fingerwork, nor is there any reason why the cameras need to circle the drummer, capturing his image from multiple angles. Similarly, when the guitarist launches into a loud, minute-long riff, how does this glorify God? It would be naive to think that the audience respond by saying, "How great is our God!" No, I daresay that most of the will be thinking, "Dang, this guy is really rocking out!"

We need to be careful. Even when our intentions are innocent, we need to avoid making giving ourselves undue focus during worship. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that when we're worshipping, we must ensure that the focus remains on Christ. I think it's also obvious that certain tactics have a way of drawing attention to the performers rather than to the Lord.

In times past though, when I've observed discussions on this issue, I've often seen people respond by saying "That's legalistic!" or "Let people worship as they want to. Who are we to declare that any time of worship is wrong?"

The problem is that when people choose to do things their way, it's easy for them to cry, "Stop criticizing us! You're being so legalistic!" As one preacher said:

"We like to label people we don't agree with. Anybody who loves Jesus more than I do is a fanatic. Anybody who has more rigid moral standards than I do is a legalist. By attaching such labels we make ourselves feel better. Whenever human comparisons become our yardstick, we come out looking pretty good. But our only true measure is Christ and the Word of God and it is in this light that we shall consider the currently overused label of 'legalist.' ... If a fear of accusations of legalism prevents us from proclaming that God's Word needs to be applied to modern Christians, we have surely reached a sad state of affairs."

- Pastor Brian Watts, The King's Community Church in Langley, British Columbia.

This perspective also assumes that people are free to worship in whatever manner they desire. "After all, " they say, "the Lord looks at the heart. If you're sincere, then that's what counts."

I think that people forget what happened to Nadab and Abihu. Instead of worshipping God appropriately, they chose to worship in the manner that they desired (Leviticus 9:22-10:7). Instead of following God's principles, they offered "strange fire." One might wonder what this "strange fire" was, but the point is that God did not consider it acceptable. Nadab and Abihu were consumed in flame for their actions -- not because they lacked sincerity, but because their actions displeased God!

Does God look at the heart? Certainly -- but this does not mean that sincerity alone is enough. God also demands that worship be conducted in faith (Hebrews 11:4), in spirit (John 4:24), and with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28). If the church employs entertainment-oriented tactics, then it is not worshipping in a reverent manner! Besides, actions have a way of reflecting the content of one's heart. If a musician is prancing about on stage, using tactics that draw attention to himself, then it would be naive to believe that his full focus is on glorifying the Lord God Almighty.

Does this sound harsh? Does it sound judgmental? Perhaps... but remember that Christians are required to exercise judgment. We have an obligation to distinguish right from wrong, and if our worship of the Lord God is compromised in any manner.... well, that's a good reason to put our feet down and say, "Enough is enough!"

Missionary dating

2006-12-19T15:00:00.000-08:00

Today I'd like to quote from the classic article, "Why You Shouldn't Marry or Date an Unbeliever" by Melody Green of (the now defunct) Last Days Ministries.

Sometimes in order to marry a Christian girl, a fellow will "make a commitment" to Jesus because he knows he has to. He'll start going to church just to make her happy. In fact, he may even be sincerely trying to "get into it." But if it is not a decision arising from seeing his own need for God, then it is meaningless and will be short-lived. His "commitment" usually starts to fade some time after they get married - when it's no longer necessary for him to put his best foot forward.

I never trust a "conversion" of this type, and I consistently tell all those I counsel to let this fellow prove his commitment on his own. That is, to follow Jesus not by his girlfriend's side, but to get to church or Bible Study on his own steam, not on a date. If he proves to be sincere, growing, and firmly planted in Jesus, then after several months, she can start to pray and seek the Lord about the possibility of entering into a deeper relationship. The problem is, most girls don't have the patience to test the fruit. As soon as "Mr. Right" even looks like he's about to utter a sinner's prayer, she's off picking out towels, dishes, and bridesmaid dresses.

I wholeheartedly agree. We need to remember that guys will often say all the right things, just to keep a woman's heart. Heck, they can even be completely sincere! They can tell themselves that they've made a commitment to Christ, when in reality, they're just not at that stage yet. Ladies, please avoid this trap!

Mind you, I know of what I speak. As my friends know, I've never had much success in dating. Opportunities have been few and far between for me. As a result, when an attractive non-believer expresses interest, it has been very tempting to return that affection. I don't give in, though. I refuse to compromise, even when the temptation is great.

One more thing... Let's suppose that the fella you're dating genuinely does convert. Does this mean that you're free to date or marry? I don't think so. A newborn believer -- even a genuine one -- lack stability. You just never know if he's going to walk with the Lord, or if he will be led down a dangerous path. One should give it time before deciding if this fella will be a strong man of God and a good spiritual leader... and you can't do that objectively if you're already in a dating relationship.

2006-12-15T07:21:00.000-08:00

The Internet can be a wonderful source of knowledge.

I recently discovered the website of Christian scholar Dr. Gary Habermas. I've been a long-time fan of his work, particularly his discussions of theism and his research on the historicity of the Resurrection. I've never really looked up his website before, and there is a lot of great material there.

I'll be using some of his more recent material in some of the upcoming apologetics classes that I'll be teaching. Frankly, I wish that more people would read his work. I've often complained that Christians tend to gravitate toward light, fluffy reading material, and Dr. Habermas offers nothing of the sort. This is the kind of in-depth, intellectually challenging material that more Christians need to explore... and it can be tremendously edifying as well.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to recommend InPlainSite.org, which I discovered last month. This website covers a lot of marvelous material that Christians should know. It's not as abstract or deeply philosophical as Dr. Habermas's site; however, it's full of theological depth and practical knowledge. In particular, this site confronts many of the controversial issues and deceptions that plague Christianity today. At the same time though, it's accessible to laypeople who have a genuine thirst and desire for the truth. I highly recommend it.

Boy, I'm getting some hostility on YouTube!

2006-11-29T09:22:00.000-08:00

Man, I'm getting a lot of hostile responses to the videos that I posted on youtube.com -- the ones where I tackle various arguments regarding theism and the validity of Christianity.

Of course, I expected some hostility; however, I'm disappointed that most of these remarks fall far afield of the actual topics that I addressed. For example, in one video, I tried to argue that we shouldn't dismiss the gospels simply because they are biased; after all, if Christ's claims are true -- and if he truly rose from the dead -- then it would be impossible for any reasonable person to report these things in an unbiased manner! Moreover, as a history professor pointed out to me, most historical accounts will tend to contain bias, as this is pretty much unavoidable.
In response, one fella responded, "That's a lousy reason to believe the Bible!" I was disappointed in that response. Why? Because I wasn't offering an argument for the Bible's validity! Rather, in that particular video, I was merely addressing the notion that we should dismiss the gospels on account of their being biased.

In another video, I talked about how the physical constants of the universe -- the strength of gravity, the decay rate of protons, and so forth -- are so improbably and precisely tuned as to allow life to exist. To cut a long story short, if these constants were just a hair different, then oxygen would not form, hydrogen would not form, water could not exist, and so forth and so on. Life simply count not exist.

To my disappointment, one fella piped up by saying, "Why should we think this is an argument for God's existence? We have a much simpler explanation -- EVOLUTION!" I shook my head in dismay. How does evolution explain why the masses of neutrons and protons are so precisely tuned as to allow the formation of atoms? Or that the rate of radioactive decay is just right for allowing elements such as oxygen and nitrogen to exist? Evolution can't explain these things; quite the contrary! These constants must first be finely tuned before life can even exist.
It seems to me that people are often eager to take any potshot that they can against theism and Christianity. The validity of their arguments are less important than the opportunity to sling some mud our way.

To be fair, I level the same criticism against Christians who use poorly considered arguments in defense of the faith. Whenever Christians say "Ya just gotta believe", I cringe; after all, did Paul not exhort us to always be ready with a defense for our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15)? And when Christians respond to critics by saying, "That's not what the Bible says," I cringe as well; after all, people who disbelieve the Bible will tend to automatically dismiss such arguments.
(Mind you, I think there are times when it's helpful to quote the Bible and let its words sink into someone's heart. In most cases though, this doesn't make for a convincing argument--especially when we're dealing with true skeptics.)

This is one reason why I think it's important for us to develop our skills at presenting logical, carefully reasoned, carefully presented arguments in favor of the faith. There is a lot of careless, emotional thinking when it comes to matters of religion. Instead of fighting at a purely emotional level, we need to make sure that our arguments are also rooted in careful reasoning and solid facts. We also need to demonstrate what the facts actually say, while doing so in a winsome, loving and compassionate manner. Jesus would expect no less.

Posted some videos on YouTube.com

2006-11-28T21:41:00.000-08:00

I've started posting some video clips on youtube.com. You can find them at the following address:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=grammastola

So far, they all tackle issues of Christian apologetics; however, I hope to address other topics as well. My desire is to tackle a variety of topics that people don't normally hear about, but that are worth knowing.

For example, I mentioned that I attended a huge apologetics conference recently. I learned so much from the lectures, and from conversing with the various speakers. They shared some useful and mind-blowing insights into topics such as intelligent design, the historicity of the Scriptures and more. This material was pretty deep. Most of this was stuff that you're unlikely to hear in church, or that you're unlikely to find in your typical Christian bookstore.

I'd very much like to share some of these things with other believers. Unfortunately, churches generally provide few opportunities to teach apologetics, and when they do, they tend to be fairly basic in nature -- brief introductions to intelligent design, for example, or quick overviews of Josh McDowell's books. Sometimes, they'll teach out of books like The Case for Christ or The Case for Faith--books that are pretty darned good, but which are still (by necessity) pretty limited in their scope.

Through these youtube videos, I hope to share some of the things I've learned, as well as some personal experiences in presenting a case for Christianity. Unfortunately, youtube.com doesn't allow me to upload clips that exceed ten minutes in length. This means that I won't always be able to tackle topics as thoroughly as I'd like, except perhaps by cutting the vids up into segments.

The challenge of Christian apologetics in God's army

2006-11-25T16:50:00.000-08:00

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending a conference on Christian apologetics. It had an impressive panel of speakers—some of the world’s greatest and most influential Christian philosophers, historians and scientists. It also had a very impressive turnout—about 1,400 people, I’ve been told.

It’s a safe bet that most of the people who attended were not ardent students of apologetics. Many of them were clearly unfamiliar with the speakers or their topics—but they were there anyway! I find that encouraging.

Usually, it’s very difficult to get Christians to express any interest in apologetics. I don’t want to offend anyone, but modern-day Christians usually want th easy stuff. They don’t want anything that requires intense study or effort. Modern day Christians are much more interested in attending a concert than, say, a talk on Biblical archaeology or intelligent design.

That was very encouraging. I had a chance to talk with a couple of the speakers, and we talked about how it’s ordinarily difficult to get people interested in apologetics. As one speaker said, it’s like pulling teeth at times.

The wife of one speaker offered this insight, though. She said that Christians are like soldiers. You’ve got the infantry. You’ve got the Marines. You’ve got support personnel. All of them have an important role, and all of them need to know how to fight. However, the ones who dedicate themselves to knowing God’s Word and making a rational defense of the faith, integrating principles of logic, science, history, philosophy and so forth... are kind of like the Navy SEALs. It takes a lot of studying. It takes a lot of hard work. It takes a lot of dedication. In the end though, these guys are willing to take the toughest challenges to the faith, and face them head on.

We need more people like that. Christians get beaten up all the time when it comes to issues like history and intelligent design. We need people who know their stuff and can articulate it in a compassionate but thorough and uncompromising way. That’s why I urge people to take that challenge – to educate themselves on matters of Scripture, science, reasoning and law. There is a serious need, and we need people who will be part of the solution.

The '#1 Christian porn site' is worse than I thought

2006-11-20T20:57:00.000-08:00

Earlier, I wrote about the questionable tactics used by xxxchurch.com, a ministry that attempts to help people who are addicted to porn. As I said earlier, I appreciate their intentions and I believe that they do some good work. I also commend them for taking a strong stand against the snares of pornography; however, I think that some of their tactics are questionable and unwise. I'd like to revisit that topic.

Among other things, I objected to the way they call themselves the "#1 Christian porn site." As I emphasized earlier, they're not a porn site; rather, they are anti-porn. I feel that it's rather deceptive of them to bill themselves in this manner.

I mentioned this on a couple of Internet discussion boards. Some people agreed with me; however, a few were quick to defend xxxchurch. They said, "I think it's okay to call themselves a porn site; after all, shouldn't they try to catch people's attention? They're just being clever. Besides, they talk about porn, so that makes them a porn site in my eyes."

Two quick responses here: (1) Should they try to catch people's attention? Certainly, but this does not justify the use of deceptive language. (2) Merely discussing porn makes one a porn site? That's crazy talk. By that logic, we should declare American Atheists to be a Christian organization; after all, they talk about Christianity all the time.

There's a more serious problem, though. Somebody recently informed me that xxxchurch.com uses a giant inflatable penis as their ministry "mascot." They call this mascot "Wally the Weiner," and they take him to college campuses as part of their displays. Talk about inappropriate!

Now, I'm sure that their goal is to attract attention. There's nothing wrong with that; however, their methods are in extremely poor taste. Do they not see the lack of wisdom in using pornography to fight pornography?

Indeed, it has become clear that they make copious use of shock tactics in their materials. Their documentary video -- supposedly an attempt to depict the depravity of porn -- is titled "Missionary Positions." Obviously, this is an attempt to be clever; however, the title also strikes me as crude and inappropriate for ministry work.

(Supposedly, the video also shows some lurid porn convention footage -- the putative goal being to document the depths of sin in the porn industry. I haven't seen the video itself, mind you; based on the descriptions that I've read, I'd rather stay away from it. However, if these descriptions are accurate, then I think that xxxchurch erred greatly in their decision to commit these things to film. Sometimes, you don't have to show things in explicit detail to describe the depths of their depravity.)

I'll say it again: I applaud the goals of this ministry. I really do. I'm also sure that they've been helpful to some people. Nevertheless, I think that many of their tactics are unwise, and that some of them are in extremely poor taste indeed.

What good is a temporary sacrifice?

2006-11-06T17:51:00.000-08:00

I've often heard skeptics ask how Christ's death can be considered a real sacrifice if he knew that he'd becoming back from the dead. "Jesus gave up a weekend for your sins!" they taunt.

I think that this fella answers that question quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr_nw3nKCf c

While I'm at it, I'd like to recommend the following website as well: inplainsite.org

The rainbow and God's promise

2006-11-05T13:17:00.000-08:00

During one rainy day, I was walking through a natural history museum with a friend. As we looked at the various fossils and models of extinct animals, we got to talking about the Biblical Flood -- whether these animals were wiped out in the flood, became extinct afterwards, or whatnot. We talked about whether the earth was relatively young (about 6000 years old, according to some scholars) or 4.5 billion years old, as most scientists claim. It was a light-hearted yet interesting discussion about matters of God's creation.

On her way home, my friend called me up and said, "Guess what? As I was driving home, I saw a rainbow in the sky! Isn't that interesting? We were just talking about the flood, and now here's a rainbow right in front of me."

That got me thinking... How do most of us respond when we see a rainbow after a storm? The rainbow, after all, is a symbol of God's grace. It's a reminder that God will never again judge the earth in the same manner that he did with the flood. (Genesis 8:21, 9:8-17). I must confess, though... This almost never comes to mind when I see these colorful ribbons of light in the sky. Perhaps I need to remind myself of this promise more, as well as the sheer magnitude of God's grace.

Should we judge teachings or methods by the number of souls that are won?

2006-11-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

In a previous posting, I talked about the questionable tactics that are used by a ministry that attempt to evangelize those who are enslaved to pornography. I praised them for the good that they do, but I also questioned some of their techniques. I expressed concern about the damage that their tactics might be doing to the reputation of Christ's body.

I brought this up on a few Internet message boards. Some people understood and applauded my concerns. However, a few people said, "Why question their tactics? If they're winning souls and sharing God's Word, isn't that what matters?"

I disagree. I think we always need to be honest... especially when sharing the Gospel. Questionable tactics are not justified, even when they occasionally produce fruit. (As an aside, I don't know for sure if this ministry is truly winning people to Christ. Even if they are though, I don't think this would justify the use of deceptive or otherwise questionable techniques.)

Do you remember Mike Warnke? He was a famous "Christian" stand-up comedian back in the 1980s. He claimed to be a former Satanic high priest who had turned to the Lord. For a while, he was tremendously popular in Christian circles, and he would even urge people to give their lives to the Lord before death or the Rapture made things too late. He probably had a good number of conversions as a result.

Well, guess what? It was all a lie. Cornerstone Magazine did an expose on Mr. Warnke, revealing him to be a fraud. He was not an ex-Satanist at all, much less a high priest. Warnke did indeed proclaim the gospel, but his testimony was a sham.

Now some would declare, "Okay, but if he was winning souls! Ya gotta give him that!" With all due respect though, I think that's a terribly naive and short-sighted view. Sure, he may have won some souls... but in the process, he has caused tremendous damage to the body of Christ. Many authors cited Warnke in their writings on Satanism, but now, their credibility has been tarnished -- through no fault of their own. In addition, what about the times when believers upheld Warnke as an example of how God can redeem even the most rotten of sinners. Thanks to this deception, non-believers can now jeer at us and say, "Hah! You thought that God had changed Warnke's heart, but Warnke was lying all along. So much for your almighty, all-powerful God! Hah!"

As I keep saying, the devil is a master of deceit and strategy. His works can seem enticing and wonderful if we don't examine them carefully. I'm sure that the devil would gladly let one person be redeemed if this would help him lead a thousand more down a path of destruction.
In times of war, a general might let one of his soldiers get captured so that a thousand troops can escape with their lives. That's why we should not be quick to applaud a ministry's tactics just because they appear to produce salvation. After all, Satan knows that the most effective counterfeits are the ones that resemble the real thing. He knows that if by letting one man get saved, he can ensnare a thousand more. That's how crafty he is.

When judging someone's teaching or ministry methods, we must apply two principles: (1) We must compare them against the Bible, and (2) in areas where the Bible is not explicit, we must be sure to judge with wisdom and caution. We should never declare that one's teachings or methods are godly simply because they happen to win souls. That way lies deception.

My thoughts on "The #1 Christian porn site"

2006-10-20T05:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I came across www.xxxchurch.com. This is a ministry that attempts to minister to the porn-addicted and those who are caught up in the porn industry. They also provide a wonderful tool called X3Watch, a software utility that notifies an accountability partner whenever you visit a website with questionable content. I've never used this program myself, but it sounds like a wonderful idea.

Having said that, I do have some grave reservations about this ministry. For one thing, their website prominently describes themselves as the "#1 Christian porn site." Of course, they mean this in a tongue-in-cheek fashion; however, I think this choice of term is unwise, to say the least. For one thing, I think it's deceptive to describe oneself as a "porn site" if your true intent is to help people break away from sexual snares. Second, people who come across this site -- or a mere description of it -- are likely to develop the wrong impression. For these reasons, I think that their choice of terms is unwise at best, and arguably less than honest.

Some of their other tactics indicate a lack of wisdom as well. For example, many of their products use the slogan, "Jesus loves porn stars." Is this true? Certainly... but stated in that manner, many people are likely to take this as an endorsement of pornography -- or at the very least, acceptance thereof. (Is this an overreaction? I don't think so; after all, many defenders of homosexuality proudly proclaim that "God loves gays!", which clearly implies that homosexuality is okay in God's eyes. By the same token, declaring that "Jesus loves porn stars" is likely to be taken as an endorsement of their work.)

I've also read that their primary evangelistic tools are copies of a Bible paraphrase (The Message) with "Jesus loves porn stars" emblazoned on the cover. I've already expressed my concern about the slogan, but I have reservations about their choice of reading material as well. The problems with The Message are well-documented, and by no means minor; it's a very loose paraphrase that takes tremendous liberties with the Biblical text. In addition, I think we're on dangerous ground when we preferentially promote Bible paraphrases over more accurate translations. If you want to use a readable version, then the NIV would be a much better choice. (I'm not have a huge fan of the NIV, since I prefer the accuracy of the NKJV and the NASB. Nevertheless, I think it's a better choice than the horrible Message paraphrase.)

In summary, I think that www.xxxchurch.com has laudable goals and they provide some helpful tools. Nevertheless, but I have grievous concerns about some of their tactics. I think the Slice of Laodecia blog has some helpful comments on this issue as well, and I recommend reading what they wrote.

Using hula to teach about God's peace?

2006-09-29T12:24:00.000-07:00

In times past, I've expressed concerns about the increased use of hula dancing in church services. The motive is supposedly to praise God through the use of hula. At the risk of being labelled a legalist though, I have some problems with this approach. As I've mentioned before, when worshipping God, I think it's important to focus our attention on the Lord and to avoid tactics that draw attention to the performers. There's nothing wrong with using dance troupes or flashy performances per se. There's nothing wrong with having musicians or worship leaders, nor is there anything wrong with appreciating someone's talent. Certain types of performance, however, tend to draw attention to the human performers. When it comes time to worship, those things must be set aside and our focus must be on the Lord himself.

Recently though, I heard someone say, "If the pastor is preaching about peace and serenity, then why not have hula dancers in the service? After all, hula is all about peace and serenity." I'm sure that many Christians would not in agreement, but I would like to dissent. Here's why.

First, is there really any benefit to dancing serenely when the pastor preaches about peace and serenity? Such an attitude implies that people find it difficult to grasp such elementary concepts. It also implies that we should act them out on stage to help people understand. As a church teacher and a former educator, I'm all in favor of educational tools. However, I think that this tactic is truly an insult to the intelligence of any discerning adult.

Second, I don't think there's any connection between the peace of God and the serenity of hula music. Music and dance can be peaceful insofar as we find them to be soothing and pleasurable. The peace of God is dramatically different. It's the type of peace that one encounters amidst the raging storms of life--the calm assurance that one feels when everything seems to be going wrong. It's the peace that assures us that God is in control, even when someone has lost his job or is dying of cancer. This is the peace that surpasses all understanding, and bears only a superficial similarity to the tranquiliity that one might experience from music and dance.

Finally, even if hula were a useful pedagogical tool, I don't think that would justify its use in worship. As I've often said, worship should always direct one's attention to the Lord. We can certainly have musicians and worship leaders, but they must always be careful to avoid drawing undue attention to themselves when performing. I doubt that the congregation will be focused on the Lord when you have a visual hula treat on stage -- even if the hula performers are modestly dressed and not dancing suggestively. It's naive to think that people will be looking at the dancers and say, "How great, how mighty, how wonderful is our God!"

So why is hula becoming so popular in our churches? I think it's because people have lost sight of what worship is about. Many believers evaluate worship based on how much they enjoy the music -- or worse, how much they enjoy the light shows or the MTV-style multimedia productions. True worship, however, is not for our enjoyment. It is about focusing on the Lord God himself, dwelling on his majesty, power and love without any regard for our own pleasure. The Almighty deserves no less than that.

Playing secular music during church worship

2006-09-14T20:13:00.001-07:00

Last year, I met someone who says that he regularly performs secular songs during church worship. Why? Because people enjoy them more and it helps attract large crowds. He mentioned the following as examples of the kidn of music that they play:

Jesus is Just Alright -Doobie Brothers
Maybe I'm Amazed -Paul McCartney
Vertigo -U2
That's Just The Way It Is -Bruce Hornseby
Shining Star -Earth Wind and Fire
Some Kinda Wonderful -Grand Funk
Born To Be Wild -Steppenwolf
Money, Money, Money -Abba
Footloose -Kenny Loggins

First, I question the wisdom of playing secular music for worship. A song like "Dust in the Wind" might arguably have a religous application, but that doesn't make it worshipful. Heck, if the song barely mentions God -- or doesn't mention God at all, not even tangentially -- then how can we claim that it focuses on the Lord?

Second, I think that most of the songs mentioned -- if not all of them -- are deeply inappropriate for a worship setting. "Money, Money, Money"? I suppose one could say that it's all about materialism, but that doesn't make it worshipful. I'm not saying that Christians should NEVER play such music in church, mind you. It might be suitable background music during a play, for example. However, when it comes time to worship, our purpose should be to focus on the Lord Most High -- not to play songs that simply have some spiritual application, no matter how tenuous.

I adopt the following rule of thumb: If a Buddhist, Hindu or atheist can play the song in the same heartfelt manner as a Christian, then it's probably not suitable for worship. Worship is all about the Lord God, and worship music should reflect this. Throwing in a few religious words or tenuous religious applications just doesn't cut it.

"Loving God With All Your Mind" apologetics conference

2006-08-16T22:01:00.000-07:00

I'm psyched! In just a few weeks, the Evangelical Philosophical Society will be having its annual apologetics conference. The title this year is "Loving God With All Your Mind" and it will be held on 16-18 November 2006 at a church near Washington, D.C.

I'm going! I learned so much from last year's conference, and I'me ager to go again. I relish the opportunity to speak with some of the finest Christian minds in the world. I'd also like to bring some of my friends along.

Yeah, I know; this type of material doesn't appeal to many people. Most Christians would rather go to a concert or a retreat, and many don't understand the appeal of listening to a bunch of renowned scholars speak. I hope to convince them that this sort of event will be worth attending, though. These gentlemen may be brilliant, but they also know how bring the subject matter down to a level that less educated individuals can follow--with a bit of effort, of course.

Is your pastor a stand-up guy or a stand-up comedian?

2006-06-25T17:35:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, a group of my friends and I watched a Christian teaching DVD at a church singles group meeting. I tell you, it was a hilarious, mile-a-minute jokefest! The preacher was a gifted comedian, and he kept his audience in constant stitches.

After the DVD ended, we found ourselves at a loss. We wanted to discuss its content, but instead, we were forced to ask, "What was that all about?" The pastor was so intent on cracking jokes that even the most attentive listeners could scarcely pick out his message.

This, I think, is a serious concern in many churches. In their desire to attract crowd, many pastors turn the pulpit into a stand-up comedy revue. The doubtlessly think, "If we can get people laughing hard enough, then they'll want to attend this church and they can hear God's Word." I strongly disagree. There's nothing wrong with using humor in the pulpit, mind you, but when humor becomes the emphasis, then God's Word is overshadowed—or even ignored.

Today I found this article ("Is Your Pastor a Comedian?") that expresses much the same view. As I said, humor is not intrinsically wrong; indeed, there are times when a well-placed joke can help people remember a vital point. Overall though, one's preaching should convey the seriousness and sobriety that God's Word deserves.

Sadly, I know that many churchgoers love to hear a comedyfest come from the pulpit. I also know that many would respond by saying, "Why do you say that it's wrong to crack jokes? Do you want the pastor to be nothing but a sourpuss?" Not at all; as I said, the problem occurs when humor is pursued as a goal—when it becomes the main course, rather than a delightful bit of seasoning.

Many others respond by asking, "Are you saying that the pastor shouldn't use his talents? Why should we deny him the chance to demonstrate his gifts?" This, of course, is a specious response. Of course people should use their gifts, but they must sometimes be used in moderation. Moreover, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should use these gifts in the pulpit. I know pastors who are gifted at home repair; does this mean that they should use the pulipt to demonstrate how to fix a bookcase?

Still others would say "Well, if it draws the crowds in, what's wrong with that? Are you saying that they shouldn't try to increase attendance?" No, I'm not saying that at all. Rather, I'm saying that we shouldn't attempt to draw crowds by turning the sermons into irreverent jokefests. This can only hinder the preaching, rather than reinforce it.I am fully aware that some would disagree with this viewpoint; nevertheless, I stand by my point. When preaching, the focus should be on the Word, rather than any desire to tickle people's fancy.

Does prosperity mean that God approves?

2006-04-25T05:54:00.000-07:00

How should we evaluate Christian ministries? Many look at the size of a church and say, "Boy, God must really be using that church mightily" Or they look at a "Christian" TV or radio station and say, "Look at how large their ministry is! Clearly, God is blessing their work!"

Does the size and prosperity of the ministry indicate that they have God's divine sign of approval? Many would say yes... but what does the Bible say?

"Righteous are You, O LORD, when I plead with You;Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?" (Jeremiah 12:1)

"But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled; My steps had nearly slipped. For I was envious of the boastful,When I saw the prosperity of the wicked." (Psalm 73:2-3)

God's Word declares that even the wicked may prosper. Prosperity is not a sign that someone -- whether an individual or a ministry -- is serving God faithfully.

Sometimes, God answers prayers in dramatic ways

2006-04-09T17:46:00.000-07:00

Have you ever known people who routinely live by faith, and who have seen God provide for them in wonderous, spectacular ways? I've known a few, and one of the most spectacular examples was the director of a crisis pregnancy center in California.

Back in 2002, their center was on the verge of collapse, due to severe negligence on the part of their board members. They had legal and financial troubles, and were on the brink of shutting their doors forever. Their director (let's call her "Louise") had already told God that she was planning to resign unless her board received some sort of training... and soon. The center's future looked bleak, and the situation seemed hopeless.

At the time, I lived about 75 minutes away. One day, I decided to call their center and offer my help, not knowing that she was on staff. She recognized my name though, and so we quickly discovered that she was the mother of a dear friend of mine from my grad school days.

Louise asked how I would be willing to help. I had a list of ideas in mind, which I rattled off. (I've been involved with pro-life organizations for 15 years now, and have served them in a variety of capacities.) Among other things, I offered to help train their board members in the principles of boardsmanship, fundraising and CPC governance, if they were interested. She immediately blurted out, "Oh, praise God! That is truly an answer to prayer!" Remember, I had no idea that she had been specifically praying for that, or that she had been planning to resign. Talk about God's timing!

I think it's safe to say that such encounters are extremely rare. Except for a few highly paid consultants, I don’t know anyone else who goes around offering to help pro-life ministry boards in this manner. I certainly don't know anyone who offers such services for free, as I insist on doing. For someone to call out of the blue -- well, if it was a coincidence, then it was truly a staggering one.

To cut a long story short, I met with their board members to learn more about their situation. Together, we discussed ways to improve the ministry. Changes were made, fresh blood was brought in, and things started to improve immediately. They had some wonderful individuals on that board, and in the weeks that followed, their dedication shone through. Needless to say, Louise decided to stay on, and they're now growing at an almost unbelievable rate. I get shivers every time I think about what happened.

God still answers prayers... and sometimes, he does so dramatically. Praise God!

This is by no means the only situation in which God provided for Louise in spectacular ways. Someday, I'd like to write about the other stories that she shared -- times when Louise and her daughter were penniless and had an empty cupboard. Or the time when they had a bare apartment, without even the bare comforts of furniture. God provided for them in his perfect timing, in ways that boggle the mind. I hope that someday, my faith will be as strong as hers has become throughout these crises.

Are the essentials enough?

2006-03-24T22:10:00.000-08:00

A few months ago, I met a fellow who occupied a prominent ministry position in his church. Over dinner one night, we got to talking about church doctrine. With passion, this fellow declared, "As long as a church teaches the bare basics--the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ, that sort of thing--then that's all I care about. I don't give a flip about anything else."

Now, I know that a lot of believers would applaud such a statement. After all, it sounds positively loving and tolerant, does it not? Indeed, I'm sure that his remark was motivated by love and a desire for unity. At the risk of ruffling some feathers though, I find such sentiments to be rather dismaying. To my mind, it's like saying, "As long as a school teaches the very basics--reading, writing and arithmetic--then that's all that matters. Everything else is just fluff." It may seem loving, but it sets the bar awfully low. What a far cry from Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as he urged the young man to safeguard the Ephesians, that they may hold meticulously to the Word and "teach no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3).

Moreover, I think that his sentiment--a distressingly common one, I might add--assumes that the essentials are all that matter, and that everything else is of little consequence. While that's an understandable viewpoint, I believe that it's unwise and unscriptural. There are many teachings that are not essential for salvation, but which are nevertheless of extreme importance. Principles of Biblical exegesis, for example, are critically important; after all, a sloppy approach to exegesis can lead to all sorts of abominable teachings. What about principles for selecting a church elder, for example? Should we "not give a flip" if a church decides to ignore the Biblical command to elect elders who are monogamous and exhibit upright characters (1 Tim 3:8-13)? Or what about the command against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14)? Is it okay if a church declares that it's okay for Christians to date and marry non-believers?

Just to drive a point home, let's use a more extreme example. There are churches that encourage their members to handle poisonous snakes as a test of their faith. This false teaching will not, by any means, cost someone his salvation, but does that make it acceptable? Certainly not! Once again, we should "give a flip" if such matters are being taught!

Interestingly enough, this person followed up his comment by saying, "I refuse to attend Pentecostal churches, though. That's because speaking in tongues freaks me out!" Notice the reason he gave? Rather than rejecting Pentecostalism on Biblical grounds, he does so because he thinks it's freaky. Such feelings are certainly understandable, but they are not the right way to test church doctrine!

I think that the Christian community should abandon this popular notion that it doesn't matter what churches teach, as long as they hold to the basics. This notion may sound like a loving, Christ-like sentiment -- and indeed, I'm sure that it's typically motivated by love and a desire for unity. I think it's an oversimplification though, and I don't think it's quite what the Bible teaches.

How to evaluate a book -- by its effects or by Scripture?

2006-03-22T21:40:00.000-08:00

In times past, I've expressed concern about some of the Christian books on the market. Some of these books are tremendously popular and they have taken Christendom by storm; nevertheless, I have grave concerns about the accuracy of their Biblical exegesis and the theologies that they espouse.

When I mention this, people frequently respond with comments like "Our church has grown much closer to God since we started studying this book" or "What about the thousands of people who have come to Christ through these books? Surely that means that it's been blessed by God!" I can see how people would respond that way; however, with all due respect to these individuals, I don't agree with those viewpoints.

First of all, I would question the foundations on which such comments are made. A church may feel that it has grown closer to the Lord, but feelings can be deceptive. Unless a church was grossly dysfunctional to begin with, I think it would be difficult for anyone to accurately determine that any given book has indeed caused a church to grow closer to God. Similarly, I would question the oft-repeated claim that thousands have come to Christ through these books. Make no mistake; they have been tremendously popular; however, I have yet to see any reliable evidence that they have resulted in mass conversions to Christianity.

More importantly, I believe that these comments reflect an improper approach to gauging the doctrinal accuracy of a "Christian" book. Books should not be evaluated based primarily on the putative good that they produce. Rather, we must always evaluate them based on how accurately they line up with the holy Scriptures. If a book does not accurately reflect Biblical teachings, then it is teaching falsely -- regardless of how much good it may produce.

We must always remember that Satan is a master deceiver. He would gladly allow a church to become deeply inspired by a bestselling book, if this would open the doors to subtle errors. In fact, the most dangerous counterfeits are often those that most closely resemble the truth.

Satan is also a master tactician. In the course of a battle, a general might grudgingly allow a dozen of his own men to be killed, if this means slaughtering thousands of the opposing forces. In the same way, Satan would surely allow a thousand people to come to Christ, if this means leading a million more astray.

Unfortunately, searching the Scriptures can be hard work, and few people are willing to do so meticulously. It's much easier to evaluate a book based on whether it sounds good, or whether it's popular, or whether it produces some good fruit. Ultimately though, faithful Christians are called to a higher standard. We must always let the Scriptures be our final authority, even if this means refusing to follow the crowd.

John MacArthur on entertainment within the church

2006-03-18T10:03:00.000-08:00

I'd like to quote the following comments from John MacArthur regarding the pervasive use of entertainment within the church. Many churches use entertainment-oriented gimmicks—dance troupes, elaborate MTVesque video productions, and even secular rock music—during worship. The goal is supposedly to draw people into the church and capture their attention.

While I applaud the motive behind such tactics, I have to question their wisdom. Worship, after all, should be about God, first and foremost. If we engage in tactics that are designed to entertain, then we have watered down the purpose of worship. In addition, if we use tactics such as long, bombastic guitar riffs or drum solos, then we are drawing attention to the performers rather than to God. People might enjoy such spectaculars, and they might even feel that they have "worshipped," but God is no longer at the center.

Many churches also try to attract larger crowds by keeping the sermons light and fluffy, or by filling the sermons with humor and jocularity. Now, I don't object to the use of humor; I myself try to use it whenever I get a chance to speak. However, I believe that we should never let the humor get in the way of the message itself, which is what can happen when we turn these Sunday meetings into elaborate story sessions or joke-a-thons.

Again, I want to emphasize that these churches are probably acting with a great deal of sincerity. In addition, there's nothing wrong with wanting more people to come to church. However, I think these tactics are both unbiblical and unwise.

As John MacArthur said,

“You see, that’s what the strategy in so many churches has become. The pastor thinks to himself, "When I just preach what God told me to preach, I don’t get good results. People are bored, they don’t respond in large numbers, etc. But when I add a little gratuitous humor or build a cappuccino café or lighten up the message a little bit, voila – large crowds!” And so, even they begin to water down the message in a well-intentioned effort to meet people where they’re at and to stay relatable. And when those same pastors and churches do compromise, guess what happens? Success. Albeit pragmatic, shallow, hollow, external success in numbers and positive response only… but success!

“Now again, don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing inherently evil with appropriate humor in a sermon or a cup of coffee afterwards. But when those things become the bait to a trap and hold the attention of otherwise disinterested crowds, then all it’s doing is propping up a ministry that has no real spiritual power to transform lives.”

- John MacArthur, “Does the Truth Matter Anymore?” video series, http://www.crosstv.com/

Did God really use 40 days of rain to "prepare" Noah?

2006-03-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

In his book, The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren claims that "Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days." (This is the rationale behind his "40 days of purpose" program.) By way of example, he cites how God used 40 days of rain to prepare Noah for his divine mission.

Now, I'm pretty sure that the Bible never says that God always uses 40 days to prepare someone spiritually. That is one reason why that I think that Warren's claim is on shaky ground. In addition though, I think that his example with regard to Noah is questionable as well.Did God use 40 days of rain to prepare Noah? I don't believe so, for several reasons:

Noah was clearly prepared long before the flood came. God had selected him, out of all of humanity, to build the ark and preserve the human race. This happened at least 120 years before the first drop of rain during those 40 days!
Noah and his family were in the ark for 53 weeks -- more than a year! (Genesis 8:14) There were 40 days of rain, but after that, the waters continued to rise, since the fountains of the earth had been opened up. Even after that, it took many more weeks for the waters to subside. It would be rather silly to pick out just 40 days and single this period out as the time of Noah's spiritual preparation.

So, why does this matter? In the grand scheme of things, does this error really affect anyone?

I think it does matter, and here's why. First, we must never claim that the Bible says something when it does not. If we value the truth, then we must never ascribe things to the Bible that it does not say.

Second, this sort of teaching can lead people down wrongful paths. If God is calling someone in a particular direction -- to lead a Bible study, for example, or to volunteer at a local crisis pregnancy center -- I would hate for that person to think that she must first undergo a 40 day training period. Sometimes, this might be prudent, but at other times, we must simply go and obey! Conversely, I would hate for someone to think that God has already "prepared" him or her, simply because the prescribed 40-day period has elapsed. What if that particular person needs more time to be properly equipped?

And third, I think this sets a poor example for how to exegete the Scriptures. Even if Rick Warren's conclusion were correct (which I contest), it would still illustrate a careless and tortuous approach to the Scriptures. Whenever we teach from the Bible, we are not merely proclaiming truths; rather, we are also setting an example in the manner by which we discern these truths. This is not something to be taken lightly.

So in summary, I disagree that God always used 40 days to prepare someone, and I disagree that God used 40 days to prepare Noah. I think that is going beyond what the Scriptures teach, andI think that by doing so, it sets a dangerous precedent.

(I recommend the following link for people who want to read more about the exegetical problems in The Purpose Driven Life. I don't necessarily agree with all the criticisms voiced in that article, but I believe that the gist of it is accurate.)

The Upside-Down Church

2006-02-19T11:38:00.000-08:00

I am almost finished listening to the audiocassette edition of Greg Laurie's book, The Upside-Down Church. I highly recommend it.

In this book, Greg Laurie talks about how his church grew and was blessed by God. Perhaps most impressive is the fact that he never really strove for a large church. Rather, he just preached God's Word, without concentrating on attendance levels or numerical growth. God blessed him for his efforts.

I'm sure that it can be tempting for pastors to soften their messages, or to focus on entertainment in order to develop a large congregation. However, I think that Pastor Laurie's focus is clear and Biblical--preach the Word, and let God grow the church.

Video series: "Does the Truth Matter Anymore?"

2006-01-31T06:58:00.000-08:00

I'm midway through watching this great video series. It's titled "Does the Truth Matter Anymore?" (available here, and listed midway through the page). Wow.

In this video, John MacArthur talks about the questionable tactics that many churches use to drum up attendance -- dance troupes, slapstick skits, and the like. In his usual even-handed manner, he stresses that entertainment and innovation are by no means wrong; at the same time though, he emphasizes that we should never allow entertainment and novelty to be the focus of our ministries. If people attend church primarily because they are being entertained, then something is wrong.

As I watch this video, I find myself shocked at some of the tactics that these churches employ. A "Christian" mock strip tease dance, for example? Such tactics may increase attendance, but how can one think that they glorify the Lord? Or what about the use of skits at every service, to illustrate the point that the pastor is making? While there's nothing wrong with theatrical presentations per se, is it really helpful to include these at each and every service? I, for one, would feel that the teaching is being dumbed down, and that the congregation is being challenged to reach for a bar that is set rather low.

Like MacArthur, I don't object to the occasional skit or dramatic presentation. Nor do I object to the use of innovative musical numbers per se. However, if we are relying on these tactics to increase our church attendance, then I think that something is clearly wrong. We may have the appearance of church growth, as evidenced by numerical attendance; however, I would question whether the saints are being properly equipped to do God's work.

Now, I know that voicing such concerns will tend to anger a great many within the church. May take great offense at the notion that there's anything wrong with, say, using elaborate light shows and bombastic guitar solos during worship to entice the crowds. For that reason, I'd like to echo something else that John MacArthur said,

"These are issues about which many people have deep convictions, and I recognize that. And I also recognize that when such matters are brought up, particularly when they're spoken plainly and forthrightly, people sometimes become angry. But I want you to know this: Our program is not produced in anger, and so I would ask viewers to receive what I am saying with the same spirit in which it is being offered. My prayer is that this mini-series will challenge your thinking in a way that will drive you to the Scriptures to see whether these things are so, like the Bereans in the Book of Acts did themselves. And it's also my prayer that the Lord will deliver his church from the same kind of downhill slide into worldliness and unbelief that devoured the church and exhausted her stamina almost exactly a hundred years ago. I think we can all agree that would be a good thing. So my goal is to ultimately unite, not divide, even if that means -- at least in the short term -- some ruffled feathers."

2006-01-29T20:47:00.000-08:00

Alan Redpath (1907 – 1989) was a well-known British preacher and the pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. Shortly before his death, he wrote the following scathing denounciation of the current trend of focusing on entertainment within modern churches. I think his words speak for themselves.

God is trying to tell us that our current popular version of Christianity - comfortable, humorous, superficial, entertaining, worldly-wise - is exposed for the irreverent presentation of the Gospel of Christ that it really is. A preacher is commissioned to give people - not what they want - but what they need. No man has any business walking into the pulpit to entertain. He is there to present Calvary in all it's fullness of hope and glory.

John MacArthur issued similarly scathing words as well, albeit balanced with his usual gentle spirit:

It seems to me that if any one problem out strips all the others in the church, it is the utter lack of spiritual discernment; the ability to discern truth from error regarding God and the things of God. The church today has boundless credulity (they'll believe virtually anything). And the result is, the modern church is filled with: bad decisions, faulty reasoning, superficial understanding, shallow knowledge, and wide-spread ignorance. Collectively, those things have added more anguish to the church throughout her history, than all the persecutions combined.

Jesus said that "wolves" would "come in sheep's clothing." The Apostle Paul said, "Grievous wolves will enter in, not sparing the flock." Paul wrote to Timothy and said as time goes on "evil men will get worse and worse, and deception will increase." Paul again said, "there will be doctrines of demons that will lead people astray." To put it mildly, there is a world of chaos and confusion in the church today. We cannot, therefore, believe for a moment that everyone who claims to be "in Christ" and to "speak on behalf of Christ" is speaking the truth. Distinguishing truth and error has become vital to the 21st century Christian.

Yet, despite that, there is a greater than ever lack of discernment in the church today. And it is showing up in all kinds of different ways. The undiscerning contemporary church, for example, has often rejected Darwin and Huxley but accepted Freud. It has often rejected doctrine and favored and embraced so-called "unity in our relationships," as if that were the priority. It has become fascinated with entertainment and bored with exposition. It has been enamored with feelings, and undervalued clear thinking. As a result, evangelical Christianity, and listen to this, is fighting for its very life. And our time cries out for people with discernment, with the ability to tell the false from the true.

--John MacArthur, Workman series, www.CrossTV.com

Spurgeon on truth and doctrine

2006-01-17T20:54:00.000-08:00

I came across the following quote today:

"Everywhere there is apathy. Nobody cares whether that which is preached is true or false." - Charles H. Spurgeon

In previous postings, I complained about how so many believers that I encounter don't seem to care much about truth and accuracy in doctrine. I've lost track of how many times I've heard people say things like, "As long as we're all Christians, that's what counts" or "It's not what you believe that matters, it's what you do."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, salvation matters--in fact, it's of extreme impotance. And sure, good works and obedience matters. However, truth matters as well; that is why the Bible commands us to "test all things." If we are not careful about the things we teach and believe, then we are unfaithful, untrustworthy stewards of God's Word.

One person even told me, "Why should we care what other churches teach? That only affects them, after all." I responded by saying, "Well, first of all, false teachings have a way of spreading. For that reason alone, we should be concerned. And second, if a church's teachings don't affect anyone outside of its congregation, then it's obviously not having much of an impact in the world!"

Spurgeon went on to say,

"A sermon is a sermon whatever the subject; only, the shorter it is, the better."

I think that is true even today--in fact, probably moreso. Many churches that I've encountered seem to avoid meaty topics, settling instead for what is entertaining and easy to digest. One church that I visited devoted four weeks to the topic of how to deal with difficult co-workers. Mind you, that's certainly helpful information, but it's frightfully low on Biblical content!

Few are the believers who are willing to delve meticulously and carefully into careful Biblical analysis. Rather, slipshod and touchy-feely interpretations take the place of precise, exacting exegesis. People who insist on such careful exegesis are often accused of being too picky, too meticulous or too intolerant.

Spurgeon was right. No wonder modern Christianity is in such a poor state.

Why I was proud of my church last Christmas

2006-01-03T21:23:00.000-08:00

I attend a small church in the Cleveland area, and I'm very proud of them. Here's why.

In an earlier blog entry, I talked about how various churches were taking Sunday off, anticipating lowered attendance. Many churches reported dramatically lowered attendance whenever Christmas lands on a Sunday, presumably since many members choose to spend time with their families instead. So this weekend, I found myself wondering how large the turnout would be at our church.

Don't get me wrong; I expected that the numbers would be pretty good. However, I was delighted to see that virtually everyone showed up today! Some of them even brought friends, so our numbers were noticeably higher than usual.

Mind you, this happened even though we also had a Christmas Eve service on the previous night. The turnout there was also very strong, which warmed my heart greatly. What's more, our pastor didn't even need to exhort or remind people not to skip church this Sunday. In other words, the people did this of their own accord, which is a testament to their dedication.

Lest anyone misunderstand... I'm not saying that there are NO good reasons to miss church on Sunday. Nor am I saying that there are no good reasons to cancel church services. There certainly are. However, I was glad to see that my new church home placed a premium on corporate worship and the hearing of God's Word. They also felt that this was as good a way as any to spend time with their families. Good job!

Being too picky about the truth?

2005-12-29T18:08:00.000-08:00

One of my friends recently said, "I think that sometimes, Christians can be like the Pharisees. They can be so picky about the truth that they become unloving."

I reflected on that and said, "I don't think that's accurate. The problem with the Pharisees wasn't that they were TOO picky about the truth. Quite the opposite, really. They didn't care enough about correct doctrine, and so they deviated greatly from God's Word."

To illustrate this fact, consider the following encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees:

At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Behold, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." (Matthew 12:1-2)

On the surface, one might think that the Pharisees were correct. However, consider Christ's response:

But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions; how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

I do not wish to digress into the theology of the Sabbath right now, as that would merit its own discussion. Rather, I want to call attention to Christ's response: "Have you not read...?" Jesus didn't say, "Oh, lighten up! You folks are just way too picky about doctrine!" No, he castigated them for failing to consider Scriptures carefully. Jesus meticulously emphasized the nuances of God's Word, whereas the Pharisees lacked that careful attention.

In fact, I count three specific instances on which Christ rebukes the Pharisees by saying, "Have you not read...?" (Matthew 12:3, 12:5, 19:4). Apparently, Jesus didn't think that the Pharisees were very good about discerning the truth at all!

You can NEVER be too picky about the truth. Now, there may be times where the truth is not entirely clear, and we must acknowledge these instances. However, that is vastly different from saying that we musn't be too picky when it comes to correct doctrine. (In fact, in such situations, I daresay that the truthful approach would be to say, "I don't know for sure"!)

Now, it is indeed true that Christians can sometimes be unloving toward people with different views -- including fellow believers. However, I don't think this is due to being "too picky" with regard to truth. Rather, I think it's caused by a failure to understand the other person's view or situation, or a lack of desire to do so.

Additionally, I daresay that a lack of attention to truth is often unloving in itself. It basically amounts to saying, "I don't particularly care if people believe correct doctrine or if they fall into error." It's a subtly unloving attitude.

Finally, let us note how Paul urged believers to "test all things" (! Thess 5:21). He also commended the Bereans for testing every doctrine against the authority of Scripture. At no point did the Apostle Paul say, "Oh, you Bereans are just way too picky when it comes to truth! Lighten up. It's just not that important." No, Paul emphasized the need to fastidiously check the truth of each doctrine... and so should we.

Can God use false teachings or practices for his purposes?

2005-12-24T11:01:00.000-08:00

Earlier, I talked about "rejoicing in pretense." In that article, I took issue with the notion that Paul condoned false teachings, since he supposedly knew that the gospel would be preached nonetheless. As I explained in that article, I do not believe that's what Philippians 1:18 was teaching!

Now, one might ask if God can still save people through erroneous teachings or unbiblical practices. One person recently asked me, "Why are you so concerned about what churches do? You seem to doubt God's omnipotence. Even if a practice is wrong, surely God can still use it for his purposes!"

First of all, I do not doubt that God can use wrongful teachings or circumstances for his ultimate good; however, this does not make them justified. When Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, God was able to use those circumstances, but that did not justify their heinous deed. Similarly, God used Judas's betrayal to accomplish his purposes, but Judas's action was still wrong.

Second, we must remember that Satan is a master tactician. Satan and his minions would surely allow some good to result from wrongful teachings, if this would help perpetuate the deceptions. Consider the Mormon church, for example, and the wholesome family values that they exude. On the surface, their church seems to accomplish a great deal of good, yet their wholesomeness masks a litany of spiritual deceptions.

One person talked about how a criminal turned himself in after reading The Purpose-Driven Life. "The book is producing good fruit!" he exclaimed. "Surely this proves that God has blessed its teachings!" However, such an approach is faulty, for it evaluates one incident in isolation, while ignoring the balance of the evidence. Satan would surely allow the occasional criminal to repent. Like an experienced general, he knows that one must sometimes lose a battle in order to win a war. He might even allow some people to be saved, if this would allow his deceptions to take root in the church.

Note that the Bible never commands us to evaluate teachings or practices based on their fruit. I believe this is because we will seldom, if ever, see the totality of the fruit that they produce. Rather, we are to test them against what God has revealed in His divine Word, for the Almighty knows best.

An atheist's comment on why theists believe

2005-12-18T19:26:00.000-08:00

Every now and then, I like to participate in some Internet discussions on matters of the faith--theism, Christianity, the pro-life view, and so forth. I've found that this can be a valuable way to gain experience in defending the faith, provided that one can avoid becoming infuriated at some of the more ridiculous attacks on Christianity.

Today, I encountered one fellow who said,

People who believe in God (in my experience) do not do a scientific analysis and after years of study reach the conclusion that there must be a God. People believe there is a God because they just feel it, or they were raised to believe.

Now, there are a number of ways to respond to such comments. One could cite people like C.S. Lewis, for example, who was compelled to believe in God due to the weight of the evidence for his existence. Instead though, I responded with another approach. I simply asked,

And how did you come to this conclusion? Did you perform some manner of scientific study, or do you simply feel it to be true?

I felt those were fair questions to ask. It's a safe bet that this person did not thoroughly examine the reasons why people believe in God. In all likelihood, there was no true methodology behind his claim; indeed, if there were, then he would have learned that many do come to believe in God due to the weight of the evidence. Any thorough philosophy text would have demonstrated that. Consider the following, for example:

The cosmological argument for the origin of the universe
The ontological argument for a maximally great being
The teleological argument for an intelligent designer
The moral argument that certain absolute moral rules exist
The axiological argument for an ultimate, personally embodied Good
The noölogical argument for an ultimate mind
The historical arguments for the historicity of the Resurrection and other Biblical accounts
The evidence of miracles, fulfilled prophecies and transformed lives

Now, I'm not saying that these arguments (compelling as they may be) would convince everyone. They surely would not. However, they do demonstrate that people don't necessarily believe in God based on some vague feeling. Any person who makes that claim is speaking recklessly, out of true ignorance.

Did Abraham exercise blind faith?

2005-12-16T22:16:00.000-08:00

Many people—including both skeptics and Christians—insist that faith must necessarily be blind. They claim that it should not be based on any form of logic or evidence. This is a popular view, but I believe it betrays a severe misunderstanding of the nature of faith. Faith does not require absolute proof, but for this faith to be justified, it must have some manner of evidence—some reason for believing. Otherwise, our beliefs become either arbitrary, inconsistent or capricious.

I believe this is consistent with the Biblical model of faith, as well. Note that the Bible never says “Ya just gotta believe, folks! Don’t ever ask why! Just believe!” Quite the contrary; God’s Word says that we are to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in [us]” (1 Peter 3:15). God doesn’t expect us to believe blindly, for that is how people become deceived. Rather, we are to “test all things” so that we may hold fast to that which is good (1 Thess 5:21).

Recently, someone tried to convince me that beliefs do not have to be rational—that there’s nothing wrong with subscribing to beliefs that have no logical foundation. “Why do irrational people need to start thinking rationally?” he asked. In his view, there is nothing wrong with subscribing to beliefs that are not logically justified.

As an example, he pointed to Abraham, the patriarch. Abraham, he claimed, was a man who exercised blind, irrational faith—someone who believed God without any thought or rationale. To defend this claim, he cited Genesis 12:1-4a, which says,

Now the LORD had said to Abram:

“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him, and Lot went with him.

I think this illustrates how people often read too much into a given text. True, this passage does say that Abraham (or Abram, as he was known at the time) believed God; however, it does not say that he believed blindly. In truth, we do not know why Abram chose to trust in God; merely that he did.

Abram trusted God, but there's no reason to believe that God had not previously manifested himself and demonstrated his faithfulness. In fact, since Abram apparently recognized God's voice, it's reasonable to surmise that he had previously been in communion with the Almighty. It’s entirely plausible that God had already demonstrated his faithfulness to Abraham, and so he chose to trust in the Lord.

(Now, I don’t want anyone to misunderstand. I’m not saying we should be skeptical of the things that God says. Not at all. What I am saying, however, is that we can trust God because throughout history, He has demonstrated himself to be trustworthy. Additionally, if anyone gives us a prophecy or a command, we need to test these things thoroughly to make sure that they truly come from our Lord. Trusting blindly in such things can lead to untold deceptions.)

Additionally, let us consider Genesis 11:10-26, which shows the genealogical descent from Noah’s son Shem to Abram. This passage proceeds as follows:

This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.
Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah. After he begot Salah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters.
Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. 15 After he begot Eber, Salah lived four hundred and three years, and begot sons and daughters….

…and so forth, and so on. Now, if you crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that Shem was still alive during Abram's lifetime. Furthermore, if you consider that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came (Genesis 7:6), that he died at the age of 950 (Genesis 9:29), and that Abram was born only 292 years after the flood (Genesis 11:10-27), it becomes clear that Noah himself was still alive! In other words, Abram had ample opportunity to hear about God's faithfulness in the Great Flood, perhaps even from some of the original survivors in the Ark! In fact, given the tremendous historical and spiritual significance of this event, I’d say that it’s virtually certain that Abram would have heard about God’s faithfulness from such unimpeachable sources.

Does any of this provide absolute proof that Abram trusted God because he had seen or heard how God was worthy of our faith? Admittedly not. However, it does show that we should not hastily conclude that Abram was a man of blind faith. If anything, we have indirect evidence that Abram had heard reliable sources testify to God’s faithfulness, and that Abram himself was in communion with the Almighty.

I, for one, am thankful that our Lord does not expect people to follow him blindly! I’m thankful that he makes himself manifest in myriad ways, and that he demonstrates his faithfulness abundantly. Praise God for his blessings!

Legislating morality

2005-12-15T15:20:00.000-08:00

People often claim that one cannot legislate morality. I think that's balderdash. If anything, morality is the only thing that one can legitimately legislate!

Y'see, all legislation must be built on some foundation of what's right and wrong. Any law that is not founded on some basis of rightness is either capricious or unjust. That is why we have laws against murder and rape, for example... because those actions are wrong.

"But wait!" one might say. "What about traffic laws? Surely you wouldn't claim that it's fundamentally immoral to drive above 35MPH! Or that it's immoral to drive on the left-hand side of the road. Traffic laws are completely arbitrary, and they are not based on morality."

That's simply not true, though. They are still built on the notion that it's wrong to recklessly endanger one's fellow man. The particulars of these laws may be arbitrary (e.g. which side of the road to drive on), but their existence is still necessitated by the rule that one must preserve human life and safety.

Some would say, "Laws only exist because they are good for society. They require no moral basis." To them, I would ask, "Why should we care about what's good for society? Perhaps a suitably dictatorial government would enact laws that ruthlessly enslave part of society for their own pleasure. The very claim that we should do what's best for society is itself a moral claim!"

So yes, we should indeed force morality on people. That's exactly what any just law does.

Why are some megachurches closing for Christmas?

2005-12-11T19:31:00.000-08:00

In case you haven't noticed, Christmas will fall on a Sunday this year. A Yahoo news story reported that some of the largest churches in the USA will be closed on that particular Sunday. Why? They expect that attendance will be down, since many will choose to spend that day with their families and friends instead.

One such congregation is Willow Creek Community Church. Their spokesperson, Cally Parkinson, said,

"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?"

To be fair, at least some of these churches will be having other services in the days before Christmas. For that reason, I think it would be unfair to say that they're abandoning Christmas altogether. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about this gambit, and here's why.

The implied message

For one thing, I'm concerned about the message that these churches send to their communities. The churches are moving their services to accommodate their churchgoers' desire for family gatherings and other non-worship celebrations. Isn't this rather like saying, "Look, your family gatherings are more important than gathering for worship on this blessed day. We'll move our services so that you can have your festivities"? (Mind you, I'm sure that these churches would never say such a thing. However, I do fear that this message is implicitly communicated in their actions.)

Is this concern unduly harsh? I don't think so. After all, what if the occasion were Superbowl Sunday instead of Christmas? If a church can only meet in the evening, should it move its services so that its members can watch the Patriots beat up the Eagles? After all, the Superbowl can be a valuable time of bonding for the family. Would it be right for the church to bend over backwards so that families can watch the Superbowl without guilt?

Some would ask, "Well, how do you know that these families won't be worshipping at home instead? After all, worship doesn't have to occur at church." Well, it's true that worship can be done anywhere, but remember... my concern is about the message that is implicitly communicated by this shift in service schedule. Moreover, I think this objection is a bit naive. I don't want to be excessively judgmental, but let's face it...if a family decides to skip church on that particular Sunday, how probable is it that they'll decide to worship earnestly at home instead? It doesn't seem likely to me.

Moreover, if a family wants to spend time together on Christmas, then what better way than by worshipping the Lord and hearing His Word? After all, it only takes a couple of hours or so out of the entire day. Gift-giving and family visits can wait... or then can be done earlier, instead. Heck, if the church can adjust its schedule, then surely most families can adjust theirs as well.

The mission of the church

I'd also like to revisit the words of Ms. Parkinson. She said that our mission is to reach the unchurched, and if they won't show up on Christmas Day, then they may as well keep their doors closed. With all due respect to Ms. Parkinson and Willow Creek, I think her comments reflect a misunderstanding of the church's role in society.

First, I don't think that evangelism is the sole purpose of the church! I don't even think it's the main purpose. What about worship? What about exhortation? What about the training and education of believers, to name a few?

In fact, the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) doesn't specifically command evangelism. Rather, it commands the church to "make disciples of all nations"—in other words, to form faithful, obedient, dedicated and knowledgeable servants of the Lord. Evangelism is undeniably important, but it's still only a small part of the entire discipleship mission.

Moreover, the burden of evangelism does not rest solely on the church body. I believe that if a church truly wants to convert people to Christ, it must diligently train its members in the knowledge, wisdom and love of the Lord. If properly discipled, these people can then venture into the world carrying the good news of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if the church sees itself in a strictly evangelistic role, then discipleship must fall by the wayside, and its people will be poorly equipped to convey the salvific message of the Lord.

(As an aside, I think this illustrates the danger of placing excessive emphasis on church attendance numbers. Remember, our goal is to merely to proclaim the Word and be faithful servants of God. If this will produce converts and church growth, then so be it! However, church growth itself should never be our primary concern. Church growth must always take a backseat to faithful, accurate proclamation of the Word.)

Those are my thoughts on this matter. Mind you, I'm not saying that these churches are not acting with honest intentions. That's really not my place to say. However, I did want to voice my concerns. In closing, I'd like to urge everyone to read their Bibles on December 25th, attend church, and put the CHRIST back in Christmas!

I also recommend the commentary on this issue at the STR blog.

"The Chronicles of Narnia" movie -- SPOILERS

2005-12-11T18:25:00.000-08:00

This afternoon, I got to watch The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. The movie was wonderfully done. The acting was excellent, the special effects were magnificent, and the production was faithful to the original work. I think that Clive Staples Lewis would have been proud.

**** BEWARE: SPOILERS ****

Aslan died. Only for a while, though.

**************************

The movie was entertaining, but it was also filled with theological insight. Topics such as redemption, forgiveness and Christ's propitiation were evident, as they were in the original book. Oh, and in case you missed it... Narnia's elusive nature -- the fact that one cannot find it by looking -- represents God's grace, his unmerited favor.

Much better than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, in my judgment. For more details, I recommend the STR blog entry on this movie.

Unity over doctrine

2005-12-01T22:58:00.000-08:00

I've often spoken about how many Christians place unity over Biblical truth. Tonight, I wanted to quote the following comments by John Ankerburg and John Weldon, as stated in their booklet, "The Facts on the Faith Movement." I think their comments sum things up well.

Many Christians believe that the visible unity of the body of Christ before the world is much more important than doctrinal truth. They appeal to Jesus' prayer that Christians "may be one" so that the world will know that the Father has sent Him (John 17:21-23). But can the world see Christian unity apart from true Christianity itself? Isn't Christian unity based upon Christian truth? For example, the world might notice a visible unity among a group of Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons working together to fight abortion—but what will it conclude about the beliefs of Christianity when these religions disagree? In essence, the real nature of their unity is only a social cause, vital as it may be.

In its most important sense, it is basic doctrinal truth which unites God's people. True unity cannot be had without it. This is why the Bible commands Christians to stand together in unity against heresy and separate themselves from false teachers on the basis of sound doctrine (2 John 9-11; Romans 6:17, etc.). Christians are to stand "firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Philippians 1:27; cf. Ephesians 4:12-13). Jude 3 tells us we are to "contend earnestly for the faith [body of teachings] which was once for all delivered to the saints."

If biblical doctrine is not the final standard, then where does one draw the line between what is or isn't Christian? In the end, what remains is only a false or shallow compre¬hension of Christianity—and it is this (and wrong theol¬ogy) which promotes! division among Christians.

To the contrary, a deep understanding of doctrine and theology, by their very nature, foster unity among God's people. Further, genuine unity in the body of Christ presup¬poses spiritual maturity. But such maturity can only be had by knowledge of sound doctrine and living in accordance with its precepts (Ephesians 4:3-15; Philippians 2:2).

...

In fact, those who are committed to maintaining so-called peace and unity in the body of Christ at all costs... are actually the ones being divisive. As John Mac Arthur points out, "In effect, [this attitude] has given charismatic extremists
the freedom to propound fantastic views while imposing a code of silence on those who object. Those who do speak out inevitably are branded divisive, strident or unloving. The legacy of such a position is not unity and peace, but confusion and turmoil. In fact, love apart from truth is nothing more than hypocritical sentimentality. That sentimentality is running rampant in evangelicalism today."

One way that false unity can damage Christianity

2005-12-01T22:32:00.000-08:00

On several occasions, I've lamented the false unity that pervades many Christian churches. Believers are often tolerant of false doctrines—even dangerously false ones—for the sake of harmony between churches and believers. While I applaud this desire for unity, I believe that we often carry this to an unhealthy extreme.

An acquaintance of mine occupies some prominent leadership and worship positions within his church. He has spent years in Christian schools, and has called himself a believer for many years. This fellow is fond of saying, "As long as a church teaches the bare essentials of the gospel, I don't really give a flip!" Now, such a statement may sound laudable, but I think it leads to serious doctrinal compromise. After all, false teachings can still be extremely damaging to the church, even when those beliefs do not pertain directly to salvation.

To illustrate this point, consider the following commentary by John Ankerburg and John Weldon regarding the so-called "Faith Movement"—those who preach a false gospel of wealth, health and financial prosperity:

"Operation Caricature" is the method by which the Christian faith and the gospel are ridiculed in front of an unbelieving world. For example, Primetime Live alone has had three scathing exposes of Faith teachers—and plans
more.

But whatever else such TV exposes have done to the reputation of Christianity in the eyes of the world, they have also brought real problems to some Faith teachers. For example, Robert Tilton is now being investigated by four federal agencies and two state agencies, including the IRS, FBI, U.S. Postal Service and Texas State Attorney General. Tilton and others are also being sued by irate customers or their families who were promised healings but remained sick or died. Tilton alone is being sued for half a billion dollars. In one case, the widow of Tom Crowly is suing him for $40 million over a letter she received five months after her husband's death in which Tilton said, "God spoke to me this morning specifically about you, Tom, and He's going to
heal you."

Television preachers have reported, sometimes to national audiences stories such as the following: how God raised a family's pet chicken from the dead; how the bones of the controversial faith healer Aimee Semple McPherson have power to raise dead men to life; a woman, who taught her dog "how to praise the Lord in an unknown bark" ; and that "Holy Spirit ice cream" has no calories when it is specially "blessed" by the Holy Ghost.

(Source: "The Facts on the Faith Movement")

And yet well-meaning Christians are quick to preach unity, even with teachers like these. As a result, the world lumps us all together, and so we open ourselves up to mockery and caricature. When skeptics ridicule the beliefs of people like these — rightfully so, I might add — they mock us in the same breath. And why? Because so many believers insist on promoting harmony and tolerance, even amidst aberrant teachings.

This is one reason why I am so concerned about false teachings within the church. Make no mistake; I agree that certain doctrinal errors are of minor importance. However, there are many doctrinal errors—even on so-called "non-essential" matters—that can severely damage the credibility of the church. It may sound warm and loving when we embrace these erroneous teachings, but the damage that results can be unspeakable.

Defining atheism

2005-11-15T05:11:00.000-08:00

In recent years, it has become fashionable to assert that atheism is simply non-belief in God. This is a convenient tactic for atheist debaters to use. By adopting that definition, they can say, "We don't have to prove that there is no God. Atheism is simply the absence of belief. It's atheism; that is, being without theism. " By using this approach, they can cast aspersions on theism and Christianity, while asserting that they have nothing to defend.

The problem is that they're using the term "atheism" incorrectly. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism specifically means "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." In other words, it asserts that there is NO god. Clearly, this goes far beyong merely lacking any particular belief in a deity.

Similarly, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary cites the following modern definitions of that term:

a disbelief in the existence of deity
the doctrine that there is no deity

Clearly, this goes far beyond merely a lack of belief in God. If one wants to describe this lack of belief, there's already a prefectly good term for that: non-theism. There is simply no need to co-opt the term "atheism," which has a more precise and thoroughly established definition.

Some are fond of saying, "Look, atheism means a-theism -- that is, a lack of theism. Therefore, it's just a lack of belief." That's not how the word is properly broken down, though. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "atheism" derives from the Greek word atheos, which means "godless" (i.e. a-theos, or "without god"). To insist that it must be parsed as "lack of theism" is etymologically naive.

It frustrates me that people frequently adopt this looser (and inaccurate!) definition of the word, thereby making their stance more defensible. This is what I call the Humpty Dumpty school of philology. In his classic novel, Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll describes an exchange between Humpty and the visiting Alice, which went as follows:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
that's all.'

Clearly, by making words mean whatever we want, we can only hinder communication, rather than help it.

About "The Purpose-Driven Life"

2005-10-04T20:56:00.000-07:00

The following has been adapted from a message that I sent to someone in August 2005 regarding Rick Warren's bestseller, The Purpose-Driven Life. In this message, I attempted to explain some of the reservations that I had regarding the book's content. My greatest concern was the somewhat careless way in which it presents the gospel and glosses over the importance of repentance in salvation.

To my regret, this fellow responded with tremendous outrage. "How dare you criticize this book!" he bellowed. "How dare you be so divisive! We can't let denominational differences divide Christians this way!" His reaction both shocked and saddened me. We must certainly strive for unity, but does this mean that we should simply overlook doctrinal error? Luke the Evangelist didn't think so, for he commended the Bereans as they tested all doctrine against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Nor did the Apostle Paul, for he urged Timothy to beware of false teachings (2 Timother 3:8). As for the Apostle John, he exhorted believers to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1-6) and urged people to reject false teachers (2 John 9-11).

(Of course, some doctrinal matters are relatively minor. I'm not suggesting that we should wage holy war over every little thing; not at all. Rather, while not all doctrinal matters are major, some of them are. As a result, it would be dishonoring to God if we were to deliberately ignore all of these differences.)

Moreover, the concerns that I expressed about Warren's book were mostly non-denominational in nature. The Gospel message is certainly not a denominational matter; if anything, it is the one thing that should unite all denominations! I was saddened that this fellow, who attended Christian schools and occupied some prominent positions within his church, considered this to be a mere denominational matter, not worth quibbling about.

Unfortunately, that's what happens when people value unity more than Biblical truth.

Anyway, here's the gist of what I wrote. The text has been cleaned up slightly, but the fundamental content remains the same.

----------------------------

D.,

I mentioned that I'd like to share some thoughts on "The Purpose-Driven Life." Well first, I thought I'd mention that Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel have been among the most vocal critics of Rick Warren's teachings. My own Calvary Chapel pastors from Utah and California have likewise urged caution with regard to this book. Since you said that you hold Calvary Chapel in high regard, I thought you might want to know this.

Other critics include Dave Hunt, John MacArthur and T.A. McMahon. I've found that these gents tend to be more careful and discerning than most other teachers, and they don't normally get caught up in popular fads (e.g. "The Prayer of Jabez.")

Here are a few articles which summarize my own complaints about "The Purpose-Driven Life." Mind you, I don't agree with every single opinion voiced in these articles; however, they do provide a good overview of the book's weaknesses and dangerous teachings.

I know that some Christians say we should be tolerant with regard to mere doctrinal differences; after all, "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). I disagree with that viewpoint, for three main reasons.

First, I think the context shows this passage was meant to excuse doctrinal error. Mark 9:38 shows that John was complaining about a man who was casting out demons, but was not part of the Apostolic clique. There is no absolutely indication that this man was spouting wrongful teachings.

Second, I think that some of Rick Warren's doctrinal errors are quite severe indeed. I understand that some doctrinal matters are of comparatively little importance, and I certainly do not expect any pastor to be perfect. However, I think that the articles I cited show that some of Rick Warren's teachings have very serious and wrongful implications. In particular, his gospel presentation on page 48 is severely watered down -- and if there's anything that we should not compromise on, it is the gospel!

Third, I do not think these errors can be chalked up to mere nitpickiness or sporadically imprecise phrasing. With regard to the gospel, for example, I think there's evidence of dilution throughout the book. (Note how he constantly assumes that Catholic clergy are indeed saved and destined for heaven, for example. While I'm sure this is sometimes true, it should not be our default assumption -- especially for someone who understands the gospel message.) Additionally, the Gospel is diluted even further in Warren's "Forty Days of Purpose" program, as described at http://www.str.org/weblog/blog_archives/00000514.htm.

I may have mentioned my conversation with the pastor of a church in Strongsville. He was going to preach from Rick Warren's book, but discovered that the Biblical passages cited did not actually reflect what Warren claimed. He then chose to preach on the theme of God's purpose for our lives, but without using any of Rick Warren's material.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Rick Warren isn't a well-intentioned Christian. I suspect that he is. However, I think that some of his teachings are both erroneous and dangerous -- ESPECIALLY with regard to salvation. What's more, I think he takes tremendous liberties with the Scriptures, in ways that cannot be chalked up to mere imprecision or fine points of theology.

"Whoever is not against us..." -- Misapplying Mark 9:38-40

2005-09-04T23:51:00.000-07:00

Last month, I was talking to two gentlemen about church doctrines. We discussed the way many churches water the gospel down, or otherwise use questionable tactics to keep people within their pews. At one point, these gents said, "Ah, but remember, even if we disagree with their tactics and doctrines, that doesn't make them wrong. Jesus did say that whoever is not against us is for us." This was a clear reference to Mark 9:38-40.

I objected, saying, "I don't think that's what Jesus meant! He wasn't saying that these doctrinal differences are unimportant. Rather, he was talking about preachers who were not travelling with the Apostles, but who gave no indication of doctrinal falsehood." Indeed, verse 38 makes this clear. It shows John saying, "We saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." There is nothing about false teaching in this passage; it is all about membership in the Apostolic clique.

I think it's disappointing to see how many Christians are willing to overlook fundamental doctrinal errors for the sake of unity. How many are willing to tolerate the teachings of Robert Schuller, Bill Hybels, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and their ilk by saying "Whoever is not against us is for us?"

Making sense out of tragedy, evil and suffering

2005-09-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

At times like this, people often ask, "How can a loving God allow such tremendous suffering in the world?" Why did God allow the levees to break, ruining the lives and homes of thousands of innocents? Or why did God allow last year's Indian Ocean tsunami to wreak such widespread devastation. On a related note, when the 9/11 terrorists flew their hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, people asked why a loving God would allow such great acts of evil to occur.

In my own life, when I've gone through times of tremendous heartbreak and tragedy, I have found myself questioning God's love. So did Job, as he endured his trials. Even Elijah, after seeing God perform great miracles, still questioned God's purposes during a time of great trial (I Kings 19:1-14). This mighty prophet even pleaded for death, feeling that it would be preferable to the torment he was facing!

In the wake of the latest flood disaster, I wanted to say something about God's purposes in allowing great evil and suffering. Unfortunately, time won't allow me to do proper justice to this topic right now, and I don't want to sound flippant or insensitive in any way. Also, I'd very much like to say something more meaningful than "God's works in mysterious ways" -- a statement that certainly true, but rather trite and uncomforting in these trying times.

I plan to discuss this topic in an upcoming apologetics class that I'm teaching. In the meantime though, I'd like to present a list of articles on this very topic. I hope that these will be helpful to someone.

Are we obligated to personally confront teachers in error?

2005-09-03T10:10:00.000-07:00

Earlier, I mentioned a discussion I had with a pastor about a popular Christian book. In the course of this discussion, I said that Chuck Smith, John MacArthur and various other teachers have criticized the doctrines within that book.This pastor responded (and I paraphrase), "Well, did Smith, MacArthur and company personally speak to this author before criticizing his teachings? That's what the Bible teaches, after all. Wouldn't they want to obey the God's Word?"

I said, "No offense, but I don't think the Bible says such a thing. If you're talking about Matthew 18:15-17, that passage pertains to sin within the church, rather than to erroneous doctrine. After all, verse 17 talks about casting that person out of the church, and one can scarcely do that to the pastor of another congregation!" (Additionally, please note that v. 15 talks about a brother who "sins against you." Clearly, this pertains to personal offenses, rather than false teachings.)

The pastor said, "Well, the principle still applies."

I have no doubt that the pastor meant well, and that he has a good heart. Nevertheless, I was disappointed to hear him express such a view. Sure, it is sometimes appropriate to approach a false teacher first, especially where some personal relationship exists. The Bible never makes that an absolute command, though. In applying proper hermeneutics, we should not take a passage that pertains to personal sin and church discipline, and then force it to apply in instances of false teaching. That is eisegesis (reading interpretations into the Scriptures) rather than exegesis (deriving interpretations from the Word).

Careful exegesis honors god. Eisegesis -- even when well-intentioned -- is tremendously disrespectful to God's Word. We should never claim that a Bible passage teaches something if that's not truly the case.

Besides, even if the Bible did command such a thing, the failure of John MacArthur, etc. to personally reprove this author has no bearing on the truth of their criticisms. In other words, they could have personally failed in this regard, but that would not make their criticisms false.

Finally, I think there are good reasons why someone should not have to engage in personal dialogue before correcting false doctrine. That's because false doctrine can cause great damage, and can do so quickly. In many cases there are hundreds of thousands across the globe who read a preacher's books or listen to his messages each day. Should a pastor wait around for a chance to dialogue with a false teacher first, before warning his flock? I don't think so!

Our ultimate obligation is to the truth. There are times when it would be prudent to personally confront someone regarding the errors of his preaching, but this is not always a requirement -- and it's most certainly not what Matthew 18:15-17 is teaching. Certainly, when it comes to severe doctrinal error, we may have to speak the truth first -- waging damage control, if you wish -- instead of waiting around for a chance to engage the erring teachers in dialogue. The truth has to come first.

Criticizing the doctrines of other Christian teachers

2005-09-03T10:01:00.000-07:00

I was talking to a pastor (not from my church!) recently about a popular Christian book. I explained that I had some grave reservations about its content, and that I felt it compromised on the Gospel and other essential teachings.

This pastor was not pleased, for he placed great value on Christian "unity." He said,

"I would rather spend more time refuting the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses than other Evangelical Christians. If we want to talk about 'false teachings' then certainly this is more obvious."

Now, I know this pastor meant well, but I think his view was completely unbiblical. After all, why shouldn't a believer speak up if someone is preaching deceptive doctrines? Did Paul not exhort us to "test all things" (1 Thess 5:21)? In particular, if the Gospel is being compromised -- even by a Christian teacher -- should we not voice our concern?

Now, I understand his viewpoint. He says that the Mormons and the JWs are in greater doctrinal error, and so we should focus on refuting their beliefs. I think his viewpiont is misguided though; after all, the Bible never says that we should only stand up against false teachings from the cults. In fact, I would argue that erroneous doctrines from within the church can be more dangerous, since they are often harder to detect! For this reason, we must confront false teaching whereever it abounds.

Besides, I think it's rather silly to insist that we should refute the Mormons and JWs instead of pointing out erroneous teachings from within the church. He assumes that you can only do one of those things, and not both. As if you're ever going to encounter a Mormon and, say, Robert Schuller at the same time!

Finally, I think his claim is self-refuting. He said that Christians shouldn't go around voicing their disagreement with what other Evangelical Christians teach. Well, I'm an Evangelical Christian, and he's saying that I'm wrong. Moreover, he says that my church is wrong, since they hold to the same belief. Why didn't he spend that time confronting a Mormon missionary, since he claims that would be a better use of one's time?

Rational faith

2005-09-02T20:21:00.000-07:00

Atheists and other Christian-bashers often dismiss Christians as being irrational. They frequently claim that Christians simply turn their brains off and accepting their beliefs on blind, unreasoning faith. They often say that faith is, by its very nature, irrational. Conversely, they pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for being (ahem) "rational."

This simply proves that they haven't put much thought into their own claims. In reality, atheistic and Christian-bashing claims are often a horrible mishmash of illogic and self-contradition.

Sadly (and amazingly!), many Christians are quick to accept atheist accusations. I've often heard Christians insist that they don't need to study the scientific or historical basis for Christianity; after all, they have "faith"! I've often heard Christians criticize those believers who study such evidence, insisting that "Faith with evidence isn't faith at all!"

Balderdash. There is nothing mutually exclusive about faith and evidence. If my best friend has proven himself to be trustworthy and reliable, then I can put my faith in his steadfastness... and why? Because of the evidence. Because he has shown himself to be worthy of faith. Similarly, I have faith that my mother would lay down her life for me, even though she has never proven this. Why? Because of the evidence..

No, faith is not belief without evidence. Rather, faith is belief without proof -- without absolute proof. Faith is believing in something, while knowing full well that this belief has not been proven to be true. In other words, faith need not be blind faith.

Now, this is where critics frequently backpedal. They'll say things like, "Oh, but your friend HAS proven himself. Therefore, your belief in him isn't really faith." Or they'll say, "Well, I think your mother has proven that she'd die for you. So that's not faith your talking about." Again, balderdash. My friend has proven no such thing; in fact, it's entirely possible that he'll turn around someday and stab me in the back. It is also possible that my mother would choose to save her own life rather than put herself at risk for me. They have provided evidence of their steadfastness, but not absolute proof. Ergo, my belief in them is rooted in evidence, and it most certainly require faith.

Just look at the New Testament writers. Did they ever tell their audience, "Ya just gotta believe! Don't get hung up on logic. Ya just gotta take that leap of faith, because I'm telling you the truth!" No, they didn't. Instead, they appealed to evidence--evidence such as fulfilled prophecies, the Resurrection, and Paul's own transformed life. Ultimately, a measure of faith was still required, but they asked the people to consider the evidence as they formed their faith.

Contrary to what the skeptics--and many Christians--would say, faith does not have to be blind. In fact, true Biblical faith, as modelled by the Apostles, should not be blind at all.

Character study: Luke

2005-09-02T06:57:00.000-07:00

I found it interesting to dwell on the character of Luke, author of both The Acts of the Apostles and the gospel that bears his name. We know precious little about this man. The Bible only mentions him thrice--and only in passing (Col. 4:14, 2 Tim 4:11, Phil 1:24). if not for his authorship of the aforementioned New Testament books, he would be a fairly obscure character. So what do we know about this man?

First, it is commonly believed that Luke was a physician. This is in keeping with the attention to detail that Luke gave to the physiological details of Christ's crucifixion. (Mind you, Luke's gospel doesn't report these things in extreme detail. I certainly don't think that the level of detail necessarily implies that this book was written by a physician. However, these are certainly the sorts of things that a medical doctor would notice.)

Second, we know him to be a travelling companion of Paul, and a faithful servant of the Lord. Despite his advanced education, he chose to spend much of his time in ministry work. Some would say, "Well, maybe he was serving as a medical missionary!" but I think that's unlikely. Paul's epistles gave no indication that Luke was ministering to the people in any medical capacity, and given the nature of Paul's ministry--which was primarily preaching the Word and establishing churches--I think it's implausible that Luke was there because of his medical skill.

Third, we know that he's an obscure character. Interestingly enough, I think this is useful information. Why? Because many people contest the authorship of Luke's gospel. They suggest that some other writer must have penned this book--but if that were the case, then why would it be attributed to such an obscure individual? Why not someone more prominent, such as Thomas, Andrew or Philip? Luke's own obscurity strongly suggests that there was no ulterior motive in attributing the authorship of this gospel to him.

(As an aside, nobody has suggested any strong alternate suggestions as to who wrote this book, nor did the early church ever attribute it to anyone else. I think we can confidently state that Luke did indeed pen this narrative. By extension, we can attribute Acts to him as well, since it is widely recognized as a continuation of Luke's gospel.)

And fourth, we know that he was an outstanding scholar, writer and researcher. Luke's writings are known for their eloquence, and he is often regarded as having had the best writing style of all four Evangelists. In Luke 1:1-4, he claims to have carefully investigated all the matters on which he reported, with the purpose of presenting an orderly account of Christ's life and the nascent church. He was a man who used his skills to promote God's Kingdom.

Was he successful in his research and scholarship? Consider the words of Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists and historians of all time. Ramsay spent years in Asia Minor, attempt to disprove the historicity of Luke's writings. After 15 years, he was forced to conclude that

"Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Wayne Jackson concurred, as he wrote,

"In Acts, Luke mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. And his references, where checkable, are always correct. This is truly remarkable, in view of the fact that the political/territorial situation of his day was in a state of almost constant change. Only inspiration can account for Luke’s precision" (“The Holy Bible—Inspired of God,” Christian Courier, 27[1]:1-3, May. )

So, Luke was an educated man, yet he spent much of his time travelling with Paul in service to the Lord. By all accounts, he was a faithful servant. While we see no indications that he used his medical expertise in direct ministry work, I think it's fair to say that these skills came into play as he recorded the details of Christ's crucifixion. We know that he's an outstanding writer, researcher and historian--a true scholar. And finally, while he labored in relative obscurity, this obscurity itself is valuable information, as it gives us great assurance that Luke was indeed the one who penned both Acts and Luke's gospel.

Churches or denominations that think they're right

2005-09-01T20:54:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, I had a conversation with a fellow believer as he complained about Christian intolerance. He said (and I paraphrase), "I really don't like those churches or denominations who think they're the only ones that are right."

Something about his words made me uncomfortable. It was only a couple of days later that I realized what it was.

When a church or denomination takes a doctrinal stance, then OF COURSE it's because they believe they're right. After all, that's what doctrine is about, right? And if they believe they're right, then logically, they must consider groups with different doctrinal views to be wrong. That's the nature of logic. So naturally, a right-thinking church will consider its own views to be correct. And naturally, it wil say that churches with differing doctrines are in error. This isn't a moral condemnation (at least, not necessarily); rather, it's just plain common sense.

The only way to avoid this is for a church to say "Oh, there is no genuine right or wrong. Truth is relative." Now, most evangelical churches would never actually say such a thing; however, this worldview is often reflected in their actions. When a church says that there are multiple interpretations of a passage, for example, and that no single interpretation is preferable -- that's relativism. Or when a church refuses to correct the doctrines of other congregations, that is practicing relativism as well. In effect, it's saying, "You believe what you want, and we'll believe what we want. In the end, it doesn't really matter."

One pastor said to me recently, "We all just need to decide what we want to follow." I was rather discomfitted by that answer, since I think it's only a small part of the truth. We must certainly make a decision, but that's not ALL that we must do. No, we must also make sure that our decisions line up squarely with the truth of God's Word. It's not simply a matter of personal preference.

Moral relativism has crept into the Christian community. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Anti-Christian claims that refute themselves

2005-09-01T09:16:00.000-07:00

I’d like to say a few words about self-refuting anti-Christian claims, especially those from an atheistic point of view.

What is a self-refuting statement? It’s one that contradicts itself, and thus, cannot possibly be true. A prime example is the statement, “All claims are false.” If all claims are false, then so is the claim that all claims are false. Ergo, the statement is erroneous, and thus, no rational person would believe that all claims are devoid of truth.

Ditto for the statement, “Everything I say is a lie.” If every single thing I say is a deliberate deception, then why should you believe me when I claim to never tell the truth? Obviously, that claim refutes itself.

I often say that such statements self-destruct. A logician or mathematician would say that they can be disproven via reduction ad absurdum. Either way, the point is that these claims undermine their own foundations, thereby proving themselves to be false.

Some simple self-refuting claims

Sadly, such claims are rather common in atheist and anti-Christian rhetoric. Who among us has not heard the claim, “Nothing is absolute” (or alternately, “Everything is relative”)? If nothing is absolute, then the truth of that statement is not absolute either. In other words, the claim that “nothing is absolute” is not absolutely true. That argument crumbles under the weight of its own self-contradiction.

Here’s a more subtle example. What about the statement, “One should never criticize another person’s morality”? That statement is itself a moral judgment; after all, there are a great many people whose morality prompts them to make such judgments. Hence, one cannot put forward this tenet without implicitly condemning another person’s moral worldview.

What about the statement, “One shouldn’t say that another person’s beliefs are wrong”? This is merely a subtle rephrasing of the previous claim, and is guilty of the same failing. What if I think it’s okay to criticize someone else’s beliefs? If you utter the statement in question, are you not saying that my belief is wrong?

Is belief in the unproven illogical?

A couple of years ago, I encountered an atheist who took pride in his "logical" beliefs, and who ridiculed Christians for being "illogical." This atheist proudly proclaimed, "It is irrational to believe in anything which is not proven!" In response, I asked, "Do you really believe that? If so, can you prove it to be true?"

He shot back, "What do you mean? I don't need to prove it. It's obviously true." So I replied, "Wait a minute. I thought you said that if a belief isn't provable, then it must not be rational. I'm just asking if you can prove that particular belief. Can you?"

Now, take note of what happened. I could have attacked his claim in other ways. For example, I could have cited beliefs which are scientifically accepted, even though they have not been strictly proven to be true -- Einstein's laws of relativity, for example, or the laws of quantum mechanics. Such beliefs have been corroborated by scientific evidence, but they have not been proven to be true, as any competent scientist can attest. Or I could have talked about mathematical axioms (e.g. the law of reflexivity), which are universally accepted yet by definition, unprovable. Instead, I chose to demonstrate how his claim contradicted itself, thus forcing him to examine his logic more closely.

(Mind you, I did bring up the aforementioned scientific and mathematical arguments later on -- but I tried to deliver the most devastating punch first. My goal was to make him think long and hard about the rationality of his own claim first, before bringing up additional reasons why his belief was in error.)

Is science the only path to knowledge?

Here's another example. I once encountered two atheists who said, "The scientific method is the ONLY way one can ever know the truth!" So I paused for a moment, then asked, "Really? What scientific methodology did you use to arrive at that conclusion?"

They were a little perturbed by that. They said in response, "Look, it's obvious. Look at all the great things that science has done, and look at all the horrible things that religion has caused." I replied, "Wait a moment. We're not talking about whether science does good, or whether religion is evil. We're talking about your claim that science is the only possible path to truth. If your claim is true, then surely you must be able to demonstrate it through scientific means. So, can you cite any scientific experiment which proves your claim to be true?"

Again, note the strategy which I adopted. I could have pointed out that some scientific fields are imprecise (e.g. biology and psychology), or that there have been times when science was proven to be wrong. Or, I could have let myself get sidetracked, and attacked their claim about all the evil caused by religion. These approaches would have given them plenty of wiggle room though, and would have merely prolonged the discussion. Instead, I chose the most pointed, the most direct, and the most decisive argument that I could think of. I chose to demonstrate that their own claim was scientifically unproven -- and thus, by their own logic, irrational.

Mind you, this didn't stop them from attempting to defend their position; after all, long-cherished beliefs can be difficult to abandon. They repeatedly said, "Well, it's obvious!" They brought up examples of all the great things that science has accomplished. They even asked me to imagine a world where science reigned supreme, and to compare it against a world where people did nothing but pray. (A ridiculous exercise, to be sure, but I think it shows that they were steadfastly unwilling to abandon their worldview.)

I could have argued against their examples, and on occasion, I did. At the same time though, I gently pointed out, "Look, each time you present an argument that's not based on strict science, you are actually proving my position. Remember, you're the ones who say that science is the only path to knowledge. If so, then science -- strict, properly conducted science -- is the only tool at your disposal."

A tactical approach

Oh, and one more thing... throughout these encounters, I took great pains to avoid adopting a confrontational stance. In other words, I tried to keep the discussions civil, instead of letting them escalate into prolonged debates. That's one reason why I like to focus on the self-refuting claims which Christian-bashers. This strategy helps to keep the discussions short and focused, instead of meandering down the complexities of science, history or textual criticism.

Moreover, while the Christian-bashers may continue to argue their positions, pointing out these self-contradictions will help shake their confidence in their beliefs -- or at least, it should, if the non-believers are honest with themselves. And that is what our goal should be -- not to win the arguments, but to make our opponents think, and to examine the logic of their own stance. If we can help the non-believers realize that their claims are not based on firm logic after all, then we have already won half the battle.

Rejoicing in pretense?

2005-08-31T20:27:00.000-07:00

On a couple of recent occasions, I found myself discussing the issue of false teaching within the church. To my shock, on both occasions, some believers chimed in by saying, "Hey, don't complain about false teaching! Instead, rejoice! After all, didn't Paul say that he would rejoice, even in pretense? Paul knew that the Gospel is still preached, even in false doctrine!"

I was absolutely stunned by these replies, so I decided to look up the relevant Scripture. I discovered a reference to pretense and rejoicing in Philippians 1:18, which says,

"[W]hether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

I always like to consider verses in their proper context though, so here's what verses 15 to 18 have to say:

"Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

Note that this passage says nothing about false teaching or false teachers. Rather, Paul is expressing thanks that the Gospel is being preached, even when it is occasionally done with ill motives (e.g. envy, strife, selfish ambition). In other words, this passage does NOT say that we should be thankful when God's Word is being twisted around and preached incorrectly. I daresay that Paul would be horrified at such a thought; after all, he's the one who said "Test all things" (1 Thess 5:21). Luke would surely be aghast as well, for he commended the Bereans as they searched the Scriptures diligently to discern the truth. (Acts 17:10-11)

This shows the importance of examining verses in their proper context, instead of just reading them individually. You can open yourself up to all manner of abominable teaching unless you examine their context carefully.

Enforcing "unity" in a Bible study

2005-08-31T18:08:00.000-07:00

I was at a Bible study this summer where we were discussing ways to serve the church and demonstrate leadership. One person said, "I think we can serve the church and lead by attending regularly and always showing up on time." Cautiously, I responded, "Well, I think that's very important indeed, but I wouldn't really call it service."

At that point, the person in question said, "Are you contradicting me?" Another person raised her voice and said, "There will be no contradicting other people at this table!"

I was stunned, and so I said nothing in response. Looking back, I wish I had said, "Well, I simply think we should be allowed to voice our disagreements... and if you disagree with me on that point, then that's okay!"

These people meant well; make no mistake about that. However, they were trying to impose unity by forbidding disagreement -- by enforcing a blanket type of "tolerance" where nobody was allowed to contradict another person's views. This type of unity is unbiblical, for true unity ultimately comes from conformity to God's Word. That's not to say that we will agree on every single point; rather, it simply means that unity must come about by striving earnestly for the Lord, without compromising in either doctrine or character.