|
The call for unity within the Christian community is deceptively appealing. It’s the Rodney King appeal, "can’t we all just get along?" It is a call for peace and tranquility where none exists. In most societies, including ours, the peacemaker is highly regarded while those who choose the contrary path are considered trouble makers and malcontents. Here, in his letter to saints at Colossus, Paul refers to unity as the "bond of perfectness." How nice is that? John Gill probably expresses Paul’s sentiment pretty well saying, "for this [the bond of perfectness] is the bond of union between them, which knits and cements them together, so that they are perfectly joined together, and are of one mind and one heart: it is the bond of peace among them, of perfect unity and brotherly love; and a most beautiful and pleasant thing it is for brethren to live and dwell together in unity." Who could ask for more? Who would want otherwise? As a footnote, others translate the passage as "perfect unity" and "perfect bond of unity." Ephesians 4:3 and 4:13 are the most frequently found "unity" verses among the various translations. Both are frequently cited in attempts to squelch criticism and dissent.We can agree that there is only one Gospel, and that we should be in agreement on what that is. That this is a difficult task that has thus far evaded us is testified to by the schisms within schisms that have besieged Christianity from its earliest days. Imagine we have been attending the church we were raised in, Jerry Bank’s Ministries and a close friend who is a member of Calvary Chapel raises some questions about the teaching of the Prophet Banks. The more we pray and study, the more we are convinced those questions are legitimate. Although the Prophet supports his teachings with Scriptural references, and says, "those who support this ministry, those with their heel to the plow do not criticize," the doubt grows. Mom and dad, friends and relatives are disappointed by their "doubting Thomas." Who wants to hurt friends and family and be labeled a malcontent or even worse a traitor and treated as an outcast? That’s probably why good men do nothing when they are confronted with heresy; they remain silent to keep the peace. It seems better to go along with the crowd than to be branded and stoned as a reprobate and troublemaker.There are a couple of other points to be considered. The call for unity and peace is frequently the cloak used by tyrants and dictators to stifle opposition. It’s the old ruse of " my country right or wrong" used by authoritarians everywhere and all who lay claim to total authority. Once he gains the reins of leadership, the first thing a tyrant does is suppress the opposition by branding them as enemies of the state. Invariably, he controls the press and restricts freedom of speech. Those whose intent is to deceive do not want others to critically examine what they do or say for fear they will be found out. In contrast, those who speak the Truth encourage examination and don’t fear challenging questions. Jesus was never intimidated by questions. He never dodged a challenge to what He was saying. It may well be said that the strength of one’s faith and the truthfulness of one’s beliefs can be measured by the level of criticism it can withstand because it is upon the rock they are built. That’s why we are challenged to prayerfully study; so we separate lies from the Truth. Then, again, just think what it would he like if Jesus had succumbed to the pressure from Pharisees to stop criticizing them.In Scriptures, the word probaton is most frequently translated as "sheep" although it can mean any four footed, tame animal accustomed to graze, small cattle or even goats. In the King James NT, where it is found 37 times, "probation" is always translated as "sheep." Being likened to sheep is not a flattering analogy since they are herd bound and stupid. So, if one runs over a cliff, the rest will follow. This could give us reason to question why "pastors" are fond of calling the congregation their "flock." Interestingly enough, the first reference to sheep in the NT is Jesus warning about "ravening wolves" – false prophets or teachers. The first hint of their presence is their academic robes and their cow towing to the demands of the marketplace. But there is another passage that better expresses Jesus intent for His flock; Behold, He said, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. That entails wisdom far beyond human capabilities, made possible only through the leadership of the Holy Spirit in every aspect of our lives. The lynch pin of the Gospel is not unity; and the defilement of the Gospel for unity’s sake is an unacceptably high price to pay either to the world or within the church. We are to separate ourselves from the world, and from its values and beliefs. Therefore, when the cry for unity is made, maybe we should ask ourselves, "what price are we being asked to pay for unity?"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword . Matthew 10:34 Return to the page directory |
|
There are several questions about the two Scriptural references above. First was it Jesus’ intent to single out His eleven disciples/Apostles to engage in this herculean task? Second, is "preaching" the only method He intended for them to use? Third, if this was the method to be used to propagate the Gospel to all nations and into all the world, why hasn’t it worked? As you may well know, there even are serious questions as to whether or not the passage from Mark was in the original Gospel which only serves to kindle the matter of who and by what means was this proselytization to have taken place. The first of these questions seems the most easy to answer. If we restrict the responsibility to the original eleven, two things become readily apparent: (1) They failed at the task miserably. (2) Paul, the evangelist of all time and the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament, would have been left out of the race which seems most unlikely. It seems that, although He was addressing only the eleven, the principle applies to every Christian – or does it? Perhaps, it only applies to clerics; that is seminary graduates. Well, on second thought, maybe the question isn’t as easy to answer as first thought. Even so, most scholars do agree that the responsibility of spreading the Word rests with all Christians – if it can be called a "responsibility." We are, after all, a royal priesthood by last accounts however well that might bode us.Now that we’ve at least temporarily settled the issue of who, we may move on to the matter of how. Jesus both taught and preached and in the two verses quoted above, He tells us to do both. There are many Greek words translated as teach. In Greek teach can mean to deliver a didactic discourses, to impart instruction or to "explain or expound." Teaching, can also be informing, making one a disciple or actually being a disciple. To teach can mean to chasten or to learn. For preaching, the picture isn’t that much different. There are also many Greek words translated as preach in the New Testament. In some cases the word actually means something quite different than what we’re accustomed to thinking of as preaching. Dialegomai, for example can mean to reason, ponder, talk, utter, argue and discuss, bring good tidings, teach, speak, tell, in addition to plain ole preaching. The preach found in Mark 16:15 does mean to speak with formality, gravity, with authority, but the teach in Matthew 28:19 could read "to make disciples of all nations." When we read teach or preach in the Bible, it can mean many things, but we are assured that its veracity is by divine inspiration.Maybe one of the greatest, if not the greatest preachers ever (Paul) had it right. He wrote that God ordained the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. With the advent of radio, television and, now, internet preaching and teaching of the Gospel is instantaneously worldwide. Think of it, the world has been absolutely saturated with the Gospel message delivered by electronic preachers by the 10’s of 1,000’s for decades. Before, during and after the electronic blitz, generations of missionaries have gone everywhere preaching and teaching the Word. Why hasn’t all of this preaching and teaching gotten the job done? If you’ve ever been bored with a college lecture or dozed through a "preaching to the choir" sermon, you know why. It’s inefficient. Teaching and preaching must be repeated again and again. Even then only about 10% of it is ever remembered. Any professor or preacher will tell you how frustrating that is. What if we were tested in church?Isn’t it just possible that there is another way we haven’t yet tried? Where is it written that preaching and teaching is the only way to evangelize? Think about it. Jesus doesn’t command us to preach or teach. What He does command us to do is to love our brothers and sisters in the faith. He said, this is the way people will know we are His disciples and might cause them to say, "See, they say, how they love one another" and try to find out what makes us different. Now that would be an "emerging church" in every sense of the word. Maybe we should try it for a change. When these self-motivated "seekers" attempted to find out why we so love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we could tell them why and have the opportunity to discuss with them about Jesus and even instruct them on His ways and inform them about the Gospel. Maybe, they would become disciples and, when they went home, they’d be changed, more loving. Others would notice and inquire and the Gospel would prosper. If everything is to be left up to the preachers and teachers, why do we need a comforter?N evertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away,the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7 
|
|
It turns out that all Biblical principles are not comprehensive. Some are apparently very limited in scope. An example of a principle with limits is found in 1 Corinthians 14:34 in which Paul writes that women are to keep silent in church. For centuries this previously thought to be general principle was the basis for prohibiting the ordination of women. Until recently, this was an iron-clad rule of both Protestant and Roman Catholic churches – actually nearly universal throughout Christendom. Now, as it turns out, such is not the case because some argue this prohibition applied only to the women of Corinth. Recall, that it was the home of the temple built on Acrocorinth Mountain to the goddess Aphrodite with more than one thousand "priestesses." The prohibition was Paul’s attempt to keep these "priestesses" from dominating the fledgling church at Corinth. By Paul's time, the temple had fallen into ruin for over 500 years, but the "priestesses" plyed their trade in the city that catered to sailors and traveling salesmen giving it a sullied reputation for immorality (1 Corinthians 6:9-20; 2 Corinthians 12:21). The Greek word korinthiazesthai, "to live like a Corinthian" or simply corinthianize" meant (to put it mildly) drunken and immoral debauchery. By the way, "sacred prostitution was a Middle East custom, not a Greek one [and] like other large port cities, had plenty of prostitutes to service the sailors, but they were not sacred."Certainly, in a city estimated to be anywhere from 400,000, to 750,000, all or even most of the citizens of Corinth didn’t live despicable lives. It was also cosmopolitan with many Romans, (witnessed by Roman names such as Aquila, Priscilla Crispus, Lucius, Gaius, Tertius, Erastus, Quartus, Fortunatus and Achaicus) a number of Jews and a smattering of Phoenicians and Phrygians as well. And the "Jews living there, many of whom were refugees from Rome, including Aquila and Priscilla, were more cosmopolitan and multicultural than those in Palestine." Furthermore, there were from 150 to 200 Christians living in the city. Corinth was counted as one of the three economic centers of Greece as a manufacturing center as well as agriculture and shipping. Also, it sponsored the well known bi-annual Isthmian games. Although, "Some women didn’t live the roles expected of them in either Roman or Jewish culture they were quite respectable. They headed households, ran businesses, were independently wealthy, and traveled with their own slaves and helpers. Within the congregations, (which would have been house churches) women took on the same leadership roles as men. Not surprising, conflicts arose within the congregations because women were not conforming to the usual subordinate role expected of them." One of Paul’s run-ins with the women of Corinth that is recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 was over hair-styles. There is some question about how much his objection to their hair-styles was associated with his concern that "women prophets were giving the ‘impression of madness and frenzy so typical of orgiastic cultic worship’" and how much of it had to do with women’s role in the church.All of this raises the question if the ban on women speaking out in "church" is a principle that applies to all women in all churches for all times or was it due to the male-dominated Jewish culture of Paul – a decree from God or a bias? In such a cosmopolitan city like Corinth, it is unlikely that Aphrodite priestesses were responsible for the ban. Actually, the people Paul encountered in "church" were more likely those who were already Christians. If not, they more likely came from the more affluent citizens of the city or from the exiled Jewish community as from those who frequented the temple of Aphrodite that now lay in ruins. From Biblical accounts, "church" gatherings were a rowdy event. That’s mostly what the 14th Chapter of 1 Corinthians is about. Only part of which deals with women being silent. But to lay the ban on women to the improbability that some stray prophetesses were disruptive and then to dismiss the ban belittles the matter. It is Scripture. Like it or not, it is there in the Sacred Word for anyone to read. Though we may like to speculate on its origins, doing so raises questions as to the veracity of every verse in the Bible. For centuries, Christendom has taken the position that women were to be silent in church; that is to say that they were not to be in positions of authority over men in any way. Paul makes it perfectly clear that what he writes are the commandments of the Lord. One other note, Paul thought a great deal of Priscilla, it is Apollos whom he calls a minister, Romans 1:16 not withstanding. Read 1 Corinthians, chapter 3 and chapter 11:1-3.Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but
ministers by whom ye believed,
|
|
A God Thing So we see that they could not enter in because
of unbelief. The idea of a "God thing" has been around in Christian circles for some time. There are several books out with that title; the evangelist Louis Palau wrote one by that name in (2002). There are even "Christian" companies selling T-shirts with that as the slogan and, of course, websites. It’s also a phrase that shows up in Lobdell’s book Losing My Religion. He recounts how things started going his way; how his life had turned around after he became a "Christian." On one occasion he received an unexpected $45,000 from a previous employer just after praying for $50,000 (on advice of his pastor who advised him to be specific about what he prayed for). He writes, "Wanting to make sure the blessings continued to flow, I went to church each week with my wife and children." He attended a weekly Bible study, volunteered and read volumes of "Christian" books. Hum, can anyone think of any better reason for engaging in such religious practices? Evidently, the "God things" weren’t enough. Although at one point he described himself as a "serious Christian," he lost his faith reporting on religion in America as the L. A. Times Religion Reporter. Now, what brought about this transmutation was a series of probes into various church activities including the clerical scandals of the Roman Catholic Church. He was given good advice on this matter, "Keep your eyes on the person nailed to the cross, not the priests behind the altar" but, nonetheless, he continued to falter. His investigation of the brutal clannish exclusiveness of the Mormons, the self-serving nature of the Trinity Broadcasting Company (e.g., eating $180-per-person meals; flying in a $21-million corporate jet; having access to 30 TBN-owned homes across the country, among them a pair of Newport Beach mansions and a ranch in Texas), Benny Hinn and others drove more nails in his coffin. He closed the lid with these profound words, It’s amazing that such insight comes from one who could not benefit from his own words? He said proof is no substitute for faith then turns around and rejects Christianity for lack of proof. That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. In assessing Lobdell’s reasoning, one must ask if it is possible to forsake Christ once having found Him. Jesus said He would not lose one of those given to Him which sounds like losing one’s faith is impossible. Another quote from Lobdell settles the question, "But it seems to me that to indulge in Pascal’s Wager, you actually have to believe in Christ. The Lord would know if you were faking. I could no longer fake it." At best, Lobdell is an excellent example of a "?-able Christian." His confession of having once been Christian is questionable because he claims to have "lost his religion" – if he ever had it in the first place. In his book he writes, "We lived a version of Christianity Lite, a feel-good brand of faith that didn’t extend much past Sunday morning." The motives for engaging in Christian activity was the basest possible – rewards. That’s essentially an attempt to bribe God. He’s not alone in any of this. How many of us claiming to be Christian have been caught up in the same delusions? Maybe the idea of marketing the church has been too successful because increasingly what we hear from the pulpit is "What Christ has done for us" and "remember the power we have available" or other similar phrases suggesting that Christianity is all about feeling good and living well. There is another, more ominous side, of the Lobdell story. It is a side that should give us all something to think about not only with regard to our personal lives but about the churches to which we belong. He writes: I understood that I was witnessing the failure of humans, not God. But in a way, that was the point. I didn't see these institutions drenched in God's spirit. Shouldn't religious organizations, if they were God-inspired and -driven, reflect higher standards than government, corporations and other groups in society? Certainly our personal lives should be reflective of a Christ-like life; that’s Scriptural (e.g., John 13:34-35, 15:12-13 and Matthew 5:16). After all, this is how others will be brought to Christ. The church is supposed to be Christians gathered together in worship and praise, a concentration of Christ’s love. Shouldn’t the church be a hub, a focal point of that brotherly love? If one of us is a light, shouldn’t the church be a lighthouse? We all know that the corruption in the church Lobdell found in his investigations is not at all unusual. But beyond that is the petty, un-Christ-like way in which we collectively behave; too much like the Pharisees. We find too much pleasure in the building, the prestige of the preacher and the size of the "congregation" not unlike the Jews in Jesus’ day idolizing Herod’s Temple. Have we really considered the way church misbehavior, misdirection, affects those around us? How do we answer Lobdell’s question? Maybe we owe him an apology. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; Revelation 2:5
|
What is perplexing is why this is so perplexing other than the fact that Paul said it. Suppose, as some believe, that he was talking about people being baptized (by proxy) for those who died without being saved. Would this isolated act alone, however sincere, be sufficient to save them? Suppose a group was to somehow get a list of those who had died without being saved and the members of this group were baptized for them. What would that accomplish except making the group members a bit more clean? Isn’t the answer to that question nothing? Most "main-line" Protestant denominations agree that baptism by itself is public affirmation of having been saved. For them, the "public proclamation" opens the door to the fellowship of the church. In itself, it has no regenerative power. Among these groups, it is widely accepted that to be saved one must repent of their sins and accept Jesus the Christ as the Lord and Master of their lives. Baptism is a symbol, an outward manifestation of having accepted Jesus. If so, then baptizing the dead as well as anyone else who had not repented and "accepted Jesus into their lives" would be a waste of time and water. But, in this regard, baptizing the "dead" is widespread and found in all denominations. Granted it has become more so in this "dispensation of church marketing" and the "seeker church movement." In traditional Christianity, it was thought that the Holy Spirit drew people to Christ not the Starbucks being served at the Holy Café on campus or the non-threatening, sanitized milieu and "sermons." Without taking into consideration that the "church" was not intended to be an evangelical instrument, not only are "seekers" presented a cheap, pabulum, easy to swallow version of Christianity, but those who have accepted Christ are fed the same junk food preventing any real growth in their understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.. As is pointed out in the article on the seeker church movement, "The products offered in these churches on Sunday are a cheap version of the true gospel." For example, recent sermons at the largest mega-church, Joel Osteen’s church, were on such topics as life, marriage, family relationships, finances, work and health (click to see Rick Warren’s topics). While relevant to today’s problem filled world, such topics as these are hardly pabulum let alone the meat of the Gospel. The question must be asked, if one is baptized without knowing the rudiments of the teaching of Jesus the Christ, are they saved or deluded?While Jesus may have been referring to those who preach false doctrines when he said, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them, we might also question how much damage they have done to the souls of those who follow their false doctrines. In such starved people, can there be an indwelling, an anointing of the Holy Spirit? Ephesians 1:13 suggests we must first hear the Word; only then can we believe the Truth and receive the Holy Spirit. If we never hear the Word, we cannot come to believe. Therefore any subsequent baptism would be a "baptism for the dead." Furthermore, if our lives after baptism are indistinguishable from what we were before, might one wonder if we were, in fact, spiritually alive or dead? Paul tells us not to conform to this world but to be transformed. He says that we are new creatures and our old ways should pass away. Those who continue in their old ways are enemies of the cross; their bellies are their god and they mind earthly things. So there they sit in their accustomed pews relishing the pulpit’s pabulum that tickles their ears. In like respect, Peter writes, those who follow Christ no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God for we have escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. What can be said of those who cannot be distinguished from non-Christians other that their baptism was dead? Finally, James 2:26Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4 
|
In The Beginning – Was There?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. Genesis 1:1
There is probably no one sentence in the entire Bible that has generated
more conversation or been the subject of more controversy than this, the
very first line. It’s somewhat understandable for secular scientists (as if
there were any other type) to attempt to come up with some non-religious
paradigm for the origin of the universe. What is not in the least bit
understandable is for Christian’s to buy into or kowtow to secularist’s
theories. It doesn’t matter whether Christians view ourselves as a "creation
scientist" or "intelligent designers," they stand in error. As one
There is only one interpretation of the "story of creation" found in Genesis and that is it is the Truth, not a "story" at all. To be perfectly clear, what this means is that God created the universe and He did it in seven (7) 24 hour calendar days. As with the rest of what is spoken of in the Bibles we have in our hands; if it is not the Truth, God has or will take the appropriate steps to correct any error therein. Call this position "fundamentalist," "literalism" or by any other label, it is the only one acceptable in Christianity. If we balk at the idea of an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God creating the universe in seven literal days, what do we do with the "story" of the great flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, the Virgin Mary or Christ rising from the dead? Is any one of these Biblical accounts any more "scientifically" demonstrable than that of Creation? If not, and assuredly they are not, why just pick on one with which to champion "mind over God?" The account of Jesus’ Immaculate Conception is every bit as scientifically ludicrous as the Creation "story." Ask any "natural scientist" if parthenogenesis occurs in other than plants, some insects and anthropods and he’ll say no. Well, that is the "scientific" term for "virgin birth. So, what do we do? Throw it out of our liturgy (a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or observances ) as well – something like throwing the baby out with creation? Keep going in this exclusionary direction and we might qualify as an "emerging church" where anything goes. Where in the Bible are we exhorted to or extolled for proving its precept? Where are we challenged to prove or justify His Word? The answer is nowhere. Not one of the 25 times in which "prove" appears in the KJV does it have the slightest to do with humanity "proving" (that is to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the worth or quality of) anything at all about God, His Son or the Gospel. It stands above and beyond human capacity to understand. In contrast to the dearth of Scriptures telling us to "prove" them, there are plenty telling us that human intelligence is inadequate to understand the God and His Gospel. Paul, quoting Isaiah 29:14 writes, the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. Again Paul writes, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. Speaking of the doctrines of the Gospel, Jesus said I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Now who do we wish to emulate the sanguine intellectual or the babes unto whom the Gospel has been revealed? After all, what really matters in all of this is our "God-view." Do we have to "check our brains at the door" as some claim, in order to believe that God is powerful enough to create the world in six nanoseconds (a nanosecond is 1 billionth of a second – 1/1,000,000,000 of a second) and make it seem to our feeble minds as if it took ten billion years? If that should be the case, with which are we better off, our brains and the theories of blind "wise men" or faith in an inexorable, all powerful, all knowing and loving God? Maybe, rather than sleeplessly giving obeisance to worldly "scholars," we should retain a "world-view" consistent with a God worthy of the name. How much of a God would it take to outsmart the smartest human who ever lived? While we look not at the things which are seen,
but at the things which are not seen:
|
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues, The idea of a "light Christian" isn’t new but, it is descriptive of an increasing number of "marginal" Christians and the attitude of more and more churches toward requirement for baptism. Reminiscent of TV evangelists who would tell the folks at home, "just put your hands on the TV and repeat this prayer to be saved, more and more churches are following in the same footsteps. Some don’t even ask "Do you accept Jesus as your personal Savior," they just sign you up as a member and start sending donation requests. It’s as though Pentecost never happened; as if Jesus never ascended. After you’ve responded to the preacher’s invitation to spontaneously "come on down and I’ll baptize you," your responsibilities for all intents and purposes are finished except for your "tithes and offerings." The professional "pastor and staff" will take over and run the show. Further participation, outside of some ‘volunteer’ opportunities of marginal importance (that’s why they are relegated to volunteers – they are too insignificant for the professionals to be troubled with) is to show up in "church as frequently as possible and sit respectfully and attentively as the programmed service unfolds. The claim is that the "everyday Christian" is too busy and too occupied with his work, home and family to assume the responsibility of running the church. That’s why they hire a professionally qualified staff. It works out for everyone. The "everyday Christian doesn’t have to be bothered with all that religion stuff and hired professionals have job security and they don’t have to worry about challenges to their authority and decisions. The only responsibility "devout Christians" have is faithfully attending church every Sunday.However, if we are familiar with the first two chapters of the Book of Acts, we must sense that something is amiss in the above scenario. In the first chapter, Jesus ascends to Heaven something we hear little of in the churches of today and nothing about the significance for us. What we hear about is His death on the Cross as a mitigation of our sins and His resurrection as an assurance of the Truth of His Word. These are of monumental importance, the foundation, the beginning of the work of preparing for His triumphal return. But His ascension is just as important. Remember, in the Book of John Jesus said, It is expedient for you that I go away? Well, in Acts 2:4, it happened, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Why, as the added emphasis states, would this happen, why would "everyday Christians" with nothing else to do but write checks to underwrite church expenses, occupy their special pew for most Sunday’s of the year and volunteer for light duties carefully supervised by a professional staff member be given such a precious gift? What need have they of it? NONE if that’s all that they have to do in God’ Plan of Salvation! None, none at all. "Light Christians" don’t need the Holy Spirit. "Oh, but that was Peter and the other Apostles who received the Holy Spirit," you protest. John the Baptist didn’t think so. He said all those who were repentant and believing would be baptized with the Holy Spirit: See Mark 1:5,8 and Luke 3:16. And in John we find Jesus saying, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water - an unrestrained, extravagant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Gill comments, "Not only the twelve apostles, (were blessed with the Holy Spirit) but the seventy disciples; and it may be all the hundred and twenty, that were together, even women as well as men."Is the Bible a guide for our lives or only a record of what occurred some 2,000 years ago. Did it apply then but not now? The "specific vs. general principles" argument, heads us down a dangerous and slippery slope. If we’re not careful we’ll start regarding Scripture as untrustworthy and irrelevant for today. Accepting the Word as revealed Truth to be the guide for our lives then requires us to reexamine the lie perpetrated upon us that only a few are qualified to "preach the Word," administer the sacraments and shepherd the flock. Imagine what would happen if suddenly the church started putting other than monetary demands upon us. We just might stop coming. If we became " Spirit-filled" we would find the "church" of today boring. We might begin to challenge; even disagree, with what is being preached at us. Then again, and worst of all, we might discover that we really didn’t need our pricey preacher or his so-called professional staff. What is it they do that "Spirit filled," "Spirit-led" Christians can’t? Paul wrote, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. He also wrote, If God be for us, who can be against us? Isn’t that sufficient to run a church? Paul asked, Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? Do we? If we do, why don’t we act as if we were? If we don’t why is that we don’t know?And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18
|
|
Art aficionados tell us that "abstract art" exists independent of reality. One art authority describes it this way, "Indeed, when you look at an abstract painting, you often have no idea what it is you are actually seeing." "Abstract Christianity" is a theology that exists independent of the Gospel and is only superficially related to it. They may quote passages from the Bible, even give lip service to doctrinal statements but any resemblance between the Abstract Christianity and the Gospel is purely contrived. It exists independent of Scriptural reality.Much like the transition from "representational" to "abstract expressionism" in art, "Abstract Christianity" has evolved out of what is frequently characterized as "Cafeteria Christianity," so named because of its adherents pension for picking and choosing what they like and dislike about the Gospel. Thus tithing is pulled out of the Old Testament laws and touted as absolute truth while New Testament edicts about women being silent in church and teaching or having authority over men is ignored. The upshot of that is we have women pastors extolling tithing as a Scriptural virtue. In contrast, paraphrasing our art authority, in "Abstract Christianity" you have no idea what it is you are actually hearing or supposedly believing because it is in a state of flux – being redefined on the fly to suit the latest whim or convenience. One Abstract Christian leader puts it this way, "When we make it sound like we have all the bolts screwed down tight and all the nails hammered in, and everything's all boxed up and we've got it all figured out, at that moment, I think we have stopped being faithful." Some Abstract Christians find "any mention of truth, objective truth, angular or offensive. It might sound intolerant." Others argue that, the Bible "is not a ‘look-it-up encyclopedia of moral truths." That leaves everything up in the air as an inkblot waiting to be interpreted just like abstract art. This statement could have well been written by an advocate of Abstract Christianity, "Every painting is created within a particular environment, and if you do not understand that environment, you will never be able to appreciate what the artist has to offer you." All we’d have to do is substitute Christian belief for painting and preacher for artist.The question is whether such loosey goosey stuff is Christianity, abstract or otherwise. Are there prescribed guidelines for Christianity or not? Is Christianity "representational" in the sense that it is easily recognized or is it something that we have no idea what it is or what it stands for? Most fundamentally, does it stand for anything at all or is it simply the opinions of what a community of worshippers arrived at through consensus? Which is it? Is it a Gospel of substance or something that is developing through our tête-à-tête with one another? Does the Gospel stand for something or is it "smooth as a feather born on the breeze? The only trouble with regarding the Gospel as something for everyone, as some would believe, is that it becomes nothing. Is this what Jesus the Christ spent His time, His effort; His very life for – a legacy of nothing? What about the Bible? Is it authentic, a source of Truth and a moral compass? Is it a "subversive text," a "scary book," as some would claim or maybe just a piece of literature? It once was considered the ultimate authority, the very foundation for Christianity – Sola Scriptura. Paul wrote, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. He was speaking of both the Old and New Testaments (as we call them) since the greater part of the latter was then written – 2 Timothy from which the quote is taken is regarded by many as the last of his 27 epistles and letters. The idea that the Bible was profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction has been a foundational principle of Christianity for centuries. Without which Christianity is as a ship without a rudder – foundering. Welcome to Abstract Christianity that asserts, the important thing in reading the Bible is not the intentions of its authors, but the understanding of their readers. Abstract Christianity, isn’t concerned with Truth because they regard it as a relative term that can be defined only within the context of ones personal experience.These two realities of the Christian faith, the Truth of the Gospel and the infallibility of Scripture are under a withering attack today by an avant-garde intelligentsia pushing beyond the boundaries of what has been accepted as normative in Christianity for centuries in the name of open mindedness and missional reconciliation. By whatever name it is politely called, the harsh reality of this abstraction is that it is heresy, an aberration, dressed in contemporary clothes intentionally designed to attract naive adolescents regardless of their age. Such tantalizing words as " mysticism," "narrative theology," "new monasticism" "authenticity," "conversation," "missional living," "communitarian," "egalitarianism," are bantered about to cloud its satanic purposes. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words,lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effec t. 1 Corinthians 1:17
|
First question: What more can be done to entice nonbelievers into church other than what seeker churches have already attempted? Second question: What more can be done to market the church than what the church-marketing gurus have previously attempted? We are probably at the end of the "supermarket-seeker church" dispensation that has all but completely perverted Christianity in order to accomplish its ends. These dual demons of pseudo-evangelism and church growth have so diluted Christianity in order to make it palatable to unbelievers that even describing what is being espoused from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday even fails to meet the description of the "milk of the gospel." The "success" of these "supermarket-seeker churches" is obvious by a simple nose count (average attendance ranges from as few as 1,500 to as many as 47,000) or, as one pastor is inclined to brag upon, the number of "baptisms" performed in any given period of time. Less obvious, perhaps, but most important to the respective institutions, is their financial success. Unfortunately, the size of the church is as deceptive as using the number of graduates receiving diplomas in measuring the success of an academic institution. Before long, in both instances, the end (salvation or an education) is swallowed up by the means. When means become ends in themselves, size, growth and finances become imperatives seen as necessary and essential aspects of the "church" overshadowing all else. Third question: In light of Scripture, when we hear of such numbers, shouldn’t we ask what these 1,000’s, 10’s of thousands have been drawn into – what type of "church" it is? When a "pastor" tells us that he baptized 2,400 in one week, shouldn’t we ask "baptized into what?" But, more basically, more fundamentally, shouldn’t we question whether the goal of a church should be growth and financial success? Even more fundamentally, shouldn’t we be asking if churches are to be evangelical/missional? One source describes "evangelical churches" as "Harvest-focused, Holiness-fueled churches committed to establishing healthy multiplying churches that proclaim the Gospel of free and full salvation from all sin for all people." In like respect, the two models of what is termed a "missional church" that have been described as the "come to us" and "go to them" are equally incorrect. Scripture depicts "church" as a gathering of believers intent upon, focused upon, and growing in their ability to worship and praise God and His Son Jesus the Christ. Yes, there is growth. It used to be called, "sanctification." That concept was thrown out with the rest of Christianity in the head-long rush to be the biggest, most "missional," richest church in the country if not the world. Witness The Yoido Full Gospel Church, led by David Yonggi Cho that has over 800,000 members and "growing," any resemblance between it and Christianity is purely coincidental – yet it is wealthy and monstrous. It is this model that mega-church pastors admire and aspire to whatever the price or sacrifice of Gospel Truth. By some accounts, "traditional churches" are doomed to extinction and, right along with them, Christianity. How untimely since the Second Coming has yet to arrive. Fourth question: What could possibly fill in the gap between now and the End of Time (e.g. last time)? Just in time emerges the Emerging Church to the rescue. Much more than stage seven of Brian McLaren’s paradigm with "seeker churches" realizing that: Maybe the mission of the church isn’t simply to become a bigger church? Maybe, like Jesus, the church is to engage the larger world to reveal that the kingdom of God has drawn near? To their amazement, Seeker Community Church discovers significant swaths of the Bible (such as the Pentateuch, prophets, gospels, and epistles) talk about justice, poverty, and compassion. The church begins to speak about social issues and participates in efforts to combat poverty, AIDS, and global injustice. How Emergent Are You?This "mournful savior" will go to any extreme to meet its passionate and consuming desire to "save the world" by any means possible, and we mean by any means. Instead of doctrine which, to them, smacks of bigotry, they have "conversations" to determine situational moral and ethical truth. To Duane Cottrell, the Emerging Church will be ecumenical (all religions have the same spiritual roots), contemplative and missional along with several other traits that only spell unrecognizable. In particular, "spiritual formation," and "contemplative spirituality" seem designed to entice what we once would have called "hippies." One thing is certain, all will shy away from asserting that Christianity is true and authoritative out of concern such allegations would be certain to alienate some. The overall answer to these four questions is, as Fred Hutchison puts it, a "Seduction of Christianity." Or to paraphrase him it’s heresy with a Christian wrapper.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church;
|
It’s
Logical There are logical explanations for much of what is regarded in the Bible as miracles. Creation Scientists, for example, have made compellingly reasonable argument for their position that scientific evidence generally supports the story of creation found in the Book of Genesis – with the possible exception of the time frame. Other scholars have taken a less ambitious tack suggesting that although there are miracles, we needn’t resort to such explanations to events that have "natural" or logical explanations. For example, the word "day" (yowm) found in the story of creation (as in And the evening and the morning were the first day) may correctly be translated variously as: day, time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), a division of time, a working day, a day's journey, days, lifetime time period in general, a year, temporal references, today, yesterday or tomorrow. Take your pick. From this prospective creation could have just as well taken seven 24 hour days, seven lifetimes or seven unspecified temporal periods that could add up to seven million, billion or quad-trillion years. Furthermore, since "seven" signifies completeness, it could simply be poetic license rather than being a numerical seven number of time periods of whatever length. That’s only logical. In a recent book, The Miracles of Exodus, Dr. Colin Humphreys of Cambridge University believes the parting of the Red Sea was the result of a strong wind blowing water away from the coast. That, he contends is exactly what the Bible says in Exodus 14:21, a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land. The burning bush could have been no more of a miracle than a volcanic vent. He, and others, also believe that, "at least some of the plagues inflicted on Egypt fit into a coherent natural sequence" making them all quite logical. Parthenogenesis ("virgin birth") is found in some plants and insects, but not in any of the higher forms of life, and certainly not in human beings. That’s no reason to challenge the Biblical account of Jesus miraculous conception because of the various meanings of Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos). It has a range of meanings including: a virgin, a marriageable maiden, one's marriageable daughter or even a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and idolatry, and so has kept his chastity. The word "virgin" in the passage from Isaiah in which he prophesies that a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel is the Hebrew almah. Although some would vociferously disagree, "almah" can mean "any young woman, not necessarily a virgin" (Revell Bible Dictionary, p. 1006). Logically, then, Mary did not necessarily have to be a virgin. Even more logically, Joseph and Mary could have secretly "slept together" and, as a consequence, she could have gotten pregnant. It happens all the time. Guilt could have persuaded Joseph to step up and marry her to keep her from being stoned to death once their indiscretion became apparent. Well, what do you know, logic has disposed of another "miracle." My how the "reasonable mind flourishes. Actually, some translations of James 3:17 cited above state that the wisdom from above is reasonable – the second cousin to "logical." Isn’t that license enough not only to examine miracles but the Bible cover to cover from a reasonable and logical point of view – according to our human understanding? That’s exactly what Brian McLaren states in A New Kind of Christian. "The Bible" he writes, "should be one of many authorities, such as tradition, reason, exemplary people and institutions one has come to trust, and spiritual experience" (pp. 54, 55). Other reasonable men and women, in and out of the Emerging Church Movement have similar ideas. One scholar suggests, "Don’t look for miracles in the Bible where they don’t exist" and cites the crumbling of the walls of Jericho as an example. Even the most died-in-the-wool "Christian logician" (if there can be such) would not dismiss all the 120 or so miracles recorded in Scripture. For to do so would leave precious little left including the resurrection of Jesus the Christ – the cornerstone of the Gospel. But, the real question is how far removed is all this "logical analysis" from those who openly reject and scorn the Bible? That it sounds reasonable doesn’t make it so any more than those who treat Scriptures as menu items in a cafeteria to be selected or rejected according to time, place, convenience, circumstance or taste. Once we cross that line, once we open the door of questioning the veracity of Scripture , when do we stop? First its reasonable and sensible, then its convenient, then conciliatory. In the end what have we lost and what have we gained in the name of human wisdom? Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:13
|
But their minds were made dull, for to
this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. There is always the temptation on the part of intellectuals to read and interpret the Bible in some way that suits their particular expertise. "Natural" scientists (and "scientific theology") will twist and turn Biblical events to fit into their mechanistic view of the universe through the lens of naturalism. Mathematicians want to dissect Scripture into mathematical formulas designed to find flaws and reveal hidden messages of one sort or another. Psychology, the social and political "sciences" have all taken their turns at such analyses from their specific points of view. One of the more prolific areas of interest in interpreting Scripture is the field of literary theory and criticism. With all its Allegories, fables, metaphors, parables and anecdotes, the Bible is a field ripe for the harvest by such linguistic scholars as witnessed by the plethora of books on the subject. If we start treating Scripture in such objective, analytical ways, at what point do we stop? More importantly is the question of, what have we gained with such scrutiny? An example of the brutality such an analysis can render a piece of literature is the psychoanalytic analysis of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick with the "great white whale" made out to be an "allegorical representation of God." However, such atrocious treatment of a literary work of art is dissipated by recalling that there is only one letter difference between Freud and fraud. Its informative to note that Northrop Frye, author of the influential Anatomy of Criticism, observed that literary critics tend to embrace an ideology, and then determine the worth of a piece of work by how closely it conforms to their preconceptions. Unfortunately, in a later book, he seems to have forgotten his own criticism writing in The New Code, "Does God create humanity or does humanity create God?: His answer is "Yes" implying both statements are true. Whether or not Frye’s assertions about literary criticism are generally the case, it appears to be the case when the piece of work being "reviewed" is the Bible. Then, we may conclude with great certainty that the analysis will debunk Scripture as certainly as a Freudian will find that all males are jealous of their fathers. What is it about the human brain that refuses to accept the obvious? Why aren’t we able to take the author’s intent for a great work for what it is without delving into mechanistic and pseudo-psychodynamic analysis which, more often than not, turns out to reveal more of the analyst than the work? There is one more area left for consideration. We are frequently told that the two major languages of the Bible are Hebrew in which the Old Testament is written and Greek, the language of the New Testament. So, to thoroughly study the Bible, we should know both these languages. Unhappily, things are not quite that simple. Linguists will tell us that the Hebrew and Greek we know today is not the same as found 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. Furthermore there were, and are, many nuances in both languages just as there are in the English, Spanish, German and other world languages spoken today. Actually, the plethora of languages and dialects spoken then as today are reminiscent of the aftermath of the Tower of Babel. In addition, it is seldom mentioned that the predominant language of the region and time in which Jesus lived was Aramaic. And, like other languages, it was not the same from culture to culture and over time, there were significant differences. Jesus spoke Middle Aramaic prevalent in the region of "Israel from 200 B.C. - 200 A.D. Coupled with translation errors and misrepresentations over the centuries, the statistical probability of knowing anything that Jesus actually said and the Apostles wrote is zero to say nothing about earlier events such as those chronicled in the Old Testament. But, in all of this, there is
one ingredient rarely mentioned or taken into consideration by all the
pseudo-scientific, literary analyses – GOD. If we factor Him into our
analytical schemes; if our starting point was to attempt to determine GOD’S
INTENT in having the Bible written and making it available for us to read
study and learn from wouldn’t that nullify all this critical investigation?
What if we tried to determine what He have us learn from it? Of course, that
would require recognizing that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient God, He whom their dissections and discourses are designed to
disparage and deny. With Him as our starting point, miracles would abound
everywhere from the seven days of creation, Jochebed setting Moses adrift on
the river to the walls of Jericho tumbling down, the birth and resurrection
of Jesus; His ascension and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But the
greatest miracle we would discover in our careful study of His Word would be
the Truth of His unstinting love for each one of us. With our minds freed of
our natural human arrogance, we would discover the Truth of the Gospel – if
we only believed. How much different would the world be if this were true?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. Mark 10:5
|
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
said, Return to the page directory Rob Bell, "founding pastor" at Mars Hill mega-Church is at the forefront of the X-generation’s infatuation with electronic gadgetry and guru of the Emerging Church movement. Under the auspices of Flannel (formerly NOOMA) Bell now publishes DVD’s to stay in stride with this electronic infatuation. Increasingly, he and others are preaching half truths as exemplified by his "The Gods Aren’t Angry" in which he modestly professes to explain the origins of religion and makes the declaration that "God is not angry with the human race, that He loves them pretty much as they are, and that there is no need to repent." Which is at least one small step in the right direction away from suggesting a plurality of deities as the title of his DVD does. Rather than digress into the absurdity of the rest of his assertions about liking us the way we are and that there is no need for repentance, this article will focus on Bell’s idea that God is not angry with us. When we get into "conversations" (as the Emerging Church crowd is so fond of doing) about whether or not God is an Angry God, we automatically enter into the rarified arena regarding the very nature of God which is about as complex and unfathomable as one can imagine. All we really have available to discover His infinite nature is what we can glean from Scripture, the life and teachings of Jesus, through His creation, traditional Christian teachings, and the Holy Spirit. Through our limited capabilities, over the centuries we have come to understand that God is infinite, that He is free and distinct from the universe He created (Aseity) – transcendent, His moral perfection, that He has neither beginning nor end; He has no past or future, only an eternal present that transcends time. He is immutable. He possesses perfect knowledge of all things. He is love. He is holy – pure and undefiled. He is just (righteous). He is merciful. Others speak of His imassability (as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing); His noncontingency (He cannot not exist). He is the great I AM.There is more. The list God’s characteristics is endlessly incomplete, but what we want to focus on is His righteousness; that which is found in Matthew 6:33 from the Greek word "Dikaiosune" which is used 85 times in the New Testament. It means "integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting." In Malachi 4:2, Jesus is described as the "Sun of righteousness" referring to God. Likewise, in Romans 14:17, Paul describes the kingdom of God as righteousness. And, Hebrews 1:8 states, But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. All of this is tinged with a warning to those who teach to the contrary, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:His fairness toward as well as His love for all people is witnessed by Scripture. When we look at His treatment of non-Jewish populations as found in the Book of Joshua, for example, we must remember that the Bible’s primary focus is on the Jewish people. We do not know about His works among non-Jewish cultures; yet the history of His struggles with the nation of Israel adequately demonstrates both His love and His fairness. After countless rebukes by them, their stubborn resistance to His ways He finally permitted their deaths, scattering and the total destruction of the nation of Israel. Whether or not the future will show the Ammonites, Canaanites, Jebusites and other peoples resistance of His Word also led to their destruction at the hands of Israel remains to be seen. We do know that He is not a respecter of persons. What is manifestly clear, about which we do not need to speculate because it is clearly stated in the Bible must be regarded as both a promise and a warning: He loves, but He is also just – that’s the other shoe we frequently choose to forget.To believe otherwise, that He is only a God of love and ignore the fact that he is also a just God, is nothing short of sacrilege to the Cross of Jesus. Through our sinful omissions and commissions (things we don’t do as well as those we do against His will) we, all people, stand condemned to eternal death in that final judgment. It is plainly stated that ALL have sinned and just as plainly it is stated If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. To deny that our sinful nature is repulsive to God is to say that Jesus, His Son, was humiliated by assuming human sinful weakness, ignored, cursed, spat upon and crucified unto death for no reason at all. God may not be angry with the human race, but, as with Israel’s intransigence, He has every right to be infuriated with us. Only Jesus’ intercession shields those who publically accept Him from that justifiable wrath. His full and just fury still rests upon those who obstinately reject HimFor I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven . Matthew 5:20
|
