ThinkingInColor

Wednesday

Dec032008

The Insanity of Predestination

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 10:51AM

Those who believe in predestination, or, “God wills everything”, have no theology of personal culpability. Either colossal ignorance or stultifying arrogance seeks to absolve man of responsibility, without the benefit of forgiveness, even when man clearly made the choices to commit a heinous crime. I am appalled at the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of predestination logic. How easy it must be to blame God for genocide, for terrorist acts, for barbarism, for inhuman abuse of families, women and defenseless children because one believes that God made me do it. If God wired someone to commit acts of atrocity against other human beings, then how can God hold that person accountable to the law or even divine retribution? Listen to this incomprehensible drivel that proponents believe:

“If we cannot reconcile divine omnipotence and divine goodness, we must choose between them. Islam has chosen divine omnipotence. It may praise God’s goodness and mercy, but because it holds that everything that happens is the direct result of God’s will, it must make God responsible for rape, murder, theft, adultery, deceit, and so on, even blasphemy, and if God is responsible for these evil deeds, then they must not be evil after all. “If God did not want those people to die,” says the mullah, “why did he allow those airliners to crash into the World Trade Center?”’

This piece, of course, spotlights the tragedy of Mumbai in which Jews were targeted. The saddest case was a two-year old Jewish boy who was abused and sent home an orphan. His mother and father were brutally murdered an especially gruesome attack, and an examination of the toddler showed marks on his back consistent with an abusive beating. Why? Oh, yes, we “know” why. Jews are the dung of the earth, the cockroaches who infest society, the cause of all human suffering. The Islamic extremists have a right—even a duty—to kill them whenever and where ever they’re found, and do so in ones, ten, thousands or millions.

We need to peel back the layers of the tragedy until we arrive at the real truth. Whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, the unthinkable sin is to assign the blame to God for the shameful acts of man. Does God really want sin to happen? Is God really guilty of rape, murder, theft and the like? A thousands times NO! I cannot say that God allows it in the sense that he passively does nothing about it, or he turns a blind eye to it, or that he actually wills it to happen and provides the means to accomplish the task. If he allows it at all, it is because sin lies at the core of human problems. God has an absolute guarantee that he will not violate the free moral agency of man. That does not mean, however, that he will not hold man responsible for his deeds done in the flesh.

Personal accountability, moral culpability and criminal judgment will fall heavily on those who are guilty of sin. This necessitates a choice. If one has no choice, then it follows that one accrues no moral guilt. Groupthink, class hatred and the acts of terrorism that target individuals in the name of race or ethnicity will not be given a bye. Yes, justice is a moral decision and it is arrived at through the most stringent and torturous processes. I am outraged, however, that it is assumed that perceived oppression that is nothing more than vile hatred, continues to be excused.

Unless all of Islamists who say they believe in moderation and peaceful coexistence rise up and condemn terrorism, there will be no peace. In fact, there will only be tacit agreement with the aims of the extremists, all the while claiming to be against it. It is a clever saying that no justice, no peace. But, in a larger sense, those who believe that guilt has no price, that predestination is the will of God regardless of the sins the perpetrators commit, that we are as amoral as a rock or a tree caught up in a natural disaster, then we will never have justice or peace. It is a bedrock principle that a man will pay for his sins. If he does not, then he can believe in a savior who forgives sin. But that savior also says, “Go and sin no more.”

Thursday

Nov132008

A 2008 Thanksgiving

Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 07:39AM

Thanksgiving is an American holiday.

It originated in an earlier time when humble people knew how blessed they were. Some of them had escaped countries ruled by cruel dictator kings. Some of them fled oppressive regimes that denied them basic human freedoms. Some were economic refugees who came to America for its opportunities. Later generations understood how fortunate they were to be born an American. They all realized that they were far better off in America than they would have been in their native lands.

That was America of centuries past. America of 2008 is a cold and distant shell of that time. Our children are now taught, not to honor the explorers, pilgrims and pioneers, but to curse them and call them the worst of names. Many historians teach that they were plunderers, murderers, rapists, thieves and despots. They are said to be brutish, wiping out innocent civilizations, destroying cultures, contaminating the pristine wilderness, introducing disease and desecrating native shrines all in the name of greed.

We should remember that the hostility of the elite revisionists of today represent a only a point of view—an OPINION—if you will. They are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own truth. My opinion is just as valid as theirs, and while I can discuss it, I do not have to discard it. I strongly believe that the circumstances which forced the pilgrims to these shores legitimized their arrival. First, they came because they could no longer abide the denial of their freedom to practice their religion. Second, they were products of the seventeenth century and were guided by the protocols and strategies of their day. They cannot be judged by the standards of the twenty-first century. Third, they came in peace, seeking not to overthrow their opponents by force but to make conciliatory gestures and agreements with them. It is true that the passage of history recounts many mistakes, travesties of justice and atrocities committed. In my opinion, however, the founding ideals of a free people will never be sullied by their subsequent sins.

And so, on that basis I will continue to celebrate Thanksgiving and purposely grow my gratitude with each passing day. Wading through the negativity about this country that inundates me makes it difficult, and sometimes I find myself second-guessing what I believe. At the end of the day though, I must say that I am glad and proud to be an American. I am thankful for many things.

I can worship God as I see fit, a bible to read and a church to attend.

I have the right to speak, write and broadcast my opinions.

I can vote for whatever and whomever I choose.

I have economic freedom and I can spend my money however I choose, I can spread a plenteous table for my family, and I appreciate the clothes on my back and the roof over my head.

I am thankful for the red, white and blue flag that symbolizes the virtues of the United States of America; white signifies purity and innocence; red, hardiness and valor; and blue, vigilance, perseverance and justice.

I am thankful for the constitution that places strict limits upon necessary government so it will always preserve my liberty and never be a threat to me.

I am thankful that I can defend my life and my family with deadly force if necessary. Without that, I would be at the mercy of criminals or a rogue government.

I am thankful for the freedom-loving people in this great nation who fight with me to sustain our way of life and the ideals by which we live.

Does the exercise of any of these freedoms and rights infringe upon any of my fellow citizens? While some may say it does, it is no more than their free exercise of freedom restricts mine. If each one of us leaves the rest of us alone to practice our liberty, we can all co-exist. It is when one group arises and claims preeminence and the right to force their beliefs and opinions on the rest that we all lose in the long run.

If anyone does not like or believe what I do, they do not have to associate with me. If I do not like or believe what they do, I do not have to associate with them. Yet, both of us are in the same country, ruled by laws and governed by elected officials. The boundaries between the two of us, then, must be defined and respected. If we do not respect those boundaries, civil war ensues and we are both in trouble. I am thankful that, to this point, I am able to live my life giving and getting the respect I desire for those lines.

Which of these freedoms can I live without? Which one would I sacrifice if I had to? None of them. Moreover, I should not be expected to give any of them up. They are unalienable rights granted to me by my Creator. I have a right to life, to enjoy liberty and to pursue happiness as I wish. I am thankful for this American dream.

Yes, I am thankful to be an American. Millions of people all over the world want to come here. People pour through our porous borders illegally, risking life and limb, because they want to be here so badly. Others immigrate legally, disdaining their old way of life and their native lands because they see this free land as their ultimate destination in this world. We don’t ask them to come. We don’t herd them up and subjugate them to values and ideals foreign to them. They just come and they are happy.

On the other hand, many have asked us to come to their countries. When they have been threatened by tyrants, when they have been attacked by armies and when they have been ravaged by natural disasters, they have asked us to come and help them. And we have gone, over and over again. We have shared our wealth, our abundance, our knowledge and our blood. Some say we went because we were greedy of their lands and resources. Some say we had imperialistic designs. Those are false, trumped up charges made by twisted minds. The only land we have asked for on foreign soil was enough to bury our dead.

America has made many people rich, many people famous, and untold millions free. We only ask that those who come here continue to respect and love the freedom that they have the moment they put foot on our land. America’s critics have no real cause to speak. Place the supposed crimes of this nation against those of all others in history, and you will find few, if any, who have done as much good for the world as has this country. Chronicle our mistakes if you wish, but judge us on a fair scale. Future historians will look back and say that this country made an unparalleled difference on this planet between good and evil. This is a good nation.

My heart bursts with gratitude. Thank God for America.

Saturday

Oct252008

The Evil of Modern Technology

Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 09:34AM

“Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” Daniel 12:4

Here I am, sitting in a house heated by a gas/forced air furnace, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, writing down my thoughts on a computer screen, accessing the internet by a wireless connection and weighing in against modern technology. I will be the first to tell you, however, that I don’t want to go back to the way it was, even a few decades ago, when I shivered over a lone heat register in the kitchen, pounded out my writing assignments on an ancient typewriter with a faded ribbon, waiting for my water to boil on a gas stove and my cinnamon toast to bake in the oven. Daily life has been so revolutionized by a steady progression of technological improvements that few of us can imagine living any other way. Conveniences have become such necessities that anyone who has no microwave, cell phone or digital alarm clock is considered deprived.

Man’s inventive genius continues to prolifically breed new technologies, and with each new technology, a cottage industry springs up to feed, clothe and shelter it. Computers have generated software, music, movies, photo-shopping and enough peripheral gadgetry to fill a catalog. With the cell phone came personal ringers, phone cameras, text messaging, GPS capabilities, internet access, ebooks, and on and on. Automobiles can now do much more than transport passengers. They can pamper, comfort, entertain, advise, warn and tell drivers how to get to their destination. We now foresee the day when we won’t even have to steer the machine down the highway. There seems to be no end to our fertile imaginations. But I am haunted by the words of an old evangelist. He said, “Man will never hold out long enough morally to do what he wants to do scientifically. Even as we mount up to the heavens in the space age, we mire down in the mud of sin and shame.” I see this chilling prediction coming true before our very eyes and ears in the twenty-first century. Our heads cannot out-smart our hearts.

Something is insanely wrong with all of this progress. Not only have promises of utopia not materialized for the bulk of civilization, in many cases we have regressed back to prehistoric levels. We have not eliminated murder; we have made murder easier. We have not eliminated theft; we have made stealing easier. We have not eliminated racism; we have made racism easier. We have not eliminated pornography; we have made pornography easier. Inherent within the new technologies we find all the old maladies. Good things undeniably come from our scientific and technological breakthroughs. Unfortunately, these developments have also been subverted for evil purposes. Indeed, the evil we have enabled may end up canceling out the good we have created in society at large.

The most obvious example of this is nuclear technology. The fascinating capabilities of nuclear fission for energy also gave rise to the most destructive weapon ever invented. Regardless of how atomic weaponry is used—whether for defensive purposes or aggressive military action—the fact remains that it is used to kill and destroy. Other scientific discoveries have also been channeled into military uses, like rocketry, aerodynamics, fiber optics, laser beams, radar, modulated radio and television signals, satellites, etc. If it helps, we can make it hurt. If it heals, we can make it injure. If it does good, we can make it do bad. This position has been argued in philosophical terms as well. Regent University’s website on communication contains this paragraph:

“Whether one accepts the neutrality of technology depends on one’s valuing philosophy—whether one tends toward the pragmatic and situational, or the absolute and authoritarian. Those who believe that technology is neutral argue that “guns don’t kill people, people do”, or that a knife can be used to “cook, kill, or cure.” Those who believe the opposite counter with evidence that technology cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Monsma (1986) argued for the “value-ladenness” of technology (chapter 3). He based his premise on two traits that he believed are common to all technological developments: (1) technological objects are unique; they are designed to function in a particular and limited way, and (2) technological objects are intertwined with their environment; they interact in unique ways with the rest of reality.”

In medical science we can find an alarming example of the limits of technology. Jerome Groopman wrote an article in the New Yorker Magazine, August 11, 2008, entitled “Superbug: The new generation of resistant infections is almost impossible to treat.” He said, “In August, 2000, Dr. Roger Wetherbee, an infectious-disease expert at New York University’s Tisch Hospital, received a disturbing call from the hospital’s microbiology laboratory. At the time, Wetherbee was in charge of handling outbreaks of dangerous microbes in the hospital, and the laboratory had isolated a bacterium called Klebsiella pneumoniae from a patient in an intensive-care unit. “It was literally resistant to every meaningful antibiotic that we had,” Wetherbee recalled recently. The microbe was sensitive only to a drug called colistin, which had been developed decades earlier and largely abandoned as a systemic treatment, because it can severely damage the kidneys. “So we had this report, and I looked at it and said to myself, ‘My God, this is an organism that basically we can’t treat.’ ”

Much of the toxic social climate we experience today comes to us at the hands of modern technology. Who can dispute the widespread conviction that television has had a deleterious effect on culture? It is a waster of time, numbing minds and killing creativity. It has also piped pure filth from a godless and immoral Hollywood into the living rooms of the world. The radio has dispensed anarchy, vulgarity and corruption through the powerful medium of music, especially targeting adolescents and teenagers. In the last decade, pornography has spread wildly throughout the internet, victimizing viewers who would seldom or never come in contact with sexual perversion any other way.

Amazingly, these same technologies have transmitted as much or more truth, virtue, goodness and love as they have depravity. How is this possible? Is technology, then, culpable? Innocent? Morally neutral? In The Gutenberg Galaxy (1962), Marshall McLuhan wrote, “The theme of this book is not that there is anything good or bad about print but that unconsciousness of the effect of any force is a disaster, especially a force that we have made ourselves” (p. 248). Regent University comments “Insert any technology for the word “print” and you realize that for McLuhan it is not the content that really matters. In this case it is not even the channel but rather our knowledge and understanding of the medium’s potential impact.” They then ask, “Is print an amoral technology? Can any technology be amoral? These are issues that must be addressed and answered before we can begin to develop a philosophical system to address the convergence of media and technology, and its impact on society.”

I contend that communication technology has the greatest potential for evil of all the developments of modern science. This should not surprise us who are in the business of spreading the gospel. After all, Jesus commissioned the church to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.” The very means and methods used by the church to carry out the work of Christ has been co-opted by Satanic forces to destroy the gospel and spew corruption throughout the world. The advent of the online community was initially envisioned as a dynamic way to connect the inventive genius, the soaring imaginations and the scientific knowledge of individuals, groups, schools and cultures together, thus exponentially multiplying the positive impact they were making on the world. But in the parallel universe of evil, it was also appropriated by malevolent forces to connect with people who shared the same destructive designs. Roger Cohen expresses the same view in the New York Times column of March 10, 2008.

“The main forces in the world today are the modernizing, barrier-breaking sweep of globalization and the tribal reaction to it, which lies in the assertion of religious, national, linguistic, racial or ethnic identity against the unifying technological tide.

“Connection and fragmentation vie. The Internet opens worlds and minds, but also offers opinions to reinforce every prejudice. You’re never alone out there; some idiot will always back you. The online world doesn’t dissolve tribes. It gives them global reach.”

The very internet I access to research my topics is simultaneously used to teach people to build bombs, incite hatred, instigate anarchy, commit fraud, buy and sell illicit drugs, learn witchcraft, poison minds and dismantle Christian traditions. More specifically, it provides a way for terrorist organizations to plot destructive acts, devise conspiracies, obtain funding for their violent activities and inspire each other’s dark causes. If this world is facing global chaos and apocalyptic demise, it will undoubtedly be facilitated by the technology now in existence or soon to be developed. Groups of people who otherwise had no way to unify and combine forces to wreak havoc upon the world now find it easy to locate each other and strengthen their hands. One only has to recall the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to know that cell phones and the internet aided nineteen terrorists to coordinate their diabolical plan. Without the assistance of technology, their deed would not have been possible or would have been infinitely more difficult to carry out.

Technology may not be inherently evil, but neither is it inherently good. We are unforgivably naïve to trust in scientific advances to spread the gospel or do the work of the church. Technology certainly will never be our savior. In fact, the future holocaust it will most assuredly precipitate may well eclipse any good that it has ever done for us. The best gifts to mankind do not come from himself, but from God. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17. This warning may find application at the local congregational level where churches are growing increasingly dependent upon technology for worship, singing, preaching and witnessing. But technology in the larger arena of the world needs to be viewed by the church as suspect. It’s potential for evil means that it will never be the best friend of the church. Let us use it, work it and enjoy it. Let us also keep it at arms length, distant from our souls. We do not need computers, cell phones, radios, televisions, headphones, iPods, CD’s, DVD’s, satellites, telescopes or any other technological devices to have a meaningful relationship with God. Paul’s Mars Hill sermon said this, “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Acts 17:27-28.

The greatest technology to ever come to man may be the glorified body that God has prepared for them that love him. How close will that body allow us to be to God in a physiological sense? I’m not sure, but I do know what the scripture says. “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2. (NIV) That’s the technological advance that excites me more than any other. In an instant, all worldly innovations will be rendered obsolete. We must not sell ourselves short by losing our soul to earthly things.

4 Comments |

PrimaryColors,

Saturday

Oct112008

Sharpening the View

Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 03:40AM

<Click.> “How does this look?” <Click.> “How about this?” <Click.> “And now?” Click. Click. Click. Read these letters. What number do you see? Cover this eye. Is this better? Worse? Ah, the delight of myopia. It dragged me into the optometrist’s world with its phoropters of multiple whirring lenses, of alphabet charts and an array of annoying choices. Sometimes the difference between views was so slight that I felt like I was only guessing. Selecting frames, adjusting the frames to my face, sidewalks coming up to hit my chin, shrinking stairways and the ensuing headaches while I got used to the new glasses compounded the confusion. That was the pre-bifocal stage. Now, I have progressive bifocal lenses that make it seem like I am permanently stuck on a rocking ab machine.

The ordeal of getting prescription glasses, painful though it might be, pales against the frustration and hazards of blurred vision. It started with my inability to read the blackboard from my grade school desk. It worsened with the trouble in reading traffic signs at seventy miles per hour. Now, my driver’s license has a check mark in the little box for corrective lenses. Without glasses, my vision was limited to large nondescript objects and general views. The fine lines, small print and the infinite range of subtle differences didn’t materialize for me until they were twelve inches in front of my unaided vision. Finally, no longer able to negotiate my dim view of life, I succumbed to the eye doctor’s torture chamber. After my geeky glasses were perched on my nose and strapped around my ears, a brand new world immediately appeared to my wondering eyes. And, in getting a better handle on the basics of life, I also discovered that much of life’s enjoyment comes from delicate nuances that I formerly missed altogether.

The old adage is that “the devil is in the details.” Whoever originated that saying clearly needed glasses because the truth is that God, not the devil, is in the details. Frequent passages throughout the scriptures pound the point home that God brooks no cursory examinations. Those who have no patience for seeking, studying, analyzing, meditating and sometimes laboriously exegeting difficult verses never tap into the mother lode of spiritual wealth. In fact, spiritual near-sightedness should generate extreme skepticism in Bible-believing Christians. It is precisely by drawing close to God, by bringing him into sharper focus, that one begins to discern his meticulous work with the nuances and critical differences. To think that knowing God must be so tortuous that man has to reduce him to fuzzy ideas like nice, wonderful love and peace in order to be relevant is a dangerous point of view. Don Koenig, a specialist in Bible prophecy says,

“Now a new name has popped up…called the emerging church. The philosophy behind this growing movement is that purpose driven churches were designed to appeal to baby boomers but now they need churches that will appeal to the post modern younger generations. The emerging churches will be more experience orientated and will rely more on story telling on Sunday than on teaching scripture. Some in this movement have called the teaching of Christian doctrine divisive and say that everything has to be redefined in the light of modernism. After all, the post modern generation has no moral absolutes and neither will these churches. One should wonder what they base their Christianity on? I will tell you. They base their Christianity on a Jesus conjured up in the crystal ball of their own mind. They embrace mystical experiences, feelings, and goose bumps instead of biblical truths! Their beliefs are very compatible with those of Eastern religions. Jesus just happens to be their personal Guru.”

Some default to the blurred outlines of vague doctrinal statements out of indulgence or laziness. Others suffer from some sort of theological attention deficit disorder which interferes with any substantial thought being held in their minds for more than a few seconds. But there are other apologists who genuinely feel that the more attention we pay to details, then the more exclusive we become as a church or an organization. In their opinions, setting the bar too high denies worthy souls access to redemption. Several vital points need to be established here.

We are commissioned to preach the Word…nothing more, nothing less. If our credibility consists of our appeal to the infallible Word of God, then to venture outside of its parameters or to omit significant portions of doctrinal truth leaves a so-called preacher with no credibility at all. Jesus, in fact, anticipated the rise of this breed of preacher. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13-14. (NIV) A doctor cannot practice his own private brand of medicine and keep his license. An attorney cannot choose his own set of statutes to guide his cases and remain credentialed. A policeman’s authority is strictly limited by the law. Likewise, any preacher who sweeps away Bible doctrines because they don’t fit with his private interpretation or that simply get in the way of his personal ambitions disqualifies himself from the ministry. The Apostle Paul took this conviction seriously. “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts 20:26-27.

Preaching less than the scripture demands creates a false hope in people. I can think of nothing as cruel as to sell souls an incomplete gospel, leading them into a false sense of security. Unlearned souls who feel the attraction of Christ’s love rarely question the details of message preached to them. In their innocence and sincerity, they feel the compelling hand of God on their hearts and want to respond. They grant implicit trust to the person who represents God’s Word to them. It is a crime of the highest order to mislead innocent people who seek God. Those who do so are the brutish pastors of Jeremiah and the hirelings of John chapter ten who have no regard for souls but for their own carnal welfare. The Apostle Peter issued a strong warning against those who exploited men’s souls for personal benefit. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof , not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:2-3.

The less we require, the less will be given. It is a scriptural truth, but it is also a universal principle that a man reaps what he sows. Productivity responds to the demands of leadership. Each time we lessen the demands that the Word of God makes on us, each time we eliminate one more distinction that the scriptures establish as integral to the believer’s relationship to God, we ensure that people will not only sink to that minimum, they will undoubtedly fall below it. Water, as we know, seeks the lowest level available to it. If much is required where much is given, then when little is required, little is given. It is the Adamic nature. One can judge the teacher by the class; one can judge the coach by the team; and, one can judge the preacher by the church. Regardless of his motive, a preacher who decides to lessen the impact of the gospel on the lives of his people violates his commission and demeans his calling.

The scriptural progression always goes from the less defined to the more defined. God lets us start out at the elementary levels but he continually presses us to upgrade and learn more. “For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrews 11:6. In creation, God started with darkness and void. He then progressed to light, then water, earth, plant life and animal life. His crowning achievement was man. Again, he first created the body, then he gave it life and finally transformed man in to a living soul. It goes from the general to the specific, from low definition to high definition, from fundamental to complex.

We often see this principle illustrated in the trades. A painter, for example, becomes increasingly more careful as he gains experience in his trade. He selects his paint carefully, usually that manufactured by one or two companies; he only purchases certain brands and types of brushes; he settles into a routine of preparing surfaces, getting his materials ready, applying the paint and meticulously cleaning his tools at the end of the day. He probably learned the hard way that the extra time and effort to do the job right paid off in the end.

The implementation of mature growth principles suffers seriously when we blur our view instead of sharpening it. Those who deny this progression end up with regression. This purpose of discipleship as succinctly spelled out in Hebrews. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14.

Finally, Christ’s parables speak strongly against relaxing our efforts. One need only to reference the parable of the talents to show this principle. The Lord’s greatest displeasure was reserved for the man who did little or nothing with his investment, whereas his fellow recipients busied themselves with the strictures of profitability. They did not slough off, but redoubled their efforts to please their master. We are not told all the excuses the third man used to justify his idleness. Perhaps he said, “Oh, my master won’t care about this. He just wants me to be me. He just wants me to be honest and real. (Interpretation: he knows I’m lazy and he wants me to be true to myself.) No. The master wanted to turn a profit. He will not conform to our indolence; he intends for us to conform to his excellence.

Does God require less and less? No, quite the opposite. Remember the guest who entered without a wedding garment? Today, some would pat him on the back and tell him not to worry, that he was just fine the way he was. But the parable is clear. He was not welcome. “And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:11-14.

One could go on citing many more examples of sharpening the view. When we sharpen our view, we bring better detail, thus greater understanding to the Word of God. The dumbing down of America has become the bane of this culture. In it are the seeds of eventual demise. This must not happen to the church. We need more, not less. We need more doctrinal teaching, not less. We need clearer teaching about lifestyle, not less. We need greater spirituality, not less. We need more of the Bible, not less. We need a deeper understanding about discipleship, not something thinner and shallower.

“And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white : for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.” Revelation 19:6-9.

No bride approaches this day with a casual, haphazard attitude. A bride, with painstaking care and rapt attention, makes herself ready. After all, her wedding day is the most important day in her life. The event ahead of us calls for the best within us.

Wednesday

Oct082008

Was Jesus A Communist?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 09:10AM

Huge social, economic and religious issues have been rising over the past two decades in this nation. The Apostolic church has not spoken out as clearly as many think it should, largely because our focus has been primarily spreading the gospel and leading people to a higher spiritual experience and relationship with God. We have taken our basic mission from the words of Jesus when he said, “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.” Luke 19:10. We accomplish this by adhering to Paul’s words. “We preach Christ crucified.” 1 Corinthians 1:23.

But a series of national and global upheavals in the last two centuries have thrown Christianity into a crucible of agonizing decisions about who we are and what we believe. This is not necessarily about our theology, but about our ability to live in this world as law-abiding citizens and yet remain true to the teachings of scripture. Here are some of the issues we face which have become dilemmas for believers:

Abortion
Stem-cell research
Capital punishment
Homosexual rights
Corporate greed
Casino gambling and lotteries
Sex education in school
The liberal agenda (Green America, school curriculum, etc.)
Socialized medicine (national health care)
Socialistic, communistic politics

One of the driving forces behind the current financial crisis we are in concerns the enactment of socialistic ideas into law. Banks were forced to lend money for home mortgages to people who could not pay them back. This was called an “affordable homes initiative.” This concept has been known by other names in the past. “Taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.” “The Robin Hood doctrine.” “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” “Redistribution of wealth.”

Some deny that blatant socialism was behind this, but others are more honest. There are those who really believe that wealthy people have too much money and that it is only right and fair that their wealth be taken from them and divided equally among all people in a society. These are called socialists because they believe that the welfare of society at large takes precedent over the welfare of individuals. The other term is communism or collectivism. These people believe that no one should own private property and that no one should own the means of production. Only the state, which would be “the people” own anything. This was the basis for the communist revolution in Russia in 1917 and the rise of the U. S. S. R., or the Soviet Union.

The question for us is what does the Bible say? Is communism in the Bible? Capitalism? How does our belief system impact the way we live our lives?

Christian communism (adapted from some Wikipedia material)

Christian Communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity. It holds that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus’ death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

History

In general, the history of communism as a political movement can be divided into two periods: early (pre-Marxist) and contemporary (Marxist and post-Marxist) communism. In the early period, communism may have played a major role in everyday Christianity.

Plymouth Colony

The Plymouth Colony was established by English and Dutch pilgrims in order to flee religious persecution and search for a place to worship as they saw fit. They incorporated their religious beliefs into the social and legal systems of the colony.

Communistic ideas were tested by the Plymouth Colony settlers. In 1621, they selected William Bradford as governor of the group and he served in that capacity for the next 30 years. Bradford’s journal, Of Plymouth Plantation, is considered the authoritative work for the Pilgrim experiment and the Colony they founded. Bradford provided posterity with insightful comments on the issues the colony faced with communal living:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

Too many troubles resulted from the Plymouth Colony communism (lack of production and general discontent), and so Bradford stopped it and reverted to capitalism. This form of economy eventually became the standard practice in the United States):

At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves […] This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

True Levellers

In the 1600s the True Levellers, followers of Gerrard Winstanley, believed in the concept of “levelling men’s estates” in order to create equality. They also took over common land for the “common good.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Contemporary Christian communism

Pre-Marxist Views

All communism was rooted in religious principles.
- During the mid-to-late 1840s, the largest organization espousing communist ideas in Europe was the League of the Just, whose motto was “All Men are Brothers” and whose aim was to establish a new society “based on the ideals of love of one’s neighbor, equality and justice”.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels joined the League of the Just in 1847.
- Under their influence, the organization became secular and atheistic and changed its name to the Communist League.
- The League invited Marx and Engels to write a programmatic document that would express communist principles, and they obliged, producing the Communist Manifesto.
- The practice of communal living among the early believers should be considered as an emergency lifestyle to “jump start” fledgling Christianity.
  - The wilderness wanderings were the O. T. counterpart where things happened that were emergency miracles, i.e. manna, water from the rock, quail, clothes and shoes not wearing out, etc.
  - When people were bitten by snakes, a brass serpent was held up for people to “look and live.” This was not repeated in the Israelite culture or religion.
- The selling of goods and possessions was strictly voluntary.
- The practice was not continued because private property and personal possessions were mentioned in the later church age.
  - Acts 21:8 (The house of Philip, the evangelist)
  - Acts 28:30 (Paul rented his own house.)
  - Many individuals were cited who had their own houses. (1 Corinthians 1:11; 11:22; 16:15; 16:19; Colossians 4:15)
  - Paul taught that believers were to work for one’s own welfare. “And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; ¹² That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12.
  - “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. ¹¹ For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. ¹² Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
  - Are we to work to support free-loaders?
  - Are we to support abortions, stem-cell research, sex-education, blasphemous works of art and other programs that violate basic Christian principles?
  - Should we rob people of their incentive to work, create and improve their lives?
  - Who will make decisions for us?
  - Should someone else decide where you will go to school, what you will study, what your occupation will be, where you will live, etc.?
  - We should work with our own hands. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
  - We should seek first the kingdom of God. (Matthew 6:33)
  - Wealthy people should not trust in their riches. (1 Timothy 6:17)
  - We should care for others out of compassion, not necessity. (2 Cor. 9:7)
  - We will answer to God for our own decisions. (Romans 14:12)
  - We should not be envious of the wealth or accomplishments of others. (Galatians 5:26)

The Communist Manifesto has had an enormous influence on the communist movement. These communist and socialist groups were then absorbed into the wider socialist political parties and trade unions. For a time, socialists were more or less united under the umbrella of the Socialist International. After WWI, Communists and the rest of the socialist movement went their separate ways. World events took place in rapid succession for the next few decades - the creation of the Soviet Union, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and World War II. This is where so-called “Christian communism” reasserted itself. As early as the 1940s, Pierre Théas, a French bishop, stated:

“Urged on by unrestrainable forces, today’s world asks for a revolution. The revolution must succeed, but it can succeed only if the Church enters the fray, bringing the Gospel. After being liberated from Nazi dictatorship, we want to liberate the working class from capitalist slavery.”

Now, however, Cold War politics meant that communists were immediately associated with the Soviet Union. And this was even truer in North America, where McCarthyism held sway. Christian communism had a hard time re-establishing itself in its old European and North American homeland.

However, the Christian communist movement re-emerged in Latin America. This was a separate development from the earlier European and North American movements. Latin American Christian communism is a strong trend within liberation theology, which is a specifically Christian movement concerned with social justice and equality that incorporates both communists and other socialists. Liberation theology is predominantly Catholic in origin, given that Roman Catholicism is the dominant Christian denomination in Latin America. Liberation theology grew during the 1960s and 70s, and many liberation theologians (including bishops and other prominent clergymen) supported the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Christian communists were also found among Christian missionaries in China, the most notable being James Gareth Endicott, who became supportive of the struggle of the Communist Party of China in the 1930s and 1940s.

Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in fellowship […] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)

The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version)

Objections:

1 Comment |

Friday

Sep262008

Justifying Fools

Friday, September 26, 2008 at 11:38AM

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Proverbs 26:4.

The mindless justification of the insanity of sin represents the ultimate conundrum in human discourse. Practitioners of sin advance arguments that make no sense, and when the vacuous nature of their reasoning becomes apparent to any thinking person, they ratchet up the volume and press more bizarre ways of thinking times ten. Even this doesn’t measure the pervasiveness of the situation. I contend that the entire fabric of the contemporary pleasure and entertainment industry exists as a secondary and tertiary market to produce and package stupidity. Witness the delight of the fans at the fakery of the WWE, for example. Or the dizzying success of American Idol. Or the compulsive gamblers who break their necks to lose money in casinos, despite their knowledge that they are likely to lose 99% of the time! Or the fanatical followers of the outrageous and perverse make-believe plots on soap operas.

Give a pass to entertainment if you want, but there is no justifying the foolishness of our modern university education. This rundown of scandalous courses offered in schools today is given below, compliments of Young America’s Foundation:

Princeton University’s The Cultural Production of Early Modern Women examines “prostitutes,” “cross-dressing,” and “same-sex eroticism” in 16th - and 17th - century England, France, Italy and Spain (emphasis added).
The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie: Race and Popular Culture in the United States at Occidental College in California explores ways “which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie [and] to an interpretation of the film The Matrix as a Marxist critique of capitalism.”
At The John Hopkins University, students in the Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n’ Roll in Ancient Egypt class view slideshows of women in ancient Egypt “vomiting on each other,” “having sex,” and “fixing their hair.”
Like something out of a Hugh Hefner film, Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania offers the class Lesbian Novels Since World War II.
Alfred University’s Nip, Tuck, Perm, Pierce, and Tattoo: Adventures with Embodied Culture, mostly made up of women, encourages students to think about the meaning behind “teeth whitening, tanning, shaving, and hair dyeing.” Special projects include visiting a tattoo-and-piercing studio and watching Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bodybuilding film, Pumping Iron.
Harvard University’s Marxist Concepts of Racism examines “the role of capitalist development and expansion in creating racial inequality” (emphasis added). Although Karl Marx didn’t say much on race, leftist professors in this course extrapolate information on “racial oppression” and “racial antagonism.”
Occidental College—making the Dirty Dozen list twice—offers a course in Stupidity, which compares the American presidency to Beavis and Butthead.
Students at the University of California—Los Angeles need not wonder what it means to be a lesbian. The Psychology of the Lesbian Experience reviews “various aspects of lesbian experience” including the “impact of heterosexism/stigma, gender role socialization, minority status of women and lesbians, identity development within a multicultural society, changes in psychological theories about lesbians in sociohistorical context.”
Duke University’s American Dreams/American Realities course supposedly unearths “such myths as ‘rags to riches,’ ‘beacon to the world,’ and the ‘frontier,’ in defining the American character” (emphasis added).
Amherst College in Massachusetts offers the class Taking Marx Seriously: “Should Marx be given another chance?” Students in this course are asked to question if Marxism still has any “credibility” remaining, while also inquiring if societies can gain new insights by “returning to [Marx’s] texts.” Coming to Marx’s rescue, this course also states that Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot misapplied the concepts of Marxism.
Brown University’s Black Lavender : A Study of Black Gay & Lesbian Plays “address[es] the identities and issues of Black gay men and lesbians, and offer[s] various points of view from within and without the Black gay and lesbian artistic communities.”
Students enrolled in the University of Michigan’s Topics in Literary Studies: Ancient Greek/Modern Gay Sexuality have the pleasure of reading a “wide selection of ancient Greek (and a few Roman) texts that deal with same-sex love, desire, gender dissidence, and sexual behavior.”

The picture should be getting clear. Modern academe idiocy owes its existence to passive and indulgent overseers of the culture, paying attention to quarterly financials and golfing vacations, while letting the children get away with murder. I liken it to Mom’s and Dad’s preoccupation with real work while the kids are out behind the garage torturing cats or experimenting with stolen cigarettes. The kids don’t have a clue why they have the freedom and opportunity to fully engage in stupid (albeit fun for them) endeavors. Leisure is their work! This is what they do for a living. The stupider, the better! While their immaturity prevents them from a thorough analysis of their activity, one might say that they take their play extremely seriously. Play is life for kids. There is a simple reason why they have this option—their parents ENABLE them. In fact, most parents take measurable pride in the entire setup. “We work so you can play,” they beam. “We are such good parents!”

One hundred years ago, in rural America, playtime was limited, and therefore precious. (I also venture to guess that it was more supervised.) Kids had chores to do along with the rest of the family, just so the family could survive. There was no disconnect between the kids activities and the parents livelihoods as there is today.

Back to twenty-first century culture. The kids in the above example are university professors, bureaucrats with self-determined job descriptions on guaranteed incomes paid by taxpayers and the elite sophists that our society seems to grow in abundance. They can plunge headlong into absurd and inane activities because Mom and Dad (we taxpayers) enable them to do so. We pay the food, gas, electric, housing, car, insurance and clothing bills so they can amuse themselves in asinine pursuits. We keep the terrorists out of the neighborhoods, the enemies out of our country and keep the economy hiccoughing along so they have the privilege of profligacy. And, like typical kids, they get mad at the parents for not giving them enough money, not granting them permission to do even more stupid things and making them do ignorant tasks like hanging up their clothes and taking out the garbage.

You cannot justify sin. Rename it, redefine it, whitewash it, pet it, coddle it, give it deference and space, embrace it…do whatever…and you will not change its basic nature. We now witness a Herculean attempt in our culture to do undo every denigration, every denial and every proscription of sin ever held by society. Is it true that black is now white, that up is now down and that left is now right? Of course not. It’s the kids talking. Insulated from the real world, they spout off illogical and unthinkable assessments of their wild imaginations. When they make a mess, they blame it on someone else. I did it as a kid. You did too. But, on a grown-up, society-wide scale, the repercussions are not cute. They become devastatingly wicked. Perversity may dress up in university language, professorial mannerisms and long lists of accreditations, but it remains perverse. Sin may look more appealing, more popular and more acceptable than ever before, but IT IS STILL SIN!

Mainstreaming pornography. Yes, that’s what we now see in the entertainment industry. Disgusting acts and displays of skin now get regaled with laughter. Audiences shriek with delight at shocking indecency and immorality. They can’t make it vile enough. Everything is a joke. The resulting message, however unintentional the writers and producers thought it to be, is that pornography is fine. In some shows, porn stars now have been given legitimate roles, not because they have renounced their former ways, but because they have the chutzpah and brassiness to be in porn and be proud of it. The laughter is small and hollow. Pornography cannot be justified because it cannot escape its involvement with rape, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality and sexual abuse. Tell the rape victim that images that elicit animalistic behavior in people are fine. They know better. Tell mothers and fathers whose children have been sexually assaulted by a sex-crazed individual who traffics in porn that pornography is innocent entertainment. Tell victims who have emerged from the ravages of sexual promiscuity and have regained their lives that the magazines and DVD’s of the porn industry are legitimate businesses which have every right to exist. All of them know you are justifying the fool.

Alcohol and drugs. The clink of the crystal-stemmed glasses with the sloshing around of the amber-colored liquor, accompanied by a subtle smile playing on the model’s demure lips paints the picture for happy hour. Rich, full-bodied flavor, original taste and other euphemistic terms to entice consumers to drink alcoholic beverages have passed into the common vernacular. Social drinking purportedly enhances one’s life, opens up business opportunities, connects people with promising contacts and provides much needed diversion and relaxation from the day’s demanding duties. But the liquor advocacy industry gets even worse. Check this out. In answer to the question of whether restricting alcohol use would save lives, one “expert” says: Some lives would be saved from accidents now caused by intoxication and from health problems caused by alcohol abuse. However, many other lives would be lost from increases in coronary heart disease. For example, estimates from 13 studies suggest that as many as 135,884 additional deaths would occur each year in the US from coronary heart disease alone because of abstinence. 21 [see Alcohol & Health]. Running the reference used by the foregoing writer leads to this quote from his source, Thomas A. Pearson, MD, in an article he wrote for American Heart Association in 1996.

“It is unlikely that a randomized, controlled trial of alcohol consumption will ever be performed to establish a direct link between alcohol consumption and reduction in CHD and to define the risks and benefits of encouraging consumption of alcohol. In lieu of this scientific base, a number of scientific facts can be brought to bear on the development of recommendations about alcohol consumption. First, the beneficial effects of alcohol are limited to one or two drinks per day. Second, heavier consumption is related to a number of health problems. Third, it is clear that persons with medical and social conditions made worse by alcohol should not consume any alcohol whatsoever, including persons with prior diagnoses of hypertriglyceridemia, pancreatitis, liver disease, porphyria, uncontrolled hypertension, and congestive heart failure. Pregnant women and persons on certain medications that interact with alcohol should also refrain from consumption. Persons with a personal or strong family history of alcoholism are at risk for alcohol addiction and should avoid all alcoholic beverages.

These facts preclude widespread public health recommendations to either encourage or prohibit alcohol consumption. In the United States 100 000 excess deaths can be attributed to alcohol-related diseases each year.¹¹ On the other hand, if current consumers of alcohol all abstained from drinking, approximately 80 000 excess deaths would occur.² Most of the excess deaths due to alcohol occur in people younger than 45 years, whereas deaths reduced by alcohol are generally in age groups with high CHD rates, ie, 45 years or older. In either case, general public health education messages about alcohol may be difficult to develop, so that they target only persons for whom moderate consumption of alcohol would have a positive cost-benefit ratio.”

How might we gauge the impact of drinking alcohol on the population, especially the under-45 segment? Let’s start with carnage on the highways, scraping up body parts smeared across the pavement, extricating dismembered victims from vehicles twisted around trees. We could go on to talk about the innocent victims in the other car, you know the one with all the children whose lives are now lost due to an idiot who believed the beer commercials. An entire family of five was wiped out in Toledo this past Christmas by a drunk driver heading up the down ramp on US-23. Where is this tragedy spelled out in the glib statistics flung out there by an obviously paid alcohol industry spokesman?

Illustrations abound from the culture that reinforce my point over and over. Why do we pass tough DUI laws and yet laugh at people who drink themselves out of their minds? Why do we permit half-naked people to prance across magazines, catalogs and billboards and then crack down on the poor rubes who give into the temptation? Why do we rail against arsonists on the one hand and then supply them with the matches and kerosene on the other?

Fools are not worthy of reasoning. People will justify sin, not because they stand on solid footing, but simply because they want to commit the sin. Few murderers inhabit our prisons who did not claim some justification for their crime, regardless of how irrational and fatuous their deed may have been.

Some things do not bear reasoning. Paul admonished Timothy, “Flee youthful lusts.” In other words, don’t think you can subject raw emotion or carnal instincts to intellectual vetoes. It won’t work. Get out of the situation as fast as you can.

Don’t insult the intelligence of Bible believers that sin is good, that evil is righteous, that transgressing against God’s commands actually draws one closer to God, or that the teaching of the scripture can be followed by disobedience. Pure poppycock. Take your specious argumentation somewhere else. I will not answer a fool according to his folly. It will make me equally foolish.

Saturday

Aug232008

Relevancy Doctrine Diversions

Saturday, August 23, 2008 at 11:27PM

“We don’t believe in organization, in liturgical tradition, in man-made rules. We just believe in Jesus. Let’s refocus on Jesus and forget everything else we’ve added to the plain and simple gospel.” So opines the “emerging church” dogmatists. And it does sound seductively good. After all, haven’t all the “add-ons” clouded and encumbered the purity of the gospel? Haven’t we piled manuals, resolutions, procedures, standards, bylaws and protocols on top of Jesus and effectively suffocated his message to the world? It would seem, then, that the relevancy doctrine only seeks to present a fresh Jesus to the world, unobscured by the trappings of obsolete Christianity.

We’ve heard it before. Remember “No law but love, no creed but Christ?” Or, “accept Jesus as your personal savior?” Or, “once in grace, always in grace?” Platitudes like these have an appealing ring to them. Cosmetically, they look good, but their infrastructure is deficient. When one scratches beneath the silky smooth surface, the appealing ring becomes hollow in a hurry. The truth is that one simply cannot preach a true Christ to this world without the nuts and bolts that give the gospel its substance. While the gospel may indeed be preached on a rudimentary level, it is both dangerous and ludicrous to filet this veneer off of it and cast aside the essential underpinnings that make it strong and define its meaning.

What if I said that all you need is food to survive? Cake is food. Ice cream is food. Candy is food. So are sauerkraut, anchovies and chocolate-covered ants. Well, you protest, food is lot more than that. You would be right, of course. Any diet that consists only of these “foods” would lead to serious health problems. A well rounded diet must include food groups like dairy, vegetables and fruit, meats, grains and foods containing fats, oils and sugar. Obviously, we have to qualify the term “food.” Many similar illustrations could be used to demonstrate the same principle. Does it matter what you study in school? If it does, then education needs to be defined. Does it matter whether you fly in a jet or ride a bicycle? If so, then transportation needs a definition. Religion, philosophy, family, career…there is no end to the list. The definition of marriage is in the throes of controversy as we write. Anything left undefined will almost always sink to the lowest common denominator. This is precisely why those who wish to disencumber Jesus from scriptural parameters that they find too restrictive will end up with a belief system very different from Apostolic truths.

I can make a safe prediction about any group that rejects the essentiality of water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Fewer and fewer people associated with its congregations will be baptized or be filled with the Spirit. As Brother Tenney has often said, “What goes unpreached will soon go unpracticed.” One large Pentecostal group has already proven this. After they determined that they would not require their members to receive the Holy Ghost baptism, the incidence of this experience went into serious decline. Only seventeen percent of their constituents now claim to have received the Holy Ghost baptism.

The driving force behind this doctrinal shift is the desire to be relevant to the present generation. Flawed thinking like this leads to reconfiguring Bible doctrine, or inventing new interpretations to scriptures for the purpose of relevancy. But truth does not permit itself to be conformed to popular opinion. Truth worships at no man’s altar. If we would know truth, it will not slink down to our level and grovel in front of us. It will not be beholden to any man. Truth always makes us rise to its level

The Old Testament story of Naaman seriously challenges the notion of the “relevancy doctrine.” A “relevant” prophet would have tried much harder to be nice to this important man. Instead, Elisha didn’t even bother to personally go out and talk to him. He sent his servant to tell him to dip seven times in the Jordan River to cure his leprosy. Naaman didn’t like it at all. “But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.” 2 Kings 5:11-12. But a man with leprosy is in no position to demand anything. Finally, Naaman’s servants prevailed on him to get over his wounded ego and obey Elisha. “And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” 2 Kings 5:13-14. Man’s prideful heart may scream for relevance, but God demands submission. Always has. Always will.

In the New Testament, Jesus did not seek to be relevant and sensitive to Nicodemus. This Jewish leader risked his reputation to meet Jesus. That’s why he came at night. But, Jesus did not even answer the question put to him. His answer to Nicodemus was cryptic, radical and demanding. “You must be born again!” We’ve heard this phrase so often that it has little shock value to us, but, to Nicodemus, it was brutal, even demeaning. A high-born, registered Pharisee was not used to being so dissed or so snubbed as he was by Jesus’ answer. Actually, few people could hope to have a better birth or better life circumstances in terms of Jewish tradition than Nicodemus. He was at the top of the heap.

How “relevant” was God to Saul of Tarsus? He knocked him down in the middle of the road, he afflicted him with blindness for three days and he totally rearranged his life’s purpose. Somehow, relevance didn’t seem to describe Saul’s treatment. How “relevant” was Jesus to Simon Peter? He called him a devil, he told him he had no faith and he basically told him that if he didn’t submit to the Master’s demands that he would lose his place in the kingdom. In the end, Jesus even told Peter to mind his own business and not worry about the lives of other disciples. Many different instances throughout the ministry of Christ show that Jesus did not treat his disciples with kid gloves nor did he try to make things easier for them. He presented them with truth. It was up to them to accept or reject the terms of the Lord.

Regardless of how noble their intentions may be, those who gravitate away from true doctrine in the interest of befriending seekers and facilitating their acceptance of Christ do them no favor. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it “cheap grace.” Such an approach may very well have the opposite effect. It is one thing to upgrade our methods, modify our language and even sing newer music, but these are non-essentials in worship styles and church tradition. It is something else to decide against preaching New Testament doctrine simply because we don’t think it is relevant to today’s society. The Apostle Paul warns us against the slightest attempt of any man or angel to lead us into heresy. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Galatians 1:8-10.

What is the “gospel” of which Paul speaks? Again, definitions are paramount. We find the answer in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Any preacher who professes to preach the gospel must preach the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He must also instruct people how to apply these truths to their lives. That leads us directly to Acts 2:38. If these steps are eliminated from the message, there is no way to appropriate the gospel to a person’s life. The only alternative is to spiritualize every ordinance of scripture that a believer is to fulfill. When doctrines are spiritualized, that is when they are only given metaphoric value and are stripped from any practical application, only a small step exists to the virtual elimination of the ordinance from the salvation experience.

If nothing matters, then NOTHING MATTERS! This fact seems to be lost on advocates of the relevancy doctrine. When they reap the ultimate harvest of the “nothing matters” gospel, they themselves will not matter. Neither will their pulpits, their remaining doctrines, their church congregations and their livelihoods. That’s the nature of the beast. Tell people they don’t have to obey the laws and you reap a nation of lawbreakers. Tell people they don’t have to pay their taxes and you can be sure that no one will pay their taxes. Tell people they are okay without baptism and without the Holy Ghost and no one will be baptized or receive the Spirit. Tell people they don’t have to come to church, and guess what will happen? That’s right. Either turn the sanctuary into an entertainment center or else lock the doors, sell the place and go home.

I receive Paul’s admonition to the church elders as a solemn charge. “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:26-28. The relevancy doctrine is at best a diversion from the true mission of the church. At worst, it is a heretical doctrine that must be exposed for what it is.

2 Comments |