That is sad on a number of levels, but the only level on which I’d like to focus is what the original status tried to tease out.

The statement, “I believe there’s a balance,” is a statement that I’ve heard on untold occasion when talking—most times—about two contradictory viewpoints. It could be something as truly difficult as theological legalism (obey the Law to earn salvation) vs. theological licentiousness (ignore the Law because of salvation). In this matter, the tension is actually portrayed quite clearly in Scripture, and Paul does an excellent (perfect?) job of portraying it, especially in Romans 6 through Romans 8.

But what about other topics? What about things like church polity or heterodoxy? What if I believe that you cannot implement modern praise music by a praise band in a divine worship service and another person believes that you must in order to connect with the culture? How can there be balance here? There cannot.

But a philosophical musing known as the Hegelian Dialectic says you can.

In short, there are people who are credited as “peacemakers” because they are able to take two factions, hear their thesis and antithesis, and propose a synthesis of the two. This is exactly what I was getting at in that infamous status message.

It comes as no surprise to me that this was an actual philosophical tool. It is so pervasive now that I think people are actually commended for using it to diffuse controversy.

But that brings me to an important point—the same point that my status back then brought me: is there a line that can be crossed when people will actually stand on one side and condemn the other side?

A great YouTube video from Taylor Mali explains this very phenomenon:

There seems to be a desire to know something esoteric—something beyond right and wrong that will somehow marry the two into a compromise that pleases both advocates. This, of course, is akin to a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction (“A is not non-A”).

I think this is a major, contributing factor for the lack of conviction in many areas—especially that of religion and theology. It plays into an anti-intellectualism, a laziness for learning, and a carefree attitude that never really chooses between two sides of a coin—it attempts to rest the coin on its side infinitely. Frankly, it makes people look indecisive and uneducated. But that’s the point of anti-intellectualism, isn’t it?

The only conviction that people seem to have left is a conviction for having no convictions.

This is marketed as “humility”: a person who is not “pushing his religion down your throat” is more desirably than one who is. But is it appropriate for a Christian? It sounds more akin to hyper-tolerance than humility. If you believe 2+2=5, I’m not really allowed to tell you that it’s not, because you have your own version of right and wrong, and, in that version, 2+2 IS equal to 5. Now we’re talking about relativism—no absolute truths. But that’s really what this comes down to, isn’t it?

There is no real truth, because everyone has “his own interpretation”. Therefore, we can find a third interpretation and call it a balance.

As R.C. Sproul has put it, “People aren’t ever really committed to relativism.” He goes on to give an example that a committed relativist would drive down the street and go through a red light that he didn’t believe was red and get killed by a tractor trailer he didn’t really believe was there. Poof! No more committed relativist.

Obviously, we all accept some form of absolute truths!

I find the Hegelian Dialectic so offensive to my conscience that I really try to avoid ever using the word “balance” in my arguments, and I rarely attempt to find a “middle ground” between two viewpoints.

I suppose that may be too legalistic—perhaps I should find a balance in my hatred of Hegelian Dialectic?

<smirk>

Great quote here:

[T]he foundations for the creedal doctrine of the Trinity were laid by men who thought doctrine was something for which it was actually worth suffering and dying.

Or another:

But hey, if a bunch of middle-aged American pastors in the Elephant Room tell you Nicea and its delegates — and all the Christians who have suffered and died to maintain its truth over the centuries — are irrelevant, who am I to question them?  To do so would surely be the height of arrogance.  Ahem.

The post in its entirety can be found here.

Why?

I’ve always wondered why people are so insistent on sitting down, face-to-face, to have a dialogue about certain topics. Maybe I feel this way because common courtesy has become incredibly uncommon and I am a victim of a society that has little knowledge of propriety.

It’s not that sitting down, face-to-face is so awful—it’s wonderful in most scenarios. When you want to enjoy one another’s company, it’s good to sit down together. When there is an emotionally charged matter that will cause the person great stress or incredible excitement, I agree that it’s preferred to sit down on such matters.

I suppose that means I do have a sense of propriety; perhaps there are courtesies with which I am more than just vaguely familiar.

But there is a new tendency of which I am still unsure. It is this tendency to sit down, face-to-face, and converse about controversial or emotionally charged issues exclusively to diffuse controversy.

Granted, I think, in our weaker moments of anger or defensiveness, we can certainly react poorly. I, myself, have lashed out in anger when I should have remained silent. I have defended myself as if personally attacked when someone was merely relating facts to me. Sure, these emotions can tend to tip us out-of-balance with appropriate, rational thought.

But this tendency is more pernicious than even hasty over-reactions. The tendency of which I speak is one where the person who desires the face-to-face is playing a psychological game. A game in which the rules change based on the person’s body language opposite them. Do you know this game?

It’s very crafty and difficult to play. However, once it has been mastered, one’s ability to deflect meaningful confrontation makes him almost politically invincible.

Before we go into the game’s objectives and premise, let’s keep something else in mind. Less than 150 years ago, we had no Twitter, no telephones, no cars, and travel was much less convenient. During that time—and for hundreds of years prior—communication was done through letter writing. Unfortunately, in our day, this is almost a lost art. To break it down quickly:

• We cannot create context in Tweets
• We are unable to clearly communicate ideas in Facebook statuses
• Most of us have no idea how to spell anymore (squiggly red lines and auto-correct can’t even save us here)
• We have forgotten how to clearly communicate in full sentences and—gasp!—paragraphs
• Email is quickly becoming antiquated, and yet most people have been incapable of communicating clearly through even this medium
• Texting has replaced phone calls or travel as a primary means of privately communicating with people who are as close as the next room

Summarizing our predicament: as technology has enabled us to do more things more easily in communicating, we have practically laughed in its face with our increasing dumbness in the skill of said communication. If someone like Spurgeon (a very gifted communicator) were alive today, he’d likely be appalled at how technologically advanced we are in our stupidity.

Back to the face-to-face game.

In this game, the objective is simple: never commit to anything—just make sure you look good. The premise is the confrontational issue that your opponent has with you. By watching the opponent’s body language, one can simply continue to obfuscate, redefine terms, and muddy one’s stance on the issue-at-hand in direct proportion to how confrontational the opponent is getting. Since you’re both “sitting down and talking”, it can be very difficult for the opponent to nail you down on what you mean or what you say without recording your words and playing them back. It’s also difficult for the opponent because, if you’re very good at this game, you can do things with your body language that suggest agreement without every really agreeing—nodding your head, murmuring, “Mm-hm,” at random points in their speech, or laughing like you’ve been good buddies for a long time. This is very tricky, of course, because the point is never to commit to anything.

And this is the game. Sitting down, face-to-face, enables a person to do this. Now, there are ways to force a hand, of course. The opponent can put you in a court of law, where a judge analyzes everything you say and everything the opponent might ask and will tell you what to clarify and tell you when to answer directly. This can also be done effectively in a scholarly debate (in which most of the folks who play the game would never participate).

It’s telling to me, also, that in the legal system, it’s much easier to make a case about any given issue between two parties when the two parties have signed something in writing. In our day and age, it’s very hard to get anything comprehensive in writing because such forms are part of bygone days (as we just discussed).

On matters where the truth and clarity are paramount, I prefer the written (or typed) mediums. When I am conversing in a theological debate, I prefer my opponents to do so in writing (via Facebook or email or blog), because it allows me to study what they have to say, to quote them specifically, and to see “the work” that they’ve done to arrive at their conclusions. Unfortunately too often, my opponents are not trained in good communication, are unaware of common courtesy and propriety, and are unwilling to engage after a certain point in written dialogue. It is at this time that they usually opt for, “We should sit down over coffee if you want to continue this—there’s too much that can be misinterpreted here.”

But wait… I thought that the courts liked things in writing—it’s easier to make a case with something to which all parties agree and can review and objectively understand… Yet many have claimed that “sitting over coffee” is somehow more effective at attaining clarity and truth.

I’d like to posit that something else entirely is at work.

It is the desire for unity over clarity. This is the entire problem with the Elephant Room forum. It is the penultimate, “sit down over coffee” version of the aforementioned game as described. One can be conversationally—and informally—confronted and simultaneously be given the opportunity to squirm out of the question—if the question is even presented in clear terms to start! Yet raising it to this level of notoriety also gives this informal conversation the appearance of a formal ecumenical council.

Apart from the mass of published works on the Elephant Room 2 debacle, I’d like to also point out that in this game, one can make ridiculous claims about his preaching, theology, and ecclesiology without worrying about rebuke because the resources to research the claim are unavailable while chatting over a cup of coffee—the forum practically guarantees this. Many claims were made that sounded more like carefully crafted, 140-character platitudes than honest truth claims. But why complain? They got claps and people loved the men all the more! …Unity over clarity.

But the real beauty of lifting the game to this status is that if any should dare to contest such claims, they are branded cowards (or racists), because the confrontation was not face to face, to a brother, but, rather, apart from the brother and about the brother. This branding, of course, conveniently leaves out the reality that pastors of this status are nigh untouchable by anyone apart from a hand-picked, inner-circle of yes-men and acolytes.

What celebrity narcissist wouldn’t love this game?

As I grew up, I attended several different churches from varying traditions. In these places, sin was not an avoided topic (and yes, there are definitely some churches whose pastors purposely avoid speaking about sin). It was merely defined very specifically.

It was a “sin” to sleep with someone outside of marriage.

It was a “sin” to curse a lot (occasionally potty-mouth wasn’t really labeled “sin”).

It was a “sin” to use God’s name in vain (which meant cursing with His name in it).

It was “sin” to murder someone, steal from a store, or to lie all the time.

There were others, of course. As a matter of fact, each church sort of had a different regimen of “sins” that you would learn so that you knew what you could and could not do around the leadership.

The above statement should be a great indicator of my motivation at the time.

So, with these definitions of “sin” in mind, thinking about what Christ did on the cross had different implications for me. At the time, I recognized that Christ died for all my sins—past, present and future. I was even taught the orthodox belief that there was nothing I could do to make Him turn His back on me. But there was a severe deficiency in the value I prescribed to Christ’s crucifixion, because there was a severe deficiency in understanding how sinful I really am.

See, “sin”, to me, at that time, was something that you would commit now and again. If I cursed, that was a sin. If I happened to lie—that was a sin. If I slept with a girl outside of marriage—that was a BIG sin. Most of the time, for most of my life, I didn’t do a lot of these things, so I felt I was in pretty good shape. I mean, I knew some guys that had done much more than I and were in a lot more serious trouble, so I figured I was better off, or, at least, somehow more Christian.

Thus, to me, the value of Christ’s work on the cross was minimized. I still thought it was a great work: it took care of those occasional moments when I would “slip up” and “sin”. Those moments few and far between when I would let a four-letter word slip or when I would tell a lie.

Yeah, I had heard the line, “Have you ever lied before?” I raised my hand at those events where someone asked that question. Of course. Everyone’s sinned—even in my emaciated definition. So when I read passages like Romans 3:23: “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”

Are you getting the point? Do you happen to relate, perhaps?

The problem with this definition of sin is that it’s wrong—completely wrong. Its inadequacy is terrible: calling sin an occasional problem for man is like calling water an occasional ingredient in the ocean.

Jesus Christ said: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38 ESV).

I’ve heard this verse before. But what does it mean? If we take it for its clearest reading, we must recognize that we fail to honor a command (the greatest command) of the Lord, for no one has ever loved God with all of his heart, soul and mind for every moment of every day. At some second, every one of us has violated (and will continue to do so!) this command!

Now it doesn’t matter if we don’t lie, don’t steal, or don’t kill—for truly: all have failed to do this one, seemingly simply command—every one of us, all the time.

This changes the value system quite a lot. So much so, that I think Christ recognized this disparity in thinking when he said, “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7:47 ESV).

God’s Law is meant to show us our sin—to show us how we are thoroughly sinful (cf. Romans 7:7). The Gospel is there to show us that because we do not have the ability to stop sinning in ourselves, Christ’s defeat of sin and death erases the debt that we cannot, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit begins a work in us that we cannot: to be free from bondage to sin and to be a slave to righteousness!

So the question is now framed: if our definition of sin is wrong—by being inadequate or marginalized—does it make the Gospel valuable? Does God’s Law have any purpose?

Unfortunately, I can speak from experience that a bad definition of sin creates:

• An inadequate definition of the Gospel. It is evident by the plethora of churches who add to that Gospel in order to make it more attractive, and who simply don’t talk about sin because it’s a “turn-off” to the non-believer. Whether the addition is prosperity, a “better life”, or something else doesn’t matter—it’s all done because the definition of Gospel is short-changed and made into something it is not.

• An unusable definition of God’s Law. So unusable, in fact, that most people ignore Matthew 5:17 and believe that grace abolishes God’s Law. Antinomianism isn’t really a word used regularly anymore, but it basically means “no law”, and scores of alleged Christians believe that because God has “grace”, we don’t need to worry about being in bondage to the law anymore. It’s a partial truth, of course—we are free from having only the bondage of knowing our sin from the law, but we are not free to do what we want. It’s such an obvious misconception that Paul addresses the very objection in Romans 6: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?”

If you, too, know only the emaciated definition of sin, you may also have been under a faulty impression of the Gospel, and you, too, may have been taking such a beautiful thing for granted.

Fear not! The Good News is still proclaimed at churches who faithful administer the Sacraments (communion and baptism) and whose pastors faithfully preach the Word of God. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re funny, entertaining, and dynamic—though I hope they are passionate! Preaching the Word of God means that they take the time to read Scripture—typically several verses or an entire chapter—and that they then show the historic setting of that passage, the grammar of that passage, and what the author’s intent was in that passage. This is called expositional preaching, and it helps the congregation to understand the actual meaning of the text—not just the person’s opinion, or “what they think it means”. In other words, since we know God speaks to us through His Word, it would be a really good idea for us to have a pastor who takes seriously what the Word of God is actually trying to say.*

You can also check out some of the Recommended Resources on our blog.

* – As an aside, this was very difficult for my wife and I, at first. We had to search for a long time, and we also had to listen to a lot of sermons (on CD, streamed over the Internet, or downloaded MP3s) to sort of “unlearn” the way in which our former pastors would talk about life issues and occasionally throw in something from the bible as if it supported their thoughts. If you aren’t sure, take my advice and listen to Pirate Christian Radio—specifically Fighting for The Faith. Chris Rosebrough—the host—takes the listeners through a typical evangelical sermon (sometimes a good one, but most times a bad one) and points out where the speaker deviates from Scripture, as well as when the speaker is faithful to Scripture.

Today I was doing a little tangential searching on the subject of bullying in school. I’ve seen several people quote a statement to the effect of:

At least 160,000 kids stay home each day because of the threat of bullying at school.

Since I’ve seen the same phrase quoted with different qualifiers (e.g., “As many as 160,000…, ” or, “An estimated 160,000 kids…,” etc.), I decided to do a little investigation.

A person on Facebook quoted this statement from a blog entry. The blog said it was from the “National Association of School Psychologists”.

On the National Association for School Psychologists website, the phrase is found in a PowerPoint presentation, and cites a written piece by Kathleen Vail called “Words That Wound”.

In “Words That Wound”, an essay by Kathleen Vail, Ms. Vail cites the National Association of School Psychologists.

So that path was a dead-end from what can be gleaned via the Internet.

I decided to look for other places that cite this particular statement—and found that it’s used almost ubiquitously, and that numerous authors are given credit for it.

One site cited a book by Fried and Fried written in 1996 called “Bullies and Victims”. In this book, Fried and Fried cite the “National Education Association”.

Assuming that this site refers to a 1995 Survey by the NEA, I’m still at a loss for where this number (160,000) comes from. The closest Survey I can find is this one, completed by the CDC, which addresses physical violence among other things. This, I believe, is where the assessment was garnered.

In the supporting document, the question that can best approach relevance on this topic is question number 15: “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you would be unsafe at school or on your way to or from school?”

Out of the 10904 surveys received, 10212 answered “0 days”, 291 said “1 day”, 206 said “2 or 3 days”, 59 said “4 or 5 days”, and 115 said “6 days”. Out of 10904 surveys, 21 students did not answer.

The summary of the survey indicates nothing about students staying home every day for threat of bullying. Not even close, as far as I can read the data. Granted, I’m not a statistician, but this seems like blatant misinformation.

I am still researching, but it’s interesting so far. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?

If you’d like to know my thoughts on the subject, tune in to this video by Steven Crowder…

The Apostles into early Christendom – the Apostles spoke, their traditions were committed to memory, and wrote in Greek to communicate their message. Common people relied wholly upon verbal tradition and the letters of the Apostles (which few could read for themselves).

Early Christendom – devout Christian followers who had the advantage of a noble education would begin to write regarding what they had heard or read. Common people relied almost wholly upon verbal tradition.

Early Medieval Christendom – Monasteries began to take converts who would be willing to devote all of their time to religious study (and, in many cases, contemplation) for the purpose of spreading Christianity. Common people relied upon verbal tradition mixed with educated biblical exegetes (monks).

Mid-to-Late Medieval Christendom – Monasteries saw that many would attend who merely wanted an education in liberal arts in order to give them a better understanding of language, logic, philosophy, etc. Common people relied upon verbal tradition mixed with educated biblical exegetes (monks).

Late Medieval (Western) Christendom – Universities began to arise (or amalgamate from combined religious monasteries) which would provide a broader education in liberal arts for many doctoral goals (law, theology, philosophy, etc.). Common people relied upon verbal tradition mixed with educated biblical theologians, who began to separate into theologians and biblical exegetes.

Late Medieval into (Western) Reformation Christendom – The Roman Catholic Church provided all guidance on scripture, as it was only available, primarily, in Latin (and some in Greek and Hebrew), and common people still did not know these languages.

Reformation Christendom – Universities thrive, and teach broadly. The bible begins to make its way to common languages, and splinters of different traditions became strong due—in part—to the availability of written resources (Lutheranism, early Presbyterianism, early Baptist, etc.).

Post-Reformation Christendom – Universities thrive, but stay within a philosophical and religious bent due to the demand (people want to better understand the bible now in their language). Local, smaller schools spring up to begin teaching the common people academically where possible, in order to understand what the bible says and what it means. Undergraduate schools are focused almost entirely upon teaching language for the purpose of knowledge of the bible.

European Christendom – Having interpreted many, deep, theological truths from the bible, several groups combine their resources and settle on the lot of confessions that we know even today. These confessions helped to show the differences in how biblical truth was understood and applied to the common man between different denominations of Christendom, and were very carefully crafted by numerous people over many years to reflect as accurately what the biblical text teaches as possible. Grammar schools spring up in more locations to help teach Christianity to the youngest of our generations.

18th—19th Century Christendom – Universities start to depart from religious focuses and become increasingly more liberal, especially aiding in the introduction of modernism. Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and the like spring up churches all over the West (even into America), helping to establish a strong educational system in numerous regions as well as a strong, Christian foundations in local schools.

Modern Day Christendom – In an incredibly short period of time, the massive education system and Christian foundation established over the previous 500+ years begins to be taken for granted as postmodernism enters the scene. Technology provides both (positively) an almost-infinite variety of educational methods and access to primary sources as well as (negatively) the most popular distractions and pastimes ever known. In a society where knowledge is literally at our fingertips—where we can accumulate massive amounts of data without leaving our homes, look up nearly any bit of information, and interact with scholars from almost anywhere in the world—we neglect our education more than ever in the history of Western civilization. In tandem, churches begin to depend not on education, theology, or biblical exegesis, but, instead, on entertainment and ways in which they can amass followings.

What was once the primary, motivating factor for *gaining* an education becomes the primary, motivating factor for the rise of education’s kitsch step-cousin: anti-intellectualism.

Churches have stopped helping the common man rise to an education at which point he can discern biblical truth and gain his own theological understanding of God’s Word, and have started to pander to his mostly-distracted apathy by finding ways of entertaining him enough to assent his allegiance to a particular brand so that the brand can claim a (most-likely false) conversion.

Open trashcan. Insert brain. Boot up computer. Surf Internet for entertainment. God who?

The following items, in no particular order, I believe to be far too common in our churches today. Except in some of the most conservative denominations, or, in other cases, the most conservative within broader denominations, we have committed many of the following errors. Yes, these errors may have been incidental at times, but, on the whole, these are now habits and practices adopted even by some who like to coin the “five solas” within their church’s mission statements or beliefs.

My hope is that this list convicts us to return to the most holy, ordained practices of our Lord, as prescribed in Scripture. Most importantly, if it does nothing else, I hope that it serves as a list of items about each of which we are not afraid to ask ourselves, “Have I failed to do this thing? Am I guilty of this mistake?”

Your comments and questions, even if they are to the contrary, are always welcome.

1. We have failed to preach Christ and Him crucified.
2. We have failed to make clear the exclusivity of Christ.
3. We have failed to separate false doctrine from sound doctrine.
4. We have either directly or indirectly supported false conversions in the use of the emotionally-charged altar call and/or decisional salvation.
5. We have dishonored the traditions of the spiritual fathers in our faith by making a public mockery of either the traditions, the men and their followers, or both.
6. We have lied by claiming inerrancy and authority of scripture without acting on this precious tenet.
7. We have used scripture out of context, ambiguously, or by adapting it to inappropriate and unscriptural presuppositions.
8. We have added to scripture whilst claiming a closed canon and whilst misrepresenting the concept of new, special revelation.
9. We have adjusted the biblical definition of spiritual gifts to fit man-made counterfeits, casting doubt and disillusionment onto the existence (past or present) of the gifts at all.
10. We have used piety and tiered systems to elevate one brother over another.
11. We have cast aspersions on the practice prescribed by our Lord Jesus of laboring in the study of God’s Word, and, in a manner most “passive-aggressive”, created a class of false converts who do not even know the God they claim to worship except by “personal relationship” devoid of biblical knowledge.
12. We have not held to the perspicuity of scripture on so-called “secondary” issues and, in efforts toward false peace and false unity, have opened the door (or sometimes blatantly given invitation) to the denial of essential Christian doctrines.
13. We have claimed “Christian liberty” in order to entertain the desires of the flesh in corporate worship on the Lord’s Day, turning it into a fun-house of entertainment and worldly attractions.
14. We have failed to remain even infinitesimally more righteous than the worst of the worldly—disparaging our Christian witness.
15. In handling our public sins, we have failed to repent and show any contrition whatsoever, and, in an effort to permit our actions, we have misused biblical concepts of grace and forgiveness.
16. In handling our public sins, we have failed to repent and show any contrition whatsoever, making a display of our sin as an example of the victim of this present age, turning the true state of man’s depravity on its head: devaluing the sovereignty of God and the efficacy of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
17. We have used emotional manipulation to illicit a parody of faith and repentance from our congregations, making true conversion almost totally indistinguishable from false conversion.
18. We have failed to edify the bride of Christ with the full teaching of scriptures, thereby allowing, among many other things, the false conversions to remain utterly unaware of their lack of holiness and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
19. We have made a mockery of God’s third person, the Holy Spirit, by the use of subjective emotionalism identical to pagan practices as the proof of His presence instead of the recognition of sin, the abhorrence of sin, and the desire for God’s Word (the true marks of the Holy Spirit).
20. We have marred the beauty and simplicity of God’s Word through extreme contextualization, wherein our ministers have added to or subtracted from not only the content of the Word of God but also the prescribed practice of presenting and teaching the Word of God.
21. We have failed to mark and warn of ministers whose practices cause great harm to the body and message of Christ.
22. We have catered to worldly activism by mixing discipleship with works to the point where the latter is used to prove the former rather than the former begetting the latter.
23. We have confused the world and the church to the point that the world now sees the church as fertile soil for monetary gain, power, and fame.
24. We have created idols in persons and programs, and/or allowed them to gain significant status without objection or warning.
25. We have failed to recognize that the departure from Rome was done in order to prevent a group of divines from having a tyrannical, final authority on the interpretation of scripture; instead we have viewed this departure as the seed of postmodernism, wherein each person who interprets scripture is encouraged to determine his own definition apart from an education on languages, culture, or basic hermeneutics, and allow such private interpretations to go unchallenged in the name of relative truth.
26. We have failed to uphold the biblical requirements of elders (pastors) and allowed unqualified men to go unpunished in the church’s pulpits, passively or actively teaching that repentance, humility and church discipline are not to be taken seriously.
27. We have not only ignored the dangers shown by reformers in the use of adiaphora, but we have idolized adiaphora to a point where it represents everything that the reformers feared it could become and we have therein changed it from adiaphora to idolatry.
28. We have misapplied the Old Testament as an anthology of fables and allegories wherein pithy moral lessons are to be distilled, rather than reasoning through all scripture to teach how it points to Christ and the attributes of God.
29. We have allowed the ever-changing grid of human sciences to limit the static grid of God’s Word.
30. We have exchanged the abominable practice of indulgences as a means to gain justification with God for the teaching of pietistic legalism and servitude as a means to gain alleged intimacy with God: each exchanges material human action (works) for Godly service (justification or sanctification)—a practice explicitly denied by scripture.
31. We have pitted a counterfeit evangelism (wherein regeneration is evidenced simply by an emotionally-charged, peer-pressured profession) against real discipleship (wherein the congregation is grown into the more solid foods of doctrine by teaching), when Christ’s command to make disciples (teaching them all He has taught us) would satisfy true evangelism and true discipleship.
32. We have allowed modalism and its ilk to gain traction because we now have a malnourished understanding of Trinitarian theology: our teachings are so emaciated that our own parishioners oftentimes commit the sin that modalists would point out (that of tritheism), or are simply crypto-modalists themselves.
33. We have reduced soteriology so much that the gospel is all but lost and its purveyors are merely men who sell a product that—if well-marketed—may seem a little bit more attractive than the competition.
34. We have denied the sufficiency and efficacy of God’s Word. First, by believing that more than just the Word must be preached in order to interest convince the unbeliever. Second, by forgetting that the gospel is used to both save and to condemn—that men who hear it and reject it are just as much under the sovereign power of God as men who hear it and are transformed by it.
35. We have exchanged the concept of a pastor being the shepherd of his flock for the concept of a pastor being a celebrity: an unattainable untouchable in an unquestionable, unaccountable position.
36. We have forgotten the narrow path for the remnant and embraced the wide path for as many men as can be wooed by the artificial light of a worldly church.
37. We have lost holiness and reverence towards the almighty, Triune God.
38. We have reduced the numerous apprehensible attributes of our Triune God to one (love) and redefined it to meet the cultural ideal: that of tolerance and uncritical, unconditional non-judgment; and we have done so to the point where this new god violates the very clear and immutable attributes of the Triune God by lacking the need to satisfy holy judgment, by having no problem with unrighteousness, and by believing that all human beings are inherently good.
39. We have allowed branding and association define our theology whilst avoiding theology proper at all costs, yet, when we are confronted about our branding and associations, we claim the fallacy of “guilt by association” or “judging a book by its cover”. Do we not see that this is precisely what we are promoting in our disdain towards comprehensive confessions of faith?
40. We have over-emphasized the need for aesthetic appeal during our worship services while allowing the doctrinal content to be malnourished (at best) or devoid (at worst): it is now easier to get a delicious latte at a church than to get an expositional sermon.
41. We have sent our children to church programs that teach them how to play games, remain constantly stimulated by all forms of entertainment, avoid discipline and learning, and profess no understanding of scripture, and yet scratch our heads when 30-year-olds are doing the same things when they get home from their non-advancing, non-career jobs: they play video games, watch endless television programs, avoid any positive, disciplined habits, and have no understanding of their nominalistic faith.
42. We have capitulated that God really doesn’t mind excessive alcohol consumption, gambling, raves, partying, tattoos, smoking, coarse joking, and the like, not because we have pored over scripture and found a lackadaisical, cavalier God who is not concerned with the holiness of His people (for such a God is not the God of the bible), but because we conveniently avoid the portions of scripture that we do not want to obey.
43. We have replaced faith in the historic event of Christ’s resurrection providing an imputation of righteousness to all future believers with a more palatable assent that He was somehow an excellent, moral example whose sacrifice showed a “better way”—a way for our own moralistic improvements: that we can somehow “be” the gospel rather than “proclaim” the gospel.
44. We have not recognized the error of antinomianism, and instead have perpetuated it by railing against fundamentalism as “religion” and having a complete disregard for the law as “relationship”, when, in fact, a truly regenerative relationship with Christ would cause us to aspire to obedience of the same law, to a brokenness when we realize we cannot, and to rejoicing in Christ that He has prevailed in satisfying what we could not.

If you’ve watched R-rated crass guy movies like, I Love You Man, or Hangover, or even the less-crass and incredibly innocent sequel in Pixar’s Cars franchise, you’ll quickly ascertain the American definition. If I may paraphrase…

American friendship can be defined as the relationship between two people where one can act however one wants without fear of criticism and without fear of rejection.

As a generalization, that’s probably true—especially for guys. I would attempt to surmise what a girl friendship would be, but I’d end up writing volumes and volumes and I’d still be utterly wrong and clueless—such complexities are beyond my discipline and paygrade. Nonetheless, I don’t think this definition, since it is a simplification, is gender-specific.

What is the value of this type of friendship?

Well, certainly, it allows for my most base actions, reactions, and unfiltered mind vomit to have acceptance within a group of trusted secret-keepers. In other words, I can act out (whether maturely or immaturely), I can go totally unrestrained (“be myself”), I can do things that perhaps I am not allowed to do in mixed company, at the office, or in church, and I can tell my friends how I really feel—the unabridged version.

It sounds incredibly liberating. Almost like the quintessential summary scenes in almost all of Owen Wilson’s movies, where he’s convinced everyone to get along and they all end up having some sort of fantasy evening together (I apologize for the graphic suggestion, but I feel it’s relevant—stay with me).

But what if it’s not helpful at all?

What if, somewhere in the deeper recesses of my depraved mind, there’s something amiss?

Well, wait a moment—that might be what’s amiss. It’s a depraved mind, isn’t it?

Let’s review this again, but let’s put a more comprehensive, and (historic) Christian spin on it.

We can act however we want around each other.

As liberating as that may sound, when my kids get to “do whatever they really want”, they don’t exactly choose what’s best for themselves. If I allowed my 5-year-old, for instance, to choose his own meals, I’m not sure he’d last for more than 3 days before he’d be in the emergency room. Similarly, if I allowed my flesh to run a-muck with its base desires, I’d quit my job, play games or watch movies all day, and treat everyone around me as though they were simply in my way of “having a good time”. I dare not continue to dwell on what I would truly do to my family because, in my current frame of mind, it makes me sick to my stomach.

Really? Thinking about acting however I want would make me sick to my stomach? Clearly some will think that I’m nuts or that my thoughts are darker and more sinister or lascivious than the run-of-the-mill “good” person! But that’s just it: no one does good. Not one. Not me, not the sweet grandmother you might know—not one of us (Romans 3:10-12).

So while I’m acting like this, as we review, we notice that American friendship defines our friend’s role as one who does not criticize and does not reject. You may hear this in your own head as “don’t judge” or “don’t be holier-than-thou”, but it’s all the same. We, as the friends, are charged in this definition, with the responsibility of NOT confronting the companion on principle, because to do so would be to criticize and, at its logical end, possibly reject.

No one wants to be rejected by a friend. No one wants to be judged—well, at least judged to be in the wrong!

First, how does this line up with the historic Christian understanding of our waging a constant war against our flesh (Romans 8:13)? If we are putting to death the deeds of the body (according to flesh), shouldn’t we be striving—daily—to do good? Shouldn’t we be striving to understand more of God’s truth and to see the Holy Spirit sanctifying us? If, indeed, we are Christians, and yet we walk in darkness—in acts of our old selves or acts of our flesh—do we not betray that we are not practicing the truth (1 John 1:6)?

Suddenly, I look back to the example of Owen Wilson movies that I cited and I feel a twinge of pain. Was this really an appropriate movie? Was it really something that, by watching it and enjoying it, that I was using to satisfy my flesh? Alas, I cannot reconcile the two as coexistent; I cannot serve two masters. If I am truly to walk in the light, I cannot continue to do this in good conscience.

So as to the first point, it appears that acting however we want is, in almost all cases, not the best idea at all, but the opposite of the best idea—it goes against the very truths we seek to affirm in our lives for the assurance of our salvation: that I am daily being sanctified—not to perfection, but certainly, after a fashion, “trending upward”.

Secondly, I worry that the responsibilities of a true, Christian friend have been abrogated in this particular American definition. All Christians have a responsibility, first and foremost, to obey God. So what does He have to say about friendship?

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” – Proverbs 27:6

Hmph. Seems like maybe the writer got this backwards when compared to the discussed definition of friendship. In our definition, it’s the friends who are giving kisses and the enemies who are wounding us. But wait—the author here is one of those folks who was inspired by God, so, really, it’s essentially an authorship belonging to The Word (a.k.a. Jesus).

Further, we see some other good examples of Christian friendship: “Better is open rebuke than hidden love” (Proverbs 27:5—just a verse before our above example); “It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:5); “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3).

Now this changes things dramatically. We have inspired wisdom literature demonstrating that friendship includes rebuke. We have Jesus telling his disciples to rebuke one another in order that they may come to repentance.

So now we’re beginning to see that friendship—as defined by God—is a lot more difficult than the friendship purported by the world. God’s version of friendship includes the trust and ability between two friends to speak plainly to one another about sin in the others’ life. And, as a recipient of such a rebuke, we are to welcome it as a route to repentance and a better temporal life.

But, unfortunately, the complications don’t stop there.

You see, we have a funny way of “turning the tables” when we’re attacked. We don’t want people to judge us as wrong, remember? We may seem to accept these conditions, but, when push comes to shove, the rebuke is not really welcomed—it’s considered a sin in and of itself.

In our definition, even when partially repaired to include “rebuke”, the standard of conduct hasn’t really changed—just some of the terms of the game. See, the standard still says, “You aren’t really allowed to judge me,” and that doesn’t allow the new terms to work correctly. They flop on first try.

What do I mean? Do I have an example? Surely—I have had my own experiences on both sides. I have been rebuked—rightfully so, for biblical disobedience in one thing or another—and I have pulled the TONE card. “I don’t like your tone, therefore what you have said to me is not admissible in the Court of Frank.”

Hmph. It may not be tone for you. Perhaps it’s, “You’re not being loving,” or perhaps it’s, “You are pious and holier-than-thou.”

But wait… Doesn’t that put us back at square one again? Aren’t we just looking for ways out of the rebuke now? Surely—our flesh is shrewd like that. And this is exactly why we must crucify it daily. It is exactly why Paul described his own struggle in Romans 7 and is critical of himself for “doing what he does not want to do” because he knows it is wrong.

We are guilty as charged, regardless of how the evidence was acquired, how it was presented, or how much love is or is not in the delivery.

Might I suggest a different approach to friendship? Might I suggest something that defies our flesh and requires diligence, discipline, and vigilance? Might I suggest that we are perhaps too lazy for our own good, in that we will seek out complex and time-consuming work within our own minds just to determine an apt excuse for our sin or to discredit the accuser—when what is said is true anyway?

True friendship should be based upon the common bond between believers: the truth of the Word of God and the faith derived therein. Without this basis, friendship ceases to have long-term meaning. It ceases to be a means to benefit either party as at least one party is always at the mercy of another master—not truth. If that truth isn’t really the basis, there will be a moment when one or both parties must concede or compromise and it leaves the soul of the person torn in two—one half serving the idyllic definition of friendship, the other attempting to serve truth.

If we can start with truth, we can move forward—aiding one another in hope in the thoroughly persecuted job of sanctification, rather than pulling one another back down in strides of frivolity. We will—in time—become quite a bit better at our delivery of truth, because the true, Holy Spirit-driven increase in truth is truth-in-love—the love that would want to wound a friend for his own good, but to be precise and self-cauterizing enough to do so for his benefit.

Finally, as Christians, it is our duty to speak the truth to those that begin to wander into error.

“My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” - James 5:19-20

A true friend wants to fulfill that duty. Alas, he may be met with resistance or rejection, but God forbid he avoids it for the sake of satisfying the definition of an American friend.

I hope this helps. More than that, I hope that I can fulfill the tenets of the friendship as described by my Lord, whose ways are far greater than my own, and whose wisdom I must trust even when it contradicts that which I have known for so long.

(As an aside, my wife gets kudos for pointing out that I should add this next [and very vulnerable] section… Be kind.)

While I may sound like one who is an authority, I would be amiss in leading you, the reader, to believe such is the case on this topic. It is immensely close to my heart because I have many people in whose lives I have been privileged to share an investment, some of whom have summarily rejected me (and my family) or resisted my rebukes.

Perhaps my tone is amiss, perhaps my timing is poor, perhaps my statements are crude and my method of engagement is seemingly cold and callous. I have, by NO means, mastered eloquence. However, I do not believe that my cause for concern is purely out of self-righteousness. I suppose I could sit and point fingers, making accusations about my impressions of people’s lives, but the minute-by-minute frequency with which I produce and then rebuke my own depraved prejudices has already earned me the death penalty (for which Christ has paid the awful price).

Rather, I attempt to resist the urge to personally admonish until I am utterly compelled by something that I would consider a Scriptural mandate. If, in such a case, I am wrong, I would hope that a Christian friend would be willing to address and defend the content of my concern, rather than the method of its delivery—yet, so far, this has not been my experience.

So I wrote this post because of a question in my mind after these experiences: Do we, as modern American Christians, really even know what friendship is supposed to look like?

As I gain the experience to speak more about it, I shall. Until then, the above (which is my fallible distillation of biblical truth), is what I know.

As always, feel free to comment. Perhaps you can offer further distillation?

We struggle against something that we cannot understand apart from Scripture: sin.

If there were no Scripture, and we were simply to live as we desired, only the common grace of God would prevent us from utterly destroying one another for our own selfish desires. Of course, this would happen outside of our own direct knowledge. Perhaps some would have an inkling that something was “not right”, but it would not be a useful and practical knowledge gained by the special revelation of Scripture if such Scripture did not exist. Instead, such men would, acting in the Sovereignty of God, establish laws and systems to prevent the very extinction of our own race by our own hand.

If there were no Scripture, we would not be able to accurately identify the source of our problems. Not only would the source remain active and cancerous, but our counterfeit prescriptions would only prove to aggravate the real problem, bearing it out in other forms. Who can raise a dead man? The man himself? Certainly not; he is dead and has no power of his own. Without Scripture, he cannot even identify what is and is not of help to him. Moreover, he would not be able to act on anything with any measure of success because he is dead.

Now think on this: since Scripture does exist, would the same not apply if we chose not to read it? Even more subtly so, would the same problem apply if we chose only to read some of the Scripture, rather than the whole?

Yet we ignore the above realities. Instead, in our ignorance, we believe the cultural presuppositions that man is inherently good. Perhaps we believe some subtle version of it: where we are under the impression that the “renewing of the mind” spoken of in Scripture is a license to excuse our behavior as “inherently good” now that such a mind has been renewed. But this, again, is faulty—we are still susceptible to sin even though our hope lies in what Christ has done on the cross to pay for that sin.

Our exposure to culture’s misdiagnosis perhaps confuses us. In one sense, we learn that we were indeed wrong to assume that we had a problem that needed man-made prescription: in truth, we were slaves to sin before Christ. Unfortunately, our tendency to reduce salvation to the lowest-possible-requirements also stripped our understanding of Christian living to mimic carnality, excused by the man-made desire to “redeem culture” or aspects therein. We determined the smallest possible commitment level or simplest understanding of justification, and delivered this “elevator speech” in our evangelistic actions, such that the recipient might be quickened to regeneration in the most consumer-driven and user-friendly way. We have industrialized the gospel; we have moved from teaching the whole counsel of Scripture to teaching the absolute minimum amount required for an economical delivery to the masses.

We wash this down with a heavy dose of an anesthetic that believes the Word will not return void and that its efficacy is not dependent on dosage, and ignore the immense disobedience of Scripture, the carnality so pervasive within the walls of the church, and the rebellion of the flesh that quickly overtakes what we now question as false conversions.

Do we believe that the efficacy of the good news is immune to truncation? There is much room for a straw-man fallacy, of course, because one would be pitting a caricature of a formula (“easy-believism”) against another (full doctrinal dissertations).

But I would press us to consider the consequences of every teaching and of every evangelistic encounter. If faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God, then what amount of that Word is sufficient? What paraphrase articulates the necessary passage of words? Of course the good news is no magic incantation—far from it. It is also imperative to understand that God’s grace will cover a multitude of mistakes by any of his missionaries. Nonetheless, it is something we must take more seriously!

With emaciated teaching, emaciated doctrine, and an emaciated gospel comes an emaciated church: a church whose believers are easily swept from one belief to another, having no root system on which to rely when winds come. I would go so far as to say that many of those shallow roots are ripped from shallow soil and cast away—leaving a person without a saving knowledge of Christ.

In a sense, the problem comes down to our ability to be tempted—as do most problems, because pride is a primary sin of the creature. We are tempted in a number of ways, perhaps more subtly than we would care to admit:

We are tempted by success.

It may not look like money and fame for all—perhaps it looks like the success of retaining a membership at one’s church, or the success of gaining a new demographic. Perhaps the success looks like claps from the congregation, or a parishioner who normally complains about content keeping silent for a week or two. It doesn’t matter what form in which it comes—it is success nonetheless. Of course, success is not evil in and of itself: it is merely “when a plan comes together” or when we see the expected outcome of our actions. These are “successes” and are not, in and of themselves, an indication of good or bad methodology, but they are surely part of what weighs in on our unvoiced desires to do one thing over another.

We are tempted by ease.

Quite simply, it is much easier for us to choose one thing over another because it is less work; its requirements are so significantly less than another option that, regardless of its rank in methodological appropriateness, it wins the day. These choices are often made outside of counsel from the Word of God or even from Godly men who demonstrate a vigilance against “taking the easy way out”.

We are tempted by conformity or non-conformity.

We rally to things that others are doing without regarding the consequences, or we purposely do something opposite in an effort to seem unique. What matters to us starts to be identified in its conformity or lack of conformity to others rather than to Scripture itself.

We are tempted by culture’s push for tolerance.

In many cases, we fall victim to a desire to be pleasing to those around us—even when we know they disagree. In today’s culture, “pleasing those around us” is to exercise a perverted form of tolerance that is really a passive approval more than it is a tolerance. This happens within the church for heteropraxy, heterodoxy, and even, in too many cases, for heresy.

We are tempted by culture’s push for unity.

Our desire for peace with those around us sometimes trumps our biblical convictions. Not to say that we should not unify with those who would see the most infinitesimal point and non-essentials differently than ourselves, but that even when major points of doctrine are at stake that can affect the eternal lives of our flocks, we are inclined to forego the difference for the sake of unity. Once again, the culture provides a perverted form of the word unity that is more akin to yoking with non-believers and false teachers. Don’t misunderstand: in all things with those that would claim to believe in Christ, we should seek to understand, accept, and/or correct their differences, but, when the doctrines that would impact eternal salvation (those that form the basis for things like the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) are at stake, we must not stand down and call the opposer “brother”, for this is confusion to the flock, poison to the ministry, and cancer to the church.

Undoubtedly, more temptations would seek to destabilize us from our perch in biblical teaching. But allow me, for a moment, to suggest to us a proven remedy: teach sound doctrine. It is through sound doctrine—biblical exposition—that we find absolute truth so as to distinguish it from error.

Do not be fooled in thinking that deviations from the core responsibility of the church—especially those that garner the favor of man so easily—will grow a healthy body.

To Christ alone be the glory!

“While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential.” – GotQuestions.org, “What does the bible teach about the Trinity?”

As an Evangelical Christian, most of us are familiar with the term “Trinity”. We might even all be able to recite a hymn with that word in it, or at least give an explanation of who the three Persons are. Some might even be able to recite a creed or two.

Most of us have heard about it because it was a churchy word, and most of us don’t really typically think much of it.

Now if you’re a Oneness Pentecostal, you’re probably MORE familiar with the Doctrine of the Trinity than most, average, church-going Trinitarians. Why? Because you were taught to vehemently defend your contrary position that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine at all.

This was not a big deal to me, at one time. In essence, I viewed it as over-scrupulousness; I thought, “Sheesh, there are probably more important issues we can argue about, or, even, avoid arguing about this one in general!”

I tended to think of the Doctrine of the Trinity as a very academic attempt to explain something that no one really understood anyway. I mean, we all know that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make appearances in the bible but are, in fact, all God. So why bother with the difficulty in trying to explain it?

But something about there being conflicting ideas as to its explanation lingered in my mind as an annoyance that needed satisfaction.

It turns out that Trinitarian theology is vitally important in its most core assertion. This will likely raise the hackles of an stalwart Oneness person, but that’s the point.

Let me state plainly that the core of the Doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely necessary in a person’s understanding in order for regeneration. This is not to be confused with the concept that an academic knowledge of the vast complexities of that Doctrine are required to be memorized before a person can safely be considered “justified”, but that even the true acceptance of the Gospel itself is a tacit acceptance of the core truth of the Trinity. This will also cause problems because, just in case you didn’t read between the lines, it means that Oneness believers are, in fact, not believers until such time as they understand and accept the Personhood of the Father, the Personhood of the Son, and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. To believe they are merely exclusive manifestations of that one essence is to believe in a different God.

I don’t say this lightly. Believe you me that I grappled with this because I came to it *convinced* that such deep, theological waters need not be tread for the sake of salvation; they were reserved merely for those that wanted extra credit work at Sunday School. I have many friends who have clearly stated their Oneness beliefs and the proof texts behind them. I pray for them and worry for them as a result.

Why is this concept so important? I don’t want this to be an exhaustive study on the differences and proof texts for Trinitarian and other theologies; those essays and counterpoints and books have already been written by far greater scholars than I (and even on both sides of the argument!). But I do want to make some basic tenets clear.

It is my desire that the following short list will help people who (like me) admittedly take the Trinitarian Doctrine for granted. Perhaps after this, the importance of actually knowing the God we believe in will become apparent.

1. The Trinity is what we believe in salvation: God loves us (John 3:16) but needs His wrath propitiated (Romans 3:23). Jesus, being God, can and does propitiate that wrath (Romans 6:23) and imputes to us His righteousness, providing justification (Romans 3:24) and atonement for our sin. The Holy Spirit indwells us (Acts 2:38, Acts 5:32), regenerating us first to understand these truths (Ephesians 1:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, Titus 3:5), but also to live out a life aspiring towards the attributes of Christ Himself. For a moment, try to understand this same process of salvation if God could only ever be one of these manifestations at a time. It is why the adoption of the word “Person” exists—in order to give the full set of attributes and tandem workings of a person to each part of the Triune God.
2. The Trinity is present in full at the baptism of Jesus Christ (Matthew 3:13-17). Most Evangelical Christians accept this at face value. Without the presence of the Triune God, the validation of Christ as Messiah would be at stake.
3. Christ now sits at the right-hand of the Father, and has poured out the Holy Spirit on His disciples (Acts 2:33). For this to be true, each aspect of the Triune God must be regarded as individual Persons—though of the same substance and always United as one God. If the only account of God that we knew today was solely the Holy Spirit, the truth of Christ at the right-hand of the Father would be at stake, and the Father still being on the throne would also be at stake.

In these three instances, you can see that most Evangelical Christians accept the Doctrine of the Trinity, and that, to attest to something else, would mean to attest to a God that could not accomplish the above.

Remember, the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a comprehensive explanation of the Triune God—it is merely an amalgamation of a number of references in Scripture that agree on certain principals. These principals comprise the Doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, there is no *one* Scripture that says, “The Triune God is a Three-Person Trinity”; such a thing would prevent so many common heresies, surely! But instead, there are passages after passages whose explanations require the conclusion of a Three Person Unity within the Godhead.

Here’s a good rule of thumb: if the God of the bible cannot match the attributes described by something outside of the bible, it is NOT the God of the bible. If it is another god, it is a god that does NOT save, since the Christian God of the bible—specifically, the Person of His Son—is the exclusive Way to salvation.

Hopefully this helps!

For further study, the purpose of the Athanasian Creed was to distinguish the Christian Triune God from heresies of that time period. You can read it here. You can also read, at the same site, an excellent explanation of the Trinity.

When I would sit down to try and do it, say, 10 years ago, I would meet utter failure. That failure would come in a number of ways:

1. It was too confusing from a language perspective. Yeah, I had the NIV and The Message, but that didn’t help for some reason.
2. It was too confusing from a doctrinal perspective. I mean, I went to a church 10 years ago whose leaders always “heard from God” while they were reading their bibles. Mind you, they didn’t mean that the Holy Spirit quickened their mind to understand Scripture—they meant that they literally heard from God audibly or in some sort of impressionable sense in tandem with reading the Word (a game of semantics might be played here, but I can assure you that the folks I had as leaders at the time believed they were hearing audibly from God).
3. It was contradictory to what I was hearing excerpted on Sunday mornings (and at all my weekly church events).
4. It did not agree with me culturally, so I found it irrelevant anyway.

These are the problems that I faced. Perhaps you did or still do face these problems. I don’t entirely blame you, but I can’t shift that blame squarely onto someone else, because it’s essentially our own faults.

Guilt-tripping people into reading God’s Word? Really? No… Read on.

The church I attended was attractive to me because it spoke to me in a culturally-relevant, age-specific way, with enough irreverence to upset conservative folks whom I thought were meaningless in my life (this opinion has change, by the way). It also quoted snippets of parts of bible verses (no joke on the twice-sliced verse description) that, when mixed with an enormous amount of charisma and leadership and application seemed to be Godly ways for me to modify my behavior and get that biblical stamp-of-approval.

Sadly, this directly affected my bible reading dramatically (though I didn’t know it at the time).

You see, when I was confused from a language perspective, it was because I was taught that down-to-Earth, American English was the way God should be speaking to you (audibly), and if it was anything else (from academic to foreign), it required massive faith to understand some esoteric truth, usually reserved for the titans of my church leadership (you know, the Senior Pastors). So as I read things like:

“And the LORD answered me: ‘Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it. For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.’” (Habakkuk 2:2-3 ESV)

…I was confused. This, at face value, seemed like Habakkuk was being told by God to write some sort of vision onto tablets for people to read. Simple enough? No. Because my pastors (and many today) look at this verse and see some extraordinary call to write a church vision statement and to run the church like a corporate machine, basing all of its endeavors on this vision statement.

But for some reason, I didn’t see all that. So I would stop reading.

Take my second difficulty. Doctrinally, I looked at something like:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:12 ESV)

…And I would be confused. Well that’s ridiculous! One of my Senior Pastors and several of my leaders are women in authority! I must be misinterpreting Paul in this verse. Add to that the fact that throughout the same book (1 Timothy) and its nearby books (2 Timothy and Titus), there are clear descriptions of elders and what their lives should look like to qualify as elders. Yet none of this matched my elders or pastors. Quite contrary to what was in the Word were the lives of my leaders, actually. Their responses? Some (again) esoteric, we-live-in-a-covenant-of-grace statement that excused all sorts of morally reprehensible failures or lifestyles while in leadership. After all, nobody’s perfect, right? (Ugh…)

What about verses that seemed to mean something so profound on Sunday but ceased to have the same, “Wow!” factor on Monday? I would read some of the verses from a sermon on, say, Developing The Riches God Really Wants You to Have, where the supporting verse for the entire 60-minute sermon was:

“Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” (3 John 1:2 KJV)

But then I’d read that verse in my daily attempts to read the bible, and my ESV, including the rest of the greeting, says this:

“The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.” (3 John 1:1-4 ESV)

Now it doesn’t seem to talk about money and riches at all. What was I missing? Clearly, I must lack some sort of powerful faith that my leaders had in abundance.

Finally, as I would read through the bible, I would stumble on things that didn’t really connect with me at all. Take the book of Leviticus. It spends a majority of its text describing and prescribing types and methods of sacrifice. Well, we don’t sacrifice anymore. What does this have to do with me now? There was no sermon EVER in my 10 years that dealt with this book of the bible, or its subject matter. Yet a lingering thought in my brain said, “It’s there for SOME reason, right?”

So every attempt would end with the closing of the Holy Bible—the very Word of God delivered for all Christians for all time to know what God might say, was a frustrating tome of esoteric texts to me. Yet something still seemed wrong about my failure to read it, so I never gave up.

I’m glad I didn’t.

After ten years in a church whose focus was anything BUT teaching me how to read and understand my bible, I became zealous to understand what the bible really DID say.

At first, I looked to some people in my life who had always read the bible—morning after morning—and had lots to say about what they were reading. Some even had journals and margins in their bibles FULL of notes in their own hand. Because I wanted to learn how to have a similar understanding, I asked, “How did you know it meant this?” The answers would range from, “Well, God audibly told me,” to, “The Holy Spirit spoke to me and gave me this verse in my dream,” to, “I opened my bible at random and looked down after praying desperately and sincerely to God, and it was crystal clear that He wanted me to know…”

For me, these were not satisfactory answers (and, incidentally, they are NOT satisfactory answers). I began to doubt that these people even knew what they were reading—even with their copious notes. Why? Because the sources weren’t confirmed, and the private interpretations went unchecked! In any research, if you can’t show your work, the piece you write becomes practically (academically) useless if you have no sources. Similarly, in the biblical context, if these people couldn’t show me WHY Habakkuk 2 was telling them to write a family vision, I felt no obligation to believe them any more than any other worldly philosopher.

Please note: does this mean that if you have an impression as to what a text in the bible means that you cannot ever trust it? No, I don’t believe that. Without sources and double-checking your own work, there’s always a chance that you could be right. But—especially when you have just started reading and you’ve done no external research at all—why take that chance? We are charged to test every spirit (1 John 4), and remember that our heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), so trusting our own instinct to provide insight into God’s truth without any test can be very dangerous!

Shortly into my quest to understand the bible, I purchased a book called Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul. It’s in my recommended reading list because Dr. Sproul made something incredibly clear about reading the bible. It is simply true that no matter who we are, we will all come to the bible with some sort of doctrine or presupposition in mind. We already have some idea of Who we think God is, what we think He’s like, and how we think He should act. When we read, those presuppositions either meet confusion because they are contradicted (as in my case), or they meet validation because we warp the text to mean what we presupposed.

Very often, you’ll hear people ask this question: “What does this passage of Scripture mean to you?” Because of our culture and our upbringing, we find this to be a fair and innocent question. But according to the author, it is irrelevant what a passage means to us. Our hearts are deceitful and the only way to expose that wickedness is with an honest, un-biased reading of Scripture (cf. Jeremiah 17:9 and Hebrews 4:12-13).

Faith comes by hearing… the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Our faith does not come because we prayed some special Sinner’s Prayer or because we raised our hand or because we really want to change. It comes because we hear the Word of God. This powerful tool of God’s saves men’s souls. It does so when we open it honestly and try to understand what we are reading and hear that precious Good News and understand it.

But how can we understand it? Especially in light of my four problems above? Well, I can tell you what I did, and it seems to have gone pretty well so far…

1. Language Difficulties: If you want to understand the language of the bible, get a “Study Bible”. I prefer the ESV, because it is an easy-to-read translation of the original text, and the “study” part means that the scholars who did the translating included a LOT of notes to help you understand what the text means. In the ESV Study Bible, there are massive write-ups throughout to help a person like myself become educated on why, to whom, by whom and for what purpose a book was written. (Let me point something else important out: The Message is by Eugene Peterson, and is a “paraphrase”. That means it is not an authoritative translation, but that Eugene Peterson did his own interpretation and then put it in a very loose paraphrase of his own design. It is not to be used for studying—ever. Personally, I only use it for odd references made by heretics, but if you want to read it so you can hear what Eugene thinks you should do, be my guest.)
2. Doctrinal Difficulties: As Sproul points out, we ALL have some sort of doctrine—simple or complex, right or wrong, and even if we say, “I have no doctrine,” we are lying to ourselves. We all believe SOMETHING about God. Thus, if you are attempting to read with clarity, my best advice is to pull from resources from writers of the Protestant Reformation through to a hundred or so years ago. These are men whose works have been read by a LOT of scholars between then and now and evaluated by a NUMBER of opinions. Why does this help? Because you are not inundated with the latest “fad” understanding of a passage—instead, there is a time-tested commentary used by a host of denominations and churches to help to guide us in the simple-to-complex understanding of core doctrines. These can be compared when you read several at a time, and you can compare them to your first-blush understanding of the passage to see how well you fared. Man is fallible, yes, but there are men whose works have been treasured by the church for centuries that are incomparable to the works put out nowadays (especially compare to those in the “best sellers” rack at a local Christian bookstore, unfortunately).
3. Contradictory from your Sunday Morning: When hearing verses out-of-context, go back and read them in context, even taking sermon notes and comparing the Pastor’s results of reading that passage to what you can plainly see in the context of that set of verses, chapter, or series of chapters. More often then not, you can garner at least a basic understanding of the verse by its context. A good example is Jeremiah 29:11, which is frequently quoted to make us feel that God has promised us some amazing destiny and prosperity. But the context around that verse is one of incredibly specific (and negative) judgment presented on a specific people at a specific time in history for a specific reason. Its relevance for us today is—at best—highly suspect.
4. Cultural Difficulties: Culture is probably one of the hardest obstacles when trying to read Scripture accurately. We are influenced by our present-day culture tremendously, even though it is irrelevant to what God has to say (since His Word is timeless). Add to that the fact that the writers of the Scripture, though inspired, still wrote in terminology that was specific to the culture and time of their writing. As a result, scholars pour over these original texts and even other texts of that time to discern their meaning in present-day languages. If you have the luxury of learning ancient languages and history and cultural idioms, then you will have a very rich experience in reading the original texts. I do not have that luxury, so I rely upon others who have studies copiously to inform me. Modern scholars like R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Michael Horton, and lots of others, along with historic students of the bible like Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Augustine, and lots more. These men, of different times and backgrounds, have given a much better picture of what Scripture’s true and specific meaning is than my pastors of 10 years. Ideally, if you attend a church where the pastor actually studies and preaches using an expository method, you will have your scholar right there!

You have probably noticed that my list of scholars are all Reformers or Reformed in thought. I have found that, by and large, the authors of commentaries and other published works who have the most reverent and high views of Scripture are the Reformed and the Reformers themselves (Luther, of course, included). Most others have contributed tremendously, but very few with the same love and respect for the Scriptures as these men.

God’s Word, at least according to a declining majority of professing, Evangelical Christians, is the one source we can (almost) all agree is God-ordained. Why, if it bares the name of our Creator and the claim that it is the source of faith, would we ever want to neglect reading it, or neglect reading from it in our churches?

I hope this helps.

In Christ,
Frank

P.S. The book of Leviticus has a special meaning to me now. Since studying a survey of the books of the bible (Dust to Glory, with Dr. R.C. Sproul), I’ve come to appreciate it as a foreshadowing for the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and why such a sacrifice can satisfy all of the requirements of the Law. In this, the Word is truly amazing! 

Below is a tweet from Pastor Steve Kelly of Wave Church in Virginia Beach, VA.

This makes me wonder: does God’s presence, or our experience thereof, depend upon Darlene? I mean, what if I don’t have a “Darlene” nearby when I worship? Will the presence of God not come? Was it missing in the first place? Can I even measure it? Maybe there’s a meter, and the meter is pegged into the red when Darlene leads, but only in the green or yellow if I’m just worshiping alone, or with a group of liturgical Presbyterians with a Psalm and just a piano… Or maybe the meter is measuring the congregation’s hearts and fervor in worship? Clearly we now have pastors who can measure this, and Steve Kelly is clear that Darlene’s ability to “bring” such a presence is beyond that of anyone else.

What have we become? Why is such an emotional response part of our measure of God’s presence? I mean, I get all broken at the end of Meet The Robinsons when Rob Thomas starts singing—does that mean he’s bringing an incredible sense of God’s presence?

But what does the bible say of such things? In your study of the bible, do you find that God’s presence evokes heart-felt warm fuzzies from people? What I read is typically that God’s presence (when defined by Scripture) causes all who truly experience it to feel utterly shameful of their own sin (unclean) and unworthy of being in the presence of pure holiness:

And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” (Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Is that the presence about which Steve Kelly is speaking? That is the presence of God, after all, and if he doesn’t mean that presence—well then, exactly what presence does he mean? Better yet, what god’s presence did he really experience? The measure of that experience, if not a recognition of the shameful and sinful and unclean nature of man, is what, exactly? Our deceitful hearts?

Furthermore, this whole concept of a worship leader aiding us to meet some sort of presence (whether it’s the leader bringing it to the people or the leader bringing the people to it) is a subtle, pervasive, unbiblical idea . It’s subtle because it seems so legitimate. I’ve been there and experienced worship that I really felt was extraordinary, even believing that I was somehow experiencing God in a way. Why not, right? What’s so wrong with that? It seems harmless.

But it is not.

Once you experience this feeling, you are compelled to seek it again. And again. And again. That’s why conferences need sequels, and the typical conference attendee attends not only more than one conference per year, but also strives to model their weekly worship service after the conference itself.

I’ll leave you with some Scripture that describes the primary activity of the New Testament church. You’ll note that none of the Apostles are echoing Steve Kelly’s sentiments about the worship music at their meetings. Funny: they rarely mention music in passages describing the church’s activities, let alone offer praise to the “worship leaders” as if they somehow are responsible for the greatness or lack of God’s presence in a place…

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42 ESV)

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4 ESV)

What does it mean?

Mostly, I’ve heard it used to define a deep-rooted discontent that actively festers, causing a person to change his or her behavior to conform to the support and demonstration of that discontent. For example, if a person voted for “the other guy” in the American Presidency, it’s 3 years later, and he or she is still finding ways to make every conversation bend to the discussion of the President and how discontent he or she is with the person fulfilling the office.

Sure, I can see that. The person is bitter. He or she has bitterness about the whole election so many moons ago. Seems to be a good waste of time and energy, certainly. I can agree with that.

But you didn’t come here to read about amorphous examples of bitterness. So let’s get personal, then.

First, let’s quickly eradicate some misnomers.

Many have assumed that I have had some sort of personal offenses hurled into my life by a former church and/or its leaders. Yes, years ago (circa 2005), the pastors I knew and loved didn’t come to the hospital to visit my wife and I for the birth of our first son (Whew! There, I got it off of my chest!). They also ignored us and made us feel bad for not participating in church for about 3-4 months. This was painful, yes. However, we eventually decided to reconcile with them and return—and all was forgiven. Truly! Years later, I would leave that church, but not because anything was done to me or anyone in my immediate family by the church or its leaders. Any dissatisfaction we may have had was rooted entirely in our own blissful ignorance or our own decision to cater to our flesh, which we did for nearly a decade. More than anyone else, I blame myself, as the man responsible for my household.

Many have assumed that I have some sort of vendetta against an entire denomination. I must admit that I find some denominations completely inexplicable, though I harbor no ill-will towards any of them. I have attended Pentecostal, Baptist, non-denominational Charismatic, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches, and, by and large, have no specific malice toward any of them. Moreover, I know and know very well Pentecostals, Charismatics in several and no denominations, Lutherans, and Presbyterians—and I believe a great majority of the ones I know well are truly believers in Christ and, by the grace of God alone, we will all fall flat on our faces to worship our Lord in heaven. So believing that I have that vendetta is a bit far-fetched. I do focus on errors which tend to live in a particular denomination more-so than others, but this is merely the by-product of my experience, which has been in Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations. Again: I still have friends in these denominations who are not compromised in their salvation.

Many have assumed that I believe only a specific denomination *truly* represents biblical Christianity. I actually chuckle a bit at this assumption. No entire denomination represents “biblical Christianity” anymore than the entire human race represents Christians—each is wrought with sinful men some of whom are far from God and others of whom are certainly part of the elect (even those that prefer not to believe in “the elect”). I, for one, would enjoy worshiping God in any of *three* particular denominations, but mostly because their conclusions about Scripture match my own—so even if we’re looking at preference, I’m not so particular as to feel the need to specify more than that.

HOWEVER… I do not ascribe all alleged Christians the rite-of-passage of the term “regenerate believer” just because they come to “a different conclusion” than I on certain Scriptural matters. I do have standards, and I believe that Scripture betrays certain standards from God, as well, to which I strive to conform my own. I’ll not get into specifics here, but suffice to say that I am much more comfortable in congregations that provide their beliefs in the form of confessions readable and measurable by Scripture. This shows some credibility and conviction in their research of Scripture, rather than that of a wishy-washy, ambiguous statement of faith (or lack thereof) so as “not to offend”. A lack of true, black-and-white beliefs within a specific church body is like pouring kerosene all over the ground and chain-smoking cigarettes over the puddle: eventually, things are going to get… hot.

It is my conviction that the bible means certain things, and not others. I am frank on a number of them, as well…

• The bible does not promise or hint at a life of material prosperity for Christians. It promises persecution even unto death.
• The bible does not promise or hint at a life of health and happiness for Christians. It promises persecution even unto death.
• The bible does not support a single attribute of God to the detriment of others. God is holy and just as much as He is love.
• Faith (salvation) comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. Specifically, the good news of our sin, our deserved punishment, Christ, His perfection and His atoning sacrifice in His crucifixion.

These are just the start—not a conclusive list in the least, and certainly not prioritized.

I did not come to these conclusions because someone told me. I don’t want to be like someone else and these are their beliefs. I am not a “Calvinist” because I agree with John Calvin. I am not a Puritan because I agree with Jonathan Edwards.

I have read and I have been, by the grace of God through His Holy Spirit, capable of understanding what I read in Scripture. Not because some inner voice audibly tells me what cryptic biblical passages say. Not because I read some celebrity pastor’s commentary or sermon notes or life-application book. Not because I performed some sort of meditation. Not because I gave someone a seed offering. Not because I went to a revival.

I understand Scripture because I study. I read the context of the verse, I read many commentaries (some of different theological perspectives), and I strive to understand what God intended to say, the people to whom he was speaking, and the reason for writing it in such a way. This takes work, time, effort, and—above all else—the Holy Spirit to give me the clarity and desire to know truth.

I do get upset. This is why it appears, at times, that I am bitter. But I assure you I am not. I am sometimes angered and/or saddened by the deceptions that plague our so-called Christianity. They are innumerable, pervasive, and, at times, brilliantly subtle. So if you think I am critical, divisive, and bitter, understand that my conviction is not for popularity or smiles at parties—it is a conviction stubbornly set upon finding truth amongst great and reckless error.

All the while, in myself and in others, I have seen a struggle to question existing convictions, to study with discipline, to believe that something written can and does trump something experienced. I urge myself and I urge all of you: do not give up on truth just because the lie or the experience is easier to believe.

Determine to know the truth—wherever it may lead you.

If some think you’re “bitter” along the way… Use the opportunity and take inventory: for we are all fallible and capable of going into the downward spiral of pietism and self-righteousness. Once you’ve taken inventory, remember that the truth is sometimes difficult. For you, for me, for others… “As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:5).

INTRODUCTION

I had been a Christian for only a year when I decided that the eighteen-year-old girl I was dating, the girl who led me to the Lord, was not demonstrating enough fruit in her Christian life. What I perceived as a lack of zeal for Christ compelled me to break off our relationship. It was difficult, but I believed it had to be done if I was going to grow in the Lord. I needed to be with someone more deeply committed.

As “noble” as this may have sounded, my reasoning for thinking that Kristie was not sufficiently mature was faulty, at best. Kristie was a faithful Christian. She was godly. She attended Church weekly and read God’s word regularly. Her problem was she would not attend youth group, and if I had learned anything in my first year as a Christian, it was that attending youth group was the sine qua non of teenage spiritual maturity.

The youth group sat together at church (when they attended), but not with their parents. This was to demonstrate that they were there on their own initiative (or so it was thought), and not because of their parent’s faith. But Kristie sat with her parents, which could only mean one thing. The youth group met weekly for fellowship, fun and faith. How could you be serious about Christ if you were unwilling to attend such activities? Kristie did not attend and it became painfully obvious that she just did not love Christ enough. I had to sever our relationship.

I was wrong, of course. Youth group is not the sine qua non of teenage spirituality. After twenty years serving as a youth director/pastor, and three as a Senior Pastor, I now realize that this model of ministry has had a devastating effect on the spiritual lives of our covenant teens. Of the hundreds of students who were part of that youth group, many today are no longer even affiliated with a Church, including the youth pastor! However, Kristie is¹. Her faith had been nurtured in the context of the larger body of Christ, and as such, the transition from youth to adulthood was easier.

Tragically, most teenagers in our churches have no contact with their Senior Pastor, elders or extended body of Christ. Many churches even go so far as to have separate activities for teens during the ‘adult’ service. And if this isn’t bad enough, experience tells me that many parents have abrogated their responsibility for Christian nurture. They believe the church is primarily responsible for providing a youth oriented ministry, and often will leave a church if it doesn’t.

In the above scenario, youth ministry serves as a kind of spiritual holding place until our teens graduate into adulthood and are ready for worship. This has been the model of youth ministry that has plagued our churches for years. This model communicates to teens that church is for adults, that the elders and Senior Pastor have no concern for their lives, and that corporate worship is unimportant. It’s not surprising, then, that studies show that “between 64 and 94 percent of Christian teens leave the Church within a few years of graduating high school.”²

As one writer has written,

“Youth groups that follow the fun and foolishness model of ministry have been an outstanding success—if by success you mean creating at least two generations of biblically illiterate, immature, and conscience-free consumers of American pop culture. As for training up disciplined, mature soldiers of Jesus Christ who possess a comprehensive knowledge of the Scriptures, most evangelical youth groups get an F.”³

This paper will propose a more comprehensive model that:

1. is founded upon the Word of God
2. argues that effective pastoral care of teenagers requires that they be viewed as adults.
3. communicates the importance of the church and that the youth are an important part of the whole body of Christ, not just a niche group.
4. makes clear that the most important ‘meeting they will attend’ is Sabbath worship.
5. establishes the teaching of doctrine, together with expository preaching as the foundation to build their faith.
6. requires the active involvement of the Senior Pastor in shepherding them.
7. addresses the specific challenges they will face in college.⁴

THE WORD OF GOD

Before considering the pastoral care of teenswe need to establish the source from which we are given the information necessary to authoritatively make our claims. Such authority is found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.⁵

Thus, “[the] supreme judge by which all … doctrines of men, … are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”⁶

Scripture must be our sole authority. It alone is where God has spoken and provided us with a doctrine of the Church. Much has been written about youth and youth ministry over the years. There are books about counseling teens, discipling teens, parenting teens and organizing youth groups. However, as helpful as some of these writings may be, we must always come back to the Word of God.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the young pastor, Timothy, makes clear the Scriptures’ sufficiency when it comes to determining our direction. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”⁷ The word “teaching” in Greek is διδασκαλία (didaskalia)⁸, which means doctrine. Notice that the passage does not read, “all scripture is … profitable for teaching adults”. Thus, Scripture is sufficient to ‘equip’ us to understand how we are to minister the teens that are part of the covenant community.

As servants of the Master, we do not have the right to invent our own philosophy of youth ministry for the church. We are required to submit to Scripture. How we answer the question, “how do we shepherd teens?”says a lot about our biblical and theological convictions. Either we will promote biblical fidelity and the glory of God, or promote worldly thinking and the exaltation of man.

ADOLESCENT OR ADULT?

One thing that is obvious when reading Scripture is that there is no attention paid to directly addressing teenagers, as teenagers. We find children and we find adults. The closest we get is in the book of Proverbs. There we find a father instructing his son on living wisely in this world (Proverbs 1:8ff). The opening words suggest that we are dealing with a post-pubescent male who is about face the siren call of the wayward women (i.e. Proverbs 5,9). However, even here this “teenager” (verse 12?) is going into the world. He is passing from childhood to adulthood, not childhood to adolescence (as a separate category). As one writer states, “interestingly, the Bible never mentions adolescence; it appears not to have been expected in Old and New Testament times. Hence, it was not a problem then, either.”⁹

The concept of adolescence is not only absent in the Bible, it is absent from most of human history. In his landmark book on adolescence, Dr. Robert Epstein states:

Adolescence is the creation of modern industrialization, which got into high gear in the United States between 1880 and 1920. For most of human history before the Industrial Era, young people worked side by side with adults as soon as they were able, and it was not uncommon for young people, and especially young females, to marry and establish independent households soon after puberty. It wasn’t until the turn of the twentieth century that adolescence was identified as a separate stage of life characterized by “storm and stress.” In what appears to be a vicious cycle of cause and effect, teen turmoil since late 1800’s has generated a large number of unique laws that restrict teen behavior in ways that adult behavior has never been restricted, and these laws in turn appear to have stimulated more extreme forms of “misbehavior” in teens.¹⁰

Research suggests that the rebellion and turmoil we often see among teens (much of which was absent a century ago) is likely “an unintended result of the artificial extension of childhood.”¹¹ Our segregation and compartmentalization of teens from their adult peers, based on age rather than competency, has opened the door to self-destructive behavior, gang culture, or at the very least animosity toward adult figures. As one writer has said,

Teens are not allowed access to challenging jobs, but are relegated to fast-food service. They are forced to sit in infantile youth groups, hearing sermons about teenagers who were ruling nations and being called into culture-shaping ministry.¹²

Epstein demonstrates that “American-style adolescence is an anomaly.” Teen rebellion and turmoil is unknown in over 100 cultures around the world. He suggests that teens will display fewer disturbing characteristics if they are given meaningful responsibility.¹³ The book demonstrates that the biggest culprits to such discrimination against teens are found in government, industry and education.¹⁴

That being said, we also can see that churches are also guilty. Teens are rarely given appropriate leadership or responsibility within the church. It is assumed by many church leaders that they are incapable of handling “adult” doctrine. Thus, as noted above, they are relegated to segregated groupings within the church, alienated from the meat of the Word, often for something less than even milk. The naysayers argue that they will be bored in a normal “adult” worship service, and so they should be entertained in an alternative teen-oriented service. The problem is that this simply is not true, and the result is teens exiting the church in droves.

If parents and pastors tell teenagers they are not mature or intelligent enough to handle sound doctrine is it any wonder that they would find it passé? If our youth are only fed a candy-coated Christianity, why should we be surprised when they succumb to the pressures of secular thinking and leave the church?

If the church continues on this course, teens will continue to embrace what one writer has called “moralistic therapeutic deism”, which is a ‘mutant’ form of Christianity. Moralistic therapeutic deism, Dean writes,

“…makes no pretense at changing lives; it is a low commitment, compartmentalized set of attitudes aimed at “meeting my needs” and “making me happy” rather than bending my life into a pattern of love and obedience to God.”

…American young people are, theoretically, fine with religious faith—but it does not concern them very much, and it is not durable enough to survive long after they graduate from high school. …One more thing, “we’re responsible.”¹⁵

Teens practice moralistic therapeutic deism not “because they misunderstood what we have taught them in church. “They practice it because this is what we have taught them in Church.”¹⁶

But, since the problem is with us, we can make corrections. The Church needs to communicate and embrace the importance of teens in the life of the church. They need to be viewed as adults. We need to expect more from of our teens, and stop “dumbing down”. We need to begin teaching our teens sound doctrine and the significance (and command!) of attending corporate worship (with the whole body). The solution, says Dean, does not lie in “beefing up congregational youth programs or making worship more ‘cool’ and attractive, but in modeling the kind of mature, passionate faith we say we want young people to have.”¹⁷

THE PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CHURCH

Unless we clearly communicate to our youth a biblical theology of the Church and its practices, we will never convince them of its importance. Dean’s study suggests that teens with a deep connection to a faith community are those who stay committed to Christ after leaving high school. If they do not know why the church exists they will never “feel a deep connection.” They will never understand why we do what we do, and will therefore continue to leave. “A shallow and flippant understanding of the divine purposes for the church will lead to pragmatic, carnal, and even sinful approaches to the accomplishment of these ends.”¹⁸ If the purpose is wrong, the practice is likely to be wrong.

Unfortunately, this has been the case when churches have developed philosophies of youth ministry. The world has set the agenda, and all in the name of gaining an audience. One of the first places where the world has infiltrated the church is in the area of youth ministry. Long before there were seeker-sensitive worship services, there were seeker-sensitive youth groups. Although it could be argued that outside of Sabbath worship these ministries may be desirable, they have became the model for churches as a whole.

In 1971, Bill Hybels, youth pastor at Park Ridge’s South Park Church, started a youth group called Son City. Modern music, dramatic skits and multimedia were combined with Bible studies in relevant language helped the group grow from 25 to 1,200 in just three years.

After 300 youth waited in line to be led to Christ in a service in May 1974, Hybels and other leaders began dreaming of forming a new church. They surveyed the community to find out why people weren’t coming to church. Common answers included: “church is boring”, “they’re always asking for money”, or “I don’t like being preached down to.” These answers shaped the group’s approach to the new church.¹⁹

This approach is alien to what Scripture teaches concerning the church. The word “church” comes from the Greek word, ἐκκλησία (ekklesia).²⁰ Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance gives the following definitions:

1 a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.
1a an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating. 1b the assembly of the Israelites… 1d in a Christian sense. 1d1 an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting²¹

As the above definitions demonstrate, at its most basic, the term means assembly. “The term describes God’s people as they come together to stand before him.”²² Packer explains this well:

Essentially, the church is, was, and always will be a single worshiping community, permanently gathered in the true sanctuary which is the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22-24), the place of God’s presence. Here all who are alive in Christ, the physically living with the physically dead (i.e., the church militant with the church triumphant) worship continually. In the world, however, this one church appears in the form of local con- congregations, each one called to fulfill the role of being a microcosm (a small-scale representative sample) of the church as a whole. This explains how it is that for Paul the one church universal is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-26; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:6; 4:4), and so is the local congregation (1 Cor. 12:27).²³

This is why the author of Hebrews warns us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25). When we assemble in our local churches, we are standing in the presence of the Lord. We are gathered with all believers past and present, in both old and new covenant. We are getting a taste of heaven on earth!

THE CENTRALITY OF WORSHIP

Therefore, the Church’s first priority, its main purpose, is gathered worship. Jesus says the Father is searching for worshippers (John 4:23) and so the church is to prioritize worship. That is why Paul calls the church “those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:2), and why Peter writes that the we are people for God’s own possession, that we may “show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).

The Church is not a club, where people can come and go as they see fit. It is where Christ the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-14), the Church’s Head (Eph. 5:23), gathers His sheep into one flock (John 10:15-16). It is His Bride (Eph. 4:25-27; Rev. 21:1-2) and His Body (Col. 1:18; Eph. 4:12), that is built upon the profession of His Gospel (Matthew 16). It is the gathering place of true worshipers (Phil. 3:3).

Exalting God in worship is the highest calling of the church because it gives expression to man’s ultimate purpose, which is to worship God and enjoy Him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism question & answer 1). Thus the essential end of the church is always the worship of God.

Of course, everything we do is to be an act of worship to God (Romans 12:1). However this does not diminish the importance of corporate worship. The church is a redeemed community of sinners set apart to worship God in Christ, by the Spirit. This is the reason we gather each week: to worship God through praying, singing, confessing, giving, partaking of the sacraments, and the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word of God.

The question that remains is whether our teens should be included in such assemblies? The answer is an emphatic yes! In Ezra 10:1 we read,

While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly.

More than this, as we have seen, the Jews in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as cultures throughout history, have had no separate category between children and adult. Teens were considered adults and as such, would have been found in worship as adults. No one denies that this was the common practice throughout church history. A teen’s chief end is no different then an elderly persons chief end; we all exist to worship God.

THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH

A faithful church must strive to be biblical, not only in its purpose, but also in its practice. Given the above discussion, it should be obvious that everything a church does must be aimed at making Christian men and women worshippers of the one true God. This is why Sunday Morning Worship service is so central. It is the Lord’s Sabbath Day, which He has ordained to be set apart and holy (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:8-11).

However, there is more. In Acts 2, we are given a glimpse of the practice of the early church.

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:42-47).

“Obviously”, says James Boice, “this description [of the early church] is intended as an example for us and our assemblies.”²⁴ The ministry priorities and practices of that early church body are the same ministry priorities and practices today’s church must have if they are going to be faithful to God and His Word: teaching (v. 42), fellowship (v. 42), Lord’s supper²⁵ (v. 42), prayer (v. 42), deeds of love and mercy (vv. 44-45), worship (vv. 46-47), and evangelism and disciple making (v. 47). These are the practices God has given to His Church in order to fulfill her purpose. Thus, it is these practices our teens must be involved in and exposed to if we expect them to be thoroughly integrated into the body of Christ.

It is worth noting that there is nothing in Scripture that says anything about a separate “program” for teens. There may be a role for specific teaching related to their station in life (as we do for parents, for example), but this teaching must also include participation in the whole body, with these practices as central. The goal is one complete body in Christ, not several dissected bodies. This is the vision of the church that must be clearly articulated by the senior pastor, especially to teenagers.

THE SENIOR PASTOR’S ROLE

This leads us, then, to our discussion of the Pastor. What is the Pastor’s role in the lives of teens? Given the purpose and the practice of the Church, how should the Pastor devote his time? In Acts 6:2-4, the apostles are confronted with the needs of the widows in the Church and yet not wanting to be distracted by secondary matters we read:

“And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

This verse is very instructive concerning the role of the minister. He is primarily a man of prayer, a preacher and a pastor. Preaching, pastoring, and praying are his top three priorities. These three roles can be summarized under the title, “shepherd.”

The image of shepherd is primarily a metaphor of God’s care for His sheep (i.e., His Church). Beginning in Genesis 48, Jacob describes the Lord as “the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day” (Genesis 48:15). David writes in his famous 23^rd Psalm that “the LORD is my shepherd.” In the New Testament, Jesus, who is God in the flesh, says, “I am the good shepherd. . .” (John 10:14-16). We are saturated with the image of God as shepherd. “The Biblical imagery of the Lord as shepherd of his people is plentiful and rich throughout the Bible.”²⁶ Thus, it is no surprise that God uses shepherding imagery to describe those called to “exercise oversight” of His flock.

This was true of both Moses and David, the preeminent leaders of God’s people in the Old Covenant.²⁷ Psalm 77 and 78; Isaiah 63; 2 Samuel 5 and 7, are just a few references revealing this fact. Moses and David went from shepherds of literal sheep to shepherding the people of God.

In the New Covenant this imagery continues for those who are called upon to shepherd the people of God. 1 Peter 5:1-3 says,

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.”

In Presbyterian parlance, Elders are categorized as either teaching or ruling elders, with the teaching elder being the ordained Pastor. Pastors are “under-shepherds” of God’s flock and the pastor is under obligation to fulfill what that image conveys. Like the Great Shepherd Jesus, pastors must know their sheep, feed their sheep, lead their sheep, be an example to their sheep, protect their sheep, and if necessary, be willing to die for their sheep. This is the great calling of the church’s pastor. Anything less, is a derelict of duty.

This single-minded concern for the sheep is painstakingly explained by Martin Bucer. Bucer, the sixteenth-century reformer, provides a handbook on pastoral theology in his book, Concerning the True Care of Souls. Bucer explains that the “sheep” in our flock are usually in one of five categories: lost (unconverted), straying (backsliding), inwardly injured, weak in faith, or healthy. Do not these five categories describe the youth in our churches? Because there is such a variety of cases, it is inevitable that pastoral ministry to youth must be extensive. Ministers must be diligent in their care for individual sheep, being particularly sensitive to which of the five categories they fall in.

[The] faithfulness, seriousness and diligence with which the Lord desires his lambs to be sought, must be thoroughly taken to heart and faithfully considered. He desires that they be sought with such seriousness and diligence that one should be ready to be all things to all men as dear Paul was [1 Cor. 9:22], and even hazard one’s own life, as the Lord himself did, so that the lost lambs might be found and won”²⁸

The words of James are very apt in this regard: “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20). Our youth are wandering from the truth in record numbers, and it is our job as ministers to “bring them back.”

PREACHING TO PREPARE OUR YOUTH FOR COLLEGE AND BEYOND

Acts 2 and 6, quoted above, as well as many other passages, make it clear that the preaching and teaching of the Word of God is the primary practice of the Church and therefore is the primary calling of the Shepherd of God’s flock. As William Still states, “the pastor, being the shepherd of the flock, feeds the flock upon God’s Word; the bulk of pastoral work is therefore through the ministry of the Word.”²⁹ Having established that youth must be viewed as adults means that to shepherd them, teens must come under the hearing of God’s Word.

This was the Apostle Paul’s understanding as well. He charges his young protégé, Timothy to:

preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. ³⁰

The Apostle Paul is coming to the end of his life, and most scholars agree that 2 Timothy is his last book. Thus, “Paul wants to express himself with the utmost solemnity. The charge is connected with three facts—the reality of the judgment of Christ, the certainty of his return and the establishment of his kingdom.”³¹ It is in light of these serious realties, that we read Paul’s final directive, “preach the word.”

The word, “preach” is the Greek verb, κηρύσσω. It means “to publicly announce religious truths and principles while urging acceptance and compliance—‘to preach.’³² It is used twice in the letters of Timothy and describes the communication of the gospel. “The referent of κηρύσσω is essentially similar to that of εύαγγελίζω [to bring good news], for both expressions may refer to the content of the gospel.”³³ Thus, it is the Pastor’s primary job to preach the gospel (the Word) to both those inside and outside the church. The preaching of the Word edifies and equips the saints, as well as evangelizes the lost.

Thus edifying and evangelistic preaching was to be Timothy’s top priority. “Ministering the Word was not something Timothy was to do after he had done other things; it was to be the most important thing he did.”³⁴ For the true shepherd, the word of God shapes his life, his practice and his preaching.

Huldrych Zwingli is correct when he writes, “It is his [the Shepherd’s] duty to stand firmly with the Word of God—even if the whole world stand against him… One should rather suffer death before one acts against the word of God.”³⁵ Safety and comfort must be put aside for the sake of the sheep. The real needs of our youth must be addressed. Churches do not exist for the Pastor’s benefit or for the Pastor’s livelihood. They exist rather for the good of the people.³⁶ To be counted worthy of such a title as that of shepherd one must follow their Savior, who gave His life for the sheep (John 10:12).

Therefore, a Pastor must be willing to forsake anything that stands in the way of fulfilling this high calling of being a herald of the good news. He must not be “led astray from the advancement of divine work by the distress of father and mother nor by child, wife, sister, brother or friend.”³⁷ Despite the pressure from teens (and often their parents), the Pastor must lovingly stand his ground.

Many today … wrongly assume that a pastor is primarily a chief executive officer, whose first priority is vision-casting, strategy-crafting, and image-shaping. But this emphasis dramatically opposes Paul’s instruction in the Pastoral Epistles in which he emphatically stated that, more than anything else, pastors are to be preachers. Such a priority remains by divine mandate to this present hour.³⁸

Fun and foolishness may gain the pastor acceptance and popularity among the youth, but popularity at the expense of fidelity to the Word is a sign of a weak shepherd. Such a person does not deserve the title. This surely serves as a warning to those considering the pastoral ministry (youth pastors included), as well as to those who are already seasoned pastors. The temptation to stray into peripheral matters is always present. Preaching is not easy. “The pulpit calls those anointed to it like the sea calls its sailor, and like the sea, it batters and bruises and does not rest… To preach, to really preach, is to die naked a little at a time, and to know each time you do it that you must do it again.”³⁹

Feeding the sheep through the Word of God (especially through the preaching of the Word) is the main function of the pastor, but this cannot be done in a vacuum. As mentioned above, a faithful shepherd must also pray and pastor. A shepherd who faithfully disciples the teens in his congregation, taking time to know them and pray for them by name, to love them and care for them, and even willing to die for them, will likely cultivate in them a desire for the Word of God to penetrate their hearts.

On the other hand, if these virtues of shepherding are absent, the pastor’s teaching and preaching is likely to fall on deaf ears. He will be seen as an outsider looking in, unconcerned with anything but being known as a “polished” preacher. Ask many teens, and this will be their assessment.

Therefore, in our desire to recognize that teens are adults, we do not want to ignore the world we live in. While it may be biblically and historically true that adolescence is a modern phenomenon, it is also true that our teenagers are at a crossroads and they need our special attention.

Middle and High School are difficult years. For many of our teens, graduating and going off to college is a rite of passage. Are they prepared spiritually and intellectually for the onslaught of secular teaching they will encounter when they arrive? The statistics of “church dropout” indicates that many are not.

Recently, a teen wrote his youth pastor, after two years of being at college, reported that he had left the faith because “it was not intellectually sustainable.” His professors ruthlessly attacked his beliefs, and the years of a fun and foolishness oriented youth ministry did not adequately prepare him. He never had time to express his doubts about his faith because there was never an opportunity to do it. He didn’t know his senior pastor well enough (even though he was a covenant child raised in the church) to turn to him. Honest intellectual questions were never taken seriously, because our current model of youth ministry doesn’t have a place for being serious!

It is true that there are spiritual realities at play here that transcend all these above issues.⁴⁰ Nonetheless, it’s not hard to recognize that the lack of appropriate venues for a covenant teen to discuss and debate difficult faith questions (with his pastor) in his “formative” years will leave him vulnerable to secular thinking.

A shepherd who does not know the teens in his church, who is unwilling to lay down his life for them, who is disengaged and apathetic toward them, who fails to pray for them, will more often than not find teenagers unwilling to lay down their lives in response to his sermons. They will be disengaged and apathetic toward the preaching. The sermon will speak in generalities, and never to the their needs. Truth may be present, but it will have no teeth and eventually, the shepherd may find that his covenant youth are unwilling to return to Church once they turn 18.

A faithful (and dare I say, a successful) pastor will never bring the Word of God to bear on the lives of his people in isolation. He will “eagerly” and “willingly” spend the time necessary to know, lead, love, care for and protect his younger sheep. He will do this with joy, “not under compulsion”, knowing that God in Christ did this for him.

Teen sheep are not easy to herd, and if a shepherd’s only oversight is 45 minutes on a Sunday morning, it can quickly become an impossible task. A Senior Pastor cannot leave the care of teenagers in the hands of a youth director. He must see his role as that of a father, who not only instructs his youth but also seeks their well being. This was the Apostle Paul’s heart: “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”⁴¹ How many of our youth would describe their Senior Pastor’s as having ‘fatherly disposition’ toward them? In a day when many shepherds have ‘empire building’ rather than raising families as their model, this serves as a solemn reminder. We need to lead by word and example. The teens are not only listening, they are watching!

FOOTNOTES

1. I realize there are examples of students who grew up in youth group, maybe who had parents that didn’t attend church, and are now faithfully walking with the Lord. I also know Kristie is still walking with the Lord because she is now my wife.
2. Focus on the Family http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/godless-in-chicago/desperate%20report.pdf, July 8, 2009
3. Ingrid Schlueter, Time to Dump Youth Ministries in Churches? http://www.crosstalkblog.com/2009/12/time-to-dump-youth-ministry-in-churches/
4. The focus of this paper is on the role of the ‘church’ and the senior pastor, thus I do not address parents. This is not to say that parents, particularly fathers don’t have a central role in the raising of their young adults within their households. Fathers must instill in their teenagers the very truths presented in this paper if they expect their child to continue in the faith once they go off to college.
5. Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I:VI http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
6. ibid. Chapter I:10
7. All scripture is taken from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 2 Ti 3:16-17.
8. James. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLG 1436.
9. Steve J. Hayhow, The Myth of Adolescence http://homepage.ntlworld.com/haylett/fm/fm08_adolesc.html 1997.
10. Robert Epstein, Teen 2.0: Saving our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence (Quill Driver Books/ Linden Publishing. Fresno, California, 2007), 23
11. ibid. 3.
12. Hayden Bulter, Teenagers Don’t Exist. Evangelical Outpost http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2010/09/teenagers-dont-exist.html. 2010 italics added.
13. Epstein, Adolescence Abroad, Chapter 3.
14. Ibid. 272ff. Discussed throughout the book.
15. Kenda Creasy Dean. Almost Christian: What the Faith of our Teenagers is Telling the American Church. Kindle Edition (Oxford: University Press, 2010)
16. ibid.
17. ibid.
18. MacArthur, J., F., Jr, Mayhue, R., & Thomas, R., L. (1995). Rediscovering pastoral ministry: Shaping contemporary ministry with biblical mandates (Electronic ed.). Logos Library Systems (66). Dallas: Word Pub. Use of this book is found throughout this paper.
19. Wikepedia Entry, Bill Hybels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hybels#cite_note-4. Citations for information are given on the webpage.
20. James. Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G1577.
21. Strong, ibid
22. Edmund Clowney, Living in Christ’s Church, (Great Commission Publications Suwannee, GA 2000), 8. Much of the material in this section follows Clowney’s text.
23. Packer ibid.
24. James Boice, Acts (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), 55.
25. This is not the place to argue if this is referring to simply a common meal or the Lord’s Supper. I happen to believe both are included in verse 42 and 46.
26. Timothy Z. Witmer, The Shepherd Leader: Achieving Effective Shepherding in Your Church, (P&R Publishing Phillipsburg, NJ: 2010), 11.
27. Ibid 14
28. Martin Bucer, Concerning the True Care of Souls, (The Banner of Truth Trust Caarlisle, PA: 2009), 78.
29. William Still, The Work of the Pastor (Rutherford House, Edinburgh Scotland 2001), vii
30. 2 Ti 4:2–4.
31. D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 2 Ti 4:1–5.
32. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996), 416.
33. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible societies, 1996).
34. Warren Wiersbe
35. H. Wayne Pipkin, Huldrych Zwingli Writings Vol. 2, In Search of True Religion: Reformation, Pastoral and Eucharistic Writings, Trans. (Picwick Publications, Allison Park, PA 1984), 98,100.
36. Derek Prime, Alistair Begg, On Being a Pastor: Understanding our Calling and Work (Moody Press, , Chicago, IL, 2004
37. H. Wayne Pipkin, 87.
38. Steve Lawson, Famine in the Land: A Passionate Call for Expository Preaching, (Moody Press, Chicago, IL 2003) 110.
39. Bruce Thielemann as quoted in Lawson, 120.
40. It is true that his youth pastor would have made time for him if he asked, and it is also true (in my opinion) that his immoral lifestyle made his faith intellectually unsustainable more than his professor. It is also the case that circus model’s of youth ministry tend to mix the sheep with the goats much more than the model being proposed in this paper. It is easy for an unbelieving teen to feel comfortable in and go ‘spiritually’ unnoticed in such a youth group. If they are not regularly confronted with the truth all youth group does is make the world a more fun and easier place to go to hell in.
41. The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.(Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 4:15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Begg, Alistair, Derek Prime. On Being a Pastor: Understanding our Calling and Work. Chicago: Moody Press, 2004.
• Boice, James, Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999
• Bucer, Martin. Concerning the True Care of Souls. Caarlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009.
• Butler, Hayden. Teenagers Don’t Exist. Evangelical Outpost. http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2010/09/teenagers-dont-exist.html. November 2010.
• Carson, D.A. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
• Clowney Edmund. Living in Christ’s Church. Suwannee, GA: Great Commission Publications 2000.
• Dean, Kenda Creasy. Almost Christian: What the Faith of our Teenagers is Telling the American Church: Kindle Edition. Oxford: University Press, 2010.
• Due, Noel. Created for Worship: From Genesis to Revelation to You. Christian Focus Publications,. Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, Ltd, 2009.
• Epstein, Robert. Teen 2.0: Saving our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence. Fresno, CA: Quill Driver Books / Linden Publishing 2007.
• Focus on the Family. New Advisory http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/godless-in-chicago/desperate%20report.pdf, July 8, 2009.
• Hayhow, Steve J. The Myth of Adolescence http://homepage.ntlworld.com/haylett/fm/fm08_adolesc.html 1997.
• The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society, 2001.
• Lawson, Steven. Famine in the Land: A Passionate Call for Expository Preaching. Chicago: Moody Press, 2003.
• Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York: United Bible societies, 1996.
• MacArthur, J., F., Jr, Mayhue, R., & Thomas, R., L. (1995). Rediscovering pastoral ministry : Shaping Contemporary ministry with biblical mandate (Electronic ed.). Logos Library Systems (14). Dallas: Word Pub.
• Packer, J.I. Concise Theology, http://www.monergism.com/The%20Church%20by%20J.I.%20Packer.html. April 2010.
• Pipkin, H. Wayne. Huldrych Zwingli Writings Vol. 2, In Search of True Religion: Reformation, Pastoral and Eucharistic Writings, Trans. Allison Park, PA: Picwick Publications, 1984.
• Schlueter, Ingrid. Time to Dump Youth Ministries in Churches? http://www.crosstalkblog.com/2009/12/time-to-dump-youth-ministry-in-churches/. November 2010.
• Still, William. The Work of the Pastor. Edinburgh, Scotland: Rutherford House, 2001.
• Stott, John. The Message of Acts: To the Ends of the Earth. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1990.
• Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, electronic ed.: Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996.
• Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc 1997..
• Westminster Confession of Faith. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.
• Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Bill Hybels, Retrieved November 5, 2010, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hybels#cite_note-4
• Witmer, Timothy Z. The Shepherd Leader: Achieving Effective Shepherding in Your Church, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010.

I like to think of the modern church versions as “hand-me-downs”, since they don’t always perfectly match the below heresies, but are sometimes mutations of them , “lite” versions of them, or disguised versions of them.

I’ve also tried to show, in each of the below definitions, why they are heresies. Again: my refutations do not compare to the treatises or volumes written by scholars, but I also don’t want to seem like I just think that anything that isn’t my “preferred cup o’ tea” type of Christianity is automatically labeled “heresy”. The below list contains heresies that are fundamentally wrong compared to Scripture, and can have a dangerous effect on their followers—even creating false hopes (acceptance of no salvation at all) or disillusionment (rejection of any salvation).

Please feel free to comment with any important additions or corrections!

1. Word Faith – the belief that faith is a literal but intangible “substance” that can be manipulated by God and by His followers to make the needs and wants of the speaker materialize miraculously or by providence. This is based on a misinterpretation that faith is a literal “substance”, and not Scriptural.
2. Positive Confession – the belief that positively speaking about or to something will cause it to change for the better and that, conversely, negatively speaking about or to something will cause it to change for the worse. This is not contextually in Scripture.
3. Ecstatic Tongues, Laughing, Vomiting, etc. – chaotic and disorderly conduct performed in the name of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, typically produced in a group dynamic and causing ecstatic experiences for the performers and/or the on-lookers which is, in reality, subconsciously, consciously, or demonically performed, since it never occurs in Scripture and is contrary to New Testament, orderly worship.
4. Ecstatic Worship Music – music that is said to *be* worship or to *produce* worship in a group of people by emotionally manipulating the group of people into a state of ecstasy. This is worship of self and of emotions, and not of God.
5. Subsequent Baptism of the Holy Spirit – the belief that there is, after the initial indwelling of the Holy Spirit (regenerating and converting), another indwelling—or filling—of the Holy Spirit that must be sought, either once or multiple times over. It is sometimes linked to ecstatic tongues/laughing/vomiting, or sometimes linked to the delivery of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is no contextually, normative subsequence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
6. Esoteric Knowledge (Gnosticism) – the belief that secret, previously undisclosed information is available in Scripture (or some other form of communication). This violates the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture, where the Gospel is clearly stated over and over for even the most humble of readers to understand.
7. Christ as a Man Only – the belief that Christ put aside His deity to show us what we can become as men with the aid of the Holy Spirit. This is a slippery slope, as it begins to elevate man to the level of Christ, which is blasphemous.
8. Spark of the Divine – the belief that God is in every person and that we all have the same potential within us. As harmless as this may sound, it is false, and typically leads to the denial of original sin, the elevation of man to God, and/or the demotion of God to equal with man.
9. Works Righteousness – the belief that our good works and deeds have an impact on our salvation, or that good works somehow make us more righteous. Scripture is clear that works have no bearing on justification (salvation), nor are they a path to sanctification. Rather, they are *evidence* of faith, not prerequisites to faith.
10. Pietism – the belief that more than one tier of Christianity exists, and that, typically, the advocate of a type of pietism believes he or she has reached the upper-tier through some sort of divine, personal revelation or other esoteric knowledge. Scripture is clear that we are all equal in justification, and that we all grow spiritually according to the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Though some may still be young in faith while others more mature, they are not more or less valuable than another to God.
11. Prosperity Gospel – the belief that Christ’s atoning sacrifice guarantees some sort of material gain, whether it is financial (wealth), relational (fame), physical (health), or otherwise. The only “prosperity” guaranteed in the atoning sacrifice of Christ is that of spiritual prosperity.
12. Social Gospel – the belief that the gospel is best acted out through political activism, charity, and helping of those less fortunate within the community-at-large. Though the bible commands for the church to care for the community of believers in a similar manner, it is not a replacement for the Great Commission, in which we must preach the good news of Christ and Him crucified.
13. Universalism – the belief that all of mankind, through some means, will be reconciled to God in eternity. Scripture is clear that only some will be saved and all others will suffer eternally in Hell.
14. Hyper-Calvinism – an overzealous belief in the sovereignty of God, causing its followers to abrogate evangelism entirely, whereas Scripture clearly commands that we preach the Gospel and make disciples.
15. Little Gods – the belief that, because God made man “in His image” that man is able, upon salvation, to perform the miraculous as God does. Scripture makes a clear distinction between man and God, and also makes a clear distinction between Creator (God, the potter) and creation (man, the clay). At no time are we equal to God in any way.
16. Seed Offerings – the belief that giving a specific amount to a Christian pastor or ministry will result in an investment return on that offering of drastically larger sums. This is typically used within the concept of the giving of money, but has also found its home in the giving of time and talent. Scripture does not explicitly guarantee reciprocation of an investment materially, nor is the concept of a seed offering and its return in material gain found anywhere in Scripture.
17. Sabellianism, Oneness or Oneness Pentecostalism, Jesus-Only, Modalism – the belief that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are only manifestations (or modes) of God. Specifically, that Jesus is the penultimate manifestation of God, and that the doctrine of the trinity is blasphemous since Sabellianists believe that it suggests three gods—not one God. Some followers also baptize in “Jesus’ name” because they believe that it is the replacement for the moniker of “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. The trinity, as a doctrine, however, has been proven time and time again throughout orthodox Christian history, and key scriptures which clearly describe God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in multiple persons and (at times) in the same passage in conversation, must have an odd hermeneutic applied in order to fit the Sabellian position.
18. Judaism – the creation of strict rules, based on Old Testament law, that followers are required to follow to maintain a lifestyle worthy of maintaining salvation (see Works Righteousness). In Scripture, Christ specifically addressed the law, and noted that He came to fulfill it. Judaizers are also addressed many times in the New Testament epistles as ones who would “pervert the gospel”.
19. Antinomianism – the belief that, because of the grace of God, we are completely free from and can abolish the law (e.g., the Ten Commandments). Most antinomians believe that the Holy Spirit will convict of sin when sin is present, and abrogate the moral law entirely to place their trust in the Holy Spirit alone to illuminate them to their errors. Scripture is clear, in that Christ came NOT to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it. Christ Himself also put more stringent requirements on Christians in order to show them that we are always incapable of fulfilling the law ourselves, but that we must repent and aspire to live a life as slaves to Christ rather than to sin.
20. Authoritarianism – the belief that pastors and leaders of the church have a spiritual authority that is more akin to a theocracy or to Moses and the prophets rather than to the description of the elder or overseer in Scripture. They will demand that no one question them, that blind obedience is given, and that anyone who is outside of their authority is outside the “spiritual covering” of God.
21. Dominionism – the belief that the initial command in the Garden of Eden, for man to take “dominion” over the Earth, still stands today. Its followers believe that Christians should overtake the secular world in all verticals (education, government, entertainment, etc.), and that, by doing so, Christians can instigate the millennial reign of Christ. This belief contradicts clear Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that conditions for Christians will become much worse before the return of Christ.
22. New Apostolic Reformation – the followers of NAR believe that the offices of apostle and prophet are still in operation today, and that they are still operating in the miraculous. Apostles have authority over multiple churches, or whole regions/verticals of churches, and prophets are capable of speaking new revelation—with divine authority—for God. Scripture is clear that the qualifications of an Apostle are the direct, earthly assignment of that office by Christ himself, and that the Apostle was a witness to the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ. No one after 33 AD qualifies for this office for obvious reasons. Additionally, prophets with that level of authority, if they were ever wrong, were killed. Since no alleged modern prophet can claim infallibility, they conveniently omit this rule (as does the law of this country) and continue to practice without objection from most of the modern church.

See, for my eyes (which have seen much darker days within the walls of a church-turned-cult), these advertisements are covered in venom and filth. Perhaps harsh metaphors, but metaphors I consider to be nonetheless incredibly soft in comparison to their real-life consequences.

“They are innocent attempts to attract the seekers,” one might say. But I am not fooled. For one, I am not a seeker. I am a believer (and, in truth, the only type of person capable of “seeking”, as it were). These vile signs do not attract me at all—quite the opposite. They bespeak to me the true intent of the clubs they represent: intent to gain. The object of that gain is of little importance to me, because any and all gain, no matter how innocently the subject might present it—no matter what fancy words and gimmicks might be used to coat said rusting, collapsing structure with layers of paint—the truth remains: the gain is not for God, but for man. This—beyond all others—is the blasphemy that has poisoned our churches.

“Mr. Rue, surely you judge too harshly! The gain can be lives for God, can it not?” But for all of their marketing, for all of their gimmickry, for all of the iPads, cars, televisions, game-day tickets, cruises, and cracker-jack box toys, the pure unadulterated Gospel pays the price. It is too much of a letdown for the prize-seeker to know that the very material greed with which he is drawn to the place of worship is the very sin he must abrogate if he is to truly take up his cross (Mark 8:34-38; Luke 18:22).

Do not mistake my meaning! I do not believe that one must be spotless to receive the free gift of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9)—for that would make such a thing not a gift but a wage! But the Gospel cannot and will not be understood if the idea of sin, death, and Hell is not stated plainly (Romans 8:1-2). Alas, the one who comes for the latest yuppie toy is less likely to come if rumors abound of a Gospel-teaching church; he will simply move on to the next gimmickry (Ecclesiastes 5:10).

It is like the timeshare whose price is a ten hour sales pitch: the more studious the yuppie, the less he desires to waste good jet-ski time confined to a room with an over zealous Zig Ziglar: he’ll just move on to the next timeshare with a 1-hour sales pitch, instead. Such is the way of churches. More attractive effort is enlisted to compete with other attractive effort, one church to the next.

For what unrepentant sinner seeks God? None! (Romans 3:10-11)

And so, the Gospel pays the price. Sin, death and Hell are removed from this new edition of salvation, and “a good life”, “prosperity in all things”, and other such out-of-context Gospel-wannabes are inserted so as to make the procurement of the fad toy a less painful experience. After all, it may mean a returning customer! And what is the purpose of this new club? Ah yes: it is to revel in its size—its false conversions, whose celebrity pastor will entertain and usher them directly to hell on a yacht with hors d’oeuvres, flat screens, a band that rivals (and covers) U2, dinner, and a show. Next stop? The Lake of Fire.

This, my friends, is why I ask we all find churches that teach sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:1-5, Titus 1:9, Titus 2:1), that contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 1:3) against the temptation of the world, that fight against the secular, subjective emotionalism that creeps in unaware (Jude 1:4) to so many other churches and turns them into revolving doors to the world (Romans 16:17-18) instead of institutions of study, honor and reverence toward the Word and work of God.

Sadly, my concern is not shared by many other Christians. This disturbs me because I wonder what must be so important as to hand over the impressionable minds of their own children to Satan without so much as a glance at the content of a youth group’s message.

Perhaps it is a bowl of soup (Genesis 25:29-34)? Or, in this case, flat screens and entertaining, humorous, meaningless speech about leadership and self esteem? This is the modern bowl of soup, and these Christians are at risk of becoming modern Esaus!

God was not fond of Esau (Romans 9:10-13).

“Mr. Rue, you have done it again: you have judged others! Can we not just all get along?”

For me and my house: no. Surely, I cannot and will not measure the certainty of salvation of others—it is neither in my place nor power to do so. However, it is my call to examine myself and my own—to search for those true marks of Christianity as related by Jesus (John 13:34) and the Apostles (1 John, 2 John, 3 John)—and to ask the hard questions of myself (as their teacher) and my church (as my teacher).

I would encourage you in this: you are alive and breathing and reading this. At the very least, feeling judged or not, you can look at your own life, the life of your spouse and children, and the teaching of your church, and see how it compares with Scripture (1 John 4). If a change is imminent, I pray you have the wisdom (James 1:5) to see so and the courage to act so (Colossians 1:9-10).

No man will ever voluntarily neglect to make himself acquainted with the contents of a message sent to him by one whom he acknowledges as his superior, or on whom he feels himself to be dependent. Let a subject receive a communication from his acknowledged sovereign, and as it claims, so it will receive his immediate attention. Nor will he, especially if it contains various and important instructions, think a hasty perusal of it sufficient. No, he will study it till he feels confident that he is acquainted with its contents, and understands their import. At least equally certain, and equally evident is it, that every man whose heart acknowledges God to be his rightful Sovereign, and who believes that the Scriptures contain a revelation from him, will study them attentively, study them till he feels confident that he understands their contents, and that they have made him wise unto salvation. The man who does not thus study them, who negligently suffers them to lie, for days and weeks, unopened, says, more explicitly than any words can say, I am Lord; God is not my Sovereign; I am not his subject, nor do I consider it important to know what he requires of me. Carry his messages to those who are subject to him, and they will, perhaps, pay them some attention.

-Edward Payson (1783-1827), The Works of Edward Payson, vol. 1

HT: Joel Taylor

Unfortunately, I’ve also heard numerous Scriptures used completely incorrectly. First, let me answer some questions, because as I began to study even a little bit, I started to have a lot of questions about this sort of thing, and I think it’s only fair to share my conclusions. Hopefully they make some sense.

• Can Scripture be understood incorrectly? YES. Scripture was written long ago, which means there is a significant gap to overcome simply in the time that has elapsed and the way in which cultures have changed. Scripture was also written using different literary styles (poetry, history, prophecy, etc.). It was written to a different people group than that to which most of us can claim to belong. All of these factors greatly impact what we can take away from Scripture. God had very specific intentions and meanings in the crafting of His word, and it is not something that we should presume to take lightly and with various, cavalier interpretations.
• With Scripture being so old and to someone else, doesn’t that mean it’s irrelevant or meaningless? Absolutely not. God’s Word is a timeless and the sole authority on His character, His attributes, and His communication to His people.
• Can Scripture be applied in numerous ways? Yes. Though only one interpretation is really meant (God did not write with the purpose of creating ambiguous, opposite meanings or riddles), the application of Scripture can many times be varied—but it still requires thought and study, and can still be applied incorrectly. We’ll look at this in a moment.

My hope is that the above questions provide a basis for the following rebukes aimed at the abusers of common Scriptures. I don’t think that I have the corner on perfect biblical interpretation. HOWEVER, I prefer to follow a simple set of rules when I’m reading: a) what is the context of this verse? b) who is the intended audience? c) how does this interpretation compare with the whole of Scripture? … And “c” is one of those questions I have to *keep asking* because Scripture *must agree* with Scripture. God cannot lie—therefore, if I truly believe He is the God I say He must be, the interpretation must be faulty before the Scripture itself is contradictory. Once we start allowing misinterpretations that contradict obvious, simpler Scriptures to cloud our understanding, we will begin to fall into the age-old trap that Satan set as early as the Garden of Eden: “Surely God didn’t say THAT, did He?”

Okay, on to the most abused Scriptures… I’ll use the translations MOST OFTEN quoted, because, as you’ll hopefully see, the specific translation used sometimes lends a tiny bit of credibility to the misinterpretation. As an aside, I prefer the ESV for general reading and I use Logos (a bible study software with many translations) to study. I am in no way saying that there are *bad* translations of the bible—merely that if we limit ourselves to studying one, it may be more difficult to see a poor interpretation. Obviously, if we were all fluent in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we could just use original manuscripts, which would eliminate many problems, but it’s just not in the cards (sorry for the mysticism metaphor).

The following studies will be shortened, as much more can be read and understood, but the purpose of this post is simply to dispel the incorrect conclusions. I’ve split the batches of misused Scriptures into the following abuse categories, each of which is clickable to take you to that summary: Promise of Wealth or “Your Best Life Now”; Freedom from Health and Disease; Mandatory, and Blind Submission to Authority. I’ll add more as I study, but this is a good start. And it’s late.

Jeremiah 29:11, NIV – “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”

I’ve heard this in youth groups. I’ve heard it in larger church services. I’ve even seen it immortalized in stencil on large banners or signs in church foyers and sanctuaries. Most folks have good intentions: they want this verse to be normative for everyone who is a Christian. Unfortunately, therein begins the faulty interpretation. It’s not normative at all. It’s a promise to the exiles in Babylon, not to Christians for all time. What’s the big deal? Well, this doesn’t jive with the history of the Apostles. Men anointed to set the foundation of Christianity, in almost all cases, were martyred. So much for not harming them! And don’t let anyone tell you that “God wants you to be rich” using this verse—at least five other translations render the words “plans to prosper you” as “plans for welfare” or “plans for good”. “Prosperity”, in the sense used here, was about welfare, not money.

Read the book of Jeremiah if you want to fully understand the context—there is no way that—after reading the entire book—you would believe this was normative for Christians today. If so, we would deserve all the curses God brought against the same group of people in their disobedience, and none of the folks who plastered this verse on their banners would want that!

John 10:10, ESV – “…I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

This verse is in the context of Christ comparing himself to false teachers who have come before him. He likens himself to a shepherd and his people to sheep, and shows that thieves come to steal His sheep and kill them, but He is there to lead them to pastures that will be fuller and greater than they can imagine. This verse is also—in its larger context—a dissertation on temporal and eternal life, where temporal life that we have without Christ will be dull and unfulfilling in comparison to the temporal life that we can have under His guidance: a life where we aspire to greater spiritual goals and, eventually, to an eternal life of perfection. As one article put it:

In summary, John 10:10 should not be used as though it gives some promise of an improved physical life for the Christian. Such a view, in light of the context, is shallow, and it overlooks the profound truth of the passage. The passage promises superior, superabundant spiritual life, life empowered by the indwelling of Jesus Christ. Because Christians “have” Jesus Christ, because he lives within them, they have the riches of the superabundant life. This is what Paul meant when he said he counted all things loss, that he might win Christ. John 10:10 promises a spiritual dimension to life, not physical abundance. A focus on the physical trivializes the profound depth of John 10:10. (online source)

3 John 2, NASV – “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”

I watched a video of Gloria Copeland using this verse to support the idea that we should be materially wealthy and that we should constantly be in good health. This is a travesty, because, even out of context, it’s hard to believe that sort of a silly interpretation. Nonetheless, in its context, this verse is part of a salutation to a brother named Gaius from his elder (John). In several other translations, it simply states “may go well with you” instead of “prosper”, which takes away the monetary connotation.

I don’t know that I need to explain this one, but to be clear, we know that, throughout the New Testament, as the Apostles were carrying out their calling, that they suffered from sickness (or even “a thorn in the side”) and did not have an abundance of wealth (they asked for money to be set aside to pay for travel). Clearly, not all Christians in the bible, nor throughout history, were normatively blessed with excellent health and an abundance of material blessing.

Continue to Freedom from Health and Disease.

Isaiah 53:5/1 Peter 2:24/Matthew 8:17, ESV – “…and with his stripes we are healed”

I bunched these Scriptures up because in 1 Peter and in Matthew, both authors refer to Isaiah 53:5. This is important, because the application of Isaiah 53:5 is different in each case. In Isaiah 53:4-6, the prophet is speaking using the literary device of poetry: the lines in the stanzas are clearly compared (borne…griefs, carried…sorrows, esteemed…stricken, smitten…afflicted, wounded…transgressions, crushed…iniquities, chastisement…peace, stripes…healed). The whole theme of this section is the sin of mankind being borne by our Savior. Thus, “healed” refers, in this context, to the removal of sin.

In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter echoes this clearly: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

Matthew explains that the literal healing of the crowds in Matthew 8:14-17 fulfilled the passage in Isaiah 53. Thus, in really *does* mean that Christ healed the sick—not just the sin. Please note, however, that this healing was limited to Christ’s doing at that time and on those people. It would be difficult to apply this to all Christians normatively, because it simply didn’t happen at all times, even in the age of the Apostles—who were recorded as having performed miraculous healings. Since I cannot reconcile perfect healing of all sickness for every Christian at the time of salvation, nor can I purport that every time I pray for myself or another believer that they are healed, we must conclude that Matthew was speaking more in the sense that Christ has now conquered sickness and death. Once we see Him, face-to-face, we will be completely perfected in our bodies. This would coincide not only with history, but—and more importantly—all other references to our ultimate perfection in eternity.

One final note, on a personal level: I believe that God can and does heal today. I believe this is done miraculously, at times, and, any time a person is even healed medically or naturally, I attribute that to God, as well. However, I do not subscribe to “faith healing”—that is, the ability inherent in a person or place, whether due to faith or divine anointing, to miraculously heal someone at will. To further support my point, I am not aware of any proven (medically documented) cases of “faith healing” in the history of the Christian religion since the days of the Apostles.

Psalm 103:3, ESV – “…who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases…”

Psalm 103 is a hymn of praise, surrounding the concept of God’s goodness and love towards and of his people. The word used for “heals” in verse 3 is frequently used as a metaphor (cf. Isaiah 6:10; Isaiah 53:5 [noted above]; Jeremiah 3:22; Hosea 14:4), and, in this case, falls in parallel poetry use with the word “forgives” just as “diseases” parallels “iniquity”. This remains consistent in the aforementioned examples, especially Jeremiah 3:32 and Hosea 14:4, where “heals” is applied to non-biological conditions.

3 John 2, NASV – “Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.”

See this post for an explanation on 3 John 2.

Continue to Mandatory, Blind Submission to Authority.

Hebrews 13:17, ESV – “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

I don’t think there is a misinterpretation of meaning here in most citations. I believe, instead, that there is a misapplication. I have heard this verse used to support two principles: a) to submit with blind obedience and b) to ignore the errors/sins of leaders since they will have to give an account (i.e., it’s not our responsibility to rebuke).

This verse does not say “blindly obey”, but rather it says “obey”. Further, the last part of the first sentence clearly states that leaders must “give an account”—in other words, they will most certainly be held accountable for whatever they have done (good or bad) by God—and He is more just than all. As for the excuse not to discern, judge, or even rebuke a leader for unbiblical practices? Well, that’s absurd since there are Scriptures that clearly deal with judging and discernment (e.g., 1 John 4) and there are Scriptures that instruct us on how to deal with elders/pastors/leaders when a charge is brought against them (1 Timothy 5:19-20).

1 Timothy 5:17, ESV – “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”

Sadly, I’ve heard this verse used to justify lavishing pastors or guest pastors with “love offerings” and gifts above and beyond normal tithes and offerings. It was used so blithely that I began to wonder if anyone qualified for “double honor” so long as they had a microphone and stood near the pulpit. But what the context of this Scripture shows is sort of like a sampling of instructions on how to select elders/overseers (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13) and what qualifications are necessary. It then goes on to talk about Godliness (1 Timothy 3:14-16), then points out that some will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1-5), it clearly describes Paul’s encouragement to Timothy to be a good student of the Word (1 Timothy 4:6-16), then how to edify all ages of men and women and widows (1 Timothy 1-16), and *then* to give the elders who rule *well* double honor.

I’ve always found it interesting that whole sections of 1 Timothy (specifically the qualifications for elders and the measure of a good servant) are never talked about in the same circles as the seeming requirement of “double honor”. I’ve also noticed that “the elders who rule well” is replaced with “a worker” and is summarily applied to all who are part of the pastor’s other senior pastor friends, but not to volunteers who *faithfully* teach Sunday School week in and week out.

Genesis 9:23, ESV – “Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.”

I’ve usually heard this shortened into “cover your leader’s nakedness”. Once again, this is not so much a misinterpretation but a misapplication. Traditionally in the culture of that time, seeing someone naked by accident was not frowned upon. You would turn away and the incident would go, for the most part, unnoticed. However, if you reveled in someone’s nudity (for good or for bad reason), this was shameful. In the context of this verse, Ham sees Noah’s nakedness and tells his brothers. Though unclear in the verse, his intention was revealed later to be either for humor or for spite—either of which were also worthy of shame on top of his seeing Noah naked and not turning away. Noah then curses Ham for this.

First, it’s important to recognize that the sins in question here are drunkenness (Noah was drunk) and spitefulness (Ham deliberately exposed Noah’s sin out of spite). Judging from the literary type (history) and the lack of citation of this verse in future verses, it should be easy to conclude that this is not necessarily normative behavior. Second, this verse does not explicitly or implicitly imply that all Christian leaders that make any mistakes are able to demand that their staff, parishioners or other elders “cover their nakedness” (read: sweep the sin under the carpet). Not only does it not say this in any way, but such an interpretation would be contrary to numerous passages of the contempt God has with liars and even the standards noted in the New Testament for the office of an elder or pastor.

Psalm 105:15, ESV – “Touch not my anointed ones, do my prophets no harm!”

This was part of a song, for starters—so misquoting it as a command is foolish to begin with. Nonetheless, many self-appointed leaders like to use this to justify blind following and whatever actions they commit—hoping that none will question them or challenge them. So it’s a song, and the song most likely refers to Abimelech, who was not to touch Sarah (cf. Genesis 20:2). It’s also not used to refer to leaders of the New Testament, but rather to patriarchs in the faith.

If it were used to prevent the challenging of self-titled leaders, it would be in clear contradiction to simple New Testament mandates about leadership like Mark 10:44 ESV: “…and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all,” and Luke 14:11 ESV: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

More to come!

Let there be no mistake about my meaning. I am not examining what it costs to save a Christian’s soul. I know well that it costs nothing less than the blood of the Son of God to provide atonement, and to redeem man from hell. The price paid for our redemption was nothing less than the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary. We “are bought with a price.” “Christ gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Tim. 2:6). But all this is wide of the question. The point I want to consider is another one altogether. It is what a man must be ready to give up if he wishes to be saved. It is the amount of sacrifice a man must submit to if he intends to serve Christ. It is in this sense that I raise the question, “What does it cost?” And I believe firmly that it is a most important one.

I grant freely that it costs little to be a mere outward Christian. A man has only got to attend a place of worship twice on Sunday, and to be tolerably moral during the week, and he has gone as far as thousands around him ever go in religion — All this is cheap and easy work: it entails no self-denial or self-sacrifice. If this is saving Christianity, and will take us to heaven when we die, we must alter the description of the way of life, and write, “Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to heaven!”

But it does cost something to be a real Christian, according to the standard of the Bible. There are enemies to be overcome, battles to be fought, sacrifices to be made, an Egypt to be forsaken, a wilderness to be passed through, a cross to be carried, a race to be run. Conversion is not putting a man in an armchair and taking him easily to heaven. It is the beginning of a mighty conflict, in which it costs much to win the victory. Hence arises the unspeakable importance of “counting the cost.”

Let me try to show precisely and particularly what it costs to be a true Christian. Let us suppose that a man is disposed to take service with Christ, and feels drawn and inclined to follow Him. Let us suppose that some affliction, or some sudden death, or an awakening sermon, has stirred his conscience, and made him feel the value of his soul and desire to be a true Christian. No doubt there is everything to encourage him. His sins may be freely forgiven, however many and great. His heart may be completely changed, however cold and hard. Christ and the Holy Spirit, mercy and grace, are all ready for him. But still he should count the cost. Let us see particularly, one by one, the things that his religion will cost him.

(1) For one thing, it will cost him his self-righteousness. He must cast away all pride and high thoughts, and conceit of his own goodness. He must be content to go to heaven as a poor sinner, saved only by free grace, and owing all to the merit and righteousness of another. He must really feel as well as say the Prayer-book words — that he has “erred and gone astray like a lost sheep,” that he has “left undone the things he ought to have done, and done the things he ought not to have done, and that there is no health in him.” He must be willing to give up all trust in his own morality, respectability, praying, Bible reading, church-going, and sacrament-receiving, and to trust in nothing but Jesus Christ.

Now this sounds hard to some. I do not wonder. “Sir,” said a godly ploughman to the well-known James Hervey, of Weston Favell, it is, harder to deny proud self than sinful self. But it is absolutely necessary.” Let us set down this item first and foremost in our account. To be a true Christian it will cost a man his selfrighteousness.

(2) For another thing, it will cost a man his sins. He must be willing to give up every habit and practice which is wrong in God’s sight. He must set his face against it, quarrel with it, break off from it, fight with it, crucify it, and labour to keep it under, whatever the world around him may say or think. He must do this honestly and fairly. There must be no separate truce with any special sin which he loves. He must count all sins as his deadly enemies, and hate every false way. Whether little or great, whether open or secret, all his sins must be thoroughly renounced. They may struggle hard with him every day, and sometimes almost get the mastery over him. But he must never give way to them. He must keep up a perpetual war with his sins. It is written — “Cast away from you all your transgressions.” — “Break off thy sins and iniquities.” — “Cease to do evil.” (Ezek. 18:31; Daniel 4:27; Isa. 1:16).

This also sounds hard. I do not wonder. Our sins are often as dear to us as our children: we love them, hug them, cleave to them, and delight in them. To part with them is as hard as cutting off a right hand, or plucking out a right eye. But it must be done. The parting must come. “Though wickedness be sweet in the sinner’s mouth, though he hide it under his tongue; though he spare it, and forsake it not,” yet it must be given up, if he wishes to be saved. (Job 20:12, 13.) He and sin must quarrel, if he and God are to be friends. Christ is willing to receive any sinners. But He will not receive them if they will stick to their sins. Let us set down that item second in our account. To be a Christian it will cost a man his sins.

(3) For another thing, it will cost a man his love of ease. He must take pains and trouble, if he means to run a successful race towards heaven. He must daily watch and stand on his guard, like a soldier on enemy’s ground. He must take heed to his behaviour every hour of the day, in every company, and in every place, in public as well as in private, among strangers as well as at home. He must be careful over his time, his tongue, his temper, his thoughts, his imagination, his motives, his conduct in every relation of life. He must be diligent about his prayers, his Bible reading, and his use of Sundays, with all their means of grace. In attending to these things he may come far short of perfection; but there is none of them that he can safely neglect. “The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat” (Prov. 13:4).

This also sounds hard. There is nothing we naturally dislike so much as “trouble” about our religion. We hate trouble. We secretly wish we could have a “vicarious” Christianity, and could be good by proxy, and have everything done for us. Anything that requires exertion and labour is entirely against the grain of our hearts. But the soul can have “no gains without pains.” Let us set down that item third in our account. To be a Christian it will cost a man his love of ease.

(4) In the last place, it will cost a man the favour of the world. He must be content to be thought ill of by man if he pleases God. He must count it no strange thing to be mocked, ridiculed, slandered, persecuted, and even hated. He must not be surprised to find his opinions and practices in religion despised and held up to scorn. He must submit to be thought by many a fool, an enthusiast, and a fanatic — to have his words perverted and his actions misrepresented. In fact, he must not marvel if some call him mad. The Master says — “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also” (John 15:20).

I dare say this also sounds hard. We naturally dislike unjust dealing and false charges, and think it very hard to be accused without cause. We should not be flesh and blood if we did not wish to have the good opinion of our neighbours. It is always unpleasant to be spoken against, and forsaken, and lied about, and to stand alone. But there is no help for it. The cup which our Master drank must be drunk by His disciples. They must be “despised and rejected of men” (Isa. 53:3). Let us set down that item last in our account. To be a Christian it will cost a man the favour of the world.

Such is the account of what it costs to be a true Christian. I grant the list is a heavy one. But where is the item that could be removed? Bold indeed must that man be who would dare to say that we may keep our self-righteousness, our sins, our laziness, and our love of the world, and yet be saved!

I grant it costs much to be a true Christian. But who in his sound senses can doubt that it is worth any cost to have the soul saved? When the ship is in danger of sinking, the crew think nothing of casting overboard the precious cargo. When a limb is mortified, a man will submit to any severe operation, and even to amputation, to save life. Surely a Christian should be willing to give up anything which stands between him and heaven. A religion that costs nothing is worth nothing! A cheap Christianity, without a cross, will prove in the end a useless Christianity, without a crown.

J.C. Ryle
HT: Apprising.org

In all of this, what I did not realize, is that there are those who, after being warned, warned again, and warned a third time, decided to stay in the abusive system for a lot longer, but who eventually escaped. There is a home for them in my heart, as well, believe it or not.

It is never too late to leave injustice and spiritual abuse. There are moments when we decide to “stick it out” that we will all regret—whether it’s those of us who paid it heed for only moments, 10 years, or 50 years… But when we find that light at the end of the tunnel—the truth and freedom in reading God’s Word for what it really, truly means—and the acceptance that all we have been taught has been 1% truth and 99% power trips, egos and lies, we are free. Utterly, unimaginably, surreally, and totally free. Yes, the pain still comes—the anger towards leaders for the deception; the anger at one’s self in falling for it; the sadness because of sudden and usually permanent loss of friends and loved ones; the anger again at the injustice in general… But what follows can be crucial to our understanding of God, and, at times, our salvation!

So wherever you are, whatever doubts have been bouncing around while you tolerate spiritual abuse… NEVER let pride stop you from declaring—even if it’s late in the game—that you too, just like every one of us—were duped for a time.

Here’s a story from a new blogosphere friend of mine… Her name is Katie, and she’s fighting desperately against a church whose leadership has erected a wall between biblical truth and freedom and the tyranny of man-centric theology, where her own son has been—in essence—turned against her but convinced he’s working for “the greater good” by dishonoring his mother and father, following a lone man’s special “revelation” from God (aka “vision”)…

http://onemothersjourney7.blogspot.com/

The stories match almost identically to those we, as a couple, have experienced. Though we never lost a child to one of these churches, we lost ourselves and many of our friends and loved ones. Above all else, we lost time—precious amounts of time—which is irreplaceable now.

Read Katie’s story and see if you can see yourself in what she relates—or perhaps, like me, you see yourself more as her son, longing to be a part of something that sounds and seems so amazing, but naively pulled into the attractiveness of man-centered heresy.

Oh, that those who come after us would just listen and hear our desperate cries and prayers to see them set free.

Admittedly, the site goes into thick details about the things that have happened there, and the people involved (by name in most cases), but it is necessary when public figures (pastors) are involved, as it is important for a community to know what its leaders are claiming versus what they are actually doing. Know this: the details on this site represent a very small fraction of the entirety of what went on. It may seem like we revealed a great deal to make a point, but the truth is that we revealed only enough to allow people to make their own case.

Though we’ve washed our hands of this whole situation, I have no problem “bumping” the results to show our blog entries now and again in order to promote the “other side of the story” when people search for Connect Church because they’ve been to a service, have real, honest questions, and don’t want the “company line”. Though Kyle Horner and Danielle Horner appear to have the best of intentions, I implore you to take into account their known history in the site above and consider that loads of us that helped to found the church believed that, as well, and were sorely disappointed—some have even been divorced, hospitalized or have left the faith entirely as a result.

Many have also been told that we, as authors, are full of hate and are bitter and have a personal vendetta to settle. Oddly, the above-mentioned site (and even the implications listed above) did not affect us nearly as much as others. In reality, the effects we suffered were all indirect due to teachings and the culture established. So, our “personal vendetta” would be to get back at whom for what I wonder?

The bottom line can be summed up in a quote from Charles Spurgeon, who is no stranger to the problems of cavalier pastors taking over pulpits with a heap of trash on top of the gospel:

He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like your fathers you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. You would have hurled out of your pulpits the men who are enemies to the fundamental doctrines of your churches, and yet are crafty enough to become your pastors and undermine the faith of a fickle and superficial generation.

As of this time, no leaders from the Connect Church have ever posted a comment on any of the information I’ve provided, even when specifically asked to do so. They remain quite silent (apart from the rumor-mill of legal threats that never materialize).

Feel free to comment on this post if you have feedback—for or against—and I’ll do my best to answer it (just keep it clean).

Gary Gilley does a fantastic job reviewing her book here, and I encourage folks to read the review AND her book very critically.

If a person can’t even really divide Scripture appropriately and consistently, it is a concern to take advice from them about living a Christian life in the Christian church.

Why? Isn’t the bible the ultimate authority, such that any other text is really secondary? Yes, that is 100% true, but it does not mean that all other texts are unnecessary. It simply means that no other text can usurb the position of authority from the bible—which is the source of the true cry, “Sola Scriptura!”

A great example of the usefulness of other texts is in understanding ahead-of-time the types of heresies that crept into the early Christian church (before they were expunged) and their definitions. It seems, in my studies, that almost all heresies find a common ground of dispute: that of Christology (the branch of theology concerned with the person and attributes and deeds of Christ).

One such heresy, which I would like to address in this post, is Nestorianism (HT to OffensiveGospel for reminding me of it).

Nestorius (the originator of this heresy) made a distinction which the bible does not make: the disunion of Christ’s human nature and Christ’s divine nature. Scholars of that day actually compared this heresy to the heresy of adoptionism, which assumed that Jesus was born a man and later “adopted” as God’s Son.

This may seem to some like splitting hairs—but I assure you, it is not. I have heard people compare themselves to the “man” that Christ was (though certainly not going so far as to compare themselves to the “God” in Christ). Do I feel this is a potentially damning heresy? No, but I think it gives room—like most basic departures from orthodox beliefs—for damning heresy.

If we begin to believe that we are somehow similar to Christ (even just the “man” part of him, as this heresy espouses), it devalues who He is, and also increases the value of who we believe we are.

It seems to me that it is the orthodox belief of Christianity that man is to be de-emphasized in favor of God being emphasized, certainly not ever the other way around.

Remember: do your homework. If you do not study, the things that people say in the name of God—even well-intentioned people!—can create a whole new set of problems.

How so? Nestorianism is the disunion of the natures of man and God in Christ. It was promulgated in Persia thoroughly since the 5th century, and is the unnamed basis for the majority of the theology of the Church of the East—even today.

Keep studying!

After perusing it a bit, I found that it is a great representation of what it is that is preached at The Connect Church—as a matter of fact, it appears to be a compilation of sermon notes from the very sermons preached there. That said, let’s take a look at the sermon notes for Boundaries, which I found here.

The notes appear to be talking points—not a transcript of a sermon, so we have to give a little bit of leeway to the additions or clarifications made in the sermon itself. However, there are some definite points made here that do not need any clarification.

I would caution those who attend The Connect Church to really examine what is coming from the pulpit. Even what is in this review is clearly not based in good, scholarly (or even casual) bible study, but rather appears to be the literary machinations of a man trying to give people drug-store psychology style pointers, with even less biblical OR psychological research (if that were possible).

The chosen Scripture for this sermons is about the only thing that correlates to the actual sermon topic. It is true that David is speaking, in Psalm 16, about boundaries. It is also true, based on scholars’ interpretations and time-tested literary review, that this psalm is a reference to the boundaries set by God in many areas of David’s life—they are not just physical boundaries of property.

That is about where the correct interpretations and applications stop.

(As an aside, the first bit of copy from the notes, “For all intense of purposes” is a misunderstood idiom. The correct idiom is “for all intents and purposes”. The former makes no sense.)

In the first paragraph, where Kyle describes boundaries, he defines areas in our life which seem to have boundaries in place (relationships, marketplace, finances, attitudes). He looks at boundaries as “the speed limits that keep everyone safe as we move toward our destinies”. There are two things taking place in this paragraph. The first is a description of boundaries in different areas of our lives—which would be in line with the main topic of this sermon. The second is an allusion to “destinies”  towards which we are all heading. Right off the bat, we’re dabbling in the exaltation of man over God by believing that the Scripture referenced (or perhaps other sermons or teachings at The Connect Church) attribute to us, as humans, some sort of great God-given destiny while here on earth. To be clear, I have yet to find a contextual, biblical basis for every single Christian being given a unique and special destiny outside of the mandate of the Great Commission and outside of being saved from eternal torment in a lake of fire. Apparently, at The Connect Church, there is a different mindset (an unbiblical, man-centric one).

The next line is also in error. It is the sub-head, “How do I set healthy boundaries in my life?” This goes directly against the Scripture that was just cited in that we have now changed WHO is setting the boundaries. In Psalm 16, David thanks God that the boundaries GOD set are what they are. Yet Kyle is now about to teach us how WE set boundaries. This does not line up with Scripture already (though it does line up with a man-centered theology).

The first point brings in two new topics: health and vengeance. Health of what? Body? Mind? We don’t know from these notes. Vengeance? Are we referring to David’s potential vengeance on those that wronged him? We don’t know from these notes. We then see that Kyle draws a conclusion that “whatever would be unhealthy for our relationship with loving God and loving others in a godly manner mandates a boundary being established [sic]“. I’m not sure what the biblical basis for that conclusion is, but it’s not so far off that I would criticize anything but its lack of citation.

The third point, where 1 Samuel 18:10-11 is quoted, shows another interesting leap. It seems that when someone throws a spear at you, and you decide it best to run from said spear and said person with a murderous intention, that you are “drawing healthy boundaries”. This seems like a no-brainer to me, but perhaps at The Connect Church, this is considered the same as the Godly wisdom inferred in the previous point.

From this point forward, the sermon degenerates into what seems to be the defense of setting boundaries. Kyle goes on about how people won’t like that you’ve “drawn boundaries” with them, people will challenge you. Sweeping generalizations are made about those that would challenge you: they “don’t want to change” and they feel they are “entitled” and they “don’t see anything wrong with their behavior”. Suddenly, another point is brought in that makes it okay if you are challenged even by a spouse, parent, friend, or boss. Seems like the list of people who are allowed to challenge you is growing very short. I also noted that “heretical pastor” or “doctrinally aberrant teacher” are not on this list, even though the bible is certainly clear about considering them an anathema. Curious.

A defense of boundaries continues, allowing boundary-setting to be wrapped with qualifiers like, “It is a response to love and a desire for health for everyone involved. Boundaries are not simply to keep things out of our lives, but to keep healthy things in.” This sounds so nice! We also see that passive-aggressive behavior… ahem… I mean “boundaries” are NOT “about attacking the person but the process”. So if I shun you, it’s not really about you—your process just sucks. So don’t take it as an attack (sarcasm).

This continues for a few more points. Nothing biblical is really cited again in the notes—just more platitudes from the drug store.

Finally, the sermon notes end with this sentence: “[God sets boundaries] to create a world of health that can experience His love both now and forever.” Now, see, the responsibility of boundary-setting is back on God. Though the rest of the notes in between the Scripture and the end don’t say that at all. Additionally, did God create a “world of health” (what is that, anyway?) that can experience His love now and forever? Last time I checked, we were worthy of death because of sin, and we were slated to spend an eternity in hell. God’s love came in the form of Christ, who died on a cross to propitiate God’s rightful punishment for us and save us. This ONLY applies to believers. So the “world” is not going to have “health”, and it’s certainly not going to have it “forever”. More accurately, most will be thrown into the lake of fire, except for the remnant of those that God chooses to save.

After all that—which seems to be a fairly short and meatless bit of information—what is left that’s actually biblical? The original Scripture.

Read for yourselves, folks.

Any additional thoughts?

There are two tendencies to address in this entry. The first tendency is that of political or social separation as a result of intolerance, and the second tendency is that of evangelical separation as a result of intolerance.

With the first (political/social separation), there are many people who are voicing a need for acceptance and tolerance of all people groups—regardless of religious (i.e. ethical/moral) or political beliefs. I do not represent this worldview, but it seems to me that it attempts to gain credence using the false assumption that our country’s founding fathers believed the same thing.

There are some simple logical tests we can perform even on this assumption. First, since our founding fathers included God in our country’s founding documents, then—even without knowing anything about them—we have to assume they had SOME sort of Hebrew-based belief system. That, by itself, alienates any belief system that denies the existence of the Hebrew God. We can use fancy postmodern definition-modification to say that the signers of the constitution assumed a very general idea of “god” in the document, but that would be unlikely not only based on history but also based on the innumerable other information available from the period, as well as the original reason for a majority of the Protestants leaving Great Britain in the first place.

So what of it? Really, this country was founded on Christian principles, not the principle of pure “freedom of religion”. Again, the logical test is conclusive: some religions mandate the destruction of others. Certainly this is not the type of religion that would work well within a society that forbids murder. There are also religions which refuse to acknowledge the authority of governments. Clearly, the refusal to obey the government would not work well in any society with one. Thus, in two simple, logical tests, we have determined that our country was not founded on “freedom of religion” but really on a very specific set of moral and ethical beliefs (that happen to come from the Bible).

Also, what can we say about the tolerance of all people groups? If we mandate the tolerance of all people groups, then we automatically assume an intolerance of those people groups that do not tolerate an opposing people group. In practice, if our government legislates the acceptance and tolerance of all practices of religions, it is, in effect, mandating a pluralistic and possibly anarchistic society. If partiality is shown towards one group, it must be show towards another (therein voiding the partiality). Again, in practice: if Christmas gains a holiday, so, then, must Chanukah, Ramadan, and the like. Eventually, either all holidays would have to be cancelled, or all would be eliminated to prevent favoritism.

But that’s not how the political system of our present day is working. Instead, the “intolerant” people are the fundamentalist, conservative Protestants. They are ousted politically as being the “problem” because they are unwilling to compromise an activity like praying during school. Such an activity is cited as being offensive towards other religions. But upon careful examination, who is defending the prejudice and the intolerance of the conservative? Who is coming to the defense of the one who is being oppressed now? No one. Evidently, to our present society, tolerance has been turned on its head to mean tolerance of everyone *except* the Christian. They are somehow less-than. Sound familiar? It’s the very intolerance from which we fought to be free in the course of founding our country!

As for the second (evangelical separation)… There are groups even within the evangelical Christian sects which have been so  corrupted by the already-prominent system aforementioned that they create multiple tiers of Christians and become immediately intolerant of a tier below their own. Just today I read a tweet from a pastor who claimed that it was better to smell pot than to smell religion in the church auditorium, and concluded with the hash tag, “#allwelcome”. Is the irony not palpable? The hash tag “#allwelcome” isn’t really “all are welcome” in this case, but, in the language of the author, is really “all are welcome except people who we consider to be too religious”. There is no caveat; there is no definition to show what is “religious” and what is not. Evidently, it is easier, in their tiered system, to find approval when you are a pot-smoker than when you have differing or (daresay!) contrary doctrinal beliefs than they do.

And so it goes with evangelicalism. It does not surprise me. A church (like the one in the tweet) that begins to concede certain aspects of its services and doctrines to the world and mimics the world in an effort to impress “seekers” will rarely stay on the “fine line” of being in the world but not of it; instead it will fall sharply and harshly into the temptation and deception of becoming just like the world it imitates.

Furthermore, it would not surprise me that, in this foolishness, the craftiness of hellish minions would be smart to use such nonsense and provide partial truths, or fairweather successes in these methodologies, so as to continue to instill false confidence in the fool who uses them.

Since the following objections are typically voiced when I counter people who have had an emotional experience, let’s just get them out in the open right away…

• “You can’t fit God into a box.”
• “His ways are above our ways.”
• “Don’t use your human logic to define God.”

If you’re planning on using them, please consider the rest of the content of this post (and thus, I would be asking you to use the God-given thinking faculty, otherwise known as your brain, and its conclusion-finding mechanisms, otherwise known as logic, to do so). You should find that God is commanding us to use these abilities in order to test what is and is not from Him.

On to the post.

I hear about two types of church people from mainstream church-goers. The “Frozen Chosen” and the “Holy Rollers”. The former would be a pejorative for those people who attend liturgical, conservative churches with a tendency towards quiet reverence and awe. The latter would be a pejorative for those that shriek and laugh and convulse in most services. In most circles, each group would claim that the other is somehow unsuccessful in their desire to worship God.

(Aside: there are certainly other types of congregations and practices in church services that do not fit neatly into either one of these hyperboles, but they tend to be lumped into whichever end of the spectrum they favor.)

As a human being, we have the privilege of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). However, because of  Adam, we are born into original sin (Romans 5:12-21)—something like that of being an image that is, at birth, already tainted or polluted. This condition causes us to be incapable of seeking God (Romans 3:10-12). Once God has found and drawn us to Him (John 6:44), we begin a process which will not be completed until death. This process, called sanctification, is the process where God gives us a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26), renews our mind (Romans 12:2), and does this day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16).

Prior to being drawn by God, we are unregenerate (that is, we have not started this process). At that time, our heart is a heart of stone (Ezekiel 36:26), and is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). After the process of regeneration starts, our heart and mind begin to be trained to identify the will of God (Romans 12:2).

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2 ESV)

As we can see from the above passage in Romans, God certainly changes the problem of a deceitful heart. But does it mean that our heart can now be trusted?

I would contest a resounding, “No!” It is clear to me, from this passage, that the use of the word “testing” and the use of the word “discern” to find out the will of God makes it obvious that we cannot trust everything our heart and mind will tell us.

If we look further at Scripture to find an answer as to how to know what is and what is not God’s will, we find this killer verse:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

It seems very obvious, now, that the way to discern the inner-most intention of the heart and mind is to use the Word of God!

But the ultimate problem with our application of this biblical method of discernment is that its prerequisite is the actual study of the Word of God. In almost all cases of those to whom I have spoken, the act of studying the Word of God (not just reading proof-texts and concordance-based topical selections) is absent or significantly deficient in the lives of those that would prefer the emotional experience.

What an interesting and perfect conundrum:

• Emotional experiences replace the Word of God for most people
• Emotional experiences are measured instead on the level of emotional response
• The Word of God provides the perfect filter for finding God’s truth included in or absent from emotional experiences
• Those that subscribe to emotional experiences instead of the Word of God will never know this

Unfortunately, in my experience (ahem), few emotionally-driven folk will ever realize this without a painful smack-in-the-face. I know because I was one of them.

If you happen to be reading this and have relied heavily on how much you have “felt God” in something to determine its authenticity, you may want to reconsider this entire thought process.

In Christ,
Frank

To Whom It Most Certainly Concerns:

You have escorted ex-members of your church out when they have returned to visit family. You tell them they are not welcome. “Connecting people to people” ≠ disconnecting immediate family members. Are you aware that your leadership is poorly managing its own household and therefore violating the requirements of a biblical overseer (see 1 Tim 3)?

You supported, monetarily and honorarily, a minister who had an affair with a woman who previously had an affair in the same organization, then whose wife had an affair with their counselor, and then returned to ministry in 6 months. This is passive acceptance of sexual immorality and just generally foolish. “Connecting people to His purpose for their lives” ≠ passive acceptance of repeated sinful behavior (church discipline would have been a better idea). Did you clearly state to your congregation that this behavior is not condoned in people who lead or take a prominent position on stage (see 1 Cor 5:11)?

Your leader condemned, publicly, people who volunteer to help you week in and week out because they allowed an irritating squeaking fan sound to be present during a sermon. “Connecting people to His purpose for their lives” ≠ publicly ridiculing faithful volunteers. Was a public apology conferred (see Eph 6:4)?

There are countless other reports like this: examples of reckless leadership, violation of biblical qualifications for elders, cult-like treatment of current and former members, obfuscation of truth when confronted… the list goes on.

It is my pleasure to approve any comments from anyone at The Connect Church in Cherry Hill, NJ with Senior Pastor Kyle Horner who can offer legitimate explanation. Just keep the comments civil (certainly no foul language).

Sincerely,
Frank Rue
A Very Concerned Former Member

Though normally I am not a fan of classifications within the realm of psychology, I recognize that, over time and over multiple studies, when certain behaviors or patterns emerge, we can place a name on them and be able to identify them proactively and therefore deal with them before they become problematic.

I also would like to point out that, in the light of Scripture, most psychological labels have a more specific and better described juxtaposition to a deficiency of the depraved and sinful mind. As an example, saying that people are “inherently good” is inaccurate in both psychological, non-religious study as well as in the truth revealed in Scripture. Thus, psychology and the bible do, at times, agree. In other scenarios, the bible explains what psychology cannot. For example, homosexuality is regarded, in psychology (at least in our present day) as a genetic disposition, or a trait that is subconscious enough that a person is allegedly at a loss to change it. The bible, however, specifically identifies it as a sin—with a recourse like any other sin.

On to the topic at hand.

I would like you to very carefully compare, in your history, or perhaps in your present, the traits that make up a sociopath with the traits of tyrannical leaders of abusive churches or their antagonists (in some cases, the direct leader is not so much the culprit as is the leader’s most influential advisor—the one that everyone knows is “really calling the shots”).

Sociopaths demonstrate the following characteristics:

• glibness and superficial charm – natural and offhand ease at charming most people, most of the time
• manipulative and cunning – able to bend others’ wills to his own subtly
• grandiose sense of self – he believes he is entitled to something; it is his right
• pathological liar – they believe what they say even when it is obviously a lie, or lie about something so much that they forget the line between fact and fiction
• lack of remorse, shame, or guilt – he is unable (unwilling) to apologize, to feel as though he has done something unacceptable, or to feel a sense of responsibility for his actions
• shallow emotions – typically, emotions shown are feigned in order to accomplish something ulterior
• need for stimulation – he has a desire to live “on the edge”—taking risks
• callousness/lack of empathy – he is unable to empathize with the pain of his victims, having only contempt for their feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them
• poor behavioral control/impulsive nature – rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused; he believes he is all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, and has no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for his impact on others
• promiscuous sexual behavior/infidelity – no explanation needed here
• parasitic lifestyle – he feeds off of the life of another person, sometimes having only one uncomfortable intimate relationship at a time (outside of his spouse)
• criminal or entrepreneurial versatility – changes his story and his image readily to avoid persecution or criticism

The list continues, of course, and, as with most true psychological cases, must be carefully reviewed and studies over time to diagnose as sociopathy.

The unfortunate conclusion of psychologists is that such people, because of the manipulative trait and because of the lack of remorse, are incredibly difficult to treat. In many cases, when the person appears lucid and intelligent, it is impossible to tell when the person has truly recanted his behavior as wrong and when the person is simply lying again to afford another opportunity to continue his career. Oftentimes, even the best con-artists are fooled by sociopaths because the morality of the offender, whose goal and reach to accomplish that goal is undefined, is actually less than the morality of a criminal con-artist who simply has a temporal goal for their activity.

Not all bad leaders are sociopaths. No, that category belongs to a special type of bad leader. IN my experience, these are the leaders that:

• recklessly verbally abuse their staff
• avoid confrontation with people who would challenge them
• modify church history to protect their interests
• adjust programs to better maintain micro-management control over the ministries
• assign yes-men to their advisor and elder positions
• ostracize anyone with information about their true pattern of behavior
• vilify friends and family members the moment they have lost control of them
• create a sense of awe and superiority about their position
• allude to or directly state that they have had direct revelation from God
• build a culture to ensure that their direct revelation from God cannot be challenged
• impose an unscriptural “spiritual authority” over their laity
• counsel laity to make personal decisions to benefit the leader regardless of the consequence to the laity
• demand honor and respect
• befriend other leaders with the same attributes
• work within a network of specifically-chosen, like-minded individuals that reinforce the above values, but appear to be outside of the church

Consider these things. They are rampant in our Christian circles and we allow them—sometimes even commend them!—as if they are Scriptural. Obviously, they are not. The Scriptural requirements of a good leader are clearly outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1-7:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Let’s stop electing these types of people and start representing a biblical church. You can make a difference in your church: speak to the elders and find out their motives. If they fail to meet biblical requirements, remove them. If you cannot remove them, leave. Your feet vote faster than your words. Yes, the relationships you have are hard to let go, but the eternal future of the people attending the church is really the question: are you passively allowing disobedience to the same Scripture you attest and follow?

I did.

And, eventually, I left.

The problem in our day, which gives rise to highly questionable church growth methods, is twofold: On the one hand, we are seeing a waning confidence in the message of the gospel. Even the evangelical church shows signs of losing confidence in the convincing and converting power of the gospel message. That is why increasing numbers of churches prefer sermons on family life and psychological health. We are being overtaken by what Os Guinness calls the managerial and therapeutic revolutions.

The winning message, it seems, is the one that helps people to solve their temporal problems, improves their self-esteem and makes them feel good about themselves. In such a cultural climate, preaching on the law, sin and repentance, and the cross has all but disappeared, even in evangelical churches. The church has become “user friendly,” “consumer oriented,”…

Today’s “gospel” is all too often a gospel without cost, without repentance, without commitment, without discipleship, and thus “another gospel” and accordingly no gospel at all, all traceable to the fact that this is how too many people today have come to believe that the church must be grown.

On the other hand, we are seeing a waning confidence in preaching as the means by which the gospel is to be spread. As a result, preaching is giving way in evangelical churches to multimedia presentations, drama, dance, “sharing times,” sermonettes, and “how to” devotionals. Preaching is being viewed increasingly as outdated and ineffective. Business techniques like telemarketing are now popular with the church growth movement. Churches so infected also look to the multiplication of programs to effect their growth.

They sponsor conferences and seminars on every conceivable topic under the sun; they subdivide their congregations down into marrieds and singles, single parents and divorced, “thirty-something” and “twenty-something,” teens, unemployed, the child-abused and the chemically dependent, attempting to arrange programs for them all. And once a person joins such a church, conventional wisdom has it, the church and the minister must meet his every felt need.

Accordingly, ministers have become managers, facilitators, and motivators—everything but heralds of the whole counsel of God—and this all because they have lost confidence in the preaching of God’s Word as the primary means for the growth of the church and the individual Christian. What is the answer? A restored confidence in the Reform[ation] doctrine of the sovereignty of God in salvation!

When polished, self-confident preachers draw attention to themselves by using music, or story-telling, or hysteria or hype, or appeal to their viewers’ “sense of worth” in order to produce “decisions,” it is evident that they do not understand the depravity of humanity, either their own or their audiences, or they would not act this way. Why do I say that?

Because a Biblical experiential understanding of the depravity of man and the necessity of God’s sovereign initiative in salvation produces humility and the very antithesis of human self-confidence, namely, confidence in God alone. Ministers of the gospel  should read 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 carefully and let Paul instruct them anew that the truth of God’s election destroys human pride and removes all boast before God.

They should be reminded that only God can convert a sinner, that only God can grow a saint, that no one can boast in this matter of salvation because God does it all (see 1 Cor. 3:5-7). Neither the preacher nor the convert can take any credit. Salvation is all God’s doing. “It is because of him that we are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30; see Phil. 1:28).

Accordingly, they can rest assured that one can preach the simple, unadorned, unglamorized, unglittered gospel message of the cross, knowing God will use it to save souls and build the church.[1]

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998], 882, 883, 884, emphasis his.

As early as 200 years ago, it was easy to call sin “sin”—our culture was inundated with what we now consider conservative evangelicals. The Western world was almost synonymous with Protestantism, and it was very easy to have even a secular conversation about “sin” because no one made any bones about what was sin and what wasn’t. I’m not romanticizing anything, either: those times had their problems. But clear communication of definitions was not nearly as difficult as it is today.

Today, “sin” is a terrible word for mixed company. Most people take great offense when their sins are pointed out. Emboldened by a politically-correct mandate on even shallow, social gatherings, “sin” has become taboo. Even when it’s brought up, the definition is so varied and relative from one person’s experience to the next that it is impossible to pinpoint what a person even believes is a biblical sin. The irony, of course, is that until postmodernism and deconstructionism hit the ground running, such relativism in what was considered a clearly-defined word would never have existed. Now, the scope is as wide as the day is long.

Of course, language is a whole debate in itself, and that’s not really the point of this entry. More important today is the discussion of the definition of a victim, the anthropomorphising (personification) of sin, and how this has clouded our definition of biblical sin.

The first presupposition, of course, is that the Holy Bible, in its original texts is totally inerrant; written by God through human hands, accounting for all of their cultural and personal perspectives, yet without error.

Scripture is not a muddy water to be purified by our minds—quite the contrary: our sinful minds are a muddied water which must constantly be flushed as best as can be by their renewal in Christ. In this presupposition, it should be clear that Scripture’s definition of sin is far superior to our attempted explanations of human psychological conditions.

First and foremost, we shall define biblical sin. There are two parts to biblical sin: the first part is the explanation of the Doctrine of Original Sin.

Original Sin is described in the Book of Concord as such:

…the horrible, dreadful hereditary malady by which the entire nature is corrupted should above all things be regarded and recognized as sin indeed, yea, as the chief sin, which is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins… [1]

Actual Sin is separately defined as:

…the actual transgression of God’s commandments… [2]

In short, Original Sin has its origins in Genesis, and is our responsibility, as well; Actual Sin is committed each time we transgress the commandments of God.

What are the commandments of God? Certainly there are the Mosaic Laws of the Old Testament (the infamous ten commandments, written upon stone tablets). In addition to these, there are commands issued by God that are normative for all Christians, as well, such as those given in the New Testament to the disciples and all that would come after them. These two lists are exhaustive and fairly comprehensive when exegeted correctly (e.g., violating even the dignity of another man, who is created in the likeness of God, is a violation of God’s commandment [see James 3:8-10]).

By biblical definition, even simple violations of God’s commands are sins.

Psychology, however, adds to the Christian perspective a great deal more mud, such to make the waters near impossible to clear. Dr. Ofur Zur explores the over-used stance of victims and makes this statement:

The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. [3]

The victim stance is the stance taken by someone in an abusive system. A real-world example would be a child with a physically abusive parent: the child is a victim. In simple (though tragic, like this example) situations, this is a perfectly acceptable stance: the child is weaker, incapable of defending himself, and, more importantly, the adult is brought to bear against his responsibilities as a parent or guardian.

But the victim stance is played out in situations that range from simple to complex to ludicrous. In the judicial system, many responsible adults have used the victim stance to justify their actions as “self defense”—even when the situation doesn’t explicitly show the need for such defense. Courts have had to come to conclusions based on forensic evidence because people have made their stance so firmly as to leave only empirical means to make another case. Dr. Ofur Zur continues in his entry and says this:

…victims are likely to attribute the outcome of their behavior to situational or external forces rather than to dispositional forces within themselves. [3]

As a Christian, such a stance is rapidly employed today as a first line of defense when the word sin is presented. Among the more liberal Christians, it is perfectly normal to here someone blame their upbringing, a childhood abuse, or the neglect of a spouse for his or her own sinful actions. Among the more conservative Christians, a more subtle approach is utilized: suggesting that sinful actions can be justifiable because he or she is a victim of Original Sin.

Original Sin, or even Actual Sin, becomes personified by a victim. The “sin” is anthropomorphised into a creature of evil, even to a point where the Devil himself is given credit for wrongs we ourselves have committed, or the Actual Sin becomes the offender instead of the sinner. Such simple changes to the person responsible and the poetic embellishment of sin as a person all becomes cyclic: we blame someone else for our sin: sin itself. The sin is pictured as an evil monster, devouring a precious lamb, but the picture is skewed. The lamb is, in a more accurate metaphor, pushing itself into a snare outside of the pen in which it was told to remain. There is no evil monster—the lamb is not some helpless victim.

How quickly the waters become sullied again! In this blogger’s opinion, we are acting out the very Pelagian nature that is expected: we are attempting to eliminate a need for the saving work of Christ for our sins, or, worse, we are making a mockery of grace—using it to cover the things we have done in the dark so as not to have to expose them to the light. Somehow, we are trying to find a way to employ psychology to detract an onlooker from the real responsibility we should truly own as sinners.

Returning to Scripture, we are made aware of something frighteningly true in the above examples: the unregenerate man will always attempt to find righteousness through his own means. Even the regenerate man may, from time to time, slip from the very experience of his regenerate state and see himself as somehow worthy of salvation. Yet neither is ever righteous because of his own work.

Jonathan Edwards wrote Sinners in The Hands of an Angry God for this type of cultural ailment. Many people look at the Puritanical language and hear an accusatory, negative, critical tone. But what we really need to hear is the Law of God—the very real, very tangible condemnation from God that we have failed miserably from birth and successively afterwards in obeying His commands and being righteous.

Subsequently, we must hear the Gospel: that even though we are at the hands of a wrathful God whose hand is teetering, prepared to cast us into a Lake of Fire, we must recognize that Christ’s very death and resurrection have completely eliminated such a burden of guilt from us. He has paid the price, and is of the mind to reach down and pluck us from the tenuous pose we have on the edge of eternal damnation and place us beyond the reach of Hell. Such is the nature of the mercy and true grace of our God.

Let us call sin “sin”, and cleanse ourselves of this stance of a victim. Such is not the speech of brave men and women, but of those that would seek to eliminate their own responsibility in matters that we all know are our own.

_____

Footnotes

1. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Section I, Paragraph 5. Accessed 11/6/10. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php
2. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Section I, Paragraph 5. Accessed 11/6/10. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-originalsin.php
3. Zur, O. [1994]. Rethinking “Don’t Blame the Victim”: Psychology of Victimhood. Journal of Couple Therapy, 4 (3/4), 15-36. Accessed 11/6/10. http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html

In one of my critic’s private messages, I was given a link to this YouTube video, which is a song by Godfrey Birtill called “When I Look at The Blood”. I’ve taken the liberty of putting the lyrics below.

…

“When I Look At The Blood”
Godfrey Birtill

When I look at the blood
All I see is love, love, love
When I stop at the cross
I can see the love of God

But I can’t see competition
I can’t see hierarchy
I can’t see pride or prejudice
or the abuse of authority
I can’t see lust for power
I can’t see manipulation
I can’t see rage or anger
or selfish ambition

But I can’t see unforgiveness
I can’t see hate or envy
I can’t see stupid fighting
or bitterness,or jealousy
I can’t see empire building
I can’t see self importance
I can’t see back stabbing
Or vanity or arrogance

I see surrender, sacrifice, salvation,
humility, righteousness, faithfulness, grace, forgiveness
Love Love Love
When I stop at the cross
I can see the love of God

…

There are a number of ways to interpret this song. I’m going to discuss three of them. In each interpretation, I’ll be looking at the idea of “looking at the cross” (Jesus and His example) and “not seeing” all the other things (sin).

Option 1: Keeping Our Eyes Focused ONLY on the Cross NOT on Sin

From this perspective, it seems the author may have intended that if we strive to look at the cross and only at the cross, we will not “see” these other things. Now, this could imply that we should only “run the race” without looking to the left or to the right, or especially behind, thus avoiding focusing our time and energy on the other things listed.

This is an idyllic theology, indeed. If I were to attempt to make this into a day-to-day action then, somehow, if we all “focus on the cross only”, we will be incapable of getting caught up either doing or being a part of these sins. This is, of course, unrealistic and impossible. We will all sin. We will all be a part of systems and hierarchies that will commit sins around us. And, above all else, we will still have to deal with those sins (whether they be ours or someone else’s that affect us).

So the song falls short in its theology: “not seeing” something doesn’t make it go away, and “seeing” something else does not mean we will never waver from that course.

Option 2: Keeping Our Eyes Focused ONLY on the Cross and IGNORING the Sins of Others

From this perspective, perhaps the author is implying that we should look at all people with a filter of the cross in mind. Thus, when we look at people and their sins, we should ignore the sins because, in this perspective, God has forgiven and forgotten sin.

This is a very dangerous theology. If I ignore when I or others sin, it is impossible for church discipline to take place. This is a very licentious view of grace: “God has forgiven us for all of our sins, so we can do whatever we want!” Where and when is the “ignorance” supposed to be lifted to deal with real (and sometimes extremely important and difficult) issues?

So the song falls short in its theology, again: “ignoring” the sins of ourselves and others leads to a lack of repentance and an inability to exercise church discipline.

Option 3: An Example of What We Should Be as Christ Followers

From this perspective, the author may be using a lot of poetic license in his choice of verbs to describe the idea that we, as Christians, should be living a life where we aspire to be free from the sins listed.

In this theology, I find the most agreement though, again, it still falls short. It’s full of law, certainly, and then an incomplete gospel, in that the cross is represented not in its entirety, nor accurately, since the idea of repentance is suspiciously missing from the lyrics.

All that said…

I am not looking at the meaning of this song in the context of anything else besides this: in the same message, I was being reprimanded for pointing out the unbiblical teachings of a pastor and for being “negative”.

If the person who sent the message intended Option 1, then he is unwilling to deal with real issues that may come up in life—be it his sin or other’s sin—in a real and tangible way. Most likely, it’s the idea that we should take it to our “prayer closet” and ignore anything outside of that prayer closet in an effort to literally “stay focused only on the cross”.

If the person intended Option 2, then he is unwilling to deal with church discipline. In other words, when he or another person sins, it should be chalked up to the sinful man and then erased immediately by the grace of God—without a need for repentance, paying the consequence for the sin, or an explanation to a church body as to the person’s intent in the sin, their repentance, or their forgiveness. All people, at all times, maintain their status of “forgiven” and “perfect in the eyes of the Lord” and we continue with our lives—even if it means ignoring the damage being done by a person caught up in sin without discipline.

If the person intended Option 3, then it makes *my* case better than his! If this law-based list of good works is a litmus test for the success or failure of a person’s Christian walk, than the people to whom I originally referred (false teachers) are at fault due to violations in: hierarchy, abuse of authority, lust for power, manipulation, anger, selfish ambition, hate, envy, “stupid fighting” (whatever that means), jealousy, empire building, self importance, back-stabbing, vanity, and arrogance. Since it was sent in an attempt to reprimand me for my attitude, I would perhaps qualify for : prejudice, anger, “stupid fighting” (is it?), bitterness, and arrogance (since I think I’m right).

I posted all of this because I think it’s important to try to understand the perspective of the antagonist and the protagonist. It seems to me that I still don’t have a good, biblical reason to stop pointing out false teachers. That said, this song reaffirms my initial beliefs about the very weak and sometimes very dangerous theology of those that are still supporters of the seeker-sensitive/purpose-driven, CEO-like, empiring-building, selfishly-ambitious, cross-diminishing, Arminian life coaching centers.

God help them. They need our prayers, and they need to repent and start teaching the Gospel again (or for the first time).

However…

I was very pleased to see that between 3 and 4pm EST today, Kyle Horner (Senior Pastor of The River/The Connect Church) tweeted something awesome and refreshing—the Gospel!

My biggest contention with any church or leader is the obfuscation of the Gospel. In the same manner, when the people about whom I post choose to shine in the way that God has intended us to shine, I am honored to report it positively!

Thank you, Kyle Horner, for standing up for the one thing that is more powerful than anything else that any of us can say or do as Christians… Stick to it!

1. The popular understanding of the gospel must change. The gospel is not some lofty term used to describe “feeding the hungry” or “being Jesus to someone in need” or “actions not words” or “social justice“. The gospel is and has always been this: we were born sinful and unable to save ourselves from an eternity of separation from God. God mercifully gave his Son, Jesus Christ, so that our inability to be reunited with God would be repaired by no act of our own. Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, was able to propitiate God by dying for our sins. He rose from the dead three days later to be seated at the right hand of God. When we were utterly incapable of doing anything to please God, Christ paid our penalty perfectly. THIS is the gospel.
2. The gospel must be proclaimed! It is saving knowledge for all who hear it. Not just because it is good news and people should want to know about it, but because God commands us to preach it and has attached to it the promise of His mercy and grace in salvation!
3. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for the gospel. NONE. We cannot change the story’s facts to be “relevant”, we cannot omit portions of the good news to make the good parts better and the bad parts less offensive. The gospel is the gospel, and it must remain as such.
4. We are not guaranteed anything prosperous except for the saving knowledge of the gospel. Yes, God’s providence will work all things out—but in His will, which may or may not line up with what we need or want.
5. Bigger is not better. Just because someone says something that people like to hear does not make it truth nor does it make it good. It’s simply what people want to hear. This is not to say that bigger is bad—it just means that size, quantity, sales, number of attendees, etc., are never consistent measures of quality!
6. Leadership is not the message of the Bible. You are here to serve others. Stop building an empire for yourself, no matter how many pithy sayings you stick around it. Yes, I’m talking to you.
7. Self-help is not the message of the Bible. Crucify your flesh daily. Pick up your cross.
8. Just because the Bible uses the word “season” doesn’t mean you can justify your current actions as “this is a season in my life”. You still have to back up your “season” with legitimate, in-context Scripture.
9. Being “relevant” is, by now (2000 years later), stupid: timeless truths never change. If people aren’t willing to believe the timeless truth of Scripture, no amount of “spicing it up” will fix them. It is the nature of our flesh to reject God, and this we cannot change. Only by God’s choice and intervention do we become renewed, and His chosen vehicle is the unadulterated gospel (see #1).
10. The next generation should learn from its parents. This means kids that are honoring parents (respecting the 5th commandment is a good start) and parents that are willing to teach hard truths to their kids. It does NOT mean completely reinventing timeless truths because we didn’t like the way dad did it.
11. Tolerance is overrated. If you tolerate all things, you accept all things, and you have no backbone. Being a Christian means being intolerant of the activities and sins that would seek to destroy, cripple, or make a mockery of the knowledge of God.
12. Stop over-using the word “grace” to describe everything. Get an education and learn what grace really is. A good place to start would be understanding the gospel. Another realization should be that God’s grace is God’s—not ours. We cannot extend God’s grace to a situation, a person, or our life—God does this, and only at His choosing. We cannot “see through the eyes of God’s grace”—as humans, this is impossible and futile. Grace is one of those words that should be reserved for a description of God’s actions, not man’s, since it is unlikely that we would show a disposition of kindness and compassion without an ulterior motive (manipulation) or without warping it into non-confrontational tolerance (see #11).
13. Understand that mercy is an attribute of God that we can and should share. If a person deserves our wrath, we should be quick to forgive. This is NOT grace (see #12).
14. Learn what heresies have gone through church history. Postmodernism is not neither “modern” nor “after modern”, but is the idea of believing in esoteric knowledge (a definition of “no definition of absolute truth”) over God’s timeless truth. This is gnosticism, which has been around the Christian block more than enough times that it’s laughable. Eastern mysticism is and always will be just that—mysticism. Getting in touch with one’s inner self is not found in Scripture and is condemned if not explicitly, than implicitly. Everything else? Works-based religions (Pelagianism): do this well enough, and you’ll get this reward. These were never from the Christ of the Bible, nor will they ever be Christianity.
15. Putting impurities into something pure makes it impure—the quantity does not matter. You cannot practice Spiritual Disciplines/Formation or Christian yoga in the context of Scripture—you are adding an impurity to something pure. Instead, look at the incredible information and jaw-dropping reality of the redemption throughout the bible. When you’ve finished with that… Well, you won’t finish with that. It is infinite.
16. Stop looking for “new revelation”. This is stupid. God revealed more than what we can understand, accomplish, or comprehend in 66 books. When you’re finished with those… Well, you won’t be—until heaven. Then you can attempt to ask God face-to-face. Good luck with that.
17. There are no spiritual mysteries we need to understand outside of Scripture. God was VERY thorough in giving us exactly what we need and you (or anyone else) is not the Infinite Creator of the universe, so don’t assume to overstep your bounds—you will regret it.
18. If you are not amazed by God’s awesomeness in spite of your sinfulness, you are probably not reading the Bible. We were created in His image, but we wrecked it. So we start out seeing God’s awesomeness, and immediately we see man’s sinfulness. We then see God’s awesomeness in delivering His people, and we see man’s sinfulness in messing it up. We then see God’s awesomeness in walking among us to die, conquer death and redeem us, and we see man’s continued sinfulness to make himself as important or more important than God in the divine equation. Today, we see God’s awesomeness abridged for the sake of man’s “potential awesomeness“—so we’re wrecking it again. God is awesome, man is sinful. There is no nicer way to say it.
19. God did not ask us to get a BIG VISION. God asked us to read what He wrote. When we can get that down… Well, we’ll never get that down fully, so stop working on your BIG VISION and get on with God’s already clearly laid-out plans.
20. Destiny? Stop making this about YOU. It is about GOD.
21. A messenger’s job is to deliver the message. Stop trying to make the recipient like it.
22. Do not mock a holy God. If you’re not sure what is explicitly defined as the means or worshiping God, take the high road and do what He asks instead. Aaron’s sons could not agree more.
23. Remember: your “good intentions” are really just a depraved human’s pitiful attempt at being slightly less vile. Bury God’s Word in your heart, and when you are faced with spewing forth what is in your heart, you will more likely spew forth Scripture.
24. The heart is deceitful—it starts with desires that are outside of God’s will. If something makes you “feel good” or “gives you peace”, you are measuring with your heart. Yeah, that thing that’s deceitful. So STOP IT. Check what you are “feeling” against Scripture—this is unchanging and inspired by God, so you can build on it.
25. If you are constantly trying to “inspire” people in what you do and say, you are in danger of being an idol. Be sure that you are “inspiring” them to know God and His Word. In this way, they attach themselves first to Him—not you.
26. “Felt needs”? You say you want to help people? Give them God’s Word. Christ Himself would not recognize real food as better than the bread of life.
27. Faith comes from hearing… hearing the Word of God. Faith is not about people or connecting: it’s about God’s Word. Preach it and teach it.
28. Missional. Relational. Incarnational. Tangible. Intentional. Generational. Engage. STOP! Stop using made up jargon. You are hiding behind fancy words that mean nothing when your job is to proclaim the only Word that has power to save. Why make something so simple and beautiful into something so complex and confusing to read? Why make man so excited about himself and what he’s doing or thinks he’s going to do when we should be humbled before an awesome Creator by Christ and the cross? Oh, were you not going to mention that? My bad. Sorry if I turned off the pagans.
29. Understand the sum of the parts, not just a part. God is not just love. God is much, much more.
30. Know and study what you believe. If you don’t, you are a fool: maybe a saved one, maybe a damned one; a fool does not know which.

Hope this helped somebody!

Many religious persons have a dread of controversy, and truth to be stated without any reference to those who hold opposite errors. Controversy and a bad spirit are in their estimation synonymous terms, and strenuously to oppose what wrong is considered as contrary to christian meekness. Those who hold this opinion seem to overlook what every page of the New Testament lays before us. In all the history of our Lord Jesus Christ, we never find him out of controversy From the moment he entered on the discharge of his office in the synagogue of Nazareth till he expired on the cross, it was an uninterrupted scene of controversy. Nor did he with all the heavenly meekness, which in him shone so brightly, treat truth and error without a reference to those who held them, or study to avoid giving its proper appellation to those corruptions in doctrine or practice that endangered the interests of immortal souls. His censures were not confined to doctrines, but included the abettors of false principles themselves.

And as to the Apostles, their epistles are generally controversial. Most of them were directly written for the express purpose of vindicating truth and opposing error, and the authors of heresies do not escape with an abstract condemnation of their false doctrine. Paul again and again most indignantly denounces the conduct of the opposers of the gospel, and by name points out those against whom he cautions his brethren. When Hymeneus and Alexander erred concerning the faith, and when he delivered them unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme, he did not compliment them as amiable and learned persons. Even that Apostle who treats most of love, and who possessed so much of that spirit which was so eminently manifested in his Divine Master, does not avoid controversy; nor in controversy does he study to avoid severity of censure on the opposers of the truth.

In the examples of opposing error, left on record for our imitation, we perceive nothing of that frigid spirit of indifference which smiles on the corruptors of the word of God, and shuns to call heresy by its proper name. With what holy indignation do the Apostles denounce the subtle machinations of the enemies of the gospel! In vain shall we look among those faithful servants of the Lord for any thing to justify that trembling reserve which fears to say decidedly that truth is truth, or that error is error. In what style indeed should perversions of the truth of God be censured? Ought they to be treated as mere matters of opinion on which we may innocently and safely differ? Or ought they to be met in a tone of solemn, strong, and decided disapprobation? Paul warned Christians against men who arose from among themselves, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them, and instead of complimenting false teachers in his day, denounced an angel from heaven on the supposition of his preaching another gospel. And if an Apostle was withstood to the face, when he was to be blamed, are the writings of those who subvert the gospel to be passed without rebuke?

(Excerpt from Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans: with remarks on the commentaries of Dr. MacKnight, Professor Moses Stuart, and Professor Tholuck, Volume 3 by Robert Haldane, Published by EDINBURGH WILLIAM WHYTE & CO, 1842.)

HT to Richard Corl.

Though I understand the perspective from which many of you approach what I do, I thought it would be helpful to provide a quick, biblical roadmap of why discernment is an entirely Biblical concept. Discerning, marking, and speaking out against false prophets and teachers is part of what we as Christians are called to do.

This doesn’t mean that everyone needs to start a blog or write megalomaniacal Facebook posts (blush), but it does mean that we not only have the right to criticize—we are called to do so on a regular basis, to prevent the pollution of the Gospel!

Here are the verses that I think speak plainly about our need to discern.

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Deuteronomy 13:1-3 ESV)

“Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.

(1 Kings 3:9-10 ESV)

Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense,

but a man of understanding walks straight ahead.

(Proverbs 15:21 ESV)

Strike a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence;

reprove a man of understanding, and he will gain knowledge.

(Proverbs 19:25 ESV)

They shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean.

(Ezekiel 44:23 ESV)

Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.

(Malachi 3:18 ESV)

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

(Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)

And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.

(Matthew 24:11 ESV)

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.

(Matthew 24:23-25 ESV)

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

(Mark 13:22-23 ESV)

“Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.”

(Luke 6:26 ESV)

“Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

He also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A shower is coming.’ And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat,’ and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?”

(Luke 12:51-56 ESV)

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

(Galatians 1:6-10 ESV)

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

(1 Timothy 4:1-3 ESV)

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

(2 Timothy 3:1-9 ESV)

They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

(Titus 1:16 ESV)

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

(Hebrews 5:12-14 ESV)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

(2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV)

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

(1 John 2:18-19 ESV)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

(1 John 4:1-6 ESV)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

(2 John 1:7-11 ESV)

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

(Jude 1:4 ESV)

Everyone will watch this video and see themselves as Furtick—the guy going to the “wedding” (future—God’s plan for their life) and stopping at the “gas station” (present day). But what this creates is a division between the awesome, well-dressed future-wedding people and the lowly, present-day peons who stay behind to keep the gas station running. Since everyone sees themselves as the wedding-goers, no one will stop to think about how this “incredible” message breaks down in reality.

In reality, most people will not be a star, or a famous, well-dressed leader of hundreds or thousands. Most of us will be just who we are—someone made in the image of God with a commission to evangelize the gospel. This is true of all of us, whether we are a simple gas station attendant or the owner of a multi-million copy selling book (easy for Furtick to say). Most of us will have to learn to throw out the image he supposes and realize that the Gospel is able to do the work in the lives of the people around us regardless of our stature, circumstance, or influence—because it is NOT ABOUT US. It is about Christ and Him crucified.

This message plays to the egos of anyone who wants to be someone amazing and special—anyone who wants to “step out in faith” and do something audacious. But the most incredible men and women in this world are not the ones who make a big fuss—rarely are they as effective to the kingdom as the faithful little old lady who prays diligently for her grandkids and is faithful to pass what little she may know on to her children’s children—because she knows it can change their lives.

Unfortunately, most people assume that numbers (2000 people vs. 200 people) equate to success, and we give people like Furtick incredible, idolatrous credence (see Cults of Personality). But the way is narrow (Matthew 7:14), and our God is an exclusive God (Romans 9:11), who does not welcome just anyone and everyone into His kingdom (John 6:44).

He is also advocating the idea that God’s Word is not powerful enough to bring true repentant souls—somehow, we have to add flatscreen TVs, Wii’s, and the like in order to aid it.

Or perhaps this is what causes us to have inflated numbers at our churches of people who never truly come to know the saving knowledge of Christ.

As an aside, this is the same Steven Furtick as shown here.

Granted, this last video is pretty old. Perhaps he’s no longer condemning the people who actually want to follow the command in the bible to study Scripture. But sometimes it is helpful to see what wells up from a person’s heart without a P.R. Spin Filter…

So some folks are starting to call each other “Apostles” and “Prophets”—what’s the big deal?

It’s a very big deal, actually.

In the office of the Apostle, as established by Christ, the Apostle was to provide a governing role over the early church of believers, having the authority to proclaim the undebatable truths of the Gospel, and, as we now know, to have specific, Spirit-inspired writings included in the authoritative canon of Scripture. In the early church, the office had ultimate authority. This would mean they could exercise all forms of church discipline as well as shut down churches or start new churches.

In the office of Prophet, a person was selected to receive revelation from God to be delivered to His people. This role was given to those people whose prophetic ability was infallible. No prophet who prophesied and then was proven to be wrong was given credence. As a matter of fact, if they proved to be false, they were killed! Once the office of a prophet was established as a person, he was considered the final authority for God’s Word. Whatever they say is not to be questioned.

Thus, you can now see why the offices of Apostle and Prophet are important. Anyone claiming that such offices (as defined in Scripture) are in place today will need to back up these claims with sound, biblical exegesis.

I would gladly engage in an exegetical review at this point, but I feel it would be a disservice to those that have already done some incredible work and underlying research well beyond my pay-grade and skill level. Instead, I’ll quote some of the more key passages in their works, and you can research their entire works by using the bibliography at the end of this post.

First, let’s look at what the International Coalition of Apostles writes about their belief:

“The New Testament clearly outlines the gift of the apostle in Ephesians 4:11-12: “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Also mentioned in Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 12:28. The Apostle Paul and Christ’s apostles spoke of the gift as essential for the healthy function of the Church and training of the Saints.”[1]

This is also referred to in some circles as the “Five-Fold Ministry”—five defining the number of offices set up in this key text (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers).

Here we see that the use of on Scripture, as well as referencing two additional Scriptures (with hermeneutic of this Scripture as the guide) is the herald to the ICA to create the first two offices mentioned.

The ICA goes back further than 2001, however, in the idea’s inception. Bill Hamon wrote about it in his book, Apostles and Prophets and the Coming Moves of God (Destiny Image: Shippensburg PA, 1997). This book’s forward was written by C. Peter Wagner, who was given the role of “Presiding Apostle” at ICA until 2009[2].

Bill Hamon makes outrageous claims in this same book. He claims that those of us who do not submit to this “prophetic-apostolic” movement will be judged or moved out of the way[3]. These apostles and prophets will be so powerful that people will be struck dead if they show up at their meetings with sin in their lives[4]. The new apostles and prophets will have power over nature itself[5]. They will be a “new breed of man” with revelations, power, and prophetic insight not seen since Christ Himself was on earth[6].

So, as you can clearly see, this is not as simple as a title—it is truly the idea of an authoritative office equivalent (and in some cases even more grandiose) to that of the original Apostles and Prophets in the Bible.

In the rest of the section of Ephesians from which the key text is pulled, Paul speaks of the foundation, built on the apostles and the prophets, and that the cornerstone is Christ.

Quite simply, for me, there are several arguments that come to mind at this point.

1. If we are re-establishing the foundational members of the church in every age (or restoring them in this one), we would need to not only need to establish a foundation layer of apostles and prophets, but also of the cornerstone, which is Christ Himself! Since Christ died ONCE and FOR ALL, this seems redundant and, for all intents and purposes, denying the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice (I won’t get into how this makes it seem also that we’re denying the deity of Christ, since that is the source of His efficacy).
2. If Christ makes a statement in Matthew 23:8, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers,” that suggests that we avoid titles that would exalt one another and feed into human pride, I am leery on any titles, let alone whole offices that seem to exhibit the maximum earthly authority available. This is not to say that I think Christ forbade all titles and systems of authority—but that He made it a point to differentiate the title of “Rabbi” as used by the pharisees, who lorded power over people out of self-righteous and prideful motives.
3. There seems to be clamoring in this movement to restore the office of apostle and the office of prophet, but there is not effort to instate an appropriate church government within the body of the church of elders and deacons as clearly outlined in 1 Timothy 3. They seem to leave the entire idea of church government out of the picture. So what is really important here? Accountability to the Presiding Apostle or successful church government?
4. C. Peter Wagner goes out of his way—as the Presiding Apostle at the time—to spin the actions of the ICA in a favorable light regarding the Todd Bentley scandal. For those unfamiliar, Bentley started doing “revival” meetings in Lakeland, Florida. When it got to a certain level of popularity, suddenly the ICA shows up with a bunch of apostles to grant him the authority of an ICA-sanctioned prophet. Within a few days, the scandal broke to the news that he had been drinking heavily and having an affair with a woman. He subsequently left the revival, divorced his wife, married the mistress, and was restored to ministry through Morningstar with Rock Joyner (a member of ICA). Wagner writes that it was *because* of the authority of the ICA that the scandal broke. Ironically, this seems to be directly opposite the seemingly “simple” gift of discernment of “word of knowledge” that an apostle or prophet would seem to have. In other words, if the “fortune teller” cannot foretell that his/her own shop will burn down, what good is the fortune-telling skill?
5. The prophets within the ICA prophesy differently than those in the bible. Biblical prophets foretold specific, time-tested events, and the events took place in exactly the manner of the prophecy. The ICA prophets prophesy ambiguously, without detail. In many cases, the prophets are simply wrong.
6. The apostles performed vivid and incredible sign gifts, healing people completely, instantly, and without remission. Obviously, there are no documented cases of complete and instant healing from any of the ICA apostles. If so, I probably wouldn’t need to write this post.

There are many, many more questions and concerns that come to mind regarding these offices and their alleged restoration. I encourage you to read from the following informative resources I have listed below.

My conclusion is simple: the offices of Apostle and Prophet were not continued beyond those mentioned in the New Testament, they have not been “active” since that time, and there is no legitimate Scriptural reference to prove that they would be “restored”. Thus, I am unwilling to give authority or credence to these so-called offices, and, furthermore, I am skeptical of anyone who bases their life’s calling on a non Scripturally supported, totally extra-Biblical revelation (whether it is that of their calling in general, or their specific “Word from God”).

We don’t need additional revelation and new hierarchies to satisfy men’s egos.

I maintain something I read on the Pyromaniacs blog by Dan Phillips (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/08/sweeping-up-after-poythress-articles.html)…

“We’ve got 66 books of pure, real, binding revelation. We don’t know them like we should. We don’t preach them like we should. We don’t live them like we should. So grow up, focus, and get with God’s program.”

Resources

DeWaay, Bob: Apostles and Prophets and the Foundation of the Church: Biblical Exegesis that Proves that Only the New Testament Apostles are Authoritative.
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue66.htm

Let Us Reason Ministries: Apostles and Prophets Today
http://www.letusreason.org/pent1.htm

Howse, Brannon and DeWaay, Bob: Crosstalk America
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CrosstalkPodcast/~3/NSvLebPcSlU/dominion_theology.php

Got Questions: Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today?
http://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-prophets-restored.html

Footnotes

1. International Coalition of Apostles Definition of Apostle (http://www.coalitionofapostles.com/about-ica/definition-of-apostle/, accessed 9/19/2010).

2. International Coalition of Apostles: History (http://www.coalitionofapostles.com/about-ica/history-of-ica/, accessed 9/19/2010).

3. Ibid., p. 248.

4. Ibid., p. 234.

5. Ibid., p. 271.

6. See Ibid. 232, 233 for numerous grandiose claims. For example, Hamon writes, “As mentioned earlier, they [end-time prophets and apostles] will manifest all the miracles and judgement ministries of Moses and Elijah and the two prophetic witnesses in Revelation chapter 11.” p. 232.

Mega Churches and Wanna-Be-Mega Churches (usually Pentecostal, charismatic, or “non-denominational”) have sprouted up in the last five decades. These look and sound good, have incredible marketing campaigns, and know exactly how to appeal to the “non-believer”. They attract people with a show of excellence: outstanding music, dynamic speakers that are easy to understand, free lattes for visitors, applicable-to-life content, children’s programs that sometimes rival popular television shows, and the use of entertainment and secular media for bleeding edge relevance (almost to the point where you find out about current secular trends *from* the church—something they’re proud of).

Sure, I understand why churches go this way. They want to see growth. And some are not obsessed with growth because they’re money-hungry—they’re obsessed with growth because they believe it is an accurate measure of success in “reaching the lost”.

Based on a lackluster “decision evangelism”, droves of people coming forward and, praying “that prayer”, they are the indicator of the church’s “success”. But if that’s all it took, what’s the point of the Epistle to the Romans? What’s the point of half of the New Testament? What’s the entire point of the Old Testament? Why do we even bother having a Bible? Why not just have a condensed brochure/pamphlet with key contextomy that ends with the reader being told, “Poof! You’re saved!” (oh wait—most of these churches have already done this).

Unfortunately, they’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Not just any baby, mind you—they’ve thrown out the offensive Gospel. I almost wanted to write The Baby (as in Jesus), but that’s not accurate. They still preach about Jesus—just not the whole picture; rather they teach an incomplete, or incorrect gospel. This is harder to discern, because elements of their gospel are supported by Scripture. But in reality, Scripture paints a much more specific, exclusive, and scandalous Gospel.

In these churches, few walk away with a conviction from Scripture as to why they deserve death. Few understand that Christ did NOT die on the cross for a better life—He died to pay a price for our sin and restore us from eternal separation from God. Few understand that the Bible is not a book about man, but about a the redemptive nature of God.

Most of these churches are machines that churn through “instant conversions” and leave those of us interested in actually being discipled or living out a Godly life bereft of any solid Scriptural lessons. In effect, we are released into the wild in a faith-based diaper with a bottle of milk and told to “fend for ourselves” with quips like, “Leaders resource themselves!” Oh, and did I fail to mention that we get books thrown at us that give us horrible misinterpretations of Scripture to be “Wild Men of Adventure” or “Women Who Dare to Dream” or “People of Prosperity” or some other such drivel that has little or nothing to do with what God teaches from the whole of Scripture.

No teacher or professionally trained scholar is waiting in the café after our salvation experience to answer hard questions and guide us to Scripture for answers for the next 60 or so years of our lives. No pastoral care ministry is set up to meet with us and visit with us when we struggle with the crucial points in our Christian walks where we question faith, or have hard, real decisions, or when life events seem to paint God as aloof or uncaring. We’re just thrown with our bottle and our diaper back out into the world and told, “Go get some more lost people. Hurry. Every Sunday. Hurry. NOW!” And then we’re reprimanded when, in a desperate attempt to be part of the core clique of cool people, we’ve abandoned all other family and friends. But now it’s our fault, because in our attempt to stay within the safety of those that would continue to believe blindly as we do without a foundation of teaching and Scripture to help us grow, we eliminate social contact with the majority of the outside world (besides, of course, trying to pretend to be “cool” and “trendy” and show up at “cool people places” like bars and clubs to try and ram a Gospel-Lite 2.0 down their throats… NO, you’re not fooling anyone).

But here’s the rub. It’s 10 or 15 years later. We’re married people now, with kids that are in school. We have a job—most likely one we don’t like—we have marital issues, and our children, we’ve found, aren’t prophesying and “on-fire” for Jesus 24/7 like we thought they would be. Or, maybe we’re doing fine, our kids love God, and we have no complaints, except that we keep getting yelled at while we’re at church because of the lack of “non-believers” coming through the doors, or because the tithes are down again this Summer, or whatever else it is that people like to yell at us for from the pulpit that isn’t Scriptural.

Now what? Now the doubt sets in.

Some leave. Some move on to another church. Some stick it out. Some are so wrapped up that they pretend that everything is fine (these are the ones that will “pop” later and only God knows what they’ll do). Some lose the faith entirely. Some realize they were never really “saved” at all.

Who are you? What have you done? Are you still there? Do you pretend that I’m not right? Stop fooling yourself and start asking the hard questions.

We did. We started here: www.gotquestions.org. It helped us a lot. Maybe it will help you. Check out our Recommended Resources page, too. We’ve “been there”, and we’re “still doing that”. You are NOT alone.

If this is how all girls are with their fathers, then I plead with all fathers in this moment: never, ever take this for granted.

My little girl looks up to me and esteems me and adores me without my even trying. I have a suspicion that this gift is delicate and may be easily destroyed by simple rejections, by ignoring her, or by having no serious time for her.

In this, I plead again: fathers, love your daughters! More so than my sons, this child looks to me for so much.

I feel the incredible weight (and privilege) of responsibility, and I intend to fulfill my role as best as I can with the help of my God (the only father who ever did it perfectly).

What do I mean? Well, B.B. Warfield says it better than I. He expresses concerns with the ultimate goal, or ultimate object of worship with such mystical theology quite well…

B.B. Warfield has this to say, in Mysticism and Christianity:

Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armor of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armor of bones) turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer the truth. . . . Of all the conceivable forms of enlightenment, the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the God within. Anyone who knows anybody knows how it would work; anyone who knows anyone from the Higher Thought Center knows how it does work. That Jones should worship the God within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the God within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inward, but to look outward, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.

HT: Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries (www.apprising.org)

I attended a number of churches as a young boy until adulthood. Each of them waded into the Charismatic, whether they went deep or shallow. At no point in my growing up in the church do I recall receiving an education on what we believed or why. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t until I was in The Connect Church (previously known as The River and previously known as River of Life Worship Center) that I began to hear any explanations of our beliefs at all.

I remember sitting in a classroom in Haddonfield High School (a temporary location for the early years of The River) and taking copious notes on spiritual gifts—probably the most frequently taught subject at The River (I still have those notes, as a matter of fact). But regardless of the amount of classes I took or the amount of sermons I heard, I never really learned how to read the Bible, or to understand how to interpret what it says. Kyle Horner (Senior Pastor of The River/The Connect Church), was, in the early years, very adamant about taking your notes home and looking through them and the Bible to see it for ourselves—not just to take his word for it. This waned over time (mostly due to the continually decreasing study of Biblical passages), but even when he said it I rarely took him up on it. I simply accepted whatever he had to say—he made it much simpler than anything I ever read in Scripture.

At my pique involvement, I attended every one of the weekly, Wednesday night elective classes, the youth group on Fridays, praise and worship team lessons every Thursday, Tuesday “Tamar” Teams (our core small group leaders meeting), monthly Chapter 23 (larger leadership) meetings, and all services on a Sunday.

Being a married man, I was glad that my wife was a participant in all of these meetings as well. I can’t imagine having to come home every night at 10pm to kiss a wife goodnight that I didn’t see all day and all night save for a quick fast-food dinner… But some people did so anyway! We loved being involved because we derived a great sense of value from it. At the time, I would have denied that direct statement and probably told you that “my destiny is connected to my leader” (this is a dangerous and heretical sermon by Steve Kelly), that “I needed to be planted in the church” (though not as dangerous, this concept is often made too extreme), that if I “seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be taken care of” and that “if I build God’s house, He’ll build mine.” These are all points of doctrine to which Kyle subscribed whole-heartedly, and demonstrated himself with unmatched passion and zeal.

This is where my point comes to a grand and fabulous start. What were the points of doctrine? Oh, there were probably hundreds! Here is a sampling of some of the more popular:

1. If I always do what I’ve always done, I’ll always get what I’ve always gotten.
2. If I want to change my tomorrow, I must change something in my today.
3. The best is yet to come.
4. My destiny is connected to my leader.
5. Be planted in the house.
6. If I build God’s House, He’ll build mine.
7. Speak life.

I just opened some notes from a Purpose Group that Kyle had taught in 2008. Here are some of the points he made:

1. Jesus did not die for a mediocre man.
2. Faith is the result of knowing that I already have things that Christ stored up for me.
3. You are already a champion! God has already seen you win the trophy in the future without seeing the present hinderance.
4. What you honor, you replicate. What you dishonor, you lose.
5. Champions always go forward, even when others don’t.
6. Fear paralyzes us from taking the risks that are necessary to change the barriers of our lives.
7. Champions see themselves as significant.
8. We must see ourselves as significant, so that when the times comes, we can work in it.

Now, I’m not going to go into detail about why the above points (all 15 of them) are almost in direct conflict with Scripture. Suffice to say that the Gospel message is this: a) we have sinned and fallen short of God’s Law; b) the punishment for sin is death; c) God gave His Son to pay that penalty; d) having paid for our sin, Christ was raised from the dead and provides the ONLY way to God; e) in God’s mercy, those of us who are saved will spend eternity with God rather than eternity in Hell. This is the message we should be preaching and teaching, which is not mentioned at all save for a fleeting glimpse in “Jesus did not die for a mediocre man”, which, when taken at face value, is works righteousness (i.e., we have to be more than mediocre to deserve Christ’s death).

The bigger point in the recollection of the above is to point out that Kyle was teaching doctrine. He was teaching me and the rest of the folks at The River/The Connect Church a creed, a confession, a set of principles by which we lived our lives and by which we practiced our religion.

I have heard from countless people that doctrine is unimportant to their faith. I have heard people say, “I stay out of the nitty gritty details like that [doctrine] and just try to act like Jesus.” At The River/The Connect Church, we used to say, “It’s all about relationship—not rules and religion.”

What we fail to recognize is that just because something doesn’t say “Westminster Confession of Faith” or “Luther’s Shorter Catechism” doesn’t mean it’s NOT doctrine! It just means it hasn’t been clearly articulated in a document with a title. All of the above points from Kyle and countless others, along with the old Foundations booklet that they handed out to everyone in the Discovery/Foundations class (a class teaching the foundational principles of The River’s/The Connect Church’s version of the Christian faith) are the DOCTRINE of that church.

Even new churches boasting postmodernism have doctrine. They have claims like, “We don’t want to lecture you with a monologue in the form of a sermon—we want to have a conversation.” This is a statement that speaks out against one thing and speaks for something else. It is a doctrine! Another example: saying, “We just want to be like Jesus,” is a vacuous statement because, in order to be like Jesus, you have to understand Him, and this requires that you decide certain things about His actions—even deciding what His actions were, or that they were true and not a made-up story—which causes you to create a doctrine.

Doctrine should always point us back to Scripture. If a doctrine cannot be substantiated by Scripture, it has a very good chance of becoming a rule by which a regular parishioner may begin to judge his or her value in the sight of God. This is the most dangerous part of the points above, as recorded from The River/The Connect Church. These points do not point us back to the saving grace of Christ and Him crucified!

We all have doctrines. We all believe something about our faith; about our religion. Most of the time, for most of us growing up in these types of churches, we believe what we were told—even the things that have no basis in Scripture, and—in the worst cases—even the things that are contrary to Scripture! Some churches tell you clearly in well documented, Scripturally-supported statements, what they believe (typically called a Confession of Faith). Ironically, at The River/The Connect Church, I remember distinctly that the words “hermeneutics”, “doctrine”, and “theology” were spoken with disdain. Even now, years later and out of such teaching, I still cringe at these words because of the associated connotation.

So, to what doctrines do you subscribe? Have you ever had to stop and think about what you believe? R.C. Sproul, when speaking to a classroom of 30 people, asked the question, “How many of you subscribe to macro evolution?” Out of the thirty students, twenty-nine raised their hands. He asked what arguments had compelled them to move from Creationism to Macro-Evolutionism. Only one student was able to respond with an argument. All the rest shared the same sentiment as to why they believed what they believed: “That’s what we were always taught.”

What were you taught? Do you have plausible, rational arguments for your beliefs? Or do you simply believe what you believe because you were told to believe it? Is it even Scriptural? Scripture does not contradict itself (God cannot lie), so if something appears not to line up with Scripture, it’s a very good idea to research it diligently and determine its accuracy.

Finally, take heed: Christ and his disciples warn us over and over in the New Testament that false teachers, false prophets, and false Christs will abound, fooling even those that believe. I wouldn’t want to be under false teaching, and neither would anyone else, but the ONLY way to know is to step OUTSIDE of that teaching and examine it from the balance Scripture. And please—don’t take verses out of context. I say the “balance” of Scripture because verses out of context can support a myriad of false teachings, but against the whole of Scripture, when studied, a false teaching never stands.

Bottom line? Don’t.

I like to get to the point. In more ways than one (which I do plan on explaining), the book steers a reader in a myriad of directions, never sticking to a solid game plan (namely the Gospel) for ridding one’s self of exposed insecurities. Instead, there are a whole lot of anecdotes, parallelisms, alliterations (he’s quite fond of alliteration), and one-liners that give us a few clues that maybe Jesus and the apostles didn’t dealt with insecurity, and that the apostles that did overcame it so that… um… they could die a martyr’s death?

I’m not really sure what he’s getting at. Maybe allusions to Paul being insecure but then not because he discovered his true self (I guess that was the self that was allegedly beheaded in Rome, so I guess we can look forward to persecution for overcoming our insecurities) are his goal?

I guess he might also be interested in dabbling in the repressed memories theories from the mid 20th century that were used in State Hospitals based on his text about dealing with bad memories. Again, since the message is inconsistent at best as to what to do with these insecurities, I can only point to the back sections of the book where he preaches the actual full Gospel. Stick to that, and I think at least Christ will agree.

Here are some basic points, chronologically, with which I took issue…

We have a need to recognize God’s amorphous plan for one’s life

“God has a plan and purpose for each and every one of us.” – Ibid., p.53.

Kyle is using the typical Jeremiah 29:11 and John 10:10 citations for this support, which are fantastically refuted by Ben in his post here. This is not to say that I think God’s basically leaving us to pot. Scripturally, we are given marching orders (the Great Commission), but it actually includes a warning (John 15:20-21) that we will have it worse off than Jesus… and He was beaten, crucified on a cross, stabbed in the side and ridiculed.

Our insecurity is the reason that God can’t seem to make His amorphous plan work in our lives

“Insecurity always attaches us to the critical word. It hinders faith by blocking the positive affirmation of God’s promises in our life! It steals the promise away and doesn’t allow us to hear the positive confession over our future.” – Ibid., p.55

This is a slippery start, as I believe that insecurity plays a part in all of us, being the source of a lack of confidence. But to say that insecurity would steal God’s promises away? The language needs to be cleaned up if we expect to interpret anything but Word-Faith/Health-Wealth-Happiness out of it. Unless that’s what he means? He also adds this…

“…but if we attach our self worth and self image to the negative things spoken about us, it will cripple our lives and undermine our daily decisions. It will ultimately marginalize the promises of God over our lives.” – Ibid., p.57

Now negativity is being a big mean monster towards our self-image and self-worth! And… that big mean monster will make God’s promises smaller! Hmm… Again, it’s not wrong per se, but it’s a very slippery slope now, straddling Scripture and Freud.

By the way, books on self-esteem are a cliché (no, really, he says this in this book on insecurity)

“There is too much focus in our generation on self-esteem. Bookstores are filled to the brim with books on building and developing good self-esteem, conferences and seminars are sold out, and a plethora of television talk shows dedicate a majority of their time to the issue.” – Ibid., p.62

I just find this totally ironic. I actually agree. And his book is one of those books!

the purpose of the cross is to give us health, wealth and happiness

“Our future is founded in the promises of God that have been sealed by Christ’s purchase on the cross. Regret will always keep us attached to the offense when God has positioned us for release.” – Ibid. p.69

“God’s plans for us are great; His plans are to prosper us, to give us hope and a future, abundant life and not harm.” – Ibid. p.73

Insecurity is a threat to our success, destiny, and very life (not *sin*—insecurity)

“We’ve learned that insecurity is one of the most dangerous threats to the success of our relationships, destinies, and lives. We’ve learned that everyone struggles with the results of insecurity: people pleasing, worry, anxiety, fear, stress, etc. In this chapter, we are going to expose our insecurity to the truth of the image of God, and take a journey to reshape our memories!” – Ibid. p.92

If we replaced the word “insecurity” with “sin”, it would almost be a beautiful start to a full picture of the Gospel. But alas, we expose our insecurity to the image of God in order to… take a journey? To reshape our memories? Are we going to modify memories? The star of Total Recall would be very proud.

We have to reshape our memories to get rid of fear and insecurity

“In order to rid ourselves of fear and insecurities and begin to walk in the freedom of life we need to renew our minds (Romans 12:2). We must get a Re-Memory!!! We have to reshape the old memories to get a new memory.” – Ibid. p.94

I am very confused at this point. According to Romans 12:2, we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (because of Christ’s work on the cross), and we should test to discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Surprisingly, raw Scripture is far more clear than the above quote from Exposing Insecurity. It is clear from Scripture that, if there are things that are unclear or cause us concern, or are being presented to us authoritatively but outside of Scripture, that we should test those things against Scripture to see if they are the will of God! Why rewrite it? Why change what is clearly God’s prescribed method for dealing with fear, doubt, insecurity, and a host of other problems?

We have an infection that keeps us from being prosperous and healthy

“Since our memories infect our souls; our souls affect our decisions; our decisions affect our future; then it is essential that we reform our memories in order to have a healthy and prosperous future.” – Ibid., p.96

I cannot change my past—nor can I re-shape or “re-memory” the experiences I’ve had. Instead of trying this convoluted path to “reform” memories, why not just trust that God will work it out for the good (Romans 8:28)? And no, He does NOT promise health and prosperity on the cross!

“As humans it is often extremely difficult to reform our memories due to the forces that wage war on our memories. These forces have substantial impact on our souls and have become deeply rooted in our subconscious. Considering that these forces also feed our carnal, fleshly nature as well as coincide with the plan of the enemy working against our lives, it becomes difficult to uproot them. However if we are ever going to free ourselves from the devastating effects of  insecurity we must begin by waging war on the forces that wage war on our memories.” – Ibid. p.96-7

Did Jesus ever talk to his disciples about their memories? Did he ever train them to pray against their past or their memories of past experiences? Did any apostles ever teach on this? No.

Critical people, bitter people, and offended people are not people of faith, so don’t hang out with them—instead hang out with people like you

“This force will attract critical people to other people with critical natures, the offended will find the offended, the bitter will be attracted to the bitter, and people of faith will be drawn to others who see life through God’s potential.” – Ibid. p.100-1

…But you shouldn’t hang out with people like you because you won’t grow

“The truth is that we cannot influence or be influenced by someone who thinks the same way that we already think.” – Ibid. p.101

So wait… Should I hang out with critical, bitter, offended people or not? Are people critical when they don’t share the same beliefs I share? If so, then I can only hang out with people who share my same beliefs. But now you’re saying I shouldn’t. I’m so confused.

Jesus is superglue, evidently, and you can “bind” your mind, will and emotions to Him

“Bind our mind, will, and emotions to Jesus (Matthew 18:18)” – Ibid. p.124

This is commonly misinterpreted. This verse has to do with the disciples’ authority to declare terms for forgiveness of sins of wayward disciples. It has nothing to do with the mind, will, or emotions, or binding anything to Jesus. This is not a passage on glue.

Only businesses that tithe, forgive, or show compassion to the poor are successful

“There are business people who do not know God, yet tithe or forgive or show compassion to the poor, and they are still blessed. The prosperity and provision is there because of God’s goodness – obeying Gods word RELEASES that into our lives!” – Ibid. p.138

Reality check: the pornography industry is one of the most lucrative industries on the planet. Based on that, I’m leaning towards the thought that prosperity is not exclusive to blessings from God. Another thought that occurred to me is that the apostles, some of the minor prophets, and countless others have been martyred for obeying God’s Word. Oh, yeah! So was Jesus Christ Himself. I am thinking that obedience to God’s Word is not a guarantee of blessing.

The danger of this sort of stuff is that people walk away believing that their insecurities will go away if they re-visit their bad memories, that if critical thinking is present that they lack faith, and that if they’re not experiencing prosperity in all areas of their lives that they are not obeying God or living in His “fullness”. This is painful and difficult to accept, and usually just drives people further into insecurity, works-righteousness, perfectionism, and the like. Real help comes from understanding the true Gospel!

Finally, towards the end of this book, we start to see the full Gospel preached. Kyle drops in the Gospel in the midst of a review of the Ten Commandments and then revisits the full Gospel towards the end of the book. For this, I give him kudos. Most books—even ones better than this one with regards to pop-psychology and self-help—never touch the message of our fallen nature, original sin, the wages of such sin being death, and the forgiveness of that sin on the cross through propitiation by Christ, fulfilling our punishment and setting us free and putting us in right-standing with God. Thankfully, Kyle did.

That’s about the only positive I found throughout the whole book.

Hope this helps! Comments or questions are welcome.

In Christ,
Frank

** UPDATED (8/31/10): See video embedded below.

So in this journey I call my life, I’ve realized that we can find anything we want on the Internet. Now, before I write a 5000 word essay on everything and anything, let me hone in on something specific: a spiritual worldview. Now we’re talking about 65% of the Internet or so (haha—certainly not a real statistic).

Throughout the pages we search and surf, we find views that support a desire to have no real views, we can find views to support spirituality and experiencing God for the benefit of man, views that support worshiping the experience of God (and manufacturing it fraudulently), and so much more. I highlight these three because I’ve researched them more thoroughly than many others, mostly to understand them since I have interacted with these three groups of people in my past.

But some perspectives are more subtle than others. For some reason, the more popular something becomes, and the more validated it becomes by people who are already popular, the more we tend to attribute to it a truthfulness that is entirely subjective. In other words, we do no research for ourselves to determine its right-standing within our worldview or religion, we do nothing at all to ensure that those who have adopted it have not made errors in judgment. We simply accept it.

With the easy access of so much information these days, we even take it a step further: we go out and find things that agree with how we feel, and attach ourselves to them, usually without even an attempt to understand them fully, research their historical significance, or determine if the inevitable ends (whatever they might be) justify the means.

It seems, more than ever, that we have adopted in our culture (at least in America) “cults of personalities”. Wikipedia defines it as such: “A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise”.

In church, it happens even more easily that this. In church, I would wager that the cult of personality occurs first with the Senior Pastor and then multiplies ferociously when he is involved with other Senior Pastors who are doing the same thing. The simple statement, “I’ve known So-and-So for years and we’ve been in relationship for such a time as this,” or some other such silly speech. I call it “silly” because I have a lot of friends I’ve known for years and with whom I’ve been in a relationship. It does not qualify them, however, to give all of my other friends advice on specific topics—it simply means I like them.

But with a cult of personality in place, the simple fact that the Senior Pastor who is worshipped by his followers likes someone else is enough to call the other person blessed and validated as Supremely Awesome.

Do we realize how stupid this is? Do any of us actually understand the implications of what we’re allowing? It may even start innocently. I read an article by Carl Trueman called The day they tried to recruit me to the most dangerous cult in the world! Honestly, it’s a much better article than this blog post, but I fear that people who read what I write would rarely consider reading Carl Trueman, so I decided to write about it myself, as well. But he makes a very interesting point: even his students, early in his career, whose intentions were somewhat innocent, could have aided him in creating a cult of personality, which, inevitably, would have been bad for them, Carl Trueman, and the school.

These cults feed on themselves perpetually and cyclically, or at least until someone falls horribly, and then, oftentimes, the cults find a new source of inspiration, or stick with the flawed leader and continue anyway, desperate not to lose the flesh-motivated momentum they’ve created in the name of faith.

Make no mistake: this is poison: idolatry mixed with a powerful helping of pride, and marinated in premeditated ignorance. How?

1. The followers want “special revelation” from that person—information and teachings that others who don’t know the leader as well won’t get (inner circle mentality). They don’t want to learn or read their bibles or understand God on their own—they want the leader to do it, or they want to do it in exactly the same way the leader does (idolatry).
2. The leader himself becomes saturated by the idolatry in pride—who wouldn’t? All these followers doting on you hand and foot, asking you what you want to eat, drink, what temperature you want your Lexus when they go out and start it for you ahead of time… It’s hard to resist. Since he is making an impact in these followers’ lives, he begins to believe in himself in this role—subjugating them and abjugating them from Christ all the while, even if he is teaching the patterns and principles of Christ!
3. In the beginnings of this cult, all involved believe that any criticism of the leader or the followers marks an individual as divisive and non-believing—having a wrong theology since there is no sense in questioning a “growing” and “successful” system like their own. Utter ignorance sets in, preventing the leader or followers from seeing anything outside of their pre-selected materials or creeds.

Don’t believe me? Look about blogs, particularly in the comments sections. People are insanely dedicated to other people—very rarely Christ or Scripture.

Watch. If I say what I think about, say, Carl Lentz, I’ll come under scrutiny and criticism because he is a super-ultra-rock-star in the growing American Hillsong cult. He dresses the part, he walks around and talks the part, as well. I recently watched one of his sermons and heard little or no mention of the atoning sacrifice of Christ (you know, the whole reason for the cross: the Gospel) in his speech. I heard a great deal about his exploits, how his way of being a Christian is more effective, and so forth. In and of themselves, those things are prideful, somewhat ignorant of a whole picture of Scripture and certainly ignorant of the ends which he cannot see that are historically repeating themselves as we speak: he is creating another cult of personality. I, personally, have watched this happen time and time again, with people like Brian Houston, Steve Kelly, Kyle Horner, and now Carl Lentz.

** UPDATE: Here’s a video where The River/The Connect Church, a church in Cherry Hill, NJ, pastored by Kyle Horner, spent a great deal of time, money and effort to produce a mediocre medley of secular songs (and an original), with lights, smoke, tracks, and a live “worship” band. Why? Because Carl Lentz was preaching and they wanted to impress him… Seriously.

The River’s Carl Lentz Introduction from Frank Rue on Vimeo.

Historically, we can see it as a repeat of Oral Roberts to Kenneth Hagin to Kenneth Copeland and so forth. It’s also obvious in the C. Peter Wagner to Chuck Pierce to Rick Joyner to Todd Bentley phenomenon. It’s repeated in Creflow Dollar to T.D. Jakes to Joel Osteen to Ed Young, Jr. phenomenon.

I could go on and on—those that stand behind each and every one of these pulpits have made a mess of the true Gospel of Christ, but people follow them hand-and-foot as a result of the cult of personality. They are successful in amassing followers (and their money), and, somehow, this translates to success for the Kingdom of God. But this is not the case! If success in growth of friends and churches was any indicator of success then, from what we know of their lives and eventual deaths, the Apostles themselves would have to be considered absolute failures. Even Paul was eventually rejected by some of his own church plants!

I charge you, the reader, to take the responsibility to look more closely at what you follow—is it a personality? Is the person to whom you look for spiritual guidance in Christ delivering Christ to you, plainly, and helping you to see—Scripturally—who Christ is, or is he helping you to be more like himself? It is not an easy, cut-and-dry sort of evaluation. It may take days, weeks, months or years to realize, but, for your soul’s sake, it is imperative that you make this evaluation!

In Christ,
Frank

Having recently come out of an abusive church situation with many friends and family, I watched as we each made choices about where to go next. Some people are still in the midst of their choice, waiting to commit to something with caution, skepticism, and reservation.

I liken it to the story of Tanya Levin, who was once a part of Hillsong. After much soul-searching and disappointment, she concluded that institutionalized religion of any sort is not for her (this is a time-sensitive statement, as this was the last I read about her—she could be anywhere at this point), giving up a majority (if not all) of her faith.

I recently had a good debate on Facebook, where I had commented on a friend’s choice of reading material. She had recently started reading a book by Leonard Sweet called Nudge. I do not favor much of what Leonard Sweet has to say as it pertains to modern church (postmodernism, specifically). There is a significant flaw in the “deeds not creeds” and “doctrine divides” theory, in that in order to state that “you have no doctrine” you affirm that you do in fact have a doctrine: that of staying resolute in the lack of a doctrine. Thus, any time a series of thoughts is recorded, you are forced, by your own doctrine, to eternally redefine them or discard them.

The commenters involved (who, at their own choice, may reveal themselves and comment on this article within reason to keep it on-topic), were very adamant. Commenter A had a strong view of living life like Jesus; not coming down on others with words or using the Bible to “condemn another brother”. Commenter B indicates (on his Info pane) that he is a “non-dualist” in his religious views, and felt strongly that I was “not having faith in my faith” and that he and his fellow commenter were “hearing the voice of the Spirit”.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the comments, as they went on for quite a while, I think I can sum up (fairly) each of our points on this topic:

• I believe that Scripture has a real and absolute meaning. I believe in the five “solas” of the Reformation, specifically in “sola scriptura”. Scripture is a final authority and no other revelation from God can take its place.
• Commenter A believes that Scripture is a means to pointing to Christ, and that we should act like Him, not speak out our views (or, at least, not speak in a condemning fashion), and that Scripture’s interpretation is subjective to the reader. He believes that our actions are more important than our doctrine or dogma.
• Commenter B believes that Scripture is another narrative that attempts to explain what cannot be explained (one of the principles of non-duality).

The church of today is at a monumental crisis. Postmodernism is a very powerful and very obvious choice for most Christians today. It is similar to the idea of Commenter A + Commenter B… That Christianity is the belief in Christ, or at least some of His principles, and that the Bible is irrelevant for today’s society and philosophies. To the postmodern, such a book is more of a primer for a philosophy class by a professor who is far more transcendent than anything written more than 1000 years ago, and most things since. This is not said as an insult—it is merely based on the belief that we have now “realized” more, and that Scripture or any antiquated text, by the simple fact that it is aged, is not an accurate representation of philosophy for today, except as part of a cumulative process to enlightenment.

The difficulty with this type of belief system (postmodernism) is that it does something that *most* Christians of this day and age want: it invalidates the traditional, old patterns, that, for many young people are unentertaining, out-dated and meaningless. It also invalidates any doctrines and dogmas so that a person is not limited to living within a set of rules. As early as ten years ago, I was told at The River/The Connect Church: “It’s about relationship—not religion. Religion is a set of rules.” Commenter A would strongly agree with this statement (the relationship is key, the rules are bupkis). Commenter B takes it much further, invalidating any rules, and looking at life more lightly as a series of circumstances and self-defined parameters over which we attempt to exhibit an illusion of control. Such a belief system is difficult to put into words because, as with most postmodern systems, words themselves are constructs of self, and self is filtered and fallible; not an accurate representation.

Wow. All of that to say this… We accept this new system because it makes us *feel better* about ourselves. We either go with A and have the weight of rules (doctrine) removed from our shoulders, or we go with B and assume we can’t understand anything, so we can agree and be at peace with every religion (since they’re all narratives and therefore all as “right” as the next).

Let’s quickly explore a few things. Running away to the opposite version of the things you hate is not necessarily the answer. Why? Because finding some “other” church, or “other” religion, or “other” construct of the mind (for you non-dualists out there) will just put you in a new place with different problems. This is similar to that adage, “You’ll never find the perfect church.” This is a true statement. No one on this Earth is perfect, and no visible church is flawless.

My wife and I took a hard look at our lives when The River/The Connect Church pulled out all the stops to hide its cult-like mentality and pretend that all was well. I don’t dwell on that particular situation much anymore because it is not a unique situation at all; it is merely another in a series of ridiculously similar events that take place in modern seeker-sensitive, purpose-driven churches. Ed Young, Jr. had a recent scandal about how much money he spends and how secretive he is being about his income, parsonage allowance, home mortgage, leased jet, etc. His “justification” was to publicized (it’s on his blog here).  Chris Rosebrough makes amazing points reviewing his video here. Similarly, the pastors/elders of The River/The Connect Church, along with Steve Kelly, made a wonderful “dog and pony show” in that situation as well. Pastor Tamaki in New Zealand’s scandal. Todd Bentley’s scandal. Benny Hinn’s divorce.

I could go on… and that’s without documenting the scandals of the televangelists in the last few decades!

Don’t bother to mention the whole “the devil will attack the most successful ministries” thing. These are successful business enterprises for the most part, whose profits far exceed the actual preaching of the gospel and teaching of sound doctrine that is done.

So of course people want to leave evangelical churches! Who wants to be around for the next scandal?

Enter postmodern (emerging/emergent) churches. Churches where it’s like Vermont’s gun laws. There are hardly any: and crime is low. The moment we make gun laws, we have more crime, supposedly (and somewhat statistically). This is not an argument for or against the NRA—I’m just making a point!

Postmodern churches create their own rules about how there aren’t really any rules. Writers like Brian McLaren and Tony Jones, in an effort to find a way out of the ridiculous state they see the church getting into, have “discovered” the “true” message of Christ.

Here’s where I get argumentative. You cannot create a “new religion” out of things you have surreptitiously pulled from Scripture. Every person who reads the bible must make a definitive conclusion immediately about what they are reading: it is either TRUE or FALSE.

You have the freedom to choose—but you do not have the freedom to mix and match.

Most churches like to use Scripture. They like to use it to prove their ideas. This is called “proof-texting”. It is sometimes right but most of the time wrong. Scripture was not meant to be The Big Book of Quotes to Support My Ideas. It is meant to be read entirely, understood with regards to how it supports itself and its lack of contradiction.

I would recommend this for anyone wanting to “run away” from church, from their faith, or even from a denomination: LEARN SCRIPTURE. Get a good book on Biblical interpretation (preferably several, if you can sport it), get a good Bible (I recommend the ESV Study Bible), and begin to read. Have questions? I recommend Got Questions for many of your answers (this site is comprised of a variety of people who try to answer questions based purely on Scripture with a 4-Point Calvinist bent). I also regularly listen to Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio, particularly his program, Fighting for The Faith, where he reviews existing evangelical sermons and shows his listeners how to property interpret Scripture and to test what sermons have said.

Bear this in mind: EVERYONE IS FLAWED. If a Bible teacher or preacher will not allow themselves to be questioned, or shows a disregard towards criticism, RUN SCREAMING FROM THAT PLACE. There is no help for them. Legitimate, constructive criticism can help us all!

Check out our recommended reading, as well—this is a great start for learning Scripture.

Traditionally, churches had creeds and catechisms in order to help all lay people within the church (those without the skills or resources necessary to interpret Scripture down to Greek, Hebrew, culture, history, etc.) understand their beliefs. THESE ARE NOT EVIL. The more specifically a church spells out its belief systems, the better YOU can make an educated decisions as to whether or not you confess the same things.

If a church is adamant about NOT having a creed or statement of beliefs, or (this is IMPORTANT) is unable to support its own statement of beliefs during the course of its teachings, it is not a church where you will want to stay, unless you plan on calling them on their error and helping to advocate correction.

Personally, I have found that reformed Presbyterians [PCA—NOT PC(USA)], Confessional Lutherans, and a few other traditional denominations hold to a Confession of Faith—something that binds them to a set of beliefs so as not to be infiltrated by “winds of doctrines” (Ephesians 4:14).

I know. They don’t have lights, fog machines or rock music (most of them don’t at least). But then, why did we think this was a good idea? Oh yeah, because we thought the “unsaved” would like it. But the visible church was never meant to BE about the unsaved. It was meant as a place of worship for believers!

A lot here, I know. But it’s all stuff that relates to running away—or at least related to my studies when I wanted to run away.

Hope it helped!

In Christ,
Frank

What’s really sad in all of this is that almost anyone on the outside of a bad church situation sees these patterns and many more much more vividly than those inside. Countless friends and family have heard our story (or even been a part of it) and hammered us time and time again with truth that we were unable or unwilling to hear. Yet, once outside of the church, we were able to see so clearly. This precision hindsight seems to be universally true to all survivors.

My wife and I left the church after a tragic and painful downward spiral began and are happy to say that the experience has absolutely changed us for the better. We found solace in the books of well-known, scholarly authors whose credentials date back 400 or more years (with some contemporaries thrown in). We found life and regeneration in Scripture—correctly interpreted Scripture, that is. We found freedom in the actual truth revealed in the Word of God contrasted with the bondage that had weighed us down before.

The more time we spend away from our previous church experience, the more clearly we can see what happened, why it happened, and how to avoid it in the future. I’ll say it again: I don’t think of myself as an authority or expert on church abuse at all—there are men and women who have spent years in much worse situations and more years recovering and researching their way out of it. To those people I tip my hat, raise my glass, and salute (I’ve also read and learned from quite a few of them).

Here, on this blog, in this new category of Abusive Church Help, I intend to share my experience so that anyone else who might be going through the same or similar will maybe be able to skip a few steps, find a few good books, hear the cry of another and realize that they are not insane, or pose the hard questions so we can work together to find the answers.

Please be aware of this important detail: I intend to and will share very explicit details about my experience in the future, and I will mention names. I will do this with honor and respect, citing only things that are factual or corroborated by multiple witnesses—not hearsay. It is important that those that continue to lead anyone astray in the name of God be brought to account and that we do not follow the teachings or examples of such teachers (Hebrews 13:7, Romans 16:17, 1 Timothy 1:3, 1 Timothy 6:2, 2 Peter 2).

As always, I welcome comments and questions. The point of any exercise of any Christian in a public forum should be one with which he is not puffed up and incapable of being corrected or rebuked by Scripture. However, I would ask that, if you choose to comment to critique, you do so with Scripture, as I will strive to do, or with some resource that can be cited and reviewed, so that we can all grow in our understanding.

I know that church can be good—where believers are taught sound doctrine and know the gospel as the gospel. I know that church can be bad—where believers are apathetic or taught aberrant doctrine. …And I also know that church can be much worse—where non-believers are taught that they are saved when they’re not, where believers are taught that they can have health, wealth and happiness if they say a simple prayer, and where anyone who comes against such heretical teaching is regarded as divisive, dangerous, and, ultimately, shunned. Of course, it can get worse than that. We’ll see some of that later.

For now, check out the Recommended Reading—we’ve compiled it especially for anyone who just recently left a cult-like or abusive church.

I ran with my eyes focused on the prize; I ran to win the race; I ran to run the race with everything I had in me. My passion was untouchable. My zeal was intense and, at most times, ignorant of others. I felt incredibly justified and as though I was being the model modern Christian, or a metaphoric reincarnation of the founding fathers of my faith. My leaders and my peers at my church were supportive and all doing the same: running hard and fast for the ideals and beliefs we all shared, seeking the next lap in our unending race to save souls and transform our world.

The people around me stopped mattering unless they were in this race and running with me. I might offer a hand to anyone that slowed down, but not at the expense of losing ground myself; if they fell behind, it was a casualty of war, and I believed that nothing I could do would help them anyway. I offered quick prayers to God to “help them: quicken their mind to find their path again back into this race to join us”.

I was trained for this. I was made for this. I was destined for this. I was a leader. Real leadership was lonely because when you busted through a glass ceiling that others were unwilling to break, you left people below you.

People who “burned out” were really just running off of the wrong power source; they weren’t really running on God’s wave, they were on their own. So if you were running and not burning out, you were doing it right.

…

If you have read any of this and find it vaguely or incredibly familiar, or if it’s exactly what you have been taught, you have been taught a lie.

I was taught this. It was incredibly inspiring. It even sounds exciting when I re-read it now—it has the trappings of the speech of a big, powerful, “man’s man” coach for a football team or the captain of an elite military squad. I wanted to be a good follower and become a great leader. I wanted to find out how far I could climb to become a greater worshiper; a greater Christian.

It will always, inevitably, come crashing down. Why? Because it is all built on false understanding and ignorance. Let’s begin.

Yes, there is a race to which the Christian’s walk is compared in Scripture (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). However, the metaphor was used by Paul (the author of 1 Corinthians) in the context of his writing to the Corinthians for a specific purpose, with a specific antecedent in mind, and with a specific message. The Corinthians participated in Isthmian games (almost as famous as the Olympics), so an athletic metaphor was appropriate (purpose of the metaphor). The metaphor was used to describe the work Paul was doing (the work of an apostle to bring many to faith in the gospel). Paul stated this in this way as to show the Corinthians the true reward of his work: the congregations who gained faith in the gospel, not a material reward.

We see this portion of Scripture pulled and twisted by the above “inspirational ideal”, sometimes a great deal, to support an unwavering submission to the goals of an organization, regardless of the wreckage that is in its wake. And, by the way, that is typically the fruit of such actions: a wake of wreckage. This is not the intention of Paul in this passage! Just 5 verses prior, in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul relates that he has become “a servant to all” (v 19): a person who made headway in areas where he might not have previously been accepted in order to communicate the gospel. He was not trying to become elitist, as the “inspirational ideal” might suggest—on the contrary, he was appealing in each of his witnessing scenarios to their favor.

He goes on to admonish the Corinthians that he “became weak, that [he] might win the weak” (v 22). This is in no way similar to the idea of running and leaving others behind because they just aren’t at your “level” in the race. If we look at Paul’s point here, it is obvious that he was willing to “stoop” or “elevate” himself (without prejudice or ridicule) to whatever level was necessary in order to effectively communicate the gospel!

Everybody wants to feel made for something; destined for something. Why? Maybe it’s because we are sinful and full of pride and we need to feel more valuable so our carnal nature is satisfied. That’s not a Godly principle—it exalts man and his sinful nature and not God. In reality, we are called by God to preach His gospel! There is no promise of earthly exaltation of ourselves, nor is there a guarantee that our success will be measured and rewarded by man. More often, Scripture seems to make it a point that what pleases man is typically NOT what pleases God.

Take a look at the very next chapter:

“For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” (emphasis added, 1 Corinthians 10 ESV)

Paul makes it a point that no matter how well men were thought of from the perspective of men, they were still displeasing to God.

Much of the “inspirational ideal” above is designed to build the organization: get people in the organization, train people in the ways of the organization, and send them back out to repeat ad nauseam. But Paul is clear that he does it all “for the sake of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:23).

People burn out all the time in our country. It happens in careers all the time—especially in the careers of pastors or volunteers (lay people). I’m not a big proponent of psychology as a treatment (I will discuss this at another time), but I do think that we can use psychological terms to quickly identify, semantically, common behaviors in people which many of us have witnessed. Burn-out is one of them. Burn-out is well summed-up by its Wikipedia entry: “experience of long-term exhaustion and diminished interest” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnout_(psychology), accessed 7/18/10). It is also of note that in the same entry, the only measure to be taken to prevent burn-out is “a combination of organizational change and education for the individual”. A few points…

1. Organizations that employ this “inspirational ideal” simply shuffle job descriptions (an over-simplified idea of organizational change) in order to prevent it.
2. In order to provide education for the individual, it would violate the code of the organization. This is easily seen in a military unit. As soon as individuality is built up, the military unit will suffer disunity and hesitation when commands for conditioned response are issued.

“Conditioned response contributes to conformity, and conformity certainly strengthens unit dependability, which is essential to the success of any coordinated tactics or strategy. Yet absolute conformity strangles individuality of thought, and the utterly dependable can easily become the readily predictable.” [Innovation and the Military Mind, Air Vice-Marshall R.A. Mason (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au24-196.htm, accessed 7/18/10)]

So burn-out in the church may be best prevented by better education and true organizational change that allows room for people to adapt to their new educations, take the time necessary to become educated, and “as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, an especially to those who are of the household of faith” (emphasis added, Galatians 6:10, ESV). Note the emphasis: “as we have opportunity“. This is unique to each person’s station in life, maturity, ability, and availability, and is not something where there is a single rule to which all must conform.

Hope this helps!

It seems, these days, that being critical of anything throws a bunch of people into an uproar. A critique of something somehow equates to an unfair judging (as opposed to a “fair judging”?), and has to be qualified with, “Well, that’s what I believe,” or, “In my personal opinion,” when, in fact, we have been given the understanding and the tools to divide and discern nearly anything that may come to question the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

I’d like to point out that the act of critiquing something is condoned (cf. Acts 17:10-12), encouraged (cf. Gal 1:6-9), and even commanded (cf. 1 John 4:1) by God. Yes, how you do it is very important, and that’s about the only caveat I’ll allow.

I will not continue to “cover my butt” with silly disclaimers and caveats like, “Well, this is how I interpret this.” In most cases (unless the Word is not explicit or implicit), there is a precise conclusion, or at least significant boundaries around which we can put most of our statements in the Christian faith.

It is vital that Christians study to show themselves approved (cf. 2 Tim 2:14-15). Notice that Paul says to Timothy, in v14, “…not to quarrel about words…” This is not one of those times when we can say, “See, you shouldn’t be arguing about theology or divisive doctrine!” In fact, Paul is speaking to Timothy about teaching that has no positive impact on its followers (cf. vv16-17).

A frequent favorite is the quoting of Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” This is a statement be Jesus Christ and He continues to offer caution. The whole passage here, Matthew 7:1-5, is really a better context (it is the context). Notice that in v5, He says, “…first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” This indicates that criticism and correction are still allowed (and as we saw earlier, commanded), but that the way in which we do it must be free from hypocrisy. Typically, the people I find that spend the most time shouting this verse are the ones who (stay with me) criticize the person criticizing—which is totally hypocritical; you are now judging someone for judging. Obviously, Christ continues to teach us that we must evaluate and be evaluated. His lesson here is focused on making each person pronouncing judgment more aware of his or her own need for humility before acting “holier than thou”.

Here are some final thoughts… I critique everything that is presented to me regarding God. The aspects about which I choose to speak out are only those which can be critiqued using Scripture. If I am basing my critique on my opinion, I need to be clear. But when it’s Scriptural, I will definitely state it matter-of-factly (with the appropriate references to Scripture), and I will not be ashamed of my objection. Anything that is extra-biblical (outside of Scripture) needs to be tested. Anything. Whether it’s a personal “felt” experience, a sermon from a pastor who just walked in off the street without any seminary training, a sermon from a pastor who has been in seminary for 20 years, a book by a renowned author… Anything. We are all human, and thus, we are all fallible, so we all need to have our work critiqued.

Hope that clears things up. :)

once per week
To me, this is a no-brainer. I’m not saying I’m an expert, either. There are some weeks when the only time I worship is at service. There are even some weeks where I don’t really worship at service, come to think of it! But the ideal is certainly to worship daily. Regularly acknowledging the holiness of God is key to living this life.

only corporate
Praise and worship is not something that can or should only happen in a church setting. It is something that each of us can do on his/her own turf, at his/her own time. As per the previous point, daily worship is a great way to help focus the mind on things of God.

only personal
To ensure that the other extreme from the previous point is not legalistically embraced: corporate worship is something that is healthy and positive for the growth and success of the church. To be unified together in song, in prayer—in worship!—is a sure way of combatting personal differences, attitudes, and all sorts of other man-made blocks between participation and non-participation in serving the Kingdom.

only liturgical
Creeds are not the end-all, be-all of the worship service. They are a fantastic way of expressing a common belief, dictating theology in a concise passage, and ensuring that different groups within the congregation share a common unity. However, thinking that worship can only be accomplished by the use of creeds or liturgy is absurd: what did people do before there was a liturgy? Did those people not worship God? What did Abraham do? What did the first churches in the New Testament do? The fact is, we weren’t there, so we can’t say for sure. But we know that liturgies were defined long after these people—not before. Thus, God must be able to receive something other than liturgical worship.

only freeform
When the Charismatic movement was in stride in the mid-to-later 1900s, there was a strong belief that the churches of the time lacked the power of the Holy Spirit, and that the movement was re-igniting something long-dormant in the church. This is a tough one for me to subscribe to or to deny; I have been around the very dry churches that feel lifeless and I hear the side that says those churches lack something. But I’ve also been to the churches that are full-on holy rollers where praise and worship lasts for 2-3 hours and no one comes prepared with music because “we don’t want to squelch the Holy Spirit” and more and more… This doesn’t seem right, either, since a service is definitely supposed to have order. Either way, even if I can’t say for sure what that “balance” looks like, there seems to me to be a good amount of amazing stuff that happens when, at some point in the service, we let go of the program of events and allow God to do something that He wants to do regardless of our man-made plans. Perhaps it’s just us as a congregation being unified in desire to worship Him longer; perhaps it’s God speaking back to us corporately; perhaps it’s something else. I can’t put my finger on it, and I don’t know that anyone can without claiming to understand the supernatural (which it is thus called because it does NOT have an explanation). That being said, there have been immensely powerful moments in liturgical settings, as well. I remember reading a creed for the first time in my own personal worship time and feeling a wave of incredible awe and reverence pour over me—something that caused me to see and understand that what I was reciting with so many before me was powerful stuff! So don’t knock the liturgy: it is just as powerful as the freeform, in that it is just another tool for God.

spooky
Countless passages say, “Fear Not!”  This begs the realization that God’s messengers were sent to people and the people were afraid. God is a being to be feared and revered—but He is not spooky. “Spooky” things (at least, my definition) are mysterious and dark in nature. They are malicious in their actions, prideful, and demonstrate the opposites of the gifts of the Spirit. If you’re in a church service where they are advocating weird, spooky activities… get out. :) As an aside, I think “tampering” with things that we are not called to tamper with is a very, very stupid idea. We are not spirits, we are not heavenly creatures—we are humans, made to exist on this Earth, and how, when, and through what means we transition later in our eternal lives (to wherever) is entirely God’s business. I have watched too many very odd television episodes, YouTube videos, or advertisements for things like “Extreme Prophetic” and “Ekstasis” and “transitioning to the Third Heaven” and what-not to make my stomach turn. How is this any different than witchcraft? Or pretending that we can do things that we cannot? It’s not. Even the apostles don’t do any of this in the New Testament, and, if I can be so blunt, I would have to consider them the experts on Godly things next to Jesus. Oh, that reminds me… Jesus never did any of these things, either. Funny.

chaotic
Order. I can’t say it enough. Things are to be done in order! That means preparing ahead of time, having all the details worked out. Even if the service goes in a different direction (see “only freeform”), having a plan is good because God is sovereign and may decide not to do anything out of the ordinary!

a showcase for the Holy Spirit
Paul makes it clear that there are certain things done in a service that are best done only in the presence of believers, as unbelievers will consider us crazy. There is a point he is making here and I don’t think he’s advocating a “seeker-sensitive” church service. There are a number of signs and wonders that took place in the early church in an abundance that we have not seen since then. I am not a cessationist in the sense that these gifts are not in operation at all today, but I am a believer that if we enter worship with the goal of demonstrating the more exotic powers God has used over time, that we are entering for the wrong reasons. Worship is about God—not about impressing others, even if we’re trying to do it “for God”. God doesn’t need the pick-me-up or the votes to be God. He is. Our focus should be on Him and Him alone—if He chooses to use powerful signs and wonders, then He chooses to do so. So far, in every so-called “outpouring” that has taken place in my lifetime, it is always traced back to a person whose motives are not to worship God, but to see gifts of power and to see the miraculous. These are not interests of God’s, but interests of man.

a revival trigger
On a similar note to the previous point, praise and worship music should not be a tool to trigger a revival. It is a means of expressing our worship in an artistic way to our God. True revival is the awakening inside of an individual of the part of them that has always known God and the acknowledgement of it. If it’s inside of a person who has already acknowledged God, I believe it is the rekindling (metaphorically) of their desire to strive to be a better student of God and His Word. Oh, that we would all be better students of Him!

an emotional manipulator
It’s funny how much our brains in American culture are accustomed to accompaniment. Music is heard throughout movies, television, and church services. It is a part of what manipulates our emotions. I recently watched a video clip of a trailer re-made for the classic horror movie The Shining, where the music was changed and the narration was changed to talk about the clips played as if it were about a father re-uniting with his son and finding a new bond. Had I never seen The Shining, I would have believed it! Why? Because music is a VERY powerful manipulator of the emotions. It’s not evil—it’s amoral. But it can be used to do anything, including make portions of a church service more heart-wrenching. It is a difficult balance to walk to use music without abusing music for a cause. Every Sunday I play at the end of a service and I wonder if I’m choosing my notes because they *reflect* what is being spoken or because they will make what is being spoken sound that much more sappy. Hopefully, I err on the side of reflection, but somehow I think that’s not always the case.

the end-all, be-all
Praise and worship is not everything in one compact musical number. In fact, rarely, these days, do people grow in their understanding and love for God by playing or singing worship music—they just feel better. Knowing God comes from knowing His Scripture. As you learn more about Him in Scripture, that relationship deepens, and the worship you sing will be a by-product of that relationship and knowledge—not the reverse. I love music, but it is not what “makes” my relationship with God what I want or what I need. It is just another tool.

I know that a lot of this is controversial. It’s pop-culture at its best within the church. But I believe that some of what I have shared is valuable to a better and growing understanding of why we do this thing we called “praise and worship”, and, more importantly, a good explanation of what we are NOT representing in such an activity.

Hope this helps!

I’m going to list a few words, followed by the same words again with their explanations. I am also going to try and go from most ubiquitous across denominations and across levels of conservative to least ubiquitous and least conservative.

I understand that this will cause some objection in some people and many objections among many people.

This is entirely the point.

Understanding worship, to me, is the study of something that we do for God. Often times, people who have been in church for a while forget this—we (since I am a person who has been in church for a while, I include myself) begin to think that worship is the experience that we need to beg for, and that God then somehow is moved to give to us. But before I get on my rant, let’s list some words…

Worship (musical praise and worship) is NOT…

• a performance
• about me/us
• a style
• a demand to God
• a substitute for the Word
• a showcase of talent
• an alternate music career
• a biblical mandate
• more important than the sermon
• musically perfect
• directed to man
• GroupThink
• once per week
• only corporate
• only personal
• only liturgical
• only freeform
• spooky
• chaotic
• a showcase for the Holy Spirit
• a revival trigger
• an emotional manipulator
• the end-all, be-all

Here are some explanations, since I’ve now (hopefully) piqued your interest:

a performance
Worship should never be a performance. To whom are you showing off? Furthermore, if you’re on the congregational side, why are you sitting there watching? Is this giving glory to God or man? When you’re at church to worship, the point is to direct your praise and worship to God, it is not to applaud the talents of man. This is not to say that there is no place for performance—it is to say that performance should not be take place during worship! Corporate worship is the communion of saints in all aspects: we should all be participating, in whatever way is sacrificial and honoring towards God.

about me/us
Worship is not about me, or about us. A lot of “worship” songs even violate this principle, speaking exclusively to the congregation without helping to aim them to Christ.

a style
Because worship is about a personal or corporate expression towards God, it is not something I am prepared to pigeonhole into a style or genre of music. I have seen people earnestly singing God’s praises in other countries in styles of music and sounds that I don’t appreciate and frankly can’t stand. But they’re for real. Does that mean that only my acoustic guitar songs are “authentic”? Does it mean their loud irritating sounds are “authentic”? No—it means authenticity is in the combination of the heart’s motive as well as the cultural ramifications of the music. This is why rock-and-roll was (and still is) a controversial style for worship in some conservative denominations—and their point is not to be ignored! A person who grew up through the 50s, 60s, and sometimes 70s has a view of rock-and-roll that someone like me (who grew up in the 80s and 90s) does not. It is a mode of music that represented rebellion and sex. Sure, I don’t think that—but I wasn’t around to see the Beatles, Jerry Lee Lewis, or Elvis in their prime. Imagine, for a moment, if the latest Brooke Frasier song was a replica of Toxic (Britney Spears), but with “worshipy” words? I like Brook’s music a lot—I think some of it is tremendous. But you cannot ask a generation that has grown up watching a pop star push her sexual image with lyrics, music, and videos, hear the same exact format, and think ONLY about God—it is simply not probably that a guy is going to sit there and go, “Yeah, I was only thinking about God.” So if you put it in that perspective, it’s VERY real—some music, in a culture at a given time—is NOT appropriate for worship. But it has nothing to do with the STYLE—it has EVERYTHING to do with the CULTURE.

a demand to God
I have sung lots of songs where I put demands on God. I think a few of my older originals even come across this way. They’re not always commands, or even obvious demands, but the way we sing them and deliver the lines, and the context of the song is typically in the form of me begging God for something that He already gave me or has promised me at some indefinite time in the future. It’s sort of a subtle way of whining for something that a parent has already answered his child about, but the child wants it NOW. I have kids—they’re fantastic examples of this. I am quite aware that psalmists throughout time have demanded things of God—so I realize that this is not unbiblical, but I do think that our worship time is not to be exclusively demanding.

a substitute for the Word
I am flattered when someone says that they liked my song. I am more flattered when someone says that they put it on repeat and they listened to it all day. There’s nothing wrong with that. Especially if I get royalties per-listen. I’m KIDDING. However, what I have noticed is that some people consider their “time with God” a time of prayer and worship, yet totally neglect the Word. NOTHING is a substitute for the Word. No song, no matter how biblical, no matter how gifted a writer it had, is as good as God’s unadulterated Word. Scripture is the ONLY thing we can all agree was left by God directly for our use and edification. Why we would ignore it in favor of music or other authors’ books I don’t know—some poison (apathy) has seeped into our water (laziness) that makes us feel like it’s not our responsibility to study for ourselves.

a showcase of talent
Hey, I’m talented, so you all know. Really, I am. God is not impressed. You can be—there’s nothing wrong with appreciating someone else’s gifts/talents (whatever you want to call them). But when we’re participating in praise and worship of our God, my talent’s purpose is to provide a platter on which God is served. That platter must NEVER diminish who God is, or call attention to itself. Sure, there will be times when what it is that a musician plays or sings will be attention-gaining, but to take a time of worship and belittle its primary goal with the over-zealous praise of the musicians is to undermine our call.

an alternate music career
I am astounded at how many people abuse worship as a means for financial gain. But I am MORE astounded at how many people accept this in the church as congregation members. Any worker who spends full-time working for the church should be paid some sort of wage—this I have no problem agreeing to. And variations for part-time commitments: fine! But I can quickly tell the difference between a person who needs money as a result of pouring out their heart into something that they love and a person who “didn’t make it” doing secular music, so they turned to the “church belt” to earn their keep instead. This goes back to showcasing talent and the performance mindset. Please note: I am a part-time paid band leader—I used the word “abuse” at the top for a reason: some people are around these circles purely for the money and music; not for the advancing of the Kingdom or the edification of the Saints. Trust me: they are all around us.

a biblical mandate
Believe it or not, musical praise and worship being a mandate is debatable. Psalm 150 speaks clearly of playing instruments as a means of worship. But it is not a mandate that we see in the New Testament church established by the apostles. Such being the case, it causes me to wonder why so many lay people place so much value on a “worship leader” or the “praise and worship” at a church. It shows very obviously that American churches have priorities in the wrong order for what’s important about a church.

more important than the sermon
As I said in my last explanation: worship is not something to be valued over all else. Nor is it something more important than what a teacher or preacher brings forth each Sunday! Content is the guts of our faith—the meat. Everything else we do is simple the skin, or the way in which we present the meat. If there is no meat, we are empty shells—vessels of skin and bone and nothing of nutrition.

musically perfect
Worship can be a mess and still be worship. Granted, as a musician, it is my primary goal to provide an environment and encouragement for people to worship while staying mostly invisible—and bad sounding music can definitely trip people up! But it is not the cause or failure of a person’s ability to worship God. People worship God all the time without music at all—are they not worshiping?

directed to man
Why we  adamantly believe that God is going to do something for us in worship when the entire point is simply to worship Him is beyond me. I go in and try expecting nothing in return, as I deserve nothing! This is about God! Does he give back in tangible and intangible ways? YES! But for us to say things like, “I really need God to move me this morning,” has the entire point of worship up-ended! We do what we are called to do. Period. If God does something in return, we call it a “blessing” because it is something above and beyond what He is required to do.

I have to go to bed. To be continued…

Salvation and The Start of Belief

To speak of what shapes me goes back to my beginnings in faith; my initial understandings of God. Being raised without a strict adherence to a specific doctrine, without a catechism or statement of faith for myself or that of my family, I have nothing that I can fall back upon and say, “Why, this is what I believed!” Instead, I have the statement of faith of each of the churches I attended in my youth and in my early adult life, none of which I had ever read, let alone understood.

So how can I have had any belief at all? Good question. I can’t tell a person—for sure—all the specifics of what I believed towards the start because I didn’t have specific beliefs. I had general beliefs about God, much of them based on things loosely obtained from Scripture. This begs the question: how can I know I was even saved at all? I have asked myself that very question in more recent years, as well.

Now, depending on what YOU believe, how I know can be understood very differently. If you’re a Pentecostal or Charismatic, like I started out, you will understand when I say, “I knew that I knew.” But if you’re of a more conservative, “sola scriptura” system of belief, that’s not enough because it can rely entirely on my feelings which, being human, are fallible. So if you want more Scripture on the matter, I’ll share this: somehow, in the miraculous way that God does it, I ignored a majority of the teachings of Scripture in my youth in terms of their depth of meaning, but I grasped the concept of depravity and grace (at least in their simplest forms). I grasped them, I repented, and I turned my face and faith towards Christ and confessed Him as Lord over my life, having been crucified and raised three days later for the atonement of my sin, utterly and completely paying for the debt I owed to God. This I grasped and even remember where I learned it: a former pastor of mine had shared with me “the Romans Road”.

At that moment and forward, I can say that I know I was saved because I sought after the things of God—my life began to show evidence of the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. I certainly didn’t turn away from all forms of sin in my life. I had excused a number of things that I had done simply because I had no education on what was right and what was wrong in the eyes of God. I ignored opportunities to learn because I was afraid I would find out that I’d have to give up what I was doing. Thus is the depraved mind of man.

Years went by and I chased after the only things of God you can chase when you don’t study Scripture: experiencing God in praise and worship, the supernatural, and communing with more people who did the same. For ten years, I absorbed a theology created by the church I attended. The theology had good parts and bad parts, like even the most humble of man’s theologies. This particular theology was “light” (“light” like some brands of yogurt). It lacked any sophistication whatsoever—it was a simple theology and a great deal of it was constructed in order to support the vision and mission of that particular church. Moreover, there were rarely true definitions or references for Scriptural support in any of the points of the theology—it was, at best, a glorified corporate vision statement with mystical vocabulary.

I am learning that no matter what, we are still finite creations, and the understanding of an infinite Creator is not something we simply “get”, no matter how much study we might do.

Altar Calls and Decisions for Christ

Unfortunately, most churches of a Spirit-filled denomination or non-denomination all follow a similar course: they are very moving, very inspiring events once per week that focus nearly 100% of all efforts on “saving the lost” (I’ll address that some other time, as it is possible that they have significantly missed the mark in what a public worship service is supposed to be). Thus, the message, the advertising, the worship, the sets, the production—it’s all geared to emotionally impact someone while lightly dusting the crowd with spirituality and very minimal doctrine or unabridged Scripture.

I have my reservations about the effectiveness of this type of service. Granted, it certainly does, when done well, bring the crowds. It certainly causes people to come in, listen intently, and ask questions about spirituality. Beyond this, I am not sure that it has a lasting impact. Those that would be willing to honestly and wholeheartedly commit their lives to the cause of Christ are those that have heard and understand (as I did) the simple but complete message of the Gospel. And those that make such a “decision” do not (and should not) make it lightly. Completely changing your life is NEVER a decision that is to be made lightly! If you’re making that commitment to the God of the Universe, you better be very serious, full of the fear of God, and understanding of the redemptive work of Christ for a life that is hopeless—or your salvation itself may be in question.

Many commitments, I fear, are made on a limited understanding of the Gospel (if they are made with any understanding of the Gospel at all), and made in the midst of emotionally manipulated pressure akin to the salesman pushing the contract and the pen across the table at the end of a pitch without first giving you a moment to understand the product, or the Get Rich Quick presenter giving you 30 minutes to buy his as-yet-undisclosed secret before the seminar is over. How can we consider these commitments sincere? Thus, how can we be sure these commitments are true salvation? We cannot know they are or are not—in the moment. Only time can help to prove a case, at best.

The Difficulty in Opposites

I don’t feel that the more conservative approach is ultimately right either. I have attended the liturgical churches. I have been around other believers who subscribe to the idea of shying away from experiences with God since they are fallible. I have understood and respect such arguments, even! Look at what gets done when we throw all caution to the wind: self-proclaimed prophets (false prophets), teachers who teach something other than the Scripture (false teachers), self-help coaches who mean well but give us nothing Scriptural (those we with itching ears have accumulated), and experts in mysticism (is there such a thing?).

I know how this looks and feels. Having been brought up where “feeling” the Spirit was an active part of church life, for me to completely ignore Him, or to squelch my feelings in fear of their being wrong is painful. Moreover, the joy of Scripture is tremendous—but requires a great deal of discipline and understanding. I consider it more the “meat” to which Scripture refers, and would encourage all believers to move on to this discipline. But early in my faith, just like in a child’s earliest months, you could not have asked me to chew on a hunk of filet mignon, even wrapped in bacon and seared to a perfect medium-rare. I needed milk. I needed something that quenched my thirst, satisfied my hunger, and got me to stop whining, but that didn’t require going to a depth beyond me at that moment.

Moreover, I find that Spirit-filled churches, with their sometimes-too-heavy weight placed on feeling God’s presence and experiencing Him and His joy are a counter-balance (or reaction) to the conservative sometimes-too-heavy weight placed on how awful we are in our depraved state. When I pray among the conservatives, it lacks the same gusto and zeal as the Spirit-filled. Conversely, when I see people get crazy at a Spirit-filled service, I regret that I am a part of it. When something great happens in my life, I am free and encouraged to share it among the Spirit-filled body, but with conservatives, I withhold, fearing retribution for any echo of “positive confession” or “health and wealth”.

The Conclusions

I will say this, and it is vitally important: regardless of the method, level of accuracy, or motives of the presenters of any version of the Gospel, there are always people who truly believe in the real Gospel in their midst. Apart from churches that do not profess the essentials of the faith (saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone), I believe that every church has people who we will see in eternity with God. We must then also conclude that—no matter what—there is still a positive level of effectiveness in simply having a church, regardless of its methods or focus.

I also find that viewing something from both perspectives is a sobering and very revealing way to look at any and everything. Viewing mystical events with the shrewdness of a Reformed theologian brings into sharp contrast the very dangerous and all-to-often man-made gnosticism present in Christianity today. Juxtaposed to this, I also try and understand that we as Christians DO feel God and experience Him—and I do not tend to discourage or frown upon personal experience and revelation when it is Scripturally sound.

I do not know absolutely what is “right” between these two views, and if either extreme is more correct than the other.

I do not know absolutely if all, some, or none of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are at work today.

I do know that we are warned many times in Scripture that there will be false teachers, false prophets, and to test every spirit—and this is something that is too neglected in Spirit-filled circles. I also know that Jesus Christ promised a Comforter—not just a Sanctifier, and in that I know I can rest when I experience my God on a very personal and tangible level.

Comments welcome!

Don’t lie. You scorned them. I can’t think of anyone that has grown up as a Generation Xer or Millenial that hasn’t poked fun—either trivially or with true anger—at tradition. We’ve even started attributing the word religion to mean the negative aspects of traditions we don’t understand.

So where am I going with this? Well, I’ve got a lot of options. :)

I could write about how we are a totally selfish, get-it-your-way society, picking and choosing our churches, our services (contemporary or traditional?), and even our small groups based solely on styles and what “comforts” us the most. That’s pretty painful, since I am 100% guilty of this even as we speak. But I think we’ll save that for when I’m not a complete hypocrite on the subject (if that time ever comes).

I could write about how tradition in some church circles has circumvented a relationship with Christ and plays to the desires of our society that say, “Yeah, I did church this week. Now I need to do the grocery shopping,” and check it off of our list. It’s easier to say liturgical prayers rote than to actually have to mean something when we say it. That’s pretty normal in Protestant, Evangelical circles though—the war between charismatic and liturgical services boils on, so I’m not going to bother at this juncture.

Instead, I’m going to write about it all from a 10,000 foot view. A higher perspective (not in intellect or understanding, but in a literal, holistic view).

Within religious/sociological history, there appears to be a cycle. You are probably aware of its phases without realizing it’s a cycle, because it doesn’t typically make itself apparent until after a 3rd generation has taken the reigns. It seems to work like this…

1. Within our religion, we determine that something about the past way of celebrating our faith has been missing or misinterpreted. We change. We look for a balance between what we understand and what was done in the past. In this balance, and, in an effort to prevent our deviation from this balance, we create strict guidelines—ways in which we adhere to and control ourselves, but with a love and understanding that these things will guide us to where we want to go, ultimately. We teach our children.
2. The children take the reigns. Within their religion, they recognize the guidelines of their parents, and continue them, but they begin to lose hold of the love and understanding of the strict approach. The duties become rote, the songs become monotone, and the heart is dulled. They teach their children—albeit passively.
3. The children take the reigns. Within their understanding of religion, they are discontent, disillusioned, and feel pressured to continue a painful strict doctrine that they do not understand. They reject the religion and fine something when the pendulum is swung to the opposite side: something that touches their hearts, but barely engages the mind. Something with weak doctrine, but lots of feeling—something spiritual without tradition (or religion).

And then the cycle starts again.

Are we repeating history? Right now, there is a rise in the Reformed movement in direct opposition to the movement of self-help, feel-good churches. As the self-help churches are growing by the thousands, the Reformed churches are growing more slowly, but with deliberate, calculated steps, preparing for the inevitable: either there will eventually be a mass rejection of the self-help church, when the masses realize that nothing that they are doing is engaging their minds or their spirits—just their hearts; just what makes them feel good for the moment.

Where are you in this cycle? What have you decided to do to stay balanced? Or are you leaning more towards liturgical, or more towards feel-good? By what grounds do you make this decision?

I am sitting here in an airport, typing on my computer, waiting for a delayed flight, paying for half-rate versions of food that normally costs a tenth of the price. I can’t get on the Internet because the wireless doesn’t work and my phone won’t tether with my laptop. My phone is painfully slow because whatever signal it does have is not sufficient for sending anything more than a 4-word text, and that still takes 3 tries and about 10 minutes.

But I am alive. And—apart from a lingering cough, a small amount of irritating flab that hangs over my belt because I’ve started eating more Calories than I burn in a given day—I am well.

I could be upset at any of the aforementioned conditions. I could be self-righteously indignant, believing myself entitled to better conditions because of a meager amount of consumable-competing money that I am not even paying (the company I work for is paying for it) to sit in a technological breakthrough that takes human beings into the air and transports them thousands of miles away in an infinitesimal fraction of the time it takes to walk or even drive to the same destination. I could be indignant, but I am, in the words of an America comedian Louis CK, “a non-contributing zero” to that marvel: why not just be amazed that we can even do this for any price? And no, I’m not ignorant to the reality of customer service and the ethics of good business—I’m merely making a holistic point.

I have a job and my family is well taken care of.

As a male, I feel obligated—both by design and by society’s reinforcement of that design—to provide for my family. At times, this has been difficult (and, in the future, it may unpredictably be difficult again), and, during these times, I have doubted myself and been concerned with the possible doubt that my wife might have (though—thank God—she is a wonderful woman who has never doubted me) in my ability to continue to provide and pull us through such times.

Yet we have always had food, shelter, clothing, and a warm bed. When you really think about it, that’s more than what millions of people on this very same Earth can say. To take it a step further, it’s immensely ungrateful of me to even begin to be concerned with my own plight because I am so ridiculously “well-off” in comparison to the millions that die of starvation, lack of proper medical care, etc.

I just realized that I’m writing these words while wearing $120 designer jeans, working on a top-of-the-line, $3000 MacBook Pro, and smelling of an $80 cologne while I glance at my $400 iPhone to see if I have a text message for which I pay over $100 a month to supply such technology to my wife and I.

People are starving. And I get pissed when my tweets don’t go through because of a bad cell signal. What is wrong with me?

Now, before you misunderstand my purpose in this rabbit-trail rant, look: I am amazed at my lack of gratefulness for what I have, and I write about this in an effort to recognize and reverse that lack of gratefulness—I am not personally advocating that we all jettison our technology, our non-thrift-store purchases and give all of our money to the poor. Though this might eliminate the entire world’s impoverished population for a time, it is not the only way to a) show more gratefulness or b) contribute to something bigger than ourselves. But hey, if you’re game: do it. You’ll probably never regret it.

I—a lowly man with a nature desiring the selfish and sinful—am saved from separation with God.

Since Jesus Christ has been given and sacrificed to atone for my sins—to completely legally pay the price for the sin I have had no ability to prevent myself from committing—I now have the privilege of walking with God and an assurance of my salvation. I walk these days with more confidence in my growth of knowledge in Him as it edifies myself, those around me, and, ultimately, glorifies God. I have faith that I will continue to grow that confidence and to see more of my life changed to be conformed to His image of me; His version of me. He who has started a good work in me will be faithful to complete it!

To be more and more aware of the absolute justice that should be done to all who have sinned (every man who walked this Earth but One)—the punishment of death and eternal separation from God—makes me more and more aware of the absoluteness of God’s grace given to me and His mercy to give that grace to me even in my sin. There is nothing I can possibly due to earn this favor or to become “good enough” to avoid absolute and perfect justice. But there is One who has already done everything that is necessary—One who has satisfied the inevitable consequence of that absolute justice! For this, I fall flat on my face (figuratively and, at times, literally) in worship and adoration for my God.

I DO NOT DESERVE THIS GIFT.

Nonetheless, I stand here. Acquitted—in the presence of One who has loved me with a love I cannot ever possibly comprehend. Just a sliver of a glimpse of the shadow of the memory of the love of this One is more than my mind and heart can handle! I no longer wonder why the rocks will cry out if we will not. I no longer think it is insanity to imagine personifying inanimate objects (if necessary) in an effort to express the near-tangible compulsion to worship Him.

There is no quantity of characters or punctuation to adequately express my feelings here. Like so many writers before me—those more talented with the pen, more versed in vocabulary, more rhythmic in prose and more influential in purpose—the beauty of what I write is still only worthy of a metaphoric garbage can outside of the vestibule of the entrance to the throne of Heaven.

What makes me different from one who is persecuted or even killed for this faith? Apart from my being more whiney, ungrateful, and generally annoying than a martyr—nothing. What makes me different from one who is affluent, philanthropic, and loved by many yet still committed to this faith? Nothing. What makes me different from a single mother who suffers terminal illness and will leave behind and lose everything she loves yet still knows this faith? Nothing.

Yet I still cannot comprehend this. I am humbled at every turn to know that I am equal to those that I would be ashamed to admit I didn’t like as well as equal to those I would be proud to call my mentors or even equals. Yet none of us is more or less worthy!

How is this even possible?!

Such is the nature of our Creator. That He would not be questioned in this moment of time—time which He created and is no master over Him (and, of which He is outside)—or possibly ever. An infinite mind (if we can even call it a “mind”, since our definition is obviously severely inadequate) filled with an infinite love (and though that word still marks beauty, it is a beauty that is out-shined by its Owner).

As such, my life could be nothing—even that which I would never wish on any and to which I could not possibly empathize, sympathize, or relate—but so long as I had this faith, each day would be a day to praise my God.

Let’s move on.

Many of you may know of the fame of Todd Bentley, a self-proclaimed “Faith Healer” who was in Lakewood, Florida for a good amount of time just recently, allegedly performing miracles. Some may know other names of infamy: Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn… The list, unfortunately, goes on and on.

In each case, the events have several common factors, each of which I will address…

The worship music is emotive and experientially moving.

I am a musician, and I compose music that can emote feelings of endearment, happiness, sadness, and the like. This is common with music: it is amoral, but is capable of evoking feelings in each of us, and is a great tool when used with good intentions. In this case, the music is hypnotic and evokes a meditative state.

The sermons are heavily focused on faith, spiritual gifts, and the miraculous.

Scriptural exegesis and/or explanation (preaching properly) requires referencing first Scripture itself and then other, collegiately-reputable sources (e.g., previous theologians and widely-accepted educated individuals on the subject matter). In all matters Scriptural, it is important to provide these references so that parishioners (or attendees) can study and find revelation within the Word of God for themselves, as the word of man is fallible. These preachers hardly ever quote Scripture in context, provide no references, make exceptional conclusions which are sometimes contradictory to Scripture from the out-of-context quotes, and move past the Scripture quickly as possible in order to gain “validation” from the crowd that this is, in fact, a spiritual event, but without allowing any scrutiny of those quotes. The topics, of course, are chosen to support the real purpose of the event, which is to perform the miraculous.

The preachers are dynamic and exciting, and are speaking about life-application.

Many people are under the impression that false doctrine will only come from false teachers, easily identified as false teachers because they will be boring, irrelevant, and obvious in their heresy. But this is not the case at all. In fact, Paul warns us of this very thing in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” Note that Paul isn’t even talking about the teachers themselves! He is placing the guilt on the people, since they are the ones accumulating such teachers.

Donations are accepted at the events, and are often in large total amounts.

I know I’m drawing my own conclusion here, but I’m also assuming that, unless you are a very dense piece of construction material, you will draw the same: money is a motivator, and people donate it in large sums and very quickly when they think they will get miracles.

There are few seminary graduates in attendance.

This is speculation, but it’s educated speculation. Every single person whose positive accounts I’ve read about these events is not theologically educated. They are carried about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). This is, without any other explanation, the most important reason we need to study the Word—each of us, not just those called to be preachers or teachers.

The events typically look like this:

1. There is an air of excitement in and about the tent or building.
2. There is background music playing that is emotive and moving.
3. The event starts later than usual.
4. Worship music starts and goes for an extended period of time (most times, more than an hour).
5. The preacher typically starts addressing the crowd, but is rarely using prepared notes.
6. The preacher reaches a moment in the address that contains any one of the following phrases:
   “God is getting ready to do something spectacular/miraculous/amazing in this place…”
   “I feel the power of God on me…”
   “God is telling me…”
7. Prior to and during his/her address, sick or injured people in the crowd are moving forward to the “healing line”, or a place near the front where each of them can get in line to go on stage and be touched by the preacher. Workers of the event “filter” those seeking this based on some criteria that is not explained or published anywhere.
8. Individuals from the line of people are escorted to the stage one-by-one, to meet with the preacher during his/her address.
9. The individual is touched by the preacher and will almost inevitably fall down and be carried off to the side of stage and laid down for later use.
10. Inevitably, the people who are “healed” are those with migraines/headaches, back pain, bone pain, etc. (any kind of pain or sickness which is not empirically identifiable).
11. No medical information is ever made available to press or attendees to examine from prior “healing”.
12. A great deal of money is collected during the offering time.
13. People go home.

This order of events is not consistent in any way with the ministry of the apostles or of Jesus as we read in Scripture. The only consistencies are: there was an air of excitement around Jesus; and Jesus did not have prepared notes.

The apostles performed things that were utterly miraculous, but accounts of commonplace miracles (miracles taking place regularly) only existed in time periods in the bible: the time of the Exodus, the time of Elijah and Elisha, the time of Jesus’ ministry, and the time directly following His ministry (the time of the apostles). There are not other biblical accounts of commonplace miracles, and, furthermore, there are no documented historical times where miracles were commonplace for the last 1900+ years.

Furthermore, when Jesus performed a healing (specifically), the healing was instantaneous and complete: the blind would see instantly, the lepers were utterly cured, the lame could walk (sometimes jump and dance), and a dead man was raised. “Faith healers” don’t seem to follow this trend. Jack Coe claimed to heal a boy with polio and asked him to remove his leg braces. Afterwards, the boy was in excruciating pain. This is not consistent with miracles that Jesus performed. Jesus even performed miracles without actually being in the presence of the person who was sick (Matthew 8:5-13)!

I haven’t even heard of any faith healer raising the dead, let alone providing documented medical evidence of a person’s “healed” condition to anyone at all. Some say this is because of privacy. Others claim it spits in the face of “faith”. As far as I can tell, and as far as Scripture reports, the news of someone being healed was a pretty amazing way of getting people to come and listen to Jesus, as well as being more sick to be healed. Why would this be a setback to provide proof? The only reason I can legitimately think of is that there isn’t any.

You may believe that these “faith healers” are doing more good than bad (you may not believe they’re doing any bad at all!). I will tell you that this is an incorrect assessment:

They are putting a bad mark on Christianity as a whole.

People who are already skeptically cynical feast on these sort of events because, inevitably, something stupid always happens. In the case of Jack Coe, he gets arrested and charged with malpractice (though the case is dismissed), and then dies of the same disease he was trying to heal. Peter Popoff is caught with a wireless receiver, being fed his information on the attendees by his wife (just watch Leap of Faith with Steve Martin for a fictional adaptation), Todd Bentley has an affair with one of his volunteers and leaves his wife and children to marry her instead, and is then reinstated in “prophetic” ministry by Rick Joyner. Benny Hinn’s wife just filed for divorce in February, supposedly “surprising” Benny Hinn. These are not indications of men who meet the biblical requirements of elders/pastors/teachers within the church in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

They cause some to turn away from Christ entirely because they are left unhealed.

You may or may not believe in predestination. If you do, this is less of an issue for you. If you don’t, you believe that people have a choice to make, and, as a result of this type of an event in their lives, will harden their heart more to the Gospel. Not that the Gospel cannot penetrate it, but I’m not sure it’s helpful, either.

They make teaching sound doctrine that much more difficult.

Because we live in a society that is used to instant gratification, it does not support that idea of doing more studying, sitting in longer services with better exegesis of Scripture, or reading detailed commentary on Scripture. People want the mystical to happen, the miraculous to sweep them up and make them believe instantly, or at least get them what they want (healing) and let them move on.

They cloud the true Gospel.

God did not send Jesus for the purpose of healing the sick for 3 years (John 3:16-21). Sure, this is a great by-product, but having the cross as a destination, and the ultimate sacrifice for the atonement of all our sins is much more important than whether we have both hands or both feet for this temporal life (Matthew 18:8-9).

They steal money from people for personal gain instead of putting it to good, charitable use.

The donations come in by the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars per event, and this money rarely goes to those in need. Instead, it goes to funding the same ministry, or—worse—to the pockets of the leaders running the events (see my post on Prosperity). Again—this is not what we are commanded to do. We are commanded to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and visit those in prison and those that are sick (Matthew 25:34-40).

With all of these things and more, they represent a gospel I do not know. It is time to stand up for the real Gospel. If you are someone or know someone who has been lured into belief of these types of teachings, here are some great resources:

• Scripture. Read the gospels and the epistles, but with some sort of help from a Reformed biblical commentary (so you get a truly thorough understanding of the culture and history of the text).
• GotQuestions.Org. This is a great website with a ton of questions whose answers reference Scripture. It is also based on Reformed theology, so it is thorough in its references and exegesis of Scripture.
• Systematic Theology. I read Louis Berkhof’s. This is more for the heady intellectual, but it will still provide tremendous insight into understanding what God’s Word means.

You can also post comments here. I’ll do my best to answer them.

UPDATE: Here is a link to something that happened in court today regarding “faith healing”: http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/03/jeffrey_and_marci_beagley_sent.html

This is yet another example of people who have gone to the extreme in this topic.

I don’t think I’ve ever met another Christian who truly despises those folks. If I may venture an educated guess, we all seem to have the same feeling towards them: “Boy, that’s amazing. I wish I could do that, but really, I’m glad I’m not the one doing it.” Meanwhile, after staring at them for a few moments, sighing, and then bustling along in our busy lives, we concern ourselves with whether we’re getting the solo grande soy caramel macchiato with no whip or just a latte.

So then we wrap around to the other end of the spectrum. We’ve all seen these folks, of course, because they typically flaunt themselves so gregariously as to be noticed. They drive nothing other than a Rolls Royce or an S600 Mercedes, and purchase luxurious homes for themselves and close members of their family, and spend a significantly larger amount of money on what they later call “ministry expenses”, even when some of the expenses are for items that would not be put to use in “standard ministry practices”. The U.S. Senate has put many of these types of Christian organizations under investigation as potentially non-qualifying tax-exempt entities.

Now, as anyone who gains a decent amount of money will tell you, the first thing that happens when you start to show that you have money is that people get upset and start hurling accusations. Most of us are no stranger to this phenomenon—it’s simple human envy.

Many people make good amounts of money and, perhaps at many cases, deserve the spoils of their hard work or intellectual products.

Where it gets tricky is when the person making the exorbitant amount of money is the head of a non-profit organization. This is where I start to get all sorts of funny hibbidijibbidies.

See, I work in a for-profit company. That means that when I sell my services or products to people, they know that I am charging them enough money to make—that’s right!—a profit. I play the tension between my prospective clients going to another shop for my services and getting any combination of better/worse quality at a higher/lower price. Finding the balance in my pricing to keep my services competitive and keep me earning a good profit is what business is all about.

But that makes sense, right? Capitalism at its best? I capitalize on the needs of businesses by providing a service to them at a price we can both afford. When I make good money, it is reflected somewhere: either in savings/investment or in my lifestyle. This is the same for any person in a for-profit business!

There are two things I’d like to discuss at this point.

1. Are people in a non-profit organizations ethically supposed to acquire outrageous salaries?

First off, let’s dispel “housing allowance” and any other funny terms that give an individual money to pay for living expenses. I tired quickly of all of the fancy terminology used to legally avoid tax problems. I’ve been tempted to use them myself, so I’m not naive to the system. These methodologies are fine if you want to “re-arrange” your money and make the government believe you bring home $30,000 in your “company” S600. Puh-lease.

At the time of this post, I find, within moderate cost-of-living areas, one can make upwards to $100,000 per year before taxes and support a family of 5 if medical needs are average and the person has medical benefits. This includes owning a home, one or two cars, and the expenses associated with all of that. Now, this is not a measure of what a person needs in order to survive with his/her family. This is what, in my experience, is comfortable. Of course, I’m generalizing, and there are situations where anywhere from $45,000 to $65,000 per year before taxes is comfortable; it all depends on the situation. Then, if you’re living in high cost-of-living areas, the salary may need to be upwards around $150,000 per year to adequately make the living situation comfortable. Again, I accept that there are significant variations in this depending on situations.

What I can’t possibly begin to make sense of is the idea that a person, to be comfortable, needs to make $500,000 per year before taxes.

This is, of course, not every non-profit leader’s salary, but it represents a few personalities with which most of us are familiar. Remember, also, that clergy, specifically, qualify for more exemptions, thus bringing home a larger portion of that income than an average, for-profit employee.

So now what? A person who has requested government exemptions and the title of “non-profit” is now bringing home not only more than a necessary salary, but more than a comfortable salary (nay—more than a wealthy person’s salary!). Thus, I question again: is it ethically allowed?

Before you get all ticked off and start quoting 1 Timothy 5:17-18, let me remind you that this verse is specific to elders who rule well within the church, and that the Greek says “double honor”, not “quintuple honor”, or “honor to the power of 10″. From a Scriptural perspective, we ensure the church that those who rule it well and put in the time, effort and energy to do so will be paid well (double honor). Unfortunately, this is not a debate-ender on either side: it does not specify amounts, nor does it put a minimum or maximum on salary. So let’s move on.

Let’s also quickly remind ourselves that to declare a “non-profit” status is to state that you are taking the money and putting it back into the business for future operations and or growth, and, if the organization is set up as a feeder organization (“501(c)(3)”), it is supposed to be generating profits to feed them into the charitable organization to which it is committed. So from a non-Scriptural, legal perspective, people are expected not to profit from the business in which they’re engaged. Then again, some filing statuses allow the C.E.O. of a non-profit organization to legally have an income that is equivalent to the for-profit market value of that position. Thus, now, from a legal perspective, an outrageous salary may not be frowned upon.

Now I’d like to get more specific within this question and pose it while being specific to a Christian…

2. Should a Christian elder be allowed to earn an outrageous salary (assuming also that it is paid from the tithes of the parishioners)?

I’m not going to spend any portion of this post defending out-of-context references to promises in Scripture that salvation and living a life in Christ will cause you to become rich. If you believe this, you should probably look up “Prosperity Gospel” and read any one of the many explanations as to why this is pure heresy. Instead, let’s focus on what Scripture does say about wealth, especially the act of accumulating it.

There are numerous verses throughout Scripture where wealth is talked about with significant warning. Proverbs 22:16 (ESV) says, “Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Jesus teaches that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:25), just after asking a rich man to sell all his possessions to the poor. A great Scripture about this is Luke 14:12-14: Jesus tells folks not to invite family and friends to a banquet lest they invite you back and repay you; instead, invite the lame, the poor, etc., who cannot repay you. Again, we see the message similar to Proverbs 22:16!

To be clear, this is not a condemnation of anyone who is wealthy! It is a question and a concern of those that are already wealthy and still asking for more money from parishioners, those that are not using this money effectively to demonstrate the generosity that Christ commanded us to demonstrate towards the poor and lame, and those who promise such aberrant reciprocation as, “Give us your seed of faith offering (e.g., $100), and God will return blessings to you financially (e.g., $1000 or $10,000).”

Just in case you aren’t sure what I mean, I recently downloaded scans from an ex-employee of Benny Hinn. This employee was able to provide receipts showing cash withdrawals during some of Benny Hinn’s stays in Europe. I’ll make it short and sweet. Among receipts for cash “tips” to Bell Hops and Concierges to the tune of $1700 was a receipt for money given to a “homeless woman with baby” for $20. Look at the priorities there!

And yet, Benny Hinn tirelessly asks people for donations—where does all of that money go? There are still no financials available to the public (or even the U.S. Senate) to explain what his organization is doing with donor’s money.

I absolutely tire of this representation of Christianity. We are all made to look like fools when people run about, claiming to be “pastors” or organizations claim to be “churches” and, all the while, the mandates set out by Scripture aren’t even held within their wallets or their walls. Ironically, if they simply renamed themselves, that would at least be a good start. If an organization said it was a for-profit entity instead of claiming “church” status, then our government could crack down on anything suspicious. Instead, they slide under the radar, all in the name of Christ… And we simply tolerate it!

This is an abomination to the work that Christ would have us do. There are people suffering everywhere, and some of the people with the most resource to make a significant impact on those that suffer are taking the money from people like the middle-class and buying outrageous homes, cars, and amenities for themselves—not giving it to those in need as we might suppose they are!

I hope that you—reading this blog—are determining in your heart to examine to whom or to what you would choose to donate. There are plenty of great tools for determining what organizations are doing with the money you donate. Ministry Watch (www.ministrywatch.com) helps identify organizations that are doing very well with spending donor’s money on good causes and what ministries are mysteriously “hiding” the money trail, as well as everything in between. You can also ask your local pastor to see the church financials. As a member of the church (which you should take the steps to become when you decide to tithe), most states’ laws give you the right to request to view financial records for the church. Most churches with nothing to hide will have a packet handed out to members quarterly, bi-annually, or annually.

All in all, I hope that church leaders are doing the right thing with donations. Unfortunately, the reality is that church leaders are humans, and fallible, and will sometimes (I dare-say more than 50% of the time these days) take part in inscrutable behavior with money. Be careful, and be a good steward of your money and your church—ask questions!

If this is an interim progress report, I think my post on