Follow this link to watch a video called "The Gospel in 6 Minutes", where John Piper gives the simple, pure good news, conveys its relevance to all in every aspect of life, and pleas for its embrace.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MediaPlayer/2389/Video/
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Ben Stein's "Expelled" receives 2 (designed) thumbs up
My parents, Chris, and I saw Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this afternoon. This documentary exposes the unscientific methods of academia in calling evolution fact and burying its head in the ground whenever an opposing view (Intelligent Design) is presented.
Artisically put together, this entertaining and thought-provoking documentary related the two camps to the Berlin Wall, because there is "academic freedom" only if you are on the right side of the wall. What that means is that if one proposes anything other than the prevalent view, one is ostrasized, persecuted, and "expelled" from academia (fired and prevented from future hiring). A case of this recently happened at my alma mater, where one of the university's (and my) most beloved professors was not tenured.
Having studied Darwin at Cambridge for a study-abroad course, I was glad to see him address the fact that the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution is eugenics and genocide. Hitler and the Nazi party were not crazy. Their practices of exterminating what nature would "select" anyway in order to create the perfect race are the rational applications of the evolution mindset. That's how horribly sad/dangerous/unethical this theory can be.
The pinnacle of the movie was Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of The God Delusion. Dawkins, a raging atheist who claims that anyone who believes in a God is an idiot showed himself to be a complete idiot when asked about the beginning of life. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection does not account for the first living cell, just somewhat what happens after that living cell somehow came into existance. Dawkins said that it is a possibility that alien lifeform designed this living cell and brought it to Earth. No, I am not kidding. He actually thinks that believing in aliens is scientific. WOW. And even worse, after raging against "intelligent design", he himself stated that some intelligent being may have designed this single-cell organism and put it on Earth. But that "intelligent designer" must have itself evolved through some sort of Darwinian process. Or else it must have been placed wherever it was by some other evolved intelligent designer, in perpetuity... With all due respect, Mr. Dawkins, I think you are the one under delusion.
I wrote my paper (for my Cambridge course) on how Darwin intended to make science arreligious (without religion) - because before him, science was intended to discover God's revelation through creation - but what he did instead was change the religion of science from a judeo-christian endeavor to a Nature-and-therefore-SELF-as-God religion. Dawkins, as Darwin was before him, is not an unbiased scientist, but a self-centered man angry with God, and he would rather believe anything else designed the world as long as it is not a Righteous Judge who holds us accountable for our actions.
**Note on how these men do not follow the scientific method.
1)Darwin threw out evidence against his theory (I saw some of it with my own eyes). This is against the scientific method, because if something does not fit the theory, then the theory should change to fit the evidence, not vice versa.
2) "Scientists" consider Evolution (def: that all known life evolved from one single-cell organism) FACT. Most of the evolution-upholding scientists in the documentary called it such. In the scientific method, there is no fact; one should always consider a theory as something that has just not been disproved YET.
3) No one has ever successfully duplicated evolution, just like no one has ever duplicated the beginning. Therefore, it is nothing but a weak theory, maybe just hypothesis.
See this movie. I give it 2 (opposing) thumbs up.
Artisically put together, this entertaining and thought-provoking documentary related the two camps to the Berlin Wall, because there is "academic freedom" only if you are on the right side of the wall. What that means is that if one proposes anything other than the prevalent view, one is ostrasized, persecuted, and "expelled" from academia (fired and prevented from future hiring). A case of this recently happened at my alma mater, where one of the university's (and my) most beloved professors was not tenured.
Having studied Darwin at Cambridge for a study-abroad course, I was glad to see him address the fact that the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution is eugenics and genocide. Hitler and the Nazi party were not crazy. Their practices of exterminating what nature would "select" anyway in order to create the perfect race are the rational applications of the evolution mindset. That's how horribly sad/dangerous/unethical this theory can be.
The pinnacle of the movie was Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins, scientist and author of The God Delusion. Dawkins, a raging atheist who claims that anyone who believes in a God is an idiot showed himself to be a complete idiot when asked about the beginning of life. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection does not account for the first living cell, just somewhat what happens after that living cell somehow came into existance. Dawkins said that it is a possibility that alien lifeform designed this living cell and brought it to Earth. No, I am not kidding. He actually thinks that believing in aliens is scientific. WOW. And even worse, after raging against "intelligent design", he himself stated that some intelligent being may have designed this single-cell organism and put it on Earth. But that "intelligent designer" must have itself evolved through some sort of Darwinian process. Or else it must have been placed wherever it was by some other evolved intelligent designer, in perpetuity... With all due respect, Mr. Dawkins, I think you are the one under delusion.
I wrote my paper (for my Cambridge course) on how Darwin intended to make science arreligious (without religion) - because before him, science was intended to discover God's revelation through creation - but what he did instead was change the religion of science from a judeo-christian endeavor to a Nature-and-therefore-SELF-as-God religion. Dawkins, as Darwin was before him, is not an unbiased scientist, but a self-centered man angry with God, and he would rather believe anything else designed the world as long as it is not a Righteous Judge who holds us accountable for our actions.
**Note on how these men do not follow the scientific method.
1)Darwin threw out evidence against his theory (I saw some of it with my own eyes). This is against the scientific method, because if something does not fit the theory, then the theory should change to fit the evidence, not vice versa.
2) "Scientists" consider Evolution (def: that all known life evolved from one single-cell organism) FACT. Most of the evolution-upholding scientists in the documentary called it such. In the scientific method, there is no fact; one should always consider a theory as something that has just not been disproved YET.
3) No one has ever successfully duplicated evolution, just like no one has ever duplicated the beginning. Therefore, it is nothing but a weak theory, maybe just hypothesis.
See this movie. I give it 2 (opposing) thumbs up.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
What you've all been waiting for... my rant on Joel
So I gave in to the temptation to watch Joel Osteen as I was getting ready for church. The practice has become routine, as our church service doesn't start till 11 and Joel comes on the tv at 9. I can't remember what the word is for a person's facination with what they abhor, but that word describes this Sunday morning ritual. I had never really known much about him or his teachings until a few months ago, but it didn't take long for me to start hurling household objects at our tv. As a huge fan of generalizations, I think I finally, today, put together why he is such a false teacher.
Let's see if I can make this make sense...
It comes as no surprise that Joel is part of the health/wealth/prosperity gospel craze, evidentally trying to instigate a resurge, since its era had fizzed due to all the scandals of Oral Roberts & co. Joel's daddy was huge in the movement, and, according to Joel, also boasted of no formal or seminary education.
I'm guessing that this is probably how all the health/wealth/prosperity gospel pastors opperated, but since I'm relatively young, it is baffling and attrocious. It occured to me today that what little from the Bible that Joel uses, he only uses as an allegory for how God wants us to be successful on earth. For example, a few weeks ago, he said that the virgin birth of Jesus means that we shouldn't let other men stand in our way, because Mary sure didn't let other men (or lack there-of) stand in the way of her dream. That is almost a direct quote! Now, asside from the fact that any moron could be fairly positive that having a baby outside of wedlock was NOT the dream of this good little Hebrew, what is missing here? A: What the birth of Christ actually means for history, prophesy, sinners, our understanding of God, HELLO?? He just used the prophesied virgin birth of the LORD of the universe to be a metaphor for how we should not let anyone get in the way of our debt (again, I'm almost quoting here), that we should let no one, not even our boss, get in the way of our promotion.
In today's "sermon", he so artfully related Jesus' experience on the cross and the few days before Galgotha to our times when we feel low. Jesus went through some pain, and so might we, but we just need to gut it out like He did was pretty much the message. He fell down when He was carrying His cross, and we might stumble too sometimes, but He had Simon to help Him out, and we'll have people to help us out too. oh how nice. And even when He was on the cross, He asked God to forgive those who had hurt Him, and we should do that too. And the best part is that He raised from the grave, just like he's going to raise us out of our debt/depression/low-paying job/flu/traffic jam/bad hair day. Isn't that wonderful???
Who had ever thought a sermon on Christ's sacrifice to pay for the sins of His chosen to satisfy a just God could be so "applicable" and completely meaningless. I can't believe that: 1)People actually listen to this yahoo, 2) He hasn't been struck by lightening yet, and 3)I didn't barf up my HoneyBunchesOfOats while watching this.
The fact that he makes so secular what is so sacred is completely appalling, that he makes people think that God is just an omnipresent genie that wants to make us happy in this life is so sickening, and that hundreds of thousands are led astray by his false teaching is so incredibly sad.
Let's see if I can make this make sense...
It comes as no surprise that Joel is part of the health/wealth/prosperity gospel craze, evidentally trying to instigate a resurge, since its era had fizzed due to all the scandals of Oral Roberts & co. Joel's daddy was huge in the movement, and, according to Joel, also boasted of no formal or seminary education.
I'm guessing that this is probably how all the health/wealth/prosperity gospel pastors opperated, but since I'm relatively young, it is baffling and attrocious. It occured to me today that what little from the Bible that Joel uses, he only uses as an allegory for how God wants us to be successful on earth. For example, a few weeks ago, he said that the virgin birth of Jesus means that we shouldn't let other men stand in our way, because Mary sure didn't let other men (or lack there-of) stand in the way of her dream. That is almost a direct quote! Now, asside from the fact that any moron could be fairly positive that having a baby outside of wedlock was NOT the dream of this good little Hebrew, what is missing here? A: What the birth of Christ actually means for history, prophesy, sinners, our understanding of God, HELLO?? He just used the prophesied virgin birth of the LORD of the universe to be a metaphor for how we should not let anyone get in the way of our debt (again, I'm almost quoting here), that we should let no one, not even our boss, get in the way of our promotion.
In today's "sermon", he so artfully related Jesus' experience on the cross and the few days before Galgotha to our times when we feel low. Jesus went through some pain, and so might we, but we just need to gut it out like He did was pretty much the message. He fell down when He was carrying His cross, and we might stumble too sometimes, but He had Simon to help Him out, and we'll have people to help us out too. oh how nice. And even when He was on the cross, He asked God to forgive those who had hurt Him, and we should do that too. And the best part is that He raised from the grave, just like he's going to raise us out of our debt/depression/low-paying job/flu/traffic jam/bad hair day. Isn't that wonderful???
Who had ever thought a sermon on Christ's sacrifice to pay for the sins of His chosen to satisfy a just God could be so "applicable" and completely meaningless. I can't believe that: 1)People actually listen to this yahoo, 2) He hasn't been struck by lightening yet, and 3)I didn't barf up my HoneyBunchesOfOats while watching this.
The fact that he makes so secular what is so sacred is completely appalling, that he makes people think that God is just an omnipresent genie that wants to make us happy in this life is so sickening, and that hundreds of thousands are led astray by his false teaching is so incredibly sad.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Students deserve better than easy
Maybe I'm a big nerd -- okay, maybe? -- but I can't help making connections, hypothesizing, philosophizing, evaluating and all that other level six stuff. While studying and taking the GRE (entrance into grad school exam), I couldn't help to feel ashamed at my lack of literary repertoire. Even as an English major and one who's thoroughly enjoyed reading (some of my best memories were spent up in the tree reading Hatchet, Boxcar Children, etc), I am clearly not what people who made this test would call well-read. I am not completely discouraged at this, since now I have a vast book list filled with items to grow my intellectual compasity and expand my understanding of the world and human endeavors (of good and evil).
What I connected this to, however, is the growing emphasis on young adult novels being adopted into my teaching curriculum. Just a small chunk of low-down-info, for the honors class I'm teaching next year, we are required to teach a teen novel. Right now, my fellow teachers from across the district and I are choosing one of three delightful little reads (sarcasm inserted). Now I'm not against teens reading teen novels by any means. What I am against is using valuable classroom time (of which I'm becoming more and more aware of its brevity) and valuable instruction time for kids - who choose to be in an honors class - to read something that they could easily read on their own time and could easily deduce the profound (sarcasm again) meanings without my help. The argument by the team who gave us this requirement for the teen novel is that the students need diversity, whether that diversity of old vs. new or hard vs. easy, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll find that out in meetings to come.
My arguments, keeping in mind my connection to the GRE, are the following:
1) Students who choose (as they do in our district) to be in an honors class are signing up for challenge and rigor. The object of most teen novels is to reach out to kids who usually don't like to read by giving them easy-to-understand storylines about topics that interest them. These kids should already like to read if they enroll in honors class, and therefore the purpose of the teen novel is a moot point.
2) There are so many great works out there that have stood the test of time because their themes and ideas are universal and long lasting. Teen novels are usually pretty narrowly focused and deal with current, selfish, or trite issues - hence the simplicity noted above. Teen novels usually aren't "real life" as their promoters say. They usually focus on the tough problems that plague maybe 3% of teens. And worse, they usually promote self-centeredness, which is so prevalent already that it should not be encouraged even more.
3) I want my kids to read something that will benefit them having read it. These future AP or IB students should have guided access to as many works as possible that will help them succeed. I remember when I was given an AP reading list of about 100 books in high school, I was overwhelmed because we only read like 3 in class, and so I was expected to read as many as I could on my own. When studying for the GRE, I was likewise overwhelmed at all the works and authors I was expected to know. Therefore, why not give these young scholars as much deep literature as we can while we have them under our guidance. I would much rather be able to help my students through Orwell's 1984 than expect them to read and understand it on their own time because I'd rather teach them something that is more fun, easy, and "applicable" to them.
Softening them up is preparing them for failure, or at least overwhelmedness, like me.
What I connected this to, however, is the growing emphasis on young adult novels being adopted into my teaching curriculum. Just a small chunk of low-down-info, for the honors class I'm teaching next year, we are required to teach a teen novel. Right now, my fellow teachers from across the district and I are choosing one of three delightful little reads (sarcasm inserted). Now I'm not against teens reading teen novels by any means. What I am against is using valuable classroom time (of which I'm becoming more and more aware of its brevity) and valuable instruction time for kids - who choose to be in an honors class - to read something that they could easily read on their own time and could easily deduce the profound (sarcasm again) meanings without my help. The argument by the team who gave us this requirement for the teen novel is that the students need diversity, whether that diversity of old vs. new or hard vs. easy, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll find that out in meetings to come.
My arguments, keeping in mind my connection to the GRE, are the following:
1) Students who choose (as they do in our district) to be in an honors class are signing up for challenge and rigor. The object of most teen novels is to reach out to kids who usually don't like to read by giving them easy-to-understand storylines about topics that interest them. These kids should already like to read if they enroll in honors class, and therefore the purpose of the teen novel is a moot point.
2) There are so many great works out there that have stood the test of time because their themes and ideas are universal and long lasting. Teen novels are usually pretty narrowly focused and deal with current, selfish, or trite issues - hence the simplicity noted above. Teen novels usually aren't "real life" as their promoters say. They usually focus on the tough problems that plague maybe 3% of teens. And worse, they usually promote self-centeredness, which is so prevalent already that it should not be encouraged even more.
3) I want my kids to read something that will benefit them having read it. These future AP or IB students should have guided access to as many works as possible that will help them succeed. I remember when I was given an AP reading list of about 100 books in high school, I was overwhelmed because we only read like 3 in class, and so I was expected to read as many as I could on my own. When studying for the GRE, I was likewise overwhelmed at all the works and authors I was expected to know. Therefore, why not give these young scholars as much deep literature as we can while we have them under our guidance. I would much rather be able to help my students through Orwell's 1984 than expect them to read and understand it on their own time because I'd rather teach them something that is more fun, easy, and "applicable" to them.
Softening them up is preparing them for failure, or at least overwhelmedness, like me.
Monday, April 7, 2008
"The idea of God has problems" for sinners
Today I caught a broadcast of the American Center for Justice on BOTT radio network, and Jay Sekulow was discussing a college student’s email. This college student is in an Intro to Philosophy course at a secular university, and her professor has created a class blog in which all students must participate. As I understood the broadcast (thought I didn’t catch the whole thing) the professor started the blog string with the statement “The idea of God has problems,” and I’m guessing that he wanted all the students to accent and show the problems or something. Weird. Anyway, knowing what I know now (because of course I didn’t back when I would’ve taken such a course), I tried to call in to share what I think she should do (which includes not dropping the class), but I was too late to get on the show – to the detriment of all. However, I tried to email Mr. Sekulow, and my email had to be confined to 50 words or less. MAN THAT IS REDICULOUSLY HARD TO DO. So, knowing that God has given me wisdom and experience to share, I requested that he come here to see my thoughts. I pray he does, because I humbly think my point of view on the prompt could really help this young lady defend and further the Faith. Here’s my full letter (before I chopped it to two sentences)…
Mr. SeKulow~
I am writing in response to the question posed by a listener today. A college student wrote you of her philosophy professor forcing a web discussion with “The idea of God has problems.” I hope I am correct in this, since I did not catch the entire broadcast. I am a recent grad of a secular university myself, and I know too well the affront our faith faces at this level by cynical professors and fellow students. However, the statement “The idea of God has problems” is not at all a declaration that one should denounce her faith, but on the contrary, I would argue that it is an excellent spring board for the gospel.
Now I don’t know what else the professor said or wrote to this student, but if this is the prompt for the discussion, I would love to encourage her to take it in this philosophical light: of course the idea of God causes problems, because the idea of something holy, perfect, and omniscient makes we people see that we are not those things (which is a huge problem for us, since we [especially philosophers] are so prone to think highly of ourselves). The very fact that we like to think well of ourselves (romantic views of human nature, etc.) brings us into conflict with something that so obviously shows us that not only are we not what we think we are, but we are also guilty of all kinds of evil and deserving of death and hell. The God Who is perfect likewise demands perfection (for why would He accept anything less?), and if there is one fact that Christianity and any other worldview can agree on, that fact is that there has never lived one perfect human being. Therefore no one can earn his way to God. Philosophically, there is no way for us to gain the only thing we need. Metaphorically, people are up a creek without a paddle.
BUT (the biggest but in history) that is not the end of the story, because that is where the goodness of God Himself steps in as the only perfect person who ever lived to earn the perfection we need so that He might switch us places (in God the Father’s righteous judgment) and to die the death we deserve. Therefore He saved us from what we deserve and has given us what we cannot possibly earn. What an amazing plan! However, salvation is only possible for those who can admit they cannot earn it on their own, and therefore “The idea of God is has problems” only for those who want to be their own God. Because those who claim to not believe in God really just don’t want to submit to anything other than themselves, and that for sure is a problem.
I don’t know if this young woman of the faith plans to stay in the class, but because it wasn’t long ago that I was in her shoes, I’d really like to help her out and encourage her to be a real light for Christ in this situation. I wish I knew then what I know now; I think it would be invaluable for her to hear (or in this case, read) my stance on the issue. I am only a 23 year old 8th grade English teacher, but I am a woman who desperately seeks after God and who also thoroughly enjoys discussion about things of God. I believe that I got into my car at the particular time I did today in order to be a help to this young lady, and I hope that you will forward my email to her, or give her my email.
Thank you so much for your time!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Ali Barnes
ali.barnes24@gmail.com
Mr. SeKulow~
I am writing in response to the question posed by a listener today. A college student wrote you of her philosophy professor forcing a web discussion with “The idea of God has problems.” I hope I am correct in this, since I did not catch the entire broadcast. I am a recent grad of a secular university myself, and I know too well the affront our faith faces at this level by cynical professors and fellow students. However, the statement “The idea of God has problems” is not at all a declaration that one should denounce her faith, but on the contrary, I would argue that it is an excellent spring board for the gospel.
Now I don’t know what else the professor said or wrote to this student, but if this is the prompt for the discussion, I would love to encourage her to take it in this philosophical light: of course the idea of God causes problems, because the idea of something holy, perfect, and omniscient makes we people see that we are not those things (which is a huge problem for us, since we [especially philosophers] are so prone to think highly of ourselves). The very fact that we like to think well of ourselves (romantic views of human nature, etc.) brings us into conflict with something that so obviously shows us that not only are we not what we think we are, but we are also guilty of all kinds of evil and deserving of death and hell. The God Who is perfect likewise demands perfection (for why would He accept anything less?), and if there is one fact that Christianity and any other worldview can agree on, that fact is that there has never lived one perfect human being. Therefore no one can earn his way to God. Philosophically, there is no way for us to gain the only thing we need. Metaphorically, people are up a creek without a paddle.
BUT (the biggest but in history) that is not the end of the story, because that is where the goodness of God Himself steps in as the only perfect person who ever lived to earn the perfection we need so that He might switch us places (in God the Father’s righteous judgment) and to die the death we deserve. Therefore He saved us from what we deserve and has given us what we cannot possibly earn. What an amazing plan! However, salvation is only possible for those who can admit they cannot earn it on their own, and therefore “The idea of God is has problems” only for those who want to be their own God. Because those who claim to not believe in God really just don’t want to submit to anything other than themselves, and that for sure is a problem.
I don’t know if this young woman of the faith plans to stay in the class, but because it wasn’t long ago that I was in her shoes, I’d really like to help her out and encourage her to be a real light for Christ in this situation. I wish I knew then what I know now; I think it would be invaluable for her to hear (or in this case, read) my stance on the issue. I am only a 23 year old 8th grade English teacher, but I am a woman who desperately seeks after God and who also thoroughly enjoys discussion about things of God. I believe that I got into my car at the particular time I did today in order to be a help to this young lady, and I hope that you will forward my email to her, or give her my email.
Thank you so much for your time!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Ali Barnes
ali.barnes24@gmail.com
Saturday, April 5, 2008
"The Truth will set you free"
This cliché started by none other than the Lord Himself is recorded in John 8:32. This phrase is misused often to mean that telling the truth will set a person free, when that is not what Jesus meant at all. He says this in conclusion to His answer to the crowd's question, "Who are you?"
It is no far stretch to deduce that there is a relation between this revelation and His proclamation in John 14:8, "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the "Truth" that sets one free is two-fold. First of all, the Truth is Christ Himself, as He claims it in John 8. As God incarnate, He is the personification of Truth, since it is impossible for God to lie and everything He ordains comes to pass. Therefore, according to 8:32, Christ Himself sets you free, which He fulfilled by His atoning work on the cross. The second take on the Truth that sets one free is the truth of the Gospel pertaining to Who He was and what He did. Knowing one’s need for the sacrificial work of Christ and trusting in His work alone for salvation will indeed set one free from the bondage of sin.
From now on, every time I hear or read this phrase, “The truth will set you free,” whether it is misused in a movie, speech, or book, I will – at least in my own mind – give thanks to the One Who is the Truth and has, is, and will set me free.
It is no far stretch to deduce that there is a relation between this revelation and His proclamation in John 14:8, "I am the way, the Truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Therefore, the "Truth" that sets one free is two-fold. First of all, the Truth is Christ Himself, as He claims it in John 8. As God incarnate, He is the personification of Truth, since it is impossible for God to lie and everything He ordains comes to pass. Therefore, according to 8:32, Christ Himself sets you free, which He fulfilled by His atoning work on the cross. The second take on the Truth that sets one free is the truth of the Gospel pertaining to Who He was and what He did. Knowing one’s need for the sacrificial work of Christ and trusting in His work alone for salvation will indeed set one free from the bondage of sin.
From now on, every time I hear or read this phrase, “The truth will set you free,” whether it is misused in a movie, speech, or book, I will – at least in my own mind – give thanks to the One Who is the Truth and has, is, and will set me free.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Those who can't look past their own stomach will never get fed
Notes on John 6:26-42
The people following Jesus said they are "after a sign" of validity, but they had all the signs they needed; Jesus basically tells them to go away, accusing them of seeking more food for their bellies (since this is the day after the 5 loaves and 2 fish feast).
This is exactly what people are after today as well. However, they don't cleverly disguise it as the Jews do in verse 29-30: "What sign will you perform then, that we may see it and believe You?... Our fathers ate the manna in the desert." Ooohhh so they really were thinking about food. Sneaky sneaky. People today, on the other hand, have no shame in wanting a Jesus who meets merely their physical and emotional needs.
The problem with Jesus' audience as well as today's audience is the worldly focus. Jesus calls them out about the food: "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled," which is the most basic and physical need, and therefore it should have been very insulting for them to follow food around like an obese and spoiled dog (vs 26). Their next item on the agenda is the emotional need of accomplishment: "What shall we do to work the works of God?" Do they care about God? Of course not - if they did, they'd ask how to please Him! They want to look righteous, which is fitting with other current pharasee-an actions and customs. Being outwardly religious was the pretty much the equivalent of today's worldly success. People treated the 'righteous' religious leaders like we treat our celebrities to an extent. So their plea could be like asking Jesus to make you rich/successful/popular/etc... only the latter is worse. I guess it's like saying: "God, tell me what to do so I can be rich, successful, and have everyone like me... (long pause) of course so I could give You credit for it." Riiiiiiight.
The last question they ask (vs 29-30 above) is evidence of either short-term memory loss, neglect to recognise what they just witnessed and filled their sinful stomachs on just one day earlier, or, most likely, a pretty smart attempt to get some more food ("hey, Jesus, I don't really believe it happened the first time; better feed me again so I know it's real"). Geez, how frustrating. No wonder He concludes that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," because we are so ridiculously foolish until He opens our eyes to see past our own stomach.
The people following Jesus said they are "after a sign" of validity, but they had all the signs they needed; Jesus basically tells them to go away, accusing them of seeking more food for their bellies (since this is the day after the 5 loaves and 2 fish feast).
This is exactly what people are after today as well. However, they don't cleverly disguise it as the Jews do in verse 29-30: "What sign will you perform then, that we may see it and believe You?... Our fathers ate the manna in the desert." Ooohhh so they really were thinking about food. Sneaky sneaky. People today, on the other hand, have no shame in wanting a Jesus who meets merely their physical and emotional needs.
The problem with Jesus' audience as well as today's audience is the worldly focus. Jesus calls them out about the food: "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled," which is the most basic and physical need, and therefore it should have been very insulting for them to follow food around like an obese and spoiled dog (vs 26). Their next item on the agenda is the emotional need of accomplishment: "What shall we do to work the works of God?" Do they care about God? Of course not - if they did, they'd ask how to please Him! They want to look righteous, which is fitting with other current pharasee-an actions and customs. Being outwardly religious was the pretty much the equivalent of today's worldly success. People treated the 'righteous' religious leaders like we treat our celebrities to an extent. So their plea could be like asking Jesus to make you rich/successful/popular/etc... only the latter is worse. I guess it's like saying: "God, tell me what to do so I can be rich, successful, and have everyone like me... (long pause) of course so I could give You credit for it." Riiiiiiight.
The last question they ask (vs 29-30 above) is evidence of either short-term memory loss, neglect to recognise what they just witnessed and filled their sinful stomachs on just one day earlier, or, most likely, a pretty smart attempt to get some more food ("hey, Jesus, I don't really believe it happened the first time; better feed me again so I know it's real"). Geez, how frustrating. No wonder He concludes that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him," because we are so ridiculously foolish until He opens our eyes to see past our own stomach.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Not so theological...
If teachers are supposed to externally motivate their students to be internally motivated, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Yesterday, I had my homeroom engage (though not so much) in an activity that required a smiggin of thinking outside the box. They had to line up in birthday order without talking. Two immediately cheated (I wanted to throw something hard or sticky at them), and then - when I finally got them off their behinds - looked at the floor and chose to be defeated. This lasted for what seemed like hours. Years later, I reminded them, "There are other ways to comunicate, you know," and then I got the deer in headlight look until I was thirty. The worst part was, when they finally got somewhat going (amidst the numerous rolled eyes) and finished with only a few mistakes, I asked them what they learned. The (serious) response, "That you should never have us do something this stupid again," "That that was too hard to do." I tried to redirect them - "What could you have done differently to make it a little better/easier?" Response: "I could've given up earlier."
What's sad is that these few that were actually conversing with me were very serious and this is not an isolated insident. In general, this crop of teenagers is so used to giving up at first sign of difficulty that they never give themselves the chance to grow into something more than they currently are (and let's just leave it at They have a great margin for improvement).
I pray that the Lord creates light in the darkness of the minds and hearts of these little ones, as only He can do, and gives them the willingness to thirst for life, thirst for learning, and mostly, thirst for Him. It's kind of like sharing the gospel - I know that I can't internally motivate them, since obviously I'm not inside them. I pray also that I can find the balance of wanting this passion for them, showing them my passion, and letting it go when they don't take hold (do I don't get so frustrated, drained, and hurt).
Yesterday, I had my homeroom engage (though not so much) in an activity that required a smiggin of thinking outside the box. They had to line up in birthday order without talking. Two immediately cheated (I wanted to throw something hard or sticky at them), and then - when I finally got them off their behinds - looked at the floor and chose to be defeated. This lasted for what seemed like hours. Years later, I reminded them, "There are other ways to comunicate, you know," and then I got the deer in headlight look until I was thirty. The worst part was, when they finally got somewhat going (amidst the numerous rolled eyes) and finished with only a few mistakes, I asked them what they learned. The (serious) response, "That you should never have us do something this stupid again," "That that was too hard to do." I tried to redirect them - "What could you have done differently to make it a little better/easier?" Response: "I could've given up earlier."
What's sad is that these few that were actually conversing with me were very serious and this is not an isolated insident. In general, this crop of teenagers is so used to giving up at first sign of difficulty that they never give themselves the chance to grow into something more than they currently are (and let's just leave it at They have a great margin for improvement).
I pray that the Lord creates light in the darkness of the minds and hearts of these little ones, as only He can do, and gives them the willingness to thirst for life, thirst for learning, and mostly, thirst for Him. It's kind of like sharing the gospel - I know that I can't internally motivate them, since obviously I'm not inside them. I pray also that I can find the balance of wanting this passion for them, showing them my passion, and letting it go when they don't take hold (do I don't get so frustrated, drained, and hurt).
Monday, March 24, 2008
Light, Word, Knowledge, and the Glory of God
"For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" ~2 Cor 4:5-6
By encouragement of a Grace to You podcast, I've been reading a book or 6 chapters through everyday for a month. I started with Philipians, since I was attempting to memorize it at the time, then Colossians, 1 John, and this month I am reading the gospel John 1-6 everyday. Sort of. I read 1-4 for the first half of the month, and 5-6 this half. They're pretty action-packed chapters!
A friend of mine once told me that her husband (before they were married, let's call him Bob, since I haven't asked his permission) went on a wilderness survival-type adventure for a week or weekend, and he carried his pocket-Bible with him. A fellow survivor, let's call him Frank who was not a Christian asked him about it, and Bob told the guy to read John and tell him what he thought. After reading the gospel, Frank told Bob, "This Jesus-guy is bad-a**"
I think that's a pretty good assessment! :) What I've noticed about John so far is how little time John spends on the actions and miracles of Jesus versus his discourse. Right from the start, you can tell it is going to be a more philisophical-type write, and John seems to focus more on what He says, with his actions being more of a backdrop for validity purposes. Now don't get me wrong, his miracles prove His sovereignty over nature, time, distance, physical needs, and even death, but these works of wonder and awe are not what made the Jews pick up stones or nail Him to the cross. Chapter 6 of John (and chps 8 &10, but I haven't gotten there yet) are so hard core, because Jesus outrightly declares the most earth-shaking words of history: "I AM" (Yahweh, the Lord of the Old Testament). He very (ahem) Frankly claimed to be GOD, which if He were lying about it, He completely deserved the worst kind of death possible for blasphemy. But in chp 5 He backs up His claim with the words of John the Baptist, the last and greatest OT prophet, His miracles, the witness of the Father, and the witness of the scriptural prophesy. Oh yes, He's the real deal.
In chp 6 Jesus also exposes much of what I think ties the words John and Paul alike use: light, word, knowledge, and glory. All having very significant meanings, both for Greeks and Hebrews at the time, these words reflect ideas of creation, enlightenment, life, and God. In Genesis, God speaks all creation into existance, and it is with that regard that in John chp 1, he calls Jesus the Word who was "in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him...In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (vs. 2-5). The darkness (we, people) could not comprehend it - why? because "There is no one righteous, no not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seek God" (Ps 14, Rom 3). Understand = Comprehend; we can do neither... which makes sense when Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (Jn6:44). DanG! If that's not a nice little plug for predestination by the Man Himself! :)
Now I point to 2 Cor. 4:5-6 (at the top), in the same way that God spoke (Word/Jesus) the light to shine out of darkness (ex nihilo), so He speaks the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. IE, GOD CREATES OUR SALVATION just like He created light. In other words, even though we have nothing within us with which one could create salvation (sorry Pelagius, Armenius, Wesley and all you others), He did it just because, Frank-ly, He's "bad-a**".
His ridiculous plan of syncing it all together so perfectly, powerfully, and beautifully, is nothing short of ineffibly amazing. As my hubs would say, "He's just plain showing off." And we're all just fortuitous beneficiaries and witnesses of His glory that deserves eternal glorifying! Thank you!!!
By encouragement of a Grace to You podcast, I've been reading a book or 6 chapters through everyday for a month. I started with Philipians, since I was attempting to memorize it at the time, then Colossians, 1 John, and this month I am reading the gospel John 1-6 everyday. Sort of. I read 1-4 for the first half of the month, and 5-6 this half. They're pretty action-packed chapters!
A friend of mine once told me that her husband (before they were married, let's call him Bob, since I haven't asked his permission) went on a wilderness survival-type adventure for a week or weekend, and he carried his pocket-Bible with him. A fellow survivor, let's call him Frank who was not a Christian asked him about it, and Bob told the guy to read John and tell him what he thought. After reading the gospel, Frank told Bob, "This Jesus-guy is bad-a**"
I think that's a pretty good assessment! :) What I've noticed about John so far is how little time John spends on the actions and miracles of Jesus versus his discourse. Right from the start, you can tell it is going to be a more philisophical-type write, and John seems to focus more on what He says, with his actions being more of a backdrop for validity purposes. Now don't get me wrong, his miracles prove His sovereignty over nature, time, distance, physical needs, and even death, but these works of wonder and awe are not what made the Jews pick up stones or nail Him to the cross. Chapter 6 of John (and chps 8 &10, but I haven't gotten there yet) are so hard core, because Jesus outrightly declares the most earth-shaking words of history: "I AM" (Yahweh, the Lord of the Old Testament). He very (ahem) Frankly claimed to be GOD, which if He were lying about it, He completely deserved the worst kind of death possible for blasphemy. But in chp 5 He backs up His claim with the words of John the Baptist, the last and greatest OT prophet, His miracles, the witness of the Father, and the witness of the scriptural prophesy. Oh yes, He's the real deal.
In chp 6 Jesus also exposes much of what I think ties the words John and Paul alike use: light, word, knowledge, and glory. All having very significant meanings, both for Greeks and Hebrews at the time, these words reflect ideas of creation, enlightenment, life, and God. In Genesis, God speaks all creation into existance, and it is with that regard that in John chp 1, he calls Jesus the Word who was "in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him...In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (vs. 2-5). The darkness (we, people) could not comprehend it - why? because "There is no one righteous, no not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seek God" (Ps 14, Rom 3). Understand = Comprehend; we can do neither... which makes sense when Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (Jn6:44). DanG! If that's not a nice little plug for predestination by the Man Himself! :)
Now I point to 2 Cor. 4:5-6 (at the top), in the same way that God spoke (Word/Jesus) the light to shine out of darkness (ex nihilo), so He speaks the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. IE, GOD CREATES OUR SALVATION just like He created light. In other words, even though we have nothing within us with which one could create salvation (sorry Pelagius, Armenius, Wesley and all you others), He did it just because, Frank-ly, He's "bad-a**".
His ridiculous plan of syncing it all together so perfectly, powerfully, and beautifully, is nothing short of ineffibly amazing. As my hubs would say, "He's just plain showing off." And we're all just fortuitous beneficiaries and witnesses of His glory that deserves eternal glorifying! Thank you!!!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
"In Christ Alone"
Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2001 Kingsway Thankyou Music
In Christ alone my hope is found;
He is my light, my strength, my song;
This cornerstone, this solid ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My comforter, my all in all—
Here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home—
Here in the pow'r of Christ I'll stand.
Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2001 Kingsway Thankyou Music
In Christ alone my hope is found;
He is my light, my strength, my song;
This cornerstone, this solid ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My comforter, my all in all—
Here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home—
Here in the pow'r of Christ I'll stand.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Chicken and Egg; Which Can We Do Without?
To a Christian, this should be an easy question: Righteousness or Good Works – which one causes the other? Of course, to any Bible-dedicated student, the righteousness of Christ imputed from his sacrificial death is the catalyst of a Christian’s good works (a.k.a., fruit of the spirit, Christian charity, etc.). However, the superficial, experiential, easy-believism preached from today’s pulpits only focuses on the results of grace – works – and therefore neglects the cause – God. I’ve been fascinated by the cause-result relationships throughout doctrine, philosophy, education, life, and whatever else, because as a human race, we tend to cut corners, and this often incurs the disaster of either no result or one other than the result we were seeking in the first place. The irony lies in the fact that seeking only results leads to bad ones, thus, a vicious cycle.
Christianity has assimilated to this country’s obsession with pragmatism, where the proverbial end justifies the means. This sounds all fine and dandy, except that one forgets that an end cannot be achieved without means specified to that end. Rocket science, I know. Today, I’m focused on how this tragedy is destroying two important areas in my life: Gospel presentation and Church focus. I’m not advocating the dismissal of end-goals – since goals are important in any endeavor – but the achievement of quantity has extremely sacrificed the regard for quality.
Superficial Half-Christ
What is the primary goal of a church: “To preach Christ and Him crucified” (1Cor 2:2) or to bring in people – saved or preferably unsaved? Most people would argue that you cannot do the former without first accomplishing the latter, and therefore the church is so consumed with bringing in new crops of fresh faces that they “leave their first love” (Rev 2:4). Pragmatism has invaded the Church in many ways, but they all boil down to pleasing people over pleasing God. Churches by the masses have remodeled everything – from the look of the building, to the pews, to the music, to the gospel itself – to accommodate and “bring in” people who normally would not go to church. Therefore, churches become non-churches in order to look like a gym, a lecture hall, a business corridor, in order to become more “camouflaged” or “user-friendly”. I guess the idea is to disguise the fact that this is a church, and therefore people are so stupid that they can be fooled to believe that they are not actually in the house of the holy and demanding God of the universe. However, people must either actually be this stupid, or else they are so smart that they can truly trick themselves to believe that this new informal atmosphere reflects a newly uncaring, easily-satisfied, and thus unholy God. But enough about what the engineered structure says, let’s go to the next segment of the “worship service” one notices.
Is it just me, or does the term “Praise and Worship” denote singing praises TO God and not about ourselves singing to Him? If you ever want to get a good laugh (or become enraged, like me) actually listen to the words of today’s modern “worship” music. For one, you will hear the words “I” or “me” more than you will hear any name of the Lord. Not only that, but “worship” has become a mind-numbing, purely emotional experience instead of an edifying practice. For instance, John MacArthur calls most modern “worship” songs “7-Eleven” songs because you repeat seven words eleven times. You will then notice that it is precisely during this blank, meaningless incantation that most people feel the impulse to raise their hands, cry, or take other emotional actions, most likely because since the brain is not functioning, they have more mental energy to focus on other bodily actions. This is in stark contrast to most hymns of yore (and even recent ones) that contain deep, enriching, and beautiful doctrinal praises to the Lord. These words could even be read as sermons and studied as commentaries, they are so pregnant with meaning! But if we included an electric guitar solo, a hymn would be way too long, and we’d much rather have the cool music than intellectual worship, thank you very much. Modern churches have done away with hymns, I’ll argue, because people don’t want to think. But more on that later.
There are many other aspects about the modern church (or it may be more accurate to say current, since today’s church is really more postmodern in the sense of philosophy [more on that later too]) that are more geared toward pleasing unbelievers than real believers (let alone, GOD!), but for the sake of windiness, I’m going to skip to the “hinge upon which all turns” (to quote Luther speaking of predestination), which is the presentation and adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If churches focused on this, the matter of results would take care of itself, since Jesus Himself said that “The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:14). Jesus himself said that our churches would be small, that is, if our churches are filled with believers (as is the intent of a New Testament church), so then why are we trying to make them so big? Tithing, you might say? [sarcasm:] But I thought “the love of money was the root of all sorts of evil” (1 Tim 6:10). HMMMM… maybe Paul’s words could be directly implied here, since the love of money is causing millions of churches to turn away from the gospel to a self-indulgent, self-loving, Opra-like motivational speaking center.
What perplexes me most about today’s most popular health-wealth-happiness preachers is the total lack of God in their focus. They focus on YOU, the consumer (Yes, I did say Consumer). They try to explain what the Bible means to YOU, what it does for YOU, and how it’s going to make YOUr life better. It’s as if we created God to make us feel better about ourselves, an idea which seems to take its lead from Nietzche and other raving atheists of modernity. For example, on 60 Minutes a while ago, one of the most well-known “Christian” preachers and authors had to dodge an accusation that his “Christian” book explains how to be a better Christian, but scarcely mentions, God, Jesus, or the Bible. How ludicrous is that?!? This type of behavior robs Christianity of any validity among people with half of a brain. However, this take (or lack thereof) on God is logical when one considers that all natural people do not want to come face to face with what is holy (ahem, God), because when you see what is absolutely (yes, there are absolutes) holy, a person’s logical response is to see that he himself is not nor can be.
In the same way, Jesus has become like a over-marketed drug – something that can enhance your life, mask your symptoms, help you hit homeruns, and make you a better you (pun intended), but when it gets down to it, the widely-marked Jesus does not deal with your real problem, because, well, we don’t want to admit that there’s a deeper, not-so-easily-fixed source of one’s pain, discomfort, or lack of satisfaction with life. Jesus humbled Himself from His throne on high, took on human flesh, lived among us, died on the cross, and raised Himself from the dead for one purpose only: the redemption and atonement of his Bride, the Church (all believers). Sadly this truth is usually either thrown out as meaningless terms or else disregarded because it begs the question: What are we redeemed and atoned from? Ah…the forgotten twin of the gospel message.
The most disastrous result of church pragmatism is that people do not like to hear about their sin, and so therefore preachers stay away from the dirty, disgraceful side of the gospel. The first of the two sides of the gospel is: Who God is (Holy, Righteous, and Justly unable to accept anything less), versus who we are (even the best of us Unholy, Unrighteous, and completely Unable to earn God’s favor and salvation). That’s the side that most preachers today conveniently leave out because who wants to hear that we have no chance to get to heaven? In comes the infomercial transition: “But wait! There’s more!” to the second side of the gospel: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us: in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The beautiful doctrine of imputation clarifies that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (1 Cor. 5:21). Thus, on the cross, He became our sin (which is why God forsook Him), and therefore as believers in Him as our Savior from the eternal punishment we deserve, we are given his earned righteousness and entrance into heaven. However, the second half of the gospel – God’s grace – does not make sense without the first half – our sinful predicament. In other words, without knowing what you’re saved from (sin), you can in no way know what you are being saved to (righteousness), and I’d argue that you’re just not saved, period.
The Overwhelming Questions
The problem with most current churches is that they are borrowing from pagan philosophies the ideas that there is no truth, that anyone’s interpretation is as good as anyone else’s, that we don’t need a Savior, and so on. The trend is to bring God down to our level, so that we don’t have to feel bad about not being able to get up to His. The real gospel is saturated and drowned out by sensationalism, and useless, foundationless emotion. People don’t want to think, because our sin is so extremely blatant, that thinking (once you are presented with the truth) for any prolonged period of time will usher in a sea of grievances.
My questions are: when this half-Christ is preached, can a person be saved from his sin if he does not even consider himself a sinner destined for hell? When this half-Christ is preached, can a person truly enjoy and praise God for grace as a gift he did not earn? When this half-Christ is preached, can a preacher understand that speaking the gospel through scripture is in itself the application? When this half-Christ is preached, can we start treating individual sins as symptoms of our Original Sin nature and not its cause? I would argue no to each of these questions, because when we fast forward to the “happy ending” of the gospel tale, it means nothing because in fast forwarding we don’t consider the fiery dragon that is slain within us for the victory, and therefore we cannot truly love our Savior.
To a Christian, this should be an easy question: Righteousness or Good Works – which one causes the other? Of course, to any Bible-dedicated student, the righteousness of Christ imputed from his sacrificial death is the catalyst of a Christian’s good works (a.k.a., fruit of the spirit, Christian charity, etc.). However, the superficial, experiential, easy-believism preached from today’s pulpits only focuses on the results of grace – works – and therefore neglects the cause – God. I’ve been fascinated by the cause-result relationships throughout doctrine, philosophy, education, life, and whatever else, because as a human race, we tend to cut corners, and this often incurs the disaster of either no result or one other than the result we were seeking in the first place. The irony lies in the fact that seeking only results leads to bad ones, thus, a vicious cycle.
Christianity has assimilated to this country’s obsession with pragmatism, where the proverbial end justifies the means. This sounds all fine and dandy, except that one forgets that an end cannot be achieved without means specified to that end. Rocket science, I know. Today, I’m focused on how this tragedy is destroying two important areas in my life: Gospel presentation and Church focus. I’m not advocating the dismissal of end-goals – since goals are important in any endeavor – but the achievement of quantity has extremely sacrificed the regard for quality.
Superficial Half-Christ
What is the primary goal of a church: “To preach Christ and Him crucified” (1Cor 2:2) or to bring in people – saved or preferably unsaved? Most people would argue that you cannot do the former without first accomplishing the latter, and therefore the church is so consumed with bringing in new crops of fresh faces that they “leave their first love” (Rev 2:4). Pragmatism has invaded the Church in many ways, but they all boil down to pleasing people over pleasing God. Churches by the masses have remodeled everything – from the look of the building, to the pews, to the music, to the gospel itself – to accommodate and “bring in” people who normally would not go to church. Therefore, churches become non-churches in order to look like a gym, a lecture hall, a business corridor, in order to become more “camouflaged” or “user-friendly”. I guess the idea is to disguise the fact that this is a church, and therefore people are so stupid that they can be fooled to believe that they are not actually in the house of the holy and demanding God of the universe. However, people must either actually be this stupid, or else they are so smart that they can truly trick themselves to believe that this new informal atmosphere reflects a newly uncaring, easily-satisfied, and thus unholy God. But enough about what the engineered structure says, let’s go to the next segment of the “worship service” one notices.
Is it just me, or does the term “Praise and Worship” denote singing praises TO God and not about ourselves singing to Him? If you ever want to get a good laugh (or become enraged, like me) actually listen to the words of today’s modern “worship” music. For one, you will hear the words “I” or “me” more than you will hear any name of the Lord. Not only that, but “worship” has become a mind-numbing, purely emotional experience instead of an edifying practice. For instance, John MacArthur calls most modern “worship” songs “7-Eleven” songs because you repeat seven words eleven times. You will then notice that it is precisely during this blank, meaningless incantation that most people feel the impulse to raise their hands, cry, or take other emotional actions, most likely because since the brain is not functioning, they have more mental energy to focus on other bodily actions. This is in stark contrast to most hymns of yore (and even recent ones) that contain deep, enriching, and beautiful doctrinal praises to the Lord. These words could even be read as sermons and studied as commentaries, they are so pregnant with meaning! But if we included an electric guitar solo, a hymn would be way too long, and we’d much rather have the cool music than intellectual worship, thank you very much. Modern churches have done away with hymns, I’ll argue, because people don’t want to think. But more on that later.
There are many other aspects about the modern church (or it may be more accurate to say current, since today’s church is really more postmodern in the sense of philosophy [more on that later too]) that are more geared toward pleasing unbelievers than real believers (let alone, GOD!), but for the sake of windiness, I’m going to skip to the “hinge upon which all turns” (to quote Luther speaking of predestination), which is the presentation and adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If churches focused on this, the matter of results would take care of itself, since Jesus Himself said that “The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:14). Jesus himself said that our churches would be small, that is, if our churches are filled with believers (as is the intent of a New Testament church), so then why are we trying to make them so big? Tithing, you might say? [sarcasm:] But I thought “the love of money was the root of all sorts of evil” (1 Tim 6:10). HMMMM… maybe Paul’s words could be directly implied here, since the love of money is causing millions of churches to turn away from the gospel to a self-indulgent, self-loving, Opra-like motivational speaking center.
What perplexes me most about today’s most popular health-wealth-happiness preachers is the total lack of God in their focus. They focus on YOU, the consumer (Yes, I did say Consumer). They try to explain what the Bible means to YOU, what it does for YOU, and how it’s going to make YOUr life better. It’s as if we created God to make us feel better about ourselves, an idea which seems to take its lead from Nietzche and other raving atheists of modernity. For example, on 60 Minutes a while ago, one of the most well-known “Christian” preachers and authors had to dodge an accusation that his “Christian” book explains how to be a better Christian, but scarcely mentions, God, Jesus, or the Bible. How ludicrous is that?!? This type of behavior robs Christianity of any validity among people with half of a brain. However, this take (or lack thereof) on God is logical when one considers that all natural people do not want to come face to face with what is holy (ahem, God), because when you see what is absolutely (yes, there are absolutes) holy, a person’s logical response is to see that he himself is not nor can be.
In the same way, Jesus has become like a over-marketed drug – something that can enhance your life, mask your symptoms, help you hit homeruns, and make you a better you (pun intended), but when it gets down to it, the widely-marked Jesus does not deal with your real problem, because, well, we don’t want to admit that there’s a deeper, not-so-easily-fixed source of one’s pain, discomfort, or lack of satisfaction with life. Jesus humbled Himself from His throne on high, took on human flesh, lived among us, died on the cross, and raised Himself from the dead for one purpose only: the redemption and atonement of his Bride, the Church (all believers). Sadly this truth is usually either thrown out as meaningless terms or else disregarded because it begs the question: What are we redeemed and atoned from? Ah…the forgotten twin of the gospel message.
The most disastrous result of church pragmatism is that people do not like to hear about their sin, and so therefore preachers stay away from the dirty, disgraceful side of the gospel. The first of the two sides of the gospel is: Who God is (Holy, Righteous, and Justly unable to accept anything less), versus who we are (even the best of us Unholy, Unrighteous, and completely Unable to earn God’s favor and salvation). That’s the side that most preachers today conveniently leave out because who wants to hear that we have no chance to get to heaven? In comes the infomercial transition: “But wait! There’s more!” to the second side of the gospel: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us: in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The beautiful doctrine of imputation clarifies that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (1 Cor. 5:21). Thus, on the cross, He became our sin (which is why God forsook Him), and therefore as believers in Him as our Savior from the eternal punishment we deserve, we are given his earned righteousness and entrance into heaven. However, the second half of the gospel – God’s grace – does not make sense without the first half – our sinful predicament. In other words, without knowing what you’re saved from (sin), you can in no way know what you are being saved to (righteousness), and I’d argue that you’re just not saved, period.
The Overwhelming Questions
The problem with most current churches is that they are borrowing from pagan philosophies the ideas that there is no truth, that anyone’s interpretation is as good as anyone else’s, that we don’t need a Savior, and so on. The trend is to bring God down to our level, so that we don’t have to feel bad about not being able to get up to His. The real gospel is saturated and drowned out by sensationalism, and useless, foundationless emotion. People don’t want to think, because our sin is so extremely blatant, that thinking (once you are presented with the truth) for any prolonged period of time will usher in a sea of grievances.
My questions are: when this half-Christ is preached, can a person be saved from his sin if he does not even consider himself a sinner destined for hell? When this half-Christ is preached, can a person truly enjoy and praise God for grace as a gift he did not earn? When this half-Christ is preached, can a preacher understand that speaking the gospel through scripture is in itself the application? When this half-Christ is preached, can we start treating individual sins as symptoms of our Original Sin nature and not its cause? I would argue no to each of these questions, because when we fast forward to the “happy ending” of the gospel tale, it means nothing because in fast forwarding we don’t consider the fiery dragon that is slain within us for the victory, and therefore we cannot truly love our Savior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)