Genesis Confusion - What Can We Really Know?

Christianity Today published an interview last week with Francis Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, who also recently launched the BioLogos Foundation, which "promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms seeking harmony between these different perspectives."  Collins gave a personal account of his attempt to harmonize faith and science in his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, published in 2006.  Karl Giberson (who became Executive Vice President at the request of Collins  in 2008) conducted the interview. There's certainly a lot one can say regarding this article.  (By the way, if you are interested in a solid, Biblical response to the theory of evolution, I'd highly recommend listening to John MacArthur's talk on Creation, Theology and the End of the Universe from the opening of the 2009 Shepherd's Conference.)  But what stunned me in the interview was the pejorative tone used by Mr. Gilberson - sanctioned apparently by the editors over at CT.   For example, what is one to think of the introduction to this question posed by Mr. Gilberson (on page 4 of the website)?

"One of my theologian friends once said, in great frustration over this issue, "I wish they had never put the Bible in the hands of ordinary people." It seems to me that we need to take more seriously the teaching ministry of the church. We encourage people to read the Bible on their own, but certain misunderstandings are bound to emerge with that approach. Young people are going to read Genesis and think of Adam and Eve as real biological parents of the human race..."

What a shocker, Karl.  Imagine that people might read the Bible and actually believe what it says.  What has happened to CT - and the Evangelical movement that it seems to represent?  Has the idea of creationism really become that unpalatable?  Not surprisingly, Collins reviews favorably Dr. John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One:  Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, in which Walton advances his theory that Genesis 1 isn't about creation at all (not withstanding Genesis 1:1), but rather a description of the functional ordering (as opposed to material creation) of the Earth, in a pattern recognizable to the ancient middle-eastern culture. 

I guess I'm just too simple minded.  The point of much of this seems to be to make the Bible obscure... why anyone is seeking to apply scientific law to a miraculous event seems to be a category error to my limited way of thinking.  I remember sitting in a class listening this theory once, and hearing from a good friend and younger Christian afterwards who said this:  "Wow!  He's smart.  I'll never understand the Bible!"

Maybe that's what some are aiming at these days - and one wonders what the Reformers would have thought of the re-institution of the Magisterium... and counter to the Reformation principles we're remembering following a half-millennium since Calvin's birth.  There was a time when we recognized the supremacy of theology over the other sciences; now, folks like Collins seem to assume it's subordination to science!

For those of you who don't accept the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, here's a question:  Why not?  Have you considered the following?

• If you believe in evolution as the origin of humanity, when did "the fall" happen?  
• Evolution, by the way, requires death - in the process of natural selection.  Where did "death" come from prior to the fall of man (who, under the theory, is the product of evolution)?
• Is it not possible for God to have operated outside of the laws of science in creation - and why do you insist on judging the account of creation by something that may not even be applicable?'
• If you don't believe Genesis 1 and 2, just when do you start believing the text?  What other chapters would you have us not believe?
  

Perhaps most importantly, for people who don't believe in God's miraculous intervention in creation (and, as a result, don't accept Adam's headship and representative status for the human race), how do you explain man's sinful condition? 

So many questions... and here's mine:  Why not just take God at his word, and believe Him?

Another "Trouble Maker"...

Here's a great thought from Eric Ludy, author of The Bravehearted Gospel: The Truth Is Worth Fighting For, from his podcast for today (broadcast on Moody Radio):

Sadly, I think he's right on target. Nothing seems to rile an evangelical more these days than questioning whether what they are doing is Biblical. But questioning whether something is consistent with God's revealed will is something all true Christians are required to do... first in their own lives, and then also in their experience - especially in their local church.

Just a few things worth repeating from his post:

"There are a few things that are classified as out of bounds these days in modern Christianity and 'pulling an Elijah' is one of them.

It’s obvious that the Church is in the midst of a drought just like back in the days of 1 Kings chapter 18. But we don’t want to hear anything about our version of Christianity being the reason for this drought. We’ve been eating slim spiritual pickins for years in the church. The grand and epic Gospel has been trimmed down to a mere stump of Truth. We’ve treated sin as if it is simply a necessary bedfellow and haven’t allowed our Savior to actually rescue us from all that is destroying our souls."

It is no surprise that I don't like a lot of what I'm seeing these days in my limited sampling of Evangelicalism - and I'm certainly not Elijah. But the truth is, it doesn't seem to matter whether you are correct or incorrect in your assessment when you question these days because you'll be vilified for the act of questioning. Oh, and you certainly won't get a reasoned, Biblical response, because the Evangelical response never seems to move beyond the messenger to the message itself.

I'd like to hear the Evangelical response to Elijah, which would likely sound like these typical thoughts: "It's not his message I object to, it's his tone." "He doesn't sound very humble about his views." "Who is he to say, anyway?" "Why does he focus on such petty issues - they don't really matter because nobody agrees about that doctrine stuff anyway." "Don't respond to him, nothing will be good enough for him anyway."

If someone insults or misrepresents the character of your spouse or parent, you're likely to get angry about that. You might even use a "harsh tone" in response. Why? Because it is an appropriate response. So here's my question: Where is the "appropriate response" to the widely documented, growing Evangelical apostacy these days? All too often, the decline is met with silence. And like the spouse or child who doesn't rise to defend their insulted relative, the observer is left to question the love within the relationship.

Eric concludes by saying this:

"So if a modern day Elijah raises his voice to speak, the Church at large is hotwired to shake their heads and moan under their breath, 'not another one of these trouble-makers.' But, let’s get something straight: The man with the message of 'repent' is not the problem! The weeping prophet that says with a tear-choked voice, 'wake up Church' is not the one creating the trouble! America, can we admit that we’ve grown fat and sloppy spiritually? We are not a finally chiseled athlete ready to fight for Truth, stand for the Gospel, and defend the Sacred Text of Scripture. "

I do think that "we all need a little kick in the rear end from the Old Prophet Elijah. We need to hear a firmer message, a message with guts, a message with the ring of uncomfortable truth once again... so instead of furrowing your brow and muttering, 'trouble-maker!' Say, 'Thank you God that you still care enough about me to speak above the din of modern American Culture.'"

The Great God Entertainment

Here's a timely message from A.W. Tozer* from way back in 1955 - imagine what he'd say today...

"A German philosopher many years ago said something to the effect that the more a man has in his own heart, the less he will require from the outside; excessive need for support from without is proof of the bankruptcy of the inner man.

If this is true (and I believe it is) then the present inordinate attachment to every form of entertainment is evidence that the inner life of modern man is in serious decline. The average man has no central core of moral assurance, no spring within his own breast, no inner strength to place him above the need for repeated psychological shots to give him the courage to go on living. He has become a parasite on the world, drawing his life from his environment, unable to live a day apart from the stimulation which society affords him.

Schleiermacher held that the feeling of dependence lies at the root of all religious worship, and that however high the spiritual life might rise, it must always begin with a deep sense of a great need which only God could satisfy.

If this sense of need and a feeling of dependence are at the root of natural religion, it is not hard to see why the great god Entertainment is so ardently worshiped by so many. For there are millions who cannot live without amusement; life without some form of entertainment for them is simply intolerable; they look forward to the blessed relief afforded by professional entertainers and other forms of psychological narcotics as a dope addict looks to his daily shot of heroin. Without them they could not summon courage to face existence.

No one with common human feeling will object to the simple pleasures of life, nor to such harmless forms of entertainment as may help to relax the nerves and refresh the mind exhausted by toil. Such things, if used with discretion, may be a blessing along the way. That is one thing, however, the all-out devotion to entertainment as a major activity for which and by which men live is definitely something else again.

The abuse of a harmless thing is the essence of sin. The growth of the amusement phase of human life to such fantastic proportions is a portent, a threat to the souls of modern men. It has been built into a multimillion dollar racket with greater power over human minds and human character than any other educational influence on earth.

And the ominous thing is that its power is almost exclusively evil, rotting the inner life, crowding out the long eternal thoughts which would fill the souls of men, if they were but worthy to entertain them. The whole thing has grown into a veritable religion which holds its devotees with a strange fascination; and a religion, incidentally, against which it is now dangerous to speak. For centuries the Church stood solidly against every form of worldly entertainment, recognizing it for what it was—a device for wasting time, a refuge from the disturbing voice of conscience, a scheme to divert attention from moral accountability.

For this she got herself abused roundly by the sons of this world. But of late she has become tired of the abuse and has given over the struggle. She appears to have decided that if she cannot conquer the great god Entertainment she may as well join forces with him and make what use she can of his powers. So, today we have the astonishing spectacle of millions of dollars being poured into the unholy job of providing earthly entertainment for the so-called sons of heaven. Religious entertainment is in many places rapidly crowding out the serious things of God.

Many churches these days have become little more than poor theaters where fifth-rate 'producers' peddle their shoddy wares with the full approval of evangelical leaders who can even quote a holy text in defense of their delinquency. And hardly a man dares raise his voice against it.

The great god Entertainment amuses his devotees mainly by telling them stories. The love of stories, which is a characteristic of childhood, has taken fast hold of the minds of the retarded saints of our day, so much so that not a few persons manage to make a comfortable living by spinning yarns and serving them up in various disguises to church people.

What is natural and beautiful in a child may be shocking when it persists into adulthood, and more so when it appears in the sanctuary and seeks to pass for true religion. Is it not a strange thing and a wonder that, with the shadow of atomic destruction hanging over the world and with the coming of Christ drawing near, the professed followers of the Lord should be giving themselves up to religious amusements? That in an hour when mature saints are so desperately needed vast numbers of believers should revert to spiritual childhood and clamor for religious toys?

'Remember, 0 Lord, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! For this our heart is faint; for these things our eyes are dim.' AMEN. AMEN."

Taken from Root of the Righteous, Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1955, p. 32-33.
________
*And just think... he was an Arminian!

The Coming Evangelical Collapse

I trust that you all noticed Michael Spenser’s provocative – and brilliant - article in today’s Christian Science Monitor. Not a pretty picture, but spot on in articulating the sorry state of many churches today.

It’s very sad that once solid, Bible-believing churches continue to trade away the very thing that gives them influence in the world – that is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ – for a stab at “influence” from the world’s perspective. They have seemed to embrace the notion that the Gospel is a stumbling block to the Jew, foolishness to the Greek (and, in the words of Kim Riddlebarger, “both to an American”).

Spenser is devastating in his assessment and analysis. His conclusion is both breathtaking and easily foreseen – if one has eyes to look beyond the self-deception so common in inbred corporate systems that Evangelical churches so frequently emulate. Why, he asks, are we on the verge of a collapse of the Evangelical movement? In part, he says (and the emphasis is mine):

“We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.” (Take that, “deeds, not creeds!”)

“We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.” (I’d add that this condition clearly isn’t limited to merely the young people either).

What does he see coming? In part:

“Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented mega-churches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.”

This is the core problem for Evangelical churches – a shift from doctrine to ... well, something else. It always leads to compromise and weakens - even destroys - a church's effectiveness. In their effort to become “relevant” they lose their relevance. When a church compromises on its doctrine and distinctives, it becomes unable and weakened to pass on its truth to the next generation of believers; in fact, it ceases to have anything meaningful to pass on! When a church ceases to defend its own doctrine, for example, it has defaulted on its primary responsibility! Increasingly (if Christianity Today is any indication), churches are afraid to take a stand on even the most basic – core – doctrines because somebody somewhere disagrees. Churches like this may still remain “christian” in the most general (or generous sense), but they are a “church” only in the organizational sense. This is the error that the Mainline denominations made… and the Evangelicals are running after them as fast as possible.

Evangelical churches used to organize around what they believed. Now they organize around what they do. That is a great operating philosophy for a para-church organization, but it has become the philosophy of ministry for local churches!

“Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral.” Amen, Michael. I trust, though, that you are wrong when you predict that the “purveyors of the evangelical circus [continue] in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems.” I pray that God will open the eyes of His people to desire beauty and substance of His Word; that God’s people will give up the lie that “we can’t know;” and that men in leadership would be cut to the heart in understanding their responsibility to care for and to feed God’s people with the Word of God.

Important Read...

Whose voice are you listening to these days?

In studying the book Christless Christianity, I've been struck repeatedly by the increasingly pervasive trend in the evangelical world towards denying both the certainty of truth and its practical application in evangelical theology. A clear demonstration of the sad decline in biblical theology (where it was once rightly assumed) was reported from the National Pastors Conference in San Diego last month. It is incredible to me that many seem very comfortable leaving issues like the authority of Scripture, the nature of the atonement, the centrality of the person and work of Christ himself up for debate! Evangelicalism IS being "hijacked by closet theological liberals!"

It would be sad enough if the problem was just conferences and books... but the real problem lies inside local churches. The trends in many churches (including the purpose driven churches, seeker sensitive churches, the planter-driven churches and, sadly, even in established evangelical churches) is towards softening their doctrinal distinctives or ditching them altogether. The sad - but observable fact - is that increasingly churches who used to organize around what they believed and taught organize now around what they do.

This was the liberal experiment in the early 20th century, and I don't think it will be any more successful for the evangelicals of the 21st century who embrace the same strategy. IMHO, the evangelical movement is trading influence - which is found in fulfilling its mission to be a truth-teller and to feed the people of God - for the appearance of significance through programs and activity. What ever happened to "being transformed by the renewing of our minds"?

The Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram had an interesting article last Saturday about a book which seeks to answer the question "Why IS the church losing its influence in modern society?". The author of The Vanishing Church: Searching For Significance in the 21st Century makes this interesting and important observation:

"What I’m saying is that the biblical New Testament church is vanishing from society today," he said. "Anything and everything is acceptable as long as it builds a crowd. Jesus wasn’t as interested in building a crowd as he was in telling the truth."

Here's an important reminder as well from John MacArthur:

"People say, 'Oh doctrine divides…doctrine divides.' I say, 'Amen, preach it, doctrine divides.' You know what it does? It confronts error. It separates true from false. It makes judgments. Today’s climate, however, of unity in the priority of relationships, that’s not tolerable."

Hmmm. Maybe they're on to something. Make sure you're following someone who isn't leading you over a cliff...

I Shouldn't Do This, but...

While it's WAY wide of anything that matters, I thought I'd post this in honor of this week's Democratic National Convention.



Well, he's The One, you know. I say this whole thing is an Obama-nation.

Election Nonsense...

News Flash: This guy has my vote this year! Is it 1980 again?

That's Entertainment...

Ok, I've been on a LONG break in the "Is Evangelicalism Still Christian?" series, and I really am coming back to it. (Really!) But I saw this video this evening (using a recent White Horse Inn pod cast and adding some examples)... and I believe that this DEMANDS the careful attention of every Evangelical today. It is well worth your time in watching.

You may say that this isn't representative of your church... but while the examples may be extreme, the philosophy of "worship ministry" just may seem all too familiar.



So, what do you think? Reactions? Comments? I'm especially interested in thoughts from anyone involved in a worship ministry: Where are the White Horse Inn guys wrong - or right?

The No Pearls Comment Section is wide open...

Tonight: "Worship" on Fox

In a truly surreal moment, finalists on the TV show "American Idol" recently performed the song "Shout To the Lord." (If you didn't see it, they did it not once, but twice!)

Some are calling this an opportunity, others are blasting it... I see this as just one more blurred line between the secular and sacred. In a Christian culture that has seemingly lost the ability to distinguish between "worship" and "entertainment," this seems perfectly appropriate I guess. Aside from the promo intro, this looks like what most evangelical churches are striving for these days.

Apparently, there is some ruckus about this in the blogsphere. I'll confess to being happily ignorant about the whole thing until this morning, when I stumbled across a post over at the ThinkChristian.net blog. I was especially intrigued by this comment from "MCG":

"Philippians 1:15-18: It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. If it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me :)

[two comments later...]

"I do think that in terms of what matters---the Gospel spread---it is a net benefit that the song was sung on American Idol... Many people who have never heard that song, or at least who have never considered it seriously, were exposed to a powerful declaration of Jesus Christ... The Gospel was, indeed, spread."

Really? Is singing Shout to the Lord "preaching Christ"? Do the lyrics of the song proclaim the message that Paul is celebrating in Philippians 1? What is "the Gospel" that we're talking about?

You may think I'm being picky - and maybe that's the case here. But it does raise the question I've been wrestling with for some time now. I've been threatening to take it up, and will do so later today or tomorrow.

For now though, I can say one thing about the American Idol thing: We know they aren't worshiping because no one has raised their hands. :-)

One Hand Slapping...

WARNING: SARCASM ALERT!

Julie, over at "One Hand Clapping" hosted a rousing and enlightening discussion - ostensibly about John Piper's recent comments about the importance of doctrinal consistency in teaching at a church or seminary. He had, apparently, the unmitigated gall to suggest - as a Reformed pastor - the following (and be prepared for a SHOCK):

"Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.

Do you separate from a denomination that allows pastors and seminary teachers to believe and teach this error? You can. We do. Oh, how we need discernment concerning how helpful you might be to the cause of Christ and his truth."

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Hard to believe, isn't it? What an "arrogant" thing to say! Who does he think he is?

Can you believe the temerity of a Calvinist having a hard time with Arminian theology being taught? Arminians would NEVER object to Calvinism being taught, would they? (By the way, I HATE the labels... and I don't see "Calvinism" starting with Calvin: It was Augustinianism before Calvin, Pauline before Augustine and Biblical before that. Blame Jesus for having the nerve to put that doctrine in His Bible!) Well, we certainly wouldn't want consistency in thinking or conviction in belief - the most important thing isn't a passionate pursuit of the Truth, because apparently that's not knowable (or not thinking it is isn't "humble").

We need "humility" in our beliefs - I'm right, but you're right too. That's the ticket. Where is Mr. Rogers when we need him? Sing along, kids!

I think you're a special person
And I like your ins and outsides.
Everbody's fancy.
Everybody's fine.
Your body's fancy and so is mine.

Pa-leeeeeeze.

Anyway, check out the enlightening, profitable discussion that ensued with the "emerging church" folks on Julie's blog - I think it's a great commentary on "emerging church" thinking - and priorities. Note that Northern Illinois has its own "cussing pastor" too!

And feel free to let me know what you think. In my view, it's so sad. And I'm wondering when the adults are going to show up and start asking some legitimate questions about what is going on in the name of "church" these days.

This leads very nicely into my next series - If I can ever get time to start it! Stay tuned.

Who Will Stand Up and Sit This Guy Down?

OK, it's been a while, so strap on your seat belts!

I've been reading Brian McLaren's most recent book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope (2007). Mr. McLaren's audacity struck me even more in this book than usual and, while I can hardly do justice to the whole of the book (even in this unusually long post!), one aspect COMPELS me to respond.

McLaren argues that the Church has missed the point of the Gospel – not just American evangelicals, but all of Orthodox Christianity over the centuries. (I guess if you're going to take something on, you may as well go for broke!) His proposition, at least in part, is that our focus on individual salvation is wrong - or at least misguided. In seeking to demonstrate this, he contrasts historic orthodox Christianity (what he calls the “conventional” view) with the “emerging” view (which he clearly holds), and contrasts those views' answers to four questions foundational to the Gospel message. The following excerpts are his words, and I believe speak for themselves in terms of fairness, tone of “charity” and his feelings about our historic message. His questions - his responses. Let's take a Fox News look at this ("We report, you decide"):

“The Human Situation: What is the story we find ourselves in?
Conventional View: God created the world as perfect, but because our primal ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not maintain the absolute perfection demanded by God, God has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains will be destroyed, and the souls of all human beings – except for those specifically exempted – will be forever punished for their imperfection in hell.*

* Of course, there are many modern Western nonreligious ontologies and framing stories too, plus Eastern ontologies and framing stories - both religious and irreligious.

Emerging View: God created the world as good, but human beings – as individuals, and as groups – have rebelled against God and filled the world with evil and injustice. God wants to save humanity and heal it from its sickness, but humanity is hopelessly lost and confused, like sheep without a shepherd, wandering further and further into lostness and danger. Left to themselves, human beings will spiral downward in sickness and evil.

Basic Questions: What questions did Jesus come to answer?
Conventional View: Since everyone is doomed to hell, Jesus seeks to answer one or both of these questions: How can individuals be saved from eternal punishment in hell and instead go to heaven after they die? How can God help individuals be happy and successful until then?

Emerging View: Since the human race is in such desperate trouble, Jesus seeks to answer this question: What must be done about the mess we’re in? The mess refers both to the general human condition and to its specific outworking among his contemporaries living under the domination by the Roman Empire and who were confused and conflicted as to what they should do to be liberated.

Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus respond to the crisis?
Conventional View: Jesus says, in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.”* This is the good news.

*This reflects a Calvinistic, evangelical, Protestant version of the message. The popular Roman Catholic version might say, “You must believe in the teachings of the church and follow its instructions, especially those regarding mortal sins and sacraments.” The popular mainline or liberal Protestant version is sometimes vague and difficult to pin down, but one version of it might be summarized in its most dilute form as, “God is nice and wants you to be nice too.”

Emerging View: Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news – that God loves humanity, even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.”* This is the good news.

* This experience of transformation is, in my view, related to what Jesus means by “the kingdom of God.”

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus important?
Conventional View: Jesus came to solve the problem of “original sin,” meaning that he helps qualified individuals not to be sent to hell for their sin or imperfection. In a sense, Jesus saves these people from God, or more specifically, from the righteous wrath of God, which sinful human beings deserve because they have not perfectly fulfilled God’s just expectations, expressed in God’s moral laws. This escape from punishment is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love. Those who receive it enjoy a personal relationship with God and seek to serve and obey God, which produces a happier life on Earth and more rewards in heaven.

Emerging View: Jesus came to become the Savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s hope and truth discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.”

A little later in the book, McLaren goes further along this line, discussing the songs of Mary and Zechariah. In seeking to make the point that, at the time of the birth of Christ, these key announcements echoed the themes of the "emerging" rather than the "conventional" view of Christianity. To make the point, McLaren rewrites Mary's "Magnificat" (as he thinks it should have read if the "conventional" view was right) in the following manner:

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my Spirit rejoices in God my personal Savior, for he has been mindful of the correct saving faith of his servant. My spirit will go to heaven when my body dies, for the Might One has provided forgiveness, assurance, and eternal security for me—holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who have correct saving faith and orthodox articulations of belief, from generation to generation. He will overcome the damning effects of original sin with his mighty arm; he will damn to hell those who believe they can be saved through their own efforts or through any religion other than the new one he is about to form. He will condemn followers of other religions to hell but bring to heaven those will correct belief. He has filled correct believers with spiritual blessings but will send those who are not elect to hell forever. He has helped those with correct doctrinal understanding, remembering to be merciful to those who believe in the correct theories of the atonement, just as our preferred theologians throughout history have articulated.” (emphasis added to increase nausea).

McLaren’s characterization of the orthodox view certainly bear comment and rebuttal. It is, at best, a caricature - and an unfair one at that. His rhetoric here is consistent with his frequently utilized tendency in his writings to make his point seem more reasonable by setting up an unreasonable “straw man” argument for comparison. But in this case, his caricatures and their comparisons lead one to a very different view of the Gospel itself!

Just as one example, he appears to say that God would obviously be unfair to judge men and send them to hell for their “imperfections” while ignoring the clear doctrine of original sin. What is one to make, for example, of his characterizations of the doctrine of original sin and the lost condition of man? What is he implying when he characterizes this view as punishment in hell forever for our “imperfections” and that “because our primal ancestors” (a long time ago) weren’t perfect? What emotion is he trying to stir by saying that because of this ancient “imperfection,” “God has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains [and the souls of all human beings] will be destroyed”?

McLaren defines the historic, orthodox view of original sin and divine justice as self-evidently untrue, written in a manner that demands “NO – THAT’S NOT TRUE” as the only decent response. But while McLaren states it in an inflammatory fashion, the fact remains that the sin of Adam and Eve is imputed to all men (Romans 5:12 and following), and all of humanity faces an eternity in hell apart from the atoning work of Jesus received by faith. In his book The Story We Find Ourselves In, McLaren characterizes substitutionary atonement (what we have always affirmed as the cornerstone of the Gospel message) as “something sounding like “divine child abuse!”* And while his "emerging view" seems so much more reasonable - especially by comparison - it avoids the foundational question of the spiritual state of man and his need for the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Apart from this, men aren't "spiral[ing] downward in ...evil" - they are DEAD in it.

* To be fair (or at least complete), McLaren makes this statement in a dialogue between characters, and so he might seek to distance himself from the sentiment expressed. He does, however, go on to explain that substitutionary atonement is “a theory” which, along with others, may be “windows” into understanding a broader truth – but, like a window, they are inadequate in conveying the whole of what’s to be viewed outside. “The theories are like windows, and having a theory is better than staring at a blank wall or even a picture on the wall, but theories can’t give you the whole sky… I’d rather use the word ‘Mystery’…” All of which is part of McLaren’s ongoing effort to undermine the certainty of historic truth and propel a sense of mystery which rejects any efforts at propositional truth – at least to the extent it has been viewed as foundational in historic, Orthodox Christianity as understood by traditional Evangelicals.

The type of rhetoric used by McLaren is more than merely "provocative," and it does not represent something over which “reasonable people can disagree.” At best, it is confusing and misleading; at worst, it is “another Gospel” within the meaning of Galatians 1:8, and heretical.

There are certainly many people who have done a fair, scholarly review and assessment of Brian McLaren’s writings (see for example, D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant With The Emerging Church, which predates McLaren’s most provocative writing), but my concern is not with scholarly review – we don’t need an analysis of his ideas as much as we need protection from them. This is why church leaders are told to guard the doctrine of the Church – that is, not only to give instruction in sound doctrine, but “also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). It is also why we, as “the rank and file” are commanded to test everything against the Word (e.g., Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1) and flee from false teaching (Romans 16:17).

Evangelicals (by and large) have thankfully dismissed things like the Joel Olsteen lunacy, but seem to tolerate Brian McLaren – and for the life of me, I can’t understand why. McLaren’s socteriology appears (at least in practical application) to be Palagian, with not-so-subtle hints towards universalism thrown in as well. He is increasingly widely read, invited to prominent speaking events, featured in Christianity Today, and continues to move further and further away from historic Christianity. People need to be warned about him, and the silence of the main stream evangelical church leadership in tolerating – and even promoting his message – is astonishing.

If we have reached the point where someone can redefine the Gospel without reaction from Evangelical leadership, and where aberrant, historically biased, cartoon-like broadsides on historic Christianity (like what’s being offered by Mr. McLaren) are tolerated and even entertained, we’ve sunk farther as a movement than one would have feared. I’m praying that leaders and thinking disciples of Jesus repudiate Mr. McLaren and false teaching for the sake of the name of our Lord – and the eternal benefit of those who are less discriminating.

Heresy from America's "Most Popular Preacher"

If you caught Fox News Sunday today, you got this piece of wisdom from Chris Wallace's guest, Joel Olsteen:

WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I've got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?

OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that's what I believe, so, you know, I'm not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.

And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don't think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that's what I felt like.

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don't get hung up in them because I haven't really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don't know.

I certainly can't say that I agree with everything that I've heard about it, but from what I've heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that's a common bond.

Now THAT's discernment for you. He had lots more GREAT stuff to say, including an explanation of his humanistic, power-of-positive-thinking mumbo-jumbo and a laughable answer to the question of why he doesn't "...go deeply in [his] sermons into scripture." And millions are flocking to listen. It breaks my heart.

Lots of other websites point out this stuff, and I usually stay out of the fray. When I listen to this guy, Galatians 1:8-9 or maybe the book of Jude usually come to mind. But just in case you're listening, Joel, here's my reaction:


I think I speak for all of us when I say: For The Love Of Everything That's Holy, PLEASE SHUT UP!

Another Caption Contest....

I saw this today - is this a sign of the Apocalypse or what?? I'd love to hear your suggested captions, and here are the catagories:

1. Current American Culture

2. Christmas Commercialization

3. Economic Theory and Practice in Middle-America

4. Today's Evangelicals' Interest in Biblical Truth (that only makes sense if people are leaving the building)

The winning caption get's the NPB4S Guest Blogger Award!

"Special" Music for today

Here's a random thought before I go back to Matthew 5. Take a good look at this video:

You know, I'd laugh if this didn't represent the prevailing view of God these days. I especially appreciate the lyrics (especially at 1:36): "And if you want Me to I'll make you whole - I'll only do it though if you say so."


Hmmm. The Bible says something very different, doesn't it?

"In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..." (Ephesians 1:11)

Really? All things? Yes, all things. Newsflash - we're not the ones in control! God is.


It is very sad to me that so many today in the church are offended by the idea of a Loving, Holy, All-Powerful God. While in total, our God is truly incomprehensible, He has made many of His divine attributes known. One of these attributes is His sovereignty over all things. Rather than an insult to His character (as this video implies), it is our great comfort and strength. Anyone who knows himself must recognize his own limitations... how much better to trust in an all-powerful, loving God - whom we are invited to call "our Father."


How wonderful it is to trust in the God of the Bible, who:

"...being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. " (Ephesians 2:1-9)

Just to be clear, though, I'm not just referring God's sovereignty in salvation - I'm talking about God's sovereignty over LIFE - all of it. Here's a profound thought: God is God, and we are not.

This video is funny to me because of the musical style (and at one time, I was one of those guys - as a high school/college guy from the '70s, I'm "generationally impaired"). But more seriously, it is a sad reflection of what many believe (without regard to musical style), and because it is a window into a form of christianity that - at its core - seeks to limit God and elevate man.

This HAS to be a joke, right? Please...

I'm sure this is a fake web-thing, designed to tweak Christians with any sense of propriety at all... Please, someone tell me this is a joke (click start):



Here's the website (and I hate to give it anything that even looks like a plug). Is it possible that people are (1) so hungry for a word from the Lord and (2) so ignorant about the truth that something as obviously silly - and as blasphemous - as this appears even remotely appealing? Here's part of their pitch:

"A history changing event is about to occur. Soon over 2.1 billion Christians worldwide will be able to have private, verbal conversations with virtual Jesus from any phone, anytime, anywhere on a daily basis. TalkToJesus uses advanced speech and AI technology to help millions connect with God personally and hear the Bible read interactively like never before. TalkToJesus will be a personal tool to help those in need...TTJ will have a soothing, caring and inspiring voice. He will learn your name and address you personally. He will read from the Bible, listen to sins and console. Jesus will pray with you interactively, and you will be able to ask Jesus numerous theological questions. TalkToJesus will educate, guide, console, forgive and more. Nothing like this has ever been done before. While millions have heard the word of God and embrace Jesus, TTJ is an extension to help people further in their lives."

Words (almost) fail me. Even if this is a joke, its not funny.

For me at least, I'll just continue to talk to Jesus the old-fashioned way - through reading God's Word, and through the amazing REAL (not virtual) access provided to us into the very presence of God through prayer on the basis of the merit of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus:

Therefore, brothers,since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that He opened for us through the curtain, that is, through His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful Hebrews 10:19-23 (emphasis added)

We don't need a "virtual jesus"... we already have access to the REAL JESUS.

He DOES speak to us, through His revealed Word, the Bible (Hebrews 4:12). He DOES speak to us - through the ministry of His Holy Spirit (John 17, especially vs. 13-14).

*He speaks to the world as well (John 17:8-11).

*He gives us forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9).

*He leads His own into obedience (John 10:27).

*He makes His will and purpose known to us. He provides wisdom and direction to us when we ask believing (James 1:5-6).

*He provides real comfort and peace (Philippians 4:6-7).

*And strength (Ephesians 3:14-19).

*And words to speak at the time we need them (Luke 12:12).

All of this and much more promised to us in the Bible, and without failure to deliver. We DO hear from Jesus... if we listen in faith. And there is no "tech support" or registration required - just this word of instruction:

"You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13

I love the legal fine print on the bottom of the site: "Disclaimer: TalkToJesus is intended for entertainment purposes only. It is not the actual Jesus." No kidding! Well, there seems's to be no limit to what men will mock for "entertainment purposes," and no end to man's desire to play to spiritual hunger and ignorance in man. And while there is, in many quarters these days, a "famine of God's Word" (Amos 8:11), thank God that He is a God who listens to, and speaks with His people. May we be a people who listen to, and speak with Him as well.

Ok, that's enough!

Ok, I'll be honest - I've had enough. Enough of a lot of things, but that's my wife's compliant. I'll focus on just one: I'm ESPECIALLY had enough of ... Christmas.

I know that's not going to win me any points this year, especially with my kids. But really, I'm serious. I've had it with the whole thing.

What does keeping America's economy going, with all-night sales, endless promotions, stupid commercials and - need I say more - malls... what does all that have to do with the most awesome thing that's ever happened in human history - the incarnation of God Almighty in the form of a human? And not just any human, but one born into economic, social and relational poverty? Could the disparity in concepts be more profound?

When did this all become about us... how we want to do things, what we want, what we need, blah-blah-blah.?

How has it all come to this? Namby pamby seasonal programs, with dripping sentimentality, saying meaningless tripe like "the real meaning of christmas is family, togetherness, peace to all men" - what?? And not just on the Lifetime channel - how about this gem from a church in Naperville, Illinois?

Really... anybody have a gift idea for a gift exchange within the Godhead? Glad to see that the Creator of all things is willing to trade healing for a Playstation 3. The incredible thing is that this is viewed by the leadership of a very large "evengelical" church as funny... and important enough to show in their church services as part of the celebration of the season!

(By the way, here's your bonus video thought: Any pastors out there might consider this evangelism tool for the same Naperville multi-venue church):


Here's my suggestion: We can't really chuck the whole thing, and I'm not really against things like family (or even presents). But what if we picked another day to do something totally different from "christmas" today... that is, celebrate Jesus' birth?

For me, and maybe even my family, I'm going to try to do this on December 26 this year. I'll let you know how it goes. But somewhere in the midst of the frantic pace of the season, I'm hoping to spend some quality time with the one who's supposed to be the focus in the first place.

You may have guessed this, but I have a thought as to why we - this generation - is headed further down the spiritual marginalization path even than our parents generation. I'll start that series tomorrow, but here's your homework assignment: Read Psalm 138:2.

Now down to some housekeeping:

1. I agree with Shiloh Guy... I am totally negligent in my blogging responsibilities.

2. I think I should know who Scotland Yard is, but I probably need more of a hint then the obvious reference to past theological/recreational activities. A clue anyone?