Just thought you'd be interested to see where some of your tax dollars are going.... High Court Sides With Inmates on Religion

I have started reading Os Guiness' book, Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance (Baker 2003). Guiness says that the western view of what he calls "clock time" in many ways divides the western world from the eastern world and also opens the western church up to the influences of modernism.

In chapter 3 ("Impossible Stances"), he discusses the church's calling to be against the world and for the world (a two-edged character of the Christian faith based on the twin truths of creation and fall resulting in a bifocal vision of what the world was created to be and what it has come to be) and then follows by describing the three traditional stances that the church has made in relation to the world.

Here are a few excerpts (without my interaction) from the first part of this chapter:

"When the church is weak or careless in maintaining this dual stance, it leads directly to cowardice and corruption, decadence and decline. But when the church is faithful, it lies at the core of her power to transform and renew culture. As the long and distinguished story of Christian reformers shows, followers of Jesus support the best in human aspirations and achievements while resisting the worst."

"Unlike Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the Christian faith is unashamedly world-affirming ... The church therefore has a glorious record of creativity in art, music, and literature; in founding schools and colleges; in running hospitals and orphanages; in caring ... At the same time, the Christian faith, unlike the secular varieties of humanism, is also world-denying. Whatever law or practice contradicts God's law of principles must be confronted. The church therefore emphasizes reforms as well as maintenance, calls for fasts as well as feasts, stresses self-denial as well as fulfillment, and has at its heart the scandal of the cross as well as the hope of glory. Along with Judaism, the Christian faith is neither one thing nor the other but emphatically both at once. This is the vital secret of its strength."

"... of all the cultures the church has lived in, the modern world is the most powerful, the most pervasive, and the most pressurizing. And it has done more damage to Christian integrity and effectiveness than all the persecutors of the church in history."

"My tutor at Oxford, an eminent European scholar, raised a question at a crowded social sciences seminar in the mid-seventies. 'By the end of the 1970s,' he asked, 'who will be the worldliest Christians in America?' ... 'I guarantee it will be the evangelicals and fundamentalists.'"

"The years since the prediction at that Oxford seminar have shown beyond question that evangelicals and fundamentalists have embraced the modern world with a passion unrivaled in history."

"... we evangelicals ... are becoming the strongest rival to mainline Protestantism as the worldliest Christian tradition in America. From a general materialism and secularity in priorities and preoccupations, to particular captivities to such modern idols as psychology, management, and marketing, the pattern is starkly plain."

"'Thank God,' our new evangelicals say, 'that we have escaped from the 'do's and don'ts' and 'no-nos' of the narrow worldliness of the previous generation. Our forefathers were hide-bound and legalists. They majored in the minors and reduced worldliness to drinking, dancing, and smoking. Let's escape from such restrictive worldliness and celebrate grace and our Christian freedom.'"

"The fear of course is legitmate. The dead hand of legalism is the antithesis of the gospel of grace. But the fallacy comes in when true worldliness is thrown out with trivialized worldliness. Any determined effort to resist the world will certainly entail pitfalls and dangers, and they need to be understood and resisted. But they are not the urgent danger of today, which for the moment is predominantly on the other side."

As we strive to bring you valuable content on this site, we are also striving to enhance the way that the content comes to you. One new feature of our blog is the ability for you to quickly view all important past posts for certain topics. On the right you'll see a new menu titled "Blog Quick Links." What this does is give you instant access to past posts relevant to the given subject. This allows you to search through the blog's "archives" and see past posts that sparked the most interest quickly and efficiently.

Once again, we are always trying to enhance this site. If you have any suggestions please do not hesitate to contact one of us. Thank-you, and God bless.

FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Interview - Who Is Winning the Culture War?

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan discusses the decay of Western culture. While I do not agree with everything Buchanan says all the time, and while I do not usually appreciate the things he says and does, in this article he does a pretty good job pointing us to the roots of our moral decline in America.

"It goes back, frankly, to the French revolution, the ideas do, and even before," Buchanan says. "And it is fundamentally, deeply anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, because it rejects the values and beliefs and what those cultures basically created in the west. That's why it's cultural Marxism. The great enemy of Marxism is western civilization."

Buchanan makes the correct assumption that the influence of famous men such as Robespierre and Rousseau has led to the secular/anti-Christian mentality of Western nations. Perhaps now, more than ever before in this country, the American church needs to be set apart and distinct from the culture. A continuing move in the direction that other Western nations have gone will lead us down the same path of spiritual death and moral putrescence as Western European nations.

Labels: politics

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Pope Pledges to Mend Orthodox Relations

FoxNews.com has an article discussing how Pope Benedict XVI is making efforts to bridge the thousand year gulf between the Western and the Eastern church. The new Pope seems very interested in picking up where Pope John Paul II left off in ecumenical dialogue with other branches of Christianity.

In a homily at a Mass before in front of 200,000 people, Pope Benedict said, "I also ask all of you to decisively take the path of spiritual ecumenism, which in prayer will open the door to the Holy Spirit who alone can create unity." In response, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, foreign relations chief for the Moscow Patriarchate, said the Russian church welcomed the pope's willingness to forge closer ties with Orthodox Christians and that the statements "will be followed by real steps to bring our churches closer."

This is yet another very interesting development in the emerging dialogue between East and West. I for one am excited to see where these developments lead. The Orthodox are also engaged with continuing dialogue with the Anglican Church as well. See a press release from the Ecumenical Patriarch here.

"Musings of an Expagan - So, if you think your Liturgy is bad"

I found this article while looking at another blog (InTheFight) and was quite disturbed by it. Please check it out and look at the pictures, I guarantee you will not be the same......

You can find out even more by going here.

http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/44/44-1/44-1-PP075-086_JETS.pdf

Throughout history the office of pope has been attacked. Among other things it has been said that "the antichrist" (assuming that there is or will be only one) will be the pope. Is there any validity to the idea? Where has this audacious idea come from?

Stephen J. Nichols has written a well thought out biblical-historical-exegetical article in the March 2001 issue of the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, entitled, "Prophecy Makes Strange Bedfellows: On the History of Identifying the Antichrist". The essence of Nichols' arument is that bad exegesis and hermeneutics of those passages, which contain warnings of the antichrist(s), have led people to name the antichrist, or at least try to name the antichrist.

It is an unwarranted, unscholarly approach to the harder passages of the Scripture that have hurt so many people, even inside the Church. This is not to say that there have not been some very unholy popes in history, but it is to say that when we take our problems and issues into the Scripture we will come out with a warped interpretation. As Nichols points out in
2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, we ought not search to name the antichrist as much as we are to be aware of the signs that will lead to him. An attempt to name the antichrist reveals more of who we are and what we believe, than the objective reality of the Scripture text. If we have a liberal political view, then we will name President George Bush as the antichrist. If we have a strong view against Baptist, then we will name Billy Graham as the antichrist. If we have a view against big-business and industrialization, then we will name Bill Gates as the antichrist. The point is that when we demonize a person and take that issue into the Scripture without allowing the text to speak for itself we will interpret a passage far from its intended meaning, but close to our contemporary agenda.

From Historic Creeds: A Journal, by Kenneth Boa:

There is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

-I Corinthians 8:6

We do not exist for ourselves - we exist for the Father and through the Son. The world tells us that we derive our existence from it and that we should live for ourselves, but the Word teaches us that all we are and have comes from the Father who formed us for His pleasure and purposes.

Ultimate reality is not the cosmos or a mysterious force, but an infinite and loving Person. The implications of this are astounding and pervasive. The infinite-personal Lord of all is an unbounding loving community of three timeless and perfect Persons. In the superabundance of His joy and life, He is at once solitude and society, the one and the many, supernal being as communion. The magnificent God who abounds in personal plenitude has no needs, yet He invites us to participate in the intense and interpenetrating life of the three eternally subsistent Selves. Jesus prayed on our behalf "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us....I in them and you in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me" (John 17:21,23). The impenetrable mystery of us being in the divine Us, and the divine Us being in us, transcends our imagination - but if it is true, all else pales in comparison.

Weblog: American Family Association Ends Disney Boycott - Christianity Today Magazine

Don't be deceived by the title of this Christianity Today article. At first glance I thought that the American Family Association ended their boycott of Disney because Disney had made the necessary changes that would warrant the AFA's renewed support. But it appears that the AFA as gotten too tired to keep up the nine year boycott. And while the AFA claims credit for certain positive circumstances, it is still interesting to see that their boycott has not achieved its ultimate goals.

Christianity Today's headline article is titled "The Promise of Benedict XVI" and discusses how evangelicals might find benefits in Ratzinger becoming Pope. In the article, five points of ecumenical dialogue are listed:

1. He takes truth seriously - Time and time again we have heard Ratzinger proclaim that "truth is not relative" which he declared during the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II. Ratzinger seems committed to resisting the post-modern ideas that reject universal and objective truth. And while this may draw extensive criticism from liberal Catholics and Protestants alike, it makes Ratzinger a champion for an evangelical cause.

2. His theology is Bible-focused - The article quotes Ratzinger as saying, "Exegesis has always remained for me the center of my theological work." He seems committed to Biblical truth and proper exegesis which seeks to induce the meaning of Scripture instead of bringing to a given text certain theological "baggage."

3. His message is Christocentric - His highly regarded, and criticized, work Dominus Iesus has the central theme that "Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God and the only Redeemer of the world", thus highlighting his "commitment to the Trinitarian and Christological faith of the Bible and the early church."

4. He is Augustinian in perspective - Ratzinger was very deeply influenced by the works of Augustine. And while this may not be the most exciting of his characteristics for certain Wesleyan-Armenian evangelicals, it certainly has caused him to be "sensitive to issues of spirituality in the life of faith."

5. He champions the culture of life - Ratzinger seems very connected with the idea that the presence of Christianity should have an impact on society. He supports "the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage bonds, and social justice for all persons made in the image of God. 'A society without God will eventually destroy itself,' he has said."

All in all, Pope Benedict XVI is a hard-line conservative who has much to offer to evangelical-Catholic dialogue. I look forward to seeing where he leads his flock of over a billion worldwide Catholics.

Romans 9:13 – “As it is written, ‘I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.’”

It has been argued by those who ascribe to a predeterministic view of God’s foreknowledge that this text is proof that God determines who will and who will not choose Him. John Wesley articulates their point that “the assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture … as implying that God in a literal sense hated Esau, and all the reprobated, from eternity.” In other words, they would suggest that the fact that God “loved” Jacob means that He eternally predetermined Jacob’s fate, and the fact that God “hated” Esau means that He eternally predetermined Esau’s fate – as well as all the reprobated, IE. Those abandoned to eternal damnation. But is this what the text is really saying about Jacob and Esau, or those “saved” and those “lost”?

Romans 9:11-12 says, “Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” God’s “purpose of election” was to choose the promised seed. That His “purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call” was to show that God plans not according to any preceding merit of him He chose, but of His own good pleasure. God does not predetermine merits because He foreknew. Rather, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29), IE. He predestined those who accept His blessings on His own terms, that is, “by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8), “to be conformed to the image of his Son.”

Romans 9:13 – “Jacob have I loved” - Wesley says, “With a peculiar love; that is, the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob. And I have, comparatively, hated Esau - That is, the Edomites, the posterity of Esau. But observe, 1. This does not relate to the person of Jacob or Esau 2. Nor does it relate to the eternal state either of them or their posterity. Thus far the apostle has been proving his proposition, namely, that the exclusion of a great part of the seed of Abraham, yea, and of Isaac, from the special promises of God, was so far from being impossible, that, according to the scriptures themselves, it had actually happened.” In other words, God “loved” Jacob in the sense of his posterity (descendants), and God “hated” Esau in the sense of his posterity, as they both related to the coming of the promised seed – God did not love Esau's posterity as He loved Jacob's. God “chose” Jacob over Esau, the younger over the older, not because of either of their merits, but because of His own good pleasure. This does not mean He chose whom He will “save” and those whom He will not, but rather chose through whom will come the promised seed, IE. Jesus Christ. This “loving”, “hating”, and “choosing” has nothing to do with eternal states, nor does it have anything to do with God predetermining man’s actions and/or fate. Given the context of the passage, we are to conclude that the purpose of this text is to show God’s salvific plans and purposes carried out through the lives of those whom He chooses, not to an eternal state, but to carry out His plans and purposes.

Wesley continues with Romans 9:14 (“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”) – “Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only? In no wise. This is well consistent with justice; for he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy…” Romans 9:15 - “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,” (says Wesley, “According to the terms I myself have fixed.”) “and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion,” (says Wesley, “Namely, on those only who submit to my terms, who accept of it in the way that I have appointed.”). In other words, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, not meaning that He will choose who will or will not be eternally saved, but according to the terms He has set.

Romans 9:17 says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’” Wesley says of this text:

“God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, … For this very thing have I raised thee up - That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, … and my name declared through all the earth ... It seems that God was resolved to show his power … with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest.”

God offered Pharaoh His terms, which was an act of grace by allowing Pharaoh the chance to accept God’s will. But “after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion” God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. In other words, it was only after Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his own heart that God hardened his heart, and raised him up to be used as a tool of revelation, that through the power of God displayed in Pharaoh God’s name might be declared in all the earth. This text tells us three things: 1.) That God offered Pharaoh His own terms and Pharaoh rejected Him, contrary to a deterministic interpretation which shows God arbitrarily determining the condition of Pharaoh’s heart; 2.) That the result of one hardening their own heart in response to God’s prevenient grace (that which goes before) is a further hardening by God; and 3.) That God can even use those who, of their own volition, rebel against Him for the sake of His own good purposes. “So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses,” (that is, accordingly He does show mercy on His own terms, namely, on them that believe) “and whom he will,” (namely, those that don’t believe) “he hardens,” (leaves them to the hardness of their hearts).

In his Sermon 128 - Free Grace, Wesley says in reaction to a deterministic view of God:

“Now, what can possibly be a more flat contradiction than this, not only to the whole scope and tenor of Scripture, but also to all those particular texts which expressly declare, "God is love?" Again: They infer from that text, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," (Romans 4:15) that God is love only to some men, viz., the elect, and that he hath mercy for those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, "The Lord is loving unto every man; and his mercy is over all his works." (Psalm 114:9) Again: They infer from that and the like texts, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,: that he showeth mercy only to those to whom he had respect from all eternity. Nay, but who replieth against God now? You now contradict the whole oracles of God, which declare throughout, "God is no respecter of persons:"(Acts 10:34) "There is no respect of persons with him." (Rom. 2:11) Again: from that text, "The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her," unto Rebecca, "The elder shall serve the younger;" you infer, that our being predestinated, or elect, no way depends on the foreknowledge of God. Flatly contrary to this are all the scriptures; and those in particular, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God; " (1 Peter 1:2) "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." (Rom. 8:29)”

Sources:
http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.asp?Version=WES

Labels: theology

Christianity Today has an article out that considers the legacy of the late Pope John Paul II in the area of Catholic-Evangelical dialogue. I recommend that you read this article and consider, or maybe reconsider, your view of the papacy. This is not to suggest that we rethink our view of papal authority or apostolic succession. What I mean is a new consideration of our attitude towards the Pope, or even Catholicism in general. Upon the recent death of Pope John Paul II, I was sickened by the indifference to, and even almost satisfaction with, his passing among some of my evangelical brothers and sisters. Why do so many evangelicals seem to loathe Catholicism? Sure, we do not agree with a number of their doctrines. But why the disgust and repulsion, especially towards a man like John Paul II? Are we so categorically narrow and ignorant that we cannot see the value of Catholicism, or even the intrinsic value of its adherents? The modern ecumenical movement may carry with it some negative connotations, and that for good reason. However, there are some serious benefits to the movement. With a Christian church so utterly fragmented today, it is refreshing that efforts are being made to move toward unification and solidarity. Although I do not advocate compromise on Biblical truth, I am certainly interested in undoing the undeniable evils of schism and sharing communion with brothers and sisters who aren't necessarily from my exact theological tradition. Yes, we need to defend our positions and articulate our points of difference, but can we not also find common ground at the same time?

Maybe instead of looking at the papacy with such aversion we could force ourselves to see the positives it provides. Is there are stronger voice in the world for conservatism than the Vatican? Who else carries that level of clout? Just because I do not recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ does not mean that I should hate him and treat him with contempt.

While in dialogue over the concept of theosis in another post, Incarnational Implications, a new topic has arisen. Jason asked, "Were his [Athanasius'] ideas influenced by secular contemporary philosophers?"

Jason, I contacted Dr. Bill Ury, Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Wesley Biblical Seminary, about this issue to get some professional insight. My question was as follows:

Dr. Ury,
As one who specializes in the history of Christian thought, could you give me your thoughts on a particular issue. The question is if, or to what extent, Saint Athanasius was influenced by the contemporary philosophies of his day. I know Athanasius, as well as the Cappadocians, used controversial terms of their day that had previously been rejected by the church. I know that he was heavily influenced by the founder of Egyptian monasticism, Anthony the Great, and even more so by Bishop Alexander. But what other forces shaped his thinking and Christological/soteriological development? I know this is a very general question and I would be more than happy with a very general response.

Dr. Ury replied:

Sean,
Anyone with an Alexandrian address had the influence of Philo, Origen and their various views of Hellenistic philosophy to contend with. Platonism in its Porphyrian and Plotinian expressions impressed him abit but he soundly rejected Epicurean, and Gnostic excrescences. But his being raised in the Church with this background brought him to his philosophical training with a bit more criticism than the typical Alexandrian thinker. With the Melitians and the Arians plying their trade he was 'hemmed in' by having to respond to heresy rather than to be more creative.

-used with permission

While you "Google" those new terms, consider whether or not this answers your question.

From Orthodoxy Today, Abortion and Ecumenical Relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches - Frank Johnson:

Leadership 100 and Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Church (GOC) American Archdiocese recently honored Greek-American U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe at its 14th annual conference by giving her an "Award for Excellence." GOC Leadership 100 and the GOC Archbishop similarly honored Greek-American U.S. Senator Sarbanes at the conference two years ago. Voting records show that Senators Sarbanes and Snowe are among the most pro-abortion senators in the U.S. Senate. I am concerned about these awards for many reasons, but with the election of Roman Catholic Cardinal Ratzinger to become now Pope Benedict XVI, I have yet one more reason to be concerned--and that is the welfare of ecumenical relations between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Church of the West.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, stated back in July of 2004 that Catholic Communion should not be served to pro-abortion elected officials, such as Senator Kerry. Now as Pope Benedict he has reaffirmed his strong, uncompromising pro-life stance. Surely the new Pope Benedict must frown upon the practice of the Greek Orthodox Church in America of not only serving Orthodox Communion to pro-abortion Senators such as Sarbanes and Snowe but also going even further and rewarding them for their "Excellence."

It is ironic that even as the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Constantinople is working hard to improve relations between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the American Archdiocese of his Greek Church jeopardizes those relations by awarding abortionists, thus dismaying Pope Benedict XVI who is clearly and unequivocally pro-life and anti-abortion.

Fortunately for Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and for the welfare of Orthodox-Catholic relations, there are jurisdictions of Orthodoxy in America that firmly adhere to the 2000 year old Orthodox Tradition of being pro-life and anti-abortion. One such jurisdiction is the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), whose leader, Metropolitan Herman, demonstrates by his words and by his actions that he and the Church he leads are clearly and unequivocally pro-life and anti-abortion. We can see this stance manifested in Metropolitan Herman's Archpastoral Messages on the Sanctity of Life and in his leading the pan-Orthodox contingent at the annual March for Life in Washington, DC, each January - http://www.wfn.org/2005/01/msg00183.html

Hopefully, the new Catholic Pope Benedict XVI will see in the OCA that there are Orthodox Christians who are as strongly pro-life and anti-abortion as he is. So it is that the OCA and other such Orthodox jurisdictions that are firm in their moral convictions about abortion may yet save Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism.

The BBC has an article that will make you wonder what those Jedi's were thinking. Read it here.

An weekly news e-mail from Answers in Genesis:

Q: Surely scientists want to search for truth; they are supposed to be unbiased … aren’t they?

A: It is time for people to realize that what scientists believe about their origins does determine how they look at the world.

We received a letter from a person who’d been named the editor for a geologic society. He was asked to provide articles of substance for their newsletter. In his first issue he included articles that questioned established evolutionary geologic principles. In less than two weeks, members of the society demanded his resignation and the return of all the materials that he had, even when these actions were in violation of the society’s constitution.

This is not an isolated case. We’ve heard of graduate students being refused entry into schools because they believed in creation, and other scientists being driven out of their fields because of their creation beliefs. Whenever a discovery is made that casts serious doubt on evolution, it’s often quickly hidden and not published in the major journals.

None of this should be surprising to those of us who get our answers in God’s Word—after all, man’s heart is deceitful and rebels against the Truth of the Creator God. That’s why we need ministries like Answers in Genesis to tell The truth to the world.

AIG's Evolutionist Quote of the Week
“It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.”
– G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, September 20, 1979.

Labels: creation, evolution, science

An update on the Jerusalem Patriarch scandel story here. This continues to be a very interesting story coming from the Christian east. I'll keep you posted.

Read the article: Leaving the left

Keith Thompson wrote this article for the San Francisco Chronicle describing why he is leaving the "left." This personal essay powerfully describes why the author feels like an alien within his own party. A self-proclaimed liberal, Thompson is leaving his party of more than thirty years because of what the American cultural left has become. He writes, "Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom." (italics mine)

Read this article. You may not agree with everything he believes or says, but he certainly offers commentary perfectly describing a party that is imploding.

Labels: politics

Since we have been on the topic lately of the dual natures of Christ and how they must be held in pefect balance, I wanted to post a crucial section of the Chalcedonian Definition pertaining to this issue. Just as the Nicene Creed was reactionary to the heresy of Arianism that denied Christ's full deity, the heresies of Nestorianism (built on Pelagianism), Apollinarianism, and Eutychianism that denied Christ's full humanity led to the famous Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). The relevant section will follow below:

"Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance (homoousion) with the Father as regards to his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards to his manhood, like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before all ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer (Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person (prosopon) and subsistence (hypostasis), not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son the Only-begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed (Nicene) of the Fathers has handed down to us."

Bradly Nassif writes,

"Based in earlier knowledge of Chalcedon ... (Gregory) Palamas (1296-1359) strenuously defended the church's teaching that a direct, personal experience of God himself (theosis) was accessible through God's energies made available through the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ. The incarnate Word hypostasized human nature and acted in accordance with the divine and human wills. There was thus a sharing of attributes ... whereby the humanity of Christ was penetrated by the divine energies and thereby deified. Those divine energies, which we partake of, were not understood as an impersonal "something" from God but as God himself because Christ is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. Through the incarnate Christ, God himself gives to us in such a living, personal way that the gift and the giver are one in the same." (italics mine)

Salvation is not an impersonal and static gift or declaration or state. Salvation is participation in the divine life of the Godhead (theosis) through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, the God-man.

Weblog: ABC's 20/20 Says Jesus' Tomb Was Empty - Christianity Today Magazine

It seems as though ABC has done what the History Channel is unable to do. If you watch the History Channel like I do you have undoubtedly seen a show concerned with the resurrection of Jesus. Sadly, the History Channel seems to rely much too heavily on the likes of Jean Dominique Crossan for commentary. Of course, just about everything produced by The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, or The National Geographic Channel includes some blatant evolutionary or liberal propoganda of some kind. Clearly these networks operate from a specific worldview that they seek to impose on those who wish to watch their programming. But ABC has actually produced a documentary that The Christian Science Monitor calls a "surprising, engrossing documentary" that treats "the controversy like any important news story — with intelligence and objective courtesy, representing all sides." Is it possible that the network which produces the smutty Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy has objectively examined the case for a bodily resurrection? It appears to be true. I am encouraged by this and hope that the evangelical presence in this country continues to influence our society.
-----------------------------
UPDATE:

I just finished watching ABC's special on the resurrection. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprized. The documentary truly did take a very objective journalistic approach, which is a fair approach to take by a major television network. I was pleased to see the likes of Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig, but, just as the Christianity Today article mentioned, I was disappointed by the noticable absence of N.T. Wright. In the end, the program was a quality program and really offered some convincing arguments for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Cheers to ABC for their fair and balanced documentary - they stole a move from Fox News' playbook.

Labels: theology

Today I received an e-mail with a question included. Anonymous asked, "What is the United Methodist Church's official stance on homosexual ministers (to me this means professed lifestyle). " Despite rumors, the UMC does have official positions regarding homosexuality.

Concerning clergy who are openly homosexual, the UMC discipline says the following:

While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church. (From the Book of Discipline section dealing with the ordained ministry, Paragraph 304.3)

Concerning the practice of homosexuality in general, the UMC discipline says the following:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons. (From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004)

A comprehensive position on all aspects of this issue can be found here. It has become somewhat of a stereotype that the United Methodist Church has "accepted" or "condoned" homosexuality. This is an incorrect assessment of reality. It is true that the issue has become somewhat of a hot topic within the denomination due to a liberal and quite vocal minority wing of the church. However, with each Methodist conference the language of the discipline becomes stronger against the practice. Has there been failure within the denomination in certain areas? Yes. I acknowledge that. But the argument that the UMC supports homosexuality and has "gone liberal" is incorrect. A denomination is no more than its discipline, and at leat the UMC discipline seeks to actually wrestle with the issue instead of either denying homosexuals basic human decency or denying the issue altogether.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before this would happen. According to NarniaWeb there is going to be Narnia merchandise for just about everything under the sun. I just hope that in Disney's attempt to market and commercialize this movie that the true message of it is not lost or watered down. But then again, what do we really expect of Disney? In my mind, this is Disney's only chance for redemption for me. If they can pull this one off it could go a long way to changing my image of them. Of course, they're going to have to lay off their support for and celebration of the homosexual agenda.

The Catholic Church continues its struggle with the issue of homosexuality. The issue of our culture's acceptance of this behavior shows up in politics (see Nebraska's gay marriage ban stricken) as well as in the church. What will be our response? Will we cave in to the pressures of the PC left? Or will we stand on the authority of God's Word on the issue while maintaining a spirit of love and grace to individual persons? Homosexuality is sinful and an abomination to God. But the church needs to beware the dangers that sometimes arise out of reactionary behavior. We need to maintain a balance between opposition to the movement and abhorrence of the practice with a recognition of the intrinsic value of a human life and faith in God's ability to redeem and restore. A movement too far in either direction will be harmful, despite our best intentions.

I am one of 20 million people. Yes, I admit, I sometimes watch Extreme Makeover: Home Edition on ABC on Sunday nights. Usually when there's a show on television with the word "makeover" in the title I would rather be cleaning toilets than be watching it. But there is something special about this program. Christianity Today apparently thinks so as well. They have a feature article on their website right now titled Rebuilding Hope, and while they liken its impact to that of Touched by an Angel, I think it would be safe to say that the cast of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition does more for people than Della Reese ever did.

For those of you macho men out there who brag that they only watch The Contender I think that even you could appreciate the efforts of those on EMHE. If you are like me and you're tired of all the garbage on television, this show might come to you as a refreshing change. Granted, the show does not seek to promote Christianity. Don't expect Billy Graham to come on and present a Gospel message. But the work that is done for real people on this show bears the fingerprint of God. Naturally, as a theologically-minded person, I have to ask myself the inevitable question: How does the cast of EMHE, or any non-Christian, do anything good? Granted, this is assuming that the cast of EMHE aren't Christians. But the question remains. If "every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17 NRSV), then how can those who are not directed by Him do any good? Fallen natural man, unaided by grace, is not free to do good things, but is inclined to do evil, and that continually.

I think John Wesley might offer us some insight with his theology of grace. In his Sermon 128, Free Grace, Wesley says,

"... good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions ... all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it."

Wesley's articulation of grace allowed for the natural man, dead in sin, to be capable in some measure to do good deeds, but not of his own accord so that no man may boast. It is God's prevenient grace that is "free in all, and free for all" that enables any man to do good deeds. How else would someone like Hugh Hefner or Ted Turner be able to do a good deed such as donate a million dollars to the Salvation Army or donate time to a soup kitchen (although neither of these two men may have ever done anything of the sort)? It is God's dynamic grace at work in every man and woman that produces good works of any kind.

Business Week - Earthly Empires

If the church wants to see how the secular world looks at her, then this article in Business Week gives that opportunity. The church of America tends to fall prey to "fads". The major reason that the church jumps into the swift currents of modern fads is what many call "cultural relevantism". As a Bible college professor, I hear this term used a lot by young people who want the church to be "in" or "popular" with our society. The means to accomplish this popularity is for the church to adjust to the world, or to make the sacred look like the secular. When I discuss this topic with some of our college students, their premise is usually "Jesus was relevant to His culture and He fought against traditionalism". I usually try to point out that this is a false premise and furthermore, it is built on bad hermeneutics. Is that what the Gospel is? Did the incarnate Son of God come to earth to to save mankind, be culturally relevant, and break traditionalism?

A culturally relevant church might be sensitive to its society, but it is subjective in its mission. At this point I must make a distinction in church mission. First, we are to worship the Triune God by responding properly to all that He has said and done for us. Second, the mission of the church is identified with the body of Christ in the world, filled by the Holy Spirit to do the work of Christ as commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. The First is our corporate worship and the second is our outreach. Worship must be objective or we end up with a subjective individualism like that found in the philosophy of William of Ockham and the nominalistic teachings of the Reformation. As soon as Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the castle church at Wittenberg, one church became five: Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. Truth became more subjective. This isn't to say that the Catholic Church didn't need reform, but the disunity that took place was not of God. The mission of the church, as outreach is concerned, may only work by being culturally relevant, but corporate worship ought to be objective and unchanging. I look at the Eastern Orthodox Church which has not changed its worship style for 2000 years, and it is growing, but they also reach out to the community in relatively unique ways. John Wesley was not trying to start a new denomination or change worship when he included small groups of discipleship. He was trying to enhance the quality of spirituality of the believer of the Anglican Church. So, why does the church of America run after social fads?

If Jesus would walk into a "culturally relevant" church, similar to the ones in the article of Business Week, would He not also drive out the money changers? Yes, Jesus was culturally relevant, but the reason we can't use Him as a model for our worship being culturally relevant is that He is the object of our worship. We can do as He did in our outreach (His humanness), but He is also divine and our worship ought to reflect a balance..., if our worship is to be Christocentric. If not, then we begin hiring MBA's and marketing people and we look more like corporate America and less like the body of Christ in the World.

Kansas School Board considers broader definition of science

The on-going argument over the science curriculum in Kansas (mentioned last week here) is developing even more. Instead of the discussion sticking to the arguments for and/or against either evolution or Intelligent Design it seems that the discussion is swinging wide and going beneath the surface. School board officials have rightly identified the deeper issue, which is our approach to science in general. Evolutionists claim that the purpose of employing the scientific method is to produce a natural explanation for origins (in this case). In other words, they do not want any suggestion that might include something other than what comes from a naturalistic world view.

But herein lies their error. Science alone as the practice of an objective method cannot distinguish between world views. The five-step method is independent of suppositions: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions. Clearly evolutionists approach evidence with a presupposition that evolution is true and that there is no creator God. Therefore, the results from their employment of the method will always point to a naturalistic explanation since that was their starting point. Even if the evidence points to an intelligent Designer that simply cannot be correct for their fundamental world view does not allow room for such a conclusion. However, the same is true for creationists. Every scientist, or anyone who makes truth claims, comes to the table with a world view. The scientific method is objective, but people who use it bring to it subjective beliefs.



The above picture from Answers In Genesis illustrates this point quite clearly. One's fundamental world view acts as a form of 'lens' through which one views objective evidence. An evolutionists looks at millions of dead things buried beneath the ground through a naturalistic 'lens' and proclaims, "Millions of dead things are a result of millions of years of living things dying." On the other hand, creationists look at the exact same evidence but through a Christian theist 'lens' and, along with the truth of God's Word, proclaims, "These millions of dead things are a result of a catastrophic global flood several thousand years ago." Two different people with two opposing world views look at the exact same evidence and get two completely different conclusions. Why? Both used the same method, yet their world views shaped their conclusions.

Will the Kansas school board do what's right and straighten out the definition of science? Or will they cave in to the pressure of a growing minority in America: Evolutionists? We shall see in the upcoming days and weeks.
For more on world views as lenses, visit here.

Labels: creation, evolution, science

We live in an entertainment-crazed society, one where people get more excited about the next big blockbuster coming out of Hollywood than about church on Sunday morning. The solution, many say, is to change the church to appear more "friendly" and exciting. One solution has been the incorporation of video projectors into the sanctuary (or multi-purpose room) of a church (or "worship center"). The idea is that, since so many people these days are visually-oriented, the only way to communicate to this type of person is through video projection. So to accommodate to this emerging form of learning we make sure that a video projector is present. In Preaching magazine (May-June '05), Michael Duduit observes the following:

As churches seek to communicate with new generations that are increasingly visually-oriented (and less and less literary), many have discovered the power of a visual image in communicating divine truth. That's one reason why the most consistent trend of contemporary church architecture is the presence of projection screens - we may or may not include a pulpit in a new church, but almost every new worship center has one or more (usually more) screens for use in projecting visual images. (italics mine)

What does this suggest about the nature of the "contemporary" movement in the evangelical world? Does the replacement of the pulpit with a video projection system indicate a shift in principle as well as approach? Is the church's answer to the multimedia bombardment from Hollywood a removal of one of God's primary ordained methods of communicating truth - the spoken word - and replacing it with an inferior form of communication that all too much resembles the world? Maybe Duduit is not suggesting, or even observing, that churches need to forsake the spoken word. But is this not what seems to be taking place in contemporary evangelicalism? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems as though our emphasis has shifted from the Word of God to anything that might appear as "relevant."

More on this issue to come.

One of the issues that will be dealt with in much depth on this blog will concern the modern "worship wars" in the evangelical world. The commentators of this site will weigh in on what is, and has been, one of the more hotly debated issues facing the church in America. This will most certainly be one of the more recurring topics in this blog, but it is our hope to provide fresh and in-depth perspectives on the debate. Be sure to come back on a regular basis to keep up with the content that will be added. The commentators are still in the initial stages of getting this blog up and rolling and should be developing it more broadly over the next several days and weeks.

And, as always, you will be able to respond and weigh in. We encourage you to contribute as much as possible.

Christianity Today has an article describing the most recent events in the Anglican Church over the issue of homosexuality. The article reports how six conservative priests in Connecticut are facing possible suspension from their pulpits for refusing to submit to the authority of their bishop. Their bishop, Andrew Smith, in 2003 approved the consecration of an openly homosexual priest. This possible suspension is just the latest example of the waywardness of the leadership of the Episcopal Church in America.

The church is comprised of 2.3 million members, many of whom are ready to break from the church altogether. Already about a dozen or so churches have already split from the denomination, and more are sure to go. This raises an interesting question concerning the fragmentation of a denomination. The Church today already has enough fragmentation. The Western Church is estranged from the Eastern Church. Protestants are estranged from Catholics. Within Protestantism there exists an array of denominations, many of whom will not fellowship with other denominations. As the physical Body of Christ on this earth, at what point must we say enough is enough and stop the further division within the body?

But the other side of the coin is equally as perilous. How should the church respond to obvious unorthodoxy, such as the case in the Episcopal Church? The ordination of a practicing homosexual is wrong on so many levels. But even worse, this acceptance, and even celebration of, an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22) is symptomatic of a deeper issue: The authority of God's Word. This is ultimately not about whether or not one is or is not born gay (although there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that one is). This issue always boils down to whether or not God's Word is supremely authoritative. Those who would seek to place homosexuals into the pulpit will invariably argue that God's Word is prone to change, or may just not be inspired. They would suggest that there are "nuggets" of truth to be found within its pages. I have two e-mails written from a pastor of a church that openly supports homosexuality. These are some of his words:

"I guess the bottom line for me on this and some other issues is to consider whether the revelation of God's will we know from the Bible is final or whether God may still be revealing truth to us. It's clear (at least to me) that the Bible, while fully inspired by God, has come to us through the particular people, times and cultures that produced the scripture as we know it. That being the case, it's also clear (at least to me) that some of what God had to say to us in scripture may have been "muddied" a bit as it came through those people and societies. So, for those of us on the other side of the issue on homosexuality, we wonder whether God might not be speaking a new word to us in this age."

This statement is really nothing but a faith statement - not a faith statement on the Bible, but a faith statement in God. I guess the real question in this larger issue is whether or not God is capable of revealing truth to us. And if so, what is His method of doing so? Conservative Christians need to reevaluate our faith in who God is, because once we throw a blanket over the light that has been given we leave ourselves vulnerable to all sorts of error.

But back to the original question. Should the Episcopal Church risk further fragmentation, or do they separate for the sake of truth? I suppose this is a catch 22 - they will lose either way. We can help by praying for this situation and ask that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth to the glory of Jesus Christ.

Blogger: Email Post to a Friend

Perhaps surprisingly to some, Oden's Jewish mentor guided him down this path that resulted in his conversion to evangelicalism by connecting him to early Christian roots.

I recently discussed the idea of Christian roots with some friends and colleagues. For some, our Christian "roots" takes us back to the campmeeting and revivalist movement of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries when perhaps our grandparents and/or parents came to Christ. Others may think of their roots in a particular denominational or theological tradition from the Reformation or post-Reformation era. Many of us go no further than this. Oden's work is challenging and refreshing and enables us to get a much longer look at the "classic consensus" from the earliest days of Christianity. We often limit our arguments regarding a consensus to 50 years or perhaps even 500 years. Oden is saying, let's go all the way back.

This discovery of our genuine roots brought humility to Oden who apparently had thought before that he was on the cutting edge of all things new. He found in his acquaintance with classic Christianity that all those things that he thought were new "had already been investigated."

This suggests yet another way that the classics may guide us. And it leads to a related issue that Oden's work addresses: the relevance of our classic Christian traditions.

A recent purchase that I am just beginning to read is by Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness: A challenge to the idol of relevance. I have looked the book over and read a few pages. It seems that Guiness is suggesting that our drive for relevance in an post-modern culture could misguide us. The church must be relevant but I believe he is saying that relevance cannot be our first concern. We are only relevant in this world as we continue to understand and live out what it means to be the people of God. Our role/task is godward first and that is the only way to be relevant. [I think that Oden would suggest that there is substantial guidance and examples of this in the classic Christian consensus and there is much to be lost when we cut ourselves off from the deepest and longest of our roots.]

One comment from Guinness: "Never have Christians pursued relevance more strenuously; never have Christians been more irrelevant."

It would seem that the two authors would draw a direct link between roots and relevance---a view that may not be so popular in the evangelical world today.

Reuters AlertNet - Jerusalem Greek Church fires patriarch over scandal

It appears the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Patriarch Irenaeos, has been voted to be dismissed because of his handling, or mishandling, of church property. This conflict will most likely raise tensions in this already volatile region of the world. It is no small deal for a patriarch to get 'fired,' and the added tension posed by the political and geographical facets of this story make this a messy situation. In any case, this story brings Jerusalem back to the forefront of world news, only this time the headlines concern the Orthodox Church and not your typical Jewish-Palestinian conflict.

For those of you interested in a basic overview of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its structure see the PDF I published here with some basic information.

From a New York Times article,

MARRAKESH, Morocco, May 9 - In a sprawling open space alongside the Royal Palace here last Saturday night, Baimik Youness and his friend Salahe Boudde were jumping with excitement, about to see their first American rock concert. The Moroccan students had never heard of the band, Rock 'n' Roll Worship Circus. Nor had they realized that the three-day concert they were attending was a Christian rock festival.

"It's not my business," said Mr. Youness, an 18-year-old Muslim and heavy-metal fan. "I just want to listen to the music."

But Mr. Boudde had a question: "What are 'evangelicals'?"

FOXNews.com - Foxlife - Jesus Christ Can't Get Driver's License

If you have not heard of this already, you have to read this article! If Jesus can't get a driver's license, can he at least get a library card?

Surprised by Orthodoxy - Christian History

In this article from Christian History and Biography, Thomas C. Oden describes his autobiographical journey to the ancient fathers of the Christian church. His words are remarkably candid and full of wisdom. He describes a time when he sought to "uncritically [accommodate] to the very modernity that pretended to be prophetic," only to be warned by a mentor to have solid textual grounding in order to avoid becoming "lost in supposed relevance."

Today's church, in its quest for relevance may need to reevaluate its methods and motives. An unhealthy effort to be relevant to our age may result in seperating ourselves from "the blessed presence of the communion of saints of all generations."

FOXNews.com - Politics - Scientists Boycott Kansas Evolution Hearings

Scientists in Topeka, Kansas are refusing to share their arguments for evolution during State Board of Education hearings. Proponents of the Intelligent Design theory are arguing that the science curriculum should include alternative theories of origins besides evolution. Those in favor of Intelligent Design argue that the universe is way too complex to exist apart from some form of design. At first glance, Intelligent Design seems appealing to Christians who are tired of aggressive evolutionary indoctrination. Christians seem ready to wholeheartedly accept Intelligent Design as the best alternative to evolution.

However.

Christians need to be very careful with the Intelligent Design model. Most Christians, in their desperation to replace evolution, seem to want to adopt Intelligent Design without really understanding its concepts and what their implications are. As Francis Schaeffer has said, "Ideas have consequences," so we need to consider the ideas of Intelligent Design and what its logical conclusions are.

While Intelligent Design is a great step up from evolution it has a very long way to go. While some have labeled its major campaigners as 'creationists in disguise,' the truth by and large is less than as exciting. Many may be sympathetic to the creation account in Genesis, but Intelligent Design by nature does not seek to point to a personal God who creates and sustains and is actively present. Stopping short of this axiomatic truth is like stepping into the Atlantic Ocean with no intention of actually crossing over to Europe - it's a big step to get into the water, and it is a drastic change compared to the sandy beach, but it is far short of crossing the ocean. Christians cannot talk of origins without talking of a three-personal God. And while Intelligent Design may be more compatible with creationism it is not the ultimate solution that our culture needs. Acceptance of Intelligent Design thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions, or even more probable, Deism. What's more, Intelligent Design tactically excludes the Genesis idea of man's Fall, therefore there is no philosophical answer to the origin of evil. The Fall was a major event in history that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed. Thus, the movement's success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.

In the end, the Lie of evolution may have wrought as much or more damage to mankind than any other in history. But Christians need to be guarded and counter with the Truth of God's Word and not settle for anything else just because it's not evolution.

Labels: creation, evolution, science

It has been said that "Civilization is a slow process of adopting the ideas of minorities" (unknown). If this be true, then somewhere along the line our Western culture adopted the ideas of those who would have us think that only that which is new has any value. Therefore we as a culture have severed all ties with our past, cut loose any connections to our history, and have declared out of the midst of our arrogance that we alone have a monopoly on truth. What results is a loss of objective reality as we know it, and all the we have ever known to be true falls under the scrutiny of subjective experience and relativity.

Sadly, the Western Church seems to have adopted this exact same mentality along with our culture. Instead of being the ekklesia, the "called-out ones," we have by and large become a simple reflection of our own culture - obsessed with entertainment, blown to and fro by the latest trend and fad, and have forsaken our roots and our sacred traditions. This new paradigm of thought influences every facet of the Christian church as we know it, from our liturgy, to our worship style, to our appearance and behavior, even to our theology.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote about a time in his life when he sought to create his own new "orthodoxy." But what he found came to him as a surprise. He says, "I have discovered, not that [these things] were truths, but simply that they were not mine. When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all of Christendom. It may be, Heaven forgive me, that I did try to be original; but I only succeeded in inventing all by myself an inferior copy of the existing traditions of civilized religion." (Orthodoxy, page 5). In Chesterton's attempt at arriving at a place of solid biblical faith and practice he found himself smack dab in the middle of true Christian tradition. The beliefs that he had discovered to be that which were truest and most real were the very beliefs that constituted the single thread of salvation that have been passed down for almost 2,000 years.

Let us not blindly forsake our past in search for a new "orthodoxy" of faith and practice simply because that is what our culture seeks to do. What results will always be a destructive schizophrenia, a suicidal identity crisis. Let us hold firmly to truth and align ourselves with our goodly Christian heritage of faith and practice.

Labels: theology

My wife and I were reading a devotion the other night out of Dennis Kinlaw's This Day with the Master. The title of the devotion was called "Freedom to be Different" and included comments on a text out of the book of Daniel. In the text we hear the response given by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego upon King Nebuchadnezzar's mandate to worship his idol. They proclaim,

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to present a defense to you in this matter. If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up." (Daniel 3:17-18 NRSV)

How amazing is it that the faith of these three men was not even contingent upon whether or not God would save them from the fiery furnace? These men had a faith in God that was built upon their understanding of his character and lived out through personal relationship. The revelation of God's character to these men produced a faith in the person of God that gave them the freedom to accept whatever event God allowed to come their way. How often do Christians today embrace or call upon God but only if it suits their immediate personal needs? We could learn a message from Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. We could learn to have a faith that is oriented around the person of God and not around our circumstances or perceived needs. We could have a faith that is oblivious to where it may lead us, or to what harm it may present us. We could believe in God in the midst of a hostile and corrupt generation with boldness and determination - a belief that is its own defense.

"If God is for us, who is against us?" (Romans 8:31b NRSV) These are words that flow naturally from the mouths of those who know that God did not even spare His own Son in His endeavor to be known and loved by man. It is because of who God is that we can be in this world for the sake of others.