Questioning Classic Christianity #3

Here is our third round of emails. My friend's post first, then my response.

On May 30, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Friend wrote:

Scott,

Let me kick off with the issue of scriptural corruption since I think that may be the crux of things at hand and the place where you're seeking more clarification of my views. I believe that much of the Bible is inspired text, composed by people who were in connection with the Holy Spirit. Who can read the words of Jesus in the gospel or Paul's passage on the primacy of love and not be convicted that this comes from something greater than the rational mind?

That said, many Biblical scholars (and not just ultra-liberal ones) will flatly tell you that some of the New Testament letters are frauds. 2nd Peter for example wasn't written by Peter, but by a later author who employed Peter's name to give the text an additional sense of authority. This was a common practice in the ancient world and wouldn't have necessarily been viewed as a deception (though I think the author's intent might be dubious). Several of Paul's letters are the same way.

Similarly, over the course of thousands of years of history, every single book in the Bible has gone through a process of editing and revision. If memory recalls, we don't have a single original text. They are all copies of copies of copies and many of which prior to being written down were preserved in the oral tradition for decades and even centuries. Through this process, the original wording and narrative has changed considerably in some cases. Numerous different communities with their own spiritual perspectives and agendas have handled these texts. I imagine many were sincere and handled the texts with the utmost veneration. Some were not so, and bended the text to serve their own political and spiritual interests.

Comparing the Books of Kings to Chronicles is one of the most poignant examples of this revision at play. Both pairs of books track roughly the same history of Israel, but in places provide very different descriptions and interpretations of events. I wish I could recall the exact verses, but in one place, Kings talks about how God sends a plague upon the Israelites for their sins. In Chronicles, recounting the exact same episode, it is Satan who perpetrates the action. How do you reconcile these differences, and other variations in the two accounts of Israel's history? The scholars I tend to trust say that the books were written at different times and reflect different perspectives on Israel's purpose and legacy. Kings is the earlier and more authentic text, and reflects a more critical and prophetic voice. Chronicles was written much later after the Babylonian exile, when Israel needed to renew a strong sense of national identity. Thus, it is a simplified and more patriotic account if you will.

You could apply a similar eye to the gospels. Four different accounts from four different communities. The gospels are in harmony in a number of places, but each has its own, voice, style, depiction, and interpretation of certain events in Jesus' life. Each reflects differing aspects of Jesus' life the authors deemed most important to understanding his nature and purpose.

Personally, I am no longer able to affirm that scripture as it is rendered in the NIV possesses absolute authority. The more I have learned about the process of authorship and transmission from generation to generation--about the politics often involved, and the differing theologies and world-views of revising communities--the less I can believe that all of these twists and turns have been guided by divine inspiration.

Thus the importance of experience in the mystical traditions. Again, according to the mystics, God is continually speaking--as powerfully today as God did 2,000 years ago in the time of Jesus, and 5,000 years ago in the time of Moses. There is no golden era of revelation, God is manifest in all times equally. Scripture reflects words written by people in touch with this inspiration, but then over the years, through the process of revision and political mangling, the text degrades. This is the nature of spiritual movements and human institutions in general. They rise, grow, stagnate, and then eventually crumble. And then from their ashes emerge new vital movements that are once again in touch with the spirit.

As far as experience goes, I agree with you that one has to be scrupulous. Spiritual experience can not simply be judged by the positive or negative feelings that arise from it. Rather, I find the test lies in how much the experience challenges me to grow and produces the spiritual fruit of love, patience, humility, perseverance, etc...

Yes, I believe that human efforts are futile if God is not at their center. And yes, I believe that Christianity is a vital faith that connects people with God. But I can't affirm that Christianity is the exclusive mediating faith for approaching the divine. Not all paths are the same, and certainly in my mind not all expressions of spirituality are authentic and beneficial. But fortunately there exists a wonderful spiritual plurality in this world that allows different individuals and communities to experience God in different ways.

Just as the strength and vitality of a forest is due to its ecological diversity, so to is our world sustained by its spiritual diversity. Frankly, I am skeptical of the line, "there is only one way" when it is spoken about any sphere of life, be it the environment, politics, culture, or religion, because I simply do not see this as in touch with the most fundamental principles of our world. I ask you to seriously consider if there's any other place besides in your life besides religion where, "there is only one way" actually reflects reality.

So there it is, I tried not to sugar coat anything for you, but let you know as plainly and authentically how I have come to view my faith and spirituality. I don't perceive my formation in the church as negative or harmful, but rather as an essential part of my spiritual growth and development. That said, I no longer find Evangelical Christianity and its model of discipleship as the vehicle for bringing me close to God and have embraced new channels for sustaining this connection.

Thanks for your patience waiting for my reply. I continue to enjoy this dialogue and look forward to your response when the opportunity presents itself.

Warmly,
Friend

Here is my response June 15, 2009:

Friend,

Starting from the end of your letter and working back, we share some commonality. I too believe that 'Evangelical Christianity and its model of discipleship' are woefully lacking and frankly distorted the message of Jesus. That said, I am not prepared to throw out the text of Scripture, or turn it into a buffet where I can pick and choose what is true, real, or unedited and ignore the rest. Instead, I have opted for a totally different path than you. I read it and take it seriously, instead of allowing one doctrine or dogma to trump everything else (which is what much of protestant Christianity has done. In the case of the liberal churches, love trumps holiness and social justice trumps piety, while in the conservative churches knowledge trumps lifestyle and one is saved even if their life bears not fruit.) I have sought to read the Bible and allow God to rigorously apply it to my life. Where sound thinking and good doctrine are called for (epistles), I ask God to reveal it and to transform my mind. Where lifestyle and action are demanded (read the prophets, sermon on the mount, end of most of the epistles) then I seek to live life accordingly by the empowerment of the Spirit, and when I fail, which is often, I repent and believe the good news that Christ came to forgive sinners and my actions don't make me acceptable to God, but are the fruit of a relationship grounded in Christ.

While I believe we share many things, the difference as I see it is the issue of truth. You are skeptical of it, an understandable thing for the average person raised in the late 20th century at the dawn of the cultural postmodern shift. However, there are absolutes in the universe, there are truths and a good lifestyle will not save anyone, as much as proper knowledge will not save anyone either. God, in his Scriptural Word and through the life of Christ, the living Word, has shown us that knowledge and action rightly joined together are the requirement for holiness and Christ alone, in all of human history, as the God-man, the incarnate Deity, as Emmanuel. He alone was able to perfectly wed the two, and we are invited to become part of that life, his life and share in his perfect union of proper doctrine and proper life. So, abandoning sound doctrine in order to get sound practice, is as fatal as abandoning sound practice in order to get sound doctrine. The two cannot be unjoined, and when they are then we can easily say that Christ is on the same plane as the Buddha or Muhammad or the Scriptures are on the same plane as the Koran, the Tibetan book of the Dead, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. But when they are joined, as they were in the life of Christ, then he alone stands distinct and different from all others and his claims to authority and pre-eminence must be viewed as wholly different and distinctly unique. Christ is the only way unto God, as he says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me."

As for some of the side issues you raise about transmission, textual copies, not trusting the translation of the NIV, etc. These are valid thoughts Your search for truth has led you farther than most in a critical appraisal of the evidence. It is true that their are variations in the texts, however, when one looks at and studies them, it becomes quickly apparent that the differences are miniscule in the vast majority of them and sure, there are some out there texts like the Gospel of Thomas, etc... but these are aberrations in their own right and were never widely accepted by the churches across the geographic spectrum in the first place. Let's take for instance, Homer's Iliad, there are 643 known copies of the Iliad with the earliest ones from 400BC or roughly 400 years after the text was originally written, or Herodotus' History which has 8 copies the earliest at 900 AD some 1350 years after the original, then one could also look at Plato's works, 7 copies, 1300 years after the original. The list goes on with Demosthenes, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Livy's History of Rome, Tacitus' Annals, etc. The gaps are huge, and yet we read and trust them as sources of History, etc. Now the New Testament, has 5366+ copies, fragments, books, etc. with the earliest fragments coming from 50 years post writing, the earliest complete books, 100 years post. The scale of preservation of the text is incomparable. That doesn't even take into account the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian texts, then there is all the early patristic quotations in their writings. The textual witness is greater than any other book in history. Are there differences, sure, do they change the message of the text - Christ is the God Incarnate, he alone satisfies God's demand for a sinless, holy life and he alone died as a substitution for your sin and mine, he alone was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God...No. None of these texts negate this message, the differences come in words that are reversed, or in some slight things church teachings like baptismal practice, church organization, etc. But these things don't save anyways. Should we strive for solid understanding of them, yes, but should we allow these to determine our trust in the organic message of the text? No.

I would encourage you not to read the english texts. They are all translations and any translation is fraught with difficulty and bias as the translators seek to render the meaning into a target language. Learn Koine Greek and start reading the text in the original. Get a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27 or the UBS 4 with the critical apparatus that shows the textual variants and start reading as close to the originals as you can. Grab a copy of the Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: It's transmission, corruption and restoration, 3rd ed. It was published in 1992, and Metzger's text is the standard for introducing people to textual criticism, etc. He reviews the various manuscripts, papyri, etc and is a well grounded academic. You can take Greek at a number of the schools there in Seattle. I would recommend looking into Fuller Theological Seminary's campus in Seattle and taking the 5 greek courses they offer. The questions you are asking are the same ones I was asking 7 years ago. I started taking the Greek sequence in order to struggle through my thoughts, questions, etc. on the text. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Enough for now. I look forward to your reply.

p.s. I am really enjoying our conversation via email and was wondering how you would feel about me posting them on my blog. I would make you anonymous and erase any refs to your location, but the questions you are asking and raising are great and I think they would help many people in there own walk with Christ. if you are opposed, no problem, I wont put them up, if its ok, then thanks. ...Read more

Questioning Classic Christianity #2

If you followed my first post on Questioning Classic Christianity, what follows is my friend's response to that email and my response to his email.

On Apr 29, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Friend wrote:

Pastor Scott,

I'll just play my cards right off. Frankly, I have no problem with COL tapping into other religious traditions and being universalistic. I have found too much wisdom in some of these traditions and encountered too much love in people of other faiths to write them off as fruitless searches and seekers.

I have an incredible respect and love for Christianity and believe it is special amongst the world's faiths. That said, I can't affirm that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, though he may serve as a bridge that makes the path easier.

I understand that you place great emphasis upon the authority of scripture. I believe that many of the scriptures are inspired, but that some of them have also been corroded with time. Power corrupts, and sadly, I believe political authorities have all too often co-opted holy scriptures to serve their purposes and keep people from becoming truly free (this is an equally opportunity corruption, it seems that in time all religious traditions fall prey).

That's why I have been so enlivened by the mystical path. It exists as the spirit-filled core of spirituality which inspires scripture and from which religious life emanates. Scripture has a place in guiding spiritual practice, but to the mystic, direct experience of God trumps any written text or historical tradition. God lives in each moment equally and so we do not have to look back necessarily to ancient times for inspiration. Revelation is perpetual and immanent.

This hasn't just been what I've read and learned from hanging with mystical communities this past year, it's been what I've encountered these last years as I continue to be drawn into this story. Though I don't dismiss the authenticity of my religious upbringing, these past months I've encountered a power and love far greater than anything I've experienced while a member of orthodox Christianity. I can't deny this experience and so I continue to walk this path.

It's interesting that so many Christian mystics come to a point where their experience of God places them at odds with their orthodox convictions. I'm thinking of Meister Eckhart's famous, "I pray to God to rid me of God."

The mystical movement as I understand it is one towards an increasing sense of freedom and openness as prior boxes for God are bust open into greater and more wonderful realizations of the divine.

I will let you know that I'm in the process of moving on from the COL largely for the reasons I touched on above concerning power and authority. It appears that Father Peter Bowes is interested in manipulating mystical teachings in order to primarily draw his students towards himself. A true teacher points seekers back to the power and authority that resides within themselves.

I'll conclude with a poem by the sufi mystic, Hafiz, who I find a hell of a lot more poignant than my own feeble thoughts.

I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH

I have learned so much from God
that I can no longer call myself

A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
a Buddhist, a Jew

The truth has shared so much of Itself
with me

that I can no longer call myself
A man, a woman, an angel,
or even pure Soul.

Love has
befriended Hafiz so completely
it has turned to ash
and freed me

Of every concept and image
My mind has ever known


Look forward to continuing our conversation, and will pray that your ministry continues to bless Hope in Christ.

Friend

Here is my response:

May 13, 2009

Friend -

I have been reflecting on your letter for almost 2 weeks now and praying for wisdom as to how to respond. You state that you have "found too much wisdom...and encountered too much love in people of other faiths to write them off as fruitless searches and seekers." I believe this is the basic core which needs to be dealt with. No one is asking you to "write off" individual people; there is no doubt that humans are capable of great acts of compassion and justice simply because they are human. We are all created in the image of God as Gen. 1:27 tells us "God created humanity is his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." Simply by being in God's image we are are loving and compassionate, capable of welcoming others and being welcomed, we are even capable of developing wonderful thoughts about the world and its workings and how to best live in it, "wisdom" as you call it.

That said, all our wisdom falls short and plays down the fundamental problems of humanity. We are sinners, the story of Adam and Eve bear witness to it along with countless other stories: Cain-Abel, Moses, Abraham the liar and one who can't trust God so he places his wife in danger not once but at least twice. In fact the entire Scripture records how the wisdom of men, continually corrupts true worship and trust in God and God alone. At some points it is money which is worshipped, at others it is national security, at times sexuality and countless other 'gods' and 'wisdom' are appealed to while the LORD is denied and refused. The LORD is placed on equal footing at times as in the case of the Samaritans, or the Israelites and Judahites and every time God chastises them and tells them he is a jealous God who refuses to share his name and his glory with any other would be gods. Isa 43:13 is one of many scriptures which state this, but it will suffice to quote only one or two "I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is no one who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can reverse it." "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth" (Isaiah 45:22).

This is foundational to the Christian faith. A failure to recognize sin as it is and to admit that we are all sinners prone to seeking other gods and calling out to these gods and assuming they can save us is the human problem. To state that Christianity is special, but to deny Jesus Christ as the only way to God, as God incarnate, is to deny this fundamental, foundational truth and assume that you can be saved by turning to something other than God alone for your salvation. But again God is clear in Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven, given to men by which we must be saved." Again, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Or Jesus' own words, "I am the way, and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." These words are not politically correct nor are they very palatable according to Pacific Northwest minds, but they are the truth, otherwise the entire Scripture must be thrown out for if they are not true in regard to their faith content, then they are lies and unfit for anything.

You mention the Bible as being inspired but corrupted. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this and will not remark until I understand your concerns.

As I conclude, my thoughts continue to be drawn to your pursuit of experience in one place versus another. I would urge you not to set up experience as the standard by which you judge truth. It is enitrely possible for one to have a great experience and take in falsehood and false teaching - the Afrikaans and the Apartheid state had a "great experience" in their minds but were entirely deluded in their theology for example. Similarly it is possible to have a horrible experience but to know that what is said is true - the mother who must admit that her husband has sexually abused their children, for instance. But it is also possible to have a great experience and also be grounded in great truth - this I believe is what happens when one takes seriously the words of God in the Bible and also places them into practice. I may be wrong, but I believe what you are truly looking for is the experience of Christian discipleship to Jesus, not what you have seen or experienced in the past as "christianity" but what God truly desires for all who follow him.

Seek God but seek him on the firm foundation of His Word and his Son. I am praying for God to strengthen your faith in his Son and to draw you close through the Holy Scriptures.

Grace and Peace ...Read more

Questioning Classic Christianity #1

What follows are a series of emails between a friend of mine and myself. I think it is fair to say that he is questioning the classic formulation of Christianity and I am defending it. I have received his permission to post these email conversation but will protect his privacy, even though he has given me permission to use his first name. The first letter below was written by me in response to his request to visit the website of a church he had been attending.


14 April 2009

What I am going to write is probably not what you are going to want to hear. However, as a follower of Jesus Christ I am greatly distressed when I see wolves sneaking in and culling sheep with slick jargon and polished presentations, even using "christian" lingo but who deny the sole sufficiency of Christ and are intent on leading christ followers away into apostasy.

After reading all the links on the site www.centersoflight.org. I think this is a version of new age Hinduism mixed with universalism. These quotes from the website concern me significantly, for the word of God is placed as an equal to every other spiritual classic

All the teachings from all the world religions throughout time comprise the Ancient Wisdom Teachings. Those Master Teachers and Sages that have been sent by God to human beings over thousands of years have demonstrated and taught those who were open. These became the disciples of the Ancient Wise Ones and their lessons and teachings have been passed down through history. If you study these teachings from each of the world religions, you will note a common theme: love of God and love of neighbor.

Some Eastern religions do not have a direct conception of God, but do consider compassion and respect for all of life as very similar to the Western version of love of God. These teachings are universal and everyone who comes into a direct experience of the ONE understands anyone else who has this experience. In this unity of experience, we are all sisters and brothers in God.

While each religion shares something, since they are all the experiences of humans reaching out for God, Christianity is unique among them all for God in Christ reaches down to the world. This fundamental difference, sets Christ and all other teachers apart. They are not equals and while we can learn something about the spiritual quest from all people/faiths, it means nothing unless Christ's preeminence is maintained. I fear that the COL is not interested in such an endeavor. Here are some examples: The masculine/feminine emphasis appears to draw heavily from magik. While i believe God uses feminine language in the Scriptures to describe godself, the extreme the COL goes to make all feel ok, seems to border on what I have seen in Bahai. Or take this blatant violation of scripture: We know Jesus and Mary as co-mediators between God and human beings. The Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

Then there are the soteriological (salvation deficiencies) from the article on Suffering:
Jesus taught that suffering was caused by separating from the love of God, disconnecting through negative thoughts, actions, and emotions that take us away from God. Essentially, Jesus taught that falling away from our real nature, our true being, causes us to suffer. In order to connect again with our real nature, we have to love God first and love all of our brothers and sisters without exception. Jesus further elaborated the way to get back into oneness with God through the simple teachings of the Beatitudes. This isn't what scripture teaches, sin is what causes suffering and the way back into God's presence is through Christ and Christ alone via the sacrificial death of Jesus, not doing something that makes all religions equal.

Then the other anomalies, like Father Peter who writes on astrology and how it jives with Christ. It is condemned in scripture as a violation of trusting God alone. Humans are called to look to God not the stars for direction and security. [Friend], I really hope you take these critiques seriously, their is a bit of truth in everything the COL states but there are also lies mixed in with it all and all lies come from Satan, the father of lies. Don't be sidetracked, seek Christ and Christ alone. i know that the reformed tradition you were raised and which i pastor has a great hole in what you or I would call Spiritual Formation. This has not always been the case, but in the last hundred years or so it has been exaggerated greatly. I would urge you to seek what you are missing through men and women sincerely devoted to Christ and Christ alone. I think Dallas Willard's, The Divine Conspiracy would be a great place for you to start, it is a look at the Sermon on the Mount and its call to the Believer. Or Richard Foster's Celebration of the Disciplines is a great work on Spiritual formation.

I would love to dialog with you about this more. Keep the lines open. ...Read more

Does Saul's rejection apply to me?

If I were to tell you the story of a man who knew God's will and yet struggled to implement it into his life, whose heart wasn't in God's ways and who merely went through the motions, you might identify. This morning I was reading in 1Samuel 15 the story of Saul. In it he is instructed to completely destroy the Amalekites, so he heads off to complete the mission but determines along the way, with the people of Israel, that they will not fulfill the task immediately but will keep some of the best to "sacrifice to the Lord." Samuel responds with the words "STOP!" and goes on to say in 1 Sam. 15:22 “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”

Now many of my readers are aware of our intentions to adopt a child or children. What may surprise you is that I feel like Saul. I know the Lord's intentions and heart for his people, the Church, to adopt the orphan and widow. I know how much God desires for his people to be a safe harbor for those in need. I know the calls to spend myself on behalf of the poor and yet, I don't want to do it myself. It hasn't always been this way, I have earnestly desired to adopt for some time but recently the costs associated with an adoption have become large in my mind, large enough to cause me to be wary. (By cost, I mean much more than simply the financial costs, but rather mean the familial and social costs.)

I have contemplated disobedience many times. I have tried to justify it by saying that "Scott you are called to motivate people to adopt, not do it yourself." I have tried to justify my disobedience by saying "another Compassion child would be a sacrifice in keeping with the spirit of God's instruction." And there are countless others thoughts that have run through my mind. Many times the thought has crossed my mind, "Christ died for me, if I disobey, that too will be covered and I will be fine." The thought is a very real thought in my mind, yet my blatant sin, my defiance of God's word, while covered by Christ, is evidence of a heart not in submission to the Lord.

Then there are the thoughts about leadership, "How can I lead if I myself am not willing to be led into this area? Would I be a hypocrite if I knew God's plan and failed, maybe refused is a better word, to live into it?" And the truth hurts; yes, I would be. But I continue to go through the motions with a heart outside of God's revealed word. I continue on in obedience to my Lord, but praying all the while for a heart that is changed and returned to a gracious acceptance of God's plans for His people. This, I believe, is the meaning of discipleship.

That brings me to the passage I was reading in 1 Samuel this morning. It was this passage that hit me both positively and negatively. God desires obedience, complete obedience from His people. He isn't concerned with the heart, and whether or not we think His ways are a good idea, or whether or not we have "better" ways of implementing His purposes. No, God wants, nay, God demands that we obey His will as revealed in His word. So I was comforted, obedience is a just form of submission to God. But then my heart was also pricked by the fact that Christ's obedience is the only obedience that matters in relation to God. His sacrifice was for all the times that my obedience was incomplete or lacking in any way, and certainly a heart not joyfully in God's will is sin. Thus I am cast back upon the cross as my sin is exposed, yet again.

But the question remains, Am I free from obeying God because Christ obeyed the Lord perfectly? Absolutely not. And praise God, I will not be rejected because of my disobedience. Saul's rejection doesn't apply to me as long as I am in Christ. Nevertheless, in gratitude I am called to obey my Lord even if I don't feel like. So my quandary about obedience is at least coming to resolution. I will obey and pray for the heart of flesh the Lord has promised to give to His new covenant people.

As I close this post, here are a few questions you might ponder:

1. Where do you know what God expects but your heart isn't in it?
2. How have you tried to justify your disobedience?
3. Do you desire to obey joyfully?
4. Are you willing to obey even if your heart isn't in it?
5. What steps must you take now to follow God into this new area?
6. Pray for God to change your heart into one that is joyful and exuberant in his will!
...Read more

Between Two Worlds: How Mediators in the OT Point to Christ

Between Two Worlds: How Mediators in the OT Point to Christ

Posted using ShareThis

Do the Federalist Papers argue for one World Government?

I must sadly admit that I have never read the The Federalist Papers before now. My high school, college and master's work were all bereft of any significant engagement with the American political landscape and history. Yet to my credit, I seek to correct this deficiency. I have completed the first 22 essays so far. What strikes me most is that every argument proposed by Madison, Hamilton and Jay could be used to argue in favor of one world government. Take for instance the idea that a confederacy lacks power to restrain a wayward state and so the state or states with the most force will always rise to the top, whether or not it is healthy and in the best interest of the others. The same could be argued for the international scene, a confederacy, the United Nations is essentially a weak confederacy, lacks any power aside from what the individual nations give to it and to date, it hasn't successfully restrained any aggression by any nation against another. Why because, like the early American confederacy it lacked real authority and power to tax and enforce its decisions. So, the most powerful nation has risen to the foreground. And as an American citizen, I am thankful for our ascendancy, for it could just as easily have been Russia or China or Germany which had taken this place, had circumstances been different.



Now given all of this, it would be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution has been so successful in American political life, and since the arguments of Madison, et al. were persuasive enough to convince our forefathers, then as a world people we could equally share in "progress" by working towards a single world government which is powerful enough to enforce its laws and decrees, to draw from the best and the brightest of the world for its management (instead of from a strictly local or national geographic boundary), and had the power to tax and ensure financial stability. These are the very arguments made in the Federalist Papers, yet what is wrong with these arguments?

On the surface, they seem wise, but underlying them all is the reality that absolute power corrupts and those in power will always seek to enlarge their power base while simultaneously seeking to quell any dissent. Furthermore, there is a lack of acknowledgement of the sinful nature of humanity and that the will of the majority isn't always right, just or true. Then there is also the fact that Christ alone is to be our head and in a pluralistic, world government, religion would, by necessity, be forced to the background in order for the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. to be able to serve and govern together. This would have the effect of continuing the secularization of the nations and the world. Furthermore, what is in our best interest and a local nation may not be in the best interest of the world and so our people may suffer greatly for another people to not suffer.

True, the same argument or injustice could be leveled against the present system, to which I would say, so why change one problem for another. But that aside, I am surprised to see the commonalities between American politics in the 1780's and International Politics in the 2000's.

Following are two excerpts from the Federalist which will serve to illustrate my points. Many more could be taken, but I will leave it to the reader to read for themselves and draw there own conclusions.

Essay #3 by Jay - "when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under national government - especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us." (pg. 10)

Essay #9 by Hamilton - "'This form of government [a confederate republic] is a convention by which several small states agree to become members of a large one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, til they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body. A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.'" (pg. 39)

He goes on to show how any 'popular insurrection' can be defeated by the other member states coming to the aid of the impoverished member. This sounds strangely similar to the scene in Revelation where all the nations gather together against Israel at the battle of Armageddon. Who the Israel is and the "confederate republic" remains to be seen, although I have my suspicions that it will have something to do with a world attach on Christianity and the Body of Christ.

In conclusion, beware the ones who seek to take your freedom under the pretense of safety or progress.

Note: All page numbers are from the Phoenix Press edition edited by William Brock.
...Read more

Faith in Christ or the Faithfulness of Christ

David Stubbs in an article for the Scottish Journal of Theology entitled The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate, argues that instead of reading Scriptural texts like Romans 3:21-22 "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." and drawing the conclusion that our faith in Christ saves us, we should rather understand the texts as saying something akin to "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe."



In short, he along with others are advocating a new understanding of theology. Let me start by saying that I am still struggling through the implications of such a view in its entirety. I have made no conclusions on the veracity of such a claim other than to say that what is gramatically being proposed is fully acceptable in the Greek. Stubbs, outlines the basic argument of the pistis christou debate as follows:


"Those who understand the pistis Christou phrases ‘christologically’ believe Paul intends to draw parallels between the faithfulness of God, the faithfulness of Christ and a faithful human response to God....[while others] think Paul draws a sharp distinction between the common Hebrew understanding of faith meaning faithfulness and an understanding of pistis that means belief and trust in God’s faithfulness...the way one interprets the meaning of ‘faith’ has important theological implications for the relationship between faith and salvation. When one takes faith to mean merely belief and trust, faith becomes the key to acceptance by God but does not tell us anything further about the content of salvation...On the other hand, in a ‘faith(fulness) of Christ’ reading, Paul’s talk about faith and salvation no longer revolves around the typical Lutheran question of ‘how can a sinner find acceptance before a just God?’ but rather the question, ‘how can the purposes of God come to pass in light of the unfaithfulness of Gentiles and also Jews?’ Salvation now is understood as being saved from the power of ‘sin’, from the ways of the world and ‘flesh’ that are contrary to the purposes and patterns God has intended for God’s creation – these purposes of God are highlighted." pg 145-147

I find the christocentric reading refreshing after my initial reading of the article and look forward to engaging others in dialog concerning it. If you would like a copy of the article, email Dr. Stubbs at david.stubbs[at]westernsem[dot]edu
...Read more

Is Church Music Theological?

Lester Ruth, Associate Professor of Worship and Liturgy at Asbury Theological Seminary, in his article "Lex Amandi, Lex Orandi: The Trinity in the Most Used Contemporary Christian Worship Songs" offers a very impressive analysis of the presence of the Doctrine of the Trinity, or lack thereof, in modern praise and worship songs. You can read it here. Of course, this could be leveled against some older hymns as well.

Pastor Dad

I just finished reading Pastor Dad by Mark Driscoll.  The booklet is a wonderful text on the call to intentional fathering.  I highly recommend it to all fathers wanting to raise their children in a Christian home.  You can download it for free here.

An elder on prayer

One of our elders wrote this article on prayer. I thought I would pass it along.

What are some of the following basic truths that God teaches us?

1- By dying on the cross, Jesus reopened the Way to the Tree of Life—our free and eternal salvation. A huge move.

2- By dying on the cross, Jesus became our Mediator, reopening our communication lines with the Father.

3- By dying on the cross, Jesus became our one and only Mediator. He paid with His life for all this.

The purpose of Prayer—how and where we should pray

We pray to the Father to glorify and acknowledge His purposes. We pray ONLY through the Name of Jesus, because the Holy Spirit prompts us when and what to pray. Jesus details this further: "When you pray go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Mt 6:6-7.

Notice: It's all about Jesus! He is the only way we can get to the Father to be heard of His redeemed believers

He said of Himself: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jn 14:6 That is an indisputable truth, and an irrefutable fact.

How has history distorted these scriptural directives, truths, and teachings?

a- Our mother church, the Catholic Church, has placed mere mortals into a wooden box with a black drape covering a hole the size of a window. Behind the drape sits a Priest, who acts in place of the true Mediator by listening to the sins of human (hypocrites all) who confess their sins to a mere human and seek his forgiveness for a penance fee. Then the Priest by-passes Christ by forgiving the sinner--for a price. This is bad news, because it is not God's way. It is false doctrine! The blind leading the blind.

b- When Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me," the Catholic Church further distorted Scripture by placing Jesus' Mother Mary into Jesus' earned place. "Hail Mary's" are babbled as they pray to her instead. This is also bad news because it violates God's Word. (Jn 14:6 above). Therefore more untruths peddled off as "Gospel truths."

c- God's house is to be a house of prayer and worship. Not violated by money traders. Money grew to become a prominent part of the Catholic Church, and it still is. More man-made mistakes. Jesus over threw the money changers tables and kicked them out of the temple area in Holy anger!

Summary:

1- Mankind has assumed God's prerogative of forgiving sins, and are misleading the blind.

2- Mankind has substituted Mary for Jesus—striping Him of His sacrifice, which made Him our Mediator.

3- Mankind has introduced money making penance in exchange for God's prerogative of free forgiveness through Jesus' death—the One who paid the ultimate price. It is His FREE gift to us.

...Read more

Military robots and the dead

Maybe, just maybe our technology is a little to advanced for our morality.  Although the article on Fox News has been revised, the revised article doesn't deny that it is possible for the robot to feed on dead human remains, it only says they will program it not too, but if needed, it could always be reprogrammed.  See the revised article here.

The original article started like this:

Fox News
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

It could be a combination of 19th-century mechanics, 21st-century technology — and a 20th-century horror movie.

A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find — grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.

Robotic Technology Inc.'s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot — that's right, "EATR" — "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable," reads the company's Web site.

That "biomass" and "other organically-based energy sources" wouldn't necessarily be limited to plant material animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they'd be plentiful in a war zone.

...Read more

Tenents of Liberalism

I promised to post Burnham's Tenents of Liberalism and a possible set of contrasting non-liberal tenents a few weeks ago after finishing his book, Suicide of the West. Here is a sample

L1) Human nature is changing and plastic, with an indefinite potential for progressive development, and no innate obstacles to the realization of the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.
One possible set of contrasting non-liberal elements:
X1) Human nature exhibits constant as well as changing attributes. It is at least partially defective or corrupt intrinsically, and thus limited in its potential for progressive development; in particular, incapable of realizing the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.

If you want to see all of them, keep reading.



Suicide of the West: an essay on the meaning and destiny of liberalism – by James Burnham, Gateway Editions, (Lake Bluff, IL), © 1985, 323.4097 Burnham, ISBN 0-89526-822-1

pg. 125-131

A Critical Note in Passing

So that the complete syndrome may be freshly and simultaneously before us, I shall now make a summary list, though this will oversimplify, of the nineteen liberal ideas and beliefs that were discussed in Chapters III-V. But in order to know what a thing is, we must understand what it is not. To clarify the liberal beliefs still further and to help, perhaps, to objectify our estimate of them, I shall draw up a list of nineteen corresponding contrary beliefs, also stated summarily, and printed in a parallel column. In each case more than one contrary belief, in fact an infinite number of contraries, are logically conceivable; but since our positive interest is merely to throw more light on the meaning of liberalism, I have given only one of the possible contraries, as it happened to occur to me in first writing the list down.

Elements comprising the doctrinal dimension of the liberal syndrome:
L1) Human nature is changing and plastic, with an indefinite potential for progressive development, and no innate obstacles to the realization of the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.
L2) Human beings are basically rational; reason and science are the only proper means for discovering truth and are the sole standard of truth, to which authority, custom, intuition, revelation, etc., must give way.
L3) The obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society are ignorance and faulty social institutions.
L4) Because of the extrinsic and remediable nature of the obstacles, it follows that there are solutions to every social problem, and that progress and the good society can be achieved; historical optimism is justified.
L5) The fact that an institution, belief or mode of conduct has existed for a long time does not create any presumption in favor of continuing it.
L6) In order to get rid of ignorance, it is necessary and sufficient that there should be ample, universal education based on reason and science.
L7) The bad institutions can be got rid of by democratic political, economic and social reforms.
L8) It is society—through its bad institutions and its failure to eliminate ignorance—that is responsible for social evils. Our attitude toward those who embody these evils—of crime, delinquency, war, hunger, unemployment, communism, urban blight—should be not retributive but rather the permissive, rehabilitating, educating approach of social service; and our main concern should be the elimination of the social conditions that are the source of the evils.
L9) Education must be thought of as a universal dialogue in which all teachers and students above elementary levels may express their opinions with complete academic freedom.
L10) Politics must also be thought of as a universal dialogue in which all persons may express their opinions, whatever they may be, with complete freedom.
L11) Since we cannot be sure what the objective truth is, if there is any such thing, we must grant every man the right to hold and express his own opinion, whatever it may be; and, for practical purposes as we go along, be content to abide by the democratic decision of the majority.
L12) Government should rest as directly as possible on the will of the people, with each adult human being counting as one and one only, irrespective of sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, property or education.
L13) Since there are no differences among human beings considered in their political capacity as the foundation of legitimate, that is democratic, government, the ideal state will include all human beings, and the ideal government is world government. Meanwhile, short of the ideal, we should support and strengthen the United Nations, the World Court and other partial steps toward an international political order and world government, as these become successively possible in practice.
L14) In social, economic and cultural as well as political affairs, men are of right equal. Social reform should be designed to correct existing inequalities and to equalize the conditions of nurture, schooling, residence, employment, recreation and income that produce them.
L15) Social hierarchies and distinctions among human beings are bad and should be eliminated especially those distinctions based on custom, tradition, prejudice, superstition and other non-rational sources, such as race, color, ancestry, property (particularly landed and inherited property) and religion.
L16) Sub-groups of humanity defined by color, race, sex or other physical or physiological attributes do not differ in civilizing potential.
L17) The goal of political and social life is secular: to increase the material and functional well-being of humanity.
L18) It is always preferable to settle disputes among groups, classes and nations, as among individuals, by free discussion, negotiation and compromise, not by conflict, coercion or war.
L19) Government, representing the common good democratically determined, has the duty of guaranteeing that everyone should have enough food, shelter, clothing and education and security against unemployment, illness and the problems of old age.


One possible set of contrasting non-liberal elements:
X1) Human nature exhibits constant as well as changing attributes. It is at least partially defective or corrupt intrinsically, and thus limited in its potential for progressive development; in particular, incapable of realizing the good society of peace, justice, freedom and well-being.
X2) Human beings are moved by sentiment, passion, intuition and other non-rational impulses at least as much as by reason. Any view of man, history and society that neglects the non-rational impulses and their embodiment in custom, prejudice, tradition and authority, or that conceives of a social order in which the non-rational impulses and their embodiments are wholly subject to abstract reason, is an illusion.
X3) Besides ignorance and faulty social institutions there are many other obstacles to progress and the achievement of the good society: some rooted in the biological, psychological, moral and spiritual nature of man; some, in the difficulties of the terrestrial environment; others, in the intransigence of nature; still others, derived from man’s loneliness in the material universe.
X4) “Since there are intrinsic and permanent as well as extrinsic and remediable obstacles, the good society of universal peace, justice, freedom and well-being cannot be achieved, and there are no solutions to most of the primary social problems—which are, in truth, not so much “problems” as permanent conditions of human existence. Plans based on the goal of realizing the ideal society or solving the primary problems are likely to be dangerous as well as utopian, and to lessen rather than increase the probability of bringing about the moderate improvement and partial solutions that are in reality possible.
X5) Although traditional institutions, beliefs and modes of conduct can get so out of line with real conditions as to become intolerable handicaps to human well-being, there is a certain presumption in their favor as part of the essential fabric of society; a strong presumption against changing them both much and quickly.
X6) There is no indication from experience that universal education based on reason and science—even if it were possible, which it is not—can actually eliminate or even much reduce the kinds of ignorance that bear on individual and social conduct.
X7) There is no indication from experience that all bad institutions can be got rid of by democratic or any other kind of reforms; if some bad institutions are eliminated, some of the institutions remaining, or some that replace them, will be bad or will become bad.
X8) There are biological, psychological and moral as well as social causes of the major evils of society. A program of social reform combined with a merely permissive, educational and reformist approach to those who embody the evils not only as no prospect of curing the evils—which is in any event impossible—but in practice often fosters rather than mitigates them, and fails to protect the healthier sectors of society from victimization.
.X9) Unrestricted academic freedom expresses the loosening of an indispensable social cohesion and the decay of standards, and permits or promotes the erosion of the social order. Academic discourse should recognize, and if necessary be required to recognize, the limits implicit in the consensus concerning goals, values and procedures that is integral to the society in question.
X10) Unrestricted free speech in relation to political matters—most obviously when extended to those who reject the basic premises of the given society and utilize freedom of speech as a device for attacking the society’s foundations—expresses, like unrestricted academic freedom, the loosening of social cohesion and the decay of standards, and condones the erosion of the social order.
X11) Whether or not there is any truth that is both objective and capable of being known to be so, no society can preserve constitutional government or even prevent dissolution unless in practice it holds certain truths to be, if not literally self-evident, then at any rate unalterable for it, and not subject to the changing will of the popular majority or of any other human sovereign.
X12) A number of principles have been appealed to as the legitimate basis of government, and most of these have been associated in the course of time with bad, indifferent and moderately good government. Government resting on unqualified universal franchise—especially where the electorate includes sizable proportions of uneducated or propertyless persons, or cohesive sub-groups—tends to degenerate into semi-anarchy or into forms of despotism (Caesarism, bonapartism) that manipulate the democratic formula for anti-democratic ends.
X13) In their existential reality, human beings differ so widely that their natural and prudent political ordering is into units more limited and varied than a world state. A world state having no roots in human memory, feeling and custom, would inevitably be abstract and arbitrary, thus despotic, in the foreseeable future, if it could conceivably be bought into being. Though modern conditions make desirable more international cooperation than in the past, we should be cautious in relation to internationalizing institutions, especially when these usurp functions heretofore performed by more parochial bodies.
X14) It is neither possible nor desirable to eliminate all inequalities among human beings. Although it is charitable and prudent to take reasonable measures to temper the extremes of inequality, the obsessive attempt to eliminate inequalities by social reforms and sanctions provokes bitterness and disorder, and can at most only substitute new inequalities for the old.
X15) It is impossible and undesirable to eliminate hierarchies and distinctions among human beings. A large number of distinctions and groupings, rational and non-rational, contributes to the variety and richness of civilization, and should be welcomed, except where some gross and remediable cruelty or inequity is involved.
X16) Whether or not sub-groups of humanity defined by physical or physiological attributes differ congenitally and innately in civilizing potential, they do differ in their actual civilizing ability at the present time and are likely to continue so to differ for as long in the future as is of practical concern.
X17) Among the goals of political and social life, well-being is subordinate to survival; and all secular goals are in the last analysis subordinate to the ultimate moral or religious goal of the citizens composing the community.
X18) disputes among groups, classes and nations can and should be settled by free discussion, negotiation and compromise when—but only when—the disputes range within some sort of common frame-work of shared ideas and interests. When the disputes arise out of a clash of basic interests and an opposition of root ideas, as is from time to time inevitably the case, then they cannot be settled by negotiation and compromise but must be resolved by power, coercion and, sometimes, war.
X19) Except in marginal and extreme cases, the duty of government is not to assure citizens food, shelter, clothing and education, and security against the hazards of unemployment, illness and old age, but to maintain conditions within which the citizens, severally and in association, are free to make their own arrangements as they see fit.


More Tenets of liberalism:
Pg. 40-42
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are so significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
“A full-blown liberal will mark every one, or very nearly every one, of these thirty-nine sentences, Agree. A convinced conservative will mark many or most of them, a reactionary all of nearly all of them, Disagree.” Pg. 42
...Read more

Leviticus to Music

I was introduced to Shai Linne's hip-hop this morning in a rap-along video on the "High Priest."  What a wonderful set of music, even for a guy who isn't a big fan of hip-hop.  I hope you will find this song a great summary of the Levitical standards on the regulations surrounding the High Priest.

View the video here.

Wisdom and Contentment from 100 years ago

Writing over 100 years ago, Robert William Dale has a take on wisdom and contentment which I found to be fairly radical in our contemporary world.  Here are his words,

"Wisdom, if we had it, would transfigure life.  You have an unreasonable employer; wisdom would teach you to regard his unreasonableness as a divinely appointed discipline to train you to good temper.  A man has greatly wronged you; wisdom would teach you to regard the wrong as giving you the opportunity of fulfilling our Lord's precept: "Bless them that curse you.  Pray for them that despitefully use you."  Your occupation is dreary, monotonous, badly paid; wisdom will teach you to do your work as unto the Lord and not unto men, and this will bring down into your work-room light from heaven.  You lose money that you have worked hard for; wisdom will teach you that this loss will help you not to put your trust in uncertain riches."  

--"The Gospel of Suffering" from The Epistle of James and other Discourses, pg. 12-13.

How would such an idea of wisdom, combined with contentment, all of life's situations and the sovereignty of God change the way we lived?

Origins of TULIP

Do you know when TULIP started being used as a reformed acronym?  It wasn't Calvin.  Read this.

A Resource for Christian Families

Every wondered what the Bible says about families and raising them?  Here is a post by Mohler on Christian families referencing a work by Andreas Kostenberger.

Commentaries on the Bible

Here is a listing of the top commentaries on every book of Scripture according to Keith Mathison.

Holding strong to the gospel and Christian Discipleship

Many denominations these days are fighting internally about social issues.  The Episcopal church, PCUSA, Methodist, and the list could go on.  It is argued that we must be more tolerant of others and their distinct views of Christian discipleship.  There are some who argue that we should allow men and women living in sin to participate fully in the life of the church, and in the offices of the church.  Presumably they think that the gospel doesn't speak to holiness.  But there are others, and those are who I want to address today, who don't feel like it is worth taking a stand on these issues at all, they are irrelevant to life.  Their perspective seems to echo the belief that: 

"The stronger our [opponent] gets, the better for us; and if he gets strong enough - preferably as strong as we or stronger - we shall have nothing to worry about." Burnham's Suicide of the West, pg. 305

I would like to challenge each of us to consider the absurdity of such a statement.  To believe that we ought not to take a stand on the great issues facing us as denominations is to passively hand over the reigns of leadership to others.  We must stand strong in the beliefs that the gospel and Christian discipleship go hand in hand and sinful  living is inconsistent with following Christ and shepherding the Church.  Let's not let the opponent inside our own lives, or inside our own denominations be our downfall, but lets stand strong and grow stronger in the Lord.

How important is prayer?

What is the greatest challenge facing the church?  I have asked this question a number of times lately and heard varying answers from fighting sexual deviancy to being more justice minded.  Stanley Grenz, in his book A Cry for the Kingdom, has a different take worth considering:

"The church of Jesus Christ faces many challenges today.  Yet the greatest challenge is not what might initially come to mind.  The greatest challenge is not that of urging Christians to speak out on the great social issues of the day...Nor is our greatest challenge that of encouraging each other to be more fervent in evangelizing the world, ...Rather, the greatest challenge facing the church of Jesus Christ today, and therefore every local congregation, is motivating the people of God to engage in sincere, honest, fervent prayer."  - pg. 1

Let's consider this for a moment.  Where are the prayer meetings today?  Christ became upset at the commercialization of the temple in his day.  This led him to turn over tables and crack the whip at the money changers, all while saying, "My house will be a house of prayer for all nations but you have made it a den of robbers."  Are we a house of prayer or a den of robbers stealing the vitality of life God wants to give?  Might the great social issues of our day, and the evangelization of the nations move forward if the churches were praying?  Might people be moved to follow Christ, if the someone took the bold step of being dependent on God in prayer?  The more I reflect on the problems facing the body of Christ the more I am struck by my lack of prayer, my lack of discipleship.  In short, I am struck by my complacency?  How about you?

So I come back to the question, "How important is prayer?"  It is very important because it is our lifeline of dependence to the Father.  People of God, will you consider asking God to teach you to pray?  I am, and the results are astounding.

What is liberal ideology?

I just finished reading James Burnham's Suicide of the West.  A hefty book of 306 pages discussing the meaning and destiny of liberalism.  Burnham is decidedly anti-liberal in his approach, and makes many good points of critique against liberalism.  However, he never definitively articulates a competing worldview in this text.  That said, we live in a post-modern world and Northwest Washington is decidedly pro-liberal even among its conservative contingent, especially when compared with my previous residence in Colorado Springs.  So what is liberalism?

Let me offer the following quotes from Burnham to answer such a question:

"The logical starting point for liberalism, as for most other ideologies, is a belief about the nature of man...we may assert that liberalism believes man's nature to be not fixed but changing, with an unlimited or at any rate indefinitely large potential for positive(good, favorable, progressive) development." pg. 49-50

"Since there is nothing in essential human nature to block achievement of the good society, the obstacles thereto must be, and are, extrinsic or external...specifically...ignorance...and bad social institutions." pg. 54

These two quotations, decidedly place liberalism within a weltanschauung, a world-view by which all of life is viewed and perceived. This is one of Burnham's strongest points.  He argues that the liberal view of humanity is one which forces a certain approach to all of life, namely the unmitigated ability of humanity to solve its own problems. As the author illustrates his statement, another quote from the Americans for Democratic Action will suffice to show that liberalism is a 'religious' worldview:

"Liberalism, as we see it, is a demanding faith [and] the goals of liberalism are affirmative: [not only] the fulfillment of the free individual in a just and responsible society [at home but] a world where all people may share the freedom, abundance, and opportunity which lie within the reach of mankind - a world marked by mutual respect, and by peace." pg. 55

To this end, the liberal needs compulsory, nationalized education, but education of a specific sort, education devoid of other "faiths".  To the liberal, "the specific function of education is to overcome ignorance and ignorance is overcome by, and only by, acquiring rational, scientific knowledge" pg. 65  As one example among many offered, Burnham quotes Bertrand Russell:

 "The main methods of combating these [three] evils [faced by humanity] are for physical evils, science; for evils of character, [that is, for ignorance], education...; for evils of power, the reform of the political and economic organization of society." pg. 66

This education system produces ideologues, or people who think ideologically.  And the danger is that: 

"An ideologue - one who thinks ideologically - can't lose.  He can't lose because his answer, his interpretation and his attitude have been determined in advance of the particular experience or observation.  They are derived from the ideology, and are not subject to the facts." (103)

And this creates a certain kind of arrogance and smugness.  A certain ability to relegate others as unrefined, unenlightened, as less than human, thus:

"When we discover that certain ideas about man, history and society seem, to those who believe in them, to be either self-evident or so manifestly correct that opposing them is a mark of stupidity or malice, then we may be fairly sure we are dealing with an ideology  and ideological thinking." pg. 100 

If one accepts Burnham's thesis then to all of this I would suggest that we must respond as Christians, not to the symptoms of liberalism - tolerance, lack of ability to determine the truth, socialized education, etc. but to the core of liberalism, the flawed conception of the nature of humanity as inherently good.  The Scriptures are clear, we are fallen humans, inherently evil, self-absorbed and violently opposed to the laws of God.  Our problem lies in ourselves, not in a lack of education, science or politico-economic institution.  In the words of G.K. Chesterton, what is greatest problem in the world?  I am.  And I can't change myself, only God can.  The fight against liberalism, must begin in reclaiming Christianity's nature of humanity.