TC

Reposting this because it's just as relevant today, if not more so.  Let's put aside all the labels we give ourselves and others (Calvinists, Pentecostals, Dispensationalists, Reformed, etc...) and just see what Scripture says — taking into consideration progression revelation, of course!




“PC, or political correctness, is now being escorted by TC, or theological correctness. Just as one can be politically incorrect, so too now one can be theologically incorrect.

In evangelical Christian circles, a new form of censorship is breaking out. Now we have theological correctness. There are certain theological subjects which we are just expected not to discuss.

Our churches are awash in theological correctness. Of course not too long ago we identified this rot by other names, such as theological liberalism or false teaching or heterodoxy or even heresy. But in today’s wishy washy theological climate, Christians can say and believe almost anything and not fear being corrected or challenged.

Thus we have best-selling authors going on about how hell is not a biblical doctrine, or how in the end everyone will be saved anyway. We have all kinds of basic biblical doctrines now openly being challenged and millions of Christians are soaking it up.

They either lack all biblical discernment, or they just no longer care about the very things the Bible says we should care about. Indeed, we are warned repeatedly in Scripture that what we believe and what we do matters a great deal. If we believe false things or do wrong things, that is a mega-no-no in the minds of the biblical writers. But we simply think it is being intolerant, unloving and narrow-minded.

The hundreds of passages which speak to the need of believing right doctrine and living holy lives seem to be completely ignored by so many believers today.” (B. Muehlenberg)


I rather agree.  Certainly it can't be right to remain silent about everything except the very basics, just so we can avoid offending people, can it (Heb 5:13)?

Acts 17

It's been a rather overwhelming couple of months.  I haven't been blogging because I've either been out of town, sick, and/or extremely busy.  To jump back in, I thought I'd post this quote by C.R. Stam talking about the seventeenth chapter of Acts.  If you've been following my bible study blog — justme2 — you'll have already seen this.  But because I think it's so good, I'm bringing it over to this blog, too.


"At the synagogue in Thessalonica Paul reasoned out of the Scriptures for three sabbaths (or weeks) with men who were unwilling to listen, with the result that only a few (Gr. 'certain') of them believed, while 'a great multitude' of the Gentiles believed. What Paul preached was new to them and they refused to consider it, letting the Gentiles put them, God's chosen people, to shame ... The Athenisans went to the other extreme. They lost interest in what was old and clamoured only to hear the new. Yet if what they heard did not appeal to them some 'mocked' while others said, more politely: 'We will hear thee again of this matter,' with the result that there too the fruit was meagre ... Significantly, the record of the Bereans comes between those of the Thessalonians and the Athenians. The Bereans possessed the true spiritual greatness to give man's word a respectful hearing, whether old or new, and then to subject it to an examination in the light of God's Word. The result was that 'therefore many of them believed,' in comparison with few of the Thessalonians and the Athenians."

"If there is anything this passage teaches it is that every believer is responsible to examine even the best teaching in the light of the Scriptures, that every preacher should expect his teachings to be so examined and should thank God for those who do this. Indeed, it is a sign of a lack of spiritual greatness when men of God resent Scriptural examination of their teachings by their hearers. The purity of the Church, doctrinally, depends not upon loyalty to the dogmas of the Church, but upon the maintenance of the Berean spirit among the people of God ... Let us never close our minds so as to keep error out, for in doing so we will only shut new light out and close old errors in. Moreover, it is but a small step from shutting out new light from God's Word to engaging in bitter opposition to it ... How this lesson is needed in the professing Church today among preachers as well as hearers! Modernists cast away precious treasures of the Bible, explaining that they are old and out of date, while Fundamentalists, clinging to old truth (and error) reject new light simply because it is new! Modernists vie with each other to keep up to date, intellectually, while Fundamentalists vie with each other to be orthodox, when both should make it their aim to be Scriptural, bowing in faith before the Word of God."


I couldn't agree with him more!  How about you?

 

Why We're Not Emergent - cont.

I have finished reading Why We're Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck and liked it overall.  Probably the most valuable thing I took away from it was DeYoung saying he appreciates the emergent critique of the church today but that their prescribed cures are frightening. 

Both authors' deference to the creeds, confessions, and councils as the "borders of faith" and "fence[s] between truth and falsehood," elevating them almost to the same level of Scripture itself, really bothered me, though.  I believe Emergents have a legitimate beef here, but their remedy indeed is frightening!  Instead of pointing to Scripture as the only authority, they point to the need to be real and express their feelings, to do good works, and to experience the other personal ways God mysteriously speaks to Christians apart from the Bible.

The emergent church is in fact quite squishy about Scripture.  Brian McLaren, a leading voice in emergent circles argues for a postmodern understanding of the Bible's role in our church: "When we let it [the Bible] go as a modern answer book, we get to rediscover it for what it really is: an ancient book of incredible spiritual value for us, a kind of universal and cosmic history, a book that tells us who we are and what story we find ourselves in so that we know what to do and how to live."  DeYoung explains that it's all well and good to speak of the Bible as a wonderful, rich story, or an amazing collection of deep writings, or an honored conversation partner, or an in-living-color book, but what does all of this actually mean?  Is it the final authority in matters of faith and practice?  Can it be trusted in all that it says?  Is it intelligible and knowable?  Basically, Emergents don't see the Bible as having intrinsic authority based on God having spoken, but rather as a functional authority dependent upon what the community of believers understand it to mean.  And since Donald Miller has been quoted as saying, "who knows anything anyway", where does that leave them?

It leaves them making up their own kind of truth!  In fact, Spencer Burke, also one of the formative voices in the emergent conversation, explains that, "Although the link between grace and sin has driven Christianity for centuries, it just doesn't resonate in our culture anymore. It repulses rather than attracts. People are becoming much less inclined to acknowledge themselves as 'sinners in need of a Savior.' A better approach is to see Jesus as 'the model of sinless living, the ultimate example to which all humanity should aspire."  Burke also basically rejects the cross of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for sin when he approvingly quotes from the Journalist Polly Toynbee: "Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?"

This is the biggest difference between Emergents and traditional Christianity according to DeYoung: "Being a Christian—for Burke, for McLaren, for Bell, for Jones, and for many others in the emerging conversation—is less about faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the only access to God the Father and the only atonement for sins before a wrathful God, and more about living the life that Jesus lived and walking in His way."

Sadly, if people attending emergent churches are hearing that doing good works is the main thing, not that Christ died and rose again on our behalf, then emergent churches are most likely filled with unbelievers — because good works do not save!

Some who have read this book lament that a reconciliation needs to happen between the Emergents and Reformed.  In other words, "Can't we all just get along?"  But really, how can there be a reconciliation if Emergents don't see the Word of God as authoritative — and it clearly states:

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:5-17).

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified (Gal 2:15-16).

Why We're Not Emergent

I am currently making my way through the book, Why We're Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Cluck.  Since Ted starts out by saying that people will probably blog about this book, I decided to do just that — blog about it.

All I can say is, so far, guys, I couldn't agree with you more!

Having recently read Donald Miller's popular book, Blue Like Jazz (you can read my review of it here), I was interested in reading more books on this post-modern emerging church idea.  True, Donald doesn't consider himself a follower of the "emergent" movement, but much of what he says paints him as such.  Consequently, his writings have become quite popular with many involved in the emerging church conversation.

Below are just a few lines from the beginning of Why We're Not Emergent.  Perhaps they will wet your appetite enough to give this book a try, too.


"... emergent leaders are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability.  In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real, accurate knowledge about God in the first place ..."

"As Donald Miller says at one point in his wildly popular Blue Like Jazz, 'I don't believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reason.  Who knows anything anyway?'

"The emergent agnosticism about truly knowing and understanding anything about God seems to be pious humility.  It seems to honor God's immensity, but it actually undercuts His sovereign power.  Postmoderns harbor such a distrust for language and disbelieve God's ability to communicate truth to human minds that they effectively engage in what Carson calls 'the gagging of God ...'"


"Because of the emerging church's implied doctrine of God's unknowability, the word mystery, a perfectly good word in its own right, has become downright annoying.  Let me be very clear: I don't understand everything about God or the Bible.  I don't fully understand how God can be three in one.  I don't completely grasp how divine sovereignty works alongside human responsibility.  The Christian faith is mysterious.  But when we talk about Christianity, we don't start with mystery.  It's some combination of pious confusion and intellectual laziness to claim that living in mystery is at the heart of Christianity.

"Yet, time and again, emerging leaders brand Christianity as, above all things it seems, mysterious."


"Certainty, for the emergent church, is the same as pinning down Jesus and summing up God, while uncertainty is a breath of fresh air.  'Drop any affair you may have with certainty, proof, argument—and replace it with dialogue, conversation, intrigue and search,' argues McLaren.  Clarity, after all, is usually boring and wrong 'since reality is seldom clear, but usually fuzzy and mysterious; not black and white, but in living color.'

"But why do intrigue and search have to mean the end of all certainty?  McLaren is guilty of a very modern error, insisting on either-or when a both-and is possible.  There is a place for questions.  There is a time for conversation.  But there is also the possibility of certainty, not because we have dissected God like a freshman biology student dissects a frog, but because God has spoken to us clearly and intelligibly ..."


(to be cont)

It is of utmost importance that we understand what the Scriptures teach so that we may believe what God has said, for 'faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10:17).  The type of 'faith' which some advocate today is sheer superstition, which dispenses entirely with the need for searching or studying the Scriptures.  But the faith which the Scriptures themselves call for is always based on an intelligent understanding of what is said (Mk 6:34; Eph 1:17-18; Col 1:9-10; 2:1-3; 2 Tim 2:15)"

(CR Stam)

1 Corinthians 3:12-13

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.


"Wood, hay, and stubble symbolize anything subversive to the truth—doctrinally or in works.  A program set up through the wisdom of men, worldly ways and carnality, tends to detract from the power of the Word of God, which is the power of the Gospel that brings salvation. We are kept by the power of God; we overcome by faith, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.  Therefore if Satan can substitute the wisdom and ways of men and the methods of the world for the Word, he will not only damn souls who are not born again, but he will also render worthless the believer who remains a babe in Christ, never growing in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour—for such a Christian will never become a vessel unto honor nor a good soldier of the cross."

- O.B. Green in The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians

Blue Like Jazz

Another pop culture book I read on my recent reading jag was Blue Like Jazz.  A New York Times bestseller written by Donald Miller, I was curious what all the hubbub was about.  He makes a few good points, and I'll list them, but I see this book a little differently than a lot of people out there because overall I was unimpressed.

Donald is right on the money when he says that we love God because He first loved us, and that it's because of His love for us, and consequently our love for Him**, that we obey Him.  This is taken right out of Scripture itself (1 Jn 4:19; Titus 2:11-12).

"Rick says that I will love God because he first loved me.  I will obey God because I love God.  But if I cannot accept God's love, I cannot love Him in return, and I cannot obey Him.  Self-discipline will never make us feel righteous or clean; accepting God's love will.  The ability to accept God's unconditional grace and ferocious love is all the fuel we need to obey Him in return.  Accepting God's kindness and free love is something the devil does not want us to do.  If we hear, in our inner ear, a voice saying we are failures, we are losers, we will never amount to anything, this is the voice of Satan trying to convince the bride that the groom does not love her.  This is not the voice of God.  God woos us with kindness, He changes our character with the passion of His love." (pg 86)

Then again toward the end of his book he says this:

"And so I have come to understand that strength, inner strength, comes from receiving love as much as it comes from giving it.  I think apart from the idea that I am a sinner and God forgives me, this is the greatest lesson I have ever learned.  When you get it, it changes you.  My friend Julie from Seattle told me that the main prayer she prays for her husband is that he will be able to receive love.  And this is the prayer I pray for all my friends because it is the key to happiness.  God's love will never change us if we don't accept it." (page 232)

Donald get more points, from me anyway, when he talks about the typical 'Trendy Writer" on pages 91-94 of his book:

"Trendy Writer talked about how Khwaja Khandir is his fishing guide.  He described Khwaja Khandir as the Islamic version of the Holy Spirit: Khwaja Khandir tells him where the fish are and teaches him things about life like how to manage his money or achieve inner peace or please his wife.  It was all hokey and hoo-ha.  I felt as if I were being visited by the ghost of Christmas future, and the ghost was saying, 'Hey, Don, you're going to end up like this guy: A yuppie Christian writer with no backbone!' ... For me, Trendy Writer coming to town was the beginning of something.  It was the beginning of my authentic Christianity.  Trendy Writer, Khwaja Khandir, and Tony the Beat Poet were the seeds of change.  I knew Christ, but I was not a practicing Christian.  I had the image of a spiritual person, but I was bowing down to the golden cows of religiosity and philosophy.  It was one of those enlightenments, one of those honest looks in the mirror in which there is no forgetting who you are.  It was a moment without make-believe.  After that moment, things started to get interesting."

I couldn't agree more.  Why are so many Christians taken with every trendy book or speaker that comes along?  Ironically, though, I put Blue Like Jazz in the "trendy pile." 

Why?  If you look closely you'll notice that Donald never really defines what "a spiritual person" or "Christian spirituality" (subtitle of his book) is.  He comes close on page 57, "And I love this about Christian spirituality.  It cannot be explained, and yet it is beautiful and true.  It is something you feel, and it comes from the soul." and on page 103, "I don't believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything."  Then at the end of his book (page 239) he says, "I think Christian spirituality is like jazz music. I think loving Jesus is something you feel. I think it is something very difficult to get on paper." 

Do you see it?  Donald's idea of spirituality is all feelings-based. What a scary place to be!  Emotions and feelings change constantly.  They should never be the driving force behind what we do or don't do.  Donald is putting the cart before the horse. True Christian spirituality is based on faith in what God says is true.  In other words, it's taking God at His Word.  When we're in the Word, believing the Word, looking at the world through "Word-colored glasses," living out the Word, that's true Christian spirituality.  The Word is the horse, feelings are the cart — they come after because the Word is pulling them along, keeping them on the right track.

Basing everything on feelings is typical of post-modern thinking: You come up with a list of things that you think are necessary to follow — what feels right to you — and the rest doesn't matter. And if someone should happen to call you on anything you're believing or doing, well they're just being judgmental and unloving (chapters 12 and 18).  Basically, it boils down to this: It doesn't really matter what you believe (because "who knows anything anyway") or how you live, just as long as you're following Jesus (and whatever that happens to look like to you).

The ramifications of this kind of thinking are even more troubling.  If, as Donald says, Christianity should be replaced with Christian spirituality ...

"For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced but not explained" (pg 115).

... which to him is all about experiences and what you feel (because nobody "knows anything anyway"), ...

"At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know the chances of any of our theology being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay. And wonder is that feeling we get when we let go of our silly answers, our mapped out rules that we want God to follow" (pg 205).

... then Scripture is no longer authoritative — experiences and feelings are.  Another reviewer of Blue Like Jazz explains this particularly well:

"A million to one is very low odds that "any" of our theology is right. What about the theology of the atonement? Is our chance of understanding that a million to one? What about the theology of Jesus Christ's return? Can we possibly know whether or not He is coming back? And what about the theology of biblical inerrancy? Can we even trust the Bible? With the odds Miller suggests, no, we can trust nothing about God's Word at all. Praise God, that Miller's odds are completely wrong!"


**There are two words for love in the original Greek Scriptures — phileo and agape.  Phileo means "to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e., have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling); agape means "love, i.e., affection or benevolence — embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety — the former [phileo] being chiefly of the heart and the latter [agape] of the head."  In other words, agape love is not just a feeling, it's also a decision.  Agape love is the only love believers are instructed to have for God.

"In dark days now past, when the avowal of 'heretical' beliefs involved suffering and loss, men thought deeply before they strayed from the beaten tracks of 'orthodoxy.'  They knew what it meant to 'gird up the loins of their mind.'  But slovenly-mindedness is a marked characteristic of religious thought in this shallow and silly age of ours.  The catch phrases of the fashionable pulpit or the popular press are accepted without any sort of mental struggle; and 'historic beliefs' are jettisoned without the slightest exercise of heart or conscience."

This was written by Sir Robert Anderson back in the 1880's.  Sadly, not much has changed, has it?