2008 April archive at Zeal For Truth

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Archive for April, 2008

One Final Goodie from Bush & Co.

Published by Don Emmerich April 30, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 79 Comments

Originally Published at Don Emmerich’s Blog.

Ruining our economy wasn’t enough. Nor was waging an immoral, unnecessary war. No, it seems that the Bush Administration might have one final goodie for the American people. Yes, that’s right, a war with Iran.

Not only does the administration continue saber rattling over Iran, but it’s now known that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action.”

The stated reasons for this potential attack are that (1) Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and (2) Iran has for some time been waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.

So these are the charges. Of course, charges are not always factual, and we should keep a few things in mind.

First, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Now, of course, Dick Cheney claims that he knows better, that he knows what Iran is really up to with its uranium enrichment program. But this guy doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions; moreover, I think it’s safe to say that the 16 U.S. spy agencies know more about the inner workings of Tehran than our Rambo-wannabe vice president.

But why then, some have asked, does Iran insist on enriching uranium? Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world. But that doesn’t at all follow. Just three short decades ago, Henry Kissinger claimed that Iran needed nuclear energy because its economy demanded that it save its oil for other purposes. (We should also keep in mind that, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.)
Let’s move on to the second charge, which is that the Iranian government is arming many of the Iraqi insurgents. Now, for obvious reasons, even if it could be shown that the insurgents have arms that were made in Iran, it wouldn’t follow that the Iranian government was responsible for the attacks. Among others, this point has been made by Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In February 2007 when the Bush gang began claiming that the Quds Force was sending explosives to Iraqi insurgents, Pace told the Voice of America,

It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

This should all sound very familiar. The same people who lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and al Qaeda ties (and in case you didn’t hear, there were no WMDS and no al Qaeda ties)—these same people are now trying to hoodwink the country into another war.

I’m certainly not defending Tehran, which is repressive and undemocratic. I personally think the Iranian people were much better off under Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a peace-loving and democratically-elected prime minister in the 1950s, a man who—oh by the way—was driven from power by the CIA and replaced by a brutal monarch. (And what, you’re asking, did Mossadegh do to deserve such treatment? The answer is that he thought Iran’s oil reserves should be owned by Iran, not the British government. A very heretical belief in Western minds.)

Now it’s certainly possible that, despite its claims, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And I certainly don’t think the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran. But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel. If nothing else, the Iranian government is rational. And therefore it realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation. So if Iran is seeking nukes—and again, our intelligence agencies tell us that such is not the case—but if it is, then it would only want them as a deterrent.

Now is not the time for another war. Now is the time to talk, something the Iranians have been trying to do for several years. In May 2003, for instance, Iran’s leaders sent a negotiating package to the U.S. through a Swiss diplomat. There wasn’t anything Tehran wasn’t willing to discuss: “everything was on the table—Iran’s nuclear program, policy toward Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and control over al-Qaeda operatives captured since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan.” Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.

It seems that all we can do at this point is pray.

The Frequency Of The Lord’s Supper

Published by Bryan April 29, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 14 Comments

Within protestant circles, there is a wide variety of practice regarding how frequent the Lord’s Supper should be celebrated. Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly are all practices that have been put forward. Frequency of celebration is a disputed issue because although scripture speaks a fair amount on the Lord’s Supper in general, it never directly speaks on it’s frequency.

Often churches overlook the issue and continue on with the tradition that has been established within their church, never giving the issue a second thought. Yet when this issue is brought up in the church, I believe the issue of frequency will be determined by one’s overall theology of the sacraments, particular it’s efficacy. That is, what happens when the Lord’s Supper is celebrated determines how often it is done.

Within the history of the church there has been much dispute over the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper that sometimes enters into minute details. Although such dispute is important, for the purposes of this essay I wish only to use a broad distinction between those who believe that the Lord’s Super is only a memorial in which Christ’s sacrifice is remembered, and those who believe that there is some kind of active work of grace (be that saving to any degree of sanctifying) given to the participant (ignoring the question of ex opere operato) in the Supper.

All protestants will fall on one or the other side of this divide, with the evangelical movement spanning both sides, having particular evangelical churches within the movement taking up either memorial or active work positions. This paper will focus around the evangelical tradition, and discuss the reasons for the frequency they chose to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

The Evangelical Tradition
To define “evangelical” is a near impossible task today, and one that is beyond the scope of this paper. When using the term today, I have in mind everyone from Rick Warren, to John MacArthur, to Mark Driscoll to Norman Geisler. It’s reach cuts across the Baptist, Anglican, Reformed and Charismatic camps as well as dozens of smaller groups that were once part of these.

Therefore, within the evangelical movement there is the tension between the baptist/Zwingli tradition of the Supper being a Memorial (1), and the Reformed/Anglican understanding that it has an effect on the participant (2). Without doing an exhaustive survey, relying only on what I have personally read and experienced, it does seem that the baptist/Zwingli memorial tradition is the more influential.

Why do I see the memorial tradition as the more influential? Mainly because of the relative lack of importance I see placed on the Lord’s Supper in evangelical churches. This can be seen in many respects; lack of teaching given on it by teachers in the evangelical movement, lack of interest in it by lay church members in it, and the low frequency of its celebration. Although all three of these are important indicators of the importance placed on it, I believe how we practice something is the best indication of what we really believe about something and therefore I will focus on the frequency it is performed.

Memorial Versus Grace
The division made earlier, between the memorial and grace view of the Supper, I believe roughly corresponds to how often one celebrates it. If you believe the supper to be a memorial you will see no need to celebrate it often, if you see it doing something to the person who partakes in it then you will be more inclined to celebrate it more often. Consider the rest of our culture: when we wish to memorialize something, to remember an event, we do it yearly. Birthdays, Remembrance Day, and May Day, are all examples of this. If the Lord’s Supper is a memorial, then performing it once a year should be suitable. If however it is believed that grace is taken from the Lord’s Supper then one would want to perform it more often to receive this benefit more often.

There are, of course, other factors that put constraints on this reasoning. One could argue that although no grace is given in the Lord’s Supper, one does receive a psychological or teaching benefit from participation. On the other side, one can argue that although they would celebrate it weekly, there are other things going on in a church service that time is needed for. Often arguments like these are used to mitigate against a direct match between one’s theology of the Lord’s Supper and ones practice.

Since my own position on the Lord’s Supper is that God created it as a means of grace which is used in the ongoing process of sanctification (Ie. Grace is given through the Lord’s Supper) I will not look at arguments put forward by memorializists to allow it to be done more then once a year, but I will briefly take up the “time argument” given by some who believe that the sacrament grants graces to the partaker. I will also not take up defending my view in this paper, but leave that for a future one.

Acts 2:42 (ESV) says; “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” If one is arguing that the Lord’s Supper can be performed less regularly to make room for other things in the church service, then they should be willing to admit that teaching can be left out of a service for similar reasons. The two, well actually three, are placed in a list beside each other with none having precedence over the other. If one can happen only once a month in a service, why not the others?

As well, the question of what time is being made for must be answered. If grace is given both through the word (3) and sacraments, and only these two ways, what is so important that time is being taken away from these? I am not against introducing new elements in a church service as long as they do not go against a biblical commandment (Normative Principle Of Worship), but since scripture teaches that grace is given only in those two ways and there is no indication that there are other ways, then those two should be in the primary position.

Therefore, if one holds that there is grace, any kind of grace, given in the Lord’s Supper then one should want to see it celebrated as often as possible.

(1) Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology, 964: “The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed”

(2) Leonard Vander Zee, Christ, Baptism And The Lord’s Supper, 153: “Consuming the bread and wine, now designated as his body and blood, we participant in his sacrifice by eating and drinking its blessings and benefits.”

(3) I do not wish to restrict “the word” here to only the reading of scripture, or preaching, but whenever it is taught in a variety of ways such as one on one discussion, and even things such as drama where the word is used I would not automatically restrict.

The Ron Paul Revolution

Published by Colin April 28, 2008 in Current Events. 36 Comments

Perhaps it is now safe to write another Ron Paul article without the fear of the Ron-bots CTRL-C-ing the latest and greatest reason to vote for their man. Perhaps, also, we will not be bombarded by that tremendous minority of supporters who use Ron Paul as a platform for proclaiming the ridiculous conspiracies regarding 9/11, NWO, freemasonry and space aliens.

This is important because there is a real conspiracy going on against Ron Paul. It shames our country, our system, the republican party and the fickle and imperfect nature of man in general.

The Republican Party (whose very name infers an adherence to representative election and law) has chosen to break it’s own election rules in several conventions so as to prevent Ron Paul’s delegates from going to the national convention.

Unlike how the media portrays elections - relying on popular polls - the actual election of the GOP representatives is by delegates who are elected by party members at conventions. Delegates should reflect the polls, but are under no obligation to do so. So while McCain might poll at 70% on election day in a given state, McCain is actually granted delegates (depending on the state) by some form of convention with official delegates voting.

Nueces County Texas GOP Plug Ears, Shakes Head - “I’m not listening”
For example, let’s look at Nueces County in Texas. On April 20th, the Ron Paul delegates had been elected under the rules of the party and were about be read and confirmed. Instead, the local chairperson of the party decided on her own to appoint different delegates. She read them out loud and the Ron Paul delegates present, on not hearing their names, began to call for a “point of order” as is the correct procedure under the rules. The chairperson ignored them, and “hearing no statutes or amendments” confirmed the unelected delegates.

Audio and explanation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-fARjv3tFk

Nevada Shutdown
Or what about in Nevada. Ron Paul himself personally appeared at the state delegation. Aside from his tremendous number of supporters there, many were won over by his speech. Almost all 31 delegates for Nevada to the national convention ended up being Ron Paul supporters.

Nevada’s 31 delegates are a drop in the ocean, but for some reason, Mitt Romney felt the need to show up to the convention and call for unification behind McCain. Romney’s speech however, didn’t make a difference. The party leadership saw this along with the fact that Ron Paul’s delegates were going to get elected. They panicked, and shut down the convention.

Why This is Happening
We have heard barely a whisper of Ron Paul in the news since McCain was presumed the winner. And if his name was mentioned, it was a story asking why this crazy old man hadn’t quit yet. I think now we are seeing why.

Ron Paul, and more importantly, Ron Paul’s supporters are the kind of people (regardless if some of them are crazy) who want to show the rest of the country that we are living in a society that breaks it’s own laws. Our government, at all levels, is a corrupt influence on its own citizens - and is setting a dangerous precedent of ignoring ethics and law in order to pursue expediency and short-term benefits.

Weekly Links: Gas Prices, Wesley Snipes, Evolution

Published by Colin April 25, 2008 in General and Current Events. 6 Comments

Despite the fact that “justice” and “make an example of” are completely irreconcilable statements, the IRS convinced a court to give Wesley Snipes three years in prison for three misdemeanors. Because the case is high profile - Snipes gets a much harsher sentence than anyone else would get. This is a complete mockery of justice. It represents an abuse of power and a subjectivity of law that should deeply alarm all Americans.

More Politics
Some cops also think they are above the law. Watch at the end, how the officer says “legal” parking spot.

Economics 101: The Price of Gas

Abortion as art at Yale University. Is it fact or fiction?

Evolution
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part 1)
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part 2)
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part 3)

Evolving Lizards

Church
Trevin Wax’s NEw interview with NT Wright

Divorce is grounds for dismissal at Wheaton, a non-denominational Christian college in Chicago.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part III

Published by Colin April 24, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 8 Comments

Before commenting on the last two counterfeit gospels, let’s look at the entire list to summarize:

Formalism
I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.
Legalism
I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.
Mysticism
I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.
Activism
I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.
Biblicism
I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.
Therapism
I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.
Social-ism
The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.

We now only have therapism and social-ism to deal with. Like the other two divisions I made in this exposition, these two counterfeits really do go hand in hand. Let’s take a look:

The Counterfeit Gospel of Therapism
Original Description:

I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.

In many ways, Way of the Master and other biblical evangelism tools have been formulated as a reaction to this “ism.” In this counterfeit, the emphasis on a person’s spiritual needs are transferred away from repentence, moral deficiency, sin and justice and towards various “life enhancement” needs: peace, happiness, wellness, health, fulfillment and so on. Again, the “Four Spiritual Laws” evangelism method is a perfect example of this - where people are encouraged to have a “relationship with God” because:

“God has a wonderful plan for your life”
We need to “experience abundant life.”
Experience “God’s love and plan for our life.”
He can “Make me the kind of person You want me to be”

This is therapism 101 - “Oh God, I’m just so sad and unfulfilled - I need another goofy, platitude-ridden, experience-based set of feel-good motivational speaking lectures to make me feel happy again.” No, you need a saviour because you will go to Hell, in spite of the fact that God loves you, because you refuse to repent from your sin and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive you.

This is not accomplished by willful deception, but by genuinely caring Christians who have let the cares of the world gradually replace the power of God to save from sin. The have moved from obedience to the bible to vain sacrifice. Christianity becomes less about God’s sovereignty and supremacy, and more about the believer and what he can manipulate from a wealthy parent. God is not someone we submit to, but a genie who grants our wishes, both physical and spiritual.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Social-ism
Original Description:

The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.

Many good things can become idols, getting between God and man - the bible, the name of God and even the body of Christ. The bible commands us to have genuine fellowship with the body - to “love one another.” However, we are also warned not to put family and friends above Christ. In fact, our Christian faith will likely cause our relationships to suffer (Matthew 10:21).

Christians get weary of the world, and in the exact opposite reaction as activism (changing the world by Christian means), social-ists seek to completely remove the world and focus on their “church family.” They build church schools, colleges, singles groups, marriage groups, youth groups, elderly groups, day-care, co-ops, businesses and so on until their entire life is one giant clique. They attempt to create heaven on earth by complicated networks of Christian communities, on which they rely more than the bible, more than the Holy Spirit - more than even God himself.

Because the gospel becomes relationship-based, keeping people happy becomes essential. Sin, hell, repentence and judgment do not make people willing to join these little Christian clubs - so therapism is usually adopted. In a church, this might mean that more concern is placed on “people comforts” such as the air conditioning, decorations, technology and programs rather than the teaching, fellowship and discipline.

Groups like campus life have this down to an artform - making fellowship about holding tanks with pizza, rather than genuine Christian fellowship. Real fellowship always supports the individual believer - it always comes back to the idea of the group empowering the individual, rather than the individual conforming to the group (Romans 12:4-13).

Conclusion
I hope this short series has been informative. But even in considering these seven places where Christians go astray - it is evident that there are many more “isms” that can be a trap. Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments - are there other “isms” that were missed, or were these ones discussed incompletely?

The point of this is to evaluate one’s self to ensure that key elements of Christianity are not being left out, or over-emphasized to the detriment of other equally important aspects. Christianity is an all-encompassing, balanced faith that is relatively simple in its practice. Complicating it through counterfeits like those mentioned is only going to lead the church astray, making it ineffective and impotent to accomplish that for which it was created.

Expelled Incomplete, Lacks Cohesion

Published by Kenneth Martens April 23, 2008 in General. 41 Comments

Last week, Premise Media Corporation released a film to over 1000 theaters in the United States. It’s called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie is hosted by comedian Ben Stein and explores the suppression of scientific research on Intelligent Design (ID) theory in American academia. Expelled exposes a pattern of censorship in the scientific establishment; Intelligent Design ideas cannot even be discussed. The merest hint of ID sympathies can damage or end a scientist’s career.

The bottom line
I’ll give you the bottom line first because most of you are lazy and won’t read the article. Should you see Expelled? That depends on you.

If you know what ID is and you think it doesn’t qualify as science, don’t bother to watch Expelled. It won’t change your mind.
If you know little or nothing about ID, Expelled won’t give you enough background information to understand the issue. Don’t bother.
If you have some basic knowledge about what ID is and how it differs from Creationism and from evolution, you should watch Expelled.
If you’ve been following the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate in academia and you understand the issues, then you already know everything Expelled has to say and more. Skip it.

What Expelled does well
The film does a great job of highlighting several cases where scientists and journalists have lost their jobs and suffered damage to their reputations as a result of expressing sympathy toward Intelligent Design ideas.

Expelled also hits the mark in its interviews with prominent atheists and evolutionary scientists. Stein clearly shows that their support of evolution is intimately tied to their rejection of God and religion. There’s some truth to the saying that evolution is a religion.

The highlight of Expelled is an interview with the vituperative atheist Richard Dawkins. He holds nothing back. His antipathy for Intelligent Design is second only to his hatred of all things religious.

What Expelled does not do
Although Ben Stein interviews several people whose careers have suffered as a result of their ID beliefs, Expelled fails to establish any pattern of widespread persecution of ID. Stein mentions several times that he interviewed many scientists who were unwilling to go on the record about their ID belief for fear of the consequences. That’s troubling, but we need more on-the-record stories to establish that the censorship of ideas is widespread.

Curiously, Expelled fails to offer a good definition of either evolution or Intelligent Design. One would expect a documentary to at least define its subject matter precisely. This is important for any documentary, but even more critical when the subject is Intelligent Design: the whole debate hinges on whether Intelligent Design qualifies as legitimate science. Correctly defining ID might explain why some scientists believe it is unscientific and therefore should be booted out the science lab and left to the philosophers.

Another blatant omission is any mention of Michael Behe or his work on irreducible complexity, which is a key part of Intelligent Design.

Finally, the biggest problem is that Expelled does not stay on topic. It starts as an exploration of academic freedom and the supression of Intelligent Design theory. Then halfway through the movie, it suddenly shifts. Stein travels to Dachau to explore the link between Darwin and Nazism. What that has to do with academic freedom of speech in America is anyone’s guess. The connection between Darwin and the Nazi eugenics program is something worth exploring, yes, but not when the subject is academic freedom. It gets in the way of an otherwise good movie.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part II

Published by Colin April 22, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 2 Comments

The counterfeit gospels we looked at last time were fairly obvious. Today’s get to the meat of the matter, and are not easily shrugged off and converted into judgmental thoughts about other people’s faith. In fact, I want to encourage the reader to consider himself while reading this list, and to shy away from using these explanations as a means to evaluate other Christians. These counterfeit gospels are traps waiting to ensnare all of us - we become easy prey if we don’t utilize these thoughts to cultivate personal reform of our own faith.

The seven counterfeit gospels are:

Formalism
I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.
Legalism
I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.
Mysticism
Activism
Biblicism
Therapism
Social-ism

Let’s continue with three more subtle gospels - mysticism, activism, biblicism.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Mysticism
Original Description:

I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.

This “ism” probably begins with a misunderstanding of the ministry and effects of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life. Many people take verses about the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit and presume that this power must be cultivated by the effort of the believer himself. Thus, instead of coming to worship seeking a movement of God by his Spirit and subsequently bearing the effects of that movement (which can be manifest in emotion - understanding the truth of God’s love for an example, is quite an overwhelming experience) the mystic will actually utilize emotion to generate a “spiritual experience.”

In ancient religions (and even in modern worship, albeit not formal worship) this was enhanced by the use of drugs, hypnotic chants and other devices to basically create a mystical climate. Mysticism relies heavily on man-made emotionalism.

Since mysticism is rooted in a person’s feelings - they are inconsistent in ministry (whether in the church, their family or their own bible study and prayer life). They are also a constant burden to others, who often have to deal with the fallout caused by their recklessness. This manifests itself in everything from relationship issues, to dropping the ball in ministry and even dealing with sin binges (when it feels good) and overwhelming depression and guilt (when it feels bad).

The problem is that the emotions of man are fickle (Jeremiah 17:9) and can easily turn from elation about God, to fear and worry about all manner of things. It is no coincidence that much of the New Testament epistles speak about the believer’s mind, self-control, order and wisdom.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Activism
Original Description:

I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.

Much of what has been called the social gospel would fall into this camp. This is probably obvious to most people. What is less obvious is the essence of this counterfeit gospel, which can be applied in many ways: the knowledge, commission and power of the church is to be manifest through the secular arena. This is a tremendous danger in the modern era, because we live in societies that are highly political and highly secular. Whereas the work of the church through the church is hard to understand, obey and unify around - the work of the church through the world is easy, available and encouraged.

I’ll give two examples from both extremes. It is easier to proclaim that drunkenness is sin and should be outlawed through secular law, then it is to tell a brother that he is sinning, needs to change and then exercise church discipline if he does not. It seems more just to set up welfare programs for the poor via taxation, then it is for Christians to volunteer for Christian charity work or give of their finances/labor to see this work accomplished.

At the heart of activism is a desire to to good, but a lack of biblical discipline, wisdom and application. It can also betray a lack of faith in the power of God to keep his promises and do what he has said he will do. God does not give us a task like the great commission, and then leave us without the means or power to accomplish it. But as God has layed out the mechanism for bringing real change to people’s lives - it is up to us to be obedient. God desires obedience more than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22) and while we may think God approves of our passion, hard work and sacrifice for his kingdom, he has made it clear that he is more concerned that we obey.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Biblicism
Original Description:

I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.

Biblicism is the idolizing of the word of God - to the point of an almost academic relationship with God based on knowledge, rather than the more complete relationship and fellowship we are to have. But it’s not just knowledge or intelligence that marks biblicism - it’s when that knowledge becomes an idol, and inserts itself between the believer and God. This guy is the one who gives a funny look or a sarcastic remark upon being asked an innocent question. Biblicalism breeds impatience and dismissiveness.

Ever wanted to form your own perfect church out without the unwashed, ignorant masses who slow you down, waste your time and need constant help with basic biblical teaching? You’ve met your counterfeit gospel.

Like activism’s misguided desire for justice, biblicism is an overzealousness for knowledge - to the ignorance of the more foundational aspects of Christianity. Activism idolizes the secular world - biblicism idolizes biblical knowledge. Unfortunately, the zeal of biblicism - rather than leading towards enlightenment and truth - actually contributes to ignorance, because the believer becomes less concerned with other mechanism for God’s instruction - mistakes, experiences, trials and so on.

Nest time: The last two counterfeits of therapism and social-ism, and a final benediction.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part I

Published by Colin April 21, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 1 Comment

My wife and I came across a remarkably concise listing of counterfeit gospels over the weekend. I wanted to take the time to explore these in slightly more depth than where I originally saw them (Between Two Worlds). I should note here that I haven’t read the book where these originated, and my interpretation may be completely different than the author’s intent.

The seven counterfeit gospels are:

Formalism
Legalism
Mysticism
Activism
Biblicism
Therapism
Social-ism

The Counterfeit Gospel of Formalism
Original Description:

I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.

Formalism boils the gospel down to loyalty to the church as a organization. It is notably different to legalism in that, rather than commitment to rules and precepts, formalists conform and support the organization of the church. They are probably people-oriented and talented (but as an ends to political and organizational fulfillment, not merely relationships).

I would suspect these people also long for the approval of their pastors and ministry leaders, and are at least mildly authoritarian. They need the constant approval of authority and use this to measure the effectiveness of their ministry.

They say “Hi” to as many people as they can, and have trivial knowledge of probably most of the people in the church - without pursuing the depths of genuine fellowship. The exception to this, is authority - with whom successful relationships may bring more opportunities to participate.

This type probably has trouble with competition and cliques. Again, these people are most loyal to the political aspects of a church as opposed to the people - so people represent a necessary evil. For example, they will serve and help people, but to the ends that it demonstrates their commitment to the church, not because they actually care about the people they serve.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Legalism
Original Description:

I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.

These people, especially in the modern seeker-friendly church, have a tougher time going about it - but they still exist in less traditional areas. They are also markedly different than formalists (who value commitment to the organization) in that they are committed to rules. The legalist is the guy who stares down the people who come in late, put their feet on the pews or wear shorts.

It has been my experience that legalists were often saved out of very licentious lifestyles. They overcompensate for their past behaviours by instituting a regiment of rules. These people do not trust freedom and liberty, and believe that churches (and usually society) need lawmakers and enforcers to keep everyone in line. If they encounter a brother sinning, it is because there was not a rule in place to prevent the sin (self-made or formally). The idea of conversion - that people can actually be changed an be governed by God and his Holy Spirit - is probably one they don’t really understand.

One of the biggest caveats to legalism, and how it is easily camouflaged is in a altered definition: Legalism is a lot of rules when really, legalism is rules apart from the bible. In other words, those who are overzealous for grace to the point of abuse are technically legalists - they have redefined grace to a rule apart from the bible, that means “I can do what I want.” It is very possible to find legalists who have created rules based in anti-legalism as a knee-jerk reaction. Freedom and liberty may be glorified to the point of becoming a rule unto themselves - which is also unscriptural.

Next time: Mysticism, Activism, Biblicism.

Weekly Links: Charlie Gibson’s Obama Beatdown and More…

Published by Colin April 18, 2008 in Current Events. 15 Comments

While I was waiting for my now obsolete HDDVD player to warm up and play season 8 of Seinfeld, I caught the best part of ABC’s democratic debate - not an exchange between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but Charlie Gibson educating Obama on how capital gains taxes work (2:20-5:22):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGY1BEahmJQ

Gibson outlines how every time the capital gains tax was raised, total revenue went down. The reason this works, by the way, is exampled in the Laffer Curve. Obama doesn’t even deal with the facts of this case, but responds to say (despite the fact that raising it will bring in less revenue), it should be raised “because of fairness.”

Obama indicates that he could care less about how well the government actually works, but is more interested in the ideals of socialism. It is more important that rich people be punished, rather than taxes be collected efficiently.

More on Obama
(From Jew) Obama’s recent comments imply a “functionalist view of religious conviction” that “is not concerned with the truthfulness of these beliefs, but only with the effects the beliefs have on the believer.”

A speech from 2006 reveals a similar pattern of thought in Obama’s beliefs about the functional importance of religion.

[Americans] want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them – that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway towards nothingness.

Obama does mention the whole “forgiveness of sins” idea, although he fails to mention repentance. (And Mr. Obama, I think you should refer to Jesus Christ as a savior, not an ally.)

[Faith] doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts. You need to come to church precisely because you are of this world, not apart from it; you need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in your difficult journey.

But he seems to get confused about the importance of the truth. (Here’s a tip, Obama: if you traveled the same path as a Muslim or a Jew, then you don’t understand the truth and you aren’t saved.)

I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

The path I traveled has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans – evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at a turning point in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives them.

It seems that Obama’s faith is rooted in social justice, not in things above.

I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. … I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; it is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope.

…

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and affirm my Christian faith.

More Links This Week
New Statesman article on NT Wright

The Filipino rice shortage we mentioned a couple weeks ago isn’t just in the Philippines. It’s global. CNN reports food riots in Haiti, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Mozambique. Rice prices have shot up 75%, wheat 120%. Corn prices are up too.

Glenn Beck argues that the US should lower it’s corporate tax rates.

CEOs Pushing Ayn Rand Studies Use Money to Overcome Resistance

The Trillion Dollar War:

These runaway costs do not include a single dollar from the Pentagon’s annual operating budget, which in 2008 reached a whopping $481 billion. If the war were being accounted for based on a rational, transparent budget process instead of an opaque and politicized shell game, Americans would be painfully aware that we are now in the seventh year of what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has called a $1 trillion war.

How much money is $1 trillion? Enough to pay for the entire 1976 federal budget, adjusted for inflation. Enough to write a check for $37,500 to every Iraqi man, woman, and child. Enough to buy 169,492 Black Hawk helicopters, or 455 stealth bombers. Enough, in nominal terms, to pay for the entire federal government from 1789 to 1957. And it’s 10 times more than what specialists predict it would take to eradicate malaria once and for all.

Biblical Bodily Healing X: Some Final Thoughts

Published by Chris A April 17, 2008 in Religion. 14 Comments

It has been said that there are two sides to redemption – the legal side and the vital side. I believe that is true. On the one hand you have the word of God, his promises revealed to his people, and then you have the actual experiences of his people in relation to his promise. The latter does not prove the will of the Father; rather the former reveals his thoughts toward us. During this series I have done my best to explore the legal side to the best of my ability. Rather than summing up what I have already written, I would like to approach healing from the other, unexplored side.

Personal Experiences
True Christian faith is not based on experiences; it is based on the word of God. Therefore an experience is only relevant to the extent that it is agreement with God’s word. Even regarding experiences that are supernatural, the believer is cautioned not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits to be sure they come from God (1 John 4:1).

However, having a record of all the experiences the early church had with the Holy Spirit, we too should expect that God might visit us in much the same way. As long as our experiences are biblical, we have every reason to conclude they are an expression of the same love and power that Jesus manifested. God does not change. When Jesus offered prayer for his disciples in John 17 before being crucified, he also extended that prayer to include those believers who would come after them.

As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world (John 17:18-24, NASB).

This prayer reveals that it was Jesus’ will that the same glory demonstrated in his ministry should belong to his church for all ages. There is no hint of generational bias. Although many have relegated the ministry of healing to the early apostles, Jesus said this sign would follow those who believed in his name (Mark 16:18).

My Own Healing
A few years ago I suffered with symptoms consistent with Crohn’s disease. (I cannot say it was definitely Crohn’s disease since I never went to a doctor.) These symptoms persisted for about a year. I had very frequent diarrhea and skin rashes that occurred during night sweats. Nearly every morning I woke up in a cold sweat that literally drenched my sheets and stained them.

I was convinced that I would be healed if I exercised faith, but I endured the discomfort for quite a while before ever approaching God for healing. One reason I did not seek healing was because I was using my illness as a crutch. Any time I did not want to go to work, it was easy to call in sick because I was basically always sick. I got into the destructive habit of feeling sorry for myself.

Although it seems logical that most people who are sick desire to be healed, the truth is that is not always the case. Do you remember that Jesus asked the man at the pool of Bethesda whether he wanted to be healed? Why would he ask such a question? Isn’t the answer obvious? Not exactly. Some people never got so much attention from others before they got sick, and they literally prefer to be sick and enjoy the attention. Despite the fact that they suffer, they enjoy a perverse power of victimhood – something they would have to give up if they got healed.

People like this get caught up in what I call “medical culture”. They constantly talk about their medications, their doctors, their surgeries, etc. It is impossible for people like this to be healed as long as they are consumed with being sick, especially if they get a sense of security from it. Such people prevent themselves from focusing on Jesus.

I was like that. Not to the extent that some people are, but the end result is the same. Eventually God got a hold of me. The Holy Spirit began to counsel me, and reveal to me areas that I needed to change. As crazy as this will sound to some, he showed me that I was heading toward an early grave before I reached my mid-fifties. That was a serious wake up call for me. I changed my direction, believed God for my healing, and was made completely well without the aid of medical science.
Continue reading ‘Biblical Bodily Healing X: Some Final Thoughts’

Zeal For Truth