Four Incorrect Views of Christianity

The following is from Authentic Christianity, by Martin Lloyd-Jones, regarding Acts 2:37–47.

Let me put it quite simply like this: What would your answer be if I gave you a sheet of paper and a pencil and told you to put down in as few words as possible your idea of what it means to be a Christian? [...]

There are some people who quite clearly think that Christianity operates solely in the realm of the intellect. These are serious and able men and women who are concerned about life and its problems. They know that here is a traditional teaching, and they believe it their bounden duty to consider it. So they read about the Christian faith and may become very interested in it, even accepting a good deal of it. But it is all in the mind. It is all theoretical. They may greatly enjoy their study of Christianity; it may become their hobby, but it is nothing beyond that. In addition, many people devote their lives to theological study. These scholars and academics spend their time in intellectual argument, taking up religious issues and writing their books one against another or in agreement with one another. That is their whole life. [...]

At the opposite extreme, there are those for whom Christianity is purely a matter for the feelings. They have had a wonderful experience of peace or love or happiness, and they say they need nothing else. The intellectuals, of course, condemn such people. “It’s pure emotionalism,” they say. “They cannot argue seriously with you. They haven’t read the books and cannot discuss them with you. They live on the wonderful feeling they say they’ve had and deliberately try to work it up again and again.” And, of course, there is a good deal of evidence that lends considerable weight to these objections.

Then there is a third group that puts the entire emphasis upon the will. According to this view, what makes a Christian is not what people think; and if they like to play with the emotions, let them do so. Rather, they say, whether or not you are a Christian hinges upon what you do. It is the way in which you live that is the deciding factor. Are you living for the good of humanity? Are you ready to make sacrifices? Are you ready to put desire for a great career on one side in order to do something heroic and wonderful and sacrificial? That is what makes people Christians. It is a question of making a deliberate decision to improve the lot of humanity and uplift the human race. This may take you into politics or into social work—the sphere is unimportant. As long as you are giving yourself in service, what does it matter what you believe? The intellect is comparatively unimportant. Indeed, you can be certain of very few things in a world like this. The important thing is your will and your desire and what you are actually doing.

A fourth view of Christianity, a view commonly held by many people who have been brought up as Christians — I myself held it for many a year — is the view that being a Christian is a task that you have to take up and that you take up more or less reluctantly and miserably in a spirit of fear. Christianity is mainly something that spoils life. You know other people who were not brought up as Christians, and you see that they do things freely without any hesitation at all, and you wish you could be doing the same things, but you are afraid. You have been brought up in a chapel or a church, brought up as a Christian, as it were, and though you want to do these things, you cannot. This Christianity stands between you and them. [...]

So we are considering these eleven verses from Acts, and we see what an utter travesty this last view is of Christianity. This is what Luke wrote: “They, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people” (vv. 46–47). Could anything be a greater contrast? This is Christianity.[pg. 64-66]

Podcast: Why I Became a Christian

In this (very short) podcast, I discuss why I am a Christian, and not an atheist as I once was.

Podcast: Bill Maher and Two Christians

In this episode, we review two audio clips where Bill Maher speaks with two very different Christians.



This link takes you to the post where I discuss Matthew 25, and the sheep and the goats.

The Duty of the Christian

The following is from Alexander MacLaren's commentary on the book of Joshua.

For the Christian soldier, then, God’s law is his marching orders. The written word, and especially the Incarnate Word, are our law of conduct. The whole science of our warfare and plan of campaign are there. We have not to take our orders from men’s lips, but we must often disregard them, that we may listen to the ‘Captain of our salvation.’ The soldier stands where his officer has posted him, and does what he was bid, no matter what may happen. Only one voice can relieve him. Though a thousand should bid him flee, and his heart should echo their advices, he is recreant if he deserts his post at the command of any but him who set him there. Obedience to others is mutiny. Nor does the Christian need another law to supplement that which Christ has given him in His pattern and teaching. Men have appended huge comments to it, and have softened some of its plain precepts which bear hard on popular sins. But the Lawgiver’s law is one thing, and the lawyers’ explanations which explain it away or darken what was clear enough, however unwelcome, are quite another. Christ has given us Himself, and therein has given a sufficient directory for conduct and conflict which fits close to all our needs, and will prove definite and practical enough if we honestly try to apply it.

The application of Christ’s law to daily life takes some courage, and is the proper field for the exercise of Christian strength. ‘Be very courageous that thou mayest observe.’ If you are not a bold Christian you will very soon get frightened out of obedience to your Master’s commandments. Courage, springing from the realisation of God’s helping strength, is indispensable to make any man, in any age, live out thoroughly and consistently the principles of the law of Jesus Christ. No man in this generation will work out a punctual obedience to what he knows to be the will of God, without finding out that all the ‘Canaanites’ are not dead yet; but that there are enough of them left to make a very thorny life for the persistent follower of Jesus Christ.

And not only is there courage needed for the application of the principles of conduct which God has given us, but you will never have them handy for swift application unless, in many a quiet hour of silent, solitary, patient meditation you have become familiar with them. The recruit that has to learn on the battle-field how to use his rifle has a good chance of being dead before he has mastered the mysteries of firing. And Christian people that have their Christian principles to dig out of the Bible when the necessity comes, will likely find that the necessity is past before they have completed the excavation. The actual battle-field is no place to learn drill. If a soldier does not know how his sword hangs, and cannot get at it in a moment, he will probably draw it too late.

I am afraid that the practice of such meditation as is meant here has come to be, like the art of making ecclesiastical stained glass, almost extinct in modern times. You have all so many newspapers and magazines to read that the Bible has a chance of being shoved out of sight, except on Sundays and in chapels. The ‘meditating’ that is enjoined in my text is no mere intellectual study of Scripture, either from an antiquarian or a literary or a theological point of view, but it is the mastering of the principles of conduct as laid down there, and the appropriating of all the power for guidance and for sustaining which that word of the Lord gives. Meditation, the familiarising ourselves with the ethics of Scripture, and with the hopes and powers that are treasured in Jesus Christ, so that our minds are made up upon a great many thorny questions as to what we ought to do, and that when crises or dangers come, as they have a knack of coming, very suddenly, and are sprung upon us unexpectedly, we shall be able, without much difficulty, or much time spent in perplexed searching, to fall back upon the principles that decide our conduct-that is essential to all successful and victorious Christian life.

And it is the secret of all blessed Christian life. For there is a lovely echo of these vigorous words of command to Joshua in a very much more peaceful form in the 1st Psalm: ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, . . . but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law doth he meditate day and night’-the very words that are employed in the text to describe the duty of the soldier-therefore ‘all that he doeth shall prosper.’

Podcast: The State of African Christianity Today

Is there revival going on in Africa right now? Or is there a greater need for reform? Find out in this podcast as I'm joined by brother Kofi from the Fiery Logic blog. We discuss the history of Christianity in Africa, how the Word of Faith and Hyper-Charismatic movements became so big, what things are like now, and even how the situation can change.



Some additional links:

The video of "Bishop" Oyedepo slapping a poor young lady in front of the congregation.

An article by Conrad Mbewe that explains much of the cultural context of what was discussed in the podcast.

Another article by brother Mbewe, this one also discussing the religious state of many African churches.

A brief documentary from Kenya showcasing the corruption and false theology in many of these churches.

The Foolishness of Religion

The following is from John Bunyan's famous Pilgrim's Progress.

Christian: Met you with nothing else in that valley?

Faithful: Yes, I met with Shame; but of all the men that I met with on my pilgrimage, he, I think, bears the wrong name. The other would be said nay, after a little argumentation, and somewhat else; but this bold-faced Shame would never have done.

Christian: Why, what did he say to you?

Faithful: What? why, he objected against religion itself. He said it was a pitiful, low, sneaking business for a man to mind religion. He said, that a tender conscience was an unmanly thing; and that for a man to watch over his words and ways, so as to tie up himself from that hectoring liberty that the brave spirits of the times accustomed themselves unto, would make him the ridicule of the times. He objected also, that but few of the mighty, rich, or wise, were ever of my opinion; nor any of them neither, before they were persuaded to be fools, and to be of a voluntary fondness to venture the loss of all for nobody knows what. 1 Cor. 1:26; 3:18; Phil. 3:7-9; John 7:48. He, moreover, objected the base and low estate and condition of those that were chiefly the pilgrims of the times in which they lived; also their ignorance and want of understanding in all natural science. Yea, he did hold me to it at that rate also, about a great many more things than here I relate; as, that it was a shame to sit whining and mourning under a sermon, and a shame to come sighing and groaning home; that it was a shame to ask my neighbor forgiveness for petty faults, or to make restitution where I have taken from any. He said also, that religion made a man grow strange to the great, because of a few vices, which he called by finer names, and made him own and respect the base, because of the same religious fraternity: And is not this, said he, a shame?

Christian: And what did you say to him?

Faithful: Say? I could not tell what to say at first. Yea, he put me so to it, that my blood came up in my face; even this Shame fetched it up, and had almost beat me quite off. But at last I began to consider, that that which is highly esteemed among men, is had in abomination with God. Luke 16:15. And I thought again, this Shame tells me what men are; but he tells me nothing what God, or the word of God is. And I thought, moreover, that at the day of doom we shall not be doomed to death or life according to the hectoring spirits of the world, but according to the wisdom and law of the Highest. Therefore, thought I, what God says is best, is indeed best, though all the men in the world are against it. Seeing, then, that God prefers his religion; seeing God prefers a tender Conscience; seeing they that make themselves fools for the kingdom of heaven are wisest, and that the poor man that loveth Christ is richer than the greatest man in the world that hates him; Shame, depart, thou art an enemy to my salvation. Shall I entertain thee against my sovereign Lord? How then shall I look him in the face at his coming? Mark 8:38. Should I now be ashamed of his ways and servants, how can I expect the blessing? But indeed this Shame was a bold villain; I could scarcely shake him out of my company; yea, he would be haunting of me, and continually whispering me in the ear, with some one or other of the infirmities that attend religion. But at last I told him, that it was but in vain to attempt farther in this business; for those things that he disdained, in those did I see most glory: and so at last I got past this importunate one. And when I had shaken him off, then I began to sing,

“The trials that those men do meet withal,
 That are obedient to the heavenly call,
 Are manifold, and suited to the flesh,
 And come, and come, and come again afresh;
 That now, or some time else, we by them may
 Be taken, overcome, and cast away.
 O let the pilgrims, let the pilgrims then,
 Be vigilant, and quit themselves like men.”

Christian: I am glad, my brother, that thou didst withstand this villain so bravely; for of all, as thou sayest, I think he has the wrong name; for he is so bold as to follow us in the streets, and to attempt to put us to shame before all men; that is, to make us ashamed of that which is good. But if he was not himself audacious, he would never attempt to do as he does. But let us still resist him; for, notwithstanding all his bravadoes, he promoteth the fool, and none else. “The wise shall inherit glory,” said Solomon; “but shame shall be the promotion of fools.” Prov. 3:35.

Faithful: I think we must cry to Him for help against Shame, that would have us to be valiant for truth upon the earth. [source]

Letter to a Young Christian

The following is from a letter sent by Jonathan Edwards to a young woman newly converted, and who was curious about maintaining a religious life.

As you desired me to send you, in writing, some directions how to conduct yourself in your christian course, I would now answer your request. The sweet remembrance of the great things I have lately seen at S——, inclines me to do any thing in my power, to contribute to the spiritual joy and prosperity of God’s people there. 

1. I would advise you to keep up as great a strife and earnestness in religion, as if you knew yourself to be in a state of nature, and were seeking conversion. We advise persons under conviction, to be earnest and violent for the kingdom of heaven; but when they have attained to conversion, they ought not to be the less watchful, laborious, and earnest, in the whole work of religion, but the more so; for they are under infinitely greater obligations. For want of this, many persons, in a few months after their conversion, have begun to lose their sweet and lively sense of spiritual things, and to grow cold and dark, and have ‘pierced themselves through with many sorrows;’ whereas, if they had done as the apostle did, (Phil. iii. 12-14.) their path would have been ‘as the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day.’ 

2. Do not leave off seeking, striving, and praying for the very same things that we exhort unconverted persons to strive for, and a degree of which you have had already in conversion. Pray that your eyes may be opened, that you may receive sight, that you may know yourself, and be brought to God’s footstool; and that you may see the glory of God and Christ, and may be raised from the dead, and have the love of Christ shed abroad in your heart. Those who have most of these things, have need still to pray for them; for there is so much blindness and hardness, pride and death remaining, that they still need to have that work of God wrought upon them, further to enlighten and enliven them, that shall be bringing them out of darkness into God’s marvellous light, and be a kind of new conversion and resurrection from the dead. There are very few requests that are proper for an impenitent man, that are not also, in some sense, proper for the godly. 

3. When you hear a sermon, hear for yourself. Though what is spoken may be more especially directed to the unconverted, or to those that, in other respects, are in different circumstances from yourself; yet, let the chief intent of your mind be to consider, ‘In what respect is this applicable to me? and what improvement ought I to make of this, for my own soul’s good?’ 

4. Though God has forgiven and forgotten your past sins, yet do not forget them yourself: often remember, what a wretched bond-slave you were in the land of Egypt. Often bring to mind your particular acts of sin before conversion; as the blessed apostle Paul is often mentioning his old blaspheming, persecuting spirit, and his injuriousness to the renewed; humbling his heart, and acknowledging that he was ‘the least of the apostles,’ and not worthy ‘to be called an apostle,’ and the ‘least of all saints,’ and the ‘chief of sinners;’ and be often confessing your old sins to God, and let that text be often in your mind, (Ezek. xvi. 63.) ‘that thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou has done, saith the Lord God.’

5. Remember, that you have more cause, on some accounts, a thousand times, to lament and humble yourself for sins that have been committed since conversion, than before, because of the infinitely greater obligations that are upon you to live to God, and to look upon the faithfulness of Christ, in unchangeably continuing his loving-kindness, notwithstanding all your great unworthiness since your conversion. 

6. Be always greatly abased for your remaining sin, and never think that you lie low enough for it; but yet be not discouraged or disheartened by it; for, though we are exceeding sinful, yet we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; the preciousness of whose blood, the merit of whose righteousness, and the greatness of whose love and faithfulness, infinitely overtop the highest mountains of our sins. 

7. When you engage in the duty of prayer, or come to the Lord’s supper, or attend any other duty of divine worship, come to Christ as Mary Magdalen did; (Luke vii. 37, 38.) come, and cast yourself at his feet, and kiss them, and pour forth upon him the sweet perfumed ointment of divine love, out of a pure and broken heart, as she poured the precious ointment out of her pure broken alabaster box. 

8. Remember, that pride is the worst viper that is in the heart, the greatest disturber of the soul’s peace, and of sweet communion with Christ: it was the first sin committed, and lies lowest in the foundation of Satan’s whole building, and is with the greatest difficulty rooted out, and is the most hidden, secret, and deceitful of all lusts, and often creeps insensibly into the midst of religion, even, sometimes, under the disguise of humility itself. 

9. That you may pass a correct judgment concerning yourself, always look upon those as the best discoveries, and the best comforts, that have most of these two effects: those that make you least and lowest, and most like a child; and those that most engage and fix your heart, in a full and firm disposition to deny yourself for God, and to spend and be spent for him. 

10. If at any time you fall into doubts about the state of your soul, in dark and dull frames of mind, it is proper to review your past experience; but do not consume too much time and strength in this way: rather apply yourself, with all your might, to an earnest pursuit after renewed experience, new light, and new lively acts of faith and love. One new discovery of the glory of Christ’s face, will do more toward scattering clouds of darkness in one minute, than examining old experience, by the best marks that can be given, through a whole year. 

11. When the exercise of grace is low, and corruption prevails, and by that means fear prevails; do not desire to have fear cast out any other way, than by the reviving and prevailing of love in the heart: by this, fear will be effectually expelled, as darkness in a room vanishes away, when the pleasant beams of the sun are let into it. 

12. When you counsel and warn others, do it earnestly, and affectionately, and thoroughly; and when you are speaking to your equals, let your warnings be intermixed with expressions of your sense of your own unworthiness, and of the sovereign grace that makes you differ. 

13. If you would set up religious meetings of young women by yourselves, to be attended once in a while, besides the other meetings that you attend, I should think it would be very proper and profitable. 

14. Under special difficulties, or when in great need of, or great longings after, any particular mercy, for yourself or others, set apart a day for secret prayer and fasting by yourself alone; and let the day be spent, not only in petitions for the mercies you desire, but in searching your heart, and in looking over your past life, and confessing your sins before God, not as is wont to be done in public prayer, but by a very particular rehearsal before God of the sins of your past life, from your childhood hitherto, before and after conversion, with the circumstances and aggravations attending them, and spreading all the abominations of your heart very particularly, and fully as possible, before him. 

15. Do not let the adversaries of the cross have occasion to reproach religion on your account. How holily should the children of God, the redeemed and the beloved of the Son of God, behave themselves. Therefore, ‘walk as children of the light, and of the day,’ and ‘adorn the doctrine of God your Saviour;’ and especially, abound in what are called the christian virtues, and make you like the Lamb of God: be meek and lowly of heart, and full of pure, heavenly, and humble love to all; abound in deeds of love to others, and self-denial for others; and let there be in you a disposition to account others better than yourself. 

16. In all your course, walk with God, and follow Christ, as a little, poor, helpless child, taking hold of Christ’s hand, keeping your eye on the marks of the wounds in his hands and side, whence came the blood that cleanses you from sin, and hiding your nakedness under the skirt of the white shining robes of his righteousness. 

17. Pray much for the ministers and the church of God; especially, that he would carry on his glorious work which he has now begun, till the world shall be full of his glory.” [source]

Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?

Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?

We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.

Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.

What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.

Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:

Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.

Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.

Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.

More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.

It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.

"Gay Christianity" Refuted

Below is a link to James White's presentation from last March on the presentation by Matthew Vines that supports homosexuality from the context of scripture and the Christian worldview.

The link to the entire presentation can be found here.

The Story of a Non-Christian

Gather 'round, chil'ren, it's story time again...only now with a twist.

Once upon a time there was a man who hated Christians. I don't mean to say he merely disagreed with them, or wasn't a Christian himself...but he truly hated them and what they stood for. He thought they were stupid, had silly beliefs, and he truly thought that people were better leaving Christianity. He considered philosophy and mankind's understanding of the world to be the highest thing to obtain, not spirituality of any sort.

He hated Christianity so much, in fact, that he started to write books attacking the concept of God. He mocked the idea of God giving revelation, let alone infallible revelation. He claimed the only people who believed in God were the poor, uneducated and heavily deceived members of society. He claimed that Jesus' miracles had never happened, even suggesting he was perhaps at best a magician. He would mock the scriptures. He would use his literary skills to belittle and poke fun at the expense not only of Christians, but of Jesus and God Himself.

Who was this person? You're probably thinking of some of the "new atheists" today, but in actuality this man was a middle second century philosopher named Celsus, one of the first public critics of Christianity, certainly one of the first to attack them directly. He certainly wasn't one of the only ones of Ante-Nicene period: the philosopher Lucian (late second century) doubted all religions and believed we could only understand things through philosophical understandings, and considered the love of Christians to be silly enthusiasm; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (late third century) attempted to prove contradictions between the Old and New Testament, claimed the early church leadership was divided between Paul and Peter, and said Jesus was merely a great teacher whom men had turned into God; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Hierocles (late third century) claimed Christ's miracles and divine traits had been invented by the apostles, and tried to draw parallels between Christ and local Greek religions.

Hm...does any of this sound vaguely familiar?

There is truly nothing new under the sun. The thing is, however, Christians never responded to this criticism by proverbially closing their eyes and ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!" Christian apologetics is almost as old as Christianity itself. In response to heathen or atheistic/agnostic criticism of Christianity, many men such as Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Tatian, Origen, and Tertullian arose to specifically address such criticism, even responding to critics by name and addressing their specific points. Some later men, such as John Chrysostom, would make reference to the ancient critics and briefly touch upon, and then respond to, their beliefs. The point is that since the days of the post-apostolic church, Christians have responded to the criticism of unbelievers.

What often amazes me is that, while most knowledgeable Christians are aware of the arguments made by those who attack the faith, many of the most verbal non-Christians (in particular atheists) seem to be completely unaware of the Christian response - nay, they seem completely disinterested in any possible response. Many ask questions or bring up contentions which a simple Google search or the reading of a single Christian apologetics book would resolve. Some have made arguments (such as conspiracy theories) that, if presented for other topics, would be considered utterly and reprehensibly foolish. Truly, if some internet atheists treated mathematics, engineering, nuclear physics or any other subject with the same silliness and disrespect which they applied to the topic of religion, no one in those fields would take them seriously. If some non-Christians started treating their own faith with the same silliness and disrespect they showed Christianity, they'd become at best agnostics.

It's not that I believe non-Christians are inherently stupid insofar as they have low intelligence. Many are very bright or capable in many areas. With a few extremes, most are also fully functioning members of society. However, there is a fine line between simple ignorance and willful ignorance, and many display a case of the latter. They display no desire for serious dialogue, nor an interest in understanding the other side. They would rather laugh at an internet meme that agrees with their worldview than read an opponent's book which explains his worldview. Ad hominems and straw men are of more interest to them than sound counter responses. They'll talk of knowing the truth, but just start asking them to demonstrate that truth and it won't take long before they throw up the blinders and begin the personal attacks. There is no interest in an opposing viewpoint that is worth responding to.

Perhaps the highlight of all this came in an incident many years ago, with an online chat I had with an atheist gentleman. He was telling me, "You know, I consider you a pretty smart guy, so I don't get why you believe in God." He added, "I've done my research, and put the dots together." I then asked him if he had read the Bible. Nope. I asked him if he had read any Church Fathers or Christian theologians. Nope. His extensive research had amounted to reading popular atheist authors and feeling satisfied, having had his emotions fulfilled. What's more, it seemed to flabbergast him that doing any research on the counterarguments was be worthwhile. Apparently, "doing a lot of research" didn't include reading the opposing viewpoints and responding to them, let alone simply reading both sides of the issue. In fact, this seems to be what "doing a lot of research" is for a lot of people.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, and it's at times heartbreaking. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they throw things at you like "Jesus' Greek name really means Hail Zeus" or some other silliness that is easily disprovable and they most likely got from a goofy website rather than a scholarly source. It's difficult to try to respect someone's opinion when they clearly have no respect (even if unintentionally) for you. It's hard to take someone as fair when they claim to have great arguments, when a little research into past discussions on the topic would reveal that their contentions had been responded to more than fifteen hundred years ago.

This is why we must remember that, without the regeneration of God, a person's mind will remain shut. The power of God is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18), and will continue appearing to be foolish so long as the veil remains (2 Cor 4:3). Let us not, however, use this as a sign of superiority against non-believers. Rather, let us strive to pray for those people, for they were once as we. Let us pray that they might turn to Christ, and upon turning to Christ, have the veil removed (2 Cor 3:14-16). God bless.

Michael Horton: "Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces"

A great article from Michael Horton in regards to homosexuality, what scripture teaches, and the matter of application. As always, Michael Horton presents a good, balanced view of the pros and cons regarding an issue.

Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces | Christianity Today

Your Media Rep

All credits to the original artist.

Religion, Christianity and Evil

"I don't like religion because people have done evil in the name of religion."

The previous statement is often said by those who are responding to something in the news (an honor killing, a terrorist attack, etc.). Is there any real grounds for a person to make this statement?

First and foremost to this discussion, let us ask this question: do we dismiss or show distaste for every single form of ideology or a basic idea simply because some men have chosen to use it for evil? I would move those who do it for religion do not remain consistent in this position. There are men who have done evil in the name of democracy, or for the sake of the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom," and yet we don't find many who bash religion likewise bashing these principles. We don't hear people say "I don't like democracy because people have done evil in the name of democracy." We even more rarely hear someone say "I don't follow any kind of politics because people have done evil in the name of politics."

Let us take a situation wherein someone has committed evil in the name of an ideology or idea. In such a situation, a person examining the situation would normally look to two things: 1) the intent of the founders or originators of the ideology or idea; 2) the basic doctrines or tenets of the ideology or idea. For example, a person who wished to argue that Nationalist Socialism was evil, but recognized that simply saying "Nationalist Socialists have done bad things" is at best a surface level argument, would move on to point out that the originators of Nationalist Socialism were wicked men, and that their intents and purposes were wicked. They would likewise point out that the doctrines and tenets of Nationalist Socialism were likewise wicked.

Most importantly, we must ask: does the evil committed by the perpetrators in question act in alignment with the doctrines or beliefs of the original founders, or the ideology or idea as a whole? To return to our example of Nationalist Socialism, we see that all which the Nationalist Socialist party did in 1930's and 40's Germany was in line with their doctrines and core beliefs. If there were a conflict between the two, one could rightfully argue that those who did evil in World War II were acting in isolation; however, if there was no conflict between the two, and in fact they complimented one another, then we could rightfully argue that those who did evil were - as many did indeed say at the Nuremberg trials - "merely following orders." If the murder of German Jews and other "undesirables" had merely been the zealous pursuit of a select few, then we would be right in arguing that the Nationalist Socialists are misunderstood, being represented wrongfully with the actions of a minority, all of whom were acting contrary to the party's basic teachings. However, history shows instead that the Nationalist Socialist party itself was behind the genocidal destruction that raged Europe in the 1940's, and that it was perfectly in line with what they had been building during the 1930's.

Obviously, at this point, we see that the person who made the opening statement has given us far too broad a statement. We do not shrug off an entire ideology or idea simply because of a few bad apples, but rather we examine those ideologies and ideas to see if they are truly the source or not. We also recognize that, instead of presenting a broad examination of an entire concept such as politics, religion, or otherwise, we examine our problems on a case-by-case basis. In the case of religion, it would have to be by examining each individual religion. It would be inaccurate and unfair to try to lump Buddhists together with Jehovah's Witnesses under the broad use of "religion," just as it would be unfair to lump Democrats with Nationalist Socialists under the broad use of "politics." A broad spectrum exists under what calls itself "religion" just as a broad spectrum exists under what calls itself "politics." A person disgruntled with Islam cannot direct their same hatred of Islam on Hinduism any more than someone disgruntled with the system of Communism can direct their same hatred of Communism towards democracy.

Let us turn to a specific example in regards to this, and for the sake of discussion the religion will be Christianity. I'm choosing Christianity for a few good reasons: 1) I am a Christian; 2) this is a Christian blog, so it makes sense; 3) in talking about my own religion and not someone else's, I can avoid the charge that I am avoiding faults from my own side by pointing my fingers to others.

It is popular for many non-Christians, especially atheists and some agnostics, to label Christianity as evil because of events such as the Crusades, or the murder of non-Christians by radical Christian groups, or by attacks from supposed Christians, such as those that have happened at abortion clinics. As the people who perpetuated these attacks called themselves Christians, and claimed they were acting in the name of Christianity, clearly Christianity must be at fault. Is this the case?

Let's again recognize some terms. When we say that Christianity is at fault, we recognize we do not mean every single Christian. Not every Christian went on a crusade during the middle ages and killed non-Christians - for every crusader there were perhaps hundreds of thousands who stayed home. Not every single Christian has sought to blow up abortion clinics - in fact the percentage of so-called Christians who did so is staggeringly small. Not every single Christian does any form of violence in the name of Christianity - therefore we cannot mean every single Christian when we speak of Christianity. If by Christianity we mean only the bad Christians, then we would be acting unfairly by speaking in broad terms for what should be specific, and our entire position would be nonsensical. Therefore, when we speak of Christianity, we have to mean Christianity as an idea or system of beliefs. If this is the case, then our previous train of thought would beg us to look to the true doctrine and intents of Christianity's originators.

Christianity, however, is far more than just a system of beliefs, and is much more than morals and ethos - rather, it is rooted entirely in the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word and God the Son. Do we find the aforementioned evils in line with the person of Christ? On the contrary, we find them opposed to him. Christ commanded his followers, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44). He told the apostles not to subjugate, but to "make disciples" of all nations, and not to do with with fire and sword but with "baptizing" and "teaching" (Matt 28:19-20). Some might jump to where Christ says "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34), but an examination of the fullest context (Matt 10:34-39) shows that Christ is talking about steadfastness against familial pressures to apostatize, not about literal war and violence. Some might still turn to passages where Christ speaks of kings who seek vengeance against ungrateful subjects (cf. Luke 19:27), however these are in reference either to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was brought about by the will of God, or in reference to the final judgment.

The earliest Christian leaders, who were working with the authority given them by Christ and speaking through their inspired texts, likewise show the same non-violent nature as was seen in Christ. The apostles did not win 3,000 converts at Pentecost by force of the sword, but by the grace of God and the power of the Gospel. The apostle Paul himself confirmed that the power of God was not by his ability to compel someone by force or to strike with terrorist tactics, but rather with the Gospel of God (Rom 1:16). He likewise wrote regarding revenge: "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all" (Rom 12:17), and "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone" (1 The 5:15). With this the apostle Peter agreed, writing: "Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing" (1 Pet 3:9).

Let me now dare to go even a step further, and to cite the earliest Christians beyond the apostles, who while not writing inspired text, were nonetheless historical examples of how Christianity closest to Christ interpreted violence and wickedness, especially in the name of their faith. Two choice quotes:

...it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion... [Tertullian, To Scapula, Ch. 2]

Religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows... [Lactatius, Inst. Div. V, 20]

I could go on from here well into the fourth century, with quotes from Church Fathers such as Athanasius and his peers. The earliest persecutions against non-Christians from so-called Christians were not by the church or by true believers, but by Roman emperors seeking to enforce their power, and even then their actions were met with opposition by men such as Athanasius and others.

From this evidence, we can say that those who commit evil in the name of Christ are, in fact, acting contrary to Christ and all which he taught, and against the example set by the earliest Christians. Some here, of course, may predictably turn to the Old Testament and attempt to find examples, such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the destruction of the Amorites. The vast majority of the time, however, these situations are misrepresented or misunderstood. For example, those who accuse God of cruelty in His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah forget that, in the dialogue between the Lord and Abraham regarding the cities, God makes it clear that if there are ten righteous people in the city he will spare everyone (Gen 18:22-32). Also, those who turn to the destruction of the Amorites forget that this destruction was God's judgment upon them for their sins, and that God had earlier spared the Amorites because their "iniquity" was not yet "complete" (Gen 15:16). These calls for judgment were also temporal and specific to certain situations - they were not perpetual. The situation within the Old Testament regarding Israel and her actions is also irrelevant to the New Testament period, for we are now under the new covenant, and God has no longer a national Israel to call His people, but the church, the new Israel, made up of Jews and Gentiles, which He calls His people (cf. Rom 9:24-26). All in the Old Testament, in the formation of Israel and the construction of the Holy of Holies and the animal sacrifices, was "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1).

From this we can gather that those who have done evil in the name of Christianity have not been acting in the name of Christianity at all. A study of the motives of those who launched the Crusades shows that their motivations were far more political than religious, and a study of those who commit terrorist-like attacks against abortion clinics are acting unilaterally with their own motives rather than those of scripture. The root cause of their evil, therefore, cannot be attributed to Christianity, and their title of "Christian" or their labeling their efforts as a "Christian cause" is in name only.

In conclusion, we've seen that the statement made at the opening of this post is simply broad brushing in an irrational fashion, and we have seen but one example of how one can examine the earliest motives and doctrines of an individual ideology or idea to see if those who perform evil in the name of an ideology or idea render that ideology or idea guilty.

"All enemies, foreign and domestic..."

This post is a little bit of a continuation of a previous post I made, but is the result of some more meditations I've had on the subject as of late.

When an American soldier is sworn in, he states what is called the "oath of enlistment," which begins like this:

"I, [insert name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." [source]

The oath for officers is stated slightly differently than those for enlisted personnel, but both phrases are there: to "support and defend the Constitution," and to do so against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Foreign, of course, refers to those external threats who would seek to invade our country's territory (such as Japan during World War II), or those who would seek to do her harm (such as Al Qaeda). Domestic, however, refers to internal enemies - those who would seek to topple the Constitutional government (such as various militias or hostile political groups) or those who would seek to harm the nation from within (like the Oklahoma City bomber).

Imagine, however, if these words concerning domestic threats meant nothing. Imagine if the military, upon hearing about a home-grown terrorist cell out in the Midwest intending to do harm to government bodies, responded with, "Well, they still love our country right?" What if they heard about a political movement that was seeking to topple the democratic government and replace it with non-Constitutional one, and responded to it with, "They're still Americans, right? Can't we all just get along within our country?" What if they refused to respond to threats and instead lambasted the ones warning of the threats, saying, "Why are you trying to divide our country? They love America don't they! That should be enough!"

It's easy for the Christian church to point out our foreign enemies. It's easy to point to atheists, humanist secularists, and non-Christians and say "Yeah, that's the bad guy!" It's easy to point to atheistic, humanist secularist, or non-Christian worldviews and say "Yeah, that's the enemy, right there!" There's no question that attacks against Christian persons in Nigeria by Muslims or attacks against the Christian worldview by the secular media are foreign enemies.

Yet when it comes to our domestic enemies, it seems like what some churches call the "clergy of the laity" becomes the "clergy of the apathy." We either choose not to do anything, leaving it to our leaders to handle (while not even informing them of the error), or we choose to simply say "no harm no foul." We forgo doctrinal heresies and false teachings for superficial reasons such as "we all love Jesus" or "they aren't hurting anybody." We willingly submit the word of God to the whims of the devil and don't seem to care. We wouldn't let our daughters marry a wicked man we knew was going to hurt her and misuse her - why do we permit the word of God to be misused by wicked men?

As I've pointed out before on this blog, this isn't entirely new to history. The fear of calling out the church's domestic enemies has led to many great men of God finding themselves persecuted by supposed Christians rather than foreign enemies. It was this fear that caused Athanasius to be kicked out of his bishop position five times by the Arian-friendly church. It was this fear that caused the Monothelite-friendly church to maim (and eventually kill) Maximus the Confessor. It was this fear that caused the Roman church to excommunicate and persecute the Reformers. It was this fear that caused the Anglican church to turn on the Puritans and then the Methodists. The fact is, those who support modern day false teachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Mike Bickle, Todd Bentley, William P. Young, Joel Osteen, and a host of others are simply joining the ranks of a long tradition of people in the church who forsook sound doctrine for the pleasing of their itching ears (cf. 2 Tim 4:3).

The fact is, the church does have domestic enemies, and they are still prevalent. Even during the apostolic era, Paul warned the church against contemporary domestic enemies (Gal 1:6-9) as well as future ones (Acts 20:29-30). Christ warned that on the day of judgment, He would divide the church up between the sheep and the goats - that is, true Christians and false Christians (see my post here). This latter point implies that there exist within the church today goats masquerading as sheep, which means that, even on the day of judgment, there will be false Christians. The writer of Hebrews refers to them as crops which have borne "thorns and thistles," and who will in the end be burned (cf. Heb 6:8).

Scripture makes it clear that domestic enemies do exist, whether some Christians - supposed or true - would like to admit it. The question now is, whom do we desire to protect more: God's word, or our superficial idea of peace and unity?

Athanasius versus the Arians

This is an excerpt from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol. III, and deals with the differences between Athanasius and those who supported him with the Arians.

Arianism was a religious political war against the spirit of the Christian revelation by the spirit of the world, which, after having persecuted the church three hundred years from without, sought under the Christian name to reduce her by degrading Christ to the category of the temporal and the created, and Christianity to the level of natural religion. It substituted for a truly divine Redeemer, a created demigod, an elevated Hercules. Arianism proceeded from human reason, Athanasianism from divine revelation; and each used the other source of knowledge as a subordinate and tributary factor. The former was deistic and rationalistic, the latter theistic and supernaturalistic, in spirit and effect. The one made reasonableness, the other agreement with Scripture, the criterion of truth...

In close connection with this stood another distinction. Arianism associated itself with the secular political power and the court party; it represented the imperio-papal principle, and the time of its prevalence under Constantius was an uninterrupted season of the most arbitrary and violent encroachments of the state upon the rights of the church. Athanasius, on the contrary, who was so often deposed by the emperor, and who uttered himself so boldly respecting Constantius, is the personal representative not only of orthodoxy, but also of the independence of the church with reference to the secular power...

While Arianism bent to the changing politics of the court party, and fell into diverse schools and sects the moment it lost the imperial support, the Nicene faith, like its great champion Athanasius, remained under all outward changes of fortune true to itself, and made its mighty advance only by legitimate growth outward from within. Athanasius makes no distinction at all between the various shades of Arians and Semi-Arians, but throws them all into the same category of enemies of the catholic faith. [source]

Christians and Conspiracy Theories

A conspiracy theory is defined:

...any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. [source; by the way, this is the only time I will quote Wikipedia]

Conspiracy theories include a wide range of beliefs, some examples being:

• Jews were behind World War II
• The government covered up alien landings in Roswell, NM
• The moon landing was faked
• The American government was behind the September 11 attacks

Many self-professing Christians have embraced conspiracy theories, upholding them as representations of the truth regarding the events to which they pertain. Therefore, I would like to move that conspiracy theories are in fact working against the Christian faith, and will attempt, God willing, to demonstrate this. Please note that, in discussing this, I am not proclaiming any Christian who believes in a conspiracy theory unsaved, but am only trying to give a brotherly rebuke and call for discernment towards those who may have never had their beliefs or passions therein questioned.

First, they lead a person into a cult-like atmosphere

It should be noted beforehand that the vast majority of people enjoy at least entertaining various conspiracy theories. There is nothing wrong with humorously pondering on various conspiracies. There is likewise nothing wrong with looking into the conspiracies, or asking questions about certain ideas that might be construed as conspiracy theories.

However, those who uphold conspiracy theories as an absolute truth often act as if they are part of a special sect. Everyone outside their group are "misled" or guilty of deep "ignorance," whereas they are the bearers of some great knowledge. This extreme thinking is often found in fringe groups or cults, where an "us" and "them" mentality grows, where those outside the group are "unsaved" because they do not yet possess this great knowledge. It also becomes dangerously close to a kind of Gnosticism, in the sense that some secret knowledge or truth is hidden, but can free a person upon acceptance of it and join the group.

Loyalty to a conspiracy, in fact, may usurp a Christian's priorities in other areas. For example, a Christian may become more passionate about a conspiracy than about the word of God, prayer, or worship life. They may even look down on or insult other Christians who do not share their viewpoint, especially if their brother or sister in Christ attempts to rebuke them or show them the error of their thinking. I have seen (and experienced) self-professing Christians who believe in conspiracy theories insult, belittle, or condemn their Christian brothers and sisters solely because they either do not believe in the conspiracy.

Such adoration of a conspiracy therefore leads to an idolatry, where the conspiracy itself is an idol distracting a person from the worship and commands of God.

Second, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are based in some part on falsehoods or distortions of the truth

One nature of conspiracy theories is that, in order to survive contradictory evidence, circular and dishonest reasoning has to be employed. An assumption might be made that a political, religious or commercial entity planted the contradictory evidence to lure people away. Sometimes the evidence may simply be dismissed outright, either without reason or for a very shallow reason. For example, a 9/11 "truther" encountered a New York City policeman who had been present when one of the World Trade Center buildings went down. When the policeman told the "truther" that he had been there, and it wasn't explosives that brought the building down, the "truther" simply replied, "You're wrong!" Another "truther," interviewed on Penn and Teller's television program, responded to the question on where the 3,000 casualties of September 11 are by saying that they're in hiding because they're in cahoots with the government. The response was so disconnected from the harsh reality that Penn said in a voice-over: "I hope this guy runs into one of the victims' families. I'm sure they'd love to hear, 'Daddy's not coming back because he works for the government.'"

It can't help but be noticed that the supposed legitimacy of conspiracies centers around not facts or evidence, but doubt. For example, a Holocaust-denier may point out that, after World War II, the initial total numbers of Jews killed differed from various reports. There is nothing wrong with bringing this up, but the answer is not honestly sought. Instead, it is assumed that these numbers must be changing because the entire thing was made up, and thus this is provided as "evidence" for the Holocaust being false.

All of this is an example of the begging the question fallacy, in which a person's concluding premise is either subtly or obviously inserted into the argument to lead to the desired conclusion. It is immediately assumed that a conspiracy must be present, and therefore all conclusions are drawn from the presupposition that a conspiracy has taken place. Many of us have even heard people try to justify conspiracies with "I'm just saying this sounds kind of strange," or, "I'm just saying it's possible." Again, none of these prove anything. In order for a conspiracy theory to be valid, there has to be some connection between the event that has taken place and the conclusion drawn by the person.

Many proponents of conspiracies often brag that they have a kind of "ultimate truth" when it comes to these events, however when pressed for real evidence their case often comes up lacking. Many conspiracies are centered around not evidence but speculations on motives or special interests that prove nothing concrete. For example, a conspiracy theorist may have much to say about motives for the CIA to have wanted to kill John F. Kennedy, but they will never be able to pinpoint any direct evidence that would give probable cause that they were behind the shooting. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entertaining various possibilities, but in order for the possibility to be considered valid there has to be some evidence in favor of the accusation made. Despite this, conspiracy theorists will defend to the death against all criticism, declaring that they know the truth. This is despite the fact that their supposed "evidence" would not even be enough to grant an arrest warrant, let alone indict the person or group they are accusing of murder. In fact, in most conspiracy theories the crux of the argument seems to rely on one or two pieces of "evidence" supporting the conspiracy idea, even if there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conspiracy theory's refutation.

A Christian engaging in this kind of activity, either knowingly or unknowingly, is therefore engaging in lies and purposeful deception. Like Muslims who are forced to use double standards in regards to their own faith and Christianity, Christians who engage in this activity are forced to hold double standards and inconsistencies. For those who are called to follow Divine Truth, it is a terrible and offensive thing to engage in man-made lies.

Third, for these reasons, conspiracy theories are an insult to the rationale given to us by the Lord

Galileo once famously said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." The apostle Paul instructed Christians to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21). The author of Proverbs likewise wrote: "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding" (Prov 3:13). To think, to reason, to use logic and to use our rationale - all of these were gifts from God. They are not the primary source of all knowledge, nor the sole basis of all knowledge (this was the error of the Enlightenment and later humanists), but they were nevertheless gifts given to us by God for our use. They were first and foremost given by God in order that we may be capable to know of Him, and secondarily to understand all that is around us.

With conspiracy theories, all of that is thrown out. We are instead called to engage in emotions, to engage in pride, and to follow fallacious logic for the sake of an idea separate from God. Indeed, this thinking follows the course of human logic separate from the discernment given by God, leading a person instead to appear insane. It is childish naivety on parade as grownup knowledge. As the apostle Paul wrote, "Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Rom 1:22).

Conspiracy theorists, of course, will demand that they are using rationale, logic and other elements of the mind, and that they are merely asking questions to get to the heart of the truth. However, we have already established that the very nature of the vast majority of conspiracy theories is grounded on fallacy and paper-thin evidence. Even when a conspiracy theorist admits this, they will still turn around and declare their belief to be the absolute truth, and will still attack, insult, belittle, or criticize anyone who disagrees with their point of view. They are forced to change behavior, even against fellow Christians, in order to defend this idol they have begun to worship. They have done so by forsaking the very intelligence and rationale given to them as a gift by God.

Again, I am not writing this to condemn anyone or declare that any Christian who believes in a conspiracy theory is going to hell. I reiterate that this is merely a call for discernment, even for those who may not believe they follow conspiracy theories. God bless.

White Horse Inn: Abrahamic Faiths

The gentlemen at White Horse Inn discuss the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and how they relate to God's plan of salvation according to scripture.

WHI-1036 | Abrahamic Faiths - White Horse Inn Blog

The Faith of the President

Recently I had heard that President Barack Obama made a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast regarding his personal faith. While searching online for the transcript of the speech, I came across an article which said the following:

It’s been more than two years since President Barack Obama took office and yet there are widespread misconceptions about him. Chief among these: Despite his clear identification as a Christian (as evidenced by his membership to Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and his tumultuous relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright), many believe that our president is a Muslim. [source; emphasis in original]

A transcript of the entire speech itself can be found here, from CNN's website.

Now, I am not going to debate whether or not the president is a Muslim, but what I do want to review is whether or not he has truly accepted Christ. The author of the previously quoted article stated that the president must be Christian, as he attended Trinity United Church of Christ and had an ongoing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of course, herein lies a problem: simply attending a building with the word "church" in the title, or simply known someone in the position of "pastor," does not make you a Christian.

Trinity United Church of Christ is itself a member of the wider United Church of Christ. This church ordains openly gay pastors and supports homosexual marriage (they even boast about it on their website), all of which directly contradicts scriptural teachings. Christ Himself identified marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-5) and homosexual activity is condemned in various parts of scripture (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27). The United Church of Christ likewise said in an interfaith document (source) that Christians and Muslims share "worship of the same God," as well as "a common tradition of revelation through God's prophets as told in sacred scripture," both of which are clearly and undeniably false (I touched on the subject in greater detail here). All in all, the United Church of Christ does not seem to adhere to the words of scripture or the commands of God - in fact, it seems to abandon both for the name of being relative and appealing to the world rather than to the Lord. It therefore cannot be considered an orthodox Christian church.

As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his language and demeanor were seen ad nauseum during the 2008 elections, so I don't think I need to talk about that too much. There are passages of scripture which speak of the error in using the Lord's name alongside profane language (James 3:10), as well as passages which identify the deeds of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21) in contrast to the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23), the former list being more in line with what Wright preaches behind the pulpit. Whatever is driving Mr. Wright to preach, it is not the Spirit of God, and therefore one cannot say that someone is a Christian because they are a follower of Wright.

Of course, most of this is in the president's past, and it's possible for man to have changed. In regards to the president's testimony at the National Prayer Breakfast, as I read I noticed that there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary. Indeed, the president declares that shortly after college: "I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior." He also states: "My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years." Near the end he even says:

When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people. And when I go to bed at night I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to forgive me my sins, and look after my family and the American people, and make me an instrument of His will.

The phrase "I ask Him to forgive me my sins" interested me, and one thing I couldn't help but notice overall in the speech is that sin seemed to play a relaxed part. Yes, the president talked of his complete reliance upon God and spoke of how his faith is important, all of which are certainly vital. Yet what merit is there of a savior if we do not emphasize the very thing from which we needed saving? The truth is that the president's definition of "sin" needs to be analyzed, and later on in this post we will find out just what it is.

One comment that perhaps stood out for me the most:

Fortunately, I'm not alone in my prayers. Pastor friends like Joel Hunter and T.D. Jakes come over to the Oval Office every once in a while to pray with me and pray for the nation. [emphasis mine]

T.D. Jakes? Of the Word of Faith, Health and Wealth, Trinity Broadcasting Network T.D. Jakes? The T.D. Jakes who associates with other Word of Faith preachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Paula White and Creflo Dollar? You mean the heretical T.D. Jakes? He's a "pastor friend" of the president that comes over to pray with him "every once in a while"?

At the risk of sounding judgmental, this does not sound like the president learned anything from his fellowship with Jeremiah Wright. The apostle John warned us:

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. [2 John 1:9-11; NASB]

The president not only allows a false teacher into his house, and not only gives him a greeting, but prays with him. He engages in spiritual fellowship with a false teacher, something scripture warns us not to do. We are even told that if we do so, we are considered equals with the person's evil deeds.

Despite this, the speech might overall sound innocent to the average person. Yet I couldn't help but feel there was something under the surface. It is not that I especially dislike Barack Obama personally, but I recognize that politicians, by and large, often give us much rhetoric and little substance. I couldn't help but think: isn't this president calling himself "Christian" the same president who is supporting homosexual activity and abortion? Sometimes, there is something deeper to a person's theology that is more caught than taught.

What I found was that, in an earlier interview, Obama had downplayed his faith...and, in essence taught universalism:

I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. [source]

Many paths to the same place? Is that why Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)? That those who deny Him before men will be denied before the Father (Matt 10:33)? The apostle Peter outlined: "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Many paths to the same place? Scripture clearly teaches us otherwise!

In the same interview, when asked if he believed that those who do not accept Christ will go to hell, Obama replied:

I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.

That's just not part of my religious makeup. [ibid]

"Not part of my religious makeup"...since when do our personal beliefs trump the teachings of scripture? "My God"? One can only ask the blunt question, "Just who is your God, Mr. Obama?" If it is not the God of scripture, then it is not the one true God, and we are clearly instructed that "you shall not follow other gods" (Deut 6:14). This is idolatry - perhaps idolatry without statues and incense, but idolatry nonetheless, for it is such idolatry in which we worship a god of our own mind.

When asked if he believed in heaven, Obama replied:

What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing. [ibid]

One can only imagine how the president intends to live his life as well as he can. For we are told "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10). We are also told "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20) and "no one is justified by the Law before God" (Gal 3:11). This idea of "I do this, then I'll be rewarded" is a very works-based minded opinion of heaven and eternal reward, something very foreign from the gospel of scripture. Where can one fit room for grace and Christ if I just need to "live my life as well as I can"?

This brings us to the most important part. Obama was then asked if he believed in sin, and he said yes. Remember that earlier I had mentioned the complete lack of mention in sin within the president's testimony. What is Obama's definition of sin?

Being out of alignment with my values. [ibid]

My head spun at this comment. Sin is "being out of alignment with my values"? Is it our values that we are told to live up to? Is this what sin is? The people of the old covenant had been told: "You should diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you" (Deut 6:17). The Psalmist wrote to God: "How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word" (Psalm 119:9), and likewise, "Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You" (Psalm 119:11). We are sinning when we act against God's word; we are not sinning when we are in accordance with God's word.

I am, again and again, always reminded of King David who lusted after a married woman and had her husband killed off so that he could marry her. Yet when David repented, what did he say? That he was untrue to his values? No, he said: "Against You, You only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight..." (Psalm 51:4). A sin is a transgression against God and His commands, not our personal values and opinions. Sinning is not being untrue to ourselves, but our Lord God. To hold our personal values higher than God's values (or to make the two equal) is to put ourselves higher or equal with God.

When asked what happens if you sin, Obama replied:

I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment. [ibid]

This sounds remarkably like the Emergent Church crowd, who believe that "hell" and "heaven" refer to how we make the earth in the here and now - in other words, if we help society we make it (figuratively) heaven, if we don't help society we make it (figuratively) hell. Note again the emphasis on ourselves: hell only comes about if we're not true to ourselves - again, is that the emphasis found in scripture?

When asked when it is that he feels "the most aligned spiritually," Obama replied:

I think I already described it. It's when I'm being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I'm recognizing them and exchanging a good word. [ibid; emphasis mine]

The closest he feels most aligned spiritually is when he's being true to himself? And this involves things he personally does? One can't help but notice that in the president's explanation of his spirituality, there is a constant direction towards himself. In a testimony before faith leaders there is a half-hearted attempt to show his reliance on God, but in a previous interview Obama makes it clear that his spirituality is much more vague and is entirely man-centered, with sprinklings of Christian terminology mixed in. In responding to critics of his faith, Obama made the remark, "Folks haven't been reading their bibles" (source). Unfortunately, I think it's clear that the only person who hasn't seriously read their bible is Mr. Obama himself.

I know that some reading this might immediately label me a Tea Partier, a Republican, a right-wing nut, etc. Personally, I do not care. Those who know me personally know that I'm fairly apathetic in regards to political parties and personalities, and that I have just as much to say about those on the right as those on the left. However, in times like these, when public figures begin to put on the hat of religion - especially when they are claiming to be followers of Christ - we have to be discerning. It is too common that, when someone makes a proclamation of faith, that those on both sides of the spectrum declare, "Hurrah, he's one of us!" or "That's so sweet, I appreciate that!" We are commanded to "examine everything carefully" (1 Thess 5:21), and if someone makes a claim to have come to know Christ they should bear some sign that they have done so. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness," the apostle John wrote, "we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6).

It is so common these days to treat our faith the same way we treat our political ideologies, and this is where many stumble. They assume that faith is simply a matter of personal opinion, and that to be saved is to live by their personal values. That, however, is not the case - for everyone, by their own personal opinion, is justified. As the apostle Paul wrote: "if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged" (1 Cor 11:31). Yet Christ is "judge the living and the dead" (2 Tim 4:1), and "God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:16). If we have saving faith in Christ as the judge of our souls and the master of our being, then we "have died" and our life "is hidden with Christ in God," and "when Christ, who is our life, is revealed," then we will also "be revealed with Him in glory" (Col 3:3-4).

We are not justified by ourselves; we are justified as a gift from God through faith in Christ. I pray that all men - from the president to the janitor - have a chance to seriously ponder this, and, by God's will, be saved. The last word shall go to the apostle Paul:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe... [Rom 3:21-22]

A Simple Review of "A Christianity Worth Believing"

I first came across Doug Pagitt some years ago when I heard his interview on Todd Friel's Way of the Master radio show (Parts 1 and 2). I was flabbergasted by the near complete inability of Doug Pagitt to answer even the most basic question in a straightforward manner (most humorous is at the beginning when Pagitt is asked where a good Buddhist goes after death and replies, "He probably goes to the funeral home"). So when I came across his 2008 book A Christianity Worth Believing, I decided to sit down and see what it really was that worked in his personal theology. What I read made me understand his position on the radio interview on WOTM radio a little bit more...but nonetheless it was just as unbiblical and unorthodox as the radio interview had portrayed his theology to be. While I wasn't screaming out loud "WHAT?!" like I did reading The Shack, I was nonetheless just as flabbergasted, if not more, than when I heard Pagitt respond to Todd Friel's questions.

The book is written like many others coming from the Emergent Church movement: it's part memoir, part theological study, as Pagitt himself admits in the preface. Every chapter opens up with a person story from Pagitt, followed by a theological lesson stemming from said story. The topics vary, but for the most part consist of God's role in a person's life and sin. In the end, does Pagitt present to us a Christianity worth believing? Sadly, not at all. Let's review some key topics and issues stemming from the book.

The Authority of Scripture

Let's first examine by Doug Pagitt's opinion of scripture, for surely if we are expected to believe in a "Christianity worth believing," it must come from Christian scripture, correct? Then by what authority does Doug Pagitt give scripture? Actually, very little, despite his assertion that he's teaching otherwise.

I just don’t think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith. Abraham didn’t believe the Bible when God claimed him to be a righteous man because it hadn’t been written yet. Moses didn’t read the lived history of his people as devotional material. David didn’t meditate on the words of Isaiah. The disciples didn’t read the letters of Paul in between conversations with Jesus. The Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, came along in the midst of the story. It is the result of the story of faith, not the cause.

This is usually the point in a conversation where someone starts accusing me of a low view of the Bible, of stripping it of its authority. But I believe this understanding of the Bible restores its authority by allowing it to be alive and free of the constraints we throw on it. [pg. 64-65]

On a surface level, of course, these arguments are simply silly. No, Abraham didn't have scripture, but he also spoke directly to God, and therefore didn't need any. Moses may have not had written scripture at the time, although he did give the Jews the Torah and Law by which they were to abide. David didn't meditate on the words of Isaiah, but he did have the Torah, the Law, possibly Judges, and likewise prophets who spoke directly to God and for God - David also wrote much of what we know today as the Psalms, which were sung and read by people of his day. The disciples may have not had a complete New Testament as they traversed Asia Minor, but they were heavily versed in the Old Testament and quoted it extensively. Pagitt's argument therefore does not hold as much water as he'd like - the Biblical characters he's cited either had good reason not to use scripture or did use scripture in one form or another.

This, however, is veering off the subject he is discussing. When we speak about what "constraints" are thrown upon scripture, what are we ultimately talking about? The supreme authority of the scriptures. The ability to prove something wrong with a man's theology and demonstrate it with scripture. The necessity to exegete and expound upon passages of scripture to form our doctrine. Whenever a teacher or group attacks the necessity to do this, they are usually preparing to insert their own authority in the void.

This is added onto in Pagitt's response to the argument that scripture is "God-breathed."

The inerrancy debate is based on the belief that the Bible is the word of God, that the Bible is true because God made it and gave it to us as a guide to truth. But that’s not what the Bible says. In a letter to the apostle Paul to a young ministry worker named Timothy, Paul wrote, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Many Christians have taken this phrase to mean that the Bible is made up of God’s words. That’s not how Paul or Timothy would have understood it. The word breath would have brought to mind God as creator and life-giver. In that word they would have heard hints of God speaking, breathing the world into existence in the Genesis story. They would imagine God breathing life into Adam. They would picture Jesus breathing the Holy Spirit on the disciples. For them the image of God’s breath symbolized a living and activating force. [pg. 65]

I almost want to laugh that Pagitt would quote a verse of scripture and then teach a contradiction when people can refer back a sentence or two to the verse he's talking about, but I can't laugh because people out there do fall for this. Paul most likely wasn't conjuring up images of creation for obvious contextual reasons: the direct object of what is "God-breathed" is scripture, and from this status of being "God-breathed" it is said that scripture is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." That's most likely what Timothy thought as he read Paul's letter, not the story of Adam and Eve.

Pagitt explains his concept of scripture further with:

Paul explains that the Bible, the God-breathed Scriptures, are meant to be lived. The Bible is a functional book that equips people to join with God in God’s work so they can act righteously. For Paul, the Holy Scriptures were alive; God was creating and re-creating through them. The Bible wasn’t a removed “truth text.” It was a fully integrated piece of the Christian life, one that held authority because it was a living, breathing symbol of God’s continual activity. [pg 66-67]

Some Christians reading this might be confused, as this sounds true. The scriptures "are meant to be lived"? That sounds like what Christians are supposed to believe - we're supposed to be a living faith reflecting the commands of scripture. This, however, is not what Pagitt is teaching us to do. As we move along in the review, we will see exactly what he means by the statement that scriptures "are meant to be lived."

Plato, the Greek Bogeyman

Early on in the book, when we finally get around to some discussion on history and scripture, Doug Pagitt presents a very wild (and sadly unoriginal) view of early church history. Stop me if you've heard this one: everything was fine and dandy until Emperor Constantine came along and ruined everything. Constantine was not a perfect man, but the way men like Dan Brown, Jack Chick and Doug Pagitt treat him, you would think he was Satan incarnate. If he were alive today he could be quite wealthy from libel lawsuits.

Pagitt's attack against Constantine amounts to this: when Christianity was made a legal and then official religion of the empire, it was then mixed with Greek and pagan philosophical thought to make it more appealing to the Gentile members of the empire at the time. Pagitt doesn't bother to explain why this would be necessary, given that most Christians at that time were already Gentiles...but I don't believe he expects us to ask any questions either.

This new theology mixture has many names that Pagitt applies throughout the book: "separatist dualism" (pg. 87); "the Greek version of God" (pg. 113); "a clear Greek-Christian hybrid" (pg. 125); "the Greek gospel" (pg. 186); and even in one instance "out of date theology" (pg. 136). He compares it at times to the dualism of the Gnostics, and at other times refers it to Platonic dualism. In the end all the names and phrases have the same meaning: the Christianity we know today and in most churches worldwide is a mix of pagan philosophical thought that has nothing to do with how early Christian believes. In other words, the vast majority of churches - if not all - are following a heresy.

I should note here that Pagitt doesn't directly claim he has the secret to real Christianity, nor does he claim to be the prophet nor the son of a prophet. Nevertheless, when you plant the seed into your reader's mind that Christianity has for 1700 years been teaching the wrong thing, and now you are presenting the "better" way of seeing the gospel, the reader can only conclude that you are, in essence, attempting to save the faith with your theology. It is like telling someone dying of cancer, "I'm not saying this treatment will save your life, but every other treatment in the world except this one won't work."
I'm used to reading these kinds of historically inaccurate views of the early church before, but perhaps what aggravated me the most by Pagitt's use of it was that he never once justifies his position. He simply introduces early on the concept of, "Yup, the early church was tarnished by Platonic dualism," and then repeats that over and over again throughout the book. He doesn't give any evidence from historical sources nor doe he quote any Church Fathers - he simply creates this imaginary bogeyman for the reader to be afraid of. Any time he talks about historic Christian doctrine he immediately writes something to the effect of: "Look out! That's the evil Platonic dualism talking!" This is followed by his own theology of what he thinks Christianity should be instead. In fact he uses it so often and in such a cavalier fashion that it grew to be annoying and I was tempted to simply stop reading. Unfortunately, his repeated mantra against Todd Friel of "You're a Platonic dualist!" didn't become any more reasonable after reading this book.

The Holistic Gospel

It would be appropriate to move on from the Greek Bogeyman to what I think is a great contradiction in this book: namely, right after condemning the early church for supposedly introducing Platonic dualism, Pagitt begins a lengthy (about two or three chapters) discussion on how holism helps the gospel story. In other words, right after condemning the introduction of Platonic dualism because it was not compliant with the Hebrew scripture, Pagitt then introduces holism into the Hebrew scripture! Indeed, he gives it credit for forming his theology: "Once I started thinking about and experiencing Christianity through the lens of holism connection, I understood it in a completely new way" (pg. 89).

The importance of holism becomes crystal clear in this section of the book:

The theology of holism is a theology of invitation, of welcome, of God saying, “Look what I’m doing. Come and join me.” The assumption is that God is present in all things, that we can find truth and nobility and righteousness and purity and loveliness in all things. In Romans 8:28, the apostle Paul writes about this Shema understanding: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” It’s right there: “in all things.” Not only in the special things. Not only in the holy things. Nothing is outside the read and presence of God. [pg. 90-91]

Two things become obvious here. The first one is that we now know why we had to challenge the authority of the Bible: the Bible is not the authority on our theology, but rather the holistic theology which we are now to accept has authority over the Bible. In removing the "constraints" he spoke of earlier, Pagitt has now introduced the new authority: holistic doctrines. The second obvious revelation is that Pagitt is preaching a kind of "better life now" theology, where we are to serve God better in the here and now.

Later on Pagitt will write:

The story of the gospel is so much better than the legal model suggests. It tells us that we are created as God’s partners, not God’s enemies. Sin does a lot of damage to that partnership - it disables us, it discourages us, it disturbs us - but it never destroys the bond that exists between God and humanity. [pg. 153]

This boils down to what could be called integration theology. In other words, we work in a special relationship with God in society to make it a better place, and this alone makes one close to God. Part of this is the idea that body and soul are not separate but one, and in serving the physical needs you are also serving the spiritual needs - even if you don't mention or do anything remotely spiritual at all.

I’m not trying to make the case that meeting physical needs is as important as meeting spiritual needs. I’m making the case that there is no difference, that there are not separate categories of need, that when we minister to people, we minister to the whole person. This is the implication of holism, not that we pick one side of the old debate between caring for physical needs and caring for the soul but that we understand and live in the reality that the “difference” between them is not what we may have thought it was. [pg. 85]

Our spirituality then comes from our works, and we improve our life with God by living what are perceived are godly lives.

The good news in all this is that sin never gets the last word. We can live our lives in a collective way, so the systems that cause disharmony with God can be changed. We can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being. Our bodies can experience healing. In other words, we can be born-again, new creations. [pg. 167]

The focus, then, is the better life now. This includes things that may not even be considered Christian - and, ironically enough, Pagitt believes there's scripture for this.

Reading the Bible with holism as our framework changes much about what we’ve long assumed the Bible to say. A few years ago a friend pointed me to a well-known section of the Bible, one that is often used to encourage Christians to circle the wagons in an effort to keep out the so-called dark forces of the world, Philippians 4:8-10. It reads, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things.” Though we might not like to admit it, the theology of separation and distinction assumes that the “other” must be also be the “lesser.” It assumes that there are far more bad “whatevers” than good ones and that it is only by limiting our engagement that we can follow God. But my friend sees it differently. He says, “I don’t think that means we’re supposed to limit our engagement through some elitist selection process of only the right things. I think it means we should be open to the ‘whatever.’” That is a wonderful way to find the life of God - to look for the true and lovely and admirable in all places. [pg. 90-91]

I was already familiar with Pagitt's distortion of Philippians from a news interview between him and John MacArthur (link). Just as when I saw that video, when I read Pagitt's quotation of it here I couldn't help but notice he leaves out what Paul writes immediately after: "What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you" (Philippians 4:9). The things that are good are the things of God, not something that sounds good.

The Question of the Afterlife

As the reader can tell, much of the book focuses on what we can do in this life we have. Perhaps one of the most interesting absences present in the book, then, is any discussion of an afterlife. With such an emphasis on the here-and-now, what room is there for heaven and hell? Pagitt even recounts a meeting with a woman who noticed that very thing - and his reaction is rather alarming.

I was talking about this idea with a friend, explaining this notion that God is about inviting us into life, that God is active in the process of eliminating from our lives whatever keeps us from living in rhythm with God. She responded by saying, “If Christianity isn’t primarily about the promise of an afterlife for those who believe the truth, how could we ever convince someone to be Christian? What do we have to offer?” She was completely sincere, but I was taken aback. I don’t mean to disparage her question - questions are what move us deeper into life with God. But for me, the idea of following a God who is in all things, who is inviting us to join in the work that is true and noble and pure, is so beautiful and appealing that I can’t imagine why we would offer anything else. [pg 93]

I had to read this twice to make sure I hadn't misread it. Pagitt had responded to the question of what a gospel with no afterlife has to offer with the notion that a gospel which teaches a good life here in this world is far more "appealing," and he "can't imagine why we would offer anything else."

Why should we offer anything else? Why would we offer anything else! The focal point of the gospel is the promise of eternal life with God. In one of the most famous passages of the New Testament, our Lord said:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16; emphasis mine]

Paul wrote to the Philippian church:

But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith - that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [Philippians 3:7-11; emphasis mine]

This was why the Eternal Word of God descended - so that we may ascend with Him to the Father (cf. Eph 4:9-10). This is why the vast majority of the original apostles were willingly martyred, and why so many in the early church up until the Edict of Milan accepted martyrdom happily. This is why even today, all over the world, there are Christian missionaries willing to die - and are dying - because of their faith in Christ. It is because they believe on the day of judgment they will be before their Lord, and He will welcome them into His arms and into paradise. For Pagitt to so casually write "I can’t imagine why we would offer anything else" is a slap in the face to all of those who have suffered hoping and praying for the age to come.

Of course, what comes along with the notion of an afterlife is the notion of the judgment of God. What is Pagitt's definition of judgment?

Judgment, then, is not complete when God’s anger is satisfied but when our integration with God is re-created. In our culture we tend to think of justice being brought about when a guilty person gets the proper consequence. But justice isn’t about paying someone back or even making people pay for what they did. Justice is best understood as redemption or reconciliation. The Old Testament uses the Hebrew word karem in many of the passages about God’s judgment. It means “healing” or “remaking” or “returning something to its intended purpose.” God’s justice is the restoring of things to the way they ought to be. We are intended to live with God and to live like God. Sin derails that effort. When the disintegration stops and integration arrives, God’s judgment is complete. [pg. 159]

Those who read my review of The Shack may remember that one of my laments about the book was the extremely vague view on judgment and the incompatibility with what scripture says regarding judgment. Judgment in The Shack was said to be "not about destruction, but about setting things right." Here, Pagitt seems to be teaching a similar kind of judgment; judgment is not about heaven or hell, but about healing and making things right. Yet even if a "healing" judgment exists in the Hebrew text, it is not the only type of judgment spoken about. Pagitt's argument regarding the word karem, in this regard, seems to suggest this is the only Hebrew word for judgment that is used - yet then what of words like shepheṭ, which does refer to a judicial act of judgment? Or the Hebrew word dı̂yn, which likewise refers to a legalistic kind of judgment and is used in reference to God.

The weakness of this theology was I believe perfectly illustrated in the interview with Todd Friel, where Pagitt was confronted with verses that dealt with a kind of judgment that was anything but remaking. Scripture is crystal clear that there will be a day of judgment, and men will be held accountable for their lives, and in the end some will be sent into hell and others into the bosom of Abraham. In response to these kind of arguments, Pagitt can only beat his drum of Platonic dualism - but when that is revealed to be the emperor's new clothes, what is your theology left with?

The Meaning of Sin and the Role of Jesus

Writing largely in response to the popular theology of the fall of man, Pagitt explains:

Yet even in the midst of this struggle, Adam and Eve partnered with God. They still cared for the land as they were created to do. They still brought children into the world. They were even part of the plan for all the strife to end and death to lose its power. Their story goes on, with the whole of creation living in fits and starts of participation with God.

This story never suggests that the sin of Adam and Eve sends them into a state of depravity. There is nothing in the story that tells us that God steps over to the other side of some great chasm once Eve bites down on that fruit. Certainly there is sin, but the result of sin is a change in our relationship with God and with others, not a change in the basic makeup of humanity. The creation story tells us that although we are capable of tragic missteps, God’s hope and desire is for us to continue to join in to the good things God is doing in the world. We are still capable of living as the children of God. [pg. 136]

One can't help but wonder if perhaps the problem in Pagitt's theology is that whole sections of his Bible have fallen out. God may have not left mankind, but mankind certainly left God, for they were kicked out of the garden where mankind had full communion with God before, and a flaming sword was kept to guard the doorway and keep man from entering (Gen 3:24). It is likewise remarkable that he outlines the "result of sin is a change in our relationship with God and with others" when we are told by scripture "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) - something rather far more critical than a mere "change in relationship." Those who have not accepted Christ are described as being "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3), and we are told that all mankind is "under sin," so that "none is righteous, no, not one," for "no one seeks after God" (Rom 3:9-11). Like Joel Osteen, Doug Pagitt would have us believe that committing a sin amounts to losing some benefits at work - yet scripture says plainly that is far from the case. Sin is much, much more serious than a simple hiccup in our relationship with God.

Many of Pagitt's attacks on the doctrine of sin aim at the teaching of man's depraved nature. Appealing to emotion, Pagitt asks if anyone walks by a natal ward and thinks they are looking at a group of miserable sinners-to-be, and suggests that instead we should believe men are all inherently good as God made us good. He attacks traditional Christian thought in this regard, and yet it was never denied that man was made good by God, as one early Reformation creed admits:

Q. 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?
A. By no means; but God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. [Heidelberg Catechism]

The question is, of course, when man fell, what did that mean? Did it mean a slight hiccup in man's relationship with God, or something far greater? Man entered a depraved state, yes, but it wasn't impossible to get out of it. God first identified the sin in man's depraved state with the Law, and then freed man from the depraved state and the Law through the redemptive and salvific sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This brings us to the biggest question: if sin is not that big of a deal, and God's relationship with man wasn't damaged all that much, and scripture is not all that important...then what role did Jesus Christ have? Doug Pagitt brings that question forward himself near the end of the book:

Over the past few years, as my faith has been rearranged from my understanding of an integrated God and all the good that follows from that belief, there has been a shadowy side, a question I’ve hardly dared ask: What happens to Jesus?

The Greek version of the Christian story provides an ideal place for Jesus: He is the one who connects us with God. He is the bridge. He is our way out of our depraved state. He is the blood sacrifice paid out for our redemption to appease the blood God. But if there is no cosmic court case, why do we need Jesus? If there is no gap, why do we need Jesus? If sin is really our “dis-integration” with the life of God and not an ontological problem of our humanity, why do we need Jesus? [pg. 174-175]

Reading this, obvious questions come to mind: is Pagitt saying Christ isn't the bridge that connects us with God? He isn't our way out of our depraved state? He isn't the blood sacrifice paid for our redemption? Then why are we told "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5)? Why are we told that Christ reconciled "us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility" (Eph 2:16)? Why are we told that Christ canceled "the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands" by "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:14)? I know, I know, that's the Platonic dualism talking...then again, I'm only quoting the apostle Paul. How then does Doug Pagitt reconcile the clear message of the New Testament with his idea of integration theology?

Jesus was not sent as the selected one to appease the anger of the Greek blood god. Jesus was sent to fulfill the promise of the Hebrew love God by ending human hostility. It was not the anger of God that Jesus came to end but the anger of people. This world God created is one of peace and harmony and integration. Through Jesus, all humanity is brought into that world. And that is the point of the resurrection...But his resurrection is was about peace, compassion, renewal. The resurrection is the full picture of God’s promise. [pg. 194]

As you can see...he actually doesn't. Having taken out any need for a resurrection, Pagitt makes the resurrection nonsensical. He assures us he hasn't, but that is what he has done, and damage control is minimal at best. Having taken out the need for atonement of sins, Pagitt makes the crucifixion nonsensical. How then does he comply this with his distorted view of Christ's ministry? "Ah, it's all about renewal!" Surely, according to Pagitt's own theology, sending a man to be scourged, beaten, mocked, and crucified, and all before friends and family, was the wrong way to go about that. Pagitt assures us, however, this is all part of the plan, even though it seems like there would surely be greater reasons for all of it.

The most obvious conclusion is that this turns Christ into simply a good example, like so many universalists and agnostics make Him out to be. Pagitt at times assures the reader this isn't what he's doing, but in the concluding remarks of his Christology says this:

Jesus is the fulfillment of what people are meant to do, who we are meant to be. Just as Adam showed us what disobedience looks like, Jesus shows us what full integration looks like. Just as Adam made disharmony with God possible, Jesus made partnership with God attainable. He is our way, our truth, our life, our Messiah. [pg. 208]

There you are - Christ is indeed simply a good example. He was simply the "fulfillment of what people are meant to do." He served no other purpose than to promote the "integration" theology which Pagitt promotes. This isn't the biblical Christ, nor does it give us a Christ worth worshiping.

Conclusion

Emergent leaders use the same tactics in their books and lessons: a personal life story followed by an applicable theological lesson; very little use of scripture, and if any is used most commonly out of context; most of all, they commonly say, "Oh, we're not teaching that! Let me explain..." followed by an exact definition of what they claimed they weren't teaching. The obviousness of this latter point is sometimes so unintentionally humorous that I'm suddenly reminded of the end of An American Tail, where the villain is revealed to be a cat in disguise but says to the mice: "C'mon, who are you gonna trust? Me, or your own eyes?"

What Christianity has Pagitt presented us? We are taught that sin isn't a serious issue, that Jesus was simply an example of what we're meant to do, that the crucifixion wasn't necessary in the long run, that the afterlife isn't important, and that we can learn a lot more from holistic medicine than we can the Bible. At what point does this become Christianity? How can this be Christianity? The role of Christ is diminished and our role with God is simply played out in a post-modern ideal that borders along pantheism. You can call it spirituality, but you can't call it Christianity.

So what is a Christianity worth believing? I would move the Christianity we are taught in the word of God by the Eternal Word of God and His blessed apostles. The Christianity that promises eternal life through faith in Christ, so that we may be justified before the Father on the day of judgment, when the real "renewal" - not in holistic nature but in the body of believers who will be purified and sanctified forever - takes place. Upon no other form of Christianity should we take our stand. Amen.