Al's Blog

Heretic or Anathema?

2007-07-14T10:23:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to an article about Carlton Pearson, a minister who has given up on the notion of Hell.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3362554&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Carlton Pearson used to proclaim Christ as Savior, and although I didn't agree with some of his theology at the time, it would appear he has entered in to the realm of "anathema"

Here is my response to the comment section of the site:

If, as Carlton Pearson asserts, there is no hell (or more accurately, no eternal punishment), then there was no need for Jesus to die, mankind would have no need for a Savior, and the bible should be declared null and void. Since the Old Testament points to the coming Messiah, and the New Testament tells the story and conditions of salvation, neither would have any merit according to Mr. Pearson. If that is the case, what is he preaching? Why would we need Reverends? Why does he have a church and why is he being paid? If all he is preaching is a glorified, feel good hedonistic message, then he should just become a motivational speaker and drop the whole religious facade.

Second, if everyone supposedly goes to heaven, does it occur to you that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and every other barbaric, murderous tyrant will be there as well? In other words, it doesn't matter how we live or what we do, just live for yourself, forget others and get all you can get no matter what it costs others. The logic of Mr. Pearson's way of thinking is atrocious and breaks down rather easily.

If there is any moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there are no consequences for actions, why do we have prisons and a legal system? How can we put someone in prison who is such a great person that they're going to heaven? "If anyone, even an angel from heaven, comes preaching any other gospel other than what we have preached, let him be accursed (anathema)"-Paul of Tarsus

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away"-Jesus of Nazareth

"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"-Jesus of Nazareth

Holiness is "Cool"

2007-07-06T15:04:00.000-07:00

A church in Tucson that goes by the name, “The Cool Church” has come under fire for its Biblical stance against homosexuality this week in the local newspaper. See this link for article. http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/190018.php. The article has fueled much rhetoric from both sides of the argument. I would say that most Christians feel that the acceptance and embracing of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle is an issue being societally stuffed down the throats of those who oppose it.

While I may have methodological differences with how “The Cool Church” carries out its mission, I stand firmly with them in our agreement that the Scriptures clearly indicate that a practicing homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with the lifestyle of one committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. And in spite of differences in how the liturgical aspects of church services are carried out, ultimately as followers of Jesus Christ, I’m quite positive that it is our desire as well as "The Cool Church" to see those who walk in darkness come to the truth of the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The following is a comment I sent in to the newspaper in response to a blog by the religion editor. http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/desertbeliefs/4747/

There are two central arguments that must be considered regarding this subject. What must be first considered is whether or not the Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God. Historical Christianity attributes all scripture as being divinely inspired, using men who were prompted by and devoted first to the Hebrew God for the Old Testament scripture, and to the same God through Jesus Christ for the writings of the New Testament. If God is the divine author of the Bible, then the words written in the Bible are true, and they are not ours to interpret at our own discretion. If God is not the author of the Scriptures, then we are free to interpret in whatever subjective way we see fit. In light of that, there are rules of interpretation (hermenuetics)which still allow for a normative literal interpretation of Scripture. For example, prophesy, for the most part, tends not to be literal, but rather uses pictorial language to paint general ideas and principles. Sin, however, is almost always presented directly, specifically, and, dare we say, literally. If God is the author and final authority, and what the bible says is true (in absolute terms, not as a post-modern construct of our own desire) then based upon scripture references in Gen. 19, Lev. 18:22, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal 5:19-21, Eph. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, and Jude 7, same sex sexual activity is sin. If the bible is only the words of man, it is open to preferential subjective interpretation, and we are all just players in pluralistic polytheism.

Which leads to the second problem. Pluralism is based upon all different ideas having equal validity. If that is the case, then those who are opposed to homosexuality on moral or religious grounds have just as equal footing at the table as any other viewpoint. If the voices in opposition of homosexuality are to be silenced, those in favor of homosexuality are guilty of exclusivity just as much as those they are trying to silence. If you claim that any who are in biblical opposition to homosexuality are intolerant and therefore are wrong, you are also practicing intolerance against their viewpoint. You can't have it both ways. You can't point the finger of intolerance at others without becoming guilty of intolerance yourself.

Finally, in addressing an issue in the blog itself,
the writers of scripture (especially during the first century)were fully aware of what same sex relationships were, as they were writing in the midst of a Greek and Roman culture that generally accepted and embraced homosexuality as a cultural norm. So the first century writings of the church were still in opposition to same gender sexual relationships whether the words of God or the writings of men.

"Nothing wrong with it, but I'd want more for my daughter"

2007-04-11T16:25:00.000-07:00

Recently, I read some thoughts from a woman who noted that her teenage neice hung out with a girl (Let's call her "Alice") who comes from what appears, on the outside, to be a decent family. Alice's father is a minister and her mother is a stay at home mom. The family spends time together on family outings. Alice informed this woman that her idol is a woman named Kendal from "The Girls Next Door". Apparently, "The Girls Next Door" is a television show about playboy founder Hugh Hefner and his girlfriends. Alice wants to be one of Hefner's girlfriends. Since she he is not allowed to watch the show at home she watches it at her friends' houses. The woman writing these thoughts commented, "Is there anything wrong with being a playmate? Not really. But I would hope my daughter would want to be more than a pretty face and that she would not want to be one of three girlfriends." Really? Is that what this woman really thinks?

Even though the family spends time together, Alice appears to have her eyes on removing herself from what she considers to be moral restraints. This would lead me to conclude that just because a father is a minister doesn't mean that everything is done in a proper and prioritized manner at home. Having been in vocational ministry for over a decade, I have seen far too many ministry families where the father is just as absent as any other family, and the children feel just as neglected as someone whose dad might be a doctor, an attorney or flat out not there at all. Inevitably, young women, if not getting a positive connection and affection from their dad at home, will turn to other avenues to receive attention. In this case, Alice would seem to believe that the attention and affection she would receive by exposing her body and being sexually promiscuous will fill the void created by a lack of affection from home. Sadly, she’s not alone. There are thousands of young women who would jump at the chance that Alice is desiring. Folks, we have sown to the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind.
Now, regarding her statement that, "there isn’t anything wrong” with being a playmate, yet she hopes her daughter would be more than a pretty face or the third part of a polygamous relationship, her use of the word “more” would indicate that she believes being a pretty face and one of three girlfriends is less, or something to be looked down upon. Yet if she doesn't see anything wrong with it, why would she look down upon it and not want it for her daughter? Do you see the mess that relative morality is making in people's ability to think reasonably?
I have three daughters and I can unequivocally say that I would find it extremely wrong and flat out unacceptable for them to put themselves in such a degrading and disreputable position. Brothers and sisters in Christ, it’s perfectly okay to say that there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs, especially when it comes to our children. As a parent, I have a duty and obligation to protect my children from being exposed to things that are morally objectionable, and more importantly, to train them as they become young men and women to discern biblically what is right and wrong, regardless of what politically correct advocates say about values. Moral relativism, taken to its logical conclusion, will lead to chaos at best and anarchy at worst, but even worse than that, a plethora of individual broken hearted men and women, like the young woman "Alice" from the home of a minister.

More thoughts on Education

2007-02-09T22:27:00.000-08:00

Here are some more thoughts on the education establishment as I work my way through school. I wonder how this will fly in a classroom full of evolutionists? (By the way, I use the term "cosmic designer" as, in the words of apologist Greg Koukl, a rock in their shoe. I am in no way trying to hide, diminish or misrepresent our Holy God and His son Jesus Christ as being our creator and Savior.)

"Epistemology is, of course, the theory of knowledge, primarily addressing the following questions: "What is knowledge?, How is knowledge acquired?, and What do people know?” (Courtesy of Wikipedia). It is very important as educators that we teach not only what and how, but why. Many people don’t even know why they exist, or what purpose they serve. This has manifested itself in the fact that suicide among teenagers has nearly tripled since the 1950’s. This is why I keep banging the drum of morality and its importance in the education system, and why as a basketball coach, I use every opportunity I can to teach values such as character, honor, integrity, perseverance, self discipline and so on.
Someone once wisely said, “Why should we be surprised when kids act like animals in 6th hour English when we just told them that’s where they came from in 5th hour science?” One of the primary aspects of learning should be an understanding of the why’s, beginning with “why am I here?” In our effort to reassign origins away from a cosmic designer and toward randomness, we have removed ultimate purpose from existence, other than pursuit of temporal pleasure or personal fulfillment. Some might go so far as to make “for the good of humankind” proclamations, but to remove purpose beyond the empirical and provable has caused serious harm to every aspect of society, especially academically.
Reverend S.M. Davis described knowledge as learning what to do, wisdom is learning how to do it, and understanding is learning why to do it. So, ultimately as educators, we should be teaching knowledge, wisdom, and most important, understanding. The “why’s” will usually provide the stimulation and motivation for learning the “what’s” and “how’s”.

Are there any true atheists out there?

2006-11-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

Having grown up with an agnostic father and a charismatic Christian mother, I floundered in a rather confused state for some time. In retrospect, although I disagree, I find the agnostic position more honest than the atheist position. The agnostic believes "there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists" (American Heritage Dictionary).
The end result of your faith, be it in God, or in humanism, is ultimately the fruit of your presuppositions. Is there a first cause? If so, what is it? If there is a creator, and He has instituted some form of absolute epistemological faith and moral system, then which one is the truth? Not necessarily which one do I believe, but which is evidentially supported (beyond "reasonable" doubt) with the most historical, archeological, geographical and intellectual evidence. Even having grown up with all the science books, the humanistic anthropological and sociological arguments, and the "proof" of evolution, I have always had difficulty with one glaring concept, which I've heard many an atheist use as a starting place: "Out of the nothingness came..." That illogical starting place preempts an atheist worldview for me. The world needs to have logic, order, and authority structure to function, and all of it needs to have a starting place. In my journey, I have found Biblical Christianity (although not the charismatic variety chosen by my mother)to be the most consistent and logical belief system. Of course, the common response to that is, "Where did your God come from?" A theist doesn't have to supply evidence because in his or her worldview, there is room for the supernatural, and in this case, an eternal pre-existence. An atheist, however, being a materialist, still has to give reason to, "Out of the nothingness came..."
Each pre-suppositional worldview requires an embrace and a rejection. The atheist must embrace humanistic and evolutionary materialism and reject notions of supernaturalism, while the theist embraces an ultimate creator and His system and rejects the idea of man as just the newest permutation of the evolutionary cycle.
Regardless, the particular worldview one has is the result of a choice which one stands by. Atheists are free to choose and Christians are free to choose. Ideally, we can amicably discuss and debate and at the end of the day shake hands and agree to disagree on matters of existence and eternity.

Old Dead People

2006-09-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

I kind of like studying "old dead people". While times do change and cultural relevance is important, I believe we can do a great disservice to law, politics, education and especially theology if we arbitrarily dismiss something simply because it is old. One of the reasons I enjoy history is because of the incredible wisdom that "old dead people" had. One of my favorite trips is to Washington D.C. to read the inscriptions on the walls of the monuments. The words and writings of men like Jefferson, Lincoln and others is not only inspirational, but well thought-out and reasoned. One of the things I noticed the last time I visited was that over the last century or so, the contributory quotes of these historical men became more and more simple. On the Lincoln memorial and Jefferson memorial are these incredible and sometimes lengthy dissertations that are rich in wisdom and thought. The newer monuments, specifically the one erected to honor Franklin Roosevelt, was full of slogans. FDR would have made an excellent refrigerator salesman with his sloganeering.
I believe the subjugation to constructivism and relativism will be ultimately harmful to individuals and the nation as a whole. While it might affirm and appease personal subjective preferences, there are serious conflicts with a world that has objective truth as its foundation (i.e., the complexity or human organisms, the foundation of legal systems and arguments, and elements of science including aspects such as gravity, time, matter, etc.). The logical conclusion of a society ruled by relativism is chaos and anarchy.
The body of Christ needs to reject worldviews based upon relativism. Truth isn't relative, the Word of God isn't gray, and God cares about the details, not only of what we believe, but how we live out the sactification process.

Medicine or Ice Cream?

2006-09-20T14:59:00.000-07:00

Another classroom discussion, this time on the effects of either the removal of religion and it's effects or on teaching about all religions. The person pondering this question posts legitimate comments and genuine questions (as opposed to just subjective outbursts), as the focus of his research paper is on how a society sets up it's moral standards. His question is from an earlier post I made about the fact that to remove all mention of God is support for the religion of humanism.

His question: Will humanism be the effect of multiple religious teachings in the classroom? For example, will a Christian that learns about Buddhism, become a Buddhist? Probably not, but they might find some relevant similarities that make them expand their beliefs.

My response:
Good questions that you ponder. And I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for people to study other religions in the classroom setting, for the sake of understanding and relating to other people in a more amicable and compassionate manner.
I believe humanism (and by that, meaning the belief that man is the "supreme", or most advanced being there is, the natural result of evolutionary advancement-for those who ascribe to that belief system) would be the result if we tried to eliminate the acknowledgment of God, defined as being a divine creator. To arbitrarily dismiss references to creation, religious systems and faith is an investment in the doctrine of secularism. If that is the case, great difficulties arise in trying to build and maintain any sense of moral expectations other than pragmatism (what is beneficial to me) or a loose reference to “what’s good for society”. But with no absolute standard, how do you create a definition of what’s good? To Lenin and Stalin it was “good” for Communist controlled Russia to kill millions (if not tens of millions) of people in their attempts to eliminate God from culture.
The elimination of God generally leads to anarchy, or at least apathy and nihilism (Look at Europe in it’s present state). That would tend to eliminate it as a viable contributing worldview. After all, what good is a society where nobody cares about anything except themselves, if they even care at all? This conclusion would theoretically lead a society down a pathway to a search for truth (absolute) and meaning.
What we must then look at is not , “Which religion makes me feel good?”, but rather, “Which religion is true, and therefore offering me a hope and purpose while I live and the assurance of existence continuation for the better after I die”. See, truth is like medicine. Preference is like ice cream. If my life hangs in the balance, I don’t really want ice cream, I want medicine. That begs the question: Are matters of faith and religion medicine or ice cream? Is religion a preference, or is it the cure? And if so, which medicine? I don’t take allergy medicine if I’m dying of cancer. I must have the right medicine.
If we find the most viable and evidentially supported belief system for eternal purposes, we’ll probably find our best option for setting up moral boundaries in our temporal state.

Celebrating and mourning

2006-09-13T15:20:00.000-07:00

Today I grieve the loss of a very dear friend. Tony Guillen was a man who had as much love for Jesus Christ as anyone I have ever met. He was constantly excited about the things God was doing and he always had a warm greeting and smile for anyone he encountered. His love for the Lord and knowledge of the Word allowed him to be in a position of discipler for many new and returning believers. Because of this he has touched an untold number of lives. He was uncompromising in his teachings of the foundations of Christianity and almost seemed baffled that anyone would even entertain the thought of returning to a sinful lifestyle after encountering a relationship with the Living God.
Tony was faithful to me personally as well. When I was leading a worship team quite a few years ago, I lobbied to have Tony join our team as a guitar player. I wanted his maturity and leadership in our group, in addition to his servant heart as a musician. We played together for over six years and he always used to tell me how much he learned from me as a worship and band leader, but I'm quite positive that I learned far more from him than he ever did from me.
Tony also was the leader of a Christian band called Barabbas. He never worried about how many people might be hearing the band, only that the ones who were there would be drawn close to Christ.
Tony Guillen graduated to heaven to be face to face with Jesus Christ today. He was doing one of the things he loved to do, riding the trails on his mountain bike with his friends enjoying the beautiful creation that God has blessed us with. Tony was in his early 50's but exuded the energy and joy for life of a man half his age. We grieve with Dana and the boys and all of us who were so profoundly affected by the life of this faithful servant of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. Tony, your maranatha came a little quicker than ours, but we'll see you soon!

Relativism run rampant

2006-09-01T21:23:00.000-07:00

As you know, I am enrolled in a masters program in education. My classes are online, and recently one of the students took exception to my quoting the Bible and also to the fact that it is impossible for teachers to remain neutral in their teaching. We have pre-suppositions and a worldview, and sooner or later that will come out in your teaching, whether directly or indirectly. Her argument was that a teacher should NEVER share their opinion with his or her students. My view is that that isn't reasonable. I thought I'd post her comments and my response:

Fellow Student:

This is a discussion, were we are asked to give our opinions as part of the class discussion. So I am simply doing just that. In fact I do not give my opinion on half of the things that are said in this class even though I do not agree with everything that is said, especially when it comes to topics that involve religion and moral issues. Those seem to be some topics that have been discussed in the class,( in fact I think you have directly quoted form the bible) I do not necessarily agree with what all has been said , but again I refrain from giving my opinion on the topics. I also am not having a discussion with impressionable children that I am teaching, which makes a world of difference.
Yes, there is "no such thing as a true neutral", but we can keep our opinions and beliefs to ourselves. We do not need to preach to others about what we think is right or wrong.
I would hate to have had a teacher that constantly put his or her own views into their lessons. I had some great teachers throughout my entire life, and I do not feel that their lessons were based upon their own personal beliefs, even in college where teachers have a bit more freedom in their lessons. I guess I can consider myself lucky to have not had a teacher who was so preachy, and constantly taught lessons which reflected his/ her own personal beliefs.

My Response:

In my post, as I stated earlier, I'm not trying to argue with you, and I was trying to keep it on a light level. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and that is okay to do.
First of all, it is not a crime to “quote from the Bible”, nor is it unacceptable in the public arena to do so. If and when it does become either one of those, this country is no longer the United States of America, with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which our founding fathers intended it to be. If you disagree with that, take some time to read the prime source documents from the 18th century that are readily available.
Second, it's not "preachy" to stand for something, to have an opinion, or even share that opinion. In fact, I like to know the worldview from which my instructors are coming from so I can better understand the way they deliver their information. For instance, a biology teacher from an evolutionary point of view is going to have a different way of delivering biological information than a person who holds to an intelligent design or "creation" point of view, even if no origin of life material is discussed, simply because a consistent and coherent worldview will shape even the very words they use, regardless of whether or not they refrain from giving opinions. "Preachy" is simply a derogatory, name-calling term used for someone who shares a point of view that we don’t adhere to.
Third, I never stated, nor do I believe, that entire classes or lessons or subjects should just be “based upon” a teacher’s opinion. That would be very irresponsible of an educator. I’m not quite sure how you interpreted that based upon what I have previously stated.
Finally, if we are not supposed to teach others about what is right or wrong, how can we tell them that it’s wrong when they hit others? How can we tell them that it’s wrong to steal your car, or break into your home, or trash your classroom? In fact how can we tell them that ANYTHING is wrong at all? How can we enact consequences to wrong behavior when we can’t even define what wrong behavior is because we can’t teach them the difference between right and wrong?
Every day I give my basketball players a definition of some positive moral value, such as honesty, integrity, character, self discipline, etc., which they have to memorize. Today I gave them what I call the “8 rules of life”: never lie, never cheat, never steal, never whine, never complain, never make excuses, never brag about yourself, never feel sorry for yourself. Do you know why? Because if we don’t teach children those values, they become liars, cheaters, thieves, whiners, complainers, irresponsible excuse makers and braggarts who constantly have pity parties and believe they are always the victim. That’s what they’ll become unless we teach them the opposite. Which of those moral values do you not want your students to have? And if the answer to that question is “I can’t tell them what is right or wrong”, then there is no right in complaining when you become a victim of some immoral or criminal act. Because to the criminal, they decided that what they did was right, and no one can tell them it’s wrong. Does anyone see the flawed logic of relativism?
Education does not occur in a vacuum. If we don’t teach the right morals, they’ll do just fine learning all the wrong ones on their own.

All the more reason we homeschool!

Salvation and...

2006-07-29T10:28:00.000-07:00

Recently some erroneous and misleading information has been circulated about my doctrinal beliefs, and by association, the beliefs of Cornerstone Bible Church, on our Soteriolgy (The doctrine of Salvation). Whether it was passed out in ignorance or maliciousness I am unaware, and I decided not to publicly dignify these allegations with a response. However, as gossip tends to do, it has apparently been circulated and therefore I wanted to clarify for anyone who might have questions.

Since I was not contacted beforehand to find out if what was circulated was true, and therefore I have not seen what was actually written, I can only comment on what has been reported to me.

The false information, to my understanding, states that we in some way associate eternal salvation with having children. This is no way reflects our belief or doctrine. Nowhere in any of my writing or teaching can you find this assertion, nor have I verbally stated anything of that nature. This is a false and slanderous statement.
Since we adhere to scripture, our belief is that salvation comes by grace alone through faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ shed blood (Hebrews 9:22)on the cross (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16; Romans 6:23; John 14:6). It is that simple.

We are deeply saddened that anyone would indicate to others that our belief in matters of justification is anything different, and even more saddened that someone would believe or share these false reports without first contacting us directly to find out whether or not they are true(Proverbs 26:20).

The beautiful comfort is that in all matters Jesus Christ is on the throne and He is merciful, gracious, just and righteous and He will be glorified.

May Christ bless you greatly today and may the Word of God and the Holy Spirit direct you in all things!

Thoughts on Education

2006-07-24T16:25:00.000-07:00

My apolgies for not posting recently. I've been neck deep in school work.
I'm enjoying most aspects of it, except the humanist philosphies on education and human development. My classes are all online, which is a great way to go. It's not for the faint of heart. The workload is about 15-20 hours a week, and that's just for one class. I have been able to use the classroom as a witnessing opportunity. It's a great challenge, because it's masters level in education, so we're not dealing with dummies. I enjoy trying to share the gospel in a relevant and thought provoking manner, although I don't know that I'm very good at it. Here's a sample post regarding developmental stages:

"I must confess, the various stages of psychosocial development, as defined by Erikson, are disconcerting to me. Because I am a Christian, I hold to a distinctly Biblical worldview of how children are to be trained and how they should develop. In other words, I believe that we are born with a sinful nature, so the natural tendency is to be defiant and selfish. I don't believe that the best way to help children develop emotionally and socially is to surround them with other rebellious and selfish children. For the most part, they learn to develop in a manner that is acceptable to their peer group rather than what is best for them. It's no wonder that teens want to experiment with drugs, sex and alcohol when most of their friends are pressuring them into it. Especially when studies would seem to indicate that kids with the strongest family bonds have the higher ability to reject peer pressure. Doesn't that tell us something? That maybe the expectation for kids to rebel against authority wouldn't be as strong if parents would foster an accepting yet definitive behavior pattern within the home? That is why I not only have difficulty with the notion, "Oh, they're just teenagers, they're going to rebel", I flat out reject it! Throughout the course of history, we haven't had the problem of adolescent peer pressure at any time like we do now because in times past, the social expectation was that when you reached that age you were expected to be responsible. We are going to rebel (at any age) because we are by nature sinners and our instinct is to do wrong."

Surprisingly, the feedback has been, for the most part, very positive.

Philosophy and Personal Relationships

2006-05-29T17:32:00.000-07:00

I must say, I'm quite delighted that the last post on a "personal relationship" with Christ has caused some excellent and thought provoking discussion! That's what this blog is for. My intention is to challenge people to think, to analyze, to ask questions, to stimulate discussion and to be "Iron sharpening Iron"(Proverbs 27:17). I would simply ask that in your replies you would remain gentle, respectful, gracious and honorable (Ecc. 10:12.)
In my posts I may "ruffle some feathers". I believe the body of Christ needs it's feathers ruffled. I need mine ruffled. It makes us ask questions, and in asking we seek answers (Proverbs 15:28). God says His people perish for lack of knowledge(Hosea 4:6), and that "the wise store up knowledge" (Proverbs 10:14), and "The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge (Prov. 18:15). "A wise man is strong, yes a man of knowledge increases strength (Prov. 24:5). If, in my efforts to get us to think, an offense has been caused, I apologize, as that is certainly not my intent. Only to challenge-our methods, our thinking, our reasoning. The beauty of Christianity is that it is not a blind faith. Yes, it is faith, but an educated and reasonable faith.
Let me clarify several things from the last post. First, I am not opposed to a "personal relationship" with Christ per se, only with the predominantly fickle and emotional nature associated with the terminology. However you want to say it, we must "know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings"(Phil.3:10). But we follow Him because He first knew us (John 10:27). Even Jesus did not consider Himself "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) while in human form. As long as a "personal relationship" with God is not reductionist in our biblical theology (i.e. "Jesus is my homeboy"), or our commitment and obedience based on emotions, circumstances or perceived "blessings" (ask John while he was being boiled alive if he felt like he was getting the blessings of God).
Finally, we shouldn't shun philosophy. Yes, we must shun worldly philosophy (Col. 2:8). But some of the greatest Christian minds were and are tremendous philosophers. Men such as Paul the Apostle, Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharias, and Norm Geisler were and are brilliant and godly philosophers who also were and are faithful men of God. The word philosophy stems from two greek words, Phileo (love) and sophos (wisdom). So in reality, every true believer in Jesus and the Word of God already is a philosopher: a lover of wisdom (Proverbs 4:1-7).

What ABOUT a personal relationship with Jesus?

2006-05-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

Recently I casually mentioned to someone that the Bible doesn't use terminology about, "Having a personal relationship with Jesus". Unfortunately, this person misunderstood completely the point I was trying to make, and it was reported back to me the ridiculous idea that I said you could get to heaven without a relationship with Christ. Several lessons learned. Number one, when you're having a philosophical discussion with someone, make sure the person you are discussing with KNOWS you are having a philosophical discussion! You might have to simplify to make sure they understand what you are meaning. Lesson number two: Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of gossip. Now I know why Jesus was silent before Pilate. Pilate didn't care what Jesus had to say. He already had all of the "evidence" he needed. His mind was made up. He was already committed to delivering up Jesus. He was just looking for a way to divert the blame and responsibility. Barabbas was a carrot dangled to make Pilate look good. As far as Pilate was concerned, his hands were washed. But we also must learn from how Jesus handled himself when the sentenced was passed down. His model of integrity in the face of false accusation is how it should be for all of us. Oh, that we would all have the grace and humility to love so well.
Now, back to the "personal relationship with Jesus" idea. Go ahead; I challenge you to find any reference or phrase in the Bible that says we need to have a "personal relationship" with Christ. I looked. There is nothing, Zero, Zippo, Zilch. Not one mention of that combination of words in any concordance search I did. Not even the word "relationship" (By the way, this IS a philosophical discussion).
So where does that leave us? Where did the idea come from that we acquired eternal salvation by having a "personal relationship" with Jesus?
We have to look back in time several hundred years to the era known as Romanticism to find our answer. Romanticism was the 18th and 19th century idea that emphasized imagination, emotion and freedom of the spirit. It encourages personal introspection and individuality rather than community or intellect. The period came about as a sort of revolt against classical and ordered. You might call it the 1960's in the 1820's! Up until that time, the theological emphasis on salvation centered on the judicial guilt of completely sinful man standing before a holy and righteous God. The bible says That "if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Romans 10:9) Jesus declared we must "believe" in Him (John 3:16)to be saved. Jesus was the substitute, or the "propitiation". He not only was declared guilty for us, but He also paid the just penalty due to us. Romans 8:1, while talking about "no condemnation" means that the penalty of our sin (eternal death) was removed by Jesus. It's not even a matter of going to trial and being found innocent. It's as though there are not even any charges brought against us.
The concept of "personal relationship" tends to diminish the holiness of God and the unbelievable price Jesus paid for us. It seems to equate us on a level with God. I believe this attitude comes about because of our western individualism and self focus rather than a more biblical concept of serving community. God may call us friend, but it is His doing, because of his mercy, not because we are deserving of it. Jesus is not our "Homeboy" or our "buddy". God is not "hip", "happenin", or "cutting edge". He is a holy God who demands a judicial declaration of righteousness that can only occur when our wicked, sinful existence cries out for his mercy and forgiveness that was so graciously made available by His Son.
God does bridge the gap between himself and us through Jesus, and I understand in principle what the concept of a "personal relationship" means. Essentially it means, "Have you confessed Christ as Savior, repented of sin, and are you serving Him in obedience?" But that probably doesn't sit well with our "touchy, feely," emotion driven western model of Christianity.
-Perhaps we in the body of Christ should consider eliminating the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" from our Christian vernacular, and return to a more Biblically accurate representation of salvation.
-Perhaps we in the body of Christ should do a better job of explaining what we mean when we pick on accepted Christian terminology.
-Perhaps we in the body of Christ should be a better example, like Jesus on trial before Pilate, of not talking, so that any words we say cannot and will not be used against us in a court of gossip (or law!).

The Market Driven Church

2006-03-24T14:46:00.000-08:00

In the market driven economy of today’s church world, bigger is always better, and seems to be the measuring stick of the blessing of God on your work. If you have 50, you need 100. If 500, you need a thousand. If 1000, then you need 5000, and so on. I think the rallying cry of the 21st century church seems to be, “I must increase, so that He can increase”. Where are the John the Baptists who willingly step out of the way so the Savior can shine? “I must DECREASE, so He might increase” were the words of John. He didn’t try to use 1st century cutting edge evangelism techniques to “bring ‘em on down to the Jordan”. He didn’t sugar coat the message so as not to offend anyone. He declared, “repent”. Then when Jesus came, he moved out of the way. The ministry continued, but John graciously faded.
I heard of a church that had fake snow falling during the “worship” time. FAKE SNOW? You’ve got to kidding!?! Where is Jonathan Edwards with His sermon, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” when we need him? I’ll tell you where. You do serious damage to your church growth programs when you tell people the Biblical truth that they must turn away from their sins. Ravi Zacharias recently spoke about the New Age influence on the Church today. He says these trends come from Hindu and Buddhist influence that require no moral convictions while having the pretense of Spirituality. Unfortunately, this has led to subjective Theology rather than willing obedience to the commands of Scripture.
Recently I read an article entitled “How to market your church”. Terminology such as target audience, creating a brand, demographic study, all point to capitalistic venture led by unreachable CEO’s. Has the Church become the world? Have mega church pastors become the CEO’s of capitalistic churches who are unreachable? Is there a difference between CEO’s of the world and CEO’s of the Church?
I must increase so He can increase. Celebrityism goes hand in hand with the market driven church. Church want ads for “Senior ”pastors are loaded with terminology such as, “Must have proven track record of church growth”. I guess that would disqualify Jesus. Didn’t He ask His disciples, “Are you going to leave me too?” after one particularly hard teaching? The market driven church needs charismatic, dynamic, motivational preachers so everyone leaves church FEELING really good about themselves. The goal in ministry seems to be to build mega church, write a book or ten, become a celebrated author, and then hit the Christian conference speaking tour. “I must increase so He can increase”.
Aaaahhh, wait a minute! Now I’m beginning to get the picture. Market your church, become rich and famous…it’s all becoming very clear now. “I must increase so I…ahem, I mean, He can increase”

I think I need a bigger house and a new car. Anyone have any good marketing ideas for OUR church??

Children in the Sanctuary

2006-02-15T14:45:00.000-08:00

Scriptural support for children in the church service rests in part upon Joshua 8:34-35 where The Book of the Law and “all that Moses had commanded” was read before “all the assembly of Israel, with the women, the little ones, and the strangers who were living among them.” Ezra also read the law from morning to midday before “the men, and women and all who could understand” (Neh. 8:3). Since age accountability and comprehension is different with each child, We can safely assume there were many children present at that reading of the Law. Jesus also taught with children present, and welcomed them with open arms (Matt. 19).

As believers in Christ, it is important that we counteract humanistic influence and methods that have infiltrated churches, where an environment that mirrors public schools (age segregated learning) where impressing peers (with all the accompanying problems) has become more important than honoring parents (and Christ). The church culture that resembles more of the world than Christ is evidence of that influence.

Having worked in a church with age segregated Sunday school and youth groups for over a decade, I saw a fair share of success stories, but also evidenced many instances of shame and dishonor that were directly the result of peer influence and absence of supervision. As the pastor of a church without youth group or children’s church where families worship I have been extremely blessed by the families that train their children to honor the worship time, who then reinforce during their family worship time the lessons learned during our service.

What I would be impressed with is for those who support youth groups and Sunday school to find scriptural evidence and basis for that model of methodology besides “liberty” or “God doesn’t care about our methods”. Having children in with parents has a much stronger biblical and logical position than it’s opposite. If neither of these positions is biblically mandated or essential, then leave each other alone to live out their convictions.

The gospel of Christ must be preached (and lived) within the family, outside the family, but not at the expense of the family.

Depression: A Right or a Privilege?

2006-01-11T14:44:00.000-08:00

In America, we are at an all time high in terms of the number of people on anti-depressants. Our children are now medicated for having too much energy while at school. The makeup of that energy might be a combination of too much sugar in the diet (which is why childhood obesity is at an all time high), too much television (and, in many cases, the obscene contents thereof), and the expectation of constant visual stimulation, compounded by nonstop video games. A fourth cause might be a wholesale abandonment of biblical child training in favor of permissive parenting. This removing of boundaries leaves children internally screaming for someone to bring structure and consequences to their sinful little lives. I have one friend who has definded ADD (attention deficit disorder) as “Absense of Dad’s Discipline”. So to feign some sense of order and to at least make classrooms somewhat manageable, Ritalin and other zombie-like state inducing drugs are administered.

While this may bring short term solutions to the difficulties of classroom management, no one knows what long term problems are being created, both in the lives of the drug dependent individual or as a whole to society. But the common thread to all the above mentioned problems is indulgence. The lack of restraint and self denial. The unwillingness to refrain from pleasing each of the 5 senses. While the humanist would accuse those refraining from indulgence as living a repressed life, in reality, it is only the person who can happily do without who successfully battles common bouts of depression (there are those cases which are the extreme, but those exceptions are not the focus of this article). To consistently gratify the senses to indulgence creates an expectation, a sense of entitlement within individuals. In essense, the materialism and ease of aquiring all we could possibly want is the very cause of many of our depression issues. Because when the level of gratification is not constantly met, the sinful innerman throws a psychological temper tantrum. When our ridiculously high level of expectation falls short, we throw grandiose internal pity parites, unable to fathom why we didn’t get what “we deserve”.

C.S. Lewis writes, “”A right to happiness”…sounds to me as odd a right to good luck. For I believe-whatever one school of moralists may say-that we depend for a very great deal of our happines on circumstances outside of human control. A right to happiness doesn’t, for me, make more sense than a right to be six foot tall, or to have a millionaire for your father, or to get good weather whenever you want to have a picnic.” In other words, as much as we may try to use externals (food, sex, entertainment, material possessions,etc), the effort to use them is more of a problem than the problem itself, for the very effort indicates a failure to be content in the circumstances God has placed one in. It is Christ alone who brings us contentment. Notice I didn’t say “it is Christ alone who brings us happiness”. Ask the prophet Jeremiah how much happiness he had. How about John while sitting in oil being deep fried. Where were the wonderful, feel good Christian slogans then? God desires holiness above happiness, obedience above emotions.

Now the cynic will interpret this as a mandate to walk around with the down countenance and “woe is me , I’m a Christian” attitude. That is taking an admonition for contentment and turning it into contempt. “Anxiety in the heart of man causes depression, but a good word makes it glad” Proverbs 12:25). I submit to you that many (if not most) of our anxieties are caused by an expectation of having all of our wants met, our senses satisfied, our urges indulged. The rest are brought on by those “circumstances outside of our control” as Lewis stated. The Bible states, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).

Evolution Vs Intelligent Design

2005-12-31T14:42:00.000-08:00

The federal district court ruling in Harrisburg Pa. Prohibiting intelligent design to be taught along side evolution is a purely religious decision. The religion is humanism, and its anti God stance has claimed another casualty in the war for peopleÂ’s minds. Obviously, those opposed to creationism (or intelligent design) must work extremely hard to prevent rational views from interfering with their un-provable theory. Because when a sane, rational person compares the leap of faith required for evolution against any other theory (which usually includes a designer), Darwinism always comes up lacking. The fossil record has been shown to not support evolution; there continue to be no transitional forms linking primitive species to more developed ones; and physics (law of entropy) continues to contradict the concept of getting better over time.

I would say that science is trying to use the old religious argument: DonÂ’t let them think, they might come to a different conclusion. As long as we can brainwash them, they'’ll conform to our way of thinking. May God extend his mercy to the folks in Dover Pa. Like all of us, we certainly need more of His mercy. But if Dover, and an increasing number of cities in this nation continue to spit in the face of a gracious God, I would imagine that at some point even the most patient deity would calmly wipe the expectorant off His face and quietly proclaim, Â“EnoughÂ”. May we be shielded by his covering WHEN that time comes!