Osteen Says Morminism is a Christian Faith

It seems like everyday I am more and more appalled by the comments and words of Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest church in America. Osteen is what Scripture calls a wolf in sheep's clothing, and more specifically fulfills Paul's warning to Timothy:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Osteens sermons and book certainly are satisfying those with "itching ears." His sermons are basically "put a geranium in your hat and smile about it Christianity." He is the pastor of optimism. There is no hell, no sin, and no doctrine of God's wrath in his messages, just good times rock and role. Just look at the title of his books, "Your Best Life Now," and "Become a Better You."

Osteen is essentially the poster child for the Prosperity Gospel which essentially says that if you are faithful and obedient, God will make you wealthy, healthy, and happy. Though he denies it, he cannot be interpreted as anything else. He frequently brags about how much money he has made from his books. In "Your Best Life Now," he tells the story of how his wife had dreamed of living in a big house and how they now live in that very mansion.

This "gospel" is dangerous and is anything but good news. It will only lead people to hell and nowhere else. Why do people need a Savior if they don't need to be saved? And if they are not saved, then they will go to hell! Jesus' words could be applied to Osteen when He said:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

Now Osteen has added to his "wolvery." Recently on Fox News Sunday, Osteen was asked about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. The question was whether or not Mormonism, specifically Romney's Mormonism, can be classified as true Christianity. Osteen's response:

"In my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his Savior, and that's what I believe. I'm not the one to judge the little details of [Romney's religion], so I believe [Mormons are Christians] and Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me and I don't think anything would stop me from voting for him if that's what I felt like."

Now here's heresy in a hand basket! How more heretical can one be than to equate Mormonism with orthodox Christianity? There is a reason why Christians have always considered Mormonism as heretical...because it is!

If anyone is a Christian because they believe that Jesus Christ is their Savior, than hell isn't going to be as full as I thought it would be. A lot of people make Jesus their Savior. Jesus is the savior of economic problems, social issues, political downturns, marriage on the rocks, etc. A lot of people turn to Jesus to fix their problems, but very few turn to Him to be their spiritual Savior. Very few realize that they need to be saved. Most assume that they can save themselves.

Osteen admits that he knows very little about Mormonism. He comments:

"I certainly can't say that I agree with everything that I've heard about it. "But from what I've heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his Savior, to me that's a common bond."

So as long as you make Jesus your Savior (however you define it) makes you a Christian. Never mind their doctrine that we will all become gods and rule our own planet. Never mind the fact that Elohim (their name for god) is just one of many. Or the fact that Jesus and Lucifer (also known as the devil) are brothers. What about the many additions of Scripture they have made, their doctrine of baptism, the sexual union between Mary and Elohim, or any of the other heretical doctrines they teach?

The deity of man is promoted by Mormonism (which contradicts Christian doctrine). The deity of Christ is denied. Throughout their history (until it became politically incorrect) they have supported polygamy and believed that blacks were a cursed race. Furthermore, they deny the Trinity, the physical existence of hell, and so many other heretical doctrines.

How can anyone acknowledge Mormonism as true Christianity? What Osteen has said is heresy with a smile and he should forever be rejected as a leading figure in the modern evangelical movement. He is not evangelical, he is not Christian.

So, is Mormonism true Christianity? Of course not, and shame on heretics like Osteen who are parading themselves as orthodox who continue to disguise themselves as wolves in sheep's clothing.

___________

You can see the video of Osteens comments by clicking here. To read a transcript of what was said, click here.

Repent...And Thou Shalt Save The Earth

In many churches in America, the gospel of Jesus Christ where the sinner is exhorted to repent from their sins and turn to our crucified Lord has been changed to saving the planet. This isn't a surprise to me, but it is something that orthodox Christians need to be aware of. I am all for taking care of our planet, but at the same time, it isn't as important as saving men from their souls.

As Christians, we know that one day, God will destroy the earth and recreate a new heavens and a new earth. Let us, as true believers in Christ, look forward to that day, and in the meantime, lead men to the saving knowledge of Christ that leads to the heaven and eternal existence with God, not a pseudogospel that solves nothing and only satisfies guilty emotions.

Here's an article detailing the trend:

In a growing number of churches, salvation means saving the Earth. A movement called Interfaith Power and Light offers ministers sermon tips on how to convert churchgoers into environmental activists. One program encourages people to switch to energyefficient light bulbs on each night they light a holiday candle for Advent or Hanukkah.

Virginia's chapter has focused on developing a three-hour training program for congregations that asks members to calculate their carbon footprints and pledge a 10 percent reduction.A movement called "Cool Congregations" is afoot in Tennessee, where members of different congregations meet to discuss the connection between faith and environment and then spread the green gospel to their houses of worship

Here are a couple of videos showing the mixing of "Christianity" and enviromentalism:



You can also see how far they are willing to go in this video:

BP: SEMINARY COMMENCEMENTS: Southern Seminary marks 200th commencement;

Here is the Baptist Press reports on Southern Seminaries 200th Commencement ceremony:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recorded its 200th commencement Dec. 7.

The milestone also featured a record 204 fall graduates and two graduating father and son pairs, Tom and Jonathan Elliff and Jeffrey and Timothy Girdler.

SBTS President R. Albert Mohler Jr., in his commencement address, noted that the Old Testament prophet Samuel is "a wonderful paradigm for Christian ministry" because he was an instrument that God used to bring the light of truth to a dark period in Israel's history.

"Samuel is not merely the little boy who was left at the temple, but he became a man of crucial importance to the history of Israel and to the history of God working in His church," Mohler said.

Preaching from 1 Samuel 3, Mohler pointed graduates to God's calling of Samuel as a prophet, noting that God calls His ministers objectively by speaking to them through His Word. And He calls them subjectively, Mohler said, by speaking to their hearts and through the church's confirmation of their ministerial gifts.

"We need to be humbly reminded that we did not volunteer for this," Mohler said. "No one should enter the Christian ministry because when some career inventory in high school was taken, some guidance counselor said, 'You look like a minister to me.'

"This isn't the process of some kind of analysis. Moses stuttered and could not even speak. Paul was the great enemy of the Gospel of Christ. None of us is here -- neither on the faculty or in the graduating class -- who is qualified for the Christian ministry. It is entirely a matter of God's grace."

Central to the minister's calling is the command to speak God's truth, Mohler said. Samuel spoke God's Word to Israel, a divinely-ordained role that was never easy, Mohler said, because it often included communicating to the people of Israel God's judgment of their disobedience.

In the same way, a minister who clearly articulates the Gospel will not put himself in a position of popularity with men, Mohler said, but he must never hesitate to speak the Word of God.

"If it were an easy thing to speak what God has spoken, then God would not need ministers, supernaturally called, supernaturally equipped, Holy Spirit inspired, Holy Spirit protected in order to do this thing," Mohler said.

"Anyone who thinks the Christian ministry is easy, even in terms of the central function of teaching and preaching, really doesn't understand it. This is explosive, this is dangerous and eternity hangs in the balance."

The biblical account of Samuel also includes an implicit warning to false shepherds, Mohler said, because Samuel's faithfulness is contrasted with the gross sinfulness of Eli's sons and king Saul."

It is good for us as ministers to be continually confronted by this reality of false ministers in order that in humility we would lean upon the Lord as our only sure protection," Mohler said. "We must determine that we will bring no dishonor upon the church, upon the Gospel, nor upon this institution by how we serve."

In the days of Samuel, God rarely spoke. Mohler reminded graduates that, like Samuel, they may serve in places where the Word of God is scarcely, if at all, heard. He admonished them to persevere in their calling as heralds of the truth of the Gospel of Christ."

As you prepare to graduate and as you prepare to go into the fields of service in this country and around this world, I hope you are fired by a passion to bring light to darkness," Mohler said.

_________

The above picture was taken at my graduation at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of SBTS.

Credo, We Believe In Something: National Council of Churches Release a New Creed

One of the frustrating things about our culture is the many accusations that the left throws at us. One of those accusations is that Christian conservatives are too political. They argue that Christians should be so involved in politics and the great cultural debates of our time, and instead should retreat to our corners and play nice.

What is interesting is that they live in a double standard. They tell us not to participate, while opening participating themselves. The religious left also participate in political and cultural issues, and are never expected to leave the rest of us alone. This is a great example of that.

Recently, the National Council of Churches, anything but orthodox or Christian, has adopted a new creed. In light of the world we live in today, they are embarking on a new campaign that consists of:

The new creed proclaims “a message of hope for a fearful time.” That hopeful message, according to the NCC, is “a vision of a society that shares more and consumes less, seeks compassion over suspicion and equality over domination, and finds security in joined hands rather than massed arms.” What follows is a list of 20 broad social and political goals, ranging from “sustainable communities marked by affordable housing, access to good jobs, and public safety” to “cooperation and dialogue for peace and environmental justice among the world’s religions.”

... There is a call for “an end to the death penalty.” There is a demand for “binding covenants to reduce global warming.” Blessings are pronounced upon “alternative energy sources and public transportation.” Censure is directed at “greed in economic life.” The United Nations must be “strengthened,” according to the new NCC social creed.

Talk about mixing the two: religion and politics. This whole thing is covered with political ideology. Right from the get go, we are told that we need to end the death penalty. Furthermore, we need to stop the hoax of human caused global warming.

Since they are so keen on dealing with social issues relevant to today's world, let's notice what they have left out. First, abortion. There is no way one can argue that abortion isn't the murdering of an innocent child. And yet, our culture is in need to feed it's lust for blood. Everyday, a new generation is being wiped out in the name of compassion and choice.

Second, oppressive governments. Where is the condemnation of Iran, North Korea, and other countries that oppressive the poor, the down trodden, and are terrorists? No where. Do you want to know why? Because they assume that such things characterize the United States. To the social left, including the National Council of Churches, see America as the greatest threat to world peace and prosperity, not dictators, thugs, and terrorists. This is how radical these people are.

As you can see, this whole "creed," is the result of a century of the social gospel. I have read and reviewed Walter Rauschenbush's book, "A Theology for the Social Gospel," and was appalled by what I read. There is nothing orthodox in it, and there is certainly nothing orthodox in this creed. The desire is no longer to save souls, but to save the planet from ourselves.

Furthermore, such groups and creeds are useless. Their lack of understanding of the heart of man reveals their fallacy. They assume that mankind is good, and it is only orthodox, conservative, literal reading of religion and Scripture that is the cause of evil in the world. Therefore, they assume that everyone will buy into their crap!

The fact is, that mankind is evil at it's core and desires only to please itself. Ending the death penalty and oppressing the world due to a fear of a nonexistent crisis (global warming), will not end wars, assassinations, fights, or poverty. It will only increase it. The answer isn't more social programs or even holding hands in unison, but a Savior in Jesus Christ. If you want to know peace, no Christ. If you do not want peace, ignore Him and look for it in vain on your own.

How about this for a creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now this is a creed that will solve the world of our problems. It deals with the real issue: human sinfullness, not hoaxes like global warming and the death penalty. Until such "councils' come to grips with the truth, the world will continue to get worst.

Page: Calvinism & Southern Baptists

Here is an interesting article written by SBC President Frank Page concerning the issue of Calvinism in the SBC:

TAYLORS, S.C. (BP)--The issue of Calvinism has been at the forefront of many articles and discussions in our convention.

A conference on Calvinism recently was held at Ridgecrest in North Carolina, co-sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministries. Though I was unable to attend the conference, except for a very brief time of greeting, it is my understanding that the conference was a wonderful event where solid, healthy discussion took place.

This conference came on the heels of a major research study which was released almost simultaneously by LifeWay Research. I find the results to be quite fascinating.

The research portrays what many have imagined to be true. While around 10 percent of rank-and-file Southern Baptist pastors would consider themselves to be five-point Calvinists, a sizeable portion (29 percent) of recent seminary graduates would identify themselves in that particular way. In fact, over 60 percent of graduates of one of our seminaries identify themselves as five-point Calvinists.

The study concluded the following. First, Calvinist-led churches are in the minority, though the number is increasing. Second, Calvinism is on the rise among recent seminary graduates. If present trends continue, Calvinism will continue to grow as an influence in our convention. Third, Calvinist-led churches are generally smaller in worship attendance and annual baptisms than non-Calvinist churches. Fourth, church growth statistics in terms of annual baptism rates indicates there is little difference between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches.

Where does all this take us in the Southern Baptist Convention?

Most everyone who knows me knows that I am not a Calvinist. However, I have made it clear that I would be fair to those who are Calvinists in appointments in our convention. I have been true to my word. I believe that the issue of Calvinism is one that can be discussed within the family of Southern Baptists. I believe we need to have honest, open dialogue.

I also want to ask our seminarians, our churches and current pastors to be quite honest with their congregations. In fact, former SBC President Paige Patterson made perhaps the most practical of all suggestions in this regard. When seminarians are dealing with pastor search committees, he said, they need to be very honest about where they stand theologically in this and in every area. When pastor search committees approach pastors and seminary graduates about possible positions, they need to be very honest with these individuals about what they will allow regarding teaching in this area.

This requires Southern Baptists to be quite aware concerning the issues in Calvinism and non-Calvinism. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Southern Baptists that we study the Word of God clearly to see what it says about the salvation given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us be peaceful, Christ-like in our discussions, but let us be diligent in our study.

Founders: Help plant churches in Missouri

I found this at the Founders Ministry blog and wanted to pass it along:
__________

Darren Casper is the Director for church planting in the St. Louis Metro Association of Baptist churches in Missouri. He has contacted me to let me know about a way that people can assist those church planters whose funds from the Missouri Baptist Convention will be cut off January 1, 2008 (18 days from now) because of a decision made on December 10, 2007.These church planters have been screened and approved by the North American Mission Board as well as the Missouri Baptist Convention. Because of their affiliation with Acts 29, their promised funding is being cut. If you would like to assist those church planters during this time of unanticipated shortfall, you can send a check made out to:

St. Louis Metro Baptist Association
(designate it for the "Show Me Church Planting Fund")

Mailing address:
St. Louis Metro Bapt. Assoc.
attn. Darren Casper
3859 Fee Fee Road
Bridgeton, Mo. 63044

You may contact Darren at 314-571-7579, extension 103.

This is a great opportunity. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Lord stirred up the hearts of individuals and churches to more than make up the deficit that these cuts will entail? I will be contributing and I encourage others to do so as well.

Relevant: Debunking Christmas

Almost every year, I will give my youth a Christmas quiz. Although you would think that it would be an easy quiz, with questions like "How many wise men were there," "when was Jesus born," "were Mary and Joseph married," etc. But believe it or not, I have had very few people pass the quiz. Why? Because there are so many myths surrounding the story behind the most popular holiday in America.

Well, in light of that Relevant Magazine has posted an article (that also appeared in it's magazine) debunking many of these myths. I encourage you all to read it. You just might be shocked!

Here's the article:

____________________

Christmas. It’s all about the good times: family and friends, candlelight services, stockings, mistletoe, rampant misinformation. Few holidays are more tangled up in folktales, urban legends and outright unbiblical ideas than the one celebrating our Savior’s birth.

Not that we talk about it all that much. Disputing the time-honored verses of Christmas carols or exposing the errors of the children’s living nativity scene is a good way to get a Yule log to the head. It’s practically Scroogetastic. Nevertheless, here are a few things you may not have known about your favorite Christian holiday.

Jesus wasn’t born on December 25.

According to biblical scholars, it’s unlikely that the Christ child arrived on the day we celebrate Christmas—or even during the winter season. For one thing, we’re told of shepherds “keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). Decembers in Bethlehem are cold and regularly drop below freezing once it gets dark, which means most shepherds only “kept watch” in the field from April to October. In the winter, they sheltered their flocks and stayed inside.

And that census decreed by Caesar Augustus? It required travel, and no self-respecting governing authority would ever schedule such a major undertaking during the winter months—when bad weather, muddy roads and angry citizens would foul things up. Nope, these usually took place in September or October, after the harvest season.

Celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25 was popularized in the fourth century as a way to steal the limelight from the winter solstice and its link to pagan feasts celebrating the Roman sun god and the Persian god Mithras. Most scholars think Jesus was born toward the end of September. And for those of you keeping score at home, it was probably the year 6 B.C., not 0 A.D.

Three Wise Men didn't appeared at Christ’s birth.

These guys are fixtures of the nativity scene. They show up at the manger accompanied by camels, and are usually dressed all glittery and stuff because they were kings. Christian tradition has even named them: Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. Funny, then, how none of this is in the Bible.

Matthew 2 tells us about the “wise men from the east.” Following the star and looking for the King of the Jews, they make it to Jerusalem, where they have a run-in with King Herod. Next stop is Bethlehem. There, they find Jesus—whom Matthew describes as a “young child,” not a baby—with his mother in a house. Yes, a house. Not a stable. No mention of a manger.

No indication there were three of them, either. That’s just an assumption we make because Matthew 2:11 details the three gifts of gold, frankincense and myrhh. But there could have been a dozen of these guys, for all we know. Nothing about camels or flowing capes or sparkly crowns. Nothing to indicate they were kings. In fact, most scholars figure they were astrologers. And since the passage specifies them meeting the “young child” in a house, many believe the Wise Men didn’t deliver the gifts immediately after the birth. It could have been a couple of years later.

So pretty much everything we think we know about the Wise Men comes from sources other than the Bible. Like Christmas carols. Speaking of which…

The second verse of “Away in a Manger” is a crock.

The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes,/but little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes…

The traditional second verse of this favorite carol isn’t original to the song, which first appeared as a poem (containing what are now the first and third stanzas) in a Lutheran Sunday School book in 1885. Verse two was added in the early 1900s by Methodist minister John T. McFarland for a children’s program.

It implies that the baby Jesus didn’t cry when the cows, apparently peeved at the unorthodox use of valuable manger space, woke him up with noisy moos. Yet a fairly important precept of Christianity is that Christ was fully human—and not some blissful, preternaturally calm superbaby. This means the little Lord Jesus acted like an infant. He spit up. He peed. He left a few, um, deposits in his swaddling clothes.

He cried like a baby.

People who call it “Xmas” are taking the Christ out of Christmas.

Lots of Christians start feeling like martyrs when Christmas gets abbreviated, believing this is just another way for modern, secular society to dis our faith. Not exactly. The first letter in the Greek word for “Christ” is chi. And in the Roman alphabet, chi is represented by this symbol: X. So guess what? Xmas is an entirely justifiable replacement for Christmas, and it goes back a long, long way. People who use it aren’t demeaning Christ. Instead, they’re (consciously or not) appropriating a usage that’s nearly as old as the faith itself. We Xians shouldn’t get so upset about it.

So this holiday season, when someone invites you to attend their church’s Christmas program, feel free to point out the errors of their wise men and angels and the maudlin carols in the background. Or, perhaps not, Ebenezer. Don’t be a jerk.

Just remember: like many of the tightly held traditions of our faith, not all of them are quite as biblical as we think. Merry Xmas!

Does Creation Matter? - A Critique of Relevant's Matt Litton

I once subscribed to Relevant Magazine and enjoyed it greatly. Although throughout in every issue where liberal and emerging church tendencies, overall it is a good magazine. It is willing to discuss difficult issues and at the very least, it makes you think. There is much in every issue that I find myself in disagreement with, but I do enjoy exposing myself to liberal, social, and/or emergent Christianity.

With that said, I must come out and expose their wrong approach to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. I have been to the Creation Museum and was blown away by it. It is more than just about dinosaurs and creation, but also the fall, redemption, and essentially, the gospel. This is a great, one stop place, for much of what Christians need as we debate the issue of origins.

I applaud all that Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and head of the Creation Museum, for all that he has done, and I continue to keep up with his blogs. I think he did an excellent job with the museum, and I encourage other Christians to do the same throughout the United States. We need more than just one, especially compared to the millions of zoos, aquariums, caves, State parks, etc. that take a more naturalistic worldview behind their "facts," and tours (my wife and I experienced this most recently at Mammoth Cave in Kentucky).

Relevant Magazine's Matt Litton has written concerning the museum asking about the purpose and the need for the Creation Magazine. Litton begins his article praising the museum, and then begins arguing the different interpretations of Genesis. He notes:

It is a blasphemous assertion for sects in the Christian faith to hear from scholars that aspects of the Hebrew creation story were “borrowed” from the Babylonian creation epic, and that much of the imagery in the Hebrew narrative was common to other cultures of the time. Biblical scholars believe that the one thing that separates the Hebrew narrative from others is their contention that the “one true God” performed all of these wonders. But would it have been unusual for them to “borrow” pieces of the narratives from other cultures and use them as their own? The Hebrews didn’t differentiate between the secular and religious—they “owned” everything.

I will not dive into some of the faults of this line of arguing, but I will simply say that such interpretations are wrong. I do not believe that they are "blasphemous," to a certain extent (depends on how you interpret it), because Scripture "borrows" from other sources. The book of Jude is a great example of this, perhaps borrowing from the Pseudepigripha (such as Enoch, etc.) and perhaps from 2 Peter.

The problem about the idea of borrowing from the Babylonians is that Moses predates the Babylonian creation stories. Therefore, in order to believe that the author of Genesis borrowed from the Babylonians is to suggest that the Torah wasn't written by Moses, whenever it is clear that he did. One must have a much later writing for the Torah, one in which Scripture doesn't support, neither does the evidence.

Litton, at times, seems to be all over the map. After affirming, "In many ways, the amazing advances in science and technology have affirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible," he turns around and writes (in the same paragraph):

"...on the other hand I also know that they can find no record or concrete evidence of a Hebrew exodus from slavery in Egypt. Ask yourself—do you still believe that Yahweh parted the Red Sea and delivered His nomadic tribe from slavery? Has He ever delivered you?"

So what exactly he believes as it relates to the historical, archaeological, scientific truth of Scripture I don't know. Whether or not he affirms the doctrine of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy I do not know. But such questions seem irrelevant (no pun intended) to Litton at this time. Instead, he wants to ask if spending $27 million dollars on the museum was the right thing to do with such money?

And it seems that he would say no.

Litton points out:

Before you spend your money to go visit the Creation Museum, I ask you to consider these statistics:

- 37 million Americans live below the poverty line.

- 33 million Americans do not have an adequate supply of food in their household.

- 39 percent of America’s poor are children.

- At least 1.35 million children are homeless during a year’s time and families constitute about 33 percent of the total homeless population.

I believe that the same Jesus who is the author and blueprint for all of creation, the Jesus that is clearly alive at work in our lives, might just be asking us this pointed question: In a world of starving people, have-nots, oppression, in a world where the darkness is crying out for light, for connection, for relationship, couldn’t we have found a better way to spend 27 million dollars?

You can see his real motive here can't you? Here we have Litton identifying himself with modern Social Gospel mentality disguised as part of the emerging church. Litton is starting to sound like Brian McLaren (of whom I have written about concerning the Social gospel and hell)

In such a movement, which is growing fast, Jesus is seen as a humanitarian. Jesus helped the poor and so we should too. He stood up to injustice and we should too. Jesus never declared war and we shouldn't either. Jesus promoted peace and not violence and we should do the same. With all of these things, I agree with. The problem isn't what Jesus said or what their goals are, their problem is their starting point.

The same Jesus that opposed violence clear out the temple with a whip (cf. John 2:12-23). The same Jesus that was against anger and said nice things, ripped the religious leaders of his day (cf. Matthew 23). As they accuse of many Christians of doing, they likewise look at Christ through narrow lens.

The reason Jesus came to earth was not to help the poor, feed the hungry, or to clothe the naked. Such a sentence is heresy to those like Litton and McLaren, but its the truth. If this wasn't true then why didn't Jesus always help the poor (cf. John 12:28) Jesus did not come as a humanitarian, for if he had, he would be no different than any other prophet or great leader. The Pharisees gave to the poor, they gave a lot to the temple, and they did a lot of "holy" things, and yet Christ told them that they were among the worst sinners.

So why did Jesus come? To save men from their sins. That's it. Jesus was born, so that He might die. He died so that he could be a propitiation on our behalf and to be resurrected from the dead. He was resurrected from the dead in order to conquer death and sin. Everything in Jesus' ministry leads us to the cross. This is why the Gospel writers spend half of their books on his passion week rather than just on his miracles and humanitarian work.

So what does this have to do with the Creation Museum? Everything. We do not know what forgiveness is until we have been forgiven of our sins. We cannot show mercy like Christ until we have received mercy. We cannot overcome sin and temptation until it is taken away. All of these things, forgiveness, grace, purity, etc., are all a result of the gospel. Therefore, we cannot adequately have compassion on the poor, the sick, the hungry, or the oppressed until we are moved with the compassion of the gospel!

A person who thirsts will be thirsty again, but a person who thirsts and is filled with the gospel, will thirst (fleshly) again, but they have received a living water that will never be quenched (cf. John 4).

In terms of the Creation Museum, the issue of origins is foundational to the gospel. Almost every theological issue is dealt with in Genesis 1-3. That implies that these chapters are imperative for us to understand them. How do we explain sin and what it has done to man and his relationship with God, if the story of the Fall (Genesis 3) is only a metaphor about disobedience?

Furthermore, the Bible's account of creation is foundational for understanding the rest of Scripture. Creation is referred to frequently throughout Scripture. To impose or to make evolution "fit" into Genesis 1-2 eventually undermines the Sovereignty, Providence, and the redemptive acts of God.

Thirdly, it is a dangerous thing to make human theories fit in the Bible. If we begin "making it up as we go," or add to Scripture what makes sense to us, rather than humbling taking God at His Word, we are not far from heresy. If creation isn't interpreted literally, why should anything in Scripture be interpreted literally? Including the gospel?!

Fourthly, such an approach to creation that Litton suggests, that is, helping the poor is more important than debating creationism and evolution, is approaching the social problems of the day backwards. This is important for us to understand. We do not start with humanitarian aide and then figure out our theology. Rather, humanitarian aide is born out of a right theology.

Creation says that we are all made in the image of God. Creation also says that we are all sinners in rebellion against God. Creation also says that God is righteous and is loving, and therefore will punish the unjust, and redeem the just. Therefore, with this proper theology as a foundation, we are driven to help our fellow man because they are no different than us. They are made just as we are (doctrine of man), they are sinners just like we were (doctrine of sin), and they can be saved just like we were (doctrine of soteriology). Therefore, I will get my hands dirty, go out of my way, role up my sleeves, donate my money, and go where ever I need to in order to meet the needs of my fellow man. Not to fill their stomachs, but to mend their soul with the gospel!

So, was $27 million well spent at the Creation Museum? You betcha! For that money was well spent and prayed over in order to see lost souls saved, not hungry men filled. I applaud Litton reminding us of the needs of our nation and our responsibility to meet them, but he has neglected the first and primary need of every man: salvation and sanctification; that is, the gospel, the foundation of the Church!

Let's Get Back To Ministry: When Entertainment Creeps Into the Church

I am a youth pastor and I love it. I have a passion for youth. Although my passion for youth is not like most youth pastor. My passion isn't just about eating pizza and playing the latest video games with them, but rather utilizing youth to impact the culture for Christ. I am appalled by the current trend in youth ministry, and the following article illustrates this.

I recently spoke at a youth festival, as I do every once in a while. This, too, is my passion. I would love to one day be able to travel around, speak to youth, challenge youth pastors, and encourage parents of teenagers. And this festival was similar to that. My text was 1 Timothy 4:12. A popular passage for all youth and youth pastors.

We love the text because it hints at rebellion. "Let no one despise your youth," is a great phrase, but heaven forbid we read the rest of the verse, or even the rest of the text! This is not your average, let's play the latest gross game craze, type of youth ministry. Paul doesn't call Timothy to just say no but to lead. If you don't want people to despise your youth, Paul argues, do the following things.

Youth ministry has been robbed of it's original intent. It used to be about ministry, now it's about entertainment. Churches are hiring youth pastors who are young (and I am young, I was 19 years old and fresh out of high school when I started!), funny, and are loaded with great illustrations and with the grossest of games to date. No longer is about mentorship, preparing them for after school, or even expecting godly character from them now. Heaven forbid that we expect them to be leaders in the church, in the home, among their friends, on the team, etc. now! Why, that is expecting too much!

God must be embarrassed by our low expectations!

We want kids to act like adults (by feeding them Ritalin) and expect teenagers to act like uncontrollable kids. We expect them to have sex, we expect them to rebel, be lazy, etc. Whatever happened to a culture that expected teenagers to act like teenagers, that is, a person on the brink of adulthood?

As youth pastors, we no longer minister to youth, we entertain them. I am only given about 2 hours of serious time with my youth. I am not going to waste it on games and whistles. Call me old school, but there are more important things than a water game at church! I am tired of youth pastors being more worried about the laughter and fun times of their youth than their own souls! Whatever happened to ministry and gospel proclamation?

I do not want to suggest that I do not have fun with my youth. By all means, we do. We have fun during Bible study, at lock ins, bowling trips, camps, mission trips, and other events, but we know that there is a time for fun (of which we have a lot of), and a time for seriousness (which the typical youth ministry lacks).

Let us not cut our youth short. Since when was there an age limit on the great commission? What keeps youth from serving in the church, leading their friends to Christ, be example of Christ to peers, mentoring younger youth and children, etc.? Absolutely nothing, except for a bunch of youth pastors and a culture that expect very little out of them.

As I have been told many times, expect much, get much. The opposite is true, expect little, get little.

______________

For further discussion on this issue, I encourage you to read a previous blog post of mine called, "Old Enough To Know Better, But Still Too Young to Care."

Stinson: Is God Wild at Heart? A Review of John Eldredge's "Wild at Heart"

How is a Christian to respond to the Christian best seller, "Wild At Heart," by John Eldridge? Though it may be unpopular, this is a review that we must take seriously. I have read most of Eldridges book, lost it, and then found it again, and have yet to finish it.

I like what Eldridge is trying to do. He wants men to be men. Thanks to our over-feminized culture, men have become wimps. In response to this, Eldridge has written a book that reflects the true spirit of men and masculinity. I applaud that. However, there are some things within this book and within his own theology that we must be aware of that call into question his authority on the subject.

Dr. Randy Stinson has written an excellent review of the book that deals with these issues. Here is his review:

This book review also appears in JBMW Volume 8 No. 2.View book review (PDF)
Whenever a book written for men (notoriously known for their lack of interest in reading) sells 500,000 copies, you can be sure that it has made a clear connection. There is a lot that is right with John Eldredge's Wild at Heart, and with his compelling style of writing it is no surprise that thousands of men all over the country have been drawn to it. Eldredge has called attention to some problems with which most men seem to intuitively resonate:

1. Our culture (and even our churches) has adopted a strategy that facilitates the feminization of men.

2. Masculinity, with its predilection to adventure, rowdiness, and risk has become a condition to be cured.

3. Consequently, boys are in big trouble. School systems and churches have not taken the unique features of masculinity into consideration when designing curriculum or programs.

4. Our culture, intent on emasculating its boys, has produced a huge sense of withdrawal and boredom from its men.

5. As disconcerting as it may be to mothers everywhere, masculinity can only be imparted by masculinity. In other words, a young boy is never really sure he has become a man until another man, or group of men, tells him so.

6. Sadly, many, if not most, men have abdicated this responsibility.

7. Every man needs a battle for which he can live and die.

Eldredge clearly knows how to write to men and by the testimonies of many, he has achieved one of his objectives, which is to give men permission to be men. With all of the good insights Eldredge offers in this book, it is actually a little painful to mention two of what should be considered very significant problems which undermine the entire book.

Problem One: An Unbiblical View of God

The first problem is that Eldredge appeals to a wrong view of God as his foundation for masculinity. Part of the thesis of Wild at Heart is that men have a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to fight for. The problem occurs when he tries to project these activities onto the life of God. In the words of the title for chapter two, God is "the wild one in whose image we are made." Eldredge's description of God and his "adventure" leave the reader with a confusing and unbiblical picture of God. For him, men are risk-takers and adventure-seekers at heart because God is a risk-taker and adventure-seeker. He claims,

In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case and left us with a chess-player God playing both sides of the board, making all his moves and all ours too.

CBMW 8:2 (Fall 03) p. 56

But clearly, this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks. No doubt the biggest risk of all was when he gave angels and men free will, including the freedom to reject him-not just once but every single day ... there is something much more risky here than we are often willing to admit. (30)

He goes on to say,

[God] did not make Adam and Eve obey him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly. (31)

It's not the nature of God to limit his risks and cover his bases. (31)

God's relationship with us and with our world is just that: a relationship. As with every relationship, there's a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you'll get hurt ... God's willingness to risk is just astounding-far beyond what any of us would do were we in his position. (32)

While one can appreciate Eldredge's desire to root his understanding of men in the character and nature of God, these statements do not portray God in the same way that the Bible portrays him which leaves Eldredge's understanding of manhood fundamentally flawed. The Bible depicts God as knowing the beginning from the end. He is aware of our thoughts before we say them. He knew all about us before we were formed in secret in our mother's womb. He removes kings and establishes kings. He holds the heart of the king in his hand. He is the potter and we are the clay.
In fact, the view of God that Eldredge proposes does not inspire my risk-taking, adventuresome inclinations, but quite frankly, it demotivates me. I am willing to take risks, not because God takes them too, but because I am confident that he knows no uncertainty. I engage in spite of my lack of knowledge, not because God shares my plight, but because he knows everything. I press on in spite of my powerlessness, not because God has limited himself, but because his power is unlimited. If God takes risks (which requires he is uncertain of the outcome) then I am left with a sense of hopelessness. If he doesn't know then who does?

For those familiar with the current debate over what is sometimes called open theism, Eldredge explicitly states that he is not advocating this position. But this is even more problematic. If he is familiar with the debate, and he is not an open theist, then why would he use language that is so closely tied to that position?

Based on the language that Eldredge uses, there are several problems. First, the sovereignty of God is placed in subjection to man's freedom. It is a man-centered model that develops a picture of God based on a particular understanding of human relationships. The best approach would be to begin with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Second, if God is taking risks, there are no assurances that God's purposes will actually be accomplished. If God is uncertain abut how his creatures will respond, then how can we really be guaranteed that he will be ultimately victorious over evil in the end? Third, if Eldredge is correct, there is a diminishment of the power of God since there is no certainty regarding the outcome of his "risky" decision to create. God's power would seem to be limited to his creation's willingness to cooperate. The biblical view of God's omnipotence, his ability to bring about his will, shows that God is not subject to or dependant upon his creatures (Is 14:24-27; Matt 19:26; Eph 1:11; Luke 1:37).

A biblical view of manhood should be connected to the roles and responsibilities assigned in Scripture. Why not just argue that while God has made men and women in his image, he has also given them particular roles and functions that correspond to their gender? This can be easily seen in the warp and woof of Scripture where men are consistently called upon to lead and protect. They are called upon to fight and defend. In the contexts of homes and the community of faith, they are given the responsibility of headship and oversight. In cases where men like Moses or Abraham faltered in their courage or faith, they hear from the God of the universe that He will bring about his plan. He is in control. This is where they place their confidence. This is the point from which they draw their strength.

Problem Two: An Unbiblical View of the Believer

The second problem is that Eldredge, in his effort to encourage men to follow their heart in these matters of masculinity, has given a false view of the condition of the heart of the believer. His line of thinking can be seen in what follows:

Too many Christians today are living back in the old covenant. They've had Jeremiah 17:9 drilled into them and they walk around believing my heart is deceitfully wicked. Not anymore it's not. Read the rest of the book. In Jeremiah 31:33, God announces the cure for all that: ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.' I will give you a new heart. That's why Paul says in Romans 2:29, ‘No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit.' Sin is not the deepest thing

CBMW 8:2 (Fall 03) p. 57

about you. You have a new heart. Did you hear me? Your heart is good. (133, Italics his)

Later in the book, he takes up this topic again. He says,

To put it bluntly, your flesh is a weasel, a poser, and a selfish pig. And your flesh is not you. (Italics his) Did you know that? Your flesh is not the real you. When Paul gives us his famous passage on what it's like to struggle with sin (Rom 7), he tells a story we are all too familiar with ... (144)

After quoting part of Romans 7 from The Message, he picks up the discussion once again:

Okay, we've all been there many times. But what Paul concludes is just astounding: ‘I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it' (Rom 7:20 NLT). Did you notice the distinction he makes? Paul says, ‘Hey, I know I struggle with sin. But I also know that my sin is not me (italics his)-this is not my true heart.' You are not your sin; sin is no longer the truest thing about the man who has come into union with Jesus. Your heart is good. ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you ...'(Ezek. 36:26). The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than ‘a sinner saved by grace." You are a lot more than that. You are a new creation in Christ. The New Testament calls you a saint, a holy one, a son of God. In the core of your being you are a good man. Yes, there is a war within us, but it is a civil war. The battle is not between us and God; no, there is a traitor within who wars against the true heart fighting alongside the Spirit of God in us... . (144)

These descriptions of the life and heart of the believer drastically misconstrue or overstate the principles behind the doctrines of justification and sanctification. First, to say that the heart of the believer is "good" is not even biblical language. Eldredge makes a jump from the Bible's use of terms like "saint" and "child of God" to the conclusion that the heart must, in its converted state, be good. The Bible never uses language like this to describe the heart of the believer. Eldredge has confused the biblical concept of newness with complete goodness. Descriptions in the Bible such as the old passing away to make way for the new, being born again, being a new creature, and receiving a new heart are certainly helpful and instructive when trying to understand the life of the believer. There is definitely something new and the beginning of something good. But our confidence is not in the idea of goodness, but in God who started the good work. This is why Paul said to the Philippians, "being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil. 1:6) However, glaringly absent from Scripture is the kind of goodness to which Eldredge seems to allude. The Bible describes the act of justification as a declaration of righteousness upon a heart that is not righteous. In fact, this is at the heart of the Christian message. The righteousness of the believer is not his own, but is the righteousness of Christ. So contrary to Eldredge, here is the Big Truth in church today: We are merely sinners saved by grace!

Not only does Eldredge confuse the doctrine of justification, but he also misrepresents the doctrine of sanctification. Once we are justified by faith in Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit begins to conform us into the image of the One through whom we were justified. Eldredge's explanation that "my sin is not me" only adds to the confusion he began. If it is not you, then who is it? In fact, the Bible, when describing the battle regarding the flesh, typically uses the word "flesh" to describe the unified actions of the physical body along with the emotions, mind, and will. The problem here is not one of passivity (it is not the real me) but one of activity (it really is me), emphasizing our own complicity in the sin that we committed. Only now, through the Holy Spirit, I am able to overcome these sinful inclinations of my flesh. This is not about whether or not my heart is good but about whether or not I will yield to the Holy Spirit (made possible by the new life in Christ) in these various battles with the flesh.

The distortion of these crucial categories has produced an unbiblical and confusing approach to the Christian life. Men do not need to sense confusion over their identity in Christ and how their sin impacts their decisions and inclinations. The overtones of this book to follow your new and good heart only help to create the "false self" that Eldredge is so intent on destroying. What men need is a clear picture of who God is and the truth about their own sinful tendencies as they attempt to follow him. What they need to know is that their regenerated heart still has an inclination to sin, but they can overcome their inclinations to sin by the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells them. They do not need to place confidence in their "good" heart but in the God of the Bible who is not taking risks, wringing his hands, or waiting to see how all of this turns out.

Eldredge has some good things to say to men today, but coupling these good things with an unbiblical view of God and the believer in Christ, deals a blow to the entire book from which it cannot recover.

Politics, Theology, And The SBC - Huckabee Speaks to Baptists

I want to encourage eeryone to read a post I put in the theology blog. Basically, it concerns some of the comments made by Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee at a SBC pastors conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Did Huckabee go too far? That's not my main concern. What I want to know is whether or not he is right. And I think he made some excellent points that the Church has needed to hear for some time now.

Read the post by clicking here.

Religion and Politics: Mike Huckabee at the SBC Convention

Has Mike Huckabee gone too far? Just read the following article and think about the answer to that question. Obviously, liberals who bark the unconstitutional phrase, "Seperation of Church and State" will be in an uproar over his recent comments.

But with that put aside, did Huckabee say things that were worth being heard? I think so. Huckabee laid out the role of government and the role of religion and freedom in the individual. He points out that since the Church has fallen asleep, the government has grown. For example, instead of the church taking care of orphans and widows, as Scripture clearly commands (cf. James), the government has had to step in and take care of it.

I'd have to say that I agree with him. Even conservatives and Christians have begun to rely on the government too much. This is not what our founders had imagined.

Secondly, I agree with his critique of government. He notes that he didn't enter into politics because it provided better answers, but because he "knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Amen Huck! Amen!

Here's an article detailing his speech:

SALT LAKE CITY -- Government may have dropped the ball in modern American society, but religion dropped it first, Gov. Mike Huckabee told Southern Baptist pastors Sunday night.

"The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity," he said. "And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior."

Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, addressed his contemporaries at the two-day Pastors' Conference, which continues today. The three-day Southern Baptist Convention begins Tuesday here in the heartland of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the city in which the Mormons have their world headquarters.

Huckabee told the pastors gathered in the Salt Palace Convention Center that while the March 1, 1997, tornadoes which struck Arkansas were tragic, at least the devastation could be clearly seen from a helicopter. In contrast, he said, the catalysts for the nation's recent school shootings -- including the one March 24 near Jonesboro that left four students and a teacher dead and 10 others wounded -- were harder to see but were driven by "the winds of spiritual change in a nation that has forgotten its God."

"Government knows it does not have the answer, but it's arrogant and acts as though it does," Huckabee said. "Church does have the answer but will cowardly deny that it does and wonder when the world will be changed." The shootings were just one more wake-up call to the nation, he said.

"I fear we will turn and hit the snooze button one more time and lose this great republic of ours."

Huckabee said ungiving individuals are responsible for higher taxes.

"I'm often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big. It's because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we'd been doing what we should have -- giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor -- we now wouldn't be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that's doing ... what we should have been doing all along."

Huckabee also explained why he left pastoring for politics. "I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

He compared his entry into politics to "getting inside the dragon's belly," adding, "There's not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what's done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner."

The most basic unit of government is not the city council, quorum court or state legislature, Huckabee said. "It is Mom and Dad raising kids and teaching them respect for authority, others and God."

The nation has descended gradually into crisis, Huckabee said, and repairing the damage needs to be gradual, too. He said the solution is simple: faith in Christ. Huckabee recalled the five occasions he's had to sit by the phone on the eve of an execution. "It's the greatest sense of helplessness and despair you can imagine to know we've exhausted all help and hope here on earth for that person."

He also spoke of his early misconceptions of his duties as a pastor. "In one of the first churches I was assigned to, I thought I was supposed to be the captain of a warship leading the congregation into a battle against spiritual darkness," he said. "But they wanted the captain of the Love Boat. They just wanted everybody to be happy. It was not about how many people were won to Christ or how many teens were pulled away from drugs or how many marriages were saved. Instead, it was about the seniors having a great trip going to watch the fall leaves change, the teen-agers going to a better summer camp than the church across town."

Huckabee concluded his speech by recalling his 10th birthday, when he accepted Christ. "I went to Vacation Bible School for all the wrong reasons -- I was told they'd give me all the cookies I could eat and all the Kool-Aid I could drink. But that day I got something better than cookies and Kool-Aid. I got the Savior.

"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." Before Huckabee spoke, more than 350 copies of his new book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting our Culture of Violence, had been placed in reporters' press boxes in the convention center press room. The slick cover of the book is a grim one -- a black-and-white, blurry photograph of a young boy pointing a gun at the reader. The most prominent part of the photograph is the round barrel of the gun. At the top of the book, this question is posed: "Are we reaping what we've sown?"

The book was co-written by Dr. George Grant, director of the King's Meadow Study Center and a contributor to World magazine. The back cover states: "No more hand-wringing, no more finger-pointing. No more sound bites." It also makes a reference to the Jonesboro school shootings. Huckabee has recently been criticized by opponents claiming he has capitalized on the shootings with the publication of his book.

The back cover states: "Just after lunch on March 24, 1998, four school children and a teacher were murdered by two students, ages thirteen and eleven, at an Arkansas middle school. Governor Mike Huckabee was informed of the tragedy en route from Washington, D.C. By the time he arrived, the news media were already waiting -- already polling the pundits and drawing conclusions based on the sketchiest information. The quest for quick answers has robbed us of the truth. Until now." The paperback is published by Broadman & Holman, a Nashville, Tenn., arm of the Baptist Sunday School Board. It retails for $11.99. Publicists for the book said last week they didn't expect it to arrive at the convention until today.

Huckabee and his wife, Janet, left Salt Lake City immediately after his speech, and the governor did not hold a book signing at the convention. In fact, Huckabee didn't know the books had made it to the convention, said editors of the biweekly Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine who visited with the governor shortly before his speech.

Huckabee, governor since 1996, is a former president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention. He has authored one other book, Character is the Issue: How People with Integrity Can Revolutionize America, which was first publicly announced at the 1997 Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas a year ago and released last September. Other books given to reporters at the convention Sunday included a how-to boycott book aimed at the Walt Disney Co. by Richard D. Land titled Sending a Message to Mickey: The ABC's of Making Your Voice Heard at Disney. The back cover features an outline of the famous mouse's round ears and the words: "He who has ears, let him hear."

The other book was Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts, who examines the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"Decline of State Baptist Papers"

I found this on the Founders Blog:

Baptist Press released a story today documenting the decline of state Baptist papers. The story confirms what many have suspected for the last several years. Southern Baptists are not relying on "official news sources" for their information about denominational issues as much as they did in years past. The reality is that many subscription-based print media are facing a declining readership in the wake of the ubiquity of the internet. That, coupled with the fact that we are living a post-denominational world does not bode well for the future of state Baptist papers whose editors view their main purpose in terms of promoting a denominational agenda.Bob Terry, editor of The Alabama Baptist and executive director of the Association of State Baptist Papers made this astute observation:

State Baptist papers are still searching for the reason they exist. Why do state Baptist papers exist?

What purpose do they serve and what will be their purpose five years from now?

One hundred years ago Baptist papers did not have this kind of identity crisis. J. B. Gambrell, the great early 2oth century Texas Baptist statesman, served as editor of the Baptist Standard in the latter years of his life. He was never uncertain about the responsibilities of his paper. When Crozier Seminary started succumbing to modernism Gambrell wrote that it had become a "hotbed of radical destructive heresy." After he received criticism for expressing himself so plainly on this question, Gambrell defended his actions by explaining his perspective on the "duty of the Baptist press" in a 1913 editorial. He wrote:

Of course, the press should be duly cautious, but it should be duly loyal and courageous, too. If the press will speak out our schools can be and will be saved from the influences which have blighted religion in some parts of the world as the boll weevil have blasted the cotton fields of the South where they have gone. The denominational press can save our churches from what drove Spurgeon from the larger Baptist fellowship of England. The Baptist press can save unity of the Baptists of America by faithfulness. That the attacks on the integrity of the scriptures and on the belief of Baptists will result in divisions is as certain as predestination. It is not a pleasant work Baptist papers are called to, but it is unspeakably important.

Caution, loyalty and courage. Combining these qualities in the right proportion is a challenge that any denominational news organization faces. That is true not only for the "official" sources of Baptist news, but also for the increasingly popular blogs that offer commentary on Baptist life. When the Scriptures or Baptist principles are under attack--either wittingly or unwittingly--then those who are genuinely loyal to the Baptist cause must cautiously yet courageously expose and resist those attacks.

As Gambrell noted, that is not a pleasant task, but it is vitally important.

Mohler: Revising the Revisionists -- New Controversy over "The Gospel of Judas"

Don't tell me that the media isn't bias. Many of you might remember the whole "Gospel of Judas" controversy last year. The media reported it as being "just discovered," but in fact, we have had the "gospel" for several decades. But whenever it was released, many thought that it redefined Christian theology and Christianity itself. There were several problems with this theory.

First, "The Gospel of Judas," was written several centuries after Judas died. Therefore, Judas didn't write it. This implies that the book itself is based on a lie. If the writer was willing to lie about the author, what else where they willing to lie about? Secondly, Gnosticism has never been considered as orthodox Christianity. The New Testament makes this clear, as Gnosticism begins to grow. Christianity has always rejected the writings and the claims of the ancient Gnostics. It is simply laughable to assume that this "new" Gospel redefines Christianity whenever Christianity has always rejected it as a fraud and as historically and theologically inaccurate.

With that said, there are some new developments concerning this document. According to a new book, the media mistranslated key parts of the Gospel. As a result, all of the hype was based on a lie. But why would the media do this? Simple: because it fit a template.

The media is bias and favors liberalism and secularism. They will do whatever it takes to undermine Christianity because Christianity threatens everything a secularist holds so dear. This is why every year around Easter the media will "uncover" the same old heresy the Church has had to deal with from the beginning.

To the media, it doesn't matter what the truth is, at times, but rather whether or not it fits a template. Remember the phrase, "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters," especially during the Duke Lacrosse rape issue. To the media, it wasn't the evidence that drove the story, but rather the "seriousness of the charge," that is, a bunch of rich white boys raping a poor black prostitute. In other words, it fit a template.

The media's approach to Christian theology is no different. To them, the nature of the evidence is irrelevant, but the seriousness of the charge is what matters. Therefore, the seriousness of Jesus encouraging Judas to betray Him is serious, therefore, the heretical notion behind it, it's unbiblical support, it's traditional rejected as being authentic is irrelevant. It's the seriousness of the charge that counts.

Don't expect this to change. The media will always be against Christians. To our culture, we are the enemy, and we better get used to it. It has always been this way, and we must not loose heart and give up. We must always be willing to stand upon the gospel of Christ as revealed in the real Gospels and the New Testament, and persevere and defend all attacks made against our Savior.

This isn't a historical issue, this is a gospel issue.

Dr. R. Albert Molher, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written an article concerning the new developments. Here is what he had to say:

Just last year, the National Geographic Society announced the discovery of a third-century Gnostic text called "The Gospel of Judas." The Society timed its announcement to support the commercial success and maximize the media impact of a book and television program dedicated to the text.

There was a great deal of misrepresentation about the discovery in the press, with some academics suggesting that the text had been suppressed by the church because of its supposedly explosive contents. Others went so far as to argue that the "Gospel of Judas" would require a comprehensive revision of the Christian faith.

That was nonsense, of course, but it was the kind of nonsense that garners a great deal of media attention.

The most controversial aspect of this text, at least as claimed by the National Geographic Society and its associates, was the claim that it denied that Judas had betrayed Jesus and instead presented him as a hero.

Now, it is these claims about the text that must be revised. Writing in The New York Times, Professor April D. DeConick argues that the official story last year was based in serious flaws in translation -- an inexcusable mistake. In her words:

Amid much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn't betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas's reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.

It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society's transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic's translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.

Well, so much for the headlines of last year. DeConick's new book, The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says, deals with these charges at length. The evidence she presents should embarrass those who made such audacious claims just a year ago.

More from her article in The New York Times:

Several of the translation choices made by the society's scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a "daimon," which the society's experts have translated as "spirit." Actually, the universally accepted word for "spirit" is "pneuma " -- in Gnostic literature "daimon" is always taken to mean "demon."

Likewise, Judas is not set apart "for" the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated "from" it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because "it is possible for him to go there." He receives them because Jesus tells him that he can't go there, and Jesus doesn't want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.

Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas's ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it's clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will "not ascend to the holy generation." To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.

In the end, even after DeConick's research it will be clear that "The Gospel of Judas" is a Gnostic text that is opposed to Christian orthodoxy. As DeConick remarked, "Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals." But the fact that Judas is actually presented as a demon -- not as a heroic figure -- is no small matter.

One additional issue cannot be dodged. Why did the National Geographic Society allow this? DeConick congratulates the Society on finding and preserving the document, but then makes her case:

. . . I think the big problem is that National Geographic wanted an exclusive. So it required its scholars to sign nondisclosure statements, to not discuss the text with other experts before publication. The best scholarship is done when life-sized photos of each page of a new manuscript are published before a translation, allowing experts worldwide to share information as they independently work through the text.

This controversy should serve as a sober reminder that media reports about supposed discoveries may not be at all what is claimed. Indeed, the bigger the claim of a blockbuster discovery, the more care and oversight is required. The impression of this story left in the pubic mind is based in a series of mistranslations. Most people will never know the real story.
________________
Gregory Tomlin of Baptist Press provided a good analysis of this story on November 6 [see here.]

Moore: Who Would Jesus Bomb? War, Peace, and the Christian

This was an interesting post by Dr. Russell Moore, head of the Carl FH Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement. The issue he raises is concerning war, and whether or not Jesus would be for it. Here is my personal opinion, and then you can read Dr. Moore's. First, I believe in the Just War theory. I believe that there are times when wars are, not just allowed, but imperative. There are times when good must rise up and defeat evil.

It is clear from the Old Testament that God knows that war is a necessary part of life on a earthen that is fallen. Thanks to original sin and total depravity, war is necessary and at times it must be carried out. However, it is imperative to also say that we do not need to use this and say that war is always permitted. I favor diplomacy and talking, but there comes a time when those things must end. War is always a last resort, but is oftentimes necessary.

Finally, I believe that whenever a nation decides to go to war, they must do so hoping for success. I mention this because this has been forgotten in America. America, as a whole, whether it be among politicians or voters, agreed that war was necessary after 9/11. This includes both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, thanks to the media, liberals, and their influence over a certain political party, America has become dedicated to defeat. I question the motives of those who seek such a thing, and I find it unprecedented, wrong, and unAmerican. It is one thing to be against a war, especially if you were against it from the beginning, but to believe lies about why we went to war and begin to undermine our generals, our leaders, and our troops is simply unAmerican.

I also want to point you to a CS Lewis book where he deals with this issue. The book is called "The Weight of Glory," which is a collection of essay he wrote during his lifetime. One of those essays is called, "Why I Am Not a Pacifist." Lewis makes some good points concerning this issue. You can read the entire book for free online by clicking here.

With that said, here is Dr. Moore's treatment on the subject:

Do you honk your horn in anger at the "Visualize World Peace" bumper sticker on the Volkswagen bug in front of you? Does Toby Keith's song "The Angry American" cause you to roll your eyes in disgust? These pop culture expressions may be the closest many Americans come to wresting with the ethics of war and peace. But they-and your reaction to them-point to an ancient and important conversation: When, if ever, is it right for a government to kill people?

As you sort out the ethics of war, the stakes are high for your spiritual formation. Sure, you probably won't single-handedly decide whether the United States should invade Canada. But the way you think through the rightness or wrongness of military action tells you something about how you see your own personal story in light of the bigger story of the kingdom of Christ. Unbalanced and unbiblical attitudes about war often point to distorted views we hold about the meaning of peace, and even the gospel itself.

Make Love, Not War?

Chad thinks the war and peace issue is easy. Didn't Jesus settle this on the Sermon on the Mount? What's hard to interpret about "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies"? Wasn't Jesus essentially telling us, "All I am saying is, give peace a chance?" Chad participates in candlelight vigils outside his campus's ROTC building. He tears down Army recruiting signs, humming Neil Young antiwar ballads as he does so.

In one sense, pacifism has biblical warrant. The New Testament does command us to live peaceably with all people and not to seek vengeance from those who do us wrong (Rom 12:18-21). This means revenge of any sort-whether through physical violence or through office gossip-reveals that we truly don't believe that God will avenge his people at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom 12:19).

On the other hand, in the very same flow of thought that Paul tells the Christian not to seek revenge, he gives the state the power to "carry the sword" against evildoers (Rom 13:4 HCSB). Paul's admonition is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The Old Testament is, among other things, the story of a warrior people triumphing over their enemies and finding rest in the land of promise. Moreover, Jesus never commanded those in the military-even though these soldiers were serving a pagan Roman Empire-to walk away from such service, though he was quite willing to command prostitutes to abandon their unseemly employments.

Pacifism is problematic because it is utopian. Yes, the Bible affirms the way of peace. And the ultimate vision of peace is that of a restored creation in which there is no more war (Isa 2:4). And yet, the Bible also tells us that this shalom comes when all Jesus' enemies are subdued, when, as the old gospel song says, "every foe is vanquished and Christ is Lord indeed." The Bible tells us that day is not yet here. We do not yet see all things under Jesus' feet (Heb 2:8). In the meantime, governments must some times, though only carefully and as a last resort, go to war in order to protect the innocent and to restrain evil. Pacifists are right to tell us that war is always tragic. They are right to tell us to long for peace. But they are wrong to think that such peace can come by avoiding conflict. Passivity in the face of Hitler means a murderous Europe under a Nazi flag and, quite possibly, the extinction of the Jewish race. This is not peace, but horror.

Bomb Them to the Stone Age?

Jessica also thinks the war and peace issue is an easy one. She has no sympathy for pacifists, and supports military action against any and every rival to the United States. She cheers when she sees televised images of bombs dropping on CNN, and makes jokes about killing Arabs overseas. Jessica's first response to news of unrest overseas is to say, "Nuke them." She thinks the United States has a unique responsibility to open up the world's mission fields, by bringing freedom and democracy everywhere through the force of American military power.

Militarism also has a seemingly biblical point of view, at first glance. After all, one of the preeminent metaphors of the Christian life is that of battle. The gospel itself is a bloodbath, with Jesus triumphing over the occupying forces of the cosmos through a violent invasion (Rev 12). Jesus tells us that he didn't come to bring peace but a sword (Matt 10:34).

But, like pacifism, unbridled militarism is also utopian to the core. Yes, military action is sometimes necessary. But Christians have always seen war of any kind as a tragedy-even when it is the least bad of the alternatives before us. Christians also recognize that a concept of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" is an illusion. Jesus rebuked Peter for believing the answer to Jesus' arrest was the declaration of a violent counter-action (Matt 26:52). Sure, there will be a "war to end all wars," but it will be fought at Armageddon-and it won't be planned by the Pentagon.

Another Way

In truth, questions of war and peace are never easy this side of the New Jerusalem. This is why Christians through the centuries have avoided both pacifism and militarism: holding to a "just war" concept that killing is never good but is sometimes best. This "just war" concept limits such action to duly constituted governments, and strictly contains the bounds of such warfare. The intentional killing of innocent non-combatants, for instance, is wrong and outside the parameters of just war.

There are times when the alternative to war is clearly more bloodshed, more violence. Think about what would have happened around the world if the United States had taken no action after the attack on America on September 11, 2001? There are other times when the issues are much more complicated, and good Christians may disagree about whether military action is biblically warranted, even as we remember to pray for our leaders to make wise decisions.

In truth, the guy with the "Visualize World Peace" bumper sticker is partly right. And so is Toby Keith when he talks about justice raining down with vengeance on the enemies of what's good and true. Both are grasping at something that can only be found in the gospel story of Christ Jesus. War is sometimes necessary, and we as Christians should be willing to support, fight, and die for our country in those times. But every time we see a war-even a just and necessary one-we should be reminded that it means we're still living in a world groaning under the weight of sin.

We shouldn't tie dye our shirts and pretend a United Nations enforced peace can end bloodshed. But neither should we callously cheer the violence of war, as if it were a video game. Yes, we should visualize peace-but only a real peace, when the true Emperor of the universe rules over a world so pacific that we cannot even imagine the violence we once saw on CNN, or on Animal Planet. On that day, and maybe not until that day, there won't be the sound of rattling swords, firing guns, or bombs bursting in air.