Lady Gaga, Rob Bell and Hell

Isn't the whole point of religion to teach us morals and to love and care for each other no matter what age, gender, sexual preference, religion or race we are?

The question was one among many comments posted on a recent YouTube video by Lady Gaga. In one segment of the video, titled “Gagavision No.41”, Lady Gaga sits in the back of her limo on the way to give a performance. She sees a Christian street preacher standing outside, protesting her show. He is carrying a large sign that reads, “Trust in Christ or End in Hell”. Rolling down her window, she cheerfully introduces herself, “Hi, I’m Lady Gaga”, to which the man promptly replies, “So?”

The man hands her a “Get Out of Hell Free” card, and says, “It’s gonna happen one day, darling”. She retorts, “Well, they better open up the gate”. In the further brief exchange, the man comes across as condescending and hostile. Gaga tells him that she and her fans believe in God and that she went to Catholic school for 13 years. He replies that growing up in that screwed-up religion is probably the source of her problems. Later in the video, Gaga reflects on her encounter with the man her video identifies as a “fundamentalist preacher”.

“What I’m trying to understand is, there’s 3000 people standing in my line and no one standing in your line. Who’s going to hell?”, Gaga says, laughing. “But I think what’s mostly confusing is why he printed up these things (referring to the man’s “Get Out of Hell Free” cards). If it was so easy to get out of hell, why don’t we just print up a bunch of these guys?” Becoming more serious, Gaga continues, “It just makes me sad that my fans have to see that. But I know that’s just part of what I’m supposed to do.” At that point in the video, words flash on the screen in black, ALL CAP letters against a red backdrop: IF YOU HAVE REVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL, THAN YOU HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE

As I began writing this blog article, Gaga’s video had already garnered more than 420,000 views and 5,000 comments. Since then, the video has racked up 950,000+ views and 7000 comments and counting. From such numbers, it would seem Lady Gaga is accurate in observing that her way of looking at life resonates with a lot of people. On the other hand, the Christian message has never claimed to be a popular one:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Matthew 7:13-14 ESV)

But I want to respond in this article to the question posed by the person who asked, “Isn't the whole point of religion to teach us morals and to love and care for each other no matter what age, gender, sexual preference, religion or race we are?” I think the question reflects a quite common conception of what religion is supposed to accomplish. This view sees all religions, including Christianity, as basically a means of inculcating morals and helping people strive to be better, more loving persons. All paths to God are equally valid. This popular view is one held not only by non-religious people, but even by many who identify themselves as Christians. Before I discuss this further, I want to sidetrack for a moment.

In terms of "media time" it is already ages ago, but a firestorm erupted in the Christian blogosphere just 2 months back, when Justin Taylor posted an article titled, Rob Bell: Universalist? that strongly criticized Rob Bell's theological message. The article focused, not on Bell's soon to be released book, "Love Wins", but rather, on the publisher's description and video promo for the book .

The piece got thousands of views and elicited hundreds of comments (maybe not Gaga's kind of numbers, but for a reformed blog, it was lots of attention). Many who commented complained that it was quite unfair to criticize Bell's book and its ideas, since at that point, the book was not yet released. Others brought out the old, tiresome "we should never judge other Christians, it's not loving" speech. But many recognized that Taylor's article was on target and helpful in identifying, in advance of its release, the controversial ideas that Bell has been espousing for some time now.

In the wake of the March 17 release of Love Wins, well-known Reformed writers, Michael Horton and Kevin DeYoung, each wrote thoughtful, detailed critiques. Southern Seminary president Al Mohler posted excellent articles engaging the discussion on Bell, and recorded and posted a panel discussion held at the seminary. Pastor John MacArthur has now written a series of articles strongly critical of Bell and his work, boldly calling out Bell as a false teacher (for these resources and more, see the links below).

But some will ask, why all the hoopla? Is it really that important that Christians focus so much attention on a book one does not agree with theologically?

Well, in a word, YES.

Because Christians have got a revealed message to proclaim, not a story that may be altered to suit one's own fancies, or re-fashioned to make it a better sell. Yes, the doctrine of hell is a turn-off. No one likes to think mankind is so sinful that all people deserve hell, and that apart from Christ, all of us are by nature "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). Such a thought pricks against human pride-- we protest: we're not that bad!

But the question we ought to be asking, especially if we claim to believe the Bible, and claim that we believe in the Jesus of the Bible, is not, "Why doesn't God save everybody?, or "How can a loving God send people to hell?" Rather we should ask, is Jesus telling the truth when He states that unless we believe in Him, we already stand condemned and the wrath of God remains on us? Everybody loves John 3:16-17. But what about John 3:18 and John 3:36?

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God... [36] Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:16-18, 36 ESV)

Christians gladly partake of the blessing of receiving Christ as Savior by believing what He says about going to the cross for our sins is true. But then we must also listen to and receive what He says about hell, for He spoke of it often. As John Yenchko has written,

This is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God. The One who held children tenderly in His arms spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible; and I, for one, am glad that it was He. If you will not hear Jesus on hell, then don’t pretend to hear Him on anything else. Let’s have integrity, shall we?

Jesus says in the parable of the weeds, Matthew 13, that all who do evil will be thrown into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. He quotes the above sentence in Mark 9:48 where He describes hell as “the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” He says of those who did not take in a stranger or provide for the needy: “They will go away to eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus that Jesus told, the rich man is in hell and looks up to see Abraham far away in heaven, with Lazarus beside him. The rich man cries out, “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue because I am in agony in this fire” (Luke 16:24). Abraham’s negative reply comes back, Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us” (Luke 16:26). So Jesus says in Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

In contrast to the Jesus of Scripture, whose continual theme is telling people to repent of their sins and escape the wrath of God in hell, there is the sentimental conception that Christian love is all about God unconditionally, uncritically loving all people, regardless of their beliefs or behaviors. In this view, true Christ-likeness is to be non-judgmental and “loving” towards all others, no matter what they do. Those who label certain behavior as morally wrong or sinful, have strayed from the original message of unconditional love that Christ meant us to emulate. Thus they become “haters”, “fundamentalists” and “judgmental” people who distort the “loving” message of Christ and give Christianity a bad name.

Now I understand that non-believers might believe this fluff-- they usually don't believe that the Bible is accurate, or they may question how faithfully it represents what Jesus really said. But those who claim to know Christ as revealed in Scripture must see that the same Bible that reveals Jesus as a gentle and meek in some ways, also shows Him issuing the sternest warnings about the hell that awaits those who reject Him. Jesus loved people enough to tell them the truth about hell.

Interestingly, Rob Bell’s book seems to paint a similar picture of God’s love as the view described above. Bell downplays the traditional understanding that God is angry towards sin and that the sinfulness of mankind is our biggest problem. Now Rob Bell has a huge, young evangelical audience, and is recognized as a gifted communicator, even by those who don't agree with his theology. This is why many well-known reformed teachers have worked overtime to present strong rebuttals to his teaching. They see the spiritual peril in the ideas Bell is spreading, the deadly consequences for those who might be swayed to adopt his views.

Bell’s new work pointedly questions the traditional understanding of hell, and attempts to clarify what he thinks is the the true nature of the gospel message. He argues that the primary message of Christianity, the prime characteristic of God Himself, is “God is love”. “Love Wins” says Bell, because in the end God wants everyone saved, and He is powerful enough to get what He wants. In Bell’s view, hell is not a literal place where unbelieving rebels will be eternally and justly punished by God. Instead those who reject God and don’t live in relationship to Him are already experiencing their “hell” in this life. If there is a hell in the next life, Bell surmises that it will not be eternal, because those who don’t accept and profess Christ consciously while on earth will no doubt get a second chance. Hell thus becomes a kind of purgatory.

Bell writes, [There will be] “endless opportunities in an endless amount of time for people to say yes to God. At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.”

Now what should be said in response to this? Is Bell's version of the Christian story superior because it will be appeal to and be embraced by those who've really wanted to be Christians, but just didn't like all the stuff about hell and sin? Yes, Bell's version of Christianity probably will be received happily by those who have a difficult time accepting the more traditional view. The problem, is what Bell gives them as a substitute is a lie and a mirage. Hell is real and literal. We don't have the luxury of "endless opportunities in an endless amount of time" to either accept or reject Christ. There is no biblical warrant to believe that those who do not consciously choose Christ in this life will get another chance to do so in the afterlife. In my next article, I will examine in greater detail the biblical evidence for hell and what happens after we die.

It's ironic, but sometimes we can get a true message even from a not-so-good messenger. The street preacher who spoke so condescendingly to Lady Gaga was not an accurate reflection of our Lord's compassion towards lost sinners. Yet his "Trust in Christ or End in Hell" message is much more accurate than a message that teaches that God doesn't punish evildoers in an eternal hell for their sins committed in this life, of which the greatest is to reject Christ.

From the beginning, there have always been competing versions of Christianity. Thus it remains always our responsibility as believers to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)." False gospels and false Christs don't save. The world has its many gospels, but Christianity has but one faith and one message to give: Jesus Christ shed His blood to save sinners.

More Resources

Bell’s Hell: A Review by Michael Horton

Bell’s Hell: A Review by Michael Horton- PDF version

God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of “Love Wins”

God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of “Love Wins- PDF version)

We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology

Panel Discussion — Rob Bell and “Love Wins”

“A Massive Shift Coming in What it Means to Be a Christian?” — TIME Magazine Considers Rob Bell

MSNBC: Martin Bashir’s Interview with Rob Bell

Call it a Comeback: Evangelicals, Liberals, and the Problem of Hell

Love Never Wins When Truth Loses

The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell

Pastor Rob Bell: What if Hell Doesn't Exist? (TIME cover article April 14 issue)

Articles by John MacArthur:
Bell’s Inferno

Rob Bell’s Unbelief in His own Words

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

Change We Really Don't Need

I could try to write my own piece on why "ObamaCare" does not offer the short and long-term reform of health care this country really needs. But I'm certainly no expert on this very complex topic. Yet there is no shortage of experts who are analyzing the proposed health care reform package known as Obamacare and find its proposals to be bad for the pocketbook, bad for freedom, and ironically, bad for health care. For example, Jeffrey Flier, dean of Harvard Medical School, offers a compelling analysis of the current health care reform in a recent article, "Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade".

Flier first summarizes the problems in the current system:

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

His article points out that the proposed "reform" is no reform at all. It seems the primary achievement anticipated from Obama's package is that millions more people will be added to a dysfunctional health care system. It will neither make health care better nor less costly, yet by over regulating, will stifle innovation. He explains:

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system.

The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system— now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

Mr. Flier argues that many he has spoken are fully aware that although this health care package brings down the number of uninsured, the system will require drastic long-term reforms in the way health care is organized and funded. Indeed, he writes, he has "met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit"-- in other words, they know the current package doesn't accomplish true reform of the health care system but are willing to vote for it as a means of beginning the process of reform. Flier concludes that the American public should be made explicitly aware of this strategy, saying, "We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead."

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute has also critically analyzed the current health care reform package in brief but informative articles such as "Obamacare to Come: Seven Bad Ideas for Health Care Reform", "Halfway to Where? Answering the Key Questions of Health Care Reform" and "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World".

Among Tanner's conclusions:

• Contrary to the Obama administration's repeated assurances, millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it. As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan.

• Some Americans may find themselves forced into a new insurance plan that no longer includes their current doctor.

• At a time of rising unemployment, the government would raise the cost of hiring workers by requiring employers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize government coverage.

• Every American would be required to buy an insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even individuals who are currently insured — and happy with their insurance — will have to switch to insurance that meets the government's definition of "acceptable insurance."

• Americans will pay more than $820 billion in additional taxes over the next 10 years, and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.

• The current health care bills will increase the budget deficit by at least $239 billion over the next 10 years, and far more in the years beyond that. If the new health care entitlement were subject to the same 75-year actuarial standards as Social Security or Medicare, its unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.

• While the bills contain no direct provisions for rationing care, they nonetheless increase the likelihood of government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.

• Contrary to assertions of some opponents, the bills contain no provision for euthanasia or mandatory end-of-life counseling. The bills' provisions on abortion coverage are far murkier.

Looking at countries with nationalized health care systems, Tanner points out that theses systems have serious problems and should not be the model for America. Though per capita expenditures for health care may be less, the following troubling facts are also true:

• Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.

• Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
  

• In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.

• Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

Tanners also finds that in these countries "the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features."

Conservative commentator Chuck Norris (yes, that Chuck Norris) also has contributed a helpful article, "6 Reasons Obama-Care Is Bad Medicine. "

Norris shows that unnecessarily rushed policy-making, hugely increased deficits, greater burden on the American taxpayer, creation of more inefficient, expensive Federal bureaucracy, stifling of competition and innovation are all solid reasons to reject Obamacare. Unfortunately with a Democratic majority in Congress and the mad rush to pass this legislation, Americans may very well end up with a "reformed" system that brings us further along the road to socialism and at the same time does little to improve the quality or expense of health care.

Get educated and make your voice heard-- tell your Senator you don't want ObamaCare! Join with the many organizations fighting on behalf of the unborn who are therefore also fighting hard to keep Congress from passing versions of this legislation that include hugely expanded abortion coverage at taxpayer expense.

Further resources
Americans United for Life
Ideas for Free-Market Health Reform
Susan B. Anthony List
10 Reasons ObamaCare Is Bad for Your Health and Your Pocketbook
PatientsUnitedNow
Defend Your Health Care


ObamaCare, health care reform, health care debate, untold story of health care reform, health care reform resources, health care reform and the unborn

Don't Be Fooled by Obama

Update 11-2-08: More articles on election 2008:

Tuesday’s Choice More freedom and prosperity, or less?
By Deroy Murdock

Ego and Mouth by Thomas Sowell

Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse by Frank Turek

It's just days away from the election. And its outcome is far from certain, despite the impression one might get from media with its constant references to Obama's lead in the polls. Interestingly, although Obama has hugely outspent McCain on television advertising, as much as 20-1 in some states, the latest poll results show the race has tightened. For example, as of Friday, October 31, 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll had Barack Obama with 51% of the vote and John McCain with 47%. An average of national polls also on Friday showed Obama with 48.8% and McCain with 41.6% of the vote.

Those who read this blog regularly know that it deals primarily with theological and cultural commentary, rather than politics. Nevertheless in these past few weeks I have felt compelled to bring attention to the presidential race, because I believe the stakes are high for America and for liberty.

Obama is clearly articulate and intelligent, but his views are far more liberal than that of most Americans. His vision of "change" is to turn America into a socialistic system like many in Europe. Abortion "rights" and gay "rights" will be high on his presidential agenda. He has pledged that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (to protect abortion rights), and that he will use the "bully pulpit" of the White House to promote homosexual causes.

For months Obama and his campaign have been treated with kid gloves by the media, which (except for Fox News) is clearly biased towards an Obama-Biden presidential win. Victor Davis Hanson of NRO brilliantly exposes this liberal media bias in "The End of Journalism".

As the above article shows, Obama flat-out lied to America when he reneged on his pledge to accept public financing for his presidential campaign if the Republican candidate also would do so. But the press left him alone for this, or applauded his act of political shrewdness.

Obama also attended a church for twenty years that was preaching "liberation theology" and the evils of white supremacy, and until recently, named the pastor of that church, Jeremiah Wright, as his spiritual mentor. But when it became no longer politically expedient to maintain his connection with Wright, Obama unceremoniously dumped him.

Similarly, Obama makes light of his relationship with unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers. However as the above article points out, up until 2005 Obama "was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist." In 1997, Obama even wrote a positive review of an Ayer's book, "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court," and the blurb of the review appears on the book's jacket.

We must be grateful then that the web allows many to research for themselves Obama's record, and to see documentation of his prevarication, political maneuvering and ever-evolving stand on various issues.

It is hard to fathom that so many Americans, just seven years after 9/11, are willing to entrust the Presidency to a man of such little executive experience, questionable associations and liberal an agenda as Mr. Obama. It seems that for many, a vote for Obama is an expression of deep dissatisfaction and frustration with the Bush administration. With so many listing the economy as their predominant concern, it seems there is not much of a stomach to continue the expensive war in Iraq. Yet such a view is shortsighted, as Charles Krauthammer reminds us in his endorsement of McCain:

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

So again I point you to more election 2008 resources below, to help you to make a wise decision come November 4th.


Joe the Vet Endorses McCain in YouTube's Most Popular Election Video


Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote
By Karl Rove

Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Obama
By Daniel Jordan

Sensibility: The Christian Pastor in the Age of Obama-mania and Why Evangelicals Love Him
by Bob Bixby

Can you be pro-life and vote for Obama?

The Tyranny of the Minority- How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex “Marriage” Undermines a Free Society
By S. T. Karnick

Taxing Times- The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose
By Thomas Sowell

The True Meaning of 'Historic Vote'
By Daniel Henninger

Life of the New Party- A redistributionist success story
By Stanley Kurtz

Obama and the Politics of Crowds- The masses greeting the candidate on the trail are a sign of great unease
By Fouad Ajami

Why 'born-again' Christians are backing Obama
By Jim Brown

Obama's Leftism- The Democratic nominee is nowhere near as moderate as he sounds
By Joshua Muravchik

McCain for President, Part I
McCain for President, Part II
By Charles Krauthammer

The Silencing of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright
By Paul Kengor

Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Presidential Election 2008, Abortion, Gay Marriage, liberal media bias, Christian evangelical voters, political polls, American economic issues impacting election

Resources for Christian Voters- Election 2008

I have come across the following articles and web resources for helping those who hold Judeo-Christian values determine who to vote for in this next election. Although neither McCain nor Obama are the ideal Christian candidate, I believe that the McCain-Palin ticket would be much more favorable to upholding core Christian values, such as the sanctity of life and marriage between a man and a woman.

There are Christians supporting Obama who argue that an Obama/Biden administration would bring more unity and cooperation to government. They seem to believe that Obama's economic strategies will help reduce abortions because they will direct more aid to the poor. In addition many Christian Obama supporters claim that Christianity should embrace homosexuality and homosexuals as our brothers and sisters in Christ, because of the call of Jesus to love and not judge. Still another argument is that to maintain a consistently pro-life policy necessitates bringing an end to the war in Iraq, which is causing the loss of many lives.

I think that all of the above arguments are inconsistent with a traditional, orthodox understanding of Christian faith. The Bible teaches that God creates life in the womb and that we are not to snuff out lives that God alone has created. In Scripture, war is a sometimes necessary evil. Homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against God's design of man and woman and how the sexes are to relate to one another. One cannot practice a lifestyle that is considered immoral by the law of God and yet at the same time claim to be obedient to God as a Christ-follower.

It is naive to think that either an Obama or a McCain administration would somehow engender more unity and cooperation in the current government. There is an ideological divide in America, reflected in Congress, and the divide is widening. An Obama presidency certainly will steer this nation in the liberal trajectory it already seems to be on; his stands on issues such as abortion or gay marriage are in alignment with liberal Hollywood and media values, but not with traditional Christian beliefs.

Only by re-defining the meaning of Christian is it possible to advocate Barack Obama as one whose stance on the issues is in harmony with traditional Judeo-Christian family values. On issues of fundamental importance to traditional Christians-- the protection of life and the defense of marriage-- Mr. Obama's views and his record are the opposite of what most Christians have supported in these areas, as the resources below demonstrate.

Now if "Christian" is re-defined to mean someone who is an unrelenting advocate for a woman's so-called "right" to choose to kill her baby, and/or to be one who promises to pursue the aggressive agenda of pro-homosexual special interests, then yes, Obama is a solid Christian. I know that some say that Obama's stated concerns for improving the economic fortunes of those who are struggling demonstrates a Christian priority. I agree that the poor are properly the concern of all Christians, whose God is full of compassion towards all and especially the poor, the orphan and the widow. But I disagree with Obama's basic approach to fixing their economic plight via social programs and redistribution of wealth. I admit I am no expert on economics, but like many, I have a great skepticism and fear about a plan that seems to depend upon socialistic principles for its success.

Finally I think that Christians must make sure to vote in this coming election, even if one is not happy with the candidates in terms of how well they align with one's Christian values. Again, a very critical issue to our future is the lifelong Supreme Court justices that will be chosen by the next President-- I think that a McCain-Palin administration is much more likely to nominate conservative candidates in this regard. We will be feeling the impact of the decisions of these justices for years and years to come.

I fear that we are going to see a time in the not-too-distant future when Christians, who for so long have enjoyed freedom of worship in this country and whose values helped shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which in turn produced the great freedoms and prosperity this nation has experienced, are going to be persecuted as intolerant and hateful for simply remaining true to their faith.

I think an Obama-Biden administration will create a climate wherein all forms of religious expression will be acceptable--except Christian speech. Hate crime laws may be passed that will prevent pastors from preaching according to the truth of the Bible or face jail for doing so. I pray the Lord would give believers wisdom to the significance of what is happening and the importance of our choices right now, and to not be deceived by the smooth promises of peace and prosperity being offered by Mr. Obama and his campaign.

Now to be fair, all of the candidates for President/Vice-President state that faith profoundly influences their decision making. There are several articles below examining the faith of the candidates. I think the important thing is to read their statements, and examine how their track record aligns with issues of traditional importance and value to Christians.

Now matter who wins in November, we know that our God is in control. May we have a government in which there will be continued freedom to worship-- for Christians as well as those of other faiths-- freedom to state one's religious convictions without fear of reprisal or being thrown in jail. If one speaks critically about the Muslim faith they are often met with violence, but may it not be true here-- the American way is to protect the freedom of speech of even enemies or those with whom we bitterly disagree. May we continue to be able to speak our minds, our hearts and our consciences in this manner, as we protect the right of all to liberty of speech.

May we all cast our votes wisely, with God's help.

Should Christians Support Obama?

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency (Side by Side Comparison of Answers)

Saddleback Civil Forum: Rick Warren Questions Obama and McCain (Videos)

Obama-McCain Comparison on Issues

Download the FRCA Congressional Voter Guide (PDF file)

2008 Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates

John McCain: keeping faith, on his own terms

How religion guides Palin

Obama: I have a deep faith

Joseph Biden: a frank and abiding faith

King Wilberforce

Tags: 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Christian voters, family values, Who should Christians vote for- Obama or McCain?, election 2008 resources

A Critical Election Issue: Supreme Court Justices

The video below is produced by the Judicial Confirmation Network and reminds Americans that a most critical issue in the Presidential election is that whoever becomes President will choose those who are nominated and eventually will be the next Supreme Court Justices. The decisions made by this small body (appointed for life) certainly will impact the lives of Americans for years to come.

As an article by Matt Lewis on TownHall.com states:

Whether you are worried about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” or the abortion issue, the next president will select Supreme Court Justices that will dramatically impact your life. But are voters paying attention? With any luck, the Judicial Confirmation Network will succeed in their quest to bring judges back to the forefront of the political debate. The economy may be scary right now, but the idea of referring to “Justice Clinton” for the next two decades could be even scarier.

Although history has shown that having a conservative President selecting justices is no guarantee that the justices ultimately appointed will prove conservative in their decision-making, the selection of justices is just too important an issue to be ignored. Obama is charming and articulate, but his agenda for this country is radically socialistic and liberal.

Tags: Presidential Election 2008, Obama, Supreme Court Nominations, Supreme Court justices

Religion in the Public Square-Debate: Should Religion Have a Place in Politics or Government?

On March 6, 2008, The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored a lively and fascinating debate on the resolution: "Religion should have no place in politics or government", as part of the National Discussion and Debate Series.

Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Jacques Berlinerblau, Associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, spoke in favor of the resolution. Chuck Colson, Founder and Chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, and Bishop Harry Jackson, Senior Pastor of Hope Christian Church, argued against it. Evan Thomas, Editor at Large of Newsweek, moderated the debate.

At the link above, you can watch the debate in its entirety, or download video or audio of the entire debate Transcripts of the debate and a question and answer session are also available.

Facebook Online Community: National Discussion and Debate Series

Tags: Miller Center of Public Affairs, National Discussion and Debate series, debate, religion and politics, religion and government, Rev. Barry Lynn, Chuck Colson, Jacques Berlinerblau, Bishop Harry Jackson, Evan Thomas

Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America

Al Mohler has written an inspiring article titled Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America -- a charge for the Church to keep even as we are confronted by a culture that has radically turned away from the Judeo-Christian values that once shaped it.

I am challenged by this call. May all Christians contend for truth in the way Mr. Mohler describes, that we may be found faithful, no matter what the results.

Debating Abortion with Emerging Christians

Over at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries blog a post titled Emergers on Abortion: Where Do You Stand? has generated lively conversation/debate. Some contributing to the discussion would likely describe themselves as Emergers and others, like myself, as Reformed or Calvinistic.

It has been an interesting, if somewhat troubling, discussion. One person said that although they think abortion to be a terrible thing-- and would rejoice if Roe vs. Wade were overturned-- nevertheless they will vote for Obama or Hillary come November. The track record of these two presidential candidates on abortion is consistent-- (see this recent article, Obama's Constitution or this article showing Hillary's record on abortion)-- their support for abortion rights/woman's choice is both staunch and unwavering. Nevertheless a vote for Obama or Hillary is defended with the argument that abortion hasn't been eliminated under Republicans anyway, and that the social conditions that lead to abortion will improve more under an Obama or Hillary administration. So better to support a candidate who'll improve social conditions and thus really impact the abortion problem.

The Emergers prescription seems to be then that Christians contribute to the healing of society by expressing a gentler, kinder, more "tolerant" kind of Christianity that isn't so "narrow" and "judgmental" about issues like abortion and gay marriage. In addition, the Christian societal agenda should be broadened to confront the problems of poverty, AIDS, the disenfranchised, etc, and demonstrate to the world we're really loving Christians.

I have contributed a number of comments to the ongoing discussion. A main theme has been my saying that while there is truth in the "Emergers" saying that Christians have a responsibility, not only to issue biblical proclamations about right and wrong, but also to show forth their Christian love to neighbor through action, a social response cannot stand alone, particularly with regard to the abortion issue. Some think the New Testament rules out all political or legal stratagems as legitimate means of changing society. They say focus more on implementing positive social change rather than fighting to reverse decisions like the 1973 Roe vs Wade Supreme Court case. But this is a grave mistake, one which I don't think is justified by Scripture.

Another commenter argues that abortion is not addressed in the Bible, that it is hypocritical to fight abortion when so many use birth control methods that are abortofacients (in other words, forms of abortion), so it really is a non-issue.

I think it's sad that the evil of abortion actually needs to be defended in a discussion among people who identify themselves as Christians. If the statements I've encountered during the discussion are reflective of the effect of emerging church thought, I'll have no part of it, thank you very much.

Below I'm pasting excerpts from some of the comments I've made over there (I figure that as long as I'm taking the time to present arguments and quote Scripture I might as well create a post here). For full context, please visit the link I provided above.

Yes, I think that as we preach and apply the gospel, first to ourselves and then in our relationship to the world, Christians can effect real change in society (the “salt” and “light” principles). Yet if abortion is a wrong because God is the Creator of life and we are not to play God by taking to ourselves the power of deciding who lives and dies, then this is the self-evident argument we must present. As we present it, we must also work towards getting the law changed since it is this evil law that permits and sanctions the evil of abortion. So while we ought to do all the educational and service and loving actions that show we are truly Christians on this issue, let us not neglect the critical point that we must overturn the very law that ushered in this great national tragedy.

In several of my responses I have agreed with the point that it seems the Emergent church types are making– that the fight to change minds and practices on abortion must be broad-based, dealing also with the many social problems that contribute to it. Agreed. At the same time, the fight against abortion must not neglect the point that abortion is a moral/spiritual/sin issue– a wrong chosen by sinful people in a society so twisted that it doesn’t even recognize the wrong of it anymore. Christians who recognize God as the Author of life however, ought to recognize the wrongness of abortion and this must include continued effort to overturn the law that makes abortion so easy today. An approach to abortion that thinks that Roe vs Wade will be outlawed without a continued fight, or despite putting actively pro-abortion candidates into office, is naive and gravely mistaken.

And from today:

I think that the personhood of the child in the womb is well-established by the Scriptures, which point throughout to God’s formation of that which is in the womb. The fact that David in Psalm 139 was inspired to use poetic language in describing this doesn’t mean that the fact behind the description– that God Himself fashions the human being that grows within the womb–is any less a fact. In addition to Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 which have been mentioned, we also find Luke 1:44, Gen 25:23, 29:31, I Samuel 1:5-6, Job 31:15, Psalm 17:14, Psalm 127:3, Eccl 11:5, Isaiah 44:2, 24; 46:3, 49:1, 5; 66:9, Hosea 9:14, Luke 1:15, 31, Luke 2:21 as the testimony of Scripture that God is fully in charge of what takes place in the womb. He is in charge of it opening or not opening. Also He knows the persons He forms in the womb, even before they are born, who they are, and what they will be and do.

If then persons in the womb are considered by God as persons and can be known by Him in a personal way, as these Scriptures show, then to kill what is growing in the womb is to murder a human life that God has created for His own purpose.

3. In what way does humanity show itself to be made in the image of God? Are you saying that the image of our physical body represents God, so that, as statues represent human beings, so human beings represent what God looks like? This isn’t consistent with the teaching of Scripture that God is spirit (John 4:24) and is invisible (Luke 24:39). It is true that when Christ incarnated, He took on a visible, bodily form, but the Scriptures show that taking on this form was a humbling experience for an almighty, eternally existent God, something He did in order to complete His mission of saving man from their sins “…though he was in the form of God, [He] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 4:5-8). Jesus allowed us to “see” God in the sense that by coming to earth and taking on a human body, he became the “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15) and “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (John 1:18)”.

So when Gen 1:27 speaks of man and woman being created in the image of God, I think it means that we reflect God in our inner nature, not in our physical image. Like God, we have the capacity to think, to reason, to feel, to will, to act on our will, to have relationship. This ability to engage in relationship with God seems to be a key reason that God created man. God was complete in Himself and did not need us. But He made us that we might have fellowship with Him and with each other. And here is where I believe being made in the image of God touches on the abortion issue– for if even in the womb God is already have a relationship with us, as the Scriptures show, that murdering the life in the womb is to thwart the relational purpose of God.

4. I don’t think one is forced to conclude from Jer 1:5 that Jeremiah must have been eternally pre-existent. Obviously this would be impossible because only God is eternally pre-existent. Could not the passage be describing that God created both the soul and the body of Jeremiah, but first began with conceiving of Jeremiah in His own mind, so to speak? “I will create a being named Jeremiah, and he will have this personality and these gifts and talents, and I will also fashion his body in the womb to look and be a certain way, in keeping with the purposes I have for his life.” None of this would demand that Jeremiah be an eternally pre-existent being, it would just show that God, as the verse says, “knew” Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb.

Further Resources:
This article by leading feminists and pro-choice advocates says candidate Hillary is the best hope for preservation of "a woman's right to choose":

Why Hillary Is The Right Choice For Women

Christian articles that show why abortion is wrong and what we should do about it:
Exposing the Dark Work of Abortion
Ten Reasons Why it is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children
Is There A Clear Biblical Mandate Against Abortion
Arguments Against Abortion
Abortion and the Ancient Practice of Child Sacrifice

Humble Yet Bold Ambassadors

The question of how Christians should engage in public discourse, particularly in what manner they communicate with those who differ from them, whether other Christians, people of other faiths, agnostics, or atheists, is a very important one, because we are "ambassadors for Christ"(2 Cor 5:20). As His ambassadors, we are called to the highest standard of integrity and holiness as we verbally express ourselves.

While the manner in which Christians engage others in the marketplace is certainly not a new concern, the explosion of blogging on the Internet in these modern times has made the issue even more urgent and relevant. Virtually anyone with access to a computer and Internet may create a blog and begin sending forth their words and opinions, unregulated and unmonitored, into the permanent and public discussion. Unfortunately, this means that much may be said that is unbecoming of those who call themselves Christian. Name-calling, gossip, slander, poor argumentation, have all, unfortunately, been witnessed. Words spoken in anger and without much forethought are with one click of a button etched into the public record. Being fallible humans, our words may often be sinful, even though we do profess to follow Jesus Christ.

In light of the responsibility we have then, as "ambassadors for Christ", recent essays* by leading Christians call upon Christians to regulate themselves as they debate in the marketplace of ideas. We are reminded that we ought to be civil and gracious (both to the world and with each other) as we present the truths of Christianity, keeping in mind that the way we communicate before the world is being watched by those who are wait to see whether Christians indeed are those who have been touched by the love of God, as we claim.

In my previous post I argued that a culture in which truth is under attack demands a bold Christian response, yet one that can be humble, respectful and loving at the same time. Yet there is probably a place too, for those who have a more prophetic gift/voice, and thus may speak in stronger language when they address the sins of this generation.

But let us remember the words of our Lord Jesus who said, "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned (Matthew 12:36-37)." Therefore, whether our words as believers are those spoken as prophet or ambassador, let us remain vigilant over them, knowing we will be judged.

For further reading:

I highly recommend this essay, which offers much practical wisdom on this subject: "How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us", by Dr. Roger R. Nicole, Ph.D., a Visiting Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary.

*This is one of the recent essays appealing to Christians to improve their civility, (which I refer to in this post):
A Plea For A More Civil Discourse by Thom S. Rainer

*My previous post The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth, was prompted by David Aikman's editorial "Attack Dogs of Christendom" which appears in the August 2007 issue of Christianity Today.

Does the Bible call Christians to defend the faith/argue for the faith?

Monergism.com also offers a whole page of resources dealing with this issue, under the category "CONFLICT"

Tags: Civil discourse, Christians in the marketplace of ideas, ambassadors for Christ, dealing with those who differ from us, Christian bloggers

The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth

The August 2007 issue of Christianity Today magazine features an editorial titled "Attack Dogs of Christendom" written by David Aikman, an esteemed journalist who has written much on the topic of religion and Christianity. The editorial examines what Aikman labels the "attack dogs of Christendom", that is, certain web-based ministries that are frequently boldly critical of other Christians. The main point of his brief essay is that, if necessary, Christians may criticize other believers, but should do so with a grace that provides a fitting witness to the transforming work of God on their own character. This certainly sounds right, but is it the whole story?

Aikman describes particular ministries as greatly missing this mark, saying that they are "so drenched in sarcasm and animosity" that they might leave inquirers to Christianity "permanently disillusioned". He bemoans the fact that at a time when "no attribute of civilized life seems more under attack than civility", such web ministries, by their uncivility towards other Christians, do not demonstrate "the witness that brings savor and grace to a crumbling generation". Instead, he writes, they "blast each another from here to eternity with characterizations that differ little from the coarse vulgarity of cable TV". Aikman concludes, "Where is the gentleness, modesty, and wisdom with which we are supposed to shame those who mock and accuse the Body of Christ from outside?" and urges Christians to set an example for the world of gracious critiquing of one another.

Aikman's plea that Christians demonstrate God's love and graciousness, even if they find it sometimes necessary to criticize each other, is a point well taken. Fallen human nature tends to exhibit self-righteousness as it looks upon the failings of others, but our Lord reminds us, when picking the speck out of someone else's eye, we must first see to it that the log in our own has been removed. If also we constantly reflect on the biblical truth that we (even as believers in Christ) continue to be fallen creatures that are only saved and transformed by the power of God through the sacrifice of His only Son on a cross, we will not help but become more humble and gracious towards other sinful, fallible people.

Getting doctrine right is no incidental, trivial aspect of our call to follow Christ, but a vital work.

Nonetheless, I believe Mr. Aikman has really missed the passion and even the great frustration that drives many "discernment" ministries. This passion is, in many cases, driven by a correct understanding of this truth: that getting doctrine right is no incidental, trivial aspect of our call to follow Christ, but a vital work. I would certainly agree with Aikman's witness to the attack on civility in our culture. But does not this dearth of civility and increase in coarseness mostly correlate with the increased godlessness in society? The United States, a nation founded upon free expression of religious beliefs, whose government and founding documents were molded by the Judeo-Christian world view, has increasingly abandoned Judeo-Christian truth as its bedrock value system. Included in this abandonment is the growing tendency in these times to resist defining truth objectively. Of course if truth cannot be decided upon objectively, then establishing right theological doctrine seems even more unobtainable. And the fight for right doctrine has come to be seen by many in different quarters as a sort of petty squabbling over matters that are not essential to working together as Christians for the greater common good.

One might say then, with all due respect to Mr. Aikman, that "no attribute of civilized life seems more under attack than truth"-- for truth is under attack not only by the liberal establishment, but even by those within Christendom who erode truth by not taking their own firm stand upon doctrines of the faith. The decrease in civility Aikman laments seems directly tied to a nation that no longer fears God as it once did, and which is increasingly marginalizing God in all aspects of its civic life. But the Church is called to be salt and light in our culture (Matthew 5:13-14), exposing the darkness by living according to truth and holiness, and preserving that which is good. Yet this edifying and preserving only is accomplished as the Church obeys its mandate to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19-20)." Teaching accurately that which Jesus taught then, seems to be indispensable to making disciples, and demands that we interpret and disseminate the teachings of Christ correctly.

Despite this critical task, many evangelicals today (especially in the Emergent camp, but also in the broader evangelical community) are downplaying the importance of doctrinal correctness, some labeling it "divisive" to the Church at large. There is a kind of teaching in American Christianity today that has become most concerned with providing practical aids to living in the here and now: improve your marriage, your sex life, your finances. It is claimed that in-fighting over doctrine presents a poor witness to the world, and distracts the Church from its more primary and urgent call to do "love" through justice, serving the poor, helping the hurting, etc. The debate over doctrine is viewed as dry, intellectual, and most of all abstract, an exercise which doesn't help us bring Christ's compassion to a hurting world in practical ways.

Surely there is truth to the charge that a practice of Christianity dominated by endless debate over minor theological points, and which seeks to root out heresy, not for the sake of more fruitful, God-honoring living, but motivated primarily by pride and ego, will leave those who practice it puffed up with knowledge but lacking in the charity towards others that really counts eternally (1 Corinthians 13). Some discernment ministries may indeed be driven by these less than noble, ultimately unworthy, motivations.

The Age of Tolerance
However, we are living in the Age of Tolerance, and that spirit it seems, has invaded the evangelical church. For today many ask Christians to cease being dogmatic (after all, who are we to say that Christ is the only way?); and to talk about man's essential problem as the lack of self-esteem, rather than, as the Bible tells it, sinful rebellion against God. We ought, some would say, to make Christianity "user-friendly"-- to shape our presentation of the gospel to appeal to the "postmodern" frame of mind, or re-package it so as to appeal to the "felt needs" of unbelievers. In other words, don't preach the biblical counsel that speaks about the depth of sin and the universal need for repentance, and of the price of the cross of Christ. Preach instead that God has a wonderful plan for your life, a plan to make you happy, bless your finances and your health and lead you into a kind of heaven on earth. Preach the gospel as an option ("try Jesus"), and not as a command to believe and repent. Preach that we Christians don't have any solid, final answers and we're just on our own journey, just like everyone else. Preach that Christian "love" is really about accepting everyone just as they are, even in their sin, and not asking anyone to repent of their sins.

We are being taught that to choose Christ is ultimately our own choice, that to be born again or eternally separated from God-- the choice between heaven or hell-- is totally within our own hands. Yet the Bible teaches that those who do come to Christ come only because they have been called out and given the grace to do so by God-- for Christ declared, "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (John 6:65)"

In light of all this, is there a kind of criticism of other Christians by Christians that is justifiable?

Well, when even Christians are no longer preaching the gospel as Jesus did, as a call to radical self-sacrifice and as a repudiation of the lies that this world tries to sell;

When the Church ceases to stand hard on Bible truths and to preach them boldly, uncompromisingly and without apology, though they offend and many will reject them with words such as, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?(John 6:60)";

When we forget that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:6)", and that the little compromises we make with truth end with wholesale rejection of truth and falling away into deception;

Are we not then neglecting our solemn duty as believers to "preach the word; [and to] be ready in season and out of season; [to] reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Timothy 4:2-4)?

Paul warned Timothy, "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 (2 Timothy 4:3)". That time is now upon us.

And so Christians must:

Always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:5)

Hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, and [be] able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).

"Teach what accords with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1)"

I think that this is exactly what the responsible discernment ministries are attempting to do, in such times as these. Should they be gentle, modest and respectful? Certainly.

But there are also times for righteous indignation, times when double-talk and compromise must be challenged, and when those who say they are representing Christ must be called upon to defend their practices biblically. Paul challenged and opposed Peter, when the latter was acting hypocritically (Galatians 2:11-21). Read the story. Paul did not challenge Peter to embarrass him. Nor did he do so that he could now be seen as the #1 leader of the church and Peter be relegated to #2. He did it for the sake of the truth, for the sake of the souls of those in the Church, the precious souls for whom he and Peter had become responsible to God as leaders in the church. He was responsible to teach them sound doctrine, and to help them to mature in the wisdom of God. How? By teaching the Galatians the right doctrine about their justification before God, and opposing any actions (even if done by a fellow believer) in contradiction to right doctrine.

If we too are called by God to be disciple-makers (aren't we all?), let us tackle the call to teach and defend right doctrine with the same commitment and passion that Paul showed here. Let us do so humbly and depending upon God for much grace and wisdom. But let us not neglect this privilege and responsibility.

Tags: David Aikman, Attack Dogs of Christendom, Christianity Today, tolerance, discernment ministries, truth, defending sound doctrine

4-Part Video Series on the Emerging Church by Gary Gilley

I have posted in my Jordan's Video sidebar (right column) a 4-part series by Dr. Gary Gilley, who speaks on the dangers of the Emerging church.

The following is a description of the series, from Godtube.com:

"Dr. Gary Gilley of Southern View Chapel visited Ireland and spoke on issues concerning the church today. This video is part of a four part series and a damning indictment of the market-driven churches that are so popular today.

Dr. Gilley contends that the church has sold out to our culture so that the influences of the culture have become the influences in the church. The most significant forces pressing against the church are entertainment, market driven philosophies and psychology. These three are largely absent from the Bible, yet are startlingly prevalent in evangelical churches. The leaders and issues he concentrates on most are Rick Warren and his book The Purpose Driven Church, Bill Hybels and Lee Strobel. In this fourth part of the series, Dr. Gilley will explain what the Emerging Church is and how it is dangerous to the Evangelical community."

The church I attended for many years in New York City seems to be embracing this "Emerging" approach to church growth, judging from their recent activities (doing the 40-Day Purpose Driven Church program and sponsoring simulcast seminars on leadership, led by Bill Hybels). It all sounds so good. But as these videos explain, the true gospel is not the primary value in this movement. Rather, what seems to be most important is what "works", while doctrine is downplayed. Though my old church is doing much laudable ministry, I think this new direction is clearly dangerous. Unfortunately, churches across the country are also succumbing to these misguided influences.

Please check out the videos and consider for yourself whether this Emerging movement is positive or negative.

Tags: Gary Gilley, Emerging Church, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Purpose-Driven

"Jesus" Gets A Divorce

It's sad that there are so many charlatans and deceivers claiming to represent Jesus Christ and Christianity these days. A story today on CNN highlights one such man, Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, founder of cult group "Growing in Grace", who claims to be the second coming of Christ. According to the CNN report, Miranda's wife of five years, Josephina Torres, is now suing him for divorce, alleging he verbally and physically abused her, and that he committed adultery with many women in the church. The report also gives evidence that Miranda is an extravagant, admitted gambler.

A group whose leader claims to be the second coming of Christ, yet teaches his followers that there is no such thing as sin or hell; who flaunts his possessions and jokes about his gambling, is very obviously a blasphemer and not even a true Christian, let alone the second coming of Christ.

Besides the thousands within the group itself being misled and deceived, the other sad thing is that the world sees such people and finds perhaps another excuse to reject Christianity. But maybe they cannot be blamed for being unable to distinguish between such false teachers and true Christians, when there is so much bogus teaching even in "popular" Christianity.

Jesus warned us in advance about these kinds of false teachers (Luke 9:21, Matthew 24:4-5). These are signs that Jesus may be coming back soon.

May we then also rid ourselves of all hypocrisy, closing the gap between who are in Christ (perfected saints without sin) and what we are in current experience (not yet fully-redeemed saints who daily struggle with sin and fleshly temptations). Thank you Lord for your mercy and for your grace that has not left sin unpunished, but which placed upon Jesus, the Lamb of God, the sin of us all, as He bore the penalty for sin for those who believe in Him. Amen!

Compassion for Tammy Faye and other Health-Wealth Disciples

The other day an item appeared on a well-known Christian blog that showed a video clip of Tammy Faye Messner's last appearance on the Larry King show. The blog pointed out that Mrs. Messner, a long-time proponent of "Word-Faith" theology, was now (in her illness) a vivid illustration of the false hope of that brand of teaching. Sadly, a few days after appearing on Larry King, Tammy Faye died.

Now, while I have come to the view that the way healing is taught in the Word-Faith movement misinterprets Scripture in many instances and is therefore incorrect, nonetheless I feel that compassion should be shown towards someone like Tammy Faye. To me it is not in very good taste to show footage of a deathly ill woman just for the purpose of scoring a point against Word-Faith teaching-- even if one's point is correct. Christians especially ought to have, and show, compassion for the sick and dying. If her hope in God and in His healing was misinformed because of Word-Faith teaching, all the more reason to show sympathy towards her.

I wasn't very familiar with Tammy Faye, not ever having watched the PTL show, but she seemed to have many fans, even now long after the heyday of the popularity of her Praise the Lord telecast with then-husband Jim Bakker. In this, her last public appearance, Tammy Faye held herself with dignity, expressing her faith and hope, as best she knew how. She came across as a gentle, kind soul, yet with the courage to show her dying face to the world.

The Healing/Prosperity Message of "Word-Faith" Teachers (aka Health/Wealth Gospel)

These days as I surf the Christian channels it seems I keep encountering shows featuring testimonies and/or demonstrations of people supposedly miraculously healed. Are these "miracles" actually taking place? I must admit I view them with a mixture of desirous curiosity and strong skepticism. I wish that the miracles they say are happening were truly happening. But it seems that for every testimony one hears about people receiving healing, there are also the many who are not healed. This latter group includes people who "faithfully" follow popular Word-Faith teachings like "healing is in the atonement", or the notion that healing will come by spoken, persistent proclamation of certain scriptural promises (this demonstrates faith, through which God then brings about healing). I know, because my wife was one of those sincere people not instantly healed though putting such teachings into practice [She is however much better these days and we certainly thank God for her progress in healing. It's just that we don't think that there is a correlation between seeking God for healing via the Word-Faith approach and her progress to date].

Even as my wife and I several years ago were applying such teachings to our own circumstances, I had certain misgivings. I thought: if our expectation of healing is founded upon Christ's atoning work, so that together with forgiveness of sins, healing is the believer's birthright, then why isn't the believer in the atonement who seeks healing necessarily always healed?

Sin is always forgiven (without the one exception of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit") through the cross of Christ. If then this "healing in the Atonement" teaching is true (that the atonement means sickness as well as sin is removed from the believer), we would expect that healing would occur in the believer's life in every case. Yet the reality is that there always are exceptions to healing- there are countless people who pray for healing with faith, but do not receive it. Some have prayed and been healed at one time, and yet have not received healing the next time they have asked. It is known as well that even prominent Word-Faith style teachers have experienced sickness and negative answers to requests for healing.

Unfortunately, lay people who follow these teachings and have not been healed may feel both discouraged and guilty. This is how my wife and I felt. Surely if God heals all, the fault for non-healing must lie with us, rather than with God. So people end up concluding that they have not exercised the right kind (or amount) of faith, and must be to blame for having missed out on the promised healing. Word-Faith teaching does try to explain non-healing, but their answers aren't satisfying: the bottom line in their explanations seems to be that a non-healing indicates defective faith somewhere, or something left undone by the believer.

But for my wife and myself, when healing did not come through the Word-Faith approach, we began to consider other explanations. Could it be that God is actually sovereign over all things our lives and did not want the healing to happen at this time, for His own reasons? This at times seemed like a horrible thought. For Word-Faith teaches that God doesn't inflict illness upon His children just for the sake of teaching them life-lessons, or to discipline them. But if sickness is a suffering, and suffering may be used by God to mold us in Christ-likeness, then why might He not allow a physical suffering in our lives to teach us? Why is the suffering of sickness put into a different category by this type of teaching? Indeed through study of the ancient viewpoint presented in classic Reformed theology, and also as we thought through these issues, we began to think differently about healing.

We Are Being Redeemed
The guarantee of physical healing in this life simply does not fit with the stage of redemption we are in-- we still live with mortal bodies that get sick and eventually die. The perfect physical healing that comes through the atonement will indeed become ours, but only when our bodies are fully redeemed. Until then, we deal with sickness and death in this life. God may, and often does, heal now in answer to prayer, but we cannot demand that our prayers for healing be granted because we apply a certain formula based on guarantees the Bible does not actually give.

There is a parallel to this "in-between" redemption in the spiritual realm. Although we are being sanctified by the Spirit of God and will someday be just as He is, becoming Christians did not completely remove sin from our lives as believers. We still live with a "sin principle" that resides within our mortal bodies, and therefore we can and do sin (Romans 7:17-18). Thank God that because the power of sin has been broken we do not have to sin (Romans 6:3-4). The power of the Spirit within us can always help us choose not to sin (1Corinthians 1:13), but in this in-between state of redemption we live in now (Romans 8:18-25), often we do choose to sin (1 John 1:8).

Therefore just as being in Christ doesn't entirely remove the presence of sin from our beings and from our lives, so also the presence of sickness is not yet completely removed from our bodies. Again, we have to deal with sickness and death in this life.

Prosperity Teaching
Closely related to the well-intentioned though mistaken doctrine of healing in the atonement is teaching that Christians must prosper financially/materially. Prosperity teaching says that special material blessings from God are, like physical healing, the birthright of every Christian. These come to us however, only as we "sow our seed", by tithing to our churches and by giving to this or that ministry. In the same way that proclaiming faith in God's promises to heal is supposed to be the vehicle by which God becomes obligated to heal, "sowing seed", in the form of sending money to a particular ministry, is supposed to demonstrate a faith God is absolutely certain to reward. I find preacher after preacher on TV teaching along these lines. Whether the ones sowing seed are thus being blessed by God or not, it may certainly be observed, from the lavish personal wealth of the leaders of ministries promoting this message, that they themselves benefit greatly from all this "seed-sowing". Are such teachers purposefully trying to deceive people then, and teaching these things just so they themselves get rich? I am not saying that. Many are no doubt sincere in teaching this doctrine and believe that they too ought to reap the material harvest that their teaching brings. In fact they may point to their own example, saying, "You can have what I have".

But even unbelievers can see that prosperity teaching does not correlate well with the biblical portrait of the lifestyle of Jesus Christ Himself, who lived humbly during in His time on earth. In contrast to telling followers that they would certainly reap a financial harvest by sowing seed into His ministry, Christ strongly and repeatedly warned against the dangers of covetousness.

Look at the fruit. Does prosperity teaching teach us to live humbly and be satisfied with what we now have materially, or does it promote covetousness? Prosperity teaching seems to say that if we don't have the material things we want (and supposedly ought to have, because God wants to give it) it is only because we have yet to exercise the right kind of faith. With the temptation that lies within the human heart to look to material blessings for comfort and satisfaction, this is a dangerous message. Jesus who knows human hearts more than all recognized this, and rightly warned us to "be on your guard against all kinds of greed".

Truth and Error in Word-Faith teaching
Truly God is our great Provider, and He richly blesses us spiritually, and often materially. But is the truth of the reality of the presence of God in our lives proven only if we are blessed with this world's goods and thus can show the world that "Christianity works"? Is it not rather demonstrated when we show our joyful satisfaction in God Himself, whether or not we have been richly blessed materially, and by our contentment with whatever we have been given?

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1Timothy 6:6-10)

Is Word-Faith all wrong then? Personally, I think there is truth mixed in with a lot of error and mis-emphasis. The truth of course is that our God is indeed a miracle-working, "nothing is impossible" kind of God, and we should therefore raise our expectations of what He can do in and through our lives. Certainly God works through such faith in Him, faith that is depending upon Him alone to bring about wonderful results we can't even foresee or fully imagine.

But the great error and mis-emphasis in Health/Prosperity teaching is to make material blessings or physical healing the proof that God is at work in our lives, the proof that He is indeed a good God. What of poor Christians who live in underdeveloped nations? What of faithful Christians all over the world who get cancer and suffer or die? Are such believers ignorant of their supposedly invulnerability in Christ to such suffering? If they just knew how to pray with the right faith would they suddenly be healed of all sickness and poverty? The answer to these questions ought to be obvious. Despite the teaching of some, Jesus Christ was not a rich man leading an extravagant lifestyle and neither were His followers. They seemed to have what they needed (food, clothing) and even enough to be generous to others. But the early Christian community lived with a sense that Christ's return was imminent, and they were not living a lifestyle of building up for themselves "treasures on earth".

Also not every believer in this community always lived in perfect health. There are New Testament examples of those who were became ill (among them great leaders in the church, including Trophimus, Timothy and the great Apostle Paul). Since Jesus taught that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God," (because of the way wealth tricks us into worshiping it rather than God), does it make sense then that Christians should be exhorting one another to prosperity in this life?

Can a Christian Be Rich Then?
Does this mean that a Christian who seeks to do well in his field and to make a good living sins? Not necessarily. If in pursuing the course that God has mapped out for us and using our God-given talents we prosper and even become wealthy, we will be good Christians as we steward these resources to give generously to the work of the kingdom. We should also enjoy without guilt the blessings God has given. But what is driving us? Are we after the comfort and security of wealth, trusting in it rather than God for our security? Are we keeping money and material blessings in their proper place, as we pursue the priorities of God? These are difficult things for us all, for the human heart retains its temptation to make idols of riches and comfort and all sorts of worldly things, even though we have truly become new creatures in Christ. So we must be on our guard against covetousness, as Jesus warned.

May the Lord forgive us if we have made health and wealth the measure of our faithfulness to Christ or of His goodness to us. May He teach me and every believer to eradicate the idols from our hearts. May we have compassion for those lured by false ideas, whether they are in the world or whether they are Christians. May we learn to live fully by the truth of God's word, and teach others to do so as well, and so be set free.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:19-24)

Tags: Tammy Faye, Health-Wealth gospel, Word-Faith teaching, sick Christians, Prosperity gospel