The cover story of our newest issue of the Christian Research Journal is titled Navigating the Emerging Church Highway and this is one of the most chilling articles that I’ve come across in the entirety of my Christian ministry.
It is absolutely chilling to read what some of the liberal emergent church leaders like Rob Bell are saying. Bell says, “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity.” Brian McLaren echoes this sentiment and says, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it meant to be ‘saved’…I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us have arrived at orthodoxy. “
Many other chilling things in this new article, including this notion by Rob Bell, again one of the liberal emergent church leaders, he speculates that if “Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing” that we would not lose any significant part of our faith because it more about how we live. To be fair, Bell does not overtly deny the virgin conception of Jesus, but he does deny that it is of any notable theological importance.
What’s the alternative, if this is not significant you’re saying that infallible Scriptures are not significant, that it wouldn’t be a big deal if Mark was mythologizing a little bit. It wouldn’t be a big deal if we discovered that Mary was a sexually sinful woman who conceived Jesus illegitimately. But that is the conclusion, but it gets so much worse you have to read the article to believe it.
I you would like to know more about this topic and the Christian Research Journal see our website www.equip.org.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Global Warming
One of the critical issues of concern at the Christian Research Institute and the Bible Answer Man broadcast is discernment. Put another way my concern is that Christians have the discernment skills to separate wheat from chaff, heat from light. In that vein I put together a new booklet on global warming not just to give you my perspective but to provide you with a basis for rightly thinking for yourself about issues like this.
It’s crucial to learn to ask the right questions and then to learn to ask the right questions in the right sequence. We need to also carefully consider the cost if we have our eyes on the wrong ball. We must also be mindful, that whether or not global warming is the catastrophe it is popularity characterized as being, we are called as Christians to be stewards of God’s creation.
What I attempt to do in this booklet titled, How Should You Think About Global Warming?, is to boil global warming down to its irreducible minimum. In other words I’ve chiseled my impromptu answers on global warming until only the gem emerges. Additionally, the booklet provides you with an interview that I did with Dr. Jay W. Richards on the Bible Answer Man broadcast regarding global warming.
So it’s my prayer that when you’ve finished reading the global warming booklet you’ll be able to cut through the fog and clearly understand the essence of a highly controversial and politicized issue. My point is not just global warming; it’s to give you discernment skills in general. As I said I want you to be to cut between wheat and chaff, heat and light.
This issue is even more prevalent in light of the fact that the two candidates running for president of the United States have made some pretty significant statements about global warming.
Barack Obama on August 4, 2008 at Lansing, Michigan in what was billed as A Bold New National Goal on Energy Efficiency said, “We’ve heard talk about curbing the use of fossil fuels in state of the union address since the oil embargo of 1973. Back then we imported about a third of our oil, now we import more than half. Back then global warming was a theory of a few scientists. Now it’s a fact that is melting our glaciers and setting of dangerous weather patterns as we speak.”
John McCain was even stronger when on May 12, 2008 at Vestas Training Facility, for wind power in Portland, OR he said, “Among environmental dangers, it’s surely the most serious of all, whether we call it climate change or global warming, in the end we all left with the same set of facts.”
Former Vice-President Al Gore is equally emphatic in his view; he says that global warming is the single greatest threat facing our planet. Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe puts global warming deniers on part with Holocaust deniers. Prominent Baptist pastor Oliver “Buzz” Thomas has gone as far as to castigate spiritual leaders for failing to urge followers to have smaller families in light of this global catastrophe. Says Thomas, “We must stop having so many children. Clergy should consider voicing the difficult truth that having more than two children during such a time is selfish. Dare we day sinful?”
Well as I’ve mentioned I have 12 kids now so I guess according Oliver” Buzz” Thomas, I’m in a lot of trouble so as this global warming rhetoric continues to boil over, what should we as Christians do?
Well as I mentioned earlier we need to be so familiar with how to think about these issues that we can discern between wheat and chaff and heat and light.
To equip yourself with this information you can obtain this new booklet by going unto our website at www.equip.org or by calling us at 888-7000-CRI and supporting this ministry and allowing us to continue to equipping people to have discernment skills they need now more than ever.
It’s crucial to learn to ask the right questions and then to learn to ask the right questions in the right sequence. We need to also carefully consider the cost if we have our eyes on the wrong ball. We must also be mindful, that whether or not global warming is the catastrophe it is popularity characterized as being, we are called as Christians to be stewards of God’s creation.
What I attempt to do in this booklet titled, How Should You Think About Global Warming?, is to boil global warming down to its irreducible minimum. In other words I’ve chiseled my impromptu answers on global warming until only the gem emerges. Additionally, the booklet provides you with an interview that I did with Dr. Jay W. Richards on the Bible Answer Man broadcast regarding global warming.
So it’s my prayer that when you’ve finished reading the global warming booklet you’ll be able to cut through the fog and clearly understand the essence of a highly controversial and politicized issue. My point is not just global warming; it’s to give you discernment skills in general. As I said I want you to be to cut between wheat and chaff, heat and light.
This issue is even more prevalent in light of the fact that the two candidates running for president of the United States have made some pretty significant statements about global warming.
Barack Obama on August 4, 2008 at Lansing, Michigan in what was billed as A Bold New National Goal on Energy Efficiency said, “We’ve heard talk about curbing the use of fossil fuels in state of the union address since the oil embargo of 1973. Back then we imported about a third of our oil, now we import more than half. Back then global warming was a theory of a few scientists. Now it’s a fact that is melting our glaciers and setting of dangerous weather patterns as we speak.”
John McCain was even stronger when on May 12, 2008 at Vestas Training Facility, for wind power in Portland, OR he said, “Among environmental dangers, it’s surely the most serious of all, whether we call it climate change or global warming, in the end we all left with the same set of facts.”
Former Vice-President Al Gore is equally emphatic in his view; he says that global warming is the single greatest threat facing our planet. Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe puts global warming deniers on part with Holocaust deniers. Prominent Baptist pastor Oliver “Buzz” Thomas has gone as far as to castigate spiritual leaders for failing to urge followers to have smaller families in light of this global catastrophe. Says Thomas, “We must stop having so many children. Clergy should consider voicing the difficult truth that having more than two children during such a time is selfish. Dare we day sinful?”
Well as I’ve mentioned I have 12 kids now so I guess according Oliver” Buzz” Thomas, I’m in a lot of trouble so as this global warming rhetoric continues to boil over, what should we as Christians do?
Well as I mentioned earlier we need to be so familiar with how to think about these issues that we can discern between wheat and chaff and heat and light.
To equip yourself with this information you can obtain this new booklet by going unto our website at www.equip.org or by calling us at 888-7000-CRI and supporting this ministry and allowing us to continue to equipping people to have discernment skills they need now more than ever.
Saddleback Compassion Forum
The weekend of August 16th 2008 was historic when Rick Warren of Saddleback Church facilitated a discussion with both Barack Obama and John McCain. I thought Rick Warren did a brilliant job of facilitating that discussion and really asking questions that a lot of people deeply care about.
For example, Rick Warren asked about abortion. In fact when he was talking to McCain he said that “he as a pastor had to deal with abortion all the time from various angles, the pain, the decisions, and forty million abortions since Roe v Wade. Some people who believe that life begins at conception believe that this was holocaust for many people.” Then Warren asked McCain this question, “What point is a baby entitled to human rights?” McCain answered in just five words “At the moment of conception”.
Now Barack Obama was asked the exact same question and had an entirely different answer.
Rick Warren: “Let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”Barack Obama: “Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Now I have to admit that it was a very humble answer to the question or maybe it was a dodge. It certainly should not be above the pay grade of someone running for the president of the United States of America, the most powerful leader in the free world.
In fact, it should not be above the pay grade of any Christian sitting in the pew. We should know the answer to that question because it has been solved both theologically and scientifically. Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and a physician at the prestigious Mayo Clinic, best summarized the perspective of science when he said, "I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception."
The living baby in the mother’s womb is a human being because this child is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct human genetic code. In other words, we can say that abortion terminates the life of a human being and that this is established by science. The zygote fulfills the criteria needed to establish existence of biological life, metabolism, development; the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction; abortion terminates that zygote.
Dr. Matthew Roth, a principal research associate at Harvard said, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life."
French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune also gave a similar sentiment in a sworn statement to the United States Senate sub-committee: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."
Since science has demonstrated that a pre-born child is human and since all human beings have transcendent value it follows that taking the life of an innocent human being through abortion is unthinkable, especially in this age of scientific enlightenment! While an embryo does not have a fully developed personality it does have full personhood from the moment of conception. You didn’t come from an adolescent you once were an adolescent, likewise you didn’t come from an embryo you once were an embryo.
Moreover, if Obama is unsure when a life obtains human rights, he should err on the side of caution. In other words on the side of life, lest he risk the horrendous reality of violating another human being’s rights.
We are talking here about life and death issues and indeed Rick Warren was right we have experienced a holocaust in our midst. Children are the most defenseless among us and we ought to protect them in all stages of their lives.
For more information on this topic please see my Bible Answer Book Volume 1 and Volume 2 and the following articles I wrote on abortion.
Annihilating Abortion Arguments (www.equip.org/DA375)
Is the Pro-Life Position Unfair?? (www.equip.org/CP1301)
A Biblical View of Abortion (www.equip.org/CP1302)
For example, Rick Warren asked about abortion. In fact when he was talking to McCain he said that “he as a pastor had to deal with abortion all the time from various angles, the pain, the decisions, and forty million abortions since Roe v Wade. Some people who believe that life begins at conception believe that this was holocaust for many people.” Then Warren asked McCain this question, “What point is a baby entitled to human rights?” McCain answered in just five words “At the moment of conception”.
Now Barack Obama was asked the exact same question and had an entirely different answer.
Rick Warren: “Let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”Barack Obama: “Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Now I have to admit that it was a very humble answer to the question or maybe it was a dodge. It certainly should not be above the pay grade of someone running for the president of the United States of America, the most powerful leader in the free world.
In fact, it should not be above the pay grade of any Christian sitting in the pew. We should know the answer to that question because it has been solved both theologically and scientifically. Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and a physician at the prestigious Mayo Clinic, best summarized the perspective of science when he said, "I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception."
The living baby in the mother’s womb is a human being because this child is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct human genetic code. In other words, we can say that abortion terminates the life of a human being and that this is established by science. The zygote fulfills the criteria needed to establish existence of biological life, metabolism, development; the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction; abortion terminates that zygote.
Dr. Matthew Roth, a principal research associate at Harvard said, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life."
French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune also gave a similar sentiment in a sworn statement to the United States Senate sub-committee: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."
Since science has demonstrated that a pre-born child is human and since all human beings have transcendent value it follows that taking the life of an innocent human being through abortion is unthinkable, especially in this age of scientific enlightenment! While an embryo does not have a fully developed personality it does have full personhood from the moment of conception. You didn’t come from an adolescent you once were an adolescent, likewise you didn’t come from an embryo you once were an embryo.
Moreover, if Obama is unsure when a life obtains human rights, he should err on the side of caution. In other words on the side of life, lest he risk the horrendous reality of violating another human being’s rights.
We are talking here about life and death issues and indeed Rick Warren was right we have experienced a holocaust in our midst. Children are the most defenseless among us and we ought to protect them in all stages of their lives.
For more information on this topic please see my Bible Answer Book Volume 1 and Volume 2 and the following articles I wrote on abortion.
Annihilating Abortion Arguments (www.equip.org/DA375)
Is the Pro-Life Position Unfair?? (www.equip.org/CP1301)
A Biblical View of Abortion (www.equip.org/CP1302)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Benny Hinn/Kenneth Copeland/Todd Bentley
I get a lot of letters that come across my desk and some of them are letters from people who are just plain angry. Why are they angry? They don’t like what I’m saying about some of their favorite teachers. I recently got a letter from a man named William who wrote “I heard you once again distraught over the Benny Hinn’s, Kenneth Copeland’s, and now there Todd Bentley on the scene. I’ve heard your disapproval but scripturally I haven’t heard you disprove anyone or any of their practices.” Anyone who has listened to the Bible Answer Man or read my books knows this isn’t the case but William continues on, “the Scripture says no one can call Jesus Lord except by the Spirit of God. Does Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland and all the other’s you call counterfeit revivalists call Jesus Lord?”
Well I would answer William yes they do. The question is what do they mean? No one can say Jesus is Lord rightly, by biblical standards, except by the Holy Spirit. In fact that’s precisely why Jesus Christ can say “Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”(Matt 7:22-23 NIV). What’s important for William or anyone asking that question is to learn to read scripture in light of Scripture, so that they do not falsely interpret the Word of God.
Of course William goes on to say many other things. He asks, “What are these Counterfeit Revivalists motives regarding such things as healing the sick?” The question that I’ve addressed before on the Bible Answer Man, in my book Counterfeit Revival and in my pamphlet Aping the Practices of Pagan Spirituality is do they really heal the sick or do they merely pretend to heal the sick? The answer is healing is conspicuous by its absence in the ministries of men like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Todd Bentley and a host of others.
By the way, when someone like William asks about calling Jesus Christ Lord and by whose spirit do they call Jesus Lord; I would say the real question is who do they say Jesus is in the first place? The answer to that question is unfortunately they say Jesus Christ is satanic at the very point of His atonement on the cross. Now if that is true Jesus Christ could not have paid for our sins. Biblically Jesus is the unblemished lamb upon whom the sins of the world were placed. He is the sin bearer but He certainly is not a satanic being. To do what the faith teachers do, relegate Jesus to hell where He purchases our redemption in the cauldron of hell in a fight with Satan is simply unthinkable and certainly unbiblical. To then become the first born again man. Born from satanic to divine, this is contrary to scripture. It is contrary to the creeds of the historic Christian faith. It is contrary to reasoning. It is consistent with the kinds of things you hear in the Kingdom of the Cults.
When are we going to come to the place where we recognize that if we’re going to say that Mormons have a different Jesus because they say that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer or the Jehovah Witnesses because they say Jesus was created as the archangel Michael or the New Ager’s because they say Jesus is an avatar or a messenger; when are we going to realize that if the Kingdom of the Cults have a different Jesus and Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley and a host of other pretenders have a different Jesus as well? If we don’t call it as it is, we ought to apologize to the kingdom of the Cults.
To say that Jesus didn’t claim to be God as Kenneth Copeland and Paul Crouch do is simply unthinkable. Yet that is precisely what they do over and over again. On the March 24th, 1989 broadcast of Praise the Lord on the Trinity Broadcasting Network there was the following conversation:
Ken Copeland: “We're still questioning what was said about that prophecy. That prophecy never mentioned the Son of God. Never said anything about the Son of God.”
Paul Crouch: “What did it say?”
Ken Copeland: “It said "I did not claim to be God." That's all it said.”
Paul Crouch: “In other words, in so many words, you're right. No where in the New Testament did He literally get up…”
Ken Copeland: “Preach and claim that He was God”.
Paul Crouch: “… and say "I am God" did He? Now I stand corrected.”
Here you have an inane conversation going on what is supposedly Christian television about whether Jesus Christ claimed to be God or not. You have Ken Copeland and Paul Crouch here saying that Jesus never claimed to be God but Jesus did claim to be the unique Son of God. As a result the Jewish leaders tried to kill Him because they said in calling God His own Father Jesus was making Himself equal with God. In fact in John 8 Jesus went so far as to use the very words but which God reveled Himself to Moses from the burning bush. To the Jews this was the epitome of blasphemy for they knew in doing so Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. On another occasion Jesus explicitly told the Jews”I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and again they picked up stones to stone him but Jesus said to them “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” and the Jews replied, “We are not stoning you for any of these but for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be God.” Of course there are many other examples that could be given through which Jesus demonstrated and claimed to be God. So to say that Jesus didn’t claim to be God is expressing an unfathomable ignorance about Jesus and about Scripture. We’re not just talking about anyone here, we’re talking about the man who, along with his wife, founded the largest Christian television broadcasting network in the history of the human race, and they can’t get it with respect to essential Christian doctrine.
Now when I speak out on this I get all these letters denouncing me for speaking out. Someone needs to sound the alarm. In fact this is proof positive that the body of Christ needs to become so familiar with the genuine article that when counterfeits loom on the horizon they will know it instantaneously. The sad thing about the letter I read and I only read portions of it, I didn’t read the parts where he gets quite strong in his denunciations and uses some pretty strong language, but this letter is indicative of the fact that people like William are simply unfamiliar with the Bible and therefore do not understand where their favorite teachers depart from orthodox Christianity. A lot of people want to be cavalier about this and say, “Live and let live!” These men are not blurring the line of demarcation between the kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of the Cults they are obliterating that line. Never forget that the essentials of the Christian faith are the very doctrines for which the martyrs spilled their blood. We may be cavalier about these things today but they were not. They were willing to defend them to the point of shedding their own blood. For more information on the deity of Christ please see Bible Answer Book Volume 1.
Well I would answer William yes they do. The question is what do they mean? No one can say Jesus is Lord rightly, by biblical standards, except by the Holy Spirit. In fact that’s precisely why Jesus Christ can say “Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”(Matt 7:22-23 NIV). What’s important for William or anyone asking that question is to learn to read scripture in light of Scripture, so that they do not falsely interpret the Word of God.
Of course William goes on to say many other things. He asks, “What are these Counterfeit Revivalists motives regarding such things as healing the sick?” The question that I’ve addressed before on the Bible Answer Man, in my book Counterfeit Revival and in my pamphlet Aping the Practices of Pagan Spirituality is do they really heal the sick or do they merely pretend to heal the sick? The answer is healing is conspicuous by its absence in the ministries of men like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Todd Bentley and a host of others.
By the way, when someone like William asks about calling Jesus Christ Lord and by whose spirit do they call Jesus Lord; I would say the real question is who do they say Jesus is in the first place? The answer to that question is unfortunately they say Jesus Christ is satanic at the very point of His atonement on the cross. Now if that is true Jesus Christ could not have paid for our sins. Biblically Jesus is the unblemished lamb upon whom the sins of the world were placed. He is the sin bearer but He certainly is not a satanic being. To do what the faith teachers do, relegate Jesus to hell where He purchases our redemption in the cauldron of hell in a fight with Satan is simply unthinkable and certainly unbiblical. To then become the first born again man. Born from satanic to divine, this is contrary to scripture. It is contrary to the creeds of the historic Christian faith. It is contrary to reasoning. It is consistent with the kinds of things you hear in the Kingdom of the Cults.
When are we going to come to the place where we recognize that if we’re going to say that Mormons have a different Jesus because they say that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer or the Jehovah Witnesses because they say Jesus was created as the archangel Michael or the New Ager’s because they say Jesus is an avatar or a messenger; when are we going to realize that if the Kingdom of the Cults have a different Jesus and Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley and a host of other pretenders have a different Jesus as well? If we don’t call it as it is, we ought to apologize to the kingdom of the Cults.
To say that Jesus didn’t claim to be God as Kenneth Copeland and Paul Crouch do is simply unthinkable. Yet that is precisely what they do over and over again. On the March 24th, 1989 broadcast of Praise the Lord on the Trinity Broadcasting Network there was the following conversation:
Ken Copeland: “We're still questioning what was said about that prophecy. That prophecy never mentioned the Son of God. Never said anything about the Son of God.”
Paul Crouch: “What did it say?”
Ken Copeland: “It said "I did not claim to be God." That's all it said.”
Paul Crouch: “In other words, in so many words, you're right. No where in the New Testament did He literally get up…”
Ken Copeland: “Preach and claim that He was God”.
Paul Crouch: “… and say "I am God" did He? Now I stand corrected.”
Here you have an inane conversation going on what is supposedly Christian television about whether Jesus Christ claimed to be God or not. You have Ken Copeland and Paul Crouch here saying that Jesus never claimed to be God but Jesus did claim to be the unique Son of God. As a result the Jewish leaders tried to kill Him because they said in calling God His own Father Jesus was making Himself equal with God. In fact in John 8 Jesus went so far as to use the very words but which God reveled Himself to Moses from the burning bush. To the Jews this was the epitome of blasphemy for they knew in doing so Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. On another occasion Jesus explicitly told the Jews”I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and again they picked up stones to stone him but Jesus said to them “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” and the Jews replied, “We are not stoning you for any of these but for blasphemy because you a mere man claim to be God.” Of course there are many other examples that could be given through which Jesus demonstrated and claimed to be God. So to say that Jesus didn’t claim to be God is expressing an unfathomable ignorance about Jesus and about Scripture. We’re not just talking about anyone here, we’re talking about the man who, along with his wife, founded the largest Christian television broadcasting network in the history of the human race, and they can’t get it with respect to essential Christian doctrine.
Now when I speak out on this I get all these letters denouncing me for speaking out. Someone needs to sound the alarm. In fact this is proof positive that the body of Christ needs to become so familiar with the genuine article that when counterfeits loom on the horizon they will know it instantaneously. The sad thing about the letter I read and I only read portions of it, I didn’t read the parts where he gets quite strong in his denunciations and uses some pretty strong language, but this letter is indicative of the fact that people like William are simply unfamiliar with the Bible and therefore do not understand where their favorite teachers depart from orthodox Christianity. A lot of people want to be cavalier about this and say, “Live and let live!” These men are not blurring the line of demarcation between the kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of the Cults they are obliterating that line. Never forget that the essentials of the Christian faith are the very doctrines for which the martyrs spilled their blood. We may be cavalier about these things today but they were not. They were willing to defend them to the point of shedding their own blood. For more information on the deity of Christ please see Bible Answer Book Volume 1.
Liberation Theology
A couple of words about Liberation theology. A lot of people have been asking about Liberation theology because of Dr. Jeremiah Wright, who was Barack Obama's pastor. Jeremiah Wright was incredibly influenced by Liberation theologian James Cone, who defined sin as not primarily a religious impurity, but rather "it's the social, political and economic oppression of the poor. It's the denial of humanity as a neighbor through unjust political and economic arrangements." Further, this notion that the Bible is not an infallible witness but only a source pointing to the reality of God, particularly within the social context of the experience of God liberating Blacks. Black and White here are not so much references to skin pigmentation as to relationship between oppressed and oppressor, with the Blacks being oppressed regardless of what their skin color is and the Whites being the oppressors. In that sense Jesus was a Black man struggling for liberation in His world and sin is anything that opposes the liberation of the oppressed, and of course salvation is the rising up of the oppressed against the oppressor by any means necessary.
Now, the problem here is that Jeremiah Wright is communicating this Liberation theology, which is directly opposed to biblical theology, but in hysterical manners, and that was picked up by the media and they played this clip of him talking about the HIV virus being something that was invented by the government and it was a way of committing genocide against people of color.
Obviously this is hysterical and ridiculous, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. They've played it but they were not realizing that there's a theology under the iceberg and that theology is not Christian theology. This is a theology that has obviously very much impacted Barack Obama.
Certainly people in Wright's heritage have been oppressed, but Wright himself is anything but oppressed. Rather than redefining sin and redemption in terms of socioeconomic class struggle, as pastors and church leaders we should concentrate on spiritual reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ, because when that happens we have reconciliation with one another as well. So if we want to have class reunification as opposed to class struggle it comes by the change that takes place in the human heart, because when your heart is changed you do not see people as Black and White or as superior and inferior. You see people as people. At the foot of the cross there is no distinction and in Christian theology there is no Black or White, there is no Jew or Greek, there is no slave or free, there is no male or female. We are one in Christ. We are plain old human beings and we have complete equality in a biblical worldview.
So I say again that the problem you have is that the notion being communicated is a theology that doesn't help harmonize the class struggle but actually accentuates it, particularly when you use these kinds of shrill comments which have no basis in reality such that you start believing that the government has some kind of oppressive force that's using HIV to oppress people. This is nonsense and, unfortunately, it's nonsense being communicated to a huge congregation and being bought into by literally hundreds of thousands of people.
I find it interesting that today you have people like Chris Matthews who are singing the praises of Obama. In fact he said "I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. Obama comes along and seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament." Now, whether Obama has the answers or not, what his political realities and the future will be or not is not mine to determine. What I should point out, though, is what I've pointed out, and that is Black Liberation theology or Liberation theology in general as codified by Dr. Jeremiah Wright - and he's not alone. He's just one of many - is not the solution to the problem of the oppressed and the oppressor. The solution is found in Jesus Christ, and we should be communicating that with power and passion, not turning the New Testament on its head, but communicating real New Testament theology as communicated in essence by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, the problem here is that Jeremiah Wright is communicating this Liberation theology, which is directly opposed to biblical theology, but in hysterical manners, and that was picked up by the media and they played this clip of him talking about the HIV virus being something that was invented by the government and it was a way of committing genocide against people of color.
Obviously this is hysterical and ridiculous, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. They've played it but they were not realizing that there's a theology under the iceberg and that theology is not Christian theology. This is a theology that has obviously very much impacted Barack Obama.
Certainly people in Wright's heritage have been oppressed, but Wright himself is anything but oppressed. Rather than redefining sin and redemption in terms of socioeconomic class struggle, as pastors and church leaders we should concentrate on spiritual reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ, because when that happens we have reconciliation with one another as well. So if we want to have class reunification as opposed to class struggle it comes by the change that takes place in the human heart, because when your heart is changed you do not see people as Black and White or as superior and inferior. You see people as people. At the foot of the cross there is no distinction and in Christian theology there is no Black or White, there is no Jew or Greek, there is no slave or free, there is no male or female. We are one in Christ. We are plain old human beings and we have complete equality in a biblical worldview.
So I say again that the problem you have is that the notion being communicated is a theology that doesn't help harmonize the class struggle but actually accentuates it, particularly when you use these kinds of shrill comments which have no basis in reality such that you start believing that the government has some kind of oppressive force that's using HIV to oppress people. This is nonsense and, unfortunately, it's nonsense being communicated to a huge congregation and being bought into by literally hundreds of thousands of people.
I find it interesting that today you have people like Chris Matthews who are singing the praises of Obama. In fact he said "I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. Obama comes along and seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament." Now, whether Obama has the answers or not, what his political realities and the future will be or not is not mine to determine. What I should point out, though, is what I've pointed out, and that is Black Liberation theology or Liberation theology in general as codified by Dr. Jeremiah Wright - and he's not alone. He's just one of many - is not the solution to the problem of the oppressed and the oppressor. The solution is found in Jesus Christ, and we should be communicating that with power and passion, not turning the New Testament on its head, but communicating real New Testament theology as communicated in essence by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
True Faith
What is true faith? Joni Eareckson Tada, who is a quadriplegic, learned that true faith does not necessarily equip you to arise from a wheelchair, but true faith equips you to use adversity as a means of bringing people into the kingdom of God. She said that she was constructing with an eye towards eternity. She's one of my heroes of the faith and she has exhorted me through her ministry and her personal life to do so as well. She says that every day we have the opportunity to roll up our spiritual sleeves and apply our spiritual energies towards building something that lasts. In our lives it will last. In the lives of others it will last.
"We will bring to the Judgment Seat of Christ all that we are and all that we have done. One look from the Lord," says Joni, "will scrutinize the quality of what we've built and selfish service will be consumed in a fiery flash. Although it's true that no child of God will be scolded, some will walk away scalded from the heat. Their only reward will be eternal salvation.
"This is sobering. I can't help but see myself coming away a little singed on the edges," writes Joni. "Don't get me wrong. I believe I will bask in God's approval for my service on earth, but pride and impure motives have probably sullied a lot of it. Burnt away will be those times I gave the Gospel out of puffed-up pride. Up in flames will go any service I performed for performance sake. Reduced to charcoal will be manipulative behavior and lies-dressed-up-like-truth.
"But, hey, even if a lot of people survive the judgment seat by the skin of their teeth, keeping only their crown of salvation, that's plenty of cause for rejoicing. Look at all the people who trusted Christ in their deathbed with barely time to say yes to Jesus, let alone build anything for eternity. Think of being snatched from the jaws of hell seconds before one dies. Such joy would be hard to beat.
"One look from the Lord will consume worthless service. But it will illuminate God-honoring service. Like gold and precious stones, pure service will easily survive the test. It is this for which we shall be commended....I want to put to death every selfish motive and prideful pretense so that when the Lord's eyes scan my service, what I have built will stand the test. I want to be careful how I build, and realize that every smile, prayer, or ounce of muscle or money sacrificed is a golden girder, brick, or two-by-four. I want everything I do here to be an eternal investment, a way of building something bright and beautiful there. That's how much things down here count."
"And no one will be left out. Each will receive his reward."
"We will bring to the Judgment Seat of Christ all that we are and all that we have done. One look from the Lord," says Joni, "will scrutinize the quality of what we've built and selfish service will be consumed in a fiery flash. Although it's true that no child of God will be scolded, some will walk away scalded from the heat. Their only reward will be eternal salvation.
"This is sobering. I can't help but see myself coming away a little singed on the edges," writes Joni. "Don't get me wrong. I believe I will bask in God's approval for my service on earth, but pride and impure motives have probably sullied a lot of it. Burnt away will be those times I gave the Gospel out of puffed-up pride. Up in flames will go any service I performed for performance sake. Reduced to charcoal will be manipulative behavior and lies-dressed-up-like-truth.
"But, hey, even if a lot of people survive the judgment seat by the skin of their teeth, keeping only their crown of salvation, that's plenty of cause for rejoicing. Look at all the people who trusted Christ in their deathbed with barely time to say yes to Jesus, let alone build anything for eternity. Think of being snatched from the jaws of hell seconds before one dies. Such joy would be hard to beat.
"One look from the Lord will consume worthless service. But it will illuminate God-honoring service. Like gold and precious stones, pure service will easily survive the test. It is this for which we shall be commended....I want to put to death every selfish motive and prideful pretense so that when the Lord's eyes scan my service, what I have built will stand the test. I want to be careful how I build, and realize that every smile, prayer, or ounce of muscle or money sacrificed is a golden girder, brick, or two-by-four. I want everything I do here to be an eternal investment, a way of building something bright and beautiful there. That's how much things down here count."
"And no one will be left out. Each will receive his reward."
Friday, August 8, 2008
Being Prepared to Give an Answer
A common mistake that Christians make is to suppose that someone, by your apologetic or by your well-reasoned answer, be talked into the Kingdom of God. The motivation might be sincere but the consequences are often devastating. No matter how eloquent you may or may not be, you can't change anyone else's heart. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Thus, while it's your responsibility to always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, it is ultimately God who changes the heart.
The problem is not that people cannot believe - it's that they will not believe. In other words, it is often not a matter of the mind. It is a matter of the will. As Jesus Christ explained, "This is the verdict. Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." This is Jesus talking.
The Christian faith is reasonable, but as Jesus Christ made clear, reason alone will not compel a person to embrace our Lord. I'm utterly convinced that if we're prepared to give an answer God will bring into our paths those whose hearts He has prepared. So it's our responsibility to prepare ourselves to be the most effective tools in the hands of almighty God. That's what we're doing - preparing. We're getting ready to give an answer. Then pray that the Holy Spirit will use our answer as the means through which He transforms a life for time and for eternity.
We often, in our thrill-oriented society. We're looking for the next experience. You want a real experience as a Christian? Try learning how to give a defense of the faith and then see God use your well-reasoned answer as a springboard or an opportunity to communicate the Gospel and see a son or daughter of Adam come into the Kingdom. Let me tell you, there is no more wonderful experience than that. You will be exhilarated. What you thought was a duty will become a delight.
All too often the Christian church has missed the experience because they're looking for experience in all the wrong places. They go to Pensacola or to Toronto or now to Lakeland, Florida, and I hear about barking in the Spirit or laughing in the Spirit or the gold dust revival. God is etching crosses on gold teeth today. And people buy into it and wait in line for it and they get all jazzed up and all worked up, and a week later they are more depressed than ever before because they bought into something that over-promised and under-performed.
But if you get back to basics and get into the Word of God and get the Word of God into you - now that takes some work, but there is a reward. There's a real payoff. It will enhance your witnessing, your prayer life, your counseling, your relationship with mother and father, with husband and wife, with siblings and with friends.
Try it sometime. Try becoming an equipped Christian. Your life will be revolutionized, a foretaste of what will happen when you cross the veil into eternity and meet the person that God brought into your path, and you were able to share the Gospel or provide it for ministries like this that did so, and realize that you had a part in that process, and then hear Jesus say this to you: "Well done, good and faithful servant."
The problem is not that people cannot believe - it's that they will not believe. In other words, it is often not a matter of the mind. It is a matter of the will. As Jesus Christ explained, "This is the verdict. Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." This is Jesus talking.
The Christian faith is reasonable, but as Jesus Christ made clear, reason alone will not compel a person to embrace our Lord. I'm utterly convinced that if we're prepared to give an answer God will bring into our paths those whose hearts He has prepared. So it's our responsibility to prepare ourselves to be the most effective tools in the hands of almighty God. That's what we're doing - preparing. We're getting ready to give an answer. Then pray that the Holy Spirit will use our answer as the means through which He transforms a life for time and for eternity.
We often, in our thrill-oriented society. We're looking for the next experience. You want a real experience as a Christian? Try learning how to give a defense of the faith and then see God use your well-reasoned answer as a springboard or an opportunity to communicate the Gospel and see a son or daughter of Adam come into the Kingdom. Let me tell you, there is no more wonderful experience than that. You will be exhilarated. What you thought was a duty will become a delight.
All too often the Christian church has missed the experience because they're looking for experience in all the wrong places. They go to Pensacola or to Toronto or now to Lakeland, Florida, and I hear about barking in the Spirit or laughing in the Spirit or the gold dust revival. God is etching crosses on gold teeth today. And people buy into it and wait in line for it and they get all jazzed up and all worked up, and a week later they are more depressed than ever before because they bought into something that over-promised and under-performed.
But if you get back to basics and get into the Word of God and get the Word of God into you - now that takes some work, but there is a reward. There's a real payoff. It will enhance your witnessing, your prayer life, your counseling, your relationship with mother and father, with husband and wife, with siblings and with friends.
Try it sometime. Try becoming an equipped Christian. Your life will be revolutionized, a foretaste of what will happen when you cross the veil into eternity and meet the person that God brought into your path, and you were able to share the Gospel or provide it for ministries like this that did so, and realize that you had a part in that process, and then hear Jesus say this to you: "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Monday, August 4, 2008
Barack Obama's Twisting of the Scriptures
From the time that Barack Obama burst upon our collective consciousness he has demonstrated more than a passing interest in biblical theology. On the one hand I've been taken by his eloquence and his willingness to speak forthrightly about his personal religious convictions. In fact he well said that "the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their causes. So to say that men and women should not inject their personal morality into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." And I think that's well said. It's correct.
On the other hand, I am very troubled by Obama's twisting of the biblical text. It's one thing to openly take issue with the Bible. It's quite another to overtly mischaracterize the message of the Bible. In his "Call to Renewal," a keynote address to religious leaders, he made at least three such mischaracterizations. He said:
Well, to begin with, in that clip Obama said that Leviticus suggests slavery is okay. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. Far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible clearly and categorically denounces slavery as sin. I've written about that in detail in Bible Answer Book, Volume 1.
His second mischaracterization is far more subtle. While he's right in suggesting that Leviticus characterizes the eating of shellfish as an abomination, he is wrong in isolating this injunction from its biblical context. If he had an adequate appreciation of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism I think he would have been far more restrained in his characterization and I dealt with that subject in principle in an article that appeared in the Christian Research Journal called "President Bartlett's Fallacious Diatribe." It was an article I wrote on the television show West Wing.
His third mischaracterization is perhaps the most egregious and easy to dismiss because nowhere does Deuteronomy suggest stoning your child if he strays from the faith. You will not find that anywhere in Scripture. It is a clear mischaracterization of what the biblical text actually says.
To begin with the son in question is not an adolescent guilty of nothing more than slamming doors. The son described by Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy is old enough to be morally culpable of extravagantly wicked behavior. It's the kind of behavior that threatens the health and safety of the entire community.
The parent's desire in the context of this passage to spare their own son serves as a built-in buffer against an unwarranted or frivolous enforcement of the law. Likewise, ratification by the elders precludes a precipitous judgment on the part of the parents. Thus, the standard of evidence prescribed by the Mosaic Law exceeds that of modern jurisprudence. For Obama to claim the moral high ground over the Scriptures is the height of hypocrisy. For over three decades Western society has sanctioned the systematic slaughter of children, guilty of nothing more than being unwanted. Worse still, Obama did not have the moral conviction to vote for the civil rights of the partially born child.
Mischaracterization serves a purpose, though. it reminds us that we should learn to read the Bible for all it's worth. If we genuinely believe that God has spoken the attendant question for all of us should be "What has God said?" I think in our society if we can counter these kinds of objections we can use them as springboards or opportunities to lead people to Christ. If we can't, these kinds of objections which are circulated on popular television shows and on the internet are leading people away from the faith. If you heard me the other day, a man called up and asked me questions like this because his son was now walking away from the faith because he didn't think there were credible answers to questions like this. It is incumbent upon Christians to always be ready to give an answer, to do it with gentleness and with respect, but to do it. Don't let the question remain unanswered as though the historic Christian faith doesn't have a credible answer. It's why I answer questions on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and why I wrote the Bible Answer Books. We want people to be able to counter these kinds of mischaracterizations, whether they come from the highest realms of political leadership or a person in a grocery store. We need to know that the Christian faith is not for obscurantists who lost their brain somewhere in the narthex of the church. The Christian faith stands the test of time. It's credible, it's reliable, it's defensible and ultimately it is the way to have a relationship with the living Lord of the universe.
On the other hand, I am very troubled by Obama's twisting of the biblical text. It's one thing to openly take issue with the Bible. It's quite another to overtly mischaracterize the message of the Bible. In his "Call to Renewal," a keynote address to religious leaders, he made at least three such mischaracterizations. He said:
"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with
Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an
abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy which suggests stoning your child
if he strays from the faith."
Well, to begin with, in that clip Obama said that Leviticus suggests slavery is okay. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. Far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible clearly and categorically denounces slavery as sin. I've written about that in detail in Bible Answer Book, Volume 1.
His second mischaracterization is far more subtle. While he's right in suggesting that Leviticus characterizes the eating of shellfish as an abomination, he is wrong in isolating this injunction from its biblical context. If he had an adequate appreciation of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism I think he would have been far more restrained in his characterization and I dealt with that subject in principle in an article that appeared in the Christian Research Journal called "President Bartlett's Fallacious Diatribe." It was an article I wrote on the television show West Wing.
His third mischaracterization is perhaps the most egregious and easy to dismiss because nowhere does Deuteronomy suggest stoning your child if he strays from the faith. You will not find that anywhere in Scripture. It is a clear mischaracterization of what the biblical text actually says.
To begin with the son in question is not an adolescent guilty of nothing more than slamming doors. The son described by Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy is old enough to be morally culpable of extravagantly wicked behavior. It's the kind of behavior that threatens the health and safety of the entire community.
The parent's desire in the context of this passage to spare their own son serves as a built-in buffer against an unwarranted or frivolous enforcement of the law. Likewise, ratification by the elders precludes a precipitous judgment on the part of the parents. Thus, the standard of evidence prescribed by the Mosaic Law exceeds that of modern jurisprudence. For Obama to claim the moral high ground over the Scriptures is the height of hypocrisy. For over three decades Western society has sanctioned the systematic slaughter of children, guilty of nothing more than being unwanted. Worse still, Obama did not have the moral conviction to vote for the civil rights of the partially born child.
Mischaracterization serves a purpose, though. it reminds us that we should learn to read the Bible for all it's worth. If we genuinely believe that God has spoken the attendant question for all of us should be "What has God said?" I think in our society if we can counter these kinds of objections we can use them as springboards or opportunities to lead people to Christ. If we can't, these kinds of objections which are circulated on popular television shows and on the internet are leading people away from the faith. If you heard me the other day, a man called up and asked me questions like this because his son was now walking away from the faith because he didn't think there were credible answers to questions like this. It is incumbent upon Christians to always be ready to give an answer, to do it with gentleness and with respect, but to do it. Don't let the question remain unanswered as though the historic Christian faith doesn't have a credible answer. It's why I answer questions on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and why I wrote the Bible Answer Books. We want people to be able to counter these kinds of mischaracterizations, whether they come from the highest realms of political leadership or a person in a grocery store. We need to know that the Christian faith is not for obscurantists who lost their brain somewhere in the narthex of the church. The Christian faith stands the test of time. It's credible, it's reliable, it's defensible and ultimately it is the way to have a relationship with the living Lord of the universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
