Pre-New Year's Ramblings

As this gets posted on mid-morning New Year's Eve, I will spare you any resolutions about being a more regular blogger. My life right now simply doesn't provide the time and space for daily, or even sometimes weekly, posts.

Usually, I'll put up a simple "Happy New Year," sometimes with a spiritual application, sometimes not. And why would I be doing a post on an Evangelical Free Church blog with Martin Luther's picture? Bear with me, and you'll see why. 

This New Year's Eve, I want to end 2013 with a passage from Dr. Harold Lindsell's timeless "The Battle for the Bible." We will see the battle for the Bible continuing into 2014, and until Jesus comes to gather His own. But as I've been rereading Lindsell for the umpteenth time, a particular passage leapt out at me because Lindsell addresses an issue that's always bugged me enormously. And that is the lack of integrity involved when people sign on to a doctrinal statement that they don't really believe, and seduce the church or theological school of which they are a part.

In "The Battle for the Bible," Dr. Lindsell documents numerous places within denominations and theological schools where drift has begun and the battle has been enjoined. Keep in mind, this book was written in the mid-1970s, and Dr. Lindsell has gone on to glory. In this passage, Lindsell discusses the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod—long a stalwart for holding on to essential truth on the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. More specifically, he addresses a statement by Lutheran Paul Bretscher about inerrancy. Read closely . . .

Since Luther and the Synod both agree on the principle sola Scriptura, are not the opponents of biblical inerrancy wrong when they refuse to believe what Scripture teaches about itself? What the Missouri Synod has done in its Brief Statement of 1932 is not something new; it has been part and parcel of the Synod's views since it was founded in the United States. Bretscher was raised in this environment. If he personally believes that the Synod has erred in demanding adherence to an infallible Scripture, and he cannot convince the Synod that it is wrong, he is free to remove to another Lutheran group more to his liking. So long as he wishes to remain within the Synod, he is bound by his ordination oath to believe, teach, and propagate what the Synod is committed to. He has every right to change his views and depart from synodal teachings. He has NO right to remain within the church when he does this.

We need to explore what it means to be a Lutheran, keeping in mind what Martin E. Marty said about who Lutherans are. If a man denies what a Lutheran church teaches, is he truly a Lutheran? Let me illustrate this. Suppose Bretscher denies the deity of Christ, the vicarious atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and His Second Coming. Does he then have any claim to the title "Lutheran?" Does he have any right to remain with a church that calls itself "Lutheran?" More than that, does a Lutheran church not have the right to exclude from its fellowship those who deny truths that their confession says a Lutheran church believes? Does a church have a right to permit those who disbelieve Lutheran teaching to remain in its fellowship? Does not the presence of those who disbelieve Lutheran teachings almost surely guarantee further infection in the church and at last the loss of the church to historic Lutheranism in all except name? Since any church has the right to determine what its own confessional standards shall be, men like Bretscher have no right to deny those teachings, or to defy the authority of the church that has set up those standards. This is an ethical issue that cannot be avoided.

Dr. Lindsell is right. And this is a serious issue that goes way beyond Lutheranism. It impacts any Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching, conservative evangelical church body. When you have seminary professors who sign doctrinal statements to belong to a faculty in good standing, or pastors who sign a doctrinal statement to have their ordination renewed, but in reality DENY the doctrine onto which they are signing, it is an ENORMOUS ethical issue. Let's call it what it is. It's lying. Deceptive lying. And it is right in keeping with the warning of the Apostle Peter in Scripture:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned, and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep (2 Peter 2:1-3).

We've been warned in advance. Before the Lord returns, we who hold to biblical truth will be facing quite a battle. Will we be ready and able to stand when called on? Or will we fold and cave in to the "innovative and trendy?" Will we throw biblical doctrine out the window for expediency, or to maintain "peace and harmony?"

God forbid!

Happy Independence Day!

It's been quite a while since anyone has posted on this blog, and for that, I apologize. We've all been very busy with ministry, jobs, personal situations in our families etc. My mother (age 88) is facing heart surgery this week, and at her age it's not a light matter. Prayers are appreciated.

The contributors of Evangelical Free Church Vantage Point would like to wish everyone in the U.S. a very happy, blessed Independence Day. Our hope (and I trust that I can speak for our fellow contributors) is that we will all remember our history, and be thankful for the blessing of living in a free country. A freedom, by the way, that we are in great jeopardy of losing if we don't wake up.

Our freedom ultimately stems from the Gospel, and the faithful proclamation of a biblical Gospel and the resultant regeneration by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who believe is ultimately the only hope for our troubled nation. It is the responsibility of the church (and believers as individuals) to proclaim that Gospel -- the unadulterated, unapologetic version of it. Let's get away from entertaining, being "seeker sensitive," groveling before the alter of postmodernism, and all the other troubles we face in our culture. As Christians, we have nothing of which to be ashamed, especially the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some will hear and respond positively. Some will hear and respond negatively. Some will not hear at all. But that is not our worry and our responsibility. We plant the seed, and allow God to do what only He can do -- bring the growth.

Some thoughts on this Independence Day.

Warriors for Doctrine

It's been a long while since I've posted anything on this particular blog, but I want to put up a clip from Philip Schaff's "History of the Christian Church." I found it interesting reading this weekend.

Born in Switzerland, Schaff eventually came to the United States and was a professor at Union Theological Seminary until his death in 1893. In Volume 3 of his church history, he takes up the issue of the early church and the battles over doctrine. It's worth reading.

The Nicene and Chalcedonian age is the period of the formation and ecclesiastical settlement of the ecumenical orthodoxy; that is, the doctrines of the holy trinity and of the incarnation and the divine-human person of Christ, in which the Greek, Latin and evangelical churches to this day in their symbolical books agree, in opposition to the heresies of Arianism and Appolinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Besides these trinitarian and christological doctrines, anthropology also, and soteriology, particularly the doctrines of sin and grace, in opposition to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, were developed and brought to a relative settlement; only, however, in the Latin church, for the Greek took very little part in the Pelagian controversy.

The fundamental nature of these doctrines, the greatness of the church fathers who were occupied with them, and the importance of the result, give this period the first place after the apostolic in the history of theology. In no period, excepting the Reformation of the sixteenth century, have there been so momentous and earnest controversies in doctrine, and so lively an interest in them. The church was now in possession of the ancient philosophy and learning of the Roman empire, and applied them to the unfolding and vindication of the Christian truth. In the lead of these controversies stood church teachers of imposing talents and energetic piety, not mere book men, but venerable theological characters, men all of a piece, as great in acting and suffering as in thinking. To them, theology was a sacred business of heart and life, and upon them we may pass the judgment of Eusebius respecting Origen; "Their life was as their word, and their word was as their life."

The theological controversies absorbed the intellectual activity of that time, and shook the formation of the church and the empire. With the purest zeal for truth were mingled much of the odium and rabies theologorum, and the whole host of theological passions; which are the deepest and most bitter of passions, because religion is concerned with eternal interests.

That last line really arrested me. "Religion is concerned with eternal interests." When I consider how loosely some in today's evangelical church throw doctrine around, I have to wonder whether they really have eternity in view at all.

On another note, I think we can also see that theological controversies never go away. That's because we have an enemy of our souls whose zeal to deceive has never relented. All the more so in these last days, and that makes it all the more important to hold on to biblical truth.

Grumblers in the Camp

In apologetics ministry, we often use Jude 3, the passage about "contending earnestly" for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Contending for the faith when it is under attack is every bit as much of a command as proclaiming the Gospel.

But there is more to Jude than just the third verse. Examine verses 16-25 . . .

These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

In the immediate context, Jude is primarily addressing false teachers who were peddling a forerunner of the Gnosticism that would become more fully orbed in the second century. However, the warning given by Jude can be applicable to any false teachers that surface within a congregation.

"Within a congregation," you say? Yes. Remember the warning of the Apostle Peter, who said, But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1).

That is what makes false teaching so insidious. Most Christians who consider themselves aware and discerning expect challenges and false teaching to come from the cults or other groups opposed to the Gospel. We expect it from unbelievers. But when it arises from within our midst at a Sunday school or from the pulpit, it really does take a lot of us by surprise or unawares. Sometimes it can be in your face and easily, shockingly obvious. Most often, it is very subtle and low-key, and eats its way into a congregation gradually. Think of the frog in a hot kettle.

Dr. Al Mohler last week decried the "lost art of discernment" in American evangelicalism. He was spot on correct. Evangelicals largely have become what the writer of Hebrews cited . . . For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. The Apostle Paul was also frustrated with the church at Corinth . . . I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able . . . (1 Corinthians 3:2).

You can't stand against false teachers if you don't know or understand even the core biblical doctrines of the faith.

We had best get back into the Bible and become reacquainted with the foundational principles of the faith again. We had best relearn what the non-negotiables are and stand like a rock on them. We had best realize all over again that it is perfectly right, good and acceptable to confront false teaching like good Bereans.

The consequences of not doing so are enormous.

Saved by Grace Alone: It's Non-Negotiable

If there's one thing you can say about the human race and religion, mankind has been the same since Cain and Abel. In fact, the two brothers whose story is told in the book of Genesis are two prototypical examples of how man approaches God. One of them God accepts, and the other God rejects . . . for a very specific reason.

We even fall into the same argument within Christendom, although we shouldn't. Scripture itself is plain enough on the subject of grace versus human works in connection with salvation. But some insist that there has to be some human work involved to merit God's favor. Such an insistence is damnable heresy no matter how you slice it.

Here is what the Apostle Paul had to say about human works and their inability to merit God's favor:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Galatians 2:21).

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).

We can see from these Scripture verses that trying to add works to the Gospel is a very serious matter indeed. This is such an important issue because it touches on the very sacrifice of Christ Himself on the cross. Any effort to throw human effort, merit, obedience to some command, ordinance or ritual, ANYTHING - nullifies the very Gospel itself and does violence to biblical soteriology. It is an insult to the Lord to imply or state outright that His sacrifice on the cross, His great mercy and redeeming love are not sufficient to buy the pardon of His elect.

What is the Gospel? Read 1 Corinthians 15 - the only place in the New Testament where the Gospel is defined. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification. Jesus paid it all and did it all. All we can do is believe, trust and be thankful. What about obedience? That is the product of our salvation, not what causes it.

Here is the final warning of God to all who would add works (including baptism) as conditions of salvation:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

My View of the Emergent Church

When taking up a subject such as the Emergent Church (EC) movement, great care is needed. By now, most reasonably informed Christians have heard of the EC phenomenon within evangelicalism. It's been written about and discussed widely, and some even think it's on the wane. I personally think it will just morph into a new form, but that's another subject.

Few subjects in recent years have excited as much controversy, or dare I say, conversation. I personally have some key theological, biblical and doctrinal concerns about this movement that dislikes being called a movement. Other Christian leaders and theologians have expressed concerns both in print and the blogosphere. I hope to reinforce concerns that have been expressed, as well as make it clear to the proponents of EC (on the extreme end) that these concerns are not going to go away despite a concerted effort to squelch criticism.

To their credit, some EC supporters, pastors and authors have appeared to take the concerns raised very seriously and have called their followers not to abandon biblical doctrine in a well-intentioned effort to reach postmoderns for Christ. Sadly, others have been disdainfully dismissive of any criticism. Some ignore it outright while others respond in answering questions in a purposefully vague, imprecise fashion. To the committed postmodern, this is the standard MO.

The first thing I want to do is highlight some "givens." The EC is NOT monolithic. They do not all agree on every plank given in related authors' books, church programs etc. There are those that lean toward the conservative end of theology, while others such as Brian McLaren are on the other end. In fact, some theologians I respect highly have called McLaren an outright heretic. Frequently, those in the EC often rightly identify problems within evangelicalism that need to be addressed, then proceed to take the wrong approach to deal with these problems. While much of their language is couched in "niceness" - if you read between the lines, the things they say about evangelicalism and evangelicals are little short of a kick in the groin. One example..the call to "authentic" worship. Am I to assume from this that my worship, and that of other evangelicals, is NOT authentic? Some EC authors confuse the issue of "proof texting." This is a common tactic cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses use, taking Bible verses out of context to "prove" one of their doctrinal aberrations. This is a FAR cry from citing biblical authority on core doctrine and orthopraxis. I remember reading somewhere that some EC authors/pastors say they get nauseated when someone quotes the Bible to them. Hmmm. I imagine Satan got a little queasy when Jesus kept saying "It is written" to Ol' Slewfoot's temptations. Think about it.

The following are eight key areas where I think the extremes of the EC have problems, protest though they may. I wish to commend my colleague and fellow Evangelical Free Church member Rev. Joe Whitchurch for reminding me of the eighth area after I had come up with my original list of seven. Phil Johnson of Grace to You has done excellent work in evaluating this subject, and I have drawn from his material along with my own thoughts. Anyway, here are the problematic areas:

1. A Low View of Epistemology

2. A Low View of Scripture and Scriptural authority

3. A Low View of the Reformation

4. A Low View of the Doctrines of Grace

5. A Low View of Eschatology

6. A Low or Distorted View of Apologetics

7. A Low View of the Biblical Gospel

8. A Low View of Biblical Ecclesiology

One note of caution. I do not accept the insistence of some in the EC that one must follow Matthew 18 in dealing with them, especially with those whose writings and electronic communications are widely disseminated. They seem to think that one must visit each EC service, talk to each EC author ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) before you dare comment on the subject. Ridiculous, of course. If they can't defend their writings and public teachings to criticism, then they had best not publish. Public error must be corrected publicly, as the Apostle Paul did with the Apostle Peter. Matthew 18 does not apply in this situation as we are not dealing with personal offenses or sins. It's doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!

Pastoral Responsibility and Accountability

If you caught the appearance by televangelist Joel Osteen during an appearance on Fox News Sunday a couple of years back, you might have been as surprised as me. To recap, Osteen told host Chris Wallace that he considered Mormons true Christians, much to the dismay of not only apologetics ministries, but also to pastors and church leaders who take the Word of God -- not to mention their responsibility before God -- seriously.

And that is what I want to discuss briefly. We can imagine the usual defenses that get thrown up regarding incidents like this, at least from acolytes or the televangelists themselves. Some of these we've heard before when other high-profile Christian leaders have made similar stupid, unbiblical statements. The one that really incenses me is "Well, I am not a theologian. I'm a pastor (or evangelist)." Ahem! Cough-cough.

A pastor by the very nature of his office is a teacher. He's the spiritual leader and shepherd of his congregation. He bears direct responsibility before God as to what his flock is being fed. Here's what God's Word has to say:

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2).

Did you note the "able to teach" part? That's important in the role of a pastor. And the teaching role of pastor comes with a very sober warning:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1).

I don't know about you, but that particular warning from James -- the brother of the Lord -- always makes me very nervous when I am called on to fill a pulpit or teach a class. God forbid that I misrepresent the Lord when opening His Word to others.

When it comes to false teachers, there is an element that often gets overlooked by Christians. Whether it's because a lot of attention is given to cults on the outside, or because they simply don't hear the warning from the pulpit, this very important truth gets overlooked despite the warning of Scripture. False teachers often come from among us, and because of that, they can do a serious amount of damage before they are called on the carpet and expelled, or brought to repentance. Here's what the Apostle Peter had to say on that subject:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (1 Peter 2:1).

Look at that verse closely. It says false teachers "AMONG YOU." And how do they introduce their "destructive heresies?" Do they do it loudly, with a megaphone? No. They do it secretly, more often than not. And by the time the people in a church finally wake up to what's going on, half the church is carried away by the error and a split takes place. Those who call attention to the error and sound the warning are called "divisive." They get accused of fomenting dissension and disunity. They're called "unloving." But in truth, the disunity is caused by those bringing in the false teaching, not the ones who are making the stand for biblical truth.

What about Joel Osteen? I do not know the man's heart. I don't think much of his preaching and teaching. He's really more of a motivational speaker than he is a pastor. I would hope that he'd admit his error publically and welcome correction.

I am reasonably certain that some will want to blast me out of the water for posting this. "How dare I attack a man like Joel Osteen, who has brought encouragement and hope to millions?" Encouragement and hope is fine, but if it's not encouragement and hope according to the truth of God's revealed Word, it's worthless. Cotton candy that melts away and leaves a bitter aftertaste. Or more accurately, it tastes sweet like anti-freeze tastes to a dog, but in the end it kills the dog.

I believe we are in the last days, and as such, deception will be increasingly rampant. As Jesus Himself asked . . . When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth (Luke 18:8)?

Biblical Theology, Debate and Balance

As is the case in any generation of Christians, there are issues that arise and trigger significant debate. In recent years, we've seen the Emergent Church/postmodernism debate, the Open Theism debate, a renewed "Battle for the Bible" to quote the late Dr. Harold Lindsell, the debate over the seeker-sensitive church model, and the list goes on. While we are not quite at the stage where a modern day Martin Luther is being hauled off to the Wartburg to escape Duke George and Pope Leo, the battle over theology is again getting quite intense.

It should be no surprise that this would happen. Scripture is replete with warnings about the last days and deception. The Lord Jesus Himself asked the question, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The picture painted by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy is severe, marking out especially for condemnation those who "have a form of godliness, but deny its power." I think it is safe to say that, while Revelation speaks of a multitude that no man can number, this number - as vast as it apparently will be - is but a remnant of those who could have been saved. I believe Scripture also makes it clear that the Lord expects those who name Him as Savior to be faithful to His Word. "If you love Me, keep my commandments."

As of yet, I haven't said a whole lot about the debate in the Evangelical Free Church about our doctrinal statement, especially in reference to eschatology. But what little I have said has been pretty stark. In essence, I would have preferred it to be left as it was. I am thankful that the most recent change left premillennialism in there, but as has been pointed out, the argument isn't over. Both sides are keeping their powder dry for a future revisiting of the issue.

The EFCA has historically been a premillennial, largely dispensational fellowship. A change was made back in the 1970s to reflect other understandings of the word "imminence" in a historic premillennial sense. The changes that some wanted to introduce appeared to me to allow for amillennialism and other eschatological ideas. All of this rather confirms a long-standing belief of mine. I seldom see doctrinal statements strengthened by changes. Almost always, they get watered down. The EFCA was formed to stand for something. There are numerous other fellowships out there having amillennial views on eschatology. It's hard for me to understand or appreciate people coming in from the outside and then agitating for change. I would assume they knew of our fellowship's stance on eschatology before they became members. There are plenty of amillennial churches out there. Why cause a ruckus with us?

I know also that there are probably people who have always been E-Free, but their theological views have altered with time. I'll address that in a moment.

Lest I get chastised for it later, I should qualify the above with the following. I am not suggesting that one's stance on eschatology should be a test of fellowship unless the physical return of Jesus to earth is denied. I have friends who are amillennial whom I respect very much and their core theology is solid, despite my disagreement on that particular matter. What I AM suggesting is that we ought not try to force a fellowship to abandon its doctrinal statement or distinctives because we might happen to hold a different view. If it gets that bad, it's better to find a fellowship more in line with what you think. And most certainly, a pastor should not obtain or maintain credentials under false conditions. I am sorry to say that I have seen that happen in the past within my own circle of acquaintance (thankfully in another denomination, not the E-Free).

And that leads me to comment briefly on that issue, because it's bothered me for a long time. In many denominations, a pastor must reaffirm the doctrinal position of his denomination to remain in good standing with his credentials. I have seen it on more than one occasion that the pastor actually no longer holds to some of the doctrinal distinctives of his fellowship, but when it's renewal time, "nudge nudge..wink wink..say no more, say no more." This is dishonest and lacking in integrity. If you can't sign on to your fellowship's doctrinal statement, it's time to move on. But no, it seems some would rather engage in what amounts to a surreptitious campaign to change the doctrine of the fellowship in question while supposedly pledging to uphold it. Scripture says "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

In other cases, I think we've all seen rather high profile "pastors" (Bishop Spong anyone?) who plainly deny core orthodoxy, yet their fellowships do nothing to discipline or defrock them. I've seen in the past where Robert Schuller was questioned over some of the ridiculous statements he's made in his books, but all he'd do would be to wave a Reformed Church doctrinal statement at the interviewer or the camera and insist that's what he believed. He never would answer the questions.

Until recently, we have been spared (at least to my knowledge) battles over serious doctrinal error in the E-Free, that is until the Emergent Church nonsense began having an impact on us. As time marches on to its denouement, the struggle over fealty to the Lord and to Scripture will only grow more pronounced. I would like to see us throw out all the best sellers we're buying with the latest pop theology, and get back to the time tested, proven Word of God. A biblical theology is a balanced theology, and is the best guarantee for the church having the impact on the culture.

The Emergent Church and Scripture

Sola’s note: This article was written in 2006, but has been updated and revised for today’s post.

The Emergent/Postmodern movement has impacted many churches and denominations across the United States. The Evangelical Free Church has not been immune, with congregations impacted, and even split, over this “new kind of Christianity.” In the best sense (if there is one), the idea is to reach a postmodern generation with the Gospel in ways they can understand. In the worst sense, the churches themselves adopt a postmodern mindset and philosophy toward truth.

I have little use for postmodernism, and even less use for the Emergent Church philosophy. My concerns are many, but I’ll only discuss one here today — mainly the low view of Scripture that many adherents of the EC seem to have. I say "seem" to have because one is never really certain of what they really think. Certainty is, after all, anathema to a postmodern. (Okay, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek).

I had mulled over several approaches to this until EC leader Brian McLaren lobbed a water balloon filled with limberger cheese into the blogosphere - his suggestion a few years ago at the Leadership Journal blog that Christian pastors, leaders, theologians etc. put a five year moratorium on making comments about homosexuality until we can figure out what we think about it. McLaren’s blog entry, of course, unleashed a firestorm. When I read his initial statement, I was aghast. Then, when I read his response to those who have rightly taken him to the woodshed, I was even more aghast. But for my purposes at least, it couldn't have come at a better time as it illustrated beautifully the point I wanted to make about the EC and God's Word.

The worst of the EC and those who embrace the postmodern mindset love to throw all sorts of ambiguity and doubt into any crystal clear, unambiguous assertion one might make. While Brian and others in the EC might not know what to think about this issue, God's Word leaves no such doubts as to what God Himself thinks. Deuteronomy 18:22 sets God's view bluntly. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination (tow 'ebah or to 'ebah in the Hebrew). Abomination is defined as a "disgusting thing" in a ritual sense as well as in an ethical sense. Far from this merely being an Old Testament/Torah prohibition, strictures against this type of behavior are also found in Romans chapter 1 and other New Testament locations.

Only in the postmodern mind can these Scriptures somehow be interpreted other than their plain meaning. Wishful thinking, maybe. You really have to either redefine them or reject them outright. But we are not to look at God's Word through a postmodern prism. Scripture makes it very clear that God will not grade on the curve when it comes to His Word. People can blind themselves through their own stubbornness and rebellion. Having done so, they will not be excused for their blindness and stubbornness.

We need to understand the ramifications of this as it goes beyond the issue of homosexuality. To not believe God's Word is to not believe God Himself. What is the opposite of "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?" If Abraham had not believed God, it would have been reckoned to him as unrighteousness. What does Scripture tell us of those who do not believe? It tells us they are condemned already. If we can't believe what God said about human sexuality, how can we believe what He said about how one is made right before Him? How can we believe the Gospel, by which we are saved (1 Corinthians 15)?

We had best stop playing eeny meeny miney moe with the Bible. And before someone attempts to throw it at me (Brian tried this argument in his response post), don't bother telling me that we don't stone people to death any more for violations of Mosaic law. I learned in Sunday school class as a child the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant, as well as the differences between ceremonial and moral law. When the EC or other liberal theologians try this, understand that it is merely a smokescreen designed to throw people into a thousand bunny trails away from the key issue being discussed. If a pastor is uninformed about the differences between the Law of Moses and the New Covenant, then he has no business wearing his clerical collar and Birkenstocks. Unless his obfuscation is intentional, which makes it all the more repugnant.

I am thankful to Professor D.A. Carson, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Rev. Kevin S. Johnson and others for their labors in raising concerns about the Emergent Church. I am deeply troubled that EFCA congregations — some of them fairly large churches — are so enthralled with it. I have some ideas on the underlying reasons churches fall into fads and traps such as these. I’ll talk about those reasons in my next post.

A Lesson from Eutychus

This is an updated think piece I wrote back in 2006. I submit it as my inaugural contribution to this new blog.

In Christ,
Joel Griffith (Solameanie)

Today's post is a bit of a different tack than my normal fare as it's more devotional in nature. It's part of some recent pondering I've been doing on the subject of how Scripture is commonly approached these days -- in "McNugget" fashion. We read a passage of Scripture and think of the most common applications used, but fail to see the other wonderful truths and nuggets in these passages, or simply new points to ponder. How often have you looked at a passage of Scripture, knowing the verses and events by heart, but one day you see something in that passage you've never seen before?

The incident with Eutychus in Acts 20:9-12 is a good example. I'll post it here:

And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him." When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left. They took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.

Now, most lessons or sermons I have heard dealing with this incident focus on the miracle - the Lord raising the boy from the dead through Paul. And that's certainly a great part of the lesson. But has anyone ever wondered what God was doing in the life of Eutychus himself? Was Eutychus an indolent, inattentive young man whose mind routinely wandered during prayer (a fault of mine) or during sermons? Was he simply and genuinely overtired? Had he fallen into some sin that God needed to correct? Who knows. God in His sovereignty didn't tell us.

Nonetheless, falling to his death had to have been quite a shock, both to Eutychus and to Paul's audience. What happened with Eutychus afterward? Did he make it a point to consider this a wake-up call and renew his commitment to the Lord with zeal? Was he quietly and humbly thankful to the Lord for raising him? Did his witness to others gain a new fire and depth? I hope so.

Scripture doesn't give us specific answers to these questions, but they are worth pondering. And as we ponder these questions, the Holy Spirit will guide us to other Scriptures that address the issues therein. Can we see any similarities in ourselves and Eutychus' possible issues?

There are many, many other Scripture passages like this. The main applications are great and true, useful in training God's people in righteousness. But let's keep digging and sifting. The rich nuggets gleaned through thought and true biblical contemplation are priceless.

Things like this are the results of true "meditation" on God's Word. You won't get it from picking a word for a sanctified mantra and sounding the OM out into the ether.